TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Syokudai Archive

View 1 posts and 79 comments by Syokudai 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)
-2

Please fuck off with the pro-feminism garbage OP. It's a hate movement. "Real" feminism is exactly what the MRM needs to be fighting against, and you trying to post a few examples of women not being misandrist is not going to change what the actual movement is. There is no salvaging feminism because there was never anything to salvage in the first place. Feminism has always been garbage and always will be.
/r/MensRights04/12/18 05:00 PM
3

They certainly think they do, but all they're actually doing is providing cover for the worst elements of the movement. Less than useless. In many ways, the "real" feminists are worse than the supposed feminazis.
/r/MensRights23/10/18 07:59 AM
7

Seriously. I'd be first in line for a gay pill. Heterosexuality is a curse.
/r/MensRights18/09/18 03:16 AM
6

these people are the quite majority Even if this were true (and I've seen zero evidence of that), their silence speaks volumes. They continue to call themselves feminists, in spite of the vast majority of vocal and prominent feminists being absolute garbage human beings. I don't think it's possible to be an adult and to not have come across the bad elements of feminism (who are, imo, the majority). Nothing is ever done about the bad actors in the movement, and every time feminism is criticized, …
/r/MensRights29/07/18 06:52 PM
5

This sub has never denied that women can be sexually harassed. Please take your virtue signalling and karma-whoring elsewhere.
/r/MensRights08/07/18 06:44 PM
12

Probably because it's accurate.
/r/MensRights15/05/18 01:55 PM
0

RIGHT!!???
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/18 07:30 PM
49

You're... not a fantastically open minded or intelligent person and, even without scouring through your post history, I can tell you've got the moral fiber of a desperate opportunist... You're the problem, y'know?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/04/18 07:58 PM
7

Your reply borders on nonsensical... what are you even talking about?
/r/MensRights10/03/18 12:23 PM
11

Gotta agree with the man; you're pretty much scum. Why not return to the echo chamber you wriggled out of? No one here is going to take you seriously.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 11:36 AM
2

Yup
/r/MensRights17/01/18 08:10 AM
1

Yeah, I really wish people would stop lionizing this woman. She cares about the legitimacy of her precious movement, not men. This whole video is a desperate back-pedal, not a genuine concern for men or equality.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 08:10 AM
78

Sure, when women attack first, it's because men deserve it! Christ, you fucking people.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/17 08:34 PM
1

No, of course I don't agree with everything the MRA is about. The problem is that I can't see how pretty much 95% of Feminism isn't completely unethical nonsense. It's like saying you don't agree with all of the Westboro Baptist's views, but I do agree with some of them, and I'm not giving the church up just yet!, and expecting to be congratulated for that. Why align yourself with evil in the first place? Unfortunately, you're kind of downplaying the depth of the problems men face and glossing o…
/r/MensRights02/12/17 10:10 PM
2

Don't know if you still care, but maybe tomorrow I'll respond.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 11:05 PM
1

No. I said I have evidence for my beliefs. You are the only dumbass here talking (over and over again) about proof. It is my OPINION. Again!!!! (READ!), I don't care if you disagree. I'm simply not trying to convince you anymore, because, frankly, you've demonstrated yourself to be a complete fucking idiot. I've mentioned this before. You're persistent, irritating and incredibly dumb, but not in any way someone I'd consider worth engaging in a serious conversation. To be blunt, 90% of the reason…
/r/MensRights01/12/17 10:54 PM
1

I haven't admitted anything. You drew those conclusions on your own and I didn't bother to refute them...because you're uninteresting. Simple concept that you just can't seem to grasp.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 06:59 AM
1

Or you're uninteresting. .... Take care.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:54 PM
1

Yup. You do that...take care.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:45 PM
1

Ok... you do that. Take care.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:39 PM
1

Christ, you're actually back. Thought you'd gotten the hint.... You really don't seem to understand that I'm just not interested in having a debate with you, huh?
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:36 PM
5

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry for lumping you into a group. I was not trying to say that you are exactly like all feminists; you're actually surprisingly reasonable for someone who ascribes to that ideology. That said, you do call yourself a feminist. Even if you don't agree with everything every feminist has ever said, you still choose to associate yourself with an ideology that has a very specific set of tenets, goals and methods. You can't have spent a lot of time on women's subs withou…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 05:55 PM
2

Saudi Arabia is still living under the yoke of Islam, which means that they still use the behavioural codes which were designed for desert people living in the 8th century. At that time, as Islam was rapidly expanding outwards by means of the sword, so wars were pretty much constant. I know that living under that system as a woman was absolutely brutal and unpleasant; I've read enough accounts. That said, subservience to men is still better than getting yourself hacked apart with medieval weapon…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 02:00 PM
1

Nope. I'm done.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:27 PM
1

k...
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:26 PM
1

I said that it was impossible to prove, not that I don't have reasons for my beliefs. I gave no evidence, because you are unimportant to me and I have no desire to try to convince you that your opinion about her is right or wrong. I don't care.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:42 AM
1

No, I just think you're wrong. Accept it.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:40 AM
1

Ah, I see. You're a feminist. It's all become clear now. Should have mentioned that earlier, y'know? You're on an MRA sub. Thought I was talking to a half-way reasonable person. Anyway, I'm all done here. Final notes before I go: This entire conversation has only demonstrated that I'm right about feminists. You've done the movement no favours. There has never been a good wave of feminism. It has been complete and utter immoral garbage since its inception. Please take your cancerous ideology and …
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:37 AM
1

sigh an argument is a set of claims... If you want to believe that my claims do not support my conclusion or that my claims are incorrect, go right ahead. I honestly can't believe how dumb this conversation has gotten....
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:26 AM
1

Man, you're dumb. This is getting tiresome... I went through her post history and have seen her commenting a number of times on MRA threads. I don't like her and I don't trust her. Again, my man, I really don't have to justify my opinion of someone else to you, and you're welcome to think she's the bees' fucking knees for all I care. My mind will remain unchanged.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:23 AM
1

You can read the posts that I wrote to her for that answer. but, in short: I don't trust her or any feminist claiming to be an MRA, regardless of how sweet sounding some of her words are. You're welcome to if you like, however; it's none of my business, and I don't care.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:12 AM
1

No, I gave her my arguments and they were laced with insults. She could have simply chosen to ignore the insults and addressed my point, which was that a feminist claiming to be an MRA is bullshit and that she was a dishonest interlocutor. A snide comment and an insult are not the same thing. Use a dictionary. The lack of reading comprehension is even stronger with the other.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:08 AM
1

Christ.... Yes, really. People do that shit all day for reasons you're well aware of. Highly fucking unlikely on this sub, sorry. But, that aside, I'm happy to admit that it's generally good practice to provide sources in the OP.... But this sub is not the evening news; I don't feel bound by the same journalistic standards, especially since the source was my FB feed. What would you have done if I hadn't been able to trace the post to an open FB page? "Welp, he must be lying". In any case, questi…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:57 AM
1

It's like a Klansman showing up at the NAACP's door and wondering where the warm welcome is. Like, do I really have to spell this out?
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:15 AM
1

No, you're not arguing anything :) You're instead wasting your time and mine by pointing out the 'insults' (I call it an honest assessment of your character, but perspective, I guess) rather than dealing with the pertinent arguments :) Snide comments are unlikely to get you anywhere, so, maybe, at the very least, think about that... :)
/r/MensRights30/11/17 01:32 AM
1

No, not unreasonable, but certainly suspect from someone like you. You've spent a ton of time on this sub defending feminism, in spite of how obvious it is that the vast majority of the people here despise the movement, and with very, very good reason. Maybe, just maybe, you are being honest (I sincerely doubt it, but I'll take your word for it). That leaves you with option 2: you're stupid. Congrats.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:31 AM
2

:/ I honestly dislike this person, it's absolutely true, but the 'where are the sources!' argument for something like this? Really? I came up with this garbage whole cloth just to make feminists look bad? Really? For what gain? There are arguments and there are disingenuous arguments and this person has a history of the latter. Sorry that I'm not interested in pandering to them. In any case, I mentioned the source. You're free to look it up. I'm not going to pretend that I don't strongly dislike…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:23 AM
1

"Best of luck" (why bother with the "kill 'em with kindness" approach; does anyone fall for that crap anymore?) to you as well, but please know that your claim to be in support of men is entirely contradictory to your support of feminism. There is, quite literally, no hope of reconciling the two and you being patently dishonest about this fact, especially given the amount of time you've spent on this sub, just makes it more obvious that you are either dishonest or genuinely stupid. And, no, lip …
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:13 AM
2

To answer this POS' question... not for them, as I don't believe they are in any way honest, but, if there is genuine doubt..... the source is CurejoyMoms on FB. I encountered the above graphic because it was linked to/reposted/whatever by a friend on FB. I'm not going to go through the entire FB page just to prove this dishonest jackass wrong, but anyone else who doubts my integrity is welcome to do so. Btw, go the fuck away. You are cancer.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 11:57 PM
1

Ah, it's you... I was wondering if you'd show up to spread your cancerous ideas. Never discount the dedication of cancerous people, I suppose Sorry, but your pretense is genuinely aggravating. You are an incredibly disingenuous person and I honestly wish that transparently dishonest people like you would leave this sub. You do nothing to promote men's rights other than provide useless lip service. When you're not faking concern, you're promoting feminism (exactly what MRA's are fighting against)…
/r/MensRights29/11/17 11:47 PM
5

Pretty much, I was taught by both my parents to be good to everybody. Don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Maybe they were raised wrong...
/r/MensRights29/11/17 11:19 PM
8

I'm sad to say that you're probably right :( It's sanctioned child abuse. Not important if you're male, though \s
/r/MensRights29/11/17 10:59 PM
3

Yup. Feminists are so hell-bent on blaming men that they actually play themselves. They've basically said that women have been effectively useless mothers (except for this woke generation, of course) throughout history. According to feminists, women can't be trusted to raise men who aren't at least borderline rapists. Even a comparatively huge amount of time with female caretakers can't counter the forces of the Patriarchy!
/r/MensRights29/11/17 10:15 PM
4

An important point! Do they ever stop to think about the range of people they're talking about!? One wonders what they think of the rest of their family, and honestly humanity in general, if they can throw the ones closest to them under the bus like this.... wtf! Are they amnesiacs? Have ALL men and women in their lives been complete shit? I honestly can't fathom the mentality that would be required to think this shit was in any way complimentary to anyone, except vaguely themselves, and only va…
/r/MensRights29/11/17 09:41 PM
8

The self aggrandizing is truly astonishing, especially given the fact that they seem to think the previous generation of women failed completely. Do these lunatics not have mothers?
/r/MensRights29/11/17 08:54 PM
7

My mistake: It's every other man except your husband, you wonderful mother you. HE'S one of the few good men. Must have been raised by a 'woke' mother. I guess one of the few good women of the last generation? My head hurts.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 08:46 PM
11

Not too mention all previous generations of men. I guess the men who got them pregnant are all pieces of shit too. Truly despicable people.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 08:32 PM
7

Even worse, in spite of women apparently being completely ineffectual until this point, they're completely convinced that women are now the magical solution. Of course, the previous generation of women (them, of course) SOMEHOW managed to escape the evil influence of the Patriarchy!.... Must have been all those gender studies courses... Fuck, you would think it'd be impossible to be this delusional...
/r/MensRights29/11/17 08:26 PM
10

Menslib is a shithole of feminists 'helping' men by convincing them that masculinity is toxic and they're better off dropping it. Those people are the enemy.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 01:52 PM
2

Head in the sand. Truly pathetic. Idiots like you are why these problems exist.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/07/17 11:17 AM
0

But you literally said the Alabama and Alaskan (the only two states laws I read, in Alphabetical order) laws that only refer to genitalia "obviously meant breasts too" and weren't committing a double standard by banning them. You are, again... (again and again and again...), arguing semantics. I only care about what they mean and whether or not that definition is (again!) consistent between the genders. They might be wrong, but they're not sexist. The actual problem here is that you can't unders…
/r/MensRights16/06/17 12:33 AM
1

I've only got so much energy, man. I hope you've got a great point here. If it's more of the same, I'm gonna have to stop. Since you categorise breasts as sexual organs you claim there's no double standard for treating them like a penis or vagina since they are also sexual organs correct? Breasts are sexual organs. By definition. It has nothing to do with me. If the standard is sexual organs, then treating them as such is not a double standard. If the standard is not sexual organs, but rather ge…
/r/MensRights15/06/17 12:25 PM
1

Again, your hypothetical has nothing to do with my point! I'm not saying your silly hypotheticals are a double standard, I'm saying that modesty laws would only be sexist if there were a double standard. This is your Nixon argument again. If you want to argue that there is a conspiracy against women, go right the fuck ahead, but it's a stupid argument and, AGAIN, has NOTHING to do with my point. Yes, a conspiracy against women would be sexist, but you've provided no evidence that there is one.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 11:50 AM
1

You are again arguing nonsense hypotheticals. Every example you gave falls into the same Nixon conspiracy theory you tried to float earlier. My single argument is: Double standards are sexist. There is no double standard in the West; therefore, Western laws are not sexist. That is all. Are you sure you're not a feminist? You give me the vibes.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 10:50 AM
1

How do you keep misunderstanding this? Inconsistency = double standard We are not randomly declaring women's breasts immodest; we are declaring reproductive organs immodest. Men's breasts are not reproductive organs; therefore, there is no requirement to cover them.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 09:23 AM
1

Of course Hijabs are sexist, but if Saudi Arabia suddenly decided that men had to wear them, too, it would no longer be sexist.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 08:30 AM
1

If there is no double standard, then no. No country is bound by another's standards. What if instead of female breasts it was a different body part that they included in "sexy bits"? It doesn't matter which part, again, as long as they are consistent.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 07:25 AM
1

Not really. Sounds like a semantics issue. They clearly mean the sexy bits.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 01:28 AM
1

It's not impossible, but it's incredibly unlikely, and pure speculation on your part. Try Occam's Razor. On another note, would you say that places that do ban crotches but not women's breasts are being sexist in favour of women? After all, men have to cover all their sexual organs and the women don't. If the standard is that it's fine to show the chest area, regardless of gender, but crotches are forbidden, regardless of gender, then no it's not sexist. If the standard is no reproductive bits, …
/r/MensRights14/06/17 01:21 PM
1

Ok, so your new argument is a ludicrous conspiracy theory.... Wow, you're actually so emotionally invested in the idea of sexism that you're prepared to believe crap like that. Agree to disagree then, but it's a stupid idea that you have zero evidence for. Anyway, I'm guessing you're a feminist? This level of wilful self-delusion can only be the product of that cancer.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 12:38 PM
1

You are arguing semantics. It doesn't matter what people call them, they are still involved in reproduction. The line on exposure is drawn at the parts involved in reproduction, and the ass. As for your crack hypothetical. Men and women's breasts are NOT THE SAME! One is used for reproduction and the other isn't. That's the deciding line. If you want to change the line, again, go ahead make that case, but since everyone is complying with the same standards, it's not sexist. Why is this so hard f…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 11:55 AM
1

you just said "well that's stupid" you never gave reason why. I gave you the reason: You are trying to compare a false generalisation about men with a fact about women. Nipples are, by definition, sexual organs. This is a fact that is independent of any consensus. You're doing everything you can to try to weasel your way out of this fact, but it will remain true, no matter how many words you try to redefine to suit your argument.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 09:28 AM
1

I did address your hypothetical. I pointed out that your hypothetical made no sense. I addressed even the most reasonable interpretation of your hypothetical (which you, unsurprisingly ignored). You have routinely avoided all of my arguments. Talking with you is like playing a game of bad argument whack-a-mole. No one has he time to refute all of the dumb things you say.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 12:54 AM
1

So a consensus on who should be allowed to teach primary schools isn't arbitrary either? No! A consensus cannot be arbitrary. People, and reality, don't work that way. Please acquaint yourself with the definition of the word. If the consensus is to explicitly exclude men, then there is a reason, even if the reason is bad, meaning it is not arbitrary! So hypothetically if there was a consensus that all men were at high risk of being paedophiles if they try to get a job as a primary school teacher…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 12:28 AM
1

Btw, that's all you've got left? Quibbling over your incorrect usage of a word. Pathetic.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:29 PM
1

A consensus is not personal whim. Learn to understand words.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:23 PM
6

Small, independent films and 'the media' are not the same thing; pretty disingenuous comparison. And while it may not be illegal, talking about men's issues, or even acknowledging that they exist, is still pretty taboo in mainstream media, which is why they're rarely ever mentioned, especially relative to the amount of coverage women's 'issues' receive.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 05:21 PM
1

Uh, no...the law requires ALL reproductive organs, male or female, (I feel like you're never going to understand this concept, no matter how many times I repeat myself) to be covered. It is gender neutral. If the law were to grant an exemption to women's reproductive organs, that would be an example of a double standard. Yes, social expectations regarding coverage favour women. Glad you can acknowledge that at least. I'd rather be brainwashed than fundamentally incapable of understanding simple …
/r/MensRights13/06/17 04:00 PM
1

You say that reason is why they are forced to cover them, and claim that means it's not arbitrary. You clearly don't understand what arbitrary means: adjective: arbitrary based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. By definition, if there is a reasoning behind the action, then it is not arbitrary. You've yet to explain why you should cover up things people find sexually attractive. I haven't explained it because it's not the topic of the discussion. The issue is wh…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 03:48 PM
1

This argument is even more ridiculous when you consider that the only difference in legal expectations between men and women in the West is the nipple.... In terms of social expectations, save the nipple, women can expose far more of themselves and in a greater number of contexts than men, so...
/r/MensRights13/06/17 12:10 PM
1

Men's nipples are sexually stimulating too, many people find pectorals sexual. There's a difference between women and men's hair as well, does that mean we should make Hijab's mandatory? The entirety of the human body can be considered sexually attractive, but it would obviously be impractical to force everyone to cover up everything, so here in the West we (somewhat recently) decided to limit only the display of reproductive organs, both primary and secondary. Oh, and ass holes as well, I guess…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:57 AM
1

Breastfeeding in public is a controversial issue as well. Most people expect the woman to cover up. And yes, breast-feeding as well as the fact that it's an erogenous zone make them sexual. Also, men regard breasts as sexual, whether they or women like it or not. How can it be arbitrary if there's a difference?
/r/MensRights13/06/17 09:49 AM
1

I don't even know where to start with this... seriously? You do know where milk comes from, right?
/r/MensRights13/06/17 09:11 AM
0

That has to do with exposing sexual organs. Women have to cover their breasts for the same reason they have to cover their vaginas and men their dick and balls. It has nothing to do with discrimination.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 08:51 AM
8

If those men aren't allowed to speak about men's issues, it really doesn't make a difference how many of them there are, does it?
/r/MensRights13/06/17 08:22 AM
1

I admire thoroughness, no worries. 2016 is worse than 2012. WTF!
/r/MensRights12/06/17 02:42 AM
1

This actually happened up until 2012!? When was it implemented?
/r/MensRights12/06/17 01:35 AM
2

Hello there! Quite the thorough answer :D Wasn't even expecting a response, but I got all this. A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one. Anyway, thanks for the reply! Understood!
/r/MensRights12/06/17 01:33 AM
1

How would they know if you guessed or not? Maybe you made a mistake?
/r/MensRights12/06/17 12:29 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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