TheRedArchive needs help
With 700,000+ posts and 16,000,000+ comments archived, and new Red Pill content being added every week, keeping TheRedArchive alive and discoverable to everyone is starting to become very costly. As a 20-year-old student who just moved out and is living independently for the first time, keeping TheRedArchive alive is beginning to cost me much more than I thought.

Therefore, if you appreciate the website, have gained a lot of knowledge and insight from it, and want to show your appreciation, you can do so by donating any amount that you want via the options below. The money will be used on the expensive monthly host bill and any future maintenance of the website.
Thank you, and I wish you all a successful 2021 and a good luck with achieving your goals and dreams!

Best, /u/dream-hunter

Always the patriarchy..............

Reddit View
September 15, 2019
post image

Post Information
Title Always the patriarchy..............
Author Super-Chick
Upvotes 204
Comments 49
Date 15 September 2019 05:26 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit antifeminists
Original Link
Similar Posts

[–]nate_hoodsie35 points36 points  (4 children) | Copy

I’m a man. I’m a believer in climate change. Am I in the wrong for existing?

[–]Super-Chick[S] 33 points34 points  (3 children) | Copy

I’m a woman. I don’t believe in feminism and apparently I’m in the wrong for existing.

[–]nate_hoodsie12 points13 points  (2 children) | Copy

In terms of psychotic feminazis, you are in the wrong. But if you’re with the right people, you’re not :)

[–]Super-Chick[S] 11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy

According to them I’m just a brainwashed woman who is looking for male attention. Honestly they just keep telling themselves that since it helps them sleep at night. They just can’t face reality.

[–]aroh10087611 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

When two women face harassment is the patriarchy, but when hundreds or thousands of male scientists have been talking about climate change and have been harassed because of that nobody bats an eye.

[–]ZeZapasta6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

mEn ExisTiNg aRe ThE SouRcE oF aLL OuR ProBleMs

[–]laptopdragon2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

her username does NOT check out.

[–]TheGhoulishSword2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Always the patriarchy, you know? Clearly. /s

[–]RichardJLyon2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

There is literally no issue that the divisiveness of feminism doesn’t irreparably damage.

[–]fuckyouredditx21 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Someone get this one a fucking medal

[–]bigolmeany1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Ecofeminism is what they call it. Apparently there is no movement feminists won't steal and inject with their repulsive philosophy.

[–]Super-Chick[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well this news here ruined my day!

[–]SSJRobbieRotten1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I swear to god the words Patriarchy and Misogyny are so overused they're meaningless now

[–]Super-Chick[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

It’s just another buzz word people throw around.

[–]SSJRobbieRotten1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy


[–]RXelaH19841 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

It all comes back to the victimhood complex. These people make the Women’s Suffrage Movement look bad.

[–]Super-Chick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy



Awomen for those who get triggered too easily.

[–]baronmad2 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy

Greta should go back to schooll we are aware of climate change, the problem is we have no viable options right now. We are doing the best we can with the economy we have you want to help solve it, go back to school figure some shit out come up with solutions.

AOC should also go back to school, take economy for idiots with sub 50 iq a few times over to hammer in some points which seems far to hard for her to understand.

I dont dislike women, i dislike idiots there is a difference you see.

[–]Super-Chick[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

We consumers can’t stop consuming otherwise the economy will drop. We’ve done this for many years now and we can’t change overnight but it may take centuries to fix (if we last that long). But in my opinion we’ve made our bed so might as well lay in it.

[–]LennartGimm0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

If we continue on our current path, we don‘t have centuries.

The young people haven‘t made the bed, they shouldn‘t have to lay in it. The boomers have made the bed and gotten rich off it, how about they suffer the consequences?

[–]Super-Chick[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

We don’t have centuries if we continue no. By the time we come up with a plan to save this dying planet the boomers and maybe even we will be gone from this planet. By that I mean we don’t have our priorities straight. The boomers will never lie in the bed because they weren’t making it for themselves. They won’t suffer the consequences since they won’t be around when the problem becomes unsolvable.

[–]LennartGimm0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Make flying more expensive, tax carbon emissions, ban cruise ships.

You know what that would do? It would give the state more money to tackle new projects like wind farms and pumped-storage hydroelectricity. And it would at least reduce the carbon footprint a little until the major changes can be implemented like research on better energy storage for affordable electric cars and the such.

To say we‘re doing the best we can if we‘re doing nothing (we are actually making it worse and worse each year, so we are doing worse than nothing) is a blatant lie that only aim to protect the status quo. Fuck every generation that comes after me, I want to enjoy my cheap electricity and not pay to repair the damages I‘ve done.

[–]baronmad-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

No it wouldnt im sorry to say.

[–]LennartGimm0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

So where do you see the problem? Do you think that these measures wouldn‘t reduce carbon emissions? Or that a carbon tax won‘t give the state more money? Just saying „no“ is not a counterpoint.

[–]Jex117-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

the problem is we have no viable options right now.

This simply isn't true.

We are doing the best we can with the economy we have you want to help solve it, go back to school figure some shit out come up with solutions.

Bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about. We aren't doing jack shit to solve the climate crisis.

[–]LennartGimm0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

What do you mean jack shit? We have more people going on cruises than ever before, we are eating more meat and we are releasing more CO2. What else do you want us to do? Not fuck up more and more each year? Capitalism is built on growth and that means we have to make bigger mistakes next year!

[–]baronmad0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I think you need to read up a little bit on renewable energy then because we are no where even remotely close to solving that problem. We are still so far behind that all our possible solutions is no solution to this date.

[–]Jex1170 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Again, you simply don't understand what you're talking about. You're perpetuating fallacies.

[–]baronmad0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I have the feeling that you are projecting here.

