TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

worldtree Archive

View 1 posts and 71 comments by worldtree 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)
115

worldtree/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:59 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Someone posted a petition to include women on another subreddit. It seems backwards to me. Sort of like saying "Oh, men have to do something unethical? Let's make women do it too, to make if more fair." So this petition was created in response. I believe SS in sexist and unethical. An actual draft would be even worse. No one should ever be drafted in my opinion. Ever.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 07:05 PM
3

Also, the Selective Service is not the same as a draft. There hasn't been a draft in decades, and no one has actually been arrested for not signing up for Selective Service in decades either. The real problem is that if you don't sign up you can't get government loans or jobs, stuff like that. In that respect it is purely discriminatory. If the US instated a draft, then we'd have a problem of a different magnitude.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 06:58 PM
2

This petition was created in response to that one.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 06:53 PM
2

This petition is not the same. It was created in response to that petition.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 06:51 PM
1

Including women in Selective Service would be less discriminatory, but I consider Selective Service and drafting to be unethical. No one should be forced to go to war if they don't want to, or be punished for not signing up. Getting rid of it altogether is both less discriminatory and more ethical.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 06:49 PM
2

Different pill formulas affect every women differently. She could have tried other brands. My pills actually got rid of my PMS (and my acne too!). I know this doesn't matter to you now that she's your ex, just lettin' ya know.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:32 PM
3

That's certainly possible. I'm even inclined to believe it. It's hard to tell however since he included so little actual information about the individual projects. I followed the links to see the titles of the finalists' projects, but I don't really have the time to read and evaluate thirty different science fair projects and decide which ones were "better" or more "useful" or more "innovative" to see if undue consideration was given to the girls. I did however, quickly read one of his other pos…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 11:29 PM
13

If the poster of this article had a valid point to make, it got lost somewhere in one of these erroneous generalizations... where we discourage innovation (what boys do best) and encourage rote memorization for indoctrination purposes (what girls do best). or maybe when he decided that cancer and environmental issues are little more than catchphrases that only idiots care about... You'll also notice that the three girls did projects on carcinogens/environment/cancer which are nice juicy catchphr…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 09:25 PM
1

That's true. I've heard some crazy stuff about Sweden. They did mention building blocks and legos though.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 09:31 PM
2

That is the downfall of social experiments like this. It's really hard to control for the possible influence of the people running the program, especially since this is not a laboratory setting. At least on the surface they seem to be making a concerted effort for neutrality.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 09:29 PM
2

Yeah, I've heard some crazy stuff about Sweden. The article isn't really specific enough to cover all the different toys available, but maybe dolls are more prevalent than, say, action figures, in that country. They do mention legos and building blocks, though. When they use the word "gender" in this context, I'm pretty sure they mean gender identity. That's the whole point of the exercise: to remove pre-constructed gender roles by using neutral pronouns and placing traditionally "male" and "fem…
/r/MensRights27/06/11 09:24 PM
1

"Dropped you down very tall hills" Lol.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 06:16 AM
2

It didn't say anything about getting rid of "male" stuff. It mentioned the building blocks being put next to the toy kitchen set, but that's it.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 05:27 AM
12

It isn't even always a case of lying. People often don't remember correctly. Memory is a shaky thing sometimes. This little girl was only nine, and probably severely traumatized. It would make sense if she misidentified him, or felt pressured by the adults around her to name someone.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:44 PM
1

Actually the cop used the phrase "shouldn't dress like sluts" when referring to how women could avoid rape. The slut walk was specifically about clothing, not the whole drunk/party scenario.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:39 PM
1

girls would make the first moves on boys on the playground, usually by pushing them down or making fun of them (she claimed this was because young girls knew about patriarchal dominance at that age) What universe was this playground in? What age are we talking about?
/r/MensRights04/06/11 05:36 PM
1

Certainly. And even if the penis itself isn't a turn-on to some women, that doesn't necessarily mean they think they're gross.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 05:30 PM
5

The woman making the comment didn't really think the men were doing it for that. She was just very self-conscious. It's not ridiculous to be shy when you're naked around someone you don't really know, even if it's a doctor.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 04:31 PM
1

I most certainly AM a woman, and yes, I have had a UTI. It was not fun. Wikipedia: "In young sexually active women, sex is the cause of 75–90% of bladder infections" from the page on UTIs. So for a soldier (who would supposedly not be having sex) the likelihood of a UTI is significantly reduced. If a female soldier is not getting enough water I would say that she has to worry more about dehydration than a UTI (more likely to threaten life too), just as a man would have to worry about it. As for …
/r/MensRights01/06/11 11:37 PM
2

