TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Financial_Window_990 Archive

View 2 posts and 719 comments by Financial_Window_990 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
83

Activism/SupportFinancial_Window_990/r/MensRights06/03/23 11:23 AM
2

False AccusationFinancial_Window_990/r/MensRights29/07/22 01:54 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

False. Not property. The husband was there for them. They got better education than men, unless those men were from top 1% families. Unpaid labor is a 21st century construct because nobody was stupid enough to believe it before. If a heterosexual woman was given the opportunity to choose whatever man turns her on, have that man slave away all day and she could have sex with him any time she wanted(remember, she's choosing him), if she got tired of him she could claim he hit her and he would be "…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 02:35 AM
1

No. They weren't. They were there to be given the opportunity to become the next teachers and nurses and to be able to help their sons and daughters to learn while the men were out working. And now you're on the unpaid labor argument. An invention of the 21st century, BTW. It's a bullshit argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 08:34 PM
1

Still wrong. Average men didn't make it to 5th grade. They were pulled to work on the farms, in the mines, and eventually in the factories, as did a few of the poorest girls. The average man was only there to keep him out of his mother's way and to learn to read and write well enough to sign his name and enough math to count money. As soon as he was useful he was put to work.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 08:28 PM
1

No. I'm not. Again, they, and you, are comparing the highest achieving men against average women.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 06:38 PM
1

Huh? No AVERAGE women went to school longer and got a better education than AVERAGE men. Again, stop comparing the most affluent highest achieving men with average women.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 06:16 PM
1

Education is important for quality of life. Being barred from it is barbaric. Yes, that's why women got a BETTER education than men. It was ONLY extremely rich men that got a better education. Stop comparing average women to the most affluent 0.1% of men and male privilege disappears.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 05:47 PM
1

Wrong. The housewife thing stretched back for millennia. Bullshit. They started caring about DV over 3000 years ago when it was a death penalty offense and they cared about it in the 1700s and the 1800s, all the way up to the 1960s when it was standard practice for law enforcement to look ghe other way while they took the abuser on a long walk. It was never common to neglect your wife and kids. Never. And they were never property.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 05:44 PM
1

Oh, you mean the jobs they CHOSE to do in the first place? Men never got a choice to work. It used to be death penalty to lay hands on your wife. They didn't even wait for a judge, they just took you out for a walk you never came back from. It was never common to spend the money on alcohol and neglect your wife and kids. That was punished severely. Rich women didn't HAVE to get an education. Little Suzy Bezos could just marry little X Musk and live a free life doing whatever she wanted.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 12:59 AM
1

They were forced to work dirty, dangerous, and often deadly jobs until their bodies broke. Only the super rich got beyond what we would call a 5th grade education, if that. They were entirely at the mercy of their wives. If the failed to properly feed, clothe, and house their wives they could be punished, and anything the wife did wrong was punishment for the husband as well. They were considered beasts of burden and less than dirt. Their lives were constantly forfeit if needed to save their wiv…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 12:21 AM
2

Then, by that logic men were even more oppressed than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 08:48 PM
1

Yes. Alongside their husbands. And some were teachers, nurses, etc. All a small percentage. Yes. They didn't control their finances, their husbands carried that burden. Single women did control their own finances, had their own bank accounts, and own their own land. Having a distinct job is not hate. You're not oppressed because someone else has a different job with different burdens than you.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 08:24 PM
1

No. This is basic knowledge. You would have t p be stupid to not know misandry is systemic.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:04 PM
1

UNWomen is the worst one. They don't even recognize that men can be victims, and they use the Duluth model which holds that only men can be perpetrators and has been debunked by its own authors.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:51 AM
1

Not a single one is a credible source, pookie
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:45 AM
1

You just proved yourself wrong. 🤡
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:35 AM
1

No. You've just proven you're an idiot. That study does not focus on reciprocal violence. It focuses on all violence. It's very clear.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:32 AM
1

Awww. You can't read.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:30 AM
1

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:27 AM
1

You're really so uneducated that you don't know these basic facts? Fuck man, we've known this shit SINCE THE FUCKING 1970s.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:17 AM
1

https://preview.redd.it/m23czz741n5h1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0c3d91459137989b4ded73ef5ba446b0e2e48bd
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:15 AM
1

https://preview.redd.it/vp42gd1p0n5h1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3ea22bf5127080f60dad291dd235ba7338ada8b
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:13 AM
1

Not my job to educate you on something that 6th graders know.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:08 AM
1

No. Zero factual research says otherwise. 1.7% of men were made to penetrate by a eoman(a.k.a. raped) in the previous 12 months. 1.6% of women were raped by men in the previous 12 months. SA less than rape is nearly identical. In DV, 49.7% is bidirectional, both partners engaging. Of that, 80% is initiated by the woman. Of the other 50.3%, 70% is female perpetrator, while 30% is male perpetrator. Do the math, and it comes to 75% of DV is either solely perpetrated by or initiated by the woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:07 AM
1

According to the CDC.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 09:57 AM
1

You MUST live under a rock. 48% of SA are male perpetrators. 25% of DV perpetrators are male.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 09:53 AM
1

Huh? You've done ZERO research. Men barely lead in ANY violence. The only way to have men be higher is to count only arrests, and then only arrest men. Women rape men at the same rates, we just don't count it as rape (requires victim penetration) Women commit 2.3 TIMES more IPV than men. Women commit 4 TIMES more child abuse. Women commit similar rates of child sexual abuse, the law doesn't care because women most often target boys.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 09:50 AM
1

That's backward. The vast majority of misogyny, at least in "western culture" is baseline annoyance. Misandry is institutional and systemic putting men in constant danger, killing millions every year.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 09:44 AM
2

No. The older ways of thinking are based on 2 things: 1. The nature of jobs outside of the home that existed. 2. Pure unadulterated mother nature. If very few women were capable of the vast majority of jobs just by simple muscle mass, they're not going to be in those jobs. Add in: no birth control as it wasn't invented yet, no formula, no breast pumps, no safe abortions. None of the modern advances that make women in the workplace possible. There's zero hate in the old women should stay in the h…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 09:42 AM
0

It's not even remotely what he said.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 09:34 AM
4

male rapists, because they perpetrate that violence disproportionately No. They don't.
/r/MensRights12/05/26 04:52 PM
1

Oh look, there you are initiating this while thread.... https://preview.redd.it/wimnfih6zi0h1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=601e0c1b4680a434cdca33eb0bf69c069f4f17c9
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 03:17 PM
1

No. My comment was NOT targeted at you. Open your eyes. https://preview.redd.it/sq21w206yi0h1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=38df021c70014023efe5e4ebb530b7c825b54b84
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 03:11 PM
1

Again, YOU HAD BEEN RESPONDING TO THE SAME PERSON I WAS RESPONDING TO. Then you jumped ON MY RESPONSE TO THAT OTHER PERSON. THAT os where the confusion came from.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 03:06 PM
1

You were responding to them in the first place...... https://preview.redd.it/psijw998wi0h1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b94a336482845f44341e84d9de06927331e61a06
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 03:00 PM
1

Kind of. There's another person in this thread. They equated bot wanting a Trans person as a partner to transphobia.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 01:48 PM
1

It is just as traumatic for men. We're just not allowed to be traumatized by it, under orders from the women around us, so we shove it down.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/05/26 02:52 AM
3

The OP is stating a preference, not wanting a trans-woman. You immediately went to shaming and calling him a bigot. There was ZERO bigotry expressed. There is no bigotry involved in not wanting a Trans person. Some people want biological children with their partner. There is zero chance of that with a Trans person. Some people want the "real thing", in this case a vagina that was not created on an operating table. There is a difference. Some people don't want a penis, as many Trans women have no…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 02:47 AM
1

You are literally proving the OP right.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 02:25 AM
0

You can stop lying and start holding your fellow women accountable. Try googling "men crying is an ick" and see the response.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 04:15 PM
0

A man expressing emotions, especially with tears, is one of the universal "icks".
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 04:07 PM
0

This is opposite of reality. Every man who has opened up once learned very quickly never to do it again. It's a universal "ick"
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 04:06 PM
1

It hasn't been. In use anywhere.
/r/MensRights06/05/26 01:54 PM
2

When over 90% react badly......
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 01:31 PM
3

It IS broadly true. This is a basic fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 01:19 PM
3

Red pill doesn't teach vulnerability is weakness. It teaches that women see vulnerabilities as weakness, which is true.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 12:10 PM
1

Of the universe.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 11:47 PM
1

No. They are opposite ends of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 11:22 PM
12

The stance I've most often seen is essentially We all go, or none of us go. Either both men and women are equally eligible for the draft, or we don't have a draft.
/r/MensRights15/04/26 12:49 AM
4

That's the opposite of what the data shows. Your OWN sources debunk you.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/26 12:50 AM
2

Lol. Half of your links debunk you.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/26 12:48 AM
1

It's not hair splitting. 99% of women easily opened an account. No issues. It was a very small set of bankers who pulled this in the late 60s through early 70s. It was not routine. It was not widespread.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 11:22 PM
1

Again, that's a lie. There was no law BARRING DISCRIMINATION. It was perfectly legal for a woman to open an account, own property, and access credit without a male's signature. The issue was NEVER legality to do so, it was always a lack of making it illegal to discriminate.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 09:03 PM
1

Yes. It is. And yes, it's easily verifiable that it's a lie. The operative word you're missing here is "guaranteed". Not "couldn't". Women COULD, and have been able to all along. What happened was that a few misogynistic bankers found that there wasn't a law saying they COULDN'T discriminate, so they did, all amidst a pushback against womenss liberation in the 60s through early 70s. There was never a need for a law because it had never happened before. There also wasn't a law saying men couldn't…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 08:50 PM
2

Again, this is a blatant lie. Women were allowed to open accounts by themselves long before the 70s.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 08:44 PM
3

This is within MY living memory. My living memory of my grandmother owning her own house, having her own bank accounts dating all the way back to the 1930s, owned her own car with her own insurance that she purchased with her own credit. All before she supposedly could do those things according to the lies you've been told.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 07:43 PM
1

This is just plain wrong. Men were burdened with, FORCED, the responsibility of being the one to deal with those things. There was no prohibition against a woman doing them. Originally, his wages, property, everything belonged to the marriage union just the same as hers. The law didn't shift. Its the same. We just call it all marital property now and have closed the loopholes that allowed discrimination to happen. Women could get car insurance and loans. Ellen Burstyn had more rights than her hu…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 07:34 PM
0

This is ALL incorrect. The equal credit opportunity act made discrimination against women illegal. There had previously neen no need for a law BECAUSE IT HAD NEVER HAPPENED until a small group of misogynist bankers found the loophole and decided to discriminate as a backlash against women's lib. The same is true of the women's business ownership act of 1988. A loophole allowing discrimination was found. The government closed it. In the 1800s women could own property all they wanted. It was actua…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 07:16 PM
9

Wrong. WOMEN get special consideration to get into college. Men are legally discriminated against and placed behind women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 07:01 PM
10

The operative word you're missing here is "guaranteed". Not "couldn't". Women COULD, and have been able to all along. What happened was that a few misogynistic bankers found that there wasn't a law saying they couldn't discriminate, so they did amidst a pushback against womenss liberation in the 60s through early 70s. There was never a need for a law because it had never happened before. There also wasn't a law saying men couldn't be discriminated against in the exact same way.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 06:57 PM
5

Neither of those are true. I already covered the bank accounts stupidity. Let's hit the idiotic marital rape argument. There were plenty of laws regarding rape, and they applied to rape within marriages. The issue was that it was extremely difficult to prove rape within a marriage, and you could not be compelled to testify against your spouse. The new laws sought to solve those problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 06:54 PM
11

This thing you call patriarchy does NOT benefit men. Men are not in power. A few rich people, a majority of them men, have power. We don't live in a culture that values men's power over women's rights. First, men would have to have power. They don't. Second, women would have to have fewer rights. They don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 06:50 PM
2

Coverture held the exact same for men. Men were but a simple servant to their wives. The two were required under coverture to come together as one entity. And it never went away. Some parts were weakened, sure. The core is still there. We just call it marital property now.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 06:43 PM
2

The operative word you're missing here is "guaranteed". Not "couldn't". Women COULD, and have been able to all along. What happened was that a few misogynistic bankers found that there wasn't a law saying they couldn't discriminate, so they did amidst a pushback against womenss liberation in the 60s through early 70s. There was never a need for a law because it had never happened before. There also wasn't a law saying men couldn't be discriminated against in the exact same way.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 06:24 PM
8

No. Its existence is DIRECTLY to advantage women over men. Historically women could own property, businesses, have bank accounts, etc. The rhetoric that they couldn't is proof that feminism is NOT about equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 05:38 PM
7

Except the reality is that both trees were 7 ft. The push is to make one 8 ft by chopping the top off the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 05:35 PM
15

Men aren't the oppressive group.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 05:33 PM
14

It does belittle men. That's the whole reason for its existence.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 05:32 PM
1

Anti-abortion sentiment is driven by women. How do we get to anti-feminist pushback when the entire leadership and majority of the members of the Anti-abortion movement are women?
/r/MensRights05/04/26 02:19 PM
1

“A ruler’s most important political move is courting women and talking their language. He knows that once he has the women with him, he will get the men automatically.” Esther Vilar, The Polygamous Sex, p.57
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 07:00 PM
-2

No. They do not. Not if they want to survive in this society.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 02:40 PM
-2

Except the fact that politically misogynist men AREN'T the misogynists. Their wives, mothers, sisters, Aunts, grandmothers, and female friends are. It is those WOMEN that are guiding them to take away women's rights. Don't believe me? The two largest anti-abortion groups in America are run by women. Carol Tobias, a cisgender woman, is the president of the National Right To Life Committee.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 12:31 PM
1

Except women are NOT more likely to be victims of intimate paryner violence or sexual assault
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/26 03:42 AM
-1

That's EXACTLY how it works. You're on the hook for paternity and can not be removed until someone else steps up to pay for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/26 11:26 PM
1

You've got it wrong. Negging is NOT about self esteem. It's about creating a high, then a low, then a high, then a low, then.... It's to create the Rollercoaster effect in her emotions, not degrade her.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/26 12:23 AM
1

Rape is any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence or threats to physically harm) and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types: completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration. Among women, rape includes vagin…
/r/MensRights03/03/26 10:17 PM
2

No. We don't.
/r/MensRights25/02/26 09:42 PM
–

This is wrong. Men have an explicit bias against other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 01:05 PM
-1

Yes. You're right... A fetish is a sexual fixation required for arousal. When you refuse to date a mam who is under 6' and view those under 6' incapable of attracting you, you are explicitly stating that you have a fetish for extremely tall men.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/26 06:16 PM
3

Because it's a majority of women doing this, and they are enforcing it upon the rest of women
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/26 06:12 PM
-6

Not dating, and specifically when 99% of women won't date a man because of something IS ITSELF OSTRACIZATION. To put it simply, when you tell men to open up, be vulnerable, etc. you are asking him to be ostracized by most women.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/26 04:15 AM
-9

Then you have no idea what social acceptance is. And your trans women comment? Trans women are not IN my gender of attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/26 02:17 AM
0

Social acceptance is by it's very nature having your gender of attraction date you.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/26 02:10 AM
1

No. It's a term for what women SAY they want, but reject when choosing a man
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/26 04:10 PM
1

No. You and other women just like you. YOU are the one who used that term. Where it comes from doesn't matter. It's still what you reject.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/26 03:37 PM
1

You reject "beta bux". You reject everything you say is good.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/26 03:24 PM
1

No. The opposite. We want women who want good men. We have to search through thousands of women chasing rapists to find ONE that actually wants a good man.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/26 03:09 PM
–

You guys think men not committing crime makes them good and when women explain what they consider good men, you guys cry beta bux. No. You reject what you SAY you want and go for the opposite. Because you guys want those women because she doesn't need a guy to be "beta bux" to fuck, but she's also likely to care whether or not the guy doesn't commit crimes. The number of women chasing after convicted rapists debunks that enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/26 02:44 PM
–

None of that is rooted in reality
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/26 02:01 PM
0

Science says otherwise. The chore gap is made up. Only counting things that are traditionally done by women in the home as "chores" makes it faulty.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/26 05:29 PM
1

No. The majority of men YOU CHOOSE are bad partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/26 05:16 PM
7