[–]SquattermalianGibzme0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

And expecting western nations to fix it when the majority of the pollution comes from 3rd world shitholes does no good.

[–]MegaMindxXx1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

We won't get brainwashed by the climate change hoax so they call us misogynists. Pathetic.

[–]Super-Chick[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Especially when they got brainwashed by the feminist hoax.

[–]KevinAndWinnie4Eva1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Nah, AOC is just an imbecile.

[–]joker380 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

So, a climate denier denies our planet has some form of climate?

[–]Philletto-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

They are Denying (what I claim to be) Science!

[–]InformalCriticism0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

So, is "journalism" the first word that conservatives get to change, after the hundreds of words liberals have shaken up and invented?

Journalism has nothing to do with reporting facts or the truth.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

Ha! Well, to all the climate skeptics out there, here's a t-shirt.

[–]LennartGimm0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

What does „heat rises before CO2“ even mean?

But great shirt to out yourself as a lunatic, maybe go with flat earth cap for the double takedown.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Love the response. It's always a great rhetorical fallacy to illegitimately connect two unconnected topics in order to 'tar' the other person by association. (Like the term 'denier').

Heat rises in the historical record ~800-1000years before C02 rises. This is not in contention and it is a fundamental problem for the warmist theory.

Anyway - I'm not too concerned with avoiding being seen as 'a lunatic' since science is actually based on differing theoretical formulations and strong explanation. It is not based on popular agreement. That has nothing to do with truth, otherwise the Earth would have been flat because everyone believed it. However, beliefs do not dictate reality, so the slavish fear of the 'climate crisis' is naught but a chimera. That's the way the data looks to about half the population.

But - way to out yourself as a dogmatic warmist unwilling to be curious about the debatable points of climate change. +1.

[–]LennartGimm0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, that flat earth thing wasn‘t an argument. In my eyes, both groups are similarly crazy, but they aren‘t the same.

Thanks for the explanation though. So either the science behind CO2 being a GHG is wrong or the amounts of CO2 we measure in the atmosphere is wrong. Good read on the topic because it also mentions your argument.

Science is a rough term to use here. Mathematical sciences are based on what‘s true. We just discover what is true, but that doesn‘t change the world around us. The problem comes with observational science. You can‘t prove a theory unless it‘s mathematical in nature. So we always work with the best model available to us. Think of Newtonian gravity before we discovered relativity. Worked but wasn‘t true. Same could go for a lot of currently accepted theories. But, here‘s the catch: We still need a model of reality. Disregarding every model because „it might be wrong“ is just disregarding science. So how do we determine the model we use? Scientific consensus. If an overwhelming majority of scientists agree on a suitable model, that is the scientific model for the time being. And if new evidence comes in and disproves our model, we adapt and find a better fitting one. Science is in a way based on popular agreement, the agreement of scientists. And how do they agree? Look at the evidence. An when 99% (off the top of my head, so don‘t quote me on that number) of scientists agree that climate change is happening, is man-made and needs to be addressed: Then that is the scientific consensus.

That's the way the data looks to about half the population.

And that‘s the problem: The population isn‘t what matters here. Scientists are, and they agree.

Oh and what makes you think that I‘m not curious? Just because I don‘t agree with you, you think that I haven‘t looked at both sides? Quality gatekeeping here. I‘ve looked at the studies, I‘ve heard what climate deniers (I know you don‘t like that word but with such strong evidence, it‘s what describes you best) have to say and I‘ve looked into what was said. And for every. single. point. I found an overwhelming majority of evidence pointing in the direction of climate change.

[–]SquattermalianGibzme-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Or maybe - hear me out - they're both just stupid bitches.

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy


[–]Super-Chick[S] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

Attack on masculinity? Masculine intervention?Yeah I’ve never heard such bullshit in my life.

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy


[–]Super-Chick[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

After reading this I got a headache. So basically climate change deniers are essentially anti feminists who refuse to go with climate change activism because its stereotyped to be a feminine activity? Since there’s stereotypes and stereotypes are not facts the article itself is biased.

This article sounds like flaming bullshit. I would expect nothing less from these kinds of writers.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy


[–]Super-Chick[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

You do realize that I disagree with the article as a whole right? I don’t know why you’re so hellbent on saying that the article is right and what not. It seems like you actually believe that the article is reasonable with its stance (imo its not).

Edit: Saying that stereotypes affect people’s mindset and thinking is plain stupid. Stereotypes are simply generalizations based on opinions not facts. To say that stereotypes have a role in non bias studies is also moronic.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy


[–]Super-Chick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

No I’m not criticizing the wrong thing, you just took it the wrong way and that’s completely your fault. Stereotypes are generally just made up and if you think I’m gonna take an article whose main key point has stereotyping and then they try to show me facts or studies that show “facts” so yeah don’t act surprised if I don’t believe them.

I can’t be the judge of how you see the world and how you justify stereotyping. However I can be the judge of saying that you completely miss the point of context and made your own assumptions. I know what I am criticizing and I don’t know who you think you are to tell me otherwise but what I do know is that because of your ignorance I am completely wasting my time to type this message.

To clear it up: I read the article (found it stupid) and decided to move on. What I found really stupid that (in the I linked picture in case you werent aware) they say that the imaginary “patriarchy” is a given factor to climate change denial. Now in what context did I ever mention that I was criticizing the article? Because maybe if I was I would have linked it (just a thought). The only time I criticized the article was when you asked me my thoughts on it. I was criticizing the way it DISPLAYS the article if it didn’t click in your mind already.

So I’m not sure if you’re really a troll who enjoys wasting time or if you really are this dense and you don’t understand context.

So have you wasted enough time?

Yes you have. Don’t expect a reply.

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

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter