TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Odd_Champion2599 Archive

View 9 posts and 85 comments by Odd_Champion2599 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)
7

Good for them. I cheer on the South Korean Men
/r/MensRights16/01/25 02:52 PM
1

Except it doesn't sound like its a sex thing. You know what, I'm starting to realize you didn't even click on the fucking link, lol. Show some honesty and click on the link dude. Actually read the sources. "Though the great object of our Society is to extend the dominion of the female sex, it is far from being its intention to obtain that end by such unhappy and reprehensible mean"- page 23 of the book on internet archive.
/r/MensRights16/01/25 05:13 AM
1

Brainrot tier comment.
/r/MensRights16/01/25 04:19 AM
–

only women are systemically abusive. Only women have media apparatuses that emotionally abuse men for them. Only men are shown contempt in the media. It's not the same, and i'm sorry to say it but yes, women are the root of all our problems.
/r/MensRights16/01/25 04:17 AM
1

2 parent households are slightly better than single father households, but the real reason mothers are included is because, even though they really don't actually do much of the raising of the children into adulthood pyschologically, men are not emotional pyschopaths who won't to otherize women for no fucking reason. Men generally don't get pleasure from parentally gatekeeping, unlike women. Also, mothers are important for infants, something like 90% of accidental infant deaths happen under fath…
/r/MensRights16/01/25 04:15 AM
1

Single fathers are rare, but they are still studied, and the outcomes for single fathers pretty much equivalent to 2 parent households. It's the father that makes the difference. Women don't do all of the domestic labor and childrearing along with fulltime work. That's a myth that feminists pass around (because feminists are cluster B pathological human beings who have socialized pretty much all women to be cluster B pathological human beings). Child rearing and labor market work are proportiona…
/r/MensRights16/01/25 02:34 AM
17

Yes it is absolutely. Check out some Daniel Amneus
/r/MensRights16/01/25 02:03 AM
1

It's fucked. It's got to be classifiable as some form of mass hysteria. People line up to be lied too.
/r/MensRights16/01/25 12:30 AM
2

A LOT of people are just absolute gremlins when it comes to integrity unfortunately. Most people go along to get along.
/r/MensRights16/01/25 12:29 AM
25

Not nearly good enough. Young men aren't cannon fodder.
/r/MensRights15/01/25 11:58 PM
85

Young men are only dangerous if they are abused themselves by horrendous single mothers, who are the highest predictors of criminality. It's pyschopathic, their treatmen of young men. "Young men, you're simply to able and filled with vitality, you should die because it's unfair to women".
/r/MensRights15/01/25 11:58 PM
2

Phenomenal argument bro.
/r/MensRights15/01/25 06:54 PM
3

That's still not evidence of what you think it is. There are different paying jobs in a field dude. All that this means is that men have more high paying jobs. Not that they have those jobs unfairly, or that women earn less in the same job. The government is feminist. There are 24 departments of government for women. None for men.
/r/MensRights15/01/25 05:33 PM
3

The government of the USA is feminist. Maybe instead of being pretentious and arrogant. just look up how they got the wage gap. They took the median wages of men and women and then divided them by each other. That's evidence that men earn more. Not that men earn more for the same job.
/r/MensRights15/01/25 05:23 PM
5

That's not what that means at all. Men work more hours on average. Look up what average means. It doesn't mean all men. It means enough men to make a statistical impact in the data. Same with risky jobs. Females do not get paid less for the same job in the same amount of hours. This has been debunked numerous times.
/r/MensRights15/01/25 03:54 PM
4

They work more hours in jobs that pay more because they are riskier or they require more technical skills. It's not misogyny to say truthful facts.
/r/MensRights15/01/25 03:39 PM
4

Women could always fully participate in the labor market. You're going to have to show how that's true. Which fields? Women did actually very often keep children when they separated. Divorce rape was actually a thing back then, divorce was just more rare. Although, women shouldn't get to keep the children if they separate. Custody should go to the father by default, because single mothers raise criminals. Just look up the stats. "The whole point of men having to pay for everything, be the only o…
/r/MensRights15/01/25 03:37 PM
8

