TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Kudos to Pamela Anderson for Common Sense and Moral Courage

Ordinate1

December 4, 2017
24 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pamela-anderson-victim-blamed-harvey-152151503.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Kudos to Pamela Anderson for Common Sense and Moral Courage
Author

Ordinate1

Upvotes 24
Comments 34
Date December 4, 2017 7:14 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7hjkw4/kudos_to_pamela_anderson_for_common_sense_and/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/kudos-to-pamela-anderson-for-common-sense-and.1173820
https://theredarchive.com/post/1173820
Top posts by Ordinate1

Thoughts on "Manspreading"

23 upvotes
July 6, 2017
/r/MensRights

Some excellent points about circumcision

23 upvotes
July 6, 2017
/r/MensRights

...and this is why I dropped out.

19 upvotes
March 19, 2018
/r/PurplePillDebate

Avfm is Officially a Hate Site

16 upvotes
February 22, 2018
/r/MensRights

"Doing" vs "Being"

14 upvotes
April 16, 2020
/r/PurplePillDebate

"A Voice for Men" is a stalking horse for reactionary politics

12 upvotes
May 4, 2017
/r/MensRights

Ana Kasparian (of The Young Turks) and Thunderf00t (AKA Phil Mason) talk about feminism and men's issues

8 upvotes
July 1, 2017
/r/MensRights

Q4BP: Do you think that women are inherently more moral than men?

7 upvotes
February 19, 2018
/r/PurplePillDebate

Comments

[–]Ordinate1[S] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Quote:

So this is not victim blaming but looking at the issue from the angle of women being aware of certain problems and how to spot them and fight them. It is totally hypocritical to ignore this. And it is not helping anyone to ignore the realities in the society we live in. The causes of the problem and solutions are complex and women who do not live in the utopian bubble must be aware of what is going on. And that is what I have highlighted.

I do NOT wish apologise for what I said.

And will not get coerced into apology.

This exactly what I am saying is a problem with the contemporary “victimhoood feminism”! The people who subscribe to that notion tolerate and actually expect women to talk about the stories of abuse and experiences with creeps.

But they would NOT tolerate a woman with her own opinion. So pathetic.

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Full list of misspellings and misuses of grammar below. Face it, this woman is virtually retarded...

protectin

as a journalists

for right to vote

Quite an opposite

the realities in the society we live in

I do NOT wish apologise for what I said

not get coerced into apology

This exactly what I am saying

victimhoood

[–]Mens-Advocate 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Criticising spelling and grammar is generally an admission of the weakness of your own argument.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL! First, when someone makes as many mistakes in one brief piece as Madam Pinhead does, it shows a very suspect intellect. And, of course, i point out elsewhere why she -- retarded grammar aside -- is full of shit.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Speaking as a grammar nazi, a literacy snob and even a feminist as regards sexual assault, I give Pam Anderson a pass.

She seems genuine. She has personal experience of sexual abuse and rapes, and of Hollywood sleaze. I don't believe her intent is to blame victims.

Here is her interview with Megyn Kelly, in two parts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv5hTeWTLUo After that YT helpfully played an interview with Megyn Kelly talking about sexual harassment and more.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Her intent does not matter. What matters is that she is wrong. And stupid.

[–]Mens-Advocate 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Hurrah for Pam Anderson! Any female over 16 knows how to handle a crude proposition - say no and walk out. Or decline to meet in a hotel room in the first place.

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"Any female over 16" does not go to a new city where the rules are unknown other than being hugely different to anything she's known, and interact with a man whose un-ironic nickname is "God", who can erase any hope of a career with a single ten second phone call. And who boasts about that fact, and is believed by everybody, because they know the stories of people who were made an example of.

Do you think it is OK for powerful people to request sex from job applicants?
If they say no and walk out is everything OK?
If they do that and are not blacklisted is everything OK?

[–]Mens-Advocate -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Jabberwocky the feminist is back. Though he's not really much less pussy-whipped than many an MRA.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you think it is OK for powerful people to request sex from job applicants?
If they say no and walk out is everything OK?
If they do that and are not blacklisted is everything OK?

[–]EarthBelongsToAnts2 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Surprised to see all the “female none-agency” crowd at full force even at the men’s rights subreddit.

Weinstein is a scum fuck, but Pamela makes a good point, these women know what they’re getting into, most of the time.

The fact that they only speak out about it years after the fact goes to show that they either didn’t think what they went through was bad enough to go to the cops, or that they knew it was bad, but chose not to say anything because they got million dollar gigs out of it, making them complicit in a way.