Reading comprehension is key. The traits that women complain about in men are rare. Women will reject 9 good men who do not have those traits to go after 1 guy who is shitty in some way. Conversely, the traits that men complain about in women are common. Men have to weed through 9 women before they find that 1 who is good. There is also 8 other good guys trying to get that 1 good woman, and a bad man as well that they're in competition with.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/26 11:03 AM
6

Yes. Women are going out and choosing a small minority of men, a.k.a. as the bad men, over the majority of men that are good. The second is men dealing with the majority of women, and the reality of what women do, while trying to find the small minority of women who are actually good.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/26 10:50 AM
4

No. I showed exactly how you're wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/26 10:12 AM
5

The first is women choosing a minority of men over the majority of men. The second is men dealing with the majority of women over an extreme minority of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/26 01:40 AM
1

Men don't oppress women. Rich people oppress everybody....women are part of everybody.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/26 01:27 AM
–

Seems like you're ignoring an issue where it's undeniable
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/26 02:51 PM
–

So, I have to approach her, be exactly the right amount of charming and confident, do all of the planning, show up, continue to perform perfectly, plan a fun activity that she will enjoy in addition to food, and pay for it all, while she merely has to show up. Got it. Mismatch in effort. Blatant misandry detected
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/26 02:38 PM
–

Again. Not a matter of doing those things. It's a matter of being the only one who has to.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/26 02:32 PM
–

A café? Coffee dates are a huge red flag. Do try to keep up.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/26 02:27 PM
–

It's not an issue of having to do those things, it's an issue of being the only one in the relationship that has to do those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/26 01:39 PM
1

Nope. You're not even close. That organization has zero misogyny.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/26 09:02 AM
1

The organizations in question is the National Organization for Women. Men tried in Detroit AND in Toronto and were met with organized resistance. https://titleixforall.com/protesters-threaten-violence-and-death-against-international-mens-issues-conference-in-detroit-at-doubletree-hilton/
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/26 01:29 AM
1

Yes. Testing rape kits reduces convictions. The FBI crime lab did a study. Out of 10,000 cases randomly pulled 2,000 completely exonerated the accused. The independent licensed crime labs were polled, 19 of them responded and pinned the exoneration rate at 26%. Without knowing how many are processed by one or the other, that would leave it somewhere between 20% and 26%, or 1/5 to 1/4 of cases thrown out immediately. That figure holds in post-conviction exonerations through DNA. Absent DNA, absen…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 08:17 PM
1

Lower prosecution rates. Rape has an extremely high rate of post-conviction exonerations through DNA evidence. The source of that DNA is, of course, the rape kit. By the time the appeal goes through and the kit is dug up, that prosecutor has had an average of 7 years continuing to do their cushy government job before it's even possible for anyone to find out they convicted an innocent man. Meanwhile, that conviction is added to their tally while they seek to be re-appointed/elected or even seek …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 06:54 PM
1

The comment being responded to is.... Okay. Let’s say all appropriate precaution is taken. Say pre coitus too both parties agree that a child is definitively not an option. Pregnancy occurs. The woman changes her mind. Decides to keep it. Should she have that right? If so, then what recourse should the man have? This is an extremely COMMON case. It happens all the time. it's not fringe or rare in any way. Condoms fail about 12% in real world use and birth control is 2-3% if taken faithfully.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 04:46 PM
1

Feminist theory, patriarchy theory, et. al. is the art of framing. For example, "women were not allowed to work" is framing the issue unilaterally. It's not only not true at all(teachers, nurses, etc.), but it also completely ignores the logical opposite (which actually IS true), which is "men were forced to work". Pretty much everything in feminism is the same.
/r/MensRights25/01/26 04:38 PM
1

It's an extremely COMMON case.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 04:28 PM
1

Prosecutors will block any and all attempts to force rape kits be processed immediately. Of course, they won't do it openly, but they WILL find a way to block it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 04:21 PM
2

None of that is true. Men can not "peace out". He can choose to not be an ACTIVE PARENT, but he can never abdicate responsibility. They WILL track him down, they will make him pay, and any attempt by him to get out of it results in prison.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 04:12 PM
2

But this is not something that women can do for men… Men have to get involved politically and actually fight for the changes they want to occur. The majority of elected politicians are still men, so the deck is already stacked in their favor. This is something women HAVE to do for men. Any and EVERY time men try to organize for rights they are shut down. Death threats, bomb threats, called names, labeled as misogynists and incels and...., canceled. Men lose jobs over even being associated with a…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 04:07 PM
1

But this is not something that women can do for men… Men have to get involved politically and actually fight for the changes they want to occur. The majority of elected politicians are still men, so the deck is already stacked in their favor. This is something women HAVE to do for men. Any and EVERY time men try to organize for rights they are shut down. Death threats, bomb threats, called names, labeled as misogynists and incels and...., canceled. Men lose jobs over even being associated with a…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 04:07 PM
1

And liberals who voted against including women draft registration when they could have. It's also feminists who gave millions to those conservatives and liberals to keep equality out. The main reason it failed is because it actually had equality in it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/26 07:59 PM
4

There is a MASSIVE difference between what they "advocate" for and what they spend money bribing(lobbying) politicians to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/26 07:55 PM
1

From feminists. From the National Organization for Women that spent MILLIONS keeping the draft intact.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/26 07:45 PM
1

Women (feminists, actually) DON'T want to eliminate the draft. They want to activate it and let men be drafted.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/26 07:43 PM
-2

Nope. It was feminists. A million per politician who voted against it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/26 07:42 PM
-12

Women put Trump in office, not men.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/26 06:43 PM
-2

The problem is twofold: 1. Men are standing but women, who are the majority of voters, refuse to stand with them. 2. Feminists actively work against eliminating the draft. They've spent billions fighting it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/26 06:41 PM
3

They ARE adapting. Once the adapting is done they stop complaining because it worked.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/26 01:20 AM
2

No. Red pill teaches men to do what some men (the "chads" in RP speak) do naturally. Do they take it to the extreme? Yes. In large part to 1. Smack a "blue pill" guy out of his stupidity, and 2. The old "if you shoot for the stars but only reach the moon, you've still gotten to the moon" strategy. IOW, if you're striving for something extreme, getting part way there, "failing", is still a long way.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/26 08:11 AM
3

No. Red pill helps get and keep partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/26 12:37 AM
1

Yes. That difference in intensity, duration, and volume is Because. You're. Not. Always. Orgasming.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/26 01:56 AM
1

I think the issue is that there ISN'T an orgasm gap, they're comparing ejaculation in a man to orgasm in a woman instead of orgasm vs. orgasm. Ask any man if he has had completely different "orgasms", one which is eyes rolling up grabbing hold of something oh my god awesome and the other just kind of "meh, I got off". He'll tell you yes. That's because the 2nd one he didn't actually orgasm, he just ejaculated. They're two different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/26 01:38 AM
7

Still no link
/r/MensRights02/01/26 08:35 PM
1

Yes. They do. Every year 800,000 more men are abused by their female partners than are women by their male partners. You can't use two accounts. The system automatically flags it and bans the user.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/25 10:13 PM
1

Yes. They do. In DV cases unidirectional violence is 70% women perpetrators, bidirectional is initiated 80% by women. Women commit sexual assault and rape at equal or higher rates every year.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/25 09:45 PM
1

No. Women do it at higher rates.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/25 09:33 PM
1

No. You're wrong.
/r/MensRights29/12/25 08:00 PM
1

They just gave you the federal definition of rape. Every government agency HAS to follow it. Every definition by every state, every organization that receives federal funding, and every state must adhere to that definition, even if the way they word it is different
/r/MensRights29/12/25 07:59 PM
6

It was started by wealthy women who wanted to be wealthier.
/r/MensRights27/12/25 05:59 PM
4

Feminism never was grassroots. It was always the elites running it for their own purposes.
/r/MensRights27/12/25 05:58 PM
3

In the U.S. it is NOT reciprocal rape unless the woman sticks something up the man's "backside". Federally, rape requires that the victim be penetrated.
/r/MensRights27/12/25 01:04 PM
2

This is called "being an adult". Having to process threat is a constant thing for men.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 12:59 PM
1

Male only draft and circumcision are definitely women caused.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/25 11:55 PM
3

Women are ALREADY up 30 steps. It's not equality, it's outright dominance. https://www.pmc.gov.au/beta https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/17/5360.full.pdf?utm_content=buffer45fda&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/25 01:22 AM
1

Men are primarily oppressed by women. Women are primarily oppressed by other women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/25 12:55 AM
–

You're displaying willful deliberate ignorance.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/25 12:53 AM
3

The data backs up that women are privileged in hiring.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/25 12:52 AM
1

Women(girls for the younger parts, but...) are privileged in education across the board. Are punished less at school for the same behaviors. Are privileged in college admissions, financial aid, scholarships, and grading. At work, women are privileged in hiring, promotion, and pay, and are less often fired for behaviors that would see a man instantly terminated. In the criminal justice system women are privileged at every level. When a man and a woman commit the same crime, the woman has around a…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/25 12:50 AM
1

When the entirety of every facet of social isolation of men is caused by women forcefully upholding sexist standards for men, it is completely correct to blame women.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/25 08:53 PM
1

Again, a you problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 11:43 PM
1

https://a.co/d/7MIeqUL I'm sure you can find a copy free somewhere, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 10:45 PM
2

Except it's NOT the only thing they complain about. It's just the one YOU are hyperfocused on.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 10:42 PM
3

Because it's not "women won't fuck me." You're looking at a singular symptom. The problem is the syndrome, the symptom is just the part that annoys you.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 10:36 PM
2

You can literally Google "nice guy syndrome" or actually read a book.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 10:20 PM
1

That IS THE RESEARCH.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 10:18 PM
2

Pretty funny that it's on psychology sites being defined. There's papers written about it. Best selling books written about it. But, according to you, oh wise random fool on reddit, it's made up.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 07:09 PM
3

It's not false. It's been a known thing for decades. Where tf have you been? We're trained to recognize patterns exactly like nice guy syndrome.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 05:24 PM
1

Yes. I took that directly from a Psychiatry site just to make sure I got it exactly.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 05:19 PM
4

That's the clinical definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 05:13 PM
6

That's the clinical definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 05:13 PM
10

It IS a trauma response. Nice try at victim blaming. The psychological roots of "nice guy syndrome" stem from childhood experiences of neglect, abandonment, or emotional abuse, which lead to deep-seated shame, low self-worth, and a fear of rejection. To cope with this insecurity, individuals develop a people-pleasing "nice guy" persona, believing that by constantly performing and suppressing negative feelings, they can earn love and approval from others, especially women, and avoid feeling unwor…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:10 PM
7

That's NOT how we end up with nice guys. Nice Guy syndrome is a TRAUMA RESPONSE, not a failure to understand complex morals.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:46 PM
–

Because women never have to.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 09:58 PM
1

You're confusing two separate things.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 05:13 PM
1

It is not a matter of thinking. It's a matter of fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 02:27 AM
2

That's just a long-winded version of "I'm not your therapist" while expecting him to be yours.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/25 02:40 AM
1

Most people SENT TO DIE were men. I can only surmise that it is you that is trolling. Nobody can be as ignorant of basic facts and history as you.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 12:19 AM
1

No. You're the one who needs to take accountability Women in power invade and rule. Men do what their masters want. If you think women in direct power would be better, you have ZERO knowledge of history. Men are in those positions of power in part to create a buffer between the thirsty warmongers and sanity. Research on European monarchs from 1480 to 1913 found that states led by queens were 27% to 39% more likely to wage war than those led by kings.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 11:41 PM
1

Stop spreading lies. This is such basic history it is sickening that you would try to spread such absolute utter nonsense. You'd have to be an idiot to actually believe what you're peddling. “Women are the real architects of society.” ― Harriet Beecher Stowe Agriculture and domestic life: Women played a critical role in developing and refining farming techniques, managing household economies, and creating culinary traditions that were essential for early settlements to thrive. Social and communi…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 08:47 PM
1

You need to take responsibility. It is a very basic fact that WOMEN created and rule society.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 07:06 PM
1

I'm not. Men built THINGS. Houses, roads, walls, etc. Women built society with all the rules. Everything that men have done, the grand arc of human history, is in service to women's needs and wants.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 06:11 PM
1

Men didn't create this system. This is BASIC fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 05:16 PM
1

Wrong again. It's always been women. YOU need to take accountability.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 04:56 PM
1

Again, holding a position does not mean actual power. He(She) who controls the decision maker is the one in power.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 04:37 PM
1

Because they were FORCED to. Again, holding a position of power does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean that person is the one actually in power. Just like a congress member is corrupted by his/her donors, the person who holds influence and power over the law maker is the one really in power. That has always been women.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 10:41 AM
1

She who controls the man with the biggest stick.... There is all the evidence in the world. It's a fundamental truth that men would have stayed in caves if it wasn't for the requirements of getting and keeping women. Keeping them safe, and fed, and happy is why everything was built in the first place, why (and largely by whom) society was built, etc. It's called "soft power" and it has run the world since the dawn of time.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 03:53 AM
–

Except sex is the determining factor on getting care, loyalty, consideration, etc. A woman who does not want to give a man sex FIRST will never give him the rest.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 03:37 AM
1

When the fight for resources began in human history, it was those who were strong enough to enlist their physical abilities of war and production (food, weaponry, etc) to control those resources who came into power. No. They didn't "come into power" they fought on behalf of someone else, a.k.a. women. Did you know there are six things in the bible that women are required to do for their husbands, and over 300 requirements on men to do for their wives? Hardly patriarchal, Especially when most of …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 03:33 AM
2

Being forced to take on a burden is not power. "Men" have never been in power. Historically, it is the extremely wealthy of BOTH sexes that have been in power with women being the puppet masters behind everything. We've NEVER had a patriarchy. We have alternated between plutarchy and what is known as a soft power matriarchy, with women using their influence (along with their utter refusal for millennia to actively involve themselves in politics, except behind the scenes). Only RICH men have EVER…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 01:19 AM
4

It absolutely doesn't. We're a matriarchy. All of our gender norms are built and upheld by women.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 12:45 AM
1

The problem isn't the STATED standards, it's the active in practice standards. Women, by majority, state a very nice list of standards that are "politically correct" then completely throw those out the window in favor of unreasonable ones. 6 foot, 6 figures....is a real thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 12:32 AM
1

Not even remotely.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/25 02:20 PM
–

The male sexual strategy is to attract women. In order to attract are required BY WOMEN, to acquire money, fame, status, power, or at least the illusion of it. Again, men DO NOT acquire "power' in order to rule, they acquire it to be ACCEPTED BY WOMEN.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/25 07:56 PM
–

I do. OP is not presenting the red pill argument even remotely correctly. Men are not acquiring power to rule over women, or anybody. They are acquiring power to be ACCEPTED BY WOMEN.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/25 07:36 PM
–

Youre not understanding the base argument. Women are hypergamous so men have to acquire money/power/status to be accepted by women.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/25 05:53 PM
0

No. Single moms. Absent dads are few and far between. It's the mothers and courts forcing fsthers out, not the fathers.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/25 04:43 PM
1

The answer is to treat men the same way we do women. That would instantly reduce the violent crime rate by 60%.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/25 04:42 PM
0

Still failing
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/25 11:29 PM
1

No. We want women to have realistic standards. Just because that hot guy will throw some "D" your way doesn't mean that he's going to get into a real relationship with you, and just because the average man doesn't look hot after doesn't mean he won't treat you right.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/25 07:41 PM
1

This. A scenario to amplify this: a man decides he absolutely hates a band, a band consisting entirely of men, and decides he's going to hurt this band by shooting up one of their concerts. The audience of this concert is evenly distributed between men and women. So, the man takes his weapon(s), hides up in some vantage point with the 100 bullets he brought, pops out in the middle of the show and opens fire. As the distribution is 50/50 he manages to hit 50 women and 50 men. How many of those 50…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/25 02:28 PM
-1

The guy did nothing wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/25 04:55 PM
1

Choose better literally means, "This man has dated 5 other women that you are at least acquainted with, abused them all, has a baby mama with 2 kids he refuses to see and hasn't paid child support for, is unemployed, lives in his car, and hasn't bathed Ina month. You should not choose him, and you definitely shouldn't judge all men based upon your experience of stupidly dating him."
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/25 04:53 PM
1

It would take a braindead monkey to deny that women have dominated men all along.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/25 04:21 AM
1

