TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Texas School District Bans Boys, Non-binary Males From Wearing Long Hair

Anih1list

October 21, 2021
78 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1282048
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Texas School District Bans Boys, Non-binary Males From Wearing Long Hair
Author

Anih1list

Upvotes 78
Comments 41
Date October 21, 2021 11:24 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/qd43jy/texas_school_district_bans_boys_nonbinary_males/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/texas-school-district-bans-boys-non-binary-males.1082576
https://theredarchive.com/post/1082576
Top posts by Anih1list

Feminist Strategy: Insult Men While Demanding Our Help

267 upvotes
July 1, 2022
/r/MensRights

In Mexican Immigrant Detention Facility Fire, Guards Rushed to Save all 15 Women. 40 Men Died.

188 upvotes
April 21, 2023
/r/MensRights

Woah, CNN Reported A False Rape Exoneration!

181 upvotes
November 30, 2021
/r/MensRights

Feminists Ignore Missing Men While Calling Gabby Petito's Coverage Racist

46 upvotes
November 7, 2021
/r/MensRights

E Jean Carroll (Trump Rape Victim) Wrote A Book Titled “What Do We Need Men For?”

35 upvotes
May 13, 2023
/r/MensRights

Matt Walsh Aims At Gay Couples, Attacks Men Instead

27 upvotes
January 21, 2023
/r/MensRights

'We’ll kill you': Troops film boys' killings in Burkina Faso

26 upvotes
April 3, 2023
/r/MensRights

Twitter’s Hiring of Female CEO Attributed by AP to “Glass Cliff” Setting Them Up to Fail

25 upvotes
May 15, 2023
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Mike3-5 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Isn't Texas suppose to be all freedom ? Seems like the least, the way there in the news.

[–]Anih1list[S] 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

It’s “funny freedoms”. You are free to conduct business unregulated, but you aren’t free to screen your employees for COVID risk. You’re not free to go out without taking unnecessary risks of severe illness, but you are free to go to Church even if no other public gathering would be permissible under Covid. You’re free to refuse a safe vaccine entering your own body, but not free to refuse a dangerous fetus staying in your body. You’re free to learn “both sides” of long-established facts like evolution and the holocaust, but you’re also free from “socialist propaganda” teaching that racism exists.

[–]Mike3-5 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like a twisted place

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

but you aren’t free to screen your employees for COVID risk

You're free to do all the testing you want, you are not free to impose they take an ineffective vaccine.

[–]Anih1list[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

99% of all covid deaths are unvaccinated, and even if the vaccine wasn't effective, you're not imposing anyone if they can choose not to work for you.

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

96% of Covid deaths are over 45.

you're not imposing anyone if they can choose not to work for you.

You really want your job to dictate what medical procedures you MUST do to yourself? You want employers to have that power?

[–]Anih1list[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Again, if you don't want to take a safe and effective procedure you can simply not work there. As long as we live under capitalism, your employer has that power. Your age doesn't matter because even if you're young you can spread the virus to someone older, and your employer doesn't want their other employees getting sick or dropping dead.

Also, even if you don't die there will likely still be long-term symptoms (including ED).

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Again, if you don't want to take a safe and effective procedure you can simply not work there.

People have died from the vaccine, and it's not effective. People under 65 have nearly no chance of dying from covid in the first place, and it's not protecting those over 65.

[–]Anih1list[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Please provide a scientific study demonstrating the vaccine (there are multiple, in fact) does not work and has killed people. Like this:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345

Through 6 months of follow-up... BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19.

- New England Journal of Medicine

As of May, 26% of all covid deaths were under 65, and that number has likely risen since more old people are vaccinated now.

[–]DocBeech -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wbaltv.com/amp/article/covid-19-related-illness-deaths-over-6-weeks-were-fully-vaccinated/38007926

[–]Anih1list[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Woah, in ONE state of 50, where MOST PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED, a relatively high share of deaths are in vaccinated? What’s next, will you use the fact that 100% of covid deaths in a fully vaccinated place are fully vaccinated as proof the vaccine doesn’t work?

[–]DocBeech 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You commented a false number, I simply showed that you are spreading misinformation. Nothing else. But really strange tangent you went on out of no where.

[–]Anih1list[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

You did not demonstrate I spread misinformation, you simply cherry-picked misleading data from Maryland. My information was correct as of September, but even if it’s changed my overall point is still correct. Misinformation isn’t just something that’s technically incorrect, or “pi = 3.14” would be misinformation. Misinformation must be deceptive and/or directly harmful.

99% of COVID deaths are not fully vaccinated

On the other hand, technically correct information could also be misinformation if weaponized. Did you know there’s no historical evidence Hitler directly ordered the Holocaust? Yet that fact presented out of context can be holocaust denial. So in all accounts you are the one spreading disinformation.

[–]DocBeech 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Again, you are wrong. 99% is incorrect and misinformation. Here is another "(9%) deaths were reported among fully vaccinated persons in the 13 jurisdictions" https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm.

[–]Anih1list[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My information was correct over a certain recent timeframe. Now demonstrate how the fact it is no longer up to date is DECEPTIVE or HARMFUL. Simply saying incorrect things like “the sun is yellow” is not misinformation because it does not cause harm. And admit it, your cherry-picked Maryland example is in fact misinformation due to your presentation of it

[–]holas841 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Misinformation is any statement that is untrue regardless of intent or harm.

Disinformation is what you are thinking of. This has the intent to deceive or the capacity to manipulate, do harm, etc.

I believe that you have been using these two terms interchangeably in your arguments here. Hopefully, this helps to clear up the difference, and allows you to express you argument with better clarity.

