TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

wallaceeffect Archive

View 0 posts and 53 comments by wallaceeffect 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)
1

The ol' campsite rule.
/r/seduction08/03/13 06:48 PM
3

Nope--I see what you did there, though. Good framing.
/r/seduction18/12/12 09:16 PM
11

Hiyo! Thought you might like a woman's perspective on this. In general, I think a lot of this advice is solid, but some of it won't work on all women and some of it definitely won't work on confident women. Remember, a confident woman will ALSO have an abundance mentality just like you do, which means that if you get too adversarial or disrespectful, she will assume (rightly) that you aren't worth her time. Consider: Remember, you have to still keep yourself in a higher valued position than her.…
/r/seduction18/12/12 03:42 PM
1

Can we call this the Ted Mosby?
/r/seduction06/12/12 04:40 PM
1

True--there are ways to "ask for consent without words" that are reasonably unequivocal, but OP didn't say exactly what he did. What if instead a girl just shoved her hand down your pants while you were making out and you didn't want her to? She could argue that she was nonverbally asking for consent. You could argue that she assaulted you. Or say she gave you a sexy look that she interpreted as consent and you interpreted as just flirtatious, but she went for it because of it. Gray area. Mind y…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 05:56 PM
0

They were already making out, if you read what he wrote. So I'm not sure how he could have touched her that would have been "asking for consent without words" unless he touched her genitalia without asking first. That's a gray area if you ask me.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 05:25 PM
0

Firstly, no. However, I'm curious about what "I sort of ask for her consent without saying the words" means. How do you ask for consent without saying anything?
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:40 PM
2

How would you determine this in practice, though? You seem to be arguing that sometimes women should not be allowed to give up a child for adoption because the child's best interest might be to remain with its mother. But I'm having trouble imagining a situation where a child would be better served by being forced to stay with a woman who doesn't want it. Being raised by a mother who doesn't want you but is forced to keep you seems hellish.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:47 PM
32

Have you ever heard the phrase "if you're not paying for it, you're the product?" That's what's going on here. The party is trying to attract tons of women in an attempt to attract tons of men looking for women. It's actually more sneaky than it seems--if it were really about misandry and screwing over the men, why would they advertise that men have to pay and women don't, rather than just quietly charging men at the door and letting women in free? Because they're using it to advertise. They're …
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:34 PM
5

There are legal differences in the cases you're citing. Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of 45 of the counts against him. She was indicted for 53 counts of rape and plead guilty to 15 of the counts against her. That alone will reduce her sentence significantly, as well as the other differences in the cases (ages of victims, whether the states have minimum sentencing guidelines). Claiming there is a sentencing disparity is really only useful when the details of the legal cases are identical, and i…
/r/MensRights17/07/12 04:13 PM
1

Because not all teens are in a relationship. So if 20 girls are in a relationship and 10 experience violence, that's a 50% rate. If there are 100 girls overall and 10 experience violence, that's a 10% rate.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 01:11 PM
1

Yeah. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand where this position comes from (I think)--because there is definitely a level of inebriation where you can't give consent, but it's different for every individual, and it's impossible to know if someone was at it after the fact. But, if you were to apply that reasoning uniformly, neither of them would be able to consent if the guy was also drinking. I suppose you could say he was an "instigator" or something, which implies consent, but she clearly instiga…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 10:49 PM
2

That was just a gut reaction to people who do that--yes, I think it's bad. It's reprehensible and completely disrespects what real rape victims go through.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 10:31 PM
2

bleeeeeeeh.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 10:10 PM
1

I don't get it. She doesn't say anywhere in this post that it was rape--is it in the comments?
/r/MensRights15/07/12 09:54 PM
2

Well, in the second case, the proximal cause of the divorce was the guy leaving his wife for another woman. Maybe they (both) weren't his, but he'd been acting as their father for their entire lives, so unless he found out they were not his, and then waited until after he had an affair to move out, but not initiate a divorce...just seems unlikely. Can't say for the first. I suppose it's more likely in that case than the latter. They'd been in a pretty dysfunctional LTR so the daughter could have…
/r/MensRights13/07/12 10:42 PM
12

Yep. I've known several men who've just walked away from their kids cold, because they didn't care. In one case, there wasn't even a divorce involved; the parents were unmarried, the mom offered unlimited access to their daughter (with no support obligation), and he just up and moved. The other he left his wife before the divorce and never attempted any contact with the kids before or after. I couldn't say anything about the ratio, either, but it's hardly just because courts make things difficul…
/r/MensRights13/07/12 09:16 PM
23

In the legal system? Of course. Here's an article about a woman being jailed for failure to pay child support, with arrest warrants issued for six other people who failed to pay. Three are male, three are female. This is in Oklahoma, BTW. How society views these people is a different question, but the legal system makes no distinction between genders in these cases. Arrears is arrears.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 03:19 PM
1

That's fine, I guess, but I still don't see how it's better. A common (non-legal) justification for child support, lost custody etc. is that men don't care about their children and don't put any time into supporting them. The article just adds to that impression (how come the husbands don't give up their careers for their kids, don't they care, etc. etc.). It doesn't do the movement any favors.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 02:26 PM
0

Is this really the best article to be posting here? The author's partial conclusion was that it's because women are still saddled with most of the childcare work. It removes discrimination as a cause and replaces it with unequal roles in raising children instead. Not really an improvement.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 10:39 PM
1

Yeah, I noticed afterwards, like a genius. Still, two voices>1.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:53 PM
3

Wow. Man, I am sorry for the reactions you are getting. The ugly side of MR seems to be out today. As for the detractors, think for a second about what you're saying. "Tough shit for the 'victim'" would also mean that 'victims' like men who are raped by women, or children who are sexually abused, are also up shit creek when it comes to getting justice for their rapist. Is that really the kind of situation you want to see arising? Do you want it to be MORE difficult for men to achieve justice for…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:40 PM
1

Actually, statistically, you would expect the distributions to be closer to equal the larger the groups get and the simpler the breakdown is. That's a stats quibble, though, because I don't agree with your premise. It assumes that negotiating skills will always be unequally distributed across groups (i.e., more right-handed people will always be better negotiators than left-handed people; more Hispanic people will always be better negotiators than white people; and so forth). Why should we expec…
/r/MensRights03/07/12 08:39 PM
2

I guess, but as I mentioned, we have different opinions about what that image implies in the first place.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 07:21 PM
3

I understand that. These things are always shaped by your life experiences, and mine obviously led me to my conclusion. Most of the women I know would be totally fine with a reasonable lapse in communication from their SO's (with the accompanying trust that it's just that they're out living their lives), but would expect a similar amount of trust if their SO saw them out with another guy (because it's probably a coworker, neighbor, classmate...you get the picture). Now I'm just rambling, but...y…
/r/MensRights03/07/12 06:47 PM
3

But doesn't this say that she understands when she doesn't get a call or text? Isn't that an improvement over what you're describing? "She gets it" versus "she freaks out". I guess I can see how it could be interpreted your way, but I read it as a plea for trust from both parties, not as a warning against cheating. I suppose neither of us knows the writers' actual intention.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 06:27 PM
7

I don't get it. The second post is obviously messed up; the first post just seems to be about general trust in relationships. I read it as being about cheating or her leaving the hypothetical guy; I read it as "she trusts you, you should return the favor and trust her if you see her with another guy." Reading it as the girl has left the guy is your right, I guess, but I don't think it was intended that way.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 06:06 PM
1

Just curious--why is it never going to be completely aligned?
/r/MensRights03/07/12 03:54 PM
1

I'm not being condescending, nor am I assuming that the people reading this have even done what I'm describing. I'm just trying to point out that doing this causes you to lose the moral high ground just as feminists who do it have lost it (or indeed, any group that decides to judge any other group as a whole rather than as individuals). And considering your response, I can only urge you to talk this out with someone you trust, preferably a therapist.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 02:42 PM
2

I didn't actually say anything about the degree of difference at all. Edit: However, now that I'm looking it up, the degree of gender disparity actually dropped from 7.8 to 5.3 years between 1979 and 2005. I suppose you could argue that the disparity would be even smaller with dedicated public funding, but there's no information about causes in the change, so that would be quite difficult.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:56 PM
1

Also agreed. Thinking that all women are man-haters is just as sexist and presumptive as the feminists who think all men are misogynistic pigs. Don't become what you hate, guys.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:03 PM
1

Go back and read my post again, or read the paper. Lower life expectancy is a biological fact for the larger members of a species. In the case of Homo sapiens, this is males. It's been the case across species, throughout history, and occurs in the absence of funding for either sex. Public funding can't change biology. Also, there's no citation on "8 times the public money" in OP's post, either. Where does that come from?
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:00 PM
1

I would be careful with how you word this. I realize it's meant to be satirical, and shed light on the fact that males face gender-specific issues just like women do. However, IMHO, framing it this way leaves it open firstly for people to think that you don't believe men have any real privileges; there's no citations on any of it, meaning it's all up for debate without a source; and some of these are easily debated (or even debunked) even with sources. For example, "the privilege of a lower life…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 02:34 PM
2

That's a misunderstanding of safe haven laws--the idea is you CAN'T just abandon them on the streets. You must surrender them in a safe place (hospital, police station, etc.) or you're criminally liable. Just leaving a child in a dumpster is a felony, as are the things the mother in this article did. They aren't covered under Safe Haven laws; Safe Haven laws are made to prevent abandonment. They end up placing the child in the adoption system just like you mentioned. The rest of the points broug…
/r/MensRights01/07/12 02:14 PM
0

I just...wow. If you seriously believe that all female-oriented programs and ideas are solely based on hurt feelings, then I doubt there's anything I can even say back. I mean, just...really? How do you expect people to take you seriously if that's the position you hold? Not feminists, man, just...regular people, who are concerned about this issue without making it "us-vs.-them". My original point was that if you are going to reduce all female-oriented ideas to "feelings", then your opponents ar…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 08:59 PM
-4

Comment threads like this are why the SPLC labeled this forum a hate group.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:43 PM
3

Why...are you still this with this girl then?
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:41 PM
0

Seriously? You may as well say that MRA is just based on how men feel, then. I FEEL threatened by the possibility of my wife divorcing me so I need legislation! Christ, man, this is why people think this is a hate forum.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:40 PM
2

Wow, this is the worst video, and the worst test, I've ever seen. Firefighters use Halligan tools to break down doors, or in emergencies, use this technique, absolutely never the shoulder technique (because who wants to fall into a burning room headfirst? no one, because it's a terrible idea). The test shows a physical task no trained fireman would EVER undertake. I call serious bullshit.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 10:53 PM
4

Yeah, lots of good responses in the comments, too. Some stupid, many well-thought and supportive. Good to see.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 02:57 AM
-1

But you haven't shown that it does affect it. Coming up with things that could affect it is easy--I could equally well say that the state a person is born in affects career choices, but until I show you some hard data, it's just speculation. You're right, your refutation effectively results in not knowing how much is caused by what, but without that, a feminist can say that "how much" is zero.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 07:36 PM
-1

Then perhaps you should state that in your original point--because without it, the reasoning is flawed. Unfortunately, it relies on your second point, which is equally able to be criticized. Without data on how innate differences (hormone levels, for example) affect choice, you cannot categorically state how much of these differences are attributable to innate differences and how much to socialization. A feminist can then rightly say that we have no way of knowing more without empirical data, so…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 02:08 PM
1

You first point is also poorly reasoned. You're correct that a politician representing a group doesn't have to be a member of the group, and that only a sexist would assume that men cannot represent women. So if any gender is capable of representing any gender, this would statistically suggest there's no reason to expect anything other than a demographic make-up roughly equal to that in the population in general. You're also conflating representation in the sense of agenda-setting with represent…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 02:52 AM
4

Thanks for the really honest answer--I'm a female as well, but don't consider myself a feminist; I think egalitarianism is a better ideology. I've been regularly coming here after one of my friends told me he was an MRA, and I've appreciate the perspective. I also appreciate that you're honest about the shortcomings of the forum. No real point to this post...just a thank-you.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 05:44 PM
6

I come from an entire family of teachers (one grandma, one grandpa, both parents), and can say that not one of them, nor any of the schools they worked at, would have turned down a male teacher. In many areas you actually have a better chance of getting a job because so few men apply that they jump on them to improve diversity numbers. Similarly, my brother is a nurse and has been doing great in his career. Ironically, he claims the only social pressure he's ever received was from his guys on hi…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 05:16 PM
0

Did anyone even read this article? You can't be jailed just for having a debt. The people who get jailed for this have debts that are in arrears--that is, they have failed to make payments for several pay periods without attempting to contact their creditor--; have been turned over to a collection agency; and have been the subject of a lawsuit requiring a court appearance due to repeated nonpayment. The woman in this article was arrested for contempt for failing to appear at her court appearance…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:48 PM
1

Maybe it's not really clear what I'm arguing, then. I'm not arguing that people don't go to jail or prison for debt-related reasons; I'm simply taking issue with the terminology being used, as you correctly state. Calling something debtor's prison or even saying that we can "lock people up for certain debts" is legally inaccurate. We can jail people in a limited number of states for repeated, prolonged nonpayment of debts where non-incarceration methods have been attempted to produce payment. St…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 04:33 AM
-1

This is law everywhere in the country. Debtor's prisons were abolished in the 1800's. In the U.S. you cannot be jailed simply for having a debt. If you could, the government could jail anyone who didn't pay off their MasterCard balance monthly, or carried a student loan or mortgage. I don't think I need to explain that this isn't the case in the modern world, where practically everyone carries debt of some kind. You can be jailed if your payments are in arrears (i.e., you've missed several month…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 06:01 PM
0

You can't. The articles that Alanna posted are also conflating what you can actually go to jail for. A "true" debtor's prison in the legal sense is a legal concept set up to make ANY kind of debt punishable by jail time, whether it is paid or not. It is illegal in the U.S. to be sent to prison solely for having a debt. It might seem like a trivial distinction, but it's an important one legally. As it stands currently, collectors can seek arrest warrants for debtors only if other collection metho…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 03:03 AM
2

I see. So he doesn't mean true debtor's prisons (which have been abolished pretty much everywhere), but jail or prison time for child support or alimony specifically.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 09:14 PM
3

I'm a little confused by this--perhaps you could explain. Why are child support, alimony, and debtors prison listed together here? I understand your point with alimony, which is clearly an obligation of one spouse to another. But child support is the right of the child, not the parents. And debtor's prison is, for the most part, abolished in the modern world.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:18 PM
1

Hate to break it to you, but this already happens. Minorities and the poor already pay higher insurance premiums than white, wealthy people, and race is a higher predictor of how much you'll pay than of wealth.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 08:17 PM
6

My brother is a nurse and is utterly awesome at his job. His patients adore him and he loves it. He got some judge-y looks too, and is still sensitive about it because he's a bit of a jock (went to college on an athletic scholarship, and his teammates always gave him a ton of grief for it). Such a shame.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 03:35 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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