Men make up like 3% more of the workforce. They make more money than females because they work harder than females. They shouldn't be included in jobs overrepresented by men. That is male erasue. It wouldn't be good if there were laws/politices that promoted female registration in the army. There is nothing wrong with being majority male, and let's keep it a buck, one of the reasons that workplaces begin to have falling standards is female participation. The army is included.
/r/MensRights15/01/25 03:34 PM
9

I don't really agree with that. A lot of women voted for trump, and if you ask young men why they voted for trump, I'm under the impression that they don't cite feminism. I think it's just a marketing ploy by democrats to fearmonger about misogynist young men. Trump is pretty gynocentric imo. He didn't really run on a men's rights campaign at all. He hasn't touched feminism.
/r/MensRights15/01/25 07:12 AM
13

It's horrible, I agree. I don't know that I agree that there is a pushback in the US. I don't see any. I see conservatives, but they usually run on a platform of gynocentrism and protecting women. Real anti-gynocentric pro-man opposition doesn't exist anywhere imo.
/r/MensRights15/01/25 06:38 AM
2

It's also been proven that women do "attempt" suicide more for attention.
/r/MensRights15/01/25 04:16 AM
1

Amneus's claim is essentially that it was patriarchy that birthed civilization. There have never been matriarchal societies because matriarchies aren't capable of creating societies. The reason for this is female-headed families cause all sorts of intense relational strife through their relational aggression. Female-headed families also lead to more crime. We can see this in the fact that, although most criminals are men, most of these male criminals come from single mother homes. This means tha…
/r/MensRights14/01/25 10:44 PM
3

I don't either. I would, if we didn't live in an overtly feminist world. But because of the world we live in, I can't in good conscious play as female protagonists due to the way men suffer unaddressed in media, and due to the very predictable feminist messaging that happens with all female protagonists.
/r/MensRights14/01/25 10:38 PM
5

Being quippy doesn't make you right. Men did not ostracize women in every sector of society. This is effeminate historical revisionism. Women have always had their specific spaces. Nuns, Midwives, nurserys. They've also had their specific spaces that don't relate to maternity, which is an obvious complaint you will have if I don't preemptively address it. Nursing, Hospice care workers, School teachers, Secretarial work, Typists, etc etc. Furthermore, the only reason why male and female majority …
/r/MensRights14/01/25 06:32 PM
3

Very correct. I am young, early 20s, so just getting my foot set in the world pretty much. But I'm pretty committed to this men's rights thing. Something I've thought is that men are so low in neuroticism relative to women that they just need to be srsly going through it to finally change things, which I hope might be the case within the next 5-10 years. I think men can make a real movement if some organization happens. If you're interested, I've started r/MraOrganization as well as a discord he…
/r/MensRights14/01/25 02:36 AM
5

True. And Space Marines is a success. Goes to show that erasing men in their own products isn't a winning strategy economically. They'll keep doing it of course because it's not to make money, but to win politically.
/r/MensRights14/01/25 01:28 AM
2

Thanks for this guy. Very appreciated. I'll have to read his stuff. I've read Bax, but the more men's rights authors the better. Especially the ones who err on genuine intellectualism, which seems the case with this guy.
/r/MensRights14/01/25 01:27 AM
24

Yeah, it's incredibly fucking sadistic and evil. It has to be opposed very intensely. As intensely as they wish to make it become a reality. They are, in effect, ostracizing men in every sector of society.
/r/MensRights14/01/25 12:53 AM
1

Very untrue, considering the metaphysical ponderings we do on the daily. Regardless, even great apes don't follow this feminist created caricature of tyrannical male and submissive female. Female chimps are violent too, they just lose cause they are smaller. Female bonobos are very tyrannical towards male bonobos.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 10:09 PM
1

Being quippy doesn't make you right. Look at the context. Peterson is talking about pakistanic grooming gangs. Like in Rotherham. Sexual misbehavior is meant to clearly refer to rape and SA. He's trying to say it's a norm that's hidden by socialization.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 08:29 PM
1

