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

(x-post r/business) 40% of managers avoid hiring younger women to get around maternity leave

[deleted]

August 29, 2014
51 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
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 (x-post r/business) 40% of managers avoid hiring younger women to get around maternity leave
Author

[deleted]
Upvotes 51
Comments 29
Date August 29, 2014 5:34 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2exp71/xpost_rbusiness_40_of_managers_avoid_hiring/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/x-post-rbusiness-40-of-managers-avoid-hiring.228450
https://theredarchive.com/post/228450
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill

Comments

[–]1TrueScotsman8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is why you should have mandatory paid paternity leave rather than maternity leave. By simply not discriminating against men you help women.

[–]pjcelis-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As if most guys want to take several months off anytime they got a new kid.

[–]1TrueScotsman1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In other countries, the paternity leave is split however the couple wants so that the woman can take it all or the man could take it all if they want. Is a good thing all around.

[–]TRP VanguardtrpSenator24 points25 points26 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I saw this in /r/economics and the people in there were pretty legit. Basically they said, you can't legislate hiring women in this instance, because there is no way to do it. Employers are focused on their bottom line and react accordingly.

However, some interesting points were brought up. While you can't force businesses to hire women regardless of whether or not you think they'll have a kid soon, you can create an even playing field so employers can't discriminate. In this case, the best way to prevent the hiring discrimination is to draft legislation which also guarentees men paternal leave. This way, the field is even. Hire a young man or a young women, it doesn't matter, they are both likely to have a kid soon, so an employer is less likely to discriminate.

However, here is the highlight of feminism. This is a benefit to men to solve a female problem. But you hear nothing about this solution because women want their cake and to eat it too.

This is undeniably the solution to this problem, or at least a huge chunk of the problem. But how many feminists do you see pushing for this realistic solution? Maybe a small handful at best? No, the real shouting is being done at just the stomping the feet level where they bitch that it's not fair without offering any solutions. If they really want to solve this problem, there is a solution right in front of them that will solve a huge chunk of it. They can go from bitching, to acting, and getting this problem resolved over night.

But we all know they wont.

[–]2Overkillengine9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ayup. This situation came about because of female privilege affecting corporate profit margins.

Corporations are in a way the ultimate egalitarians in that they do not care about you, they care about your profitability. You could be neon purple and all other sorts of unusual, and if it is more profitable to hire you over Joe Average, guess what happens?

If women want an even playing field in this regard, they will have to actually share privileges traditionally only reserved for fertile uterus bearers.

[–]avoiceoftreason 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In this case, the best way to prevent the hiring discrimination is to draft legislation which also guarentees men paternal leave.

This is already in place in Sweden (men must take one month off, I believe), and there is now a debate about making it a fixed 50-50 division. I don't see how it's a "realistic solution" when it's robbing families of the possibility to control their own lives.

edit: it's worth mentioning that the '50-50 proponents' do not make any claims about the effects on the job market. The goal is purely to make the division equal.

[–]TRP VanguardtrpSenator1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

If you want absolute freedom there will be a massive amount of disproportion. That's just the nature of the beast. However, I'm just pointing out that if you want equal hiring practices, you must regulate the market by changing the incentive structure. I'm not trying to get into a philosophical debate.

There will always be unfair practices. For instance, tall people get hired more than short; good looking more than fugly. And so on. However these are hard to regulate.

[–]riverraider690 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not a perfect solution either. Many (most? all?) men would rather keep working on their job or career and bring home even a little more money then take a year-long break just to change diapers.

The proper solution is to stop punishing businesses for worker's reproductive choices. It's one thing to have an employee take a year long vacation - unpleasant, but workable, given the reason. It's a completely different thing to have to pay their wages in the meantime and be forced to rehire them when they've half forgotten their job and are still being sleep deprived, maybe firing somebody else who was already doing a better job.

Non-libertarian as it may be, this is a clear case of using taxes for making the society a better place to live.

[–]le_king_falcon0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For it to work women need to take less leave, men need to be forced and a certain sect of women needs to stop abusing the system and burning employers. Even in the 2x thread about this there were plenty of answers regarding women taking leave within months of being hired and multiple times within three or four years.