I, as a woman, appreciate your joke. (I assume it was a joke.) Upvote for everybody deserves sandwiches.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 09:11 AM
2

How can women join special forces when they can’t even handle frat-boy pranks? Not the same women.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 09:09 AM
1

I don't think so. I think it's a plausible idea that needs research.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 09:08 AM
1

Those don't seem like likely causes for either UTIs or yeast infections. Women most often get UTIs from sex. Sanitation may be an issue, but water not being available would cause different problems entirely, which would affect men too. And I'm pretty sure wearing wet underwear wouldn't do anything health wise (except maybe cause a contact rash after a while from the constant rubbing when in motion). The vagina is self cleaning, and as long as the natural balance of bacteria isn't disturbed (by d…
/r/MensRights01/06/11 09:05 AM
2

Men are less susceptible to them, but do get them. However women usually get them from sex. Sanitation may be an issue, but water being available would cause different problems entirely, which would affect men too.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 08:59 AM
1

I would venture a guess that the kind of woman who would want to join the SEALs (presumably after being in the Navy already) would be quite a different sort of person from the kind of woman who attends Yale and gets far too annoyed by frat-boys. Just sayin'. I think there should be no barrier to trying, as long as they are held to the right standards.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 08:51 AM
1

Your statement implies it's only okay to let women who want to join go into combat if women who don't want to join can be forced into combat, which is just... odd. How about instead we get rid of Selective Service for everyone? And then let everyone decide if/when they want to go into combat?
/r/MensRights01/06/11 08:41 AM
2

Yeah. I'm generally very good at not using blanket statements. I don't assume everyone is a rational or decent human being. But I like to think that at least a majority of them are.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 03:42 AM
4

Sorry. I was just going on this line: "The great thing about Cosmopolitan is that it regularly features both relationship red flag articles and "how to get back at him for cheating" articles. I assumed the all the examples cited were from articles about guys who'd already cheated.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 11:11 PM
1

Actually it could be more. I found this.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 10:56 PM
2

Well, depending on when and where you get it the procedure can cost a few hundred dollars. Of course, that's not nearly as much as it costs to actually have a baby.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 07:23 PM
4

I actually watched the video of this exchange. As much as I hate to admit this, Rep. Eric Turner was quite reasonable and Rep. Linda Lawson was overly emotional. She was nearly crying she was so angry. She apparently worked with rape victims, so she's personally connected to the issue. There's nothing wrong with being emotional in general of course, but in the middle of a state congressional session? And she's so sure about something that's completely wrong! Thanks to this subreddit I recently l…
/r/MensRights06/04/11 07:21 PM
11

Not that it makes it much better, but the author of this piece cited the revenge things from a different Cosmo article which was about getting back at a boyfriend for actually cheating, not suspected cheating.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 06:46 PM
3

This doesn't seem directly related to homelessness. From what I've read about alimony, most states put restrictions on the amount paid and for how long, so I don't see how this would make many men so poor as to loose their homes. Also, according to this the reasons for homelessness are varied, and include things like mental illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction. In 2003, children under the age of 18 accounted for 39% of the homeless population. I doubt these children are paying alimony or chil…
/r/MensRights06/04/11 06:33 PM
1

This just screams "police state" to me.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 04:02 PM
1

The site that I found actually makes no mention of nurses, though I assume there must have been some. "Members of these many units learned marching and the system of military discipline. They learned how to drive and repair cars, motorcycles and trucks. They were schooled in signaling by Morse code, wireless and flags and many other skills. The women of these volunteer corps assisted the New Zealand Army by providing drivers, cooks, messengers, clerks and by performing many less glamorous tasks,…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 04:11 AM
1

Actually this story takes place in New Zealand, not Australia.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 11:45 PM
2

I'm curious about something. There was a draft in New Zealand during the war, so many men were selected to go into combat regardless of their personal wishes. There were also many female volunteers that went into service as well. Were the female members of the military given the same preference for jobs over civilians as the male members were?
/r/MensRights03/04/11 11:41 PM
4

Interesting facts: A ballot draft was instated shortly after the start of WWII in New Zealand and by the end of the war "a total of 194,000 men and 10,000 women had served in the armed forces at home and overseas." The women who served were apparently part of volunteer corps that did such varied jobs as driving trucks, digging trenches etc, since they obviously would not have been allowed into combat. So this is a complicated issue. The men where oppressed by being forced into service, and the w…
/r/MensRights03/04/11 11:35 PM
1

given the research that shows equal sharing is healthy for the children Do you have a specific source you could link to for this?
/r/MensRights28/03/11 05:08 AM
1