We aren't cavemen, are we?
/r/MensRights13/01/25 06:10 PM
1

He claimed it was only hidden from 2000 yrs of christian morality.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 06:09 PM
1

That's really not the point. The point is the claim that "sexual misbehavior is the norm" is misandric, and that's what he said word for word.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 06:09 PM
1

A lot of pseudo-history in this comment. "A sex worker was a "Public Woman". A known promiscuous "Slut" was considered defacto equivalent." Which ancient culture? Many different ones exist. You're going to have to prove that you could rape prostitutes in each culture that comes up in debate. Your spiel about islam is a neurotic fever-dream. It's ironic that muslims love to proclaim how islam gave women more freedom from the more oppressive norms of pre-islamic arabia, only for reddit nu-males li…
/r/MensRights13/01/25 06:05 PM
1

The big thing for me is when he says "sexual misbehavior is the norm", and that it is hidden by 2000 years of christian socialization. This seems to imply a more misandric position imho. If he said only what it is in your comment, I probably wouldn't think it's particularly misandric.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 05:39 PM
5

Advertising is horrifically misandrist, like anything with women in it in great numbers sadly. Look at ads, and try to find marketing towards men specifically. You won't find it for obvious reasons.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 05:37 PM
8

Arkansas female teen babysitter raped 9 year old boy without consent : r/WomenAreViolentToo Woman arrested for sexually assaulting 11 year old boy in columbia : r/WomenAreViolentToo Opelousas teen, a 17 year old girl arrested for child pronography : r/WomenAreViolentToo ***UwU**** Ah yes, all women just wannna willing and enjoying partner *** UwU *** You are aggressively pathetic and infantile. If men were weaker than women, than obviously rape would happen mostly to men by women. Either way, ra…
/r/MensRights13/01/25 05:36 PM
1

I actually agree with you, and concede that I used Islam incorrectly. I should have said immigrant rape gangs, and that would have been more accurate. I also think it's a western feminist myth that Islam oppress women. Only the western feminist mind could come up with such a fever dream.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 05:29 PM
8

He's not even antifeminist. To be antifeminist you have to have a modicum of balls in willing to criticize women.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 05:26 PM
1

I hope you are soon able to look at reality for what it is, instead of your deluded cope. You are overtly denying incredibly obvious social norms.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 05:25 PM
0

I don't really agree with this. They kind of just overtly use men as tools for women, but don't even say that women are weaker.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 05:24 PM
2

A study by a man named petrov indicated that 60% of male rapists are SA'd by their mothers, so let's not pretend women aren't threats. The cultural erasure of the phsyical and social predation is frustrating. To the main point, It didn't sound like he said it was a minority of men. He said "sexual misbehavior is the norm" and that Christian socialization hides this. It sounds like you're being extremely and unjustifiably charitable.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 05:23 PM
-1

a minority of women want to attack and/or rape men. A study by a guy named Petrov showed that something like 60% of convicted male rapists were SA'd by their mother. Let's not pretend like women don't pose any threat themselves, especially socially, were they are at their most predatory. Getting to the main point, A woman who is by herself is not a "rape target" if she is a member of a community and lives among them. And he did say, "sexual misbehavior" is the norm. I feel like you're reading th…
/r/MensRights13/01/25 05:14 PM
4

"Yes historically, women not under the protection of a man were fair game for rape." I just don't think this is true, because it's hard to get a good idea of what it means to be not under protection. I mean, a woman who lets say is a spinster, but is a member of her community, and has many relatives 2000 years ago, is fair game for rape? This just doesn't make sense to me. During travel, maybe she is at risk for rape by bandits, or maybe if she is in a foreign land, but there are ethnic lines th…
/r/MensRights13/01/25 05:07 PM
1

The guy was stopped by his friend because the commercial wanted to show what a proper "beta" man looks like. I don't think it was harassment.
/r/MensRights11/01/25 04:41 AM
1