"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Mentoya

[–]Anih1list1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is disagreement on what constitutes misinformation or disinformation or simply false information. I define misinformation as false or misleading statements, while disinformation is a subset of misinformation which is intended to deceive. I think there is a categorical difference between benign false information like “the sun is yellow” and “cash is green paper” and “the Covid vaccine doesn’t work”

[–]meinsla 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Dress codes, even gender specific ones, are nothing new.

[–]Jesus_marley 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A dress code that says all students are barred from revealing their undergarments is an acceptable rule that affects all students even if it may impact some students more than others.

Setting specific sex based criteria on hair length/style/colour is unreasonable, as well as intentionally and specifically discriminatory.

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

Setting specific sex based criteria [...] is unreasonable

An opinion more and more people are adopting today but one that plenty of people would still disagree with.

[–]Anih1list[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I conceptually disagree with all forms of dress code, but there certainly is a difference between clothing (or lack thereof) culturally understood to be obscene and just having long hair. That’s why it’s okay to wear basically underwear to the beach but not other places.

[–]Anih1list[S] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I’ve always said if conservatives could control men’s bodies too they would. First the Texas abortion ban and now this, it’s all connected.

[–]shadowguyver 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Society starts controlling us shorter after birth. They carve their idea of what our genitals should look like.

[–]Keopsfuj 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They already controlled male body for thousands of years. They didn't let males to look good, take care of themselves, turned them into smelly sweaty ugly beasts of burden and shamed those who wanted to take care of themselves as gays or weak. They used them for hard labour, as meat shields, cannon fodders for wars to earn more money...etc.

[–]Anih1list[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True! Honestly men have always gotten the short end of the stick all things considered. But whether it's misogyny or misandry, the culprit is the same: restrictive traditionalism.

[–]Ustupid145 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The texas ban isn't controlling women's bodies. Sorry but the baby inside them is not their body. Just a different opinion.

[–]Anih1list[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

But the fetus (not a baby) is parasitizing the mother's body by draining her resources and altering her hormones. If the fetus is controlling her body and you are forcing a woman to stay pregnant, you are controlling her body.

[–]Jesus_marley -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Fetus is Latin for baby. Trying to hide behind simple semantics is poor argumentation. Try again.

[–]Anih1list[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

You: Uses semantic argumentation (also origin fallacy) Also You: “don’t use semantic argumentation!”

I didn’t use the fact the words mean different things as my argument, I was just clarifying. If you learn to read you’ll see my actual argument has nothing to do with semantics

[–]Jesus_marley 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Of course you did. You specifically claimed it wasn't a baby by first calling it a fetus then saying "not a baby". It doesn't get any clearer than that. The rest of your argument is irrelevant if you are going to lie in your first sentence.

[–]Anih1list[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So you clearly don't know how words or arguments work.

First, words depend purely on the meaning conveyed by those words. You committed an etymological fallacy by assuming the original meaning of a related word is the same as the current meaning. If you think "fetus" just means baby, then you'll be surprised to learn nobody refers to infants as "fetuses". In common use, "fetus" refers to a developing human inside a pregnant woman, while a baby is post-birth.You also don't seem to know what "lie" means. A lie must be knowingly false. My definition is commonly used, so it is "true," and even if it wasn't, it's slimy of you to assume I intentionally said something wrong.

Now, it's strange that you accuse me of "hiding behind simple semantics" when I clearly have an actual non-semantic argument. So even if you insist my semantic clarification was an argument, I wouldn't be "hiding behind it." Funny enough, YOU explicitly used a semantic argument, but haven't provided a substantive argument. Why are you hiding behind semantics?

Speaking of lies, I have every reason of accusing you dishonesty when you mischaracterize my clarification as an argument even after I tell you it was never meant to be an argument, and knock down a strawman instead of responding to my actual argument. But I'm a good faith interlocutor. I'm willing to entertain the possibility you were just too stupid to know all this from the start.

Lesson #1: You do not "win" by defeating your opponent's weakest argument, especially if it was not an argument at all. You must respond to the actual points in question.

Now, I will give you a chance to respond to my actual argument:

[–]Jesus_marley -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Frankly, if you are unable to provide an honest beginning, there is no point in reading the rest of your argument. Once you can provide an honest argument, I will be happy to address your points. Until then, nothing else you say is of any importance.

This is not me declaring a "win" as you (again) falsely state, but rather me choosing not to waste my time on someone who will not show the basic courtesy of being honest.

In other words, you have demonstrated a 2 for 2 proclivity to be outright dishonest. As such you are summarily dismissed.

[–]Anih1list[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Dude, you’re such a beta. First you make hypocritical and fallacious accusations, and now you’re too scared to even read my original argument because you know you’ll trip over your own dick like you did when you entered this comment thread.

[–]Jesus_marley 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol. Beta.

Projection much?

[–]Anih1list2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

“N-no! Y-y-you’re the Beta!” You stutter as you run away at top speed without ever addressing what I actually said. I’ll be waiting here, so come back once you grow some pubic hairs and watch me tear to shreds whatever sorry argument you muster up.

[–]Jesus_marley0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok. Whatever you say, tough stuff.

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

I mean, men were banned from wearing long hair in many(some?) schools already.

[–]Nathaniel66 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So if a guy just says "i'm non- binary" he's ok?

Anyway...land of freedom my ass. (I have over 1m long hair).

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

Can we just sue the district for being when men and women are equal and make almost all laws equal applicable to any gender

[–]Solid-Perspective98 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is evident in many societies and domains. Females are allowed both short and long hair while males are only allowed the former. The same is true for make up, nail polish and so on.

[+]someone_butnoone -13 points-12 points-11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its a good rule. This way, they will grow in more ways than one

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