TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Hosai87 Archive

View 8 posts and 74 comments by Hosai87 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
14

Like what? And please don't say the ridiculous "women don't murder men" feminists always say. 99.9% of western men will never murder anyone in their lifetime vs 99.99% of western women. When men do murder its usually other men. Therefore murder is completely irrelevant to the average man or women and their experience with the opposite sex and can't be used to try and justify your hate.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 04:34 PM
11

It's same with the murder stats. A woman murdered it's assumed she was murdered "because she was a woman" and it's an attack on all women. If a man is murdered it merely means an individual random man was murdered. There is no interest if on any level he was murdered "because he was a man", which when you think about is just as possible, for example in a seemingly random attack if a man walked past multiple women to get to a man to stab arguably the victim could have been murdered for being a ma…
/r/MensRights04/05/26 09:59 AM
3

It must be difficult, like standing up to or trying to leave a cult.
/r/MensRights01/05/26 03:33 PM
2

Yes this is interesting. I do wonder if beyond the zero close friends measurement when it comes to not having a long term partner whether women without a long term partner or husband may be more lonely than men without a long term partner or wife or whether this is exactly 50/50 in terms of experience of loneliness. Obv I realize ppl can be lonely within a relationship etc but would imagine there is some form of correlation between no long term partner and loneliness.
/r/MensRights01/05/26 01:56 PM
1

Effectively the left view men and women as the same in every way (though in practice view women as being as good as men in things stereotypically men are viewed as good at but quietly (or not so quietly) view women as still better in stereotypical women things). The right view men and women as different with strengths and weaknesses of both. Overall therefore the right is arguably a bit better towards men than the left.
/r/MensRights28/04/26 01:21 AM
8

Tbf all sides use the "not man enough" line even left wing feminists they just dont seem to be aware that it goes against what they imply they believe in. When I've seen this written I ask "what would it mean if a woman wasn't "woman enough" or "needed to woman up" to which there is never any reply.
/r/MensRights19/01/26 10:21 AM
4

The choosing the bear thing is kind of meaningless anyway as there's a large difference between what feminists claim they would choose and what they'd actually choose in that theoretical situation.
/r/MensRights01/01/26 11:17 AM
3

What's insane is "not all men is literally saying essentially not all men are bad (which is actually an absurdly defensive and negative take on men), but it's not enough and still deemed as too nice on men.
/r/MensRights29/12/25 11:45 PM
1

When someone says "who is the one murdering/assaulting them - men" as though some kind of Trump card I point out by this logic they would find it less sad or significant if a woman murdered another women as they share the same sex.
/r/MensRights23/12/25 03:51 PM
19

Those same men also think it's good for women to be more traditionally feminine, I.e seeking to have a family, non promiscuous, not feeling the need to try and compete with men in workplace etc. So these conservative men aren't necc inconsistent in their views as they believe men and women are different. I would argue the left is more inconsistent as they claim men and women are the same but ignore (i.e dont complain about) the differences where women are better off than men.
/r/MensRights03/11/25 06:07 PM
2

"if a dude cant get laid it's his fault full stop." And same for a woman if she can't gain long term commitment with a reliable man. It's for her to address and we shouldn't all have to fund her having a child (single mothers).
/r/MensRights23/10/25 10:19 PM
1

"Since women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men the gatekeepers of relationships". I've tried to point this out many times in debates with feminists and am often taken aback that they either have not heard of this idea before or refuse to believe it.
/r/MensRights23/10/25 10:13 PM
22

It's the fact that 'cat lady' implies they are either unable or unwilling to get long term committment from a male (arguably a females goal from an evolutionary standpoint). Some might have sceptism that the woman in this scenario is actually happy as they could be or it's just a "cope". The same is true of 'incel' and 'virgin' etc (unable to get a female to have sex with you - arguably a males evolutionary drive goal). For some especially MGTOW this can also be portrayed sometimes as more a cho…
/r/MensRights23/10/25 11:52 AM
1