Yes, but i'd correct this take by saying that there isn't anything wrong with boys having fun with rough and tumble, and when boys fight because they are actually mad at each other, literally no man has ever used "boys will be boys" in that scenario. That is not something that has ever happened. And the guy didn't want to harass a woman, he just wanted to approach her on the street. That's not what harassment is. Anyway, I kind of agree with what you're saying.
/r/MensRights10/01/25 07:03 PM
2

None of this comment has any basis in logic. There is no evidence the image leads to women being dehumanized and thought of as objects. Our society doesn't constantly say that women are providers or caregivers. What are society actually does is say that women should be incredibly narcissistic, self-absorbed, neurotic, and the opposite of caregiving. Look at women in media. Do you think there are more boss girl bitches in media, or more caring and kind women in media? The answer is patently obvio…
/r/MensRights10/01/25 02:47 AM
2

There is simply no evidence that the sexualized images of women result into viewing them as a means to an end, or as less of a person than men. You're making a leap in logic with that conclusion. There is simply no reason to make it.
/r/MensRights09/01/25 10:00 PM
2

"Keepers at several institutions report that attacks appear to be provoked by male bluff displays or by male "nervousness," including "annoying" submissive vocalizations. Some attacks have been associated with external tension, as when unfamiliar zoo staff appeared with a hand-reared bonobo infant (Parish and Hamilton 1995). Attacks often occur outside any obvious context, however." The irony of this is palpable tbh. We shouldn't anthropomorphize animals, but this is incredibly ironic given our …
/r/MensRights09/01/25 04:47 PM
1

Bonobos have never even been seen hunting ever.
/r/MensRights09/01/25 04:08 AM
7

The framing of the video is also so strange. As if chimps are purposefully, cognitively misogynistic, instead of it just being a hyper-competitive free-for-fall where the males happen to be bigger.
/r/MensRights09/01/25 01:49 AM
3

It's such bullshit bro, honestly. The sleaziness with which they fudge science to push their message is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights09/01/25 01:46 AM
1

Well people say that as a joke you know, it's not literal.
/r/MensRights08/01/25 04:39 PM
2

But to objectify implies dehumanization, and sexualizing people isn't dehumanizing. With the term objectification, there is a lot of motte and bailey I see people use with it.
/r/MensRights08/01/25 04:12 PM
1

... Feminism is a movement that started in 1848 in Seneca falls New York. I don't know what the hell you're referring to.
/r/MensRights08/01/25 04:09 PM
90

It's fucking disgusting, to put it in frank terms. "Humanizes men" Since when were men not humanized? The truth is, these women have dehumanized men by themselves. The notion that men being not emotionally reactive as women, means they aren't real humans, is fucking disgusting. It's misandry. I don't have to be emotional like a woman to be considered a legitimate human being. Nor does any other man. Testosterone literally makes men's tear ducts bigger, and psychologically makes them cry less. Wh…
/r/MensRights08/01/25 05:05 AM
-7

Here are the problems with this. "allowing themselves to feel" This means nothing. Men don't live their lives trying to not allow themselves to feel. The truth is, men don't have as many feelings as women. There is literally a mountain of literature of women having higher levels of neuroticism (negative emotion) than men. It's amazing that people can't accept that women just have higher levels of emotional reactivity than men do. Most men in general day to day society are only stoic relative to …
/r/MensRights08/01/25 05:02 AM
1

If you read some Ernest Belfort Bax, you'll discover feminism was always dishonest. It's always been a ridiculous ruse. Women have never been oppressed in American History.
/r/MensRights08/01/25 04:48 AM
1

Yes it is, because the word has bad connotations that are feminist. If the word is lost its lost. And all feminism is toxic.
/r/MensRights08/01/25 04:40 AM
1

Porn is detached, but you have a burden of proof as to why that detachment is dehumanzing, I mean, it's not the viewers who make the money. You're frothing at the mouth more than me. You're incredibly invested in objectification existing, and being systemic.
/r/MensRights08/01/25 04:38 AM
1