“The rape definition erases male victims.” Wrong again. In 2012, the FBI’s definition of rape was changed to include all forms of sexual assault, regardless of gender or penetration. That happened because of feminist lobbying and pressure from victim advocacy groups. It’s not feminists mocking male victims. It’s other men. Here we are in 2025 and the FBI definition EXPLICITLY erases male victims. It's that way because feminists lobbied and spent $Billions to prevent the definition from including…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:24 PM
1

“Women had more access to education.” Nope. Not even close. Most major universities didn’t accept women until the 20th century • Harvard: 1977 • Yale: 1969 • Columbia: 1983 • Oxford: 1920 Before that, women’s education was limited to finishing schools designed to make them better wives, not thinkers or leaders. Meanwhile, men were being trained to run empires, practice law, write constitutions, and lead religious institutions. And even among the working class? Men were sent to apprenticeships or…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:20 PM
1

Youre lost. You have ZERO historical basis for anything you're blatheting about. Women had the vote first.” Flat out false. In the U.S., only white, landowning men could vote at the founding. Over time, property restrictions were lifted, for men. Universal white male suffrage was largely in place by the 1850s. Women couldn’t legally vote until 1920 (there literally had to be an amendment made saying that they could) and even then, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and intimidation kept women from votin…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:14 PM
1

Rape, murder, assault, and edgelord.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 10:39 PM
1

Systemic power means institutions favoring a group over time. Yes. And historically that's women. Men held the vote first, owned property first, got access to education first, Wrong on all counts. WOMEN had the vote first. Only RICH PEOPLE, the Musks and Bezos of their day, had the vote. Men, yes white men too, were not guaranteed the vote until 1965. Anyone who had the money could own property. Men and women both. Historically, its been majority men because men were the ones forced to work outs…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 10:37 PM
2

Not ridiculous. It's blatantly ridiculous to think misogyny, and men in general, have systemic power. In education as well as hiring, promotion and pay women are systemically privileged. Add on criminal court where at EVERY stage women are privileged, family court and custody law, a nationally required definition of rape that purposefully and intentionally erases over 99% of male victims.....
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 09:50 PM
1

Yeah. A simple look at history shows the opposite.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 09:07 PM
1

Backwards. Misandry is the original sin.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 09:06 PM
1

No. Misandry means that women can rape and kill men, but a man looking too long at a woman is rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 09:05 PM
1

Misandry has ALL of the systemic power. Misogyny has none.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 09:04 PM
1

Except women ARE the source of ALL male oppression.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 09:01 PM
1

If WOMEN didn't do all of those things there would be no misogyny.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 09:00 PM
2

Misandry kills. Misogyny makes some woman in idaho lose out on a promotion.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 08:58 PM
1

Wrong. Our society only LOOKS like a patriarchy because, by majority, men are, and have historically been, making the day to day decisions. That doesn't change who is ACTUALLY in charge.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/07/25 08:53 PM
1

It's a constant proven unequivocal reality that happens every day.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 05:35 PM
2

No. They OPTED OUT for thousands of years under the MATRIARCHY that we've had for thousands of years. Forcing men to do the physical and mental labor has NEVER changed who is in charge.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/25 05:28 PM
1

If women ran the world there would be more war. When women have full absolute power, they bring war 27% more often. This is NOT a "they're in a hierarchal patriarchy". It's the exact opposite. Again, women who weild absolute power wage war 27% more than men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/07/25 08:21 PM
-1

Super rich man grows his wealth by marrying a super rich woman. He's NOT attracted to her. He's using her. As their individual wealth becomes marital property he can now take even larger loans against the assets he has, including marital property.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 03:14 PM
2

No. It doesn't. Not immediately disqualifying anyone under 6' actually increases the likelihood of finding a good man.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/25 08:21 PM
1

No. In real life. You must be living under a rock.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 10:48 AM
0

19 year olds are absolutely the ones chasing. They're going after the older men.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 10:40 AM
15

Maybe I actually read and understood the book instead of relying on sources that lie.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 09:23 PM
22

Then your source is wrong. Try reading her book.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 09:16 PM
1

https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/0bb0677/2147483647/strip/true/crop/200x150+0+0/resize/840x630!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fprograms%2Ftotn%2Fimages%2Fnorah200x150-c61de9ff35c4b22c23450f47f242fc86dd3a3afc.jpg Looks like an average finance guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 08:24 PM
41

Also her goal was to prove how emotionally isolated and pressured men feel, not to prove what women want. Actually, her goal was to DISPROVE how emotionally isolated and pressured men feel. More to the point, she wanted to prove how privileged men are in the world and ended up proving how oppressed men are.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 08:21 PM
0

Because EVERY woman she dated didn't know until after she exposed her experiment in order to interview them.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 08:17 PM
0

Except Norah Vincent DID A STUDY and proved women wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 08:14 PM
3

It doesn't exist. That's already been proven. Women forcing men to do the day to day work of running "society" (government, capital, etc.) exclusively doing women's bidding is not patriarchy. It's a blatant matriarchy with more steps.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/25 08:22 PM
1

None of those things are patriarchal. Not a single bit.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/25 08:20 PM
5

A woman who is 5'3" excluding any man under 6' actually goes against your argument. She would actually be better off in pregnancy with a man who is her own height.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 02:50 PM
15

No. Just no. It's proof that OPs idea is nonsense. He didn't manipulate anyone. He couldn't have even if he was the absolute best manipulator in the world. He had a giant red flag figuratively tattooed on his forehead in giant boldface type "ABUSER". Those women CHOSE to ignore it. The truth is that women don't have real standards. They have preferences that override any actual standards. If he's "hot and rich" they don't GAF until he's actively abusing them. The entire point of "choose better" …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/25 04:03 AM
30

There is a guy in my town(on the far end of my social circle, though I haven't seen him in awhile). He dated this woman several years ago. He was VERY psychologically abusive and occasionally physically. In the 2 years of time that I knew (of) him, he went on to date 5 more women. All in the same social circle. All knew each other. All could and should have known to stay far away from him. They didn't. They all chose him. Why? He was 6'5", good looking, and had money. Those women's "standards" c…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/25 03:46 AM
1

Women don't have standards. They have insane preferences that completely shield them from ever getting the things they say their standards are.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 03:39 PM
7

Except they do. Give 100 women a dating app and only the "top 20% of men" will get any swipes right.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 08:44 PM
1

No. It proves the opposite.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/25 09:38 PM
0

Disney didn't inform them. Their mothers did. Their sisters did. The words coming from women's own mouths did.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/25 09:34 PM
1

And get death threats?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 05:37 PM
1

You're just wrongfully using quotes. You're not refilled at all. You're just a blue pilled cuck.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 05:34 PM
1

And you completely missed my point. Men's desire to have s3x with multiple women does not change the reality that more women cheat. The (very open) implication of the OP is that men are out here cheating while those poor women are innocently at home staying faithful.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 01:43 PM
-1

It doesn't relate at all. It has zero to do with the amount of men vs. women who actually go out and cheat.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 01:31 PM
1

You've just quoted something that has zero to do with the discussion. How are you this ignorant?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 01:26 PM
-1

You obviously don't understand the red pill. Taking one person's words as the be all end all is stupid.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 01:20 PM
-4

I don't care what somebody in "the red pill" wrote. I care about reality. Women cheat far more than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 01:18 PM
-2

No. You're thinking of women
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 09:13 AM
1

No. They're absolutely not. You're making the classic mistake: You're assuming attraction FIRST, a standing relationship, and THEN dealing in what the woman wants the man to do. A man who WOULD meet the standards under those narrow conditions never makes it in the door because she's using a whole set of preferences that exclude him.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 03:39 AM
2

You're living in your own little fantasy world. In the real world you'd know better.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 09:54 PM
1

Every word is true. Come to reality with the rest of us.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 09:49 PM
1

That's not the so-called "standards" women are using. The leading reason for relationship breakup is the woman cheating. The men who are decent human beings who pull their own weight are the ones being left on the sidelines, and cheated on, while women's preferences have them chasing after guys who dont.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 08:57 PM
2

You're making 2 mistakes here. 1. You think feminists are part of progressives. They are not. Centrists are the purveyor of toxic feminism. 2. Feminism has never been a left leaning movement. Ever. It has always been a far right fascist movement. Adopting the terminology of civil rights doesn't change that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/25 05:57 PM
2

No. Women are choosing unreasonable, and unattainable for most guys, preferences that have nothing to do with being good partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 05:46 PM
2

Women don't have standards. They have preferences that are the exact opposite of standards. Standards are how he treats you and what kind of person he is. 6-6-6 is a preference that has a negative correlation to actual standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 05:43 PM
1

Because they are EVERYWHERE crying about their own stupidity.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 02:16 AM
1

I'll tell my girlfriend that.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 02:10 AM
1

You can't NOT see them. They're everywhere screeching about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 02:02 AM
1

Just tired of watching them all regret the decisions they made and blaming men for their own actions.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 01:41 AM
0

That is NOT what anybody is saying. What they ARE saying is that women should make the choice to find a good man and marry him early instead of partying, sleeping with a string of assholes who treat them like shit, and ending up a single mother with psychological trauma while their looks fade. The immense amount of women in their 30s and 40s asking where the good men are, with pictures of their 3 kids by 3 different men up on their Facebook, while also not being able to hold on to any good man b…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 01:26 AM
0

That's a weird take. The "sentimental whining" is CENTRAL to RP. Basic biology and facts, a.k.a. reality elude you.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 01:11 AM
5

You're missing a very important component. She's the mother of his children, his wife, best friend, companion, confidant. When she has married (relatively)young, and stayed with that same (presumably) good man, she doesn't have any of the bullshit that comes with a 30+ year old single woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 02:25 PM
0

Because it's literally impossible to have a pill for men. It will always cause permanent infertility.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/25 11:16 PM
4

You measuring poisoning and "accidents"?
/r/MensRights18/03/25 10:54 PM
13

That's because most DV by men is defensive. Most DV is committed by women, yet it is because of the greater physical strength of men (and the greater harm they can cause when they fight back) we focus on men.
/r/MensRights18/03/25 10:52 PM
17

They don't. That statistic is "Women show up at hospitals more often with failed attempts." Men don't go to hospitals, they go to the morgue. The rate at which men attempt is higher, the rate at which men succeed is higher. The rate at which women attempt and fail is higher, but only because men are not failing at it.
/r/MensRights09/03/25 02:14 PM
-1

You've gotta be kidding. It's not even close. Girls are so much worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/25 12:37 AM
-1

I'm not kidding. It pales in comparison to what women do from the time a boy is born all the way to his death.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/25 12:33 AM
10

Because it's 100% wrong. It's always wrong. It was wrong 1000 years ago and it will be wrong 1000 years from now. We do not have and have never had a patriarchy. It's just blatantly false. Stop confusing a plutarchy that is by majority men with a patriarchy. They are not even remotely the same. The 99.9999999% of men who are not part of the plutarchy shares nothing in common(except genitalia) with the plutarchs and have none of their privilege.
/r/MensRights09/03/25 12:30 AM
-1

Lol. No. The big bullies are and always have been women.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/25 12:19 AM
1

That's the whole point, "provided the victim was penetrated in some way." Most of what the general public would think is rape of a man isn't.
/r/MensRights03/03/25 08:20 PM
1

Nope. White women have had the right to vote l9nger than white men. By 45 years. The vote was restricted to RICH landowners who were white regardless of sex. Expanded to rich landowners regardless of sex or color. Then expanded and became rich landowners regardless of sex or color and white women. Then finally expanded to all people over 18 regardless of sex or color, finally including white men as a category.
/r/MensRights02/03/25 06:42 PM
1

In 2024 women were 3% of APPLICANTS, yet held 9% of positions. If there was equality you'd be seeing 3% rate of women CEOs. That the rate is 9% is proof of discrimination against men. The truth is that women drop out of the corporate ladder. Unwilling to work the long hours, be constantly on call, along with all of the requirements.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/25 03:48 PM
2

That doesn't make it a patriarchy.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/25 03:41 PM
3

Not any women's groups. A group founded by a man. No. Parents don't make choices together. The mother makes the decision and it's done.
/r/MensRights28/02/25 02:22 AM
3

Because it's women who listened It's women who did it to their sons. It's women who prevent bans on it.
/r/MensRights28/02/25 01:54 AM
3

It's prevalent in the United States because John Harvey Kellog touted it as a cure for masturbation and promiscuity.
/r/MensRights28/02/25 01:47 AM
3

It wasn't for hygiene. It was to.harm their sex life.
/r/MensRights28/02/25 01:04 AM
7

Dating women as a woman is far easier than dating a woman as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/25 12:51 AM
1

Nope. The laws were written by women who coerced men into passing them.
/r/MensRights27/02/25 10:56 PM
1

The law is written that way. The perpetrator must penetrate the victim in order for it to be rape. The majority of the time, the act in question is going to be penis in vagina sex. The woman doesn't penetrate the man, thus not rape.
/r/MensRights27/02/25 10:54 PM
1

In the United States, the UK, most of the EU, Australia.....
/r/MensRights27/02/25 10:39 PM
1

cannot make a woman sexually aroused, or make her come, because she does not see him as a sexual partner in the first place, so for a woman, a relationship with a Nice Guy is effectively Celibacy, even if the sex happens it feels like nothing Funny that nice guys are almost always far better in bed. He's giving, caring, actually cares about her pleasure. Bad boys could care less. They just ram in their and hammer away.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/25 09:22 PM
1

The Bad Boys are often (though not always) selfish, manipulative, anger-prone and promoscious. But at the same time, the are brave, strong-willed, dominant, and sexy. The Pros outweigh the cons, even though the cons are bad. Bad boys are usually NOT brave. Nor strong-willed, or dominant. Most of them run like little bitches from danger, their only will is manipulation, and they'll crumble when a real mam calls them out.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/25 09:18 PM
–

That's not how it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/25 09:07 PM
3

More men are ARRESTED, TRIED, AND CONVICTED. They don't commit more crime.
/r/MensRights24/02/25 02:54 PM
–

No. Zero sneaky, manipulative, conniving behavior. He's not pretending, SHE FAILED TO READ THE ROOM. Which is the polite and prudent method of handling unwanted romantic or sexual attention. How can anyone reject a man who has failed to make a move? Men routinely admit they No. It's not. It's sneaky and manipulative on her part. If he isn’t getting dates, romance, or sex, he’s leading himself on while attempting to obligate her. Men are results-driven, they Did you miss the part where SHE IS ACT…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/25 02:52 PM
0

Not according to 3.5 billion women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/25 07:02 PM
6

This is just a completely wrong take. The TRUTH is that "friendzone" guys fall into one of 4 categories. 1. Developed feelings over time. 2. Liked the woman from the start but didn't come on strong enough because either he didn't want to come off as the guy who just wanted to fuck or she was clueless. 3. The woman actively ignored his obvious intentions because she just wasn't feeling it or he wasn't physically attractive enough. 4. The woman knew full well he was into her from the start and act…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/25 06:41 PM
0

It's a perfectly legitimate one. They're not two different things, by women's own definition, they are the same except one includes sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/25 06:32 PM
1

Funny that those passport bros are going to richer countries with better education systems, eh? When looking at per capita earnings and purchasing power parity those countries are comparable, some even better, than the U.S. and the education systems are far superior.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/25 03:01 AM
4

Tell your husband you will immediately divorce him and charge him with child abuse if he insists on it. Then take your intact son(s) to your mother's and stay there until he is clear on it.
/r/MensRights12/02/25 04:09 PM
1

No. Traditional gender roles put men at a disadvantage. Women have all the power in Traditional gender roles.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/24 02:50 AM
1

Outright ban.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/24 04:40 PM
2

Bullshit. It's become the standard for our court to issue an order to the school when a father gains primary or sole custody making them call him because it's so prevalent. They only follow it because we've thrown teachers in jail for contempt.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/24 10:01 AM
3

That was you. Most of the time it takes a court order.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/24 03:10 AM
1

Facts are facts.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/24 10:00 PM
4

Because colleges are incentivized because "women are oppressed" even though they've been going to college more for decades. Businesses are more pro-women in terms of wages.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/24 09:06 PM
1

The statistic has always been all jobs. It was purposefully done that way for them to take your money.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/24 09:00 PM
1

No. It's mother nature. It's the post-birth recovery, breastfeeding, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/24 08:29 PM
6

Because the teachers and principal REFUSE to call men.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/24 08:14 PM
5

It's not that guy's aren't going to college and university as much as women, it's that they're not being ACCEPTED as much as women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/24 08:12 PM
3