Exactly, although when you point this out you will often get told "no there aren't, there are hardly any". I.e a misandric take. This is often coming from people who would be deeply offended if you said "there are hardly any good women out there".
/r/MensRights23/10/25 10:46 AM
1

In some ways agree with your first paragraph. Once a child is born yes, the modern day state will step in if/when her partner leaves/is thrown out. Effectively our niceness allows certain single mothers to hold everyone to ransom and say you have to all pay to bring up my child for me or they will starve. Hence in the modern day there is less incentive for a woman to need to try and find a man who will commit to her long term. If she is unable to attract such as a reliable man who will commit to…
/r/MensRights22/10/25 10:15 PM
3

You don't sound like a fan of men. Yes there are indeed lots of good and reliable men out there that woman can choose, not sure what issue you have with this statement you seem to get hung up on "nice". "This shows so much ignorance. How do you know a single mom went for the "bad boy"? How do you know the single mom did not get married to someone she thought was a life partner only for the guy to leave? Just a bad take." Clearly I wasn't stating every single mother goes for the "bad boy" but it'…
/r/MensRights22/10/25 08:41 PM
1

I don't really get this comment seems like quite a strawman. I no-where made absolutist statements that every single mother would be this way. The minority of cases where a parent dies are not part of this discussion. "Unjust imprisonments" is also going to be such a low % that it isnt relavent to the overall debate. I will return the stawman back at you - I find your position that woman have zero responsibility for the choice of their partner to be the parent to their child completely absurd an…
/r/MensRights22/10/25 04:05 PM
1

"Unless they’re hurting people or doing immoral things. Their existence is of no consequence to you." But it does effect society. If you think it would be better for there to be more two parent families and less single parent (usually single mothers), then surely it makes sense to (gently?) indicate that this is not an optimal thing. This is the part that is politically incorrect however. Saying crackheads are a bad thing would not be particuarly politically incorrect most in all social circles …
/r/MensRights22/10/25 12:41 PM
5

I agree I could have titled this better but doesn't let me edit it now. In terms of this part - "They just made a shitty choice, probably." Again I agree, but aren't people responsible for their choices? That's where it seems to move into a politically incorrect area in mainstream discourse where no responsibility is given to the woman for who she chose to be her partner. There are loads of good and reliable men she could have picked (again the mainstream media might disagree with this part). Ob…
/r/MensRights22/10/25 12:10 PM
2

"what the state owes to its children" They are not the states children they are the parents. If a woman doesn't have the resources to have a child she shouldn't be having one - she doesn't have the automatic right for everyone to fund her having a child after she has failed to secure or decided doesn't want a reliable male partner to fund and help raise it. Evolution made it that women are the gatekeepers to sex (because more men want causal sex without giving resources to 'spread their seed' so…
/r/MensRights22/10/25 12:01 PM
2

Obviously DV is a horrible thing, but only a fraction of single mums will be in that situation becuase of DV. I would point out that men being more likely to be murdered than women is explained away by feminists by essentaily victim blaming the mudered men for being more likely to get into risky or more dodgy life situations. Do you also view that as "abhorrent"? It seems feminists do victim blame when it suits them. Just to clarify, you didn't really answet his question? "Are you suggesting wom…
/r/MensRights22/10/25 11:51 AM
5

But everyone knows there are crap men who should do better about being fathers. You could discuss this in the mainstream and basically "hate on" these kind of men without much worry. However the non-politically correct thing is to point out that the women who choose these type of men also have personal responsibility for the consequences. Their choice makes life worse for them, their child and society as a whole. They are keeping the crap men's genes in the gene pool. "However, I do think a more…
/r/MensRights22/10/25 01:20 AM
2

Clearly no-one is blaming anyone for death of a partner, becoming widowed is a seperate thing that is thankfully quite rare. Of-course the men in these situations are primarily to blame, but everyone already knows that. Are you suggesting women have no personal responsibility at all for who they pick to be the father of their children? They should have had many years of being with and testing the man in different situations to find out who he really is by the time they have a child. As I've said…
/r/MensRights22/10/25 12:22 AM
7