"By saying objectification doesn't exist u claim you've never done it, nor been objectified, so tell me what's it mean to view someone as a sexual object and use them for that only?" Well, to really objectify someone, you'd have to actually believe they were not a real human, which no one ever believes except for rapists, who are a tiny segment of the population. Men who watch porn aren't dehumanizing anyone. You'd have to prove how the watching of porn was dehumanizing. And no, I've never objec…
/r/MensRights08/01/25 03:48 AM
2

The point of this post is that literally no one erases the humanity of women and perceives them as a non-living thing except rapists, and people don't mean rapists when they refer to objectification, they mean... watching porn. This is exactly my point, there is no evidence that porn strips away a woman's humanity. (not pro-porn, just hate this feminist line of reasoning). "a large portion of men see women as holes to place their penises in, again without consideration for their thoughts or feel…
/r/MensRights08/01/25 03:33 AM
1

The term "objectification" as it stands, is a feminist term that means nothing. Men flirting, or noticing a woman's body, or commenting on a woman's beauty, or anime fanservice is not objectification. And that IS how it is used currently. You could just as easily say that the pump and dumping guy or the free meal girl is "Using" the other party, and you communicate the exact same idea without all of the very real feminist baggage. "Used" is even a more accurate term imo, because even still, whet…
/r/MensRights08/01/25 03:24 AM
1

True, but I still don't think this counts as being a human doing, as being a human doing would imply some sort of vested interest in male high achievement, which there is none, as you said. Even these infrastructure jobs discriminate against men through female favoring affirmative action, so how much doing does anyone want men to really do? Pretty much as little as possible to make room for women imho.
/r/MensRights08/01/25 03:11 AM
7

That's the thing, our culture actively stops men from performing well. So if the only means of acquiring value is something men are actively disccriminated against from doing, then people want men to really have no value at all.
/r/MensRights08/01/25 03:08 AM
2

I've literally never heard someone say "she should have been a model instead". I've heard "She could have been a model", but I've never heard the first one, and the second one is obviously a compliment. Commentary around Olympic volleyball teams is about their play. After-game journalism for Olympic volleybally teams is also about their play. The choice of attire to attract more viewers doesn't take away from the play and the discussion around the play by the commentators and journalists. Beside…
/r/MensRights07/01/25 03:34 PM
1

Being treated as a prize isn't objectification. A prize is something valuable, meanwhile the concept of objectification implies dehumanization. Obviously, that women want to be prizes, shows its dehumanizing in any regard, and actually rather simpish.
/r/MensRights07/01/25 03:27 PM
2

There is no evidence that there is systemic practices of reducing women to their bodies and therefore dehumanizing them. This just doesn't make any sense, and is a ridiculous claim. No one reduces women to their bodies at the expense of their womanhood. It IS a stupid concept and makes no sense. Were does this happen? Rhetorical question, because it doesn't happen anywhere. Also, this line of thinking would necessarily mean that attraction to women is objectification, because attraction means th…
/r/MensRights07/01/25 03:23 PM
1

If you're going to just clutch pearls, I think it's fair to say I've won this argument. Male characters are not fleshed out in female-specific media. And it is absolutely true that women love the social power and emotional catharsis from being indignant and feeling wronged.
/r/MensRights07/01/25 03:16 PM
2

There is no movie where female characters are objectified and reduced to nothing but their bodies and sexuality. This is a, frankly, feminist fever dream line of thinking. And honestly, there is nothing wrong with a character, man or woman, existing in a movie primarily to serve as a romantic motivation to the protagonist, although this still is not reducing them to nothing but their bodies, because everyone knows they are human beings. Something funny to me is how feminists demand that every fe…
/r/MensRights06/01/25 09:56 PM
2

As a concept, it's not helpful because of its feminist connotations. I suppose a woman getting a free meal from a man or a man pump and dumping a woman could be "objectification", but that's not how people use the term. It's more helpful to just say it doesn't exist then to try and save a term that feminists won.
/r/MensRights06/01/25 09:51 PM
1