Try getting that law through in the US though. Especially when it makes women work harder and costs the corporate overlords their most efficient reliable workers. Never going to happen.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

However, here is the highlight of feminism. This is a benefit to men to solve a female problem. But you hear nothing about this solution because women want their cake and to eat it too.

This is undeniably the solution to this problem, or at least a huge chunk of the problem. But how many feminists do you see pushing for this realistic solution? Maybe a small handful at best? No, the real shouting is being done at just the stomping the feet level where they bitch that it's not fair without offering any solutions.

http://www.thismess.net/2013/09/parental-leave-feminist-issue.html

http://time.com/2853080/fathers-day-gift-paternity-leave-feminism-for-men/

http://www.houseofflout.com/paternity-leave-is-a-feminist-issue/

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-we-must-introduce-paternity-leave-%E2%80%93-for-the-sake-of-women-too-299313-Dec2011/

[–]TRP VanguardtrpSenator2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That's nice. I never said there wasn't any attempts. In fact, I clearly said there was a handful of attempts.

However, whenever the issue comes up, you only hear about the complaining and demand for regulation to fix the problem. Yet, you rarely hear of this as a solution. Sure, it does happen, I'm not going to deny it, but the loudest voice is the bitching, and not the solution.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The solution (one of many) is paternity leave, so I have no idea what you're talking about when you say they haven't been pushing for it and they just spend all their time bitching about it. I've seen many other solutions to this problem. Also, complaining about very real and illegal discrimination is not "bitching."

You said that there was "a small handful at best," clearly implicating that barely any feminists care about it. I literally just googled "paternity leave feminism" and these were all on the first page. That wouldn't happen if paternity leave wasn't commonly discussed and supported in feminist circles.

[–]TRP VanguardtrpSenator2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Listen, the world isn't "Fair". Men usually get this. The world, especially anything with a marketplace, isn't a giant hugbox. It reacts directly to cost/benefits. The reality is, it IS more costly to hire young women. It just is. There is no denying that. So it's understandable that employers wouldn't want to take on a more costly employee when they can go elsewhere and get an employee that isn't going to take off 5 months paid to raise a child. That's just the reality of it. Complaining about this isn't going to solve natural market reactions, which seems like all feminists do.

And yes, like I said, I'm not denying there are feminists trying to push for paternity leave to as a solution to this problem. Good for them. However, when it comes to the larger message whenever this issue is addressed, paternity leave is rarely mentioned. Usually whenever this message is brought up is down the lines of, "Women are being discriminated against. That's not fair! It's illegal! Patriarchy prefers men!~" No, no no no... The markets aren't patriarchal, they're reactional. Just because women have the under hand here doesn't mean there is an active attempt at making women suffer for the sake of being women. It's just the result of them being in a less profitable situation. The market doesn't give a fuck about your race, religion, sex, or whatever. It just cares about making money.

If you want to solve the problem, you have to renegotiate the incentive structure for businesses to make it so hiring a woman is no more costly than hiring a man. Simple as that.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Listen, the world isn't "Fair".

I'm aware of that. If life was fair, then women wouldn't get discriminated against for having a vagina.

The reality is, it IS more costly to hire young women. It just is. There is no denying that. So it's understandable that employers wouldn't want to take on a more costly employee when they can go elsewhere and get an employee that isn't going to take off 5 months paid to raise a child. That's just the reality of it.

Actually, the reality of it is that the marketplace is not based purely on profit. If it was, child labor would be legal, everyone would be fired once they got sick, sick days would be non-existent, and workers would have no rights. Also, from the link I provided below, "87 percent of employers surveyed by Appelbaum and Milkman in 2009 and 2010 noted that family leave did not result in any cost increases."

Also, maternity leave increases worker loyalty (the process to hire a new employee is not free) and expands the workforce.

From "the economic benefits of..."