Fair enough, which part specifically is "hate" though?
/r/MensRights21/10/25 11:01 PM
2

Why are they always focussed on whether men are getting ahead of them but seemingly less worried about whether women who don't have children are getting ahead of them?
/r/MensRights21/10/25 11:14 AM
22

"Be a man" or "a real man would do this". However there is no "A real woman would do this". Also men can called losers a lot more via a variety of name-calling words including "loser" itself, however there is no real obvious equivalent for women. In general the average person finds it hard to describe what a female "loser" is whereas easily can for men.
/r/MensRights18/10/25 12:43 PM
1

In some ways it shouldn't matter as the argument is what matters most, going into name-calling is leaving the debate. However even if one does respond back in kind there is more chance of it being removed for "hate". All the "incel" comments of course get ignored in regards to them being abuse. You could write something like "Another cat lady", but as I said you may return a few hours later to see it was removed.
/r/MensRights17/10/25 03:50 PM
1

I don't disagree with your first paragraph and those brave women but women were not conscripted to fight as the men were, which was the point of my post. Prob around 400k men have been fighting for Ukraine army vs around 7.5k women. Around 75% of those men were likely conscripted.
/r/MensRights15/10/25 08:31 PM
18

Without wishing to move into a Ukraine/Russia debate, the Western press put out a lot of articles after the invasion emphasizing that Ukraine was Western and how different it was from Russia. Therefore under the medias own narrative they are viewing Ukraine as Western but ignoring the men conscripted/women not aspect.
/r/MensRights06/10/25 03:29 PM
42

When a woman says to me something along the lines of what a "real man does" I ask her "what does a real woman do?" to which there is usually no answer, as dividing women into winners and losers is deemed politically incorrect.
/r/MensRights06/10/25 11:48 AM
76

A similar phenomenon is blaming men for women feeling like they need to be crazily thin despite most men always saying they aren't attracted to that.
/r/MensRights20/09/25 10:52 AM
21

I sometimes go on the marriage sub and parenting sub and the double standards in responses are crazy you would think it's a feminism forum. A woman complaining has most of the top voted replies saying "divorce" etc, a man complaining the top voted is "what have you doing or not doing to make your wife feel/act like that?" I still plan to marry and have kids but it does make me have some pause when it seems married men are often hated in places like these and seemingly have no outlets sympathetic…
/r/MensRights17/09/25 01:25 PM
108

Whats kind of funny is, feminists/women often mock the general "incel" viewpoint which usually centres around ideas from evolutionary psychology and differences in attraction between the sexes etc. This includes the idea of in the single world a small number of "top men" having more of the sex with a larger selection of females. This in part why there are many more male virgins than female virgins. This whole idea is quite poltiically incorrect however (evolutionary psychology and attraction its…
/r/MensRights15/09/25 07:43 PM
21

It's usually explained away as being due to men's choices, which normally feminists would call "victim blaming".
/r/MensRights14/09/25 03:30 PM
3

It's not necc defining but a factor. Evolution made it that women are the gateholders to sex and men the gateholders to long term comittment. Therefore men are judged more harshly if not able to get sex (and praised if able to get it a lot), whereas for women this would literally be easy. Hence it's not impressive for them however gaining long term committment from a male is, hence judged more harshly if not achieving this.
/r/MensRights13/09/25 01:17 AM
4

I agree, but such woman are celebrated and protected in the media.
/r/MensRights12/09/25 09:46 PM
33

I think is true, but the mainstream media celebrate female "losers" or feel sorry for them for becoming a single mother etc, whereas male "losers" are all portrayed as "incels" etc or merely viewed as bad and deserving of their low status or ignored. EDIT - I'm not saying its wrong for male losers to be viewed as "losers", just would like it to be consistent across sexes, or society to at-least admit the double standard.
/r/MensRights12/09/25 01:32 AM
2

Yes I usually reply that "in that case it must be less sad or significant if a woman were to murder another woman then as they share the same sex". They then usually withdraw from the debate or call me a name. I also point out the difference between disproportionate and representative. Men disproportionately commit more crime but most men don't commit crime so crime is not representative of men.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 08:47 PM
2