Call it victim blaming if you want but that’s the truth with all these high profile cases where no actual forced sex was involved, the “victims” benefitted from keeping their mouths shut, and now are benefitting from people giving them the same leniency we’d give child victims of sexual abuse who actually DONT have the mental capacity to make proper decisions and thus are rightly awarded the title of “none-agents” when it comes to abuse because they’re so easily manipulated.

Now we have to label Louis CK a sexual predator when he got consent from women to jerk off infront of them, but years later these women come out to make him into a predator, even though they were fully aware of the situation and could have told him to stop or step out at any moment. I think Pamela and many people are just tired of women not taking any responsibility for their actions.

Tl;dr stop treating women like overgrown children with no agency.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

They didn't all get million dollar gigs out of it, from Weinstein or his many of imitators.

What we have been told by many women quoting their agents, who we must assume to know their job, is that what their silence bought was the hope they would not be blacklisted. That is all.

This crap happens at all levels down to the schoolgirl applying for a zero hours casual weekend morning cleaning job at a shitty motel for minimum child-rate wage.

In these situations it is blatant denialism to try to distract attention onto the infintesimal proportion of cases where both a legally defined crime occurred, AND going to the police would achieve anything, AND it would not be instant career suicide.

There is a weird switch here where a woman doing what she must to escape catastrophic professional victimisation is recast as an equal partner in a business deal, and escaping harm is recast as receiving a benefit. It seems to be assumed that there is no problem with the gatekeepers to her career requesting sexual favours for access to jobs.

Is this the baseline we accept, that so long as powerful people don't criminally sexually assault job applicants there is not a problem we should be talking about, that they don't deserve public censure?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They didn't all get million dollar gigs out of it, from Weinstein or his many of imitators.

What we have been told by many women quoting their agents, who we must assume to know their job, is that what their silence bought was the hope they would not be blacklisted. That is all.

So basically they did it because they thought it would give them a shortcut to their careers and then we’re too embarrassed to admit it publicly when it didn’t happen like they wanted. I’m sorry but that’s hasn’t convinced me that these women didn’t choose the go that route in hopes of gains. You’d have to be extremely naive to not understand that you’re performing a sexual favour for career opportunities.

This crap happens at all levels down to the schoolgirl applying for a zero hours casual weekend morning cleaning job at a shitty motel for minimum child-rate wage.

I’m sure that it does, but in every single one of those cases, the women choose to commit to the sexual act or not. Nobody is forcing them, they’re choosing to have sex for a job or career.

In these situations it is blatant denialism to try to distract attention onto the infintesimal proportion of cases where both a legally defined crime occurred, AND going to the police would achieve anything, AND it would not be instant career suicide.

It’s also blatant denialism to say that these women are 100% innocent victims that had these things happen to them as apposed to them putting themselves in those situations, complying to the treatment then being resentful that they didn’t get what they wanted. How about we agree that people who use sex as a hiring practice are scumbags, but to pretend there aren’t women out there who use sex to try and further their careers than you’re the denialist.

The casting couch is consensual.

There is a weird switch here where a woman doing what she must to escape catastrophic professional victimisation is recast as an equal partner in a business deal, and escaping harm is recast as receiving a benefit. It seems to be assumed that there is no problem with the gatekeepers to her career requesting sexual favours for access to jobs.

It’s not a dichotomy, just because you scrutinize one doesn’t mean you support the other. My point of my post is that these women are being treated like victims when it’s more grayer than that, a lot of them were willing to use their sexuality to advance their careers. I have mad respect for the vast majority of women who get where they got based on merit, but I don’t have respect for women who fuck their way into a business.

Is this the baseline we accept, that so long as powerful people don't criminally sexually assault job applicants there is not a problem we should be talking about, that they don't deserve public censure?

I reread this multiple times and didn’t understand it. Are you suggesting that I’m trying to diverge from talking about people in positions of power offering jobs for sex because I’m bringing up the idea that some women use sex to advance their careers or that women have agency? It’s not a dichotomy, we can talk about both and shun both.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Certainly some women either submit to or even aggressively use sex to advance their careers. But to talk about that when the subject is sexual assault and sexual coercion looks like denialism to me, it is muddying the waters and shutting down the discussion. Same as the guys bleating about how they will never come within 6 feet of a woman at work again.

The problem being highlighted is men standing in the way of women's careers, saying you can get past if you give me a kiss. How does it help to shift blame back onto the women who submit? That should be a separate discussion at another time. People can't hold two ideas in their heads at once, as every successful politician knows.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

People who defend Weinstein here do a disservice to this sub and the movement as a whole. Some of the men taken down in the #metoo witch hunt deserve at least some defense, others our full support, but Weinstein is a complete and total shithead who deserves everything he's getting. Defending him here just lends credence to the idea that MRAs are all victim-blaming rape apologists.