"nearly half—46 percent—of workers who needed leave but did not take it said that they could not afford to take it without pay"

"A recent study on U.S. caregiving costs calculated that women lose a total of $274,044 and men lose a total of $233,716 in lifetime wages and Social Security benefits by leaving the labor force early due to caregiving responsibilities."

"The authors explain that employers providing work-family programs can attract higher-quality workers, reduce absenteeism and tardiness among employees, and reduce employee turnover. As a result, these programs increase employee productivity, which in turn increases employer profitability."

So tell me again how paid leave is bad for the economy?

However, when it comes to the larger message whenever this issue is addressed, paternity leave is rarely mentioned.

Umm, no. It's mentioned a lot. I'm assuming you don't spend a lot of time in feminist circles, so how would you even know? I already gave you 4 articles about it that I found after a minute of searching.

The market doesn't give a fuck about your race, religion, sex, or whatever. It just cares about making money.

Are you seriously saying that no one discriminates unless they have a good reason for it?

[–]TRP VanguardtrpSenator2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm aware of that. If life was fair, then women wouldn't get discriminated against for having a vagina.

LOL, and you think it's just pretty little snowflake women being discriminated against? Pretty people vs ugly people. Tall people vs short people. Old people vs young people. Tan people vs light people. Full hair vs no less hair. Big tits vs small tits. Big dick vs small dick. Rich people vs poor people.

That's just life. This is why people can't respect feminism. It's a competitive world out there filled with all sorts of shit. You vagina has nothing to do with it if you really want to get ahead. Everyone, EVERYONE, is playing this game and EVERYONE has their shortcomings in many different arenas, as well as their privileges. That's just how it is. Let's not even bother getting into the TREMENDOUS amounts of benefits a vagina offers.

Actually, the reality of it is that the marketplace is not based purely on profit.

Yes it is.

If it was, child labor would be legal

Of course the market would like children to work. But the government has restructured the incentives. In this case, they made it too costly to hire children. Hire children, and the state charges you a fuckton of money. So the incentives have made it more profitable to not hire children.

everyone would be fired once they got sick, sick days would be non-existent

What? The company is going to have a hell of a time spending fucktons of cash rehiring and training people if they just let someone go soon as they get sick. Do you know sick days aren't legally mandated? You know they are something employers CHOOSE to give people, because they know if they don't, they wont be able to attract quality talent, and their business will falter?

"87 percent of employers surveyed by Appelbaum and Milkman in 2009 and 2010 noted that family leave did not result in any cost increases."

Sure. But you know what? The 40% who ADMITTED they don't prefer women because they may get pregnant didn't just come to this conclusion out of pure patriarchal cock. They hire and deal with staff all day. It's literally their job. They notice trends. Sure, a woman leaving may not entirely affect their bottom line, but it does put a strain on the institution. When someone leaves, someone else has to take up the slack. People don't like this. Which is why these people reporting that they don't hire women prefer not to do it, because it's just easier to operate w/o them.

"nearly half—46 percent—of workers who needed leave but did not take it said that they could not afford to take it without pay"

Your point?

I'm not going to quote the rest. But it follows the same logic as before. As an employer, you have to focus on your bottom line and have a functioning business that works hopefully seamlessly. When you have employees just leaving for 5 months, and then coming back trying to reintegrate into their job, that creates disruption within the environment, and effectively adds to worker's happiness with the company, which can lead to them wanting to leave. Like I said, it's just EASIER to hire men, because they aren't worried about them leaving to have a kid. It's easier on everyone.

Umm, no. It's mentioned a lot. I'm assuming you don't spend a lot of time in feminist circles, so how would you even know? I already gave you 4 articles about it that I found after a minute of searching.

No I don't spend time in a lot of feminist circles. Why the fuck would I? What goes on there is none of my concern. I'm more concerned with the end result; the actions. So once this issue goes through all these feminist circles, I, as an end user, get to witness the final product. And what is that? Well, it's rarely a solution and usually just bitching. That's what I see. I hear about the bitching on the mainstream all the time, but RARELY hear about paternity leave as a solution.