An incel just means involuntarily celibate, this would fit the description of most male virgins too ultimately. I appreciate they are not quite the same things, with "incel" implying a more active/extreme element but there is a fair amount of crossover.
/r/MensRights17/09/22 10:51 PM
1

Is it possible to tell me what was wrong with my post that it had to be removed please? I took a while to write it and was interested in any replies. I appreciate the title was perhaps more incendiary than was necessary, I did try to edit this then realized it wasn't possible. Thanks.
/r/MensRights17/09/22 10:13 PM
5

I'm not thinking about "what's beneficial to mens rights". I'm merely pondering what is the equivalent to a male virgin (low status) in women. In other words what would a low status woman be?
/r/MensRights17/09/22 08:57 PM
3

2,200 women are killed every year by men and 2,100 men are killed by women in the same period. Is there a source for this please? I do agree with your post in general about disproportionate male victims ignored etc, but find this hard to believe purely because I believe men do in fact commit more crime than women including murder.
/r/MensRights11/07/22 06:32 PM
14

The other way around would be a "misogynistic attack" with society asked to look at how it is treating women etc so I hope this is approached as a "misandric attack" with questions to be asked about how society treats men etc.
/r/MensRights10/07/22 08:46 PM
2

To be fair this sort of makes sense evolutionary speaking as a tribes future survival needs lots of women but not necessarily lots of men. I just wish society would actually admit it views men's lives as cheaper and that men and women are different instead of the cherry picking of whether men and women are the same or not which is usually determined by the context and whether it is beneficial in that context to be different or the same.
/r/MensRights22/06/22 02:40 PM
1

Not really sure what you are getting at in terms of me being obsessed. My original post I suppose was to open a debate about what it means to say "rape is rape" ethically speaking and whether there should be a different type of word due to such a large number of contexts coming under one extremely serious label. It seemed unrealistic to me in the original example that the fact and context that they were partners apparently meant nothing to all the posters and that presumably he should carry the …
/r/MensRights15/06/22 01:12 PM
1

That's fine. I think however under your views an awful lot more men and women would be in prison at the moment. Maybe not with rape but sexual assault would be off the charts, as it would include for example women touching their husbands penis in the morning when she thinks he is still in a light sleep because she wants to have sex despite never getting consent to do this. So as that previous posts example is "full on rape rape" as you describe I would imagine you would be pushing for the wife i…
/r/MensRights15/06/22 09:37 AM
0

Yes but I only made the theoretical examples more extreme to show people they were lying to themselves if they thought that ethically it was as simple as "rape is rape" and that it didn't matter at all if they were long term partners. I believe it is ethically worse for a man to grab a random woman off the street and put his fingers in her anus and vagina then for a wife of 15 years to touch her husbands penis when he is asleep to try and make him want to have sex despite them never discussing s…
/r/MensRights15/06/22 09:23 AM
0

I suppose what I'm getting at is there should perhaps be a slightly different word rather than having so many different types of situation coming under the one category. If it is "same broad category but they are punished differently" as you say, then in a sense you are already conceding that it isn't as simple as "rape is rape", that there is different levels of ethical and legal crime. Otherwise you have the situation where a woman might get on top of her husband of 15 years while he is in a d…
/r/MensRights14/06/22 08:51 PM
1

Well obviously waking them up wouldn't be a crime. I was referring to the idea of a woman touching her husbands penis when he is asleep to try and get him turned on to have sex (sexual assault). Or getting on top of her husbands penis when he is in a drunken sleep with a semi and having sex with him (rape).
/r/MensRights14/06/22 02:21 PM
1

I sort of agree, though I would also say there is never really a "good time" for such a discussion. This was a general forum, if all discussions take place in feminist and mens rights silos I don't think that's the best thing.
/r/MensRights14/06/22 11:44 AM
0

