~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
blackboxoz
[–]Cursedwithknowing106 points107 points108 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This is truth. Women have always been like that. Feminism has allowed the to take off the mask and show their true nature.
[–]External-Can-783955 points56 points57 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The fact that every woman across race, religion, creed, and culture innately friendzones the best long term prospect man without having to go to Friendzone 101 School proves this is their nature.
[–]priestMarX18 points19 points20 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They’ll tell you the friendzone doesn’t exist though. Smfh
[–]Global_MGTOW68 points69 points70 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Social media has allowed women to expose themselves, all for internet attention and likes. They've always been like this, now we just have everything documented.
[–]Legs2big51 points52 points53 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Highly skilled cheaters. Never go for LTRs, lads. Only hit once because as soon as you get out she’s already onto some other lad’s totem. We’re merely taking turns with them, they’re community property.
[–]kgopza5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Pussy socialism
[–]fmanly32 points33 points34 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Yup. This is the problem with traditionalism. Yes, people didn't get divorced 100 years ago. However, this just meant that you were stuck in a marriage with a woman who didn't want to be there. That really isn't a pleasant way to live for most of your life.
Sure, gynocentrism has gone off the rails today, but even though MGTOW is unpleasant for some, it really is better off than how many relationships end up being.
[–]cole_world2120 points21 points22 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Finally someone said it. There aren’t many happy relationships past a couple years. Societal standards and pressure such as children and image hold most together
[–]fmanly6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Stardusk talks about this from time to time. Men and women just are very different. They often have different hobbies, and they approach things differently.
Relationships can be good in the sense that they help you to expand your horizons. However, they are often filled with conflict for the same reason.
Put it another way: suppose you were chatting with a guy you bumped into and you found out his hobbies were sewing and misc crafts, and he spent much of his time chatting with friends about the latest raunchy gossip and constantly complained on Twitter about how the world is so unfair and how somebody needs to take care of him. He has zero interest in just about anything you do. Then he suggests that maybe you could go shopping at the mall for a few hours looking at clothing, and hints that maybe you could buy him something nice. Would this be somebody you would be interested in having a friendship with, assuming you weren't gay (I don't claim to speak for gay men, but I suspect they wouldn't be much more interested)? Of course not. And yet this would be pretty normal behavior for a lot of women.
If you take away the sexual element, there isn't much of a drive to have relationships with most women in the first place.
Then there is the biological angle. I think people are just wired to have wandering eyes for evolutionary reasons. This probably manifests differently in men and women, but it seems like a lot of couples just get tired of each other after a few years, especially if they're living together.
[–]d16784809 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Exactly, and paternity tests on the children of men back then, especially military men show this as well. A lot of those men were living in ignorance, i.e. bluepill.
[–]priestMarX7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Funny how not sleeping around with dozens of people first makes it easier to stay with one person. But you can’t mention that to them of course
[–]fmanly9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't think people staying together back then had anything to do with sleeping around. They stayed together because the laws and society forced them to.
If a woman sought a divorce because she just wasn't happy, then the courts would have found her at fault. She wouldn't get custody of the children. She would get almost nothing in the way of money. She might end up having to pay child support to the father (not so sure about that). And that is just the legal consequences. Then her family would refuse to associate with her. Women only had so many job opportunities back then in the first place, and the nicer ones probably wouldn't go anywhere near a divorced woman. So, her life would be very difficult. No other man would go anywhere near her, because if he introduced her to his family/friends now he would be a pariah.
I think not sleeping around probably did make people somewhat happier back then, simply because they weren't alpha widows. However, people still had eyes, and they could see that the man they're with isn't the man they'd most prefer.
Of course, nobody has real numbers on dead bedrooms and marital happiness/etc. There are divorce stats, but they don't really tell the whole story. People weren't avoiding divorce because they were happy - it was because they were legally forced to do so.
And much of the above applied to men as well. If a man just abandoned his wife for basically anything short of her being caught cheating, then his life would be in the gutter. Then he would be found at-fault, his wife would get just about everything, he would be paying alimony/support/etc, and now nobody would want to have anything to do with him. That includes employers - if he used to be an accountant now he is a janitor.
The old system was a lot better for children, and for society. Whether it was better for the couples themselves is a mixed bag.
[–]kgopza1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank you for stating facts
[–]kgopza0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I wish I could upvote this comment a thousand times
[–]ThotQuestion0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Failure is assured, divorce is the least severe fail conditions.
[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
🙌🏼
[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wait, they're all AWALT? Always has been.
Wait, they're all AWALT?
Always has been.
[–]Magnusson_900010 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women are just deceitful men with makeup and different naughty parts.
[–]not_a_belieber8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women's nature has always been known, read parts of the Christian Bible, it makes it quite clear.
The Koran states (correct me if I'm wrong) "A woman's word will only be accepted when she has 3 male witnesses" - clearly making it easy for a woman to sway 2 SIMPs, but 3 is more difficult.
[–]a_quiet_accountant3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
true
[–]Handsome-Ben2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Based
[–]demimg2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
word!
[–]hankoBreadCrumbs891 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep!!
[–]RedEyeBlackEye11 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It merely awakened the repressed beast that existed in the hind regions of their brains
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If only the old texts had video evidence of women's degenerate behavior back then. Now that the internet never forgets, the next generation has no excuse not to learn
[+][deleted] 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[+][deleted] 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Cursedwithknowing106 points107 points108 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]External-Can-783955 points56 points57 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]priestMarX18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Global_MGTOW68 points69 points70 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Legs2big51 points52 points53 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kgopza5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly32 points33 points34 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]cole_world2120 points21 points22 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]d16784809 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]priestMarX7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmanly9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kgopza1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kgopza0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThotQuestion0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Magnusson_900010 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]not_a_belieber8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]a_quiet_accountant3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Handsome-Ben2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]demimg2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hankoBreadCrumbs891 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedEyeBlackEye11 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[removed]