Like, I don't care if your feminist circles have found the cure for cancer. At the end of the day, are you actually curing cancer? Why is the message that hits mainstream and even social media "We feminists need more support to help find a cure to cancer! Big pharma is trying to stop us from making any progress!" Well, you can talk about the cure you found all day, but until you actually actively start lobying to make it happen, it's useless. It's like an entrepreneur with a good idea but doesn't actually start the company. Meanwhile, he's on kickstarter asking for money to help him find more good ideas.

Are you seriously saying that no one discriminates unless they have a good reason for it?

yes. I am saying that. For instance, there is a study where they found that applications with white names vs black names, the white names got favor when all other things where equal. You can say this is "discrimination" but it's really just markets reacting. See, not everyone has the time to vet everyone on a personal and intimate basis. People have to make judgement calls based on a limited amount of information. So if you get someone named Laquisha vs Megan, a person is naturally going to go for Megan. It's not because employers don't like black people, but by having that name, they know that it's riskier to go with. They know that these names come from parents who prefer to identify with culturally black parents, which likely means their kid will be as too, and as we all know, culturally black people tend to come with all that bagage.

I assure you, if Laquisha's all of a sudden turned out to be more productive workers than Megan's, then the market would react and instantly start favoring them and try to hire them (because after all, they are more productive workers). But they aren't. We know that with limited information a safer bet is to go with Megan than Laquisha, based off our limited information.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL, and you think it's just pretty little snowflake women being discriminated against? Pretty people vs ugly people. Tall people vs short people. Old people vs young people. Tan people vs light people. Full hair vs no less hair. Big tits vs small tits. Big dick vs small dick. Rich people vs poor people. That's just life. This is why people can't respect feminism. It's a competitive world out there filled with all sorts of shit. You vagina has nothing to do with it if you really want to get ahead. Everyone, EVERYONE, is playing this game and EVERYONE has their shortcomings in many different arenas, as well as their privileges. That's just how it is. Let's not even bother getting into the TREMENDOUS amounts of benefits a vagina offers.

??? We're specifically talking about discrimination against women, and you're surprised that I used discrimination against women as an example of discrimination?

Also I find it funny that in your list of discrimination, you don't mention gay vs straight or white vs black. You know, oppressed people.

Did I need to list every last example of life being unfair so that you won't attack me for being "not inclusive"?

You vagina has nothing to do with it if you really want to get ahead.

You literally just defended discriminating against women because they have a vagina and therefore can have babies. According to you, your vagina should have everything to do with it.

Of course the market would like children to work. But the government has restructured the incentives. In this case, they made it too costly to hire children. Hire children, and the state charges you a fuckton of money. So the incentives have made it more profitable to not hire children.

But why would the government charge you a fuckton of money for hiring children if it was just in the best interest of business? It's because it's unethical. It's also unethical to discriminate against women because they may or may not have a baby; and along with that make many families struggle to support their children/family members.

Sure. But you know what? The 40% who ADMITTED they don't prefer women because they may get pregnant didn't just come to this conclusion out of pure patriarchal cock. They hire and deal with staff all day. It's literally their job. They notice trends. Sure, a woman leaving may not entirely affect their bottom line, but it does put a strain on the institution. When someone leaves, someone else has to take up the slack. People don't like this. Which is why these people reporting that they don't hire women prefer not to do it, because it's just easier to operate w/o them.

Okay, so what should I believe? Statistics or guys making judgments based on non-existent statistics?

Seriously, economists do not make decisions based on nothing but profit.

No I don't spend time in a lot of feminist circles.

So then why the fuck are you making judgments about what they say when you just admitted you don't spend a lot of time in them?

Well, you can talk about the cure you found all day, but until you actually actively start lobying to make it happen, it's useless.

One of the articles I gave you was written by a senator. It's happening in government too.

yes. I am saying that. For instance, there is a study where they found that applications with white names vs black names, the white names got favor when all other things where equal. You can say this is "discrimination" but it's really just markets reacting.

I remember that study. I also remember never finding a study that says blacks consistently do lower quality work than whites.