But would you also regard it as sexual assault if your girlfriend touched your penis when she thought you were asleep, to try and get you to have sex? Would you also regard this as the same legal and ethical equivalent of a man grabbing a woman off the street and putting his fingers in her anus and vagina which is also sexual assault? If it is so simple and sexual assault is sexual assault and rape is rape then it's all the same and the acts should have equivalent prison sentences because it's a…
/r/MensRights14/06/22 11:39 AM
5

Often debates around women end up being also about men and vice versa. You can't really discuss one without indirectly discussing or making assumptions about the other. Otherwise if you weren't differentiating them and believed men and women are the same in every way you would just say "people".
/r/MensRights14/06/22 11:29 AM
2

Thanks for this. It does seem however even if the law takes context into account, the public do not take any nuance or context into account in terms of their ethical judgement with apparently many different situations falling into an ever more broad understanding of "rape". As compared to the kind of understanding people had of the word say 20 years ago.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 09:31 PM
2

You are probably right that I tried to have the debate in the wrong place. Though to be fair it technically was on a "neutral" forum being the relationships sub-reddit rather than a female specific one. I'm not really a fan of the word "whataboutism", often just seems a lazy way to pretend an accusation of hypocrisy has been dealt with or doesn't need to be. "Whataboutism" as you call is one of the best ways to test the different ways we might be unfair towards men and women, and that's often wh…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 08:50 PM
2

It's a discussion of firstly do we view it the same way when a wife initiates sex with a husband who is asleep and secondly it's a discussion of are there different levels to what we describe as rape and should for example a woman who gets on top of her husband of 10 years when he is in a drunken sleep with a semi be called something like non-consensual sex rather than rape to differentiate from say a man grabbing a woman from the street and taking her to a field where he rapes her. I'm not sure…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 08:30 PM
2

Yes I agree. I just find it strange that people seem very unwilling to discuss any context or nuance and revert back to "rape is rape". Personally I think it would better to use the word rape for, as you say, someone climbing through the window. Versus the example of say a woman getting on top of her husband of 10 years who may have a semi in his drunken sleep, which would be called something like "non-consensual sex" even if at the moment strictly speaking it should be called "rape" even if she…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 08:26 PM
3

I guess there would need to be more detail...does the man touching the partners vagina, or woman grabbing the partners penis count as "sexual overtures" or "sexual assault" as technically speaking if the partner is asleep it would be the latter due to the inability to consent.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 08:20 PM
3

Not really sure what you mean here? Where was I disrespectful to men? I am clearly on the side of my friend who had this experience happen to him in a hostel.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 08:16 PM
0

Hi, I think most people here would agree with that. My point was more a question of, does society deem it to be rape as often when the genders are reversed and secondly I suppose I was broaching the rather taboo idea of can there be different levels of rape or sexual assault. I.e is a man grabbing a woman off the street, putting his fingers in her vagina and anus the same legally and ethically as a woman touching her husband of 10 years penis when she believes he is asleep in order to try and in…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 08:14 PM
0

I don't disagree really, I guess my point was more, does society deem it to be rape as often when the genders are reversed and secondly I suppose I was broaching the rather taboo idea of can there be different levels of rape or sexual assault. I.e is a man grabbing a woman off the street, putting his fingers in her vagina and anus the same legally and ethically as a woman touching her husband of 10 years penis when she believes he is asleep in order to try and initiate sex.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 08:09 PM
2

Thanks I agree. I don't even have particularly strong views on this just get slightly tired of the unrealistic saying put forward that "it's simple". I believe it's slightly stemmed from no-one really wanting to potentially in a sense defend or argue for mitigation for an act which is perhaps "borderline" rape but not rape as the average person understands or imagines rape. Personally I think people are lying if they say a man grabbing a woman off the street and raping her is the same legally an…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 07:44 PM
8

Getting into an argument over how rapey one non-consensual act is vs another is cringe. Well...someones got to do it when they are deciding on the length of a prison sentence for example, which presumably is influenced by how morally wrong society has judged an act to be within the context. They can't just say "oh how cringe to be debating how rapey this is".
/r/MensRights13/06/22 07:29 PM
2