Is he a regular on Bill O'Reilly? (I wouldn't know since I don't really watch television.) I don't remember there being a lot of politics in the book. It was just about his experience with the news-world. But I read it a couple of years ago, so I could be forgetting a lot. Maybe I should give it another read...
/r/MensRights28/03/11 12:09 AM
2

I'm rather skeptical of those who claim their exes are so crazy compromise isn't possible- what does that say about them, since they chose to marry and have children with that person? I'm not saying you're wrong, but there are times when "so crazy" is exactly the case. Hind-sight is 20-20, remember? Example: Abusive partners usually appear wonderful at the outset, and abusive relationships are hard to get out of once you're in them.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 11:53 PM
2

I very narrowly dodged May Kay once. I think they're pretty legit as far as pyramid schemes go, but it was still scary.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 11:39 PM
1

I agree that giving sole custody to the mother shouldn't necessarily be a de facto decision, everything else being equal, but completely equal custody is not always a great answer either. I knew some kids who were really messed up by the constant shuffling between parents. The parents literally traded every week or so.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 11:27 PM
1

It's called "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News." It's by Bernard Goldberg. It's specifically about liberal bias, but overall it's a very good illustration of the exclusivity and corporate control that influences how, and what, is reported in the news.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 11:02 PM
1

I read a book once about bias in the media and one of the topics was about all the sensationalism. Once media execs discovered that stories about murders and other tragedies could get more ratings and thus more money, those stories took on a disproportionate amount of air-time. The result is an atmosphere of fear and distrust in the public.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 05:57 AM
1

I didn't mean to sound confrontational, sorry. My first post was meant to show why I agreed with the sentiment of the OP, and when you replied to it it looked like you must have misinterpreted my meaning, so I went into defense-mode.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 05:30 AM
14

It's funny because this happens in reverse, too. I dated a guy who was surprised when I didn't get angry about minor things. I don't think he wanted to hate women though. He was just used to conflict. He broke up with me after a month. Weird.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 05:23 AM
2

I'm not saying sexual habits don't matter, just that society values them too much. They do contribute to who you are, but they're not the only aspect of you, and certainly not the most important one, at least not to me. Example: A religious person who says that it's a sin to have sex outside of marriage is judging your morality based on habits that may or may not have anything to do with morality at the time. You could say it's immoral to have sex under certain circumstances, like cheating, but …
/r/MensRights26/03/11 12:47 AM
1

Sex shouldn't really affect your body image all that much. Body image shouldn't be all that important anyway! Our culture makes too big a deal about sex in general. It seems like the major opinions are either "Have sex as soon as possible! It's the modern thing to do!" or "Never have sex because it's a terrible thing, or at least not until you're married." Either way, people are being judged based on a single action instead of on their general character. "You're still a virgin? Wow, you're virtu…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 09:22 PM
1

I was simply saying that I don't think doctors should have the decision making power over patients. Why? Because it's the patient's body. A doctor is obligated to save patients only so far as they want to be saved. If the patient doesn't want something, even though the doctors say it will save them, it doesn't matter what the doctor wants or thinks is right, because the doctor's body is not the one in question. An extreme example would be people who sign a "Do not Resuscitate" order. A doctor co…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 04:51 PM
1

Exactly. Except for maybe the govt. funded part. There are plenty of privately funded universities that teach "women's studies" as well.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 04:28 PM
1

Sorry, I added the dictionary definitions as an edit, and it took a few minutes to get the formatting right.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:39 AM
1

Wikipedia, on Feminism: Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. Its concepts overlap with those of women's rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. Wikipedia, on Men's Rights M…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:30 AM
2

It's essentially the same as the dictionary definition for feminism, just from the male perspective.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 04:55 AM
2

So the doctors would know about that better than the patients... A doctor who is treating a patient should damn well know that their patient is pregnant, and should choose not to use a drug that has been known to cause complications in pregnancies. They do know, but they use it anyway. Why? I have no idea. I just think doctors should have the decision making power in the relationship I disagree.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 04:53 AM
2

That's an interesting point, but what happens when a patient wants to be treated, but a particular treatment is against their religious beliefs? Or they are informed about it. For example, doctors sometimes use a drug called Cytotec to induce labor because it's cheap and effective. However, Cytotec is actually an ulcer drug that's cheap because it never went through trials on pregnant women. There's actually a warning on the package that contraindicates it's use in pregnant women, and it's been …
/r/MensRights24/03/11 10:31 PM
1