The statistic is literally all jobs. Men get paid less on average for the same job with the same hours, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/24 08:09 PM
3

Because, statistically, he takes on more hours while she takes on more childcare. It's not discrimination, and it DEFINITELY isn't misogyny. It's mother nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/24 08:07 PM
-3

So, you cite a few individuals. Then the church? I've never heard such nonsense in my life. The church, under orders from God have always held women higher. All those who said otherwise were deemed hellbound. Men were never allowed to treat women like shit. That was a death sentence.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/24 07:21 PM
-3

No. Just no. Physically weaker ≠ inferior. Less knowledgeable about something ≠ inferior. Women have been held up in higher regard as superior to men for all of human history. Inferior in certain aspects? Yes. Inferior overall? Definitely not. Men have been second class. Destined to be slaves providing for, and cannon fodder protecting, the precious esteemed women who have always been more important.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/24 05:17 PM
-2

Femininity has never been considered inferior except on the minds of extremist radical Feminists. Quite the opposite. Masculinity has always been the inferior.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/24 03:19 AM
1

Feminists actively lobby to keep Selective Service registration only for men.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/24 07:05 AM
1

Most feminists? Perhaps most women who self identify as feminist. If you're talking about the leadership, it's the opposite. The National Organization for Women has lobbied to keep the draft.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/24 07:02 AM
1

Feminists don't support elimination of the draft. They lobby to keep women put of it, not to eliminate.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/24 06:53 AM
6

The federal government explicitly doesn't
/r/MensRights15/06/24 03:37 PM
-1

They had autonomy. The idea that they didn't is lies.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/24 01:21 AM
2

Basically, it's viewed as a zero sum game. In order for someone else to have "resources" it must be taken from someone else. This is believed by them because that's how they got rich/gained power/reached the top in the first place.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/06/24 07:34 PM
1

Arrest and prosecution, not commission.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/24 07:55 PM
1

Guys who do it for real aren't LARPing on Reddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/24 05:37 AM
1

Lies. I've done it and witnessed it. Talked to every gut I know that's very successful with women. It's literally what we do.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/24 05:16 AM
1

That would be because they ARE aggressively approaching women and say "b let's have sex."
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/24 11:37 PM
3

I'm going to assume that your scenario assumes she stays, treats me well in return, doesn't lose respect for me, etc. Then yes. Absolutely. 100%. No question. The ideal is a woman that you worship and that returns that energy.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/24 11:33 PM
4

Men would love it. Women wouldn't survive the day.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/24 07:14 PM
1

Those aren't crime rates. Those are arrest and conviction rates. Get a clue.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/24 11:11 AM
2

Wrong. Men get CONVICTED for 90%+ of all crimes. If the standard dor men was set by how women are treated in the justice system, 4/5 of men in prison would not be there. If the standard for women was set by how men are treated, there wouldn't be enough jail cells in the world.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/24 02:16 PM
2

Which SHOULD mean that women are seen as more creepy.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/24 02:05 PM
1

That's patently untrue.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/24 07:37 PM
1

Lol. You obviously haven't accessed Healthcare in America. It's a 3 month wait. Rich people are going to Britain, France, Germany, etc. You can literally book a flight to Germany, have surgery the day you arrive, spend an entire year living in Germany, and fly back for what it costs in America.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/24 07:36 PM
1

We already have kill lines, and they are far longer than any nation with UHC. Rich people leave the U.S. to go elsewhere because our Healthcare is so bad with such long lines.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/24 04:45 PM
1

We've already established that it will save us 4.3 Trillion over 10 years of we change nothing else.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/24 04:42 PM
1

The current system costs more per year than the GDP of most countries. The most expensive healthcare in the world, and the worst outcomes.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/24 11:16 AM
1

Universal Healthcare is cheap.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/24 02:20 PM
-4

Most women are.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/24 09:35 AM
1

You seem to have zero clue about men, or women for that matter. Men only want good relationships. It is women who would rather be in a bad relationship than alone. The time to settle down is and always has been in the early twenties. Men have never wanted bad relationships. They're only willing to accept bad when there are no other options. Women accept bad relationships, even seek them out, when there clearly are better options. They're just more willing to put those better options on the back …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/24 02:34 AM
0

Men's standards can't get lower. Women do not lower their standards. They raise them. They muck around with standards so low you'd have to dig up to find oil, then when they get older they raise them and seek out a good man.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/24 01:43 AM
0

Sure, advise men to use up their bodies to clean up someone else's mess and raise children that are not their own, while eliminating their opportunity to have their own children.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/24 11:54 PM
1

Because THOSE WERE THE JOBS THAT WERE AVAILABLE. If there are 100 different job titles and women refuse to do 98 of them, their low participation in the workforce does NOT mean they're not allowed to work. It simply means they REFUSE TO WORK THE AVAILABLE JOBS. No, women have always had it better with more rights than men. You equating ONLY what men had with what you see as rights means nothing. Yes, because women used their privilege to force the government to privilege them even more.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/24 10:51 PM
0

So, you admit that your unreasonable erroneous "standards" are causing you to overlook 80-90% of men? Men have not been calling for 10s, and there are plenty of guys who like overweight women. Again, you're applying what a small percentage of men want to all men. Most men, on the other hand, just want a woman who is cute, takes care of herself, treats him decently, and is nice to talk to while women don't even see anything they perceive as less than a 10 as human.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/24 10:43 PM
1

And wkmen couldn't be strong and independent when she couldn't even have a job, her own money or bank account, in those days. Yes, they could. That's a blatant lie easily debunked by anyone who is willing to do any research at all. 1. Women worked. The fact that there were not enough jobs that women WOULD do, and still today choose not to do them does not equal women not being allowed. 2. Funny how women were owning houses bank accounts, credit cards, and providing for themselves in those days b…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/24 10:35 PM
0

Women were stronger and more independent in the 50s. You all gave up your strength and high status in society. Men wanting to split the bill is because women broke the social contract and gave up their rights and privileges. One of those privileges is men buying meals for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/24 09:27 PM
-10

Women don't want partners and companions who enrich their lives anymore. Women left that idea behind with the last millennium. Now they want to have fun with the best looking guy they can get, get left because there's a hundred other women who want "the gigachad". so why would he stay when there's other options? Then they'll turn around and want an "average" guy to pick up the pieces and support Chad's children when it dawns on her that her standards were BS. Six foot, six figures...has nothing …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/24 09:21 PM
0

A lot of men are commitment phones today, and don't even want relationships. If anything many women lament over the men who won't commit to them and see them more as a resource for sex. You've just disproven the OP and don't even realize it. The vast majority of men are not commitment phobes, they are doing everything they can to commit. What you're describing is that women are using unreasonable, and completely nonsense, "standards" to ignore most men. These women are purposefully shitting on m…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/24 09:12 PM
1

Men provide MORE than they used to. Men work harder and more hours doing everything in their power to be good, no..great, providers and protectors, to be everything women want.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/24 09:06 PM
1

Women commit more domestic violence, to the tune of 800,000 more men being victims in heterosexual relationships every year. This has held for over a decade in the NISVS. Much the same for rape. When a gender neutral definition is applied, more men are victims with most being victimized by women.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 05:21 PM
-1

No. They commit more.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 05:05 PM
-1

Women DO NOT COMMIT FEWER SEX CRIMES. They get away with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 05:04 PM
2

Men DON'T have choices. They are NOT being negligent. Men are being systematically removed from their children's lives. They are not choosing it. Men DO parent. Far better than women. Women get paid out in divorce because the corrupt system gets paid when they do.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/24 02:01 AM
2

Men aren't choosing. It's being forced upon them. It is very sad.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/24 01:22 AM
2

Men are systematically forced out by mothers. If men weren't trying we wouldn't have a multi-trillion dollar industry built on removing men from children's lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/24 01:00 AM
1

Indoctrination of boys in this manner is always done by mothers. Generally, the father is out working his arse off to provide while the mother is at home screwing up the boy, or has been pushed out entirely by the mother.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/24 12:52 AM
5

By your words. The second a person wants something from another, by your logic, it's creepy. You want to be treated with kindness? Creepy. Want reciprocation? Creepy. Want your husband to take out the trash? Creepy. Want anything from anyone in a relationship? Creepy. It's NOT missing the point. It IS THE POINT. Every relationship is a matrix of wants, needs, and desires by both parties. You're just trying to single out people you don't like for shaming.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/24 12:38 AM
2

So, every man and every woman in any kind of relationship with anyone are creepy. Got it.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/24 12:28 AM
0

Because it's always the mom's. Dad's don't do that to their children.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/24 12:02 AM
1

Because the rest of your question is nonsensical. If you get 10 million people to believe the sky is orange and grass is red you've got 10 million.people who are wrong, not proof that the sky is orange and grass is red.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/24 12:01 AM
–

at least 22 people agree with my original comment. Yes, because they've been fed the same lie.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/24 10:39 PM
–

They're one and the same. There is no subset of men who claim to be nice but are actually creeps. There is just men out here doing every thing they can to be kind decent men like momma raised them and getting turned down and called creeps because some internet meme told women that being nice is a red flag and creepy.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/24 10:11 PM
–

Not remotely true. Nice guys think that when their mother told them "be kind to the ladies and they'll love you." she wasn't lying to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/24 10:02 PM
2

It's not an act at all. It's the one and only way their mothers indoctrinated them to behave through mass repetition and major trauma.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/24 09:59 PM
12

It gets WORSE if you read it.
/r/MensRights14/01/24 10:34 PM
1

Yes. Gal Gadot did.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/12/23 06:53 AM
2

They don't have high standards. They have WRONG standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/23 03:17 AM
1

False. Women weren't required to do anything else because women are too precious and held too high. Any old man can plow a field and even work himself to death behind that plow. Men were forced to work because they were the disposable lower class.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/23 10:23 PM
1

Yes, all of those things are labor. Physical or intellectual labor. Again, a majority of jobs required great physical labor which set up the paradigm on that side.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/23 10:17 PM
1

A man's place was in doing the physical labor necessary to maintain society, largely to earn a paycheck to bring home to the wife. Women's place was to have a safe home and rule society. Doing the day to day work doesn't denote being in charge. Being the person at whose behest and benefit that work is done denotes who rules.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/23 10:10 PM
1

Your definition proves it is nonsense. Women have ruled society since the beginning of history. Men build things, women build society.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/23 09:52 PM
1

It didn't. It's completely made up. Here's an analogy to explain: Two people. One is a really fantastic baker, the other a finance/business expert. They decide to go into business together. They invest the same amount of money. They work it out so that they work the same amount of hours. They make everything as equal as possible except that their primary jobs are very different. One bakes, one does the books. Which one is oppressed? There are obviously both advantages and disadvantages to each j…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/23 07:53 AM
1

Exactly my point. BOTH parties have a responsibility. Only one party can do anything about it post-sex. Yet, if somebody tells the woman to keep her legs closed people are in an uproar. It's perfectly OK to tell the man if he didn't want a child he shouldn't have sex even though it is the EXACT same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:45 AM
1

Family court.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:14 AM
1

"Keep your legs closed"
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 03:58 AM
0

Evolutionary speaking cheating is EVERYTHING. Without some form of assurance that the child is theirs no man is giving up his money, resources, body, and life to provide for that child. Species gone.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 03:24 AM
1

Any child born during a marriage or within 9 months of it are considered the husband's child. A man might dodge it for a little while. It only takes one judge to not let him get away with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 02:57 AM
-1

It's because we know in our instinctive nature that there is no guarantee of paternity. DNA tests are 40 years old. Humans have been around 200,000 to 300,000 years. The first recorded hominid is 3 million years ago. Our brains are wired to view cheating very differently.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 02:54 AM
1

A man who tries to get out of financial responsibility goes to prison. Even if it's not his.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 02:40 AM
1

There is zero misogyny in this. None.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 02:36 AM
5

Feminism is INHERENTLY right wing, both in and out of the anglosphere. They've got the left supporting them because they've cloaked themselves in the language of civil rights. Plus, they lie about their actual beliefs.
/r/MensRights03/12/23 02:46 PM
4

This is entirely disingenuous. Your studies map higher levels of loneliness in OLDER WOMEN. Those 85+. Of course this is true. Women that age likely have recently lost their husbands, their children are grown and busy with their own well established families, etc. What we're talking about is loneliness in younger people, and the DEPTH of loneliness felt not just the occurrence of loneliness at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/23 02:40 PM
0

Different, not lesser. They offer less of the specific kind of emotional support that men typically find in romantic relationship. No. Absolutely not. It is foolish to think that anything other than the depth of intimacy inherent in a romantic relationship could ever hold that. Both No. Perhaps overall in forming as women tend to be more social. Maintaining men outdo women. No. Women are too catty and backstabbing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/11/23 10:39 PM
2

Are they wifeing them or humping and dumping? That's the factor.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/23 04:12 AM
8

Because you don't stand a chance in hell of ever getting the right to go for men's rights.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/23 04:03 AM
1

No, it's 10%.
/r/MensRights25/11/23 09:04 PM
1

Yeesh, you do know what autocorrect is, right? No. The lower half aren't benefiting. You don't benefit if they take $100 today just to take $200 tomorrow.
/r/MensRights25/11/23 09:01 PM
1

When the Trump tax cut expired it increased taxes on EVERYONE not super rich. The only people in the lower half that WON'T be paying higher taxes are teenagers making minimum wage at a summer job where their total income for the year is less than $11,000.
/r/MensRights25/11/23 08:47 PM
1

Except they only lower taxes on the super wealthy and business, not average citizens. Lower regulation on the super wealthy and large businesses, more regulation on average citizens and small businesses. Increase the size of government dramatically.
/r/MensRights25/11/23 08:37 PM
2

Opposite day? Libertarianism is wholly incompatible with conservatism.
/r/MensRights25/11/23 06:14 PM
3

Women are NOT "happy and content" with being single in the same context you think men should be. Women who are single still get romantic attention, affection, praise, etc. Men who are single do not. At all. Men don't think they are entitled to girlfriends or sex. They think they should have an equal opportunity to achieve those things in comparison to women's opportunity for relationships and sex. Women simply have to not be grotesquely ugly while existing in the world.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/23 03:17 PM
2

5 and 6 are reversed
/r/MensRights24/11/23 07:09 PM
2

This whole thing has been proven wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/23 05:57 PM
1

Adultery by the wife.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/23 10:58 AM
4

IDF isn't a male organization. Israel has compulsory service. Even Wonder Woman served.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/23 12:28 AM
2

Women aren't leaving because of abuse. It doesn't even make the top 10. Women leave to find a man who makes more.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/23 12:23 AM
1

Except the friendzone ISN'T made up. It's the documented and well studied phenomenon of women purposefully stringing men along. See: the hook, back burner, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/23 09:13 PM
–

The fuckzone isn't a real thing. It's just a made up tool to shame men for having romantic feelings. Fucking has zero to do with the friendzone. You're just shirking accountability.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/23 09:11 PM
2

Women have always received better education. Only extremely rich men got a better education than the average woman. When comparing apples to apples average women were in school longer and received a better education than average men.
/r/MensRights16/11/23 03:59 PM
4

So why is it that they are the main women guys here seem to know? Because that's the majority of single women. Avoid them. It’s simple You can't. 99/100 women you're likely to meet are as described. I’m frustrated you guys seem too obsessed with these women instead of moving the fuck on. To who? The nonexistent fantasy world where women who aren't like this exist?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/23 02:11 AM
5

In cases where there is a single mother and the father is unknown the state will make her exhaust every avenue to find him, then make him responsible. In cases of extramarital affairs they will not allow the husband yo disavow the child without another to pay up.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/23 12:55 AM
3

No. It's not. It's the law. Somebody has to take responsibility for the child and they will not eliminate child support unless there is someone else to take it on.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/23 12:49 AM
1

No. He has to track down the biological father, get him to accept responsibility, and go to court together to contest paternity. If he doesn't know, or the actual biological father refuses, he's paying for child support for a child not his.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/23 12:44 AM
3

Yes. It is. Any child conceived or born during a marriage is legally considered the husband's child.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/23 12:21 AM
19

Because you (at least) potentially cause harm to an animal on penetration and very little chance of harm in being penetrated by it. Animal abuse is largely found when the animal is injured.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/23 06:34 PM
1

The problem here is that traditionally raised men are the ones who are entering into relationships while the men that were raised with emotional intimacy, household chores, etc. are the ones who are lonely. WOMEN indoctrinated men to fit this new mold, then reject the exact men who bought their lies.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/23 12:11 AM
2