I'm downvoting this post and every comment here that supports it. We need to be better than this.

EDIT: And, while we have certainly had our disagreements, props to u/ThePigmanAgain for standing up to this garbage.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, it's a weird world. But at least the post isn't proving popular, stands at 12 as i write this.

[–]Ordinate1[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Um, she called Weinstein a sexist pig; she is not defending him.

Perhaps you should read the link before forming an opinion of it?

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I did read it, and I agree with the article's headline—she's victim-blaming.

But you're right in that my comment was more about how I've seen a few posts/comments on this sub defending Weinstein, and think that's a huge problem. Blaming his victims for not speaking up earlier or putting up with it or simply not seeing obvious signs that could have helped them avoid his bullshit is tantamount to excusing his behavior, and I won't stand for it quietly.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Alternative headline -- "Pamela Anderson Admits, 'I was stupid yesterday and i'm still stupid today!'"

What she said was factually wrong, that's all there is to it. Like i said, not everybody is streetwise enough to see this shit coming, and hotel room meetings are not uncommon in Hollywood.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

in a bathrobe?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You don't know they are in a bathrobe until you get there, do you? And what if they were taking a hurried shower? And there were cases where Weinstein only changed into a bathrobe after the girls arrived.

PS

Harvey Weinstein's super power -- changing into a bathrobe. Heh.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

So Anderson is saying -- very reasonably -- that if you're asked to go to someone's hotel room that's a red flag, and if they answer the door in a bathrobe - just leave.

Presumably she would also say just leave if at any point they change into their bathrobe.

This isn't rocket science so I am wondering why you appear to be disagreeing with it?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

That's not what she said. She said women knew what they were in for if they went to a producer's room. That is factually wrong -- some women do, the younger and more naive ones don't. And no, there is nothing unreasonable about being asked to someone's hotel room. As i have said elsewhere, hotel room (hotel suite, more often) meetings are common in Hollywood. Even late at night.

The woman is an idiot, as is evidenced by both her idiotic reasoning and her atrocious use of language.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Did someone hack the pigman's account?

some women do, the younger and more naive ones don't

I think you'd have to be spectacularly "naive" not to see it as a red flag, and then when the guy is in a bathrobe-- that's obvious.

there is nothing unreasonable about being asked to someone's hotel room

AND they answer the door in a bathrobe? C'mon. You are being silly.

Why are you harshing on Pam Anderson? Are you anti-vegan or something?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Stop wasting my time with this bullshit. If you don't know that there ARE people that "spectacularly naive" then you aren't paying attention to the world around you. And, yes, even though a bathrobe is usually an actual red flag, it may also be a matter of bad timing.

I am pissed at Anderson for the same reason i am pissed at all idiots who use their fame to spread their bullshit -- whether the bullshit is that all women should be instantly believed or that all women are knowing and mature.

PS

Go back to arguing with the pro-circumcision guy, you are making a fool of yourself here.

[–]Mens-Advocate 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're pissed at Anderson because you derive validation from being contrarian.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm pissed at Anderson because the stupid cow is using her celebrity to spread her cowness around.

-- Not all women know what they may be getting themselves into.

-- Hotel room meetings are not uncommon in busy Hollywood.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Hm. That does sound like something you'd say.

But you'd normally be on the opposite side of this argument.

The existence of extremely naive people should not be a block to giving good advice to the other 99% of young actresses. In fact if such naive people exist then they could all the more do with good advice such as she offers. Your entire argument is flawed. The existence of naive people is not a reason to stop giving people advice on how to handle this sort of situation. It's also not a reason to object to criticism of the women complaining about sexual "harassment" that they should have known better.

Really what she's hinting at is that these women did know better, and went anyway. And then tried to act as if they were naive afterwards to get victim points.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

She was wrong.

-- Not all women know what they may be getting themselves into.

-- Hotel room meetings are not uncommon in busy Hollywood.

PS

You are an idiot. Like i said, stop wasting my time with this shit.

[–]w1g2 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Being frank about it, as she is, would help educate the naive people about potential risks and dangers. She is helping them to be less naive.

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did someone hack the pigman's account?

I wondered the same. His body's been snatched (no pun intended) by a radical feminist.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

LOL! I just went to her blog and read the entire thing. Here are some of the more interesting points...

protectin

as a journalists

for right to vote

Quite an opposite

the realities in the society we live in

I do NOT wish apologise for what I said

not get coerced into apology

This exactly what I am saying

victimhoood

It's official, folks -- Pam Anderson is the greatest genius of our time!

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You missed,

"I am also an advocate for men"

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't see that -- and if i had, i would not have included it as an example of her dumbassery.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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