Yes, this is true. You are right on the money. I don't believe this is innate however. How was a more patriarchal societal structure ever enacted if this is just innate in humans? This is a modern recent and purposeful phenomenon, created by en masse and systemic feminism. There is even a statue of the men who died in the titanic specifically from that time period, i believe. I could be mistaken, so double check me, but I believe this is true. The titanic actually caused quite a stir in regards …
/r/MensRights06/01/25 06:19 PM
4

Objectification doesn't exist. The average trap song is not objectifying, because there is no evidence that the average trap song dehumanizes women. It sings about them in sexual terms. Big fuckin whoop. Again, we see that with this logic, treating women sexually in any regard gets people accusing you of "objectification". Women love trap, they dance to trap, and they refer to themselves as bitches.
/r/MensRights06/01/25 06:15 PM
5

What a stupid and pretentious comment. The word objectification implies that women are "dehumanized" and "reduced to sexual objects". There is not dehumanization or reduction that takes place in the contexts in which the word "objectification" is used. The word "objectification" is a bad faith and politicized term that exists for a very particular reason. Stop gaslighting about the obvious feminist connotations and trying to pretend like it's just logic that makes people use the term. If the ter…
/r/MensRights06/01/25 04:49 PM
2

If this is the case, then objectification is a bigger problem for men than for women, who are used by women more often than women are used by men. However, people still don't use it in this narrow regard to pump and dumping men or women, so the term is useless, and should be said to not exist.
/r/MensRights06/01/25 04:43 PM
7

Except no one strips away women's personality and uniqueness. No one "reduces" women to anything. This is just a random claim not based on anything. "professional athletes or politicians being ignored for the job they do or the skills they have in favour for how they look instead." So anytime a female politician is noted to be sexy, or a female athlete is noted to be sexy, it's objectification? This is very stupid. The only way this could be true is if those women were literally NEVER discussed …
/r/MensRights06/01/25 04:40 PM
3

Correct. Everyone acts upon others and is acted upon by others. This is just life. Trying to never be acted upon by others is actually what it means to be tyrannical, which is what feminists try to make women behave as. Tyrannical misandrists who's relationship to men is one of creepy never-ending conflict and power-dynamics.
/r/MensRights06/01/25 04:34 PM
2

The point of this post is too explain that literally no one views women ONLY as sexual objects. The only people you could argue this is true of are rapists, but no one uses objectification only in regard to rape. They use it in incredibly normal and Everday circumstances.
/r/MensRights06/01/25 04:32 PM
5

And you just know the scientists purposefully interpreted the data in a feminist-friendly fashion, because they horrendously dishonest.
/r/MensRights06/01/25 04:29 PM
1

I mean their scantily clad style of dress is a level of proof that sex, is a more daily intertwined thing.
/r/MensRights06/01/25 01:49 AM
1

I agree. Sexuality is a more constant thought in their minds. I think men compartmentalize sex.
/r/MensRights06/01/25 01:49 AM
1

This is not true. Many societies throughout history have valued men. Most gave them an explicit position of authority because of consistent cultural motif of men being perceived as more competent and even keeled. A perception which I find has bearing in reality.
/r/MensRights06/01/25 01:47 AM
0

I don't know if I think it has to be this way. Perception is reality, and slander alters perception. Could it be that the slander of men gives men an artificial out-group bias? How was patriarchy ever established in the past with this out-group bias? What changed since 1920 when women got the vote that made men begin having an out-group bias, and giving up patriarchy? I think that living in western society is akin to being constantly parentally aliened from men, much like a child is parentally a…
/r/MensRights06/01/25 01:45 AM
2

Absolutely agree. A media company for men would also be helpful to show some positive cultural representation of men. Media purports the slander of men.
/r/MensRights03/01/25 03:55 PM
6

I agree. It is at its peak. I mean, men's rights has literally no more ground to lose frankly. They have literally nothin. I don't expect trump to do anything. Mr. Take men out of women's sports.
/r/MensRights03/01/25 02:47 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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