Also, have you seen this study? It says that groups with more women get more work done. So why aren't businesses "reacting" and all of the sudden hiring more women? It's called sexism. Also, now that this study is out, you don't see anyone advocating discrimination against men. That's probably because your theory of "business reacting" doesn't work in real life.

It's not because employers don't like black people, but by having that name, they know that it's riskier to go with. They know that these names come from parents who prefer to identify with culturally black parents, which likely means their kid will be as too, and as we all know, culturally black people tend to come with all that bagage.

It's exactly because they don't like black people. They don't want to hire black people because they believe that blacks have this bad quality. That's good, old-fashioned racism.

So how about that study that says blacks are worse workers than whites? As of course, "we all know" that black people come with all that baggage.

Also, what's wrong with gay people for them to get discriminated against?

[–]Clauderoughly-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hire a young man or a young women, it doesn't matter, they are both likely to have a kid soon

They'll just hire young men as we are much less likely to even take that leave, or if we do it won't be the whole thing.

We'd get super bored and want to go back to work.

[–]faore-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol this sub is fucking hilarious

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn39 points40 points41 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Looking over some of the other threads and comments in them, I just have one thought running through my head:

If women need so much special help to make it in the workplace, then perhaps the workplace just isn't for them? Perhaps if we went back to what works, natural gender roles, it would be better off for men, women, and workplaces...

Nah, fuck that, let's force "equality" no matter what the cost.

[–]TheRabid11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha. I guess people are having a challenge forcing equality on economics.

[–]ioncloud95 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Some trollops on the radio were talking about giving women special days off every month for "heavy periods" and they should get paid for it just like a normal sick day. A male caller called in and said what I hope alot of people were thinking: "cowboy the fuck up and deal with it." Then this landwhale "social media feminazi" comes on and was practically hyperventilating her disagreement with him.

[–]witchblade130 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Giving extra days off is ridiculous! I can't believe that is even a legitimate suggestion. Some women act like it's the worst thing in the world. It's actually been proven that exercise and being properly hydrated fixes most symptoms

[–]Clauderoughly2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

that exercise

Yes, and you see the ones that complain most are land leviathans or grossly out of shape.

My wife gets horrible period pains, and you know what she does when the cramps are at their worst ?

Sit ups and crunches. She says they are the only thing that help.

So if the complainers did more kegals and sit ups no only would they look better, they'd have a better time during the red tide season.

Instead they sit on their arses, eat ice cream, and bitch.

[–][deleted]3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In other news water is wet, the sky is blue and a man's performance at work is going to produce more value to the company than the comparable woman in the same role due to the man working longer hours and having less family obligations outside of work.

[–]farbenwvnder3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I can't blame them... They probably all have enough options to pick from and when there's equally qualified people applying you might aswell go for the men for this reason. Nobody will call you sexist because you can just say you based your decision on their qualification.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or other nebulous corporate terms like 'cultural fit.'

[–]whitey_male-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also women are more likely to be bitchy and unpleasant to be around. I feel a bit sorry for the ones that aren't.

[–]garlicextract1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some great comments in both the article and the r/business thread. No seriously, lots of people with a voice of reason.

[–]dantesrage13-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can believe it. The only female in our dept is leaving bc she's pregnant now. The [not so] funny thing about it is that she tried to be "one of the guys" so bad. Always talking about sex and how she goes to strip clubs. She was forced to leave her last job bc she was screwing the manager and he was married and all the employees found out about it. She was even pregnant with his kid, twice. She aborted the first one and miscarried the 2nd. She also said that she wanted to have sex with our manager, who is engaged. I'm not so sure if he knew about that, but he would always give her special treatment and help her out no matter what she needed. She was only 5ft - 100lbs and we have to lift boxes that weigh up to 70lbs. Needless to say she would never have to do it. She would say how she never ever wanted kids EVER. Then last week she comes into work and says I HAVE GOOD NEWS! I'M 2 MONTHS PREGNANT! We were all baffled but shocked. My manager asked her "do you know who the father is?" lol she laughed it off.... she was a decent worker for the most part though.

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