That's fair enough but we should clear the about the two examples. A man grabbing a random woman off the street and then putting his fingers in her vagina and anus versus a woman who has been married for 10 years touching her husbands penis despite believing he is asleep because she wants to have sex. Those are the two examples of which you both believe are equally morally wrong. That is fair enough of course if that is your opinion but I believe the former is worse.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 04:28 PM
4

Well we don't know what the husband thinks, he is asleep. That's the whole point, he can't consent because he's asleep. Neither could a wife. It wouldn't matter if she stopped if he "brushed her off" she would have already committed the sexual assault before that point because he was asleep. I said ethically and legally as I was looking at how we view it morally, not just the prison sentence. So you don't agree that some assaults are less bad, so must believe that a woman grabbing her husbands p…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 04:19 PM
3

I just don't see how you can't think there are not infact levels. You think if a man grabs a woman off the street and puts his fingers in her vagina and anus (i.e sexual assault) This is the same as a wife touching her husbands penis when he is asleep to try and get him horny and have sex? Both should have the same prison sentence?
/r/MensRights13/06/22 04:07 PM
16

Thanks for this, this was the kind of point I was trying to make but didn't word it as well. To say all situations are the same is to suggest a man grabbing a woman off the street and putting his fingers in her vagina and anus is the same ethical and legal crime as a woman touching her husband of 10 years penis when she thinks he's asleep because she wants to have sex. Unless people believe both should have the same prison sentence I'm not sure why they pretend it's a simple as a slogan "rape is…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 04:04 PM
3

Well I'm glad you seem to agree that context is important from your first sentence. I have no idea where you're going with your second sentence. I'm here to debate potential differences in how rape is viewed and whether it's really as simple legally and ethically as "rape is rape". I'm not defending anyone.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 04:00 PM
1

Hi, I'm not sure why you are asking me that in third paragraph. I'm here for debate around peoples understanding of rape, not to justify some depravity in my personal life. You ignored my question about any ethical differences in the two situations. A man grabbing a woman off the street and raping her verses a woman touching her husband of 10 years penis when he is asleep and then getting on top to initiate sex. Both life sentences in prison because "rape is rape"?
/r/MensRights13/06/22 03:54 PM
6

I am "rape apologist" just for talking about nuance and context in what people understand by rape? So you believe a man grabbing a young woman off the street and driving her to a field where he violently rapes her is the same legal and moral crime as a women initiating sex with her husband of 10 years despite believing he is asleep? In both cases you think a life sentence in prison? No legal or ethical differences in the crime? I find that absurd.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 03:46 PM
-1

I suppose but, if you've lived together 5 years and have sex most nights, sometimes whilst half asleep or a little drunk. Do you not at some point assume some consent for things? In the same way you would start to make a lot of assumptions about your partner after 5 years? I am not saying this is not a bad thing. I just find it a bit absurd the idea that its the same legal and moral crime as grabbing someone off the street and violently raping them.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 03:42 PM
-1

Do you believe that someone having sex with their partner when they believe their partner is asleep is morally the same level of evil as someone grabbing a stranger off the street to rape them? Personally I believe the latter is worse because the non-consent is a lot more obvious.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 03:27 PM
3

Ridiculous that the phrase "not all men" which is such a low bar (basically saying not all men are bad) could be controversial. The equivalent would be a women trying to say not all women are bad at someone bringing up false rape allegations, and men saying "how dare you suggest not all women are liars - you are banned".
/r/AntiFeminists11/06/22 04:55 PM
5

Fair point but a perm ban is a bit much as is the "shut up Kevin".
/r/MensRights31/05/22 06:08 PM
1

That is messed up, makes me angry. I was permanently banned (no prior warnings or mis-deeds) from a politics sub-forum on the UK site digital spy for starting a thread posting a video where Milo Yiannopoulous attacks assumptions around the gender pay gap and asking people what they thought of his views. This was before he was cancelled etc and was only slightly "controversial" at this point. In my experience feminism and men vs women as a topic has the highest level of censorship. I often seen i…
/r/MensRights31/05/22 06:03 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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