That's so opposite. Women want to GET married, men want to BE married. When you ask a woman, starting from little girls all the way into adulthood, about marriage the first thing they'll say is the gown, the ceremony, the reception, That day. When you ask men it's about coming home to a loving wife, to children, to home.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/23 11:18 PM
2

Being forced to do a job that is considered powerful is not the same as actually having power. The societal expectation to be the provider and protector is the root of all "power" among men. A president isn't powerful if the decisions he makes are on order to provide a better life for his wife, his children, and his community. It is a burden, not a privilege.
/r/MensRights06/11/23 04:49 PM
1

The more complex reason is that they redesigned schools to prefer girls over boys.
/r/MensRights06/11/23 02:19 AM
-5

Financial stress/Financial problems is code for "He doesn't make enough, I'm going to go hook up with someone richer."
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/23 11:43 PM
-8

You list financial problems but fail to see they're trying to trade up.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/23 11:37 PM
1

If you think most men are so horny (hungry for affection/ positive attention) that women can dominate or manipulate them, you'd be very right. Also, women are not the main victims of rape, sexual assault, or domestic violence. Certainly not in the U.S.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/23 08:14 PM
11

It's opposite. The most prevalent of the detransition crowd are FTM. The way they are viewed and treated once they "pass" is so awful and traumatic it overcomes their desire to be male.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 01:28 AM
0

It would actually make them more likely.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 01:24 AM
1

There's your problem. You're looking at solely a social media echo chamber. I'm looking at both quantity across the internet and at real life.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 09:03 PM
1

So, spend $10,000 for baldness. $80,000 for limb lengthening surgery, along with a year or more of downtime where you can't work....vs. go for walks and eat less.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 05:02 PM
1

Huh? It's every second of every day. Men mostly politely turn down overweight women. They may state at other times that they "won't date fat chicks" but it's rare for them to say it directly to them when turning them down. Women have no issue telling men who don't fit their height requirements to their face that they're mallets, little bots, midgets, shorty, or any variation.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 04:58 PM
1

So, you're saying the doctors are lying about weight loss being almost immediate in nearly all cases?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 09:42 AM
1

Nobody cares if you don't want to date short men. The problem is when so many women feel the need to absolutely trash short men by calling them names like midget, manlet, and child. It's completely unnecessary and extremely off-putting to read the incessant whining about short men. See how that works? It's actually FAR WORSE when it comes to short men. The bodyshaming of short men is far more prevalent, is socially accepted, and is about something the men can not change, unlike overweight women …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 12:53 AM
1

Yes. By a long shot. It's not even close. The big difference comes from the rate of people being accused of one or the other. Men tend to list fat or overweight as part of a list of preferences, women use short or bald as insults. Whether you divide them as a part of a list of preferences, insults aimed at individuals, or together, short shaming is far more prevalent.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 12:41 AM
2

The United States. It's only women and a few brainwashed male feminists who say that.
/r/MensRights21/10/23 12:09 AM
2

They do. They are blocked by the matriarchy.
/r/MensRights20/10/23 08:29 PM
2

It is a core belief of feminism. To say it is not is akin to saying white supremacy doesn't rely on a core belief in their genes being superior. Male in group bias has been proven false. Men actually have an outgroup bias.
/r/MensRights20/10/23 08:25 PM
3

Patriarchy theory relies on the belief in in group bias. You literally can not have Patriarchy without it.
/r/MensRights20/10/23 08:19 PM
3

Huh? It's at the very heart of feminism. Without the belief in male in group bias there is no patriarchy theory.
/r/MensRights20/10/23 08:11 PM
2

For #1. It's completely untrue. Any man who finds out about the rate of male victims (because feminists actively hide it) is appalled and even more appalled that our government KNOWS AND HAS KNOWN FOR OVER 50 YEARS. The issue is not that men don't care, it's the fact that there is no way to get funding.
/r/MensRights20/10/23 08:09 PM
6

Which AGAIN is in direct response..... "Shame a man for being short? Well, at least he's not fat like you. You can go on a diet, he can't change his genetics!" Women shamed men first, and for things they can't change. Men responded in kind, and used things 99.9% of women CAN change. Stop the heightphobia and fatphpbia disappears.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 06:01 PM
6

Again, that's not what I said. It's the SHAMING that is the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 05:45 PM
1

Nobody said to force women to date anyone. They said not to shame men for things they have zero control over. It's not the men shaming others, it's women. Men are simply responding to women's tactics in kind.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 05:43 PM
1

Oh... so now men claim that physical attraction is something people can and should control. Okay, let's examine that. That's not what I claimed at all. SHAMING women for those preferences is the response. Please learn English. So... like the term "fatphobia" is a RESPONSE to men shaming women for being fat. You didn't have to post to tell me it's exactly the same thing, I already said that like... three times. You're putting the effect before the cause. Women shamed first. Men responded in kind,…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 05:41 PM
1

Ok. Weight problems associated with medical conditions are rare. You're talking about 1-2% of women, and a large amount of those women do just fine in managing their weight. Baldness, height, and jawline is not "medical conditions". It's genetics. There's no treatment that negates the effect on the body of those things. Treat PCOS, diabetes, autoimmune conditions, etc. and the weight issues disappear for the vast majority of women. There's no treatment for the genes passed down.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 05:36 PM
7

Half the posts from men here shame women for their lack of interest in short or bald men. Half the posts here point out the hypocrisy of shaming men for things they can't control, height and baldness, while making up labels to shame men for not being attracted to things that women have 100% control of like weight.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 05:27 PM
1

If I started making posts about how disappointed I am that most of the options in my age and socioeconomic range are short, bald, weak-chinned men I'd be dogpiled by men screeching about how shallow I am and I'd catch a ban in an hour. No. You'd be applauded by women who would overwhelmingly drown out a small amount of men. You wouldn't catch a ban. You'd probably be given an award. The men rightfully objecting that shaming men for things they have no control over is problematic would be the one…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 05:24 PM
1

Women aren't going to create entire fringe social groups crafted around making fun of short men. Women aren't going to spend hours to weeks and months of their lives crafting memes about weak-chinned men. Women aren't going to troll social spaces with shitposts about bald men. They already do that. They do this ALL THE TIME. This shallow, combative, provocative horseshit like red pill, black pill, slut shaming, fat phobia, body count nonsense is an entirely male phenomena. The only remotely rela…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 05:19 PM
1

Yes. You got that right. You're oozing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/23 08:46 PM
1

Another woman in denial. Accountability eludes you.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/23 08:41 PM
-1

No. It's definitely your blsme.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/23 08:27 PM
2

Because women ARE to blame. Who do you think are CAUSING those insecurities? Who traumatized those men? Who abused them? Used them? Told them they were worthless? Women. All women.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/23 08:18 PM
1

I got it directly from blue pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 04:27 PM
1

DGAF insofar as you don't care about rejection is the opposite of blue pill. Blue pill has as its core tenet that you should care.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 03:51 PM
1

Except the "natural RP" guys hold those views.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 03:44 PM
7

Pointing out women's BS is not dragging.
/r/MensRights08/10/23 02:32 AM
1

Higher in narcissism, dark triad traits, higher rates of abuse, more likely to "hit and quit", higher rate of deadbeat dads, and higher rates of outright misogyny. Yes, studies do show it.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/23 11:00 PM
1

Except the studies show it. This is basically stuff anybody can Google. It's not my job to educate you about reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/23 08:55 PM
1

I'm not wrong. This has been proven. Chads are raging misogynists who see women as objects. Incels view them as while human beings who make choices that anger them.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/23 05:42 PM
1

That's simply untrue. The majority of singleen are struggling. Disdain for women is not the problem. The FACT is that disdain for women is the strongest predictor of SUCCESS with women. The more a man hates women, the less he respects women, the more he objectifies women, the more success he will have.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/23 01:40 AM
1

No. Reality isn't a joke.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/23 01:33 AM
2

It was one of the "accepted" places that women said to meet them at. Simply because it was a "shared interest".
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 08:45 PM
1

Because men AREN'T holding out on having aex with women they like. Not being as pushy about it isn't the same as holding out. They're not denying the woman sexual satisfaction.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 08:02 PM
1

And that peer review happened when they published it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 07:24 PM
1

That IS a peer reviewed study. Just because they were inspired to do the research because of the publicity that Eliot Rogers manifesto created and mentioned it in the opening doesn't change the fact that the research was legitimate, peer reviewed, and proven.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 06:56 PM
1

Still wrong. The Chads don't "understand that women are also human beings who enjoy sex". They just don't. They view women as holes that can be obtained for their pleasure by applying a set of tactics. They care nothing about a woman except what it takes to get her on her back. https://psyarxiv.com/wsvq8/
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 06:38 PM
8

And.....the men who objectify women are THE CHADS.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 06:12 PM
7

It's not red pill psyops. It's reality. The men who are successful with women view women as objects, holes. The men who are unsuccessful view them as humans.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 06:04 PM
5

Except socially awkward men DON'T regard women as holes, and that's part of their problem. If they did they wouldn't be socially awkward, they'd be like "Chad".
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 06:00 PM
7

Ok, how do you think romantic interest grows??? Not by "being friends first", that's called being friends and only friends. a.k.a. the friendzone the vast majority of men who follow this advice will come back complaining about.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 05:57 PM
4

Chad likes women. Marginalized men despise women. Nope. Chad HATES women. Despises women. Sees women as holes to put his rod into. That's it. Nothing more. There is not one cell of Chad's body that isn't misogyny laden to the point of absurdity. Marginalized men love women. They may be upset with them, they may hate things that huge portions of women do, but they adore women. They love women so much they're willing to repeatedly put up with narcissistic abusive users in the vain hopes of finding…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 05:52 PM
1

From reality. In order to begin a romantic relationship you must first interact with another human being you're attracted to. It's reality. Never shoot your shot, never start a romantic relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 05:44 PM
3

Except that's not how it all started. It started with "go to the gym and meet like minded people ofvthe opposite sex!!!!!!" Then it was policed away because a few women decided they wanted to be left alone, then through indoctrination it was seen as unacceptable. 10 years ago? Perfectly acceptable to approach women in the gym. Encouraged to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 05:38 PM
5

Woman, bisexual Female privilege is way better than male oppression. Double the options.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/23 03:38 AM
2

Between 20% and 26% of rape accusations when there is DNA evidence are proven false. IOW, when DNA evidence is taken, the woman KNOWS evidence was taken and that it will be proven AT LEAST 1 in 5 are lying. That 2-8% is completely fabricated.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/23 03:36 AM
1

It's not sad, it's normal. It's been this way since long before Homo Sapiens existed.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/23 01:22 AM
1

The less attractive/desirable but still, kind, etc. are the passport bros.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/23 01:17 AM
1

It's opposite. The most desirable men are the ones going overseas. The strong stable providers that respect women are the ones going overseas. It's the toxic abusive narcissistic woman haters that are staying.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/23 01:15 AM
2

You can call it incel logic all you like. Doesn't change the fact that it's true. What you find attractive is largely determined by what you are taught and your surroundings. Being attracted to traits that are detrimental in every way is a taught behavior. It just is. Finding behaviors that are beneficial unattractive is a taught behavior. It just is. Maybe instead of attempting to dismiss something because some misogynist said something similar as "incel logic" you might do some actual work to …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/23 12:12 AM
2

You don't. Your mother controlled you, society controlled you. The entirety of what you're attracted to is based off the ideology you were given. You were taught that "these are attractive things" and "these are not attractive things" on men. Turns out, that indoctrination creates attraction to bad things, like narcissists, players, and wife beaters, instead of steady hardworking mentally stable men who treat you like a queen.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/23 11:05 PM
1

There's nothing free will about duping women into accepting crumbs, which is what we have currently, instead of teaching them, from birth, to only accept a whole steak dinner, which is what they used to get.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/23 08:17 PM
9

That's exactly what we have though. Women are being forced to accept short term fun when what they really want is long term security. The ideology of the day is "if he can sell you snake oil, screw him and get nothing in return" instead of "If he shows he's actually willing to provide 'X,Y, and Z', marry him and live a good life"
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/23 08:12 PM
2

The issue, at heart, is that women, or really feminists who are women, purposefully created the men they aren't attracted to then blame the men they manipulated and outright lied to, even traumatized, for being unattractive to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/23 08:05 PM
2

Rights to see the child and a responsibility to pay are two separate matters. And no, they didn't agree to it. They CAN'T AGREE TO IT, IT'S THE LAW.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/23 04:13 AM
1

Q. Can an unmarried father take a child from their mother? The short answer is no. By default, an unmarried mother will have sole custody of the children. If the father wishes to obtain custodial rights to the children, he will have to obtain a court order, adopt the child, or file a paternity action. Q. Can an unmarried mother take a child from their father? Unmarried mothers automatically retain custody rights to the children so the short answer is yes. Q. Do you have to pay child support if y…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/23 02:31 AM
–

It wasn't included because they lied by purposefully excluding everything that is usually done by the man. Cutting the grass is just one example. It's everything that is traditionally "male" that is done to maintain a household. They left it all out. And no, it's not leisure work. Perhaps you need to break out a push mower on 90° day sometime. It's hours in the hot sun and a requirement. As is everything a man typically does, but again it is not included because sexists don't consider anything a…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/23 02:16 AM
2

Try the law. Try actual reality not manipulated numbers.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/23 02:08 AM
6

Pretty much nothing there about custody is true. The 11% remediation rate is blatantly false. In some states, like mine, EVERY case that doesn't end from a dispute is remediation. If the father ends up going bankrupt trying to see his kids, they go to remediation. In others, when the father runs out of money and is forced to accept a deal in order to see his children at all, it's considered an agreement between the mother and father and are included in that 80%. Further, the father winning custo…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/23 01:07 AM
–

This is entirely false. It raises her up in the eyes of other men. The second? Women DON'T do more chores. The report that came from purposefully ignored everything a man typically historically does around the household and only counted the things that a traditional housewife would do. Your grass cutting is a prime example of this. If the man goes out to cut the grass while the wife prepares dinner, both for exactly one hour, the man's contribution is not counted while the wife's is, creating an…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/23 10:30 PM
2

It's not men's fault if women have no empathy for men. Women make up the majority of voters and control 80% of the wealth.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/23 11:23 PM
0

There is a lot (everything) wrong with your statements. Women seem satisfied because the game is rigged in their favor. It always has been, but it used to be by a small amount. Women were never treated "about as well as cattle", they were treated as above reproach. There has never been a time where men could "leave their pregnant girlfriend out on the street with no consequence" or anything else in that section.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/23 01:04 AM
5

That's not RP at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/23 03:19 PM
6

Feminism IS capitalism. It's designed right from its origins to oppress women and further oppress men in the interest of capitalists.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/08/23 02:32 PM
3

Women rulers have a statistically 27% higher rate of starting a war. Plus, during the Obama administration Hillary Clinton pushed us into SEVEN WARS and she was just secretary of state
/r/MensRights29/08/23 01:24 PM
3

Wrong. And wrong. Women, whi make up the majority of voters have CHOSEN NOT to elect a woman. Women never struggled for the vote. A majority already had it, and the rest fell under the exact same roadblocks that men did. MEN didn't get full suffrage in America until 1965. Women are overpaid. They make at least $1.02 and as much as $1.17 for every $1 a man makes in America for the same work, same position, same hours, etc. The fictional pay gap is a false statistic.
/r/MensRights29/08/23 12:16 PM
6

The USA here. Yes, they do. Yes, women are the majority of voters and have been for a long time. No, women are actually overpaid here. You can emigrate if you like. They're trying to sell alcohol to men, one of the few things men seem to dominate is alcohol consumption. Something about numbing reality, I believe. So, yeah woman lying on bed.
/r/MensRights28/08/23 04:45 PM
-1

No. He never pretended. You did, by dangling the hope of a romantic relationship to extract boyfriend energy from him with no intent to return those feelings. Purposefully ignoring his advances just enough so that you can claim surprise later when he is upset about being used.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/23 06:07 PM
-1

Leading someone on with the hope of a romantic relationship in order to extract romantic benefits from that person while never reciprocating? Psychological abuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/23 06:00 PM
-1

Victim blaming.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/23 05:51 PM
17

The lowest age in the study was FIFTEEN!!!! They used PICTURES NOT NUMBERS. The age of the women in the pictures that were found the most attractive were 20-23.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/23 02:28 PM
1

Most relationships that stay together are liberal man and conservative woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/23 08:10 AM
1