I could just as easily say "In theory the Men's Rights movement is about equality - in practice, it's about misogyny. Do not blindly accept dictionary definitions." But whether or not that's true depends on which MRA you're talking about.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 10:23 PM
0

I'm not claiming anything; I'm citing the most basic dictionary definition of the word. But you're right about one thing, I think "feminism" is antiquated at this point, and should be replaced with "egalitarian" or something similar, but that means that "men's rights" would also change to "egalitarianism."
/r/MensRights24/03/11 10:16 PM
4

"I was wondering about that, why would they need to sue and stamp the doctors as rapists if that law is there?" Yeah, "birthrape" seems unnecessary when "malpractice" is already there. "can it be ignored if the patients decision could harm or possibly kill the child" Interesting question, but medical decisions for children still fall under the jurisdiction of their parents.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 10:12 PM
0

Yes, egalitarian is probably the better word. Unfortunately "feminism" gets more press.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 09:57 PM
0

It is not the same as a NoTrueScotsman arguement. That arguement shows that it is a mistake to attach attributes to something that is does not have in it's definition, i.e. a Scot is defined as "someone who lives in Scotland", not "someone who lives in Scotland who is also a good person." I see that is sounds like a NoTrueScotsman argument, but it isn't. Edit: Also I didn't say that there weren't women out there who want to abuse men's rights for whatever reason. There definitely are. They suck.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 09:41 PM
4

Except for the fact that under the Hippocratic oath (which all doctors must take) a doctor isn't supposed to treat a patient without their consent. Even in cases where treatment would save a patient's life.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:52 PM
-1

They're the same thing. That's what the word "equal" means.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:39 PM
-1

My issue is with the use of these words. A woman can call herself a feminist all she wants, but if her actions don't reflect that, she's not one. If you assume that anyone who calls themselves that is against men's rights, then you're shutting out the people who are actually feminists and are only looking for equality. That attitude is just as divisive as the attitudes of women who think men are always out to get them.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:37 PM
0

To be fair, some of the posts I see on MensRights aren't any better. (I don't care much for Duke Nukem or Sex and the City, so I haven't paid any attention to those particular subjects.) Also, I've only been on reddit for a couple weeks, so my overall feel for these two subreddits is not yet fully formed. So far they seem about the same in terms of trolling and bitchiness. Edit: found the thing about Duke Nukem. Capture the flag where the flag is a girl and smack her bottom to make her stop comp…
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:28 PM
1

My door holding policy is based on distance and ability. If someone is coming through a door right behind me, or only a few feet away, I would hold it open for them because it would be rude to slam it in their face, but if they're, like, ten feet away I wouldn't bother. I would also hold doors for people who looked like they needed help, such as the elderly, people with disabilities, or small children. I would expect other people to do the same (or not, door-holding isn't really that big of a de…
/r/MensRights24/03/11 02:41 AM
1

As far as the paying thing goes, I think it depends on the situation. Common practice is that the guy pays on the first date, but I think this is more related to the fact that most guys are the ones who ask for dates. If I asked a guy out to dinner, I wouldn't expect him to pay, because I'd be the one initiating things, or if it was just "hey want to meet for coffee?" I would at least pay for myself.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 02:28 AM
3

I actually thought it was kind of funny. I love sammiches.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 01:40 AM
7

I date a great guy. He's smart and funny, and confident in himself without being a jerk. He treats me great without treating me like a princess, and I do the same for him. I follow r/mensrights for the same reason I follow r/twoxchromasomes: because I want both sides of the picture. (Incidentally, my boyfriend is also the reason I came to reddit in the first place)
/r/MensRights24/03/11 01:35 AM
10

No sir. The definition of feminism is someone who is for equal rights for women, not more rights. A woman who hates or distrusts men would be a "misandrist" (the opposite of misogynist) and a woman who calls herself a feminist with the intent to get more privileges for women while suppressing men would be using the word incorrectly. I, personally, am a definitionist: supporting the rights of words everywhere! Too long have words gone ill defined! Too long have they been improperly used in everyd…
/r/MensRights24/03/11 01:26 AM
1

This is a pretty useless definition of manhood in my opinion. Tolerating pain might have some limited real-world advantages under specific circumstances, but wouldn't a better test of manhood involve things like leadership or capability in a real-world scenario? Such as being able to build a house, catch dinner, or lead a group to do such tasks? I'm not suggesting that medical circumcision at infancy is better, because at least ritual circumcision has a "purpose," but this ritual doesn't really …
/r/MensRights23/03/11 06:46 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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