That's not a thing that exists. That's a guy that you put in the friend box by completely ignoring all the signs that he liked you.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/23 07:37 AM
2

Is that you in your pfp? There's no way you're actually alone. You may dislike the men who constantly hitting on you, but you still have options.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/23 07:31 AM
1

Unless the woman is majorly grotesque, i.e. extremely fat, ugly, horrible personality, there is no such thing as a woman lacking in the ability to get romantic relationships. She may be unhappy with the selection of suitors, never the lack of romantic attention. This does not translate to men. If a man is lacking in any way, he gets nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/23 07:16 AM
2

Opposite of your first sentence. Men are lonely because they are so focused on finding deep connection that they don't SEXUALLY pursue, and thus fail to trigger sexual attraction in women.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/23 02:14 PM
4

No. It points toward an oligarchy. Women not voting was more about preventing the non-rich from voting and women getting the shaft because of it. "How do we keep the peasants from out voting us?", "We'll require them to oen property in order to vote!!!", "Men are the ones forced yo work, so it's their names on the paychecks, so they get the loans, so women are going to get the shaft.", "All the better!! That's fewer voters!! And OUR wives and daughters will still be able to vote because there's …
/r/MensRights18/08/23 11:30 PM
3

greater male variability hypothesis
/r/MensRights18/08/23 12:55 AM
4

Well yes. Because of the greater male variability hypothesis. Men and women have the same AVERAGE IQ but men's distribution is wider. The extremes of intelligence, both high and low, are populate by men.
/r/MensRights18/08/23 12:54 AM
4

Every study disproves this.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/23 12:47 AM
0

Yes, you did. In a patriarchy no woman can be over a man. As well, under patriarchy BY DEFINITION men can not be harmed by the system, especially in favor of women. We live in an oligarchy not a patriarchy. We have never had a patriarchy and never will. It's made up.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/23 02:43 AM
1

It does. If you were actually educated you would know that.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/23 02:38 AM
1

You literally defined away the possibility of patriarchy.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/23 02:37 AM
1

The "hundreds of years of peer reviewed evidence" says there is no patriarchy and never was.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/23 02:36 AM
1

HUH? You do know that NO man walks at night without fear. That's the exclusive territory of WOMEN. It is women who can do that. Men can never do that.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/23 02:34 AM
1

Then you DON'T live in a patriarchy. Period. We never have. It's always been an oligarchy that crushes EVERYONE regardless of sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/23 02:30 AM
5

Completely wrong. There isn't even a debate about this. Our default is care and cooperation. It is only by a few who deviate from the default taking advantage of the rest of us that we have the system we do. We are being manipulated to go against our nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/23 02:25 AM
1

Perhaps. The trouble is that at most 20% of men are getting all the women, leaving out 80% of men with nothing. You have women who aren't all that attractive with bad attitudes, and are abusive but think they're worthy of Chad and won't "settle" for a man that's actually in her league. That's even though men would happily settle for them because men are realistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/23 01:22 PM
1

If you want to focus solely on sex, then I guess you could say that. Dating and marriage was more my focus. I guess sex does kind of figure in. If you're unwilling to date, or marry, under an 8 even though you're a 4 or 5, you're probably not having sex with them either.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/23 11:58 AM
1

Because women's upward dating preferences screw it up.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/23 11:24 AM
1

The majority aren't disputed. They're state imposed for child support.
/r/MensRights14/08/23 10:15 AM
1

Huh? Most people ARE average at everything. Certainly everything that counts for dating. The majority of people, roughly 80%, are 4-6 on looks, social status, income, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/23 03:28 AM
1

Maybe not. However, put 10 men and 10 women in a room and they're not going to sort out by looks, status, confidence, or how much they have of any factor that make Chad a Chad or the supermodel a supermodel. The top few guys are going to shoot their shot with the supermodel, and the rest are going to go shoot their shot with the "average" women. The women are all going to go after Chad and reject all the "average" guys outright. There's a distinct difference in how average men and average women …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/23 03:09 AM
1

Because EVERYTHING about Chad is by chance. He never had to do ANYTHING.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/23 02:47 AM
1

Yes. An unconnected study found 40% in the UK.
/r/MensRights14/08/23 12:50 AM
10

It's been shown to be higher in the general population. I remember a study out of the UK that accidentally found that 40% of children were not the expected father's.
/r/MensRights13/08/23 08:05 PM
1

Higher, by a LOT.
/r/MensRights13/08/23 08:03 PM
9

Not really. Most, if not all, states require a paternity test for unmarried fathers now when they go for child support. So, suspicion isn't even necessary.
/r/MensRights13/08/23 08:02 PM
1

Wrong. Most child molesters are WOMEN. Nobody cares about men, including little boys, so the rape of a male is not "reported", it's swept under the rug and completely and very purposefully left out. When you actually ask men about experiences that they had as children, it's majority women, not even close.
/r/MensRights12/08/23 12:14 AM
1

Apparently facts=shit
/r/MensRights12/08/23 12:05 AM
1

That's simply not true. If you pay close attention, it's REPORTED. In order to be reported, the child must be taken seriously by the parents (or teacher or...), taken serious by the police, by DCS, and the whole rest or THERE IS NO REPORT. Society doesn't care about men, and that includes little boys.
/r/MensRights11/08/23 08:18 PM
1

You forgot raped. Which is actually higher than women because women are more likely to be raped by someone they know while the rate for men being raped by strangers is much higher, the confluence of which ends up with men being at higher risk of being nabbed and raped than women.
/r/MensRights08/08/23 08:29 PM
8

Best part? Socialism views women as the bourgeoisie.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/23 02:06 PM
14

Effectively, if the king is the one giving orders, but every order he gives is to benefit the queen, she's the one actually in power even though she doesn't outwardly wield it
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/23 02:03 PM
13

Except feminism has NEVER been moderate, even by today's standards. It is predicated upon the great lie of feminism, that of universal subjugation of women. That's never been the case. Sure, there have been small, and always short-lived, cultures that have subjugated women. That's not the norm. For most of human history it's been the opposite, where men have been worse off. There has never been an equal rights feminism. It's always been about subjugation of men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/07/23 04:29 AM
9

At Seneca Falls.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/07/23 08:47 PM
1

Capitalism was founded in 1776.
/r/MensRights17/07/23 01:43 AM
2

Not everywhere Not prosecuted anywhere except in the most extreme of cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/23 08:28 PM
1

1 parent didn't "stay for their child". 1 parent decided to heap the worst kind of abuse their children by denying them the other parent.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/23 08:21 PM
3

Are you serious? OMG, you are aren't you? Reality is the exact opposite. Are there men out there who are what you describe? Sure. They're the minority. Most single moms got that way by alienating the father, by being abusive towards him, and now turning that abuse on their children by denying them a father. And they're using our corrupt courts under title iv-d to get themselves a little payday.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/23 08:18 PM
1

https://preview.redd.it/mp20bpi8z58b1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=aace3a16016e6fb812981ad5871848715a274b4e It's literally right there.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/23 01:14 PM
–

They do. It's directly in their data. They can search based on any parameters they want. Every man below a certain height? That will take about 3 seconds, 2.99 of which will be typing in the parameters.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/23 12:52 PM
2

No..women view a man as optional when it comes to child rearing, except for his money of course, which is why there is so many single mothers.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/23 02:32 PM
1

Men are indoctrinated (by women, the matriarchy) to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, women are indoctrinated (by women, the matriarchy) to sacrifice the greater good for themselves. This is why divorces are mostly initiated by women. A man's sacrifice is expected, his happiness isn't even a second thought. He gives just like he is expected to. For women, the idea of sacrifice is unfathomable.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/23 02:25 PM
1

It's not a minority of men. It's the majority.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/23 03:41 AM
11

Read "No More Mr. Nice Guy" A nice guy isn't undeveloped, he's been lied to, exclusively by women, and is stuck in a trauma response due to what women have done to him.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/23 12:57 PM
1

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/new-study-reveals-that-women-let-handsome-men-off-120195377233.html Not hyperbole.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 05:03 PM
1

We do take the no. We don't get "no", we get labeled a creep even before the no.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 03:51 PM
1

There is an alarm. How many men have to tell you this before you believe it? We've got MILLIONS of men this has happened to. It's real.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 03:35 PM
1

Except that's exactly what it is. Unattractive man = Creep. Doesn't matter what he does, if he's Unattractive to that woman he's a sexual harassing creep. There is an alarm that goes off.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 03:28 PM
1

All men are. Thousands of complaints for benign behavior. Attempting to flirting while ugly is a crime.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 11:32 AM
1

I'd like to live in your fantasy world where this stuff doesn't happen regularly.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 11:20 AM
1

None of that is creepy. None. Making eye contact with that attractive person is creepy? And a criminal offense? No.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 11:19 AM
1

Protection from being looked at. Being stood too close to. Being told you look nice. Literally, making eye contact is leering. Saying "you look nice today" or getting too close while queueing up for the bus, or brushing up against someone on the train. All criminal offenses.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 10:58 AM
2

Nope.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 10:41 AM
2

No. It was passed in 2010.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 10:40 AM
1

No. This is reality. Please join us. False allegations happen thousands of times a day. Every man who is not conventionally attractive, or maybe just doesn't exude confidence, has dozens of stories of women accusing them of sexual harassment for extremely benign things like saying hello.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 10:28 AM
2

No. Parliament passed it a while ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 10:20 AM
5

False allegations happen a lot more.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 10:13 AM
1

Nobody mentioned staring.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 10:12 AM
3

Yes. That is the law in the UK and several parts of the U.S. Just the simple act of doing so can make a man a suspect everywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 10:11 AM
5

Do men scream sexual harassment when a woman they don't find attractive attempts to speak to them? No?. Okey then. The issue isn't one of preference. It's an issue of viewing "attractive" guy as great and perfectly wonderful and "unattractive" guy as sexual harassment for the exact same behavior. A woman is more than welcome to turn down a man she doesn't find attractive. It's just not sexual harassment when he tries.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 10:02 AM
4

It is. Even the latest sexual harassment standard LEGALLY STATES that if a woman "feels uncomfortable because you're looking at her" it is sexual harassment. No proof needed and no defense possible. Even looking in the wrong direction and having a woman feel uncomfortable because she thinks you're looking at her will cost you your job and a permanent mark on your record.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 04:59 AM
5

The latter happens all the time, and the consequences are extremely harmful.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 04:55 AM
9

No. Just no. It's been proven that if two men approach the same woman, say the same things, act the same way, and she finds one of them attractive and the other one not she will automatically perceive the unattractive one as harassing her. It's not what the man does, it is her perception of him. Men can't change the woman's perception, they can only hope that one of the women they approach is receptive. That is, if they don't get thrown in jail for the simple act of saying "HI, my name is ......…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 04:52 AM
19

There is no such thing as properly and politely anymore. The simple act of looking in the wrong direction is now sexual harassment.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 01:39 AM
1

I think you have it backwards. The wall incentivizes making a better decision on whose genes to pass on. Women who internalize the message of the wall are going to choose the kind of man they would choose post-wall in the first place, as opposed to choosing the kind of man who is going to hit and quit leaving her to fend for herself. With the wall she would logically choose at 20-25 the so-called beta man that she would "settle for" when she's 35 to step in and be step-daddy to the children she …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 12:00 AM
1

That's already covered by mandatory testing at birth. ALL men are shown to be cheaters when a child is produced.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/23 12:49 PM
20

It is good for everyone except lying women. Mandatory dna tests give men the same certainty mothers have always had. Any woman against it has something to hide.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 09:03 PM
3

The opposite of that is the problem. In fact, there are two problems there. 1. The mother never actually has to establish paternity at all. She can go it alone, or even dupe another man into believing he is the father, getting him to pay for the child without ever establishing his paternity through the courts. In which case, the REAL father is denied fatherhood. She can lie to the court about not knowing his whereabouts. Only a cursory attempt to locate him will be done, then they will rule in a…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 07:54 PM
1

All dna tests are medical tests under the law, up to and including hipaa. And for the record, an unmarried father is never considered custodial until paternity is fully established by the court. Unmarried fathers have the right to claim paternity (Notice of Intent to Claim Paternity) before or after a child is born. Unmarried fathers have no right to support or visitation if the mother was married during the birth of the child (must mutually establish paternity first). Unmarried fathers may obta…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 07:16 PM
2

If she is the custodial parent, which she is in every state unless the court orders otherwise, you MUST have consent. Your link even agrees. Surreptitiously having a test done is called LYING. It may not be a criminal offense with a penalty. That does not change the legality of having what is ostensibly a medical test done on a child while not legally authorized to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 06:53 PM
5

It's not misinformation. It's fact. An unwed father has no rights until paternity is established, only limited rights are granted by a name on a birth certificate, and only what the court wills to give him at custody hearings. All else is at the discretion and consent of the mother, including having a paternity test done. This is true for all of the U.S., Canada, and at least a large chunk of Europe.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 06:46 PM
3

The woman has to name someone in the first place, right? He gets tested, turns out not to be the father. Now woman has to name another man. Then another. As many as it takes for her to get a match or decide to stop. If she decides to stop, she's on her own unless a man comes forward, get tested and matches. All test results are scrapped after testing. No database.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 06:16 PM
6

You wouldn't need one. All results could be thrown away afterward.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 05:53 PM
3

Nope. It's illegal to do a DNA test on a child without either a court order or the mother's consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 05:49 PM
-1

Fairly large. I know of two right now that are fairly certain that another man is raising their child but can't do anything about it, and those men raising the children also know of the possibility. NONE of those four men can do anything about it because the law requires the mother's consent for a DNA test.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 05:37 PM
2

Plenty of states and countries, including all of the U.S. require the mother's permission.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 05:33 PM
-1

Most dna tests are done without suspicion. It is required by the state that in order to legally establish paternity in unwed parents. The split is 60/40 give or take a few percent.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 05:32 PM
7

There is one problem. A dna test done on the child requires her consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 05:28 PM
11

The reality is quite the opposite. Men have been cheated out of fatherhood for a very long time by not having dna tests done. Men would be VERY enthusiastic about women being forced by a system that both absolves them of responsibility for a cheating woman's child and creates a system where men who previously would be cheated out of fatherhood are able to secure rights to children hidden from them.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 05:27 PM
8

Marriage able women at 23 are looking for a man. They are the ones seeking out older men because the younger men do not have the time and experience in their fields to be making the kind of money necessary to support a family with the house and car and all of that stuff.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 02:18 AM
7

Because 23 year old women don't want 25 year old men. They want either 1. Little boys with daddy's money who they say will supply them with a nice lifestyle but really will just hump and dump them. Or 2. An actual successful established man, which only comes in the 30s or 40s.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 02:11 AM
-3

2 girls said they were trafficked. On the day they were arrested, 9 women who were living in the house spent hours with the police proving the 2 girls liars.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 04:56 PM
1

So....You were told he was employing an abusive tactic with no evidence. Ok.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 02:26 PM
-4

Where was he abusive?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 02:13 PM
1

It's the opposite of a connection. Marx saw women as the bourgeois.
/r/MensRights29/03/23 10:31 AM
1

No. However, they are included in the statistics. Every woman juggling multiple side dudes, every "Chad" with multiple sides. ANYTHING over 6 mo. to a year in length is cheating, and every side that's kept around that long is being cheated on.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/23 12:41 AM
0

It means if a woman is not dating and not having sex it is entirely of her own choosing. It's not that those men are unattractive, it's that she's setting a standard ABOVE simply attraction level. For instance 6'+ and 6 figures is an unreasonable level that very few men will achieve. Less than 2%. She's choosing not to date the perfectly wonderful 1000 men in her DMs who make 80k and are 5'8". That's not "dating is hard for women", that's just delusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/23 11:20 PM
0

No. It means dating for them is EASY. All they have to do is not require men to be 10s and actually look at average men and they'd have 100s of partners to choose from. The women complaining dating is hard just are trying to date above their league.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/23 09:53 PM
1

Somewhat backwards. If a woman becomes pregnant it's her husband's child legally. There's no denying of claims. The only way out is if the woman's side piece comes forward and sues to take on the responsibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/23 09:32 PM
1

YOU clearly don't. Your entire idea is being based around women's ability to choose from the extremely high number of suitors and finding them all not up to her standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/23 09:24 PM
-1

If you had girl friends you would know they do.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/23 09:19 PM
0

Yes. Because a "long term relationship" includes 6 months as a guy's "side chick." That guy has 8 women, 1 main girl and then 7 others for each day of the week. All of which are around for 6 Mos.-a year or even more because they all think he's high value.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/23 09:11 PM
1

Huh? TRP is left. Feminism is far right. Feminism = a far right extremist fascist supremacist movement who use the rhetoric of Nazis and the KKK right down to quoting Mein Kampf. TRP = A fact based scientific analysis of the behavior patterns of the female homo sapien presented in colloquial terms. Often connected to men's rights, an egalitarian movement centered around equality of the sexes.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/23 01:55 AM
5

They don't. Women cheat more.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/23 01:49 AM
2

Feminism has always been far right extremism. It's just Fascism cloaked in a veneer of the language of civil rights.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/23 06:46 PM
16

Remind them that by their logic a short man should be able to hit his taller girlfriend.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/23 03:33 PM
6

Short answer is that looks aren't everything. Longer answer: If you have 2 men. One that is decent looking; not super sexy but decent, average at best. However, he has a good job, strong, confident, treats you well, helps around the house, all of it. A 10 in every way except looks where he's maybe a 6. The other is a solid 9 or 10 in looks, but he's got a part-time job, lazy, doesn't treat you that well, doesn't help around the house very much....... But, again, super sexy. Jason Momoa/Chris Evs…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 09:46 AM
11

You seem modest and if we take your word kind, decent, and agreeable. iow, feminine in more than looks. Guys love that. We may want to screw the hot girl, but we don't want to settle down with high maintenance drama queens who are only too happy to tell us they don't need us. We want peace, and caring, and kindness. If you have those things and are at least moderately attractive, we're in.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 02:14 AM
2

Hes not a weirdo. He's the sane one. Would you pick a man with 3 different baby mamas, and the child support taking up his whole paycheck? Would you pick a man with a history that you knew increased the chances of divorce by 30%? Would you accept an 80% chance of losing everything you've ever worked for and starting over from scratch? That's what a 30 year old man dating an average 30 year old woman is facing today.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/23 02:50 AM
3

1st world nation problem. America is the big one, but the UK and Australia are well known to be the same.
/r/MensRights17/03/23 02:34 AM
2

I'm not mocking abuse. I'm mocking the idea that two consenting adults agreeing to something is wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/23 02:33 AM
1

Every corner of the internet.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/23 02:32 AM
17

Huh? When it comes to abuse it is mostly the opposite. Male victims of DV and psychological abuse are routinely dismissed. Men are even sent directly to perpetrator services instead of victim services when they report abuse. Men are ALWAYS told its their fault. "What did you do to make her hit you?"
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/23 02:31 AM
1

Ever heard of BDSM? So, you're saying that two consenting adults coming to a consensual agreement is wrong? Mistress Mandy would like to have a word. There is no manipulation on the part of men when it comes to preferring younger women. Quite the opposite. Men are outright required by women to play more games and do more manipulation with older women than younger. Younger women have less baggage, are better able to bond meaningfully, and are simply better partners. The passport bros are a prime …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/23 02:22 AM
5

Women and 6 feet is a far worse problem. It's not a preference. It's an outright demand and any man who isn't 6 ft. + is outright dismissed.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/23 02:11 AM
13

Men aren't running the system and never have. An analogy: If you suddenly became rich you probably wouldn't know what to do with it all. What to invest in, or even really how. So you hire a firm, setting up with a person to make the right decisions on a day to day basis to meet your goals. Important part: YOUR goals. Now, if that person is a man you have a "patriarchy" of your finances regardless of your sex. Remember though, it's your goals, not the advisors. Yours. This is analogous to our soc…
/r/MensRights17/03/23 02:07 AM
33

Call them and tell them you identify as a woman.
/r/MensRights15/03/23 01:54 AM
1

Here, let me quote you. "Power is the ability to affect real change in the world." Yes, and women have always had more power in that regard. For the billionth time. Men didn't view women as lesser. Nobody ever said such an idiotic thing until the 20th century, and it was radical feminists who fabricated it. Did they state "weaker"? Of course. It is a fact that women are on average physically weaker than men and thus less capable of heavy physical labor. That's not lesser.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/23 12:23 PM
1

Ok. 1. A video of a professor. 2. The two most notable founders of the feminist movement in America. 3. A. This recalls a quote, "Women believe they are perpetually oppressed because they compare themselves with the most successful men and don't see average men as human." 3. B. You are again confusing a JOB with POWER. The power lies in the hands of the women they loved. Do better.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/23 01:03 AM
1

Yes, women had the power. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton both acknowledged this when they echoed that women are the arbiters and all power lies with them. Women have always had the power.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/23 09:21 PM
1

Because women were the ones with the power, not men. People too often confuse a job, a role, with actual power. The woman dictates the end goal and it is the man's job to figure out how to make it happen. It was that way for thousands of years both in the household and on a societal level.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/23 07:37 PM
1

It's very true and highly misogynistic to imply that past women were meek helpless creatures with no agency of their own. Grandma would be pissed.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/23 05:35 PM
1

The man NEVER had financial, or any, power over his wife.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/23 05:30 PM
4

What would be the difference in the labor market if a large portion of women stayed home? We actually know what would happen. It wasn't that long ago it was reality. It is likely we would return to the "and the two shall become one" concept pretty quickly. Between fewer workers and higher pay demands pay would rise. The "and the two shall become one" concept of pay is essentially this: If you are a single person, you must go to work to pay bills and also come home and cook, clean, take care of k…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/23 04:27 AM
1

The way to square it is that saying that several groups who associate as left have gone too far doesn't mean that you disagree with the overarching ideology of the left. Example: There is a video circulating with a drag queen twerking next to babies. It's perfectly logical to say "the left has gone too far" in reference to that while also holding the belief that a person should be free to dress up however they want and put on a show. So, let's look at a few things left associated groups, primari…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/23 03:15 AM
11

Toxic Masculinity doesn't exist. There is only humans being toxic. TM is just blaming masculinity for individual men's toxicity. Positive masculinity is just masculinity. TM is either 1. Men being toxic in the same ways as women. Or 2. A lack of masculinity. The term itself is self defeating. The more they demonize and suppress masculinity, the less of it there is. That's a direct line to toxic men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/23 03:40 PM
2

They don't. Our wall is when they treat us BETTER because we're old. It's part of the empathy gap. 0-12 little innocent boy 12-≈70 toxic evil monster 70+ elderly person
/r/MensRights08/03/23 11:07 PM
1

No. It's what guys that naturally figured it out do. Not a scam. It's very literally the equivalent of Einstein teaching a class on the theiry of relativity. A person who has it figured out and knows others haven't teaching them.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/23 01:42 PM
1

The "natural" guys can not claim it all they want, they're still doing it. The red pill is literally just teaching men to do what some men learn "naturally". RP gurus started out as, and some still are, some guys that "just get it", a.k.a. naturals teaching guys that didn't get it how. There's no difference between what they're teaching and what a "natural" thinks and does. Tl;Dr that smooth player that's always gotten girls is thinking and doing RP whether or not he's claiming it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/23 11:38 AM
1

No. The reality is this: There are two sets of RP men. Those that "come by it naturally" and those that learn it. 99% of women who are with a man are with a man from one of those two groups. There's no grift. You're either a masculine man that women date or you're lonely.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 09:23 PM
1

All the "bitches" get with red pill dudes. It's why there's more "grifters". Because those guys use to be blue pill, learned RP and are now teaching the next set of guys.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 08:40 PM
1

You should see what happens when men refuse. It's deadly.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 03:20 PM
1

You're quite literally acting as if being approached because a man has sexual interest as if he was assaulting you.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 10:51 AM
1

There are two high profile cases that I know of. There are plenty more that never make it to be high profile because the precedent is already set and the lower courts have no choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/23 04:49 PM
3

Politician: No, I won't pass that, MRAs: OH, so you're a misogynist. Pol: What? MRAs: Yeah, you espouse the view that women are weak, helpless, pathetic creatures that require more time energy and resources to "make them equal" to men, even when women's outcomes are better than their male counterparts. Pol: uuuuhhhh
/r/MensRights06/03/23 04:47 PM
0

The cases I'm referring to are in the millions. It is perfectly legal for a woman to lie about birth control, to use a used condom to impregnate herself, to rape a man. Millions of children have been born this way.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/23 12:19 PM
0

The law is about punishing men in practice. The law directly makes a woman not responsible for her choices but makes a man (even 13 year old rape victims) responsible even if they didn't make the choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/23 11:56 AM
1

That's been tried. They block it. Spermjackibg won't be made illegal.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/23 10:56 AM
8

If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice. Karen DeCrow Former national president of the National Organization for Women
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/23 08:11 AM
2

Ok. Donovan Sharpe married. And Roosh V isn't red pill. He's an alt right fascist sympathizer who tried to cash in on red pill. He's single and childless because he's a POS lover, not because of red pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/23 04:54 PM
3

Sure......You obviously have no clue.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/23 04:42 PM
1

You said "red pill gurus" and yes, they are. Roll Tomassi, 27 years in July. Robert Glover 25 years Warren Farrell 20 years Shall I go on?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/23 04:41 PM
2

Huh? About half are married or in long term monogamous relationships. The rest choose not to be. You're the one being delusional.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/23 04:11 PM
2

The real world. Go out in the world. Compare what someone like Rollo Tomassi says with the behaviors of men who successfully date women, whether it be simply for sex or for a partner. The guys following red pill behaviors succeed, men who do not follow red pill don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/23 03:45 PM
3

Whenever someone says this the inevitable question is this: Then why are women having sex exclusively with red pill guys and completely shunning non-red pill guys?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/23 02:23 PM
5

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/manipulated-man-esther-vilar/1100086897?ean=2940162447894 https://www.booksamillion.com/product/9781905177172
/r/MensRights05/03/23 02:15 PM
7

Available on Google play books, https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Esther_Vilar_The_Manipulated_Man?id=M_MkEAAAQBAJ And Kobo https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-manipulated-man?utm_source=google_action
/r/MensRights05/03/23 01:59 PM
1

You've lost your mind. Cosmo declares itself to be a feminist source, the Daily Mail may not come out and say it, but a simple look at their stories shows their penchant for feminist ideology any chance they have. If you're so brainwashed you can't see it directly on their own page.cosmo
/r/MensRights25/02/23 08:44 PM
1

She isn't "health and beauty writer" she is a prominent feminist writer that has written articles dealing with health and beauty. Get it straight. And yes, Cosmo and the Daily Mail are bastions of feminist thought. They have a section dedicated to it, and it is evident in their writing elsewhere. You already took the L when you claimed that Cosmo and the daily mail aren't feminist rags.
/r/MensRights25/02/23 08:03 PM
1

The author is one of the most respected prominent feminist writers of her time. Perhaps you should look people up before you say stuff.
/r/MensRights25/02/23 03:09 PM
12

Arrest and prosecution, or the lack of it, does not equal perpetration. The difference in proclivity yo violence is extremely close male vs. female. The issue comes at the extreme.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/02/23 02:19 AM
1

You mean other than the fact that the ENTIRE PANEL is made up of feminists? There's this prominent feminist. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1251868/Of-course-women-dont-want-male-pill--end-happy-little-accidents.html
/r/MensRights16/02/23 11:45 AM
3

Roe v. Wade was overturned by feminists. Lol. Look who runs "right to life". HER name is Carol Tobias. The 2nd largest pro-life group is ENTIRELY WOMEN.
/r/MensRights15/02/23 07:12 PM
18

Feminists at the top do not care about women or their bodies. At all. It makes them money to have a boogeyman. Every time a way for men to stop pregnancies is tested and fails, it's all the "whiny crybaby men's fault". Feminists even run the National Right To Life Committee to keep the boogeyman alive and well. They've been doing this forever.
/r/MensRights15/02/23 03:16 AM
21

The feminists squashed the last one. The panel that oversees birth control is comprised entirely of women. No surprise there. That panel covers even male birth control. They shut down it down.
/r/MensRights15/02/23 01:18 AM
36

Lip service. Feminist groups have openly lobbied to prevent funding for men's suicide risks for decades.
/r/MensRights14/02/23 08:01 PM
3

Nice blatantly sexist articles. In the first one, they didn't find a temptation effect is because they chose to not look for one. Their data never even bothers to ask. In the second, it just openly assigns blame to the men while never asking WHY they were having "trouble adjusting." Is it simply the IDEA of their wife making more that "crushes their fragile male ego" or is there a direct change in the wife's behavior? Is she constantly "rubbing it in his face" that she makes more? Is she bringin…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/23 02:22 AM
4

Your article is one long lie not backed by reality. It's so easily debunked. If it was indeed insecurity of men you would see the rate of men filing for divorce rise, not women's. It is the woman no longer seeing the man as good enough for her causing her to find a new, higher paid, higher "status" man, leaving the now "worthless" man who spent years supporting her.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/23 12:43 AM
3

UMM. Hate to burst your bubble, but your statistic is a lie. Sure, plenty of women rise to out earn their husbands. How long do those marriages last? Turns out, they don't. There's reasons women file 80% of divorces, and this is one of them.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/23 11:35 PM
11

Many WOMEN have great experiences with therapy. Therapy is designed to work with women's brains. It has zero idea how to help men and they don't care to.
/r/MensRights13/02/23 10:09 PM
13

Jokes on them. They'll be locking up women.
/r/MensRights04/02/23 11:51 AM
15

It hasn't been feminized, it always was feminized.
/r/MensRights04/02/23 10:57 AM
37

Remind them, or tell them the great news, that the patriarchy had nothing to do with the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The MATRIARCHY DID THAT. The entirety of the leadership of the top 2 anti-abortion organizations are women including the director of the largest, The National Right To Life Committee whose membership is 70% women. The men who have been involved are just dutifully doing the work they are forced to do by their masters.
/r/MensRights18/01/23 01:42 AM
16

You are openly confusing "This group of people have been FORCED for millennia to do these jobs and still, by majority, are the ones who are" with "the actual people who are in charge". If you suddenly became rich (lottery, large inheritance, etc.) and you hired a financial expert to manage your money, meeting a set of goals but otherwise exclusively making day to day decisions, you would create an "-archy" of your finances. If that expert is a man a patriarchy, a woman a matriarchy. But YOU are …
/r/MensRights18/01/23 01:36 AM
19

Because men's infidelity isn't in the top 3 of causes of divorce.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 12:19 PM
25

Huh? This is one of the most backed up things. #2 is loss of income, #3 is mental health of the man, with #1 being the woman's infidelity.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 12:06 PM
35

Except they do. Divorces happen for three primary reasons. 1. Hypergamy. The woman thinks she found herself some new exciting "better" man, unlike the boring man who has been working himself to death supporting her for years. 2. The man has a change in income. Companies downsize, mistakes get made, economies crash. As soon as that man has a problem earning enough to support her lifestyle, she's out. 3. The man has some form of mental health issue. Depression, anxiety, whatever. As soon as the ma…
/r/MensRights06/01/23 11:53 AM
10

Data doesn't do any good. There are now over 300 published and peer reviewed studies proving that women commit equal or more domestic violence than men. They don't care. The ORIGINAL studies back in the late 60s and early 70s when DV legislation was being worked on showed that men and women were roughly equal perpetrators. They don't care. 50+ YEARS of their lies laid bare with enough documentation to fill a warehouse. They don't care. That's just ONE of the multiple issues. They don't care abou…
/r/MensRights01/01/23 02:47 PM
-8

No. This is hard-core rightist. Leftists are the opposite.
/r/MensRights25/12/22 12:32 PM
4

Liberal.
/r/MensRights25/12/22 09:27 AM
5

This is already a Supreme Court case in the U.S. The issue at hand is that by the time you make it to court, there is already a child that needs to be supported, and they are bound by the rights of the child.
/r/MensRights24/12/22 09:22 PM
1

It's a huge lie. Women show up at hospitals from suicide attempts more often, men show up at morgues. The rate of women vs. Men hospitalized/self reporting does not count the successful attempts. When successful and unsuccessful attempts are combined men attempt more often as well as succeed in their attempt more often.
/r/MensRights14/12/22 03:17 AM
4

Yes. The LOL here is you actually believing that younger men like older women. That phenomenon is a combination of. 1. Mommy issues. 2. An ingrained "Yo mama" fetish. 3. They're outright using you.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/22 11:40 AM
0

So, you're a lesbian, presumably with lesbian friends, and you're also too dense to realize that your female friends are doing things for you for the exact same reason male friends would if you were hetero? Is that what you're saying? Because that is indeed what you're saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/22 01:28 PM
0

Step 1. Get a new girlfriend. Step 2. Send a gift of "Self Made Man" by Norah Vincent
/r/MensRights27/11/22 01:19 PM
11

Because when you try you're canceled by the matriarchy.
/r/MensRights12/11/22 01:51 AM
-3

Holodomor had nothing to do with Marxism.
/r/MensRights05/11/22 08:11 PM
7

Telling the father does not increase the risk.
/r/MensRights31/10/22 02:25 PM
15

No. Just no. She needs to hide her pregnancy from her family. That has nothing to do with the fact that she is going to rob this man of fatherhood. She could just as easily inform him and give him the option of taking the child himself or agreeing to the adoption.
/r/MensRights31/10/22 02:23 PM
4

Funny how they think the person working at the hardware store, whose job it is to ask questions and offer advice on using the tools and supplies is 1. Not also doing it with men (it's their job), 2. Is condescending, and 3. Patriarchal oppression.
/r/MensRights20/10/22 08:51 PM
2

UBI is the Overton window shifter for the true goal, a federal job guarantee.
/r/MensRights18/10/22 01:50 AM
-1

They have voting rights and can hold any public position. They can vote themselves whatever rights they want.
/r/MensRights10/10/22 07:46 PM
0

No. Women are NOT banned from public positions. Article 21 of the constitution as well as a few parliament-passed laws give women some rights. Women are allowed to drive, hold public office, and attend university.
/r/MensRights10/10/22 07:35 PM
4

80% of suicides are men. Most of those are misandry. A man will outright kill, a woman takes perverse pleasure slowly destroying your mind until you kill yourself.
/r/MensRights09/10/22 09:29 AM
6

Adoption, yes. Lose custody? No. Losing custody only absolves a mother of responsibility, never the father.
/r/MensRights24/09/22 10:31 PM
11

That doesn't exist until a child becomes a teenager and chooses, with the court's consent, to be free of both parents and made a legal adult. There is no way for a man to make the choice to abstain from parental responsibility.
/r/MensRights24/09/22 07:51 PM
12

https://starcasm.net/video-wendy-williams-tells-fan-to-trick-her-husband-into-having-another-baby/
/r/MensRights20/09/22 10:15 AM
105

Wendy Williams.
/r/MensRights20/09/22 10:13 AM
3

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/11/2/13494126/male-birth-control-study
/r/MensRights17/09/22 10:44 PM
3

Nearly a quarter of participants experienced pain at the injection site, nearly half got acne, more than 20 percent had a mood disorder, 38 percent experienced an increased sexual drive, and 15 percent reported muscle pain. Other, rarer side effects included testicular pain, night sweats, and confusion. One study participant died by suicide, though the researchers determined it wasn’t related to the birth control. Twenty men dropped out of the study because of the side effects. For the safety re…
/r/MensRights17/09/22 06:59 PM
2

Did you not read ANY of the literature on that last trial?
/r/MensRights17/09/22 06:41 PM
2

Yes. Take every single one, multiply the effect by 100, and THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MEN IN THE LAST TRIAL.
/r/MensRights17/09/22 06:36 PM
1

They're NOT treating men more delicately. The last male birth control was shut down by a panel of women because the side effects were so extreme the women, most if not all of which had been on female birth control themselves and have served for years on the birth control approval for multiple female BC medications, pulled the study for those complications.
/r/MensRights17/09/22 06:33 PM
-8

99% of the ones being killed aren't thieves or thugs.
/r/MensRights15/09/22 10:22 AM
2

Yeah, except 99% of them aren't thieves and thugs.
/r/MensRights15/09/22 10:05 AM
1

That is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Feminism is about continuing and increasing female superiority. Full Stop.
/r/MensRights09/09/22 12:42 PM
2

U.s. too
/r/MensRights09/09/22 10:11 AM
3

Two things: Soft Power and Plutarchy. Soft power. There are better places to get a sound understanding of Soft Power, but the primary way I see it manifest when it comes to political things is this: If a man is put in the role of making day to day decisions, but those decisions are centered around fulfilling the wants and needs of a woman, is he really making the decisions or is she? Plutarchy in short. How much do you actually have in common with Bezos? Musk? Buffet? Or for that matter Trump, B…
/r/MensRights31/08/22 12:31 AM
26

No. As a legal principle it did NOT exist. What existed was that BOTH husband and wife became "property" OF EACH OTHER. Further, because it was usually the husband who exclusively earned money(a.k.a. the husband was forced to work while the wife did not have to) all of the financials fell under his name. It was his checks that were deposited in the bank, money that he earned working paid loans that the promise of his income secured in the first place. When they, in modern times, describe covertu…
/r/MensRights21/08/22 11:27 PM
18

Coverture was never in force.
/r/MensRights21/08/22 10:15 PM
1

Who paid them off? The National Right To Life Committee, which is 100% governed by women. Majority membership women. Again, gun to the head..... Nationwide, the majority of people who are "pro-life" are women. The majority of people who are "pro-choice" are men. Women make up a larger share of voters than men. Who is REALLY electing those men (and women) who make the laws? Who do they have to please in order to get (re)elected? Women. Convince your fellow women to stop voting away abortion right…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 10:48 PM
34

Sure, a HUGE amount of that is LESBIANS who commit IPV at TWICE the rate of male on female IPV.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 05:34 PM
1

Who bans abortion when.......? Women. Women banned abortion. The top 2 anti-abortion organizations are run by women. All of their lobbyists are women. Men doing what they're told isn't men oppressing women. You don't blame the person with a gun to their head, you blame the one holding the gun. That's women.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 03:54 PM
2

Yes, gender based violence is violence committed because of a person's gender. In every case those things disproportionately effect MEN. Men are 2.3 TIMES more likely to be the victim of Domestic violence. Even the CDC count 800,000 more male victims of physical intimate partner violence than women victims. Men are also more likely to be raped, coerced into sex, and be psychologically abused by a female intimate partner than a woman is by a male partner. I already cited it. There's an article I …
/r/MensRights11/08/22 11:42 PM
2

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3284322 Aboriginal men account for approximately 71 per cent of aboriginal homicide victims in Canada, but rates of violence against indigenous men don't seem to mobilize the same kind of support or interest — and haven't been studied to the same extent. Dr. Adam Jones, a professor of political science at UBC Okanagan, wants to change that.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 11:28 PM
2

Lol. If you don't even know that "gender based violence" disproportionately effects men, then you're not even educated enough to bother with. 70% of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships is female perpetrated. The rate of DV in lesbian relationships is almost double of heterosexual relationships, whole gay relationships are less than half the rate. In Canada there is an epidemic of missing indigenous MEN. You only hear about the women who disappear at a much lower rate. In the military…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 11:18 PM
2

You're so lost. Working is not participating in society. It is being a slave to make society possible. No, a rich man is not of higher status than a rich woman. They are of equal status. There has never been a point in what we would consider western culture where a man could beat a woman and she could do nothing about it. Wife beating used to be a death sentence meted out by the other men of the community. Men have never been the default human in society. It's always been women since pre-history…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 09:51 PM
2

Completely backwards . Men were too busy being good little slaves providing for their masters to participate in society. You're thinking of RICH men who had the wealth to buy other's labor to provide for THEIR masters, a.k.a. their wives.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 06:16 PM
2

The narrative was rewritten a long time ago. Tell me this: If women, by majority, staying home cooking, cleaning, and raising children is oppression, then why is men being forced to work in dirty, dangerous, often deadly jobs that completely used up their bodies in order to provide for that woman at home NOT oppression? A falsified narrative that seeks to find an oppressed and oppressor where there never was either.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 05:48 PM
2

Lol. "Women couldn't work" is a lie. There is a major difference between "most jobs required extreme physical labor that most women of the time could not handle and there were few jobs that didn't require that level of labor leaving many women unable to find a job" and "women weren't allowed to work". Women have been allowed to drive in most cultures since cars were invented. Would you like me to go hunt up the picture of my great grandmother in her Model T? The kiss is a ritualistic holdover. I…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 05:10 PM
2

Yes. Made up.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 04:50 PM
2

Because someone DID make it all up.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 04:18 PM
2

Wrong. Entirely backwards. Marriage is matriarchal. Always has been. It was designed by women to tie a man to a woman and her children. It makes a man subservient to a woman. Women have always been allowed to work,own land, etc. The newer laws are a special privilege which allowed a woman to do those things based on her husband's income where previously the companies required each person to have a job. The idea of the father handing off the bride is a transfer of responsibility. A handing off of…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 04:08 PM
2

There never was a hard power patriarchy and soft power patriarchy has never existed. It has always been a plutarchy. The plutarchy has been dominated by men not because it is patriarchal but rather because men have been forced to work outside the home to earn money as structures for banking etc. were established that earned money was kept in the man's name, and those few men that were successful became part of the plutarchy. Today, the plutarchy consists of less than 1000 people in the U.S., abo…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 03:21 PM
2

Women were never property of men. Ever.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 03:12 PM
10

Female only
/r/MensRights03/08/22 08:06 PM
3

The neoconservatives have owned conservatives for 50 years. They're long past being "neo"
/r/MensRights19/07/22 04:47 PM
17

I think "white imperialism" is a stand in for all of the society level crap that goes on that there isn't a real answer for, much the same as patriarchy.
/r/MensRights19/07/22 10:17 AM
5

Calling out specific prevalent behaviors isn't misogyny.
/r/MensRights18/07/22 11:50 PM
6

Not misogyny at all.
/r/MensRights18/07/22 11:13 PM
13

It doesn't matter. Every interaction is viewed through the same lens, are YOU attractive or not to her.
/r/MensRights18/07/22 07:46 PM
1

Feminism indiscriminately kills millions each year.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 10:12 PM
8

You do know that the little bud that is commonly removed is only a very small portion of the clitoris, right? They're actually removing less nerve tissue I'm FGM than in MGM.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 10:09 AM
10

No. They are exactly the same.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 09:57 AM
8

None of the reported cases of false allegations are due to incompetence. The rate that is commonly quoted consists of only those that were unequivocally proven false by police in their initial investigation and reported to the FBI crime statistics. It doesn't include any that weren't reported to the FBI, nor any found to be false at any other stage in the legal process. We know from empirical studies that false accusations comprise 1/4 of those taken to police, with the rate much higher for thos…
/r/MensRights14/07/22 08:06 PM
2

Huh? No. Just no. MRAs are strongly pro-choice and have viewed the overturning of Roe v. Wade negatively. It is WOMEN, not men cheering the loss of rights. From the all women board of directors of National Right To Life Committee, 5/9 of their speakers at this year's conference, and their 70% female membership.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 08:00 PM
2

MRAs weren't happy. Multiple polls in mra groups have shown a strong pro-choice majority.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 07:44 PM
2

Yes, actually. It's entirely possible to pick a man, give an entirely wrong address for him, put a notification out that he'll never see, and then win child support in absentia.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 07:40 PM
1

Negging is NOT making someone insecure. It is teasing, playfully creating tension. If a person is carrying it to a place of creating insecurity they are not negging, they're being an asshole
/r/MensRights11/07/22 07:25 PM
1

"Negging" is a term for a push/pull strategy that acts on a woman's psychological make up. Contrast it with "nice guys" who put women on a pedestal and give them whatever they want. That pedestal strategy doesn't work does it? But creating a bit of uncertainty, a bit of teasing, a "does he or doesn't he?" does.
/r/MensRights11/07/22 04:48 PM
9

No. They're not. At all. Those books include no self esteem destroying. They teach the psychology of women, how their brains work differently than men's, and how the man should alter his approach to women in order to be more attractive to them.
/r/MensRights11/07/22 03:04 PM
4

This is another just like "feminism". You're using the dictionary as a hammer to define libertarianism the exact same way feminists do with the dictionary definition of feminism. Neither represents what they are on practice.
/r/MensRights09/07/22 07:35 PM
7

Because the right stands on stark opposition to EVERYTHING men's rights is for. They are anti-free market, for cronyism, high taxes on everybody except the insanely rich, for circumcision, anti-freedom, anti-equality....
/r/MensRights09/07/22 07:32 PM
4

Try 44 years in the other direction. Universal male suffrage came in 1964.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 10:16 AM
10

You don't get progress by voting for regressives. Voting republican means everyone loses.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 07:00 PM
1

Throughout its existence feminism has reduced women's equal rights.
/r/MensRights27/06/22 09:55 PM
12

It caused abortion to be legal immediately.
/r/MensRights26/06/22 01:43 PM
24

Your statistics are false. It's closer to 50/50. The federal definition of rape REQUIRES the perpetrator to penetrate the victim. A woman could drug a man and engage in intercourse with him while he is passed out and it wouldn't be rape according to the federal definition.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:46 PM
9

Yes. A plutarchy not a patriarchy. The laws were made to advantage the rich, not men as a group. Male privilege only extended as far as was needed by the wealthy in order to achieve and keep their dominance. Preventing women from voting was never the goal. Preventing people of both sexes, and anyone of an underclass at all, from voting in order to maintain control was.
/r/MensRights22/06/22 10:56 AM
8

Yes, we're talking about America. You had to be 21, own property, be able to read and write at a satisfactory level, pay a poll tax....all designed to prohibit both sexes from voting unless they were rich. Only rich people owned property, could afford to learn to read and write at a high enough level, and pay the exorbitant poll tax.
/r/MensRights22/06/22 10:16 AM
10

Men weren't allowed to vote either. Only rich people, both men and women, were allowed to vote. It was "legal" to rape your wife because it happened so rarely they never needed a law for it.
/r/MensRights22/06/22 09:57 AM
26

Historically women were at home because most jobs were too physically demanding, dangerous, and often deadly for the majority of women in those times to handle or even want to try. Some of those jobs still exist today, and even though technology and machinery have made them much less physically demanding and safer, women still refuse to take them. In addition, because there was no birth control(1960s), no breast pumps(late 1990s), or even formula (it was early 1980s when nutrition requirements w…
/r/MensRights22/06/22 01:21 AM
55

I would counter that there is also a lot of sexism by men. It is very noteworthy that positions of power are brought up. In the U.S. the positions of power add up to about 1000 men against the over 160,000,000 men over 18. Less than .1% of men hold positions of power while the vast majority of homeless are men. More men, by far, are living on the streets holding zero power than are holding high positions. It would be more appropriate to define our society as a Plutarchy where, because of which g…
/r/MensRights21/06/22 11:55 PM
2

https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/feminizing-men-a-guide-for-males-to-achieve-maximum-feminization-thomas-newgen/1131034132
/r/MensRights15/06/22 02:20 PM
1

https://books.apple.com/us/audiobook/feminizing-men-a-guide-for-males-to-achieve-maximum/id1230168424
/r/MensRights15/06/22 01:45 PM
1

Except it IS true about feminism. Maybe you should go back, do some reading, and learn about what you're advocating for.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 01:43 PM
1

Considering masculinity inherently toxic and advocating for the utter destruction of manhood isn't a movement against toxic masculinity.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 01:42 PM
1

Again, feminization of men is not fringe. It is foundational core doctrine. It's not a few off somewhere.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 01:40 PM
1

You keep insisting it's "one person said it". It's not one person. It's a completely inseparable, foundational, core doctrine of feminism that masculinity is inherently toxic and making men more like women, feminizing them, will solve all of society's problems.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 01:40 PM
1

Again, feminization of men is not fringe. It is foundational core doctrine. It's not a few off somewhere.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 01:22 PM
1

Because it is not one person, or a few. It is ALL. If you believe in feminism you are backing the destruction of masculinity and feminization of men.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 01:16 PM
1

No. I got your point and obliterated it. Now you're resorting to ad hominems.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 01:08 PM
1

It is CORE DOCTRINE of feminism that masculinity is toxic and to rid the world of everything bad we must feminize men. This isn't even new. It's foundational.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 12:59 PM
1

Again. Not a strawman. Direct quotes from feminists can't be strawmen.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 12:46 PM
1

It's not a strawman. It's reality. Try opening your eyes.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 10:59 AM
1

https://www.instagram.com/p/CRvezzSN2k9/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
/r/MensRights15/06/22 10:36 AM
7

Yes. It is.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 04:00 AM
9

No. It isn't. First, you need to stop listening to "Feminism does X" and start looking at what it ACTUALLY does. The entire idea of toxic masculinity in feminism is built on a core of blaming men for everything. They're is no movement to solve uniquely masculine ways to be toxic. Just blame. There isn't even such a thing as "good masculinity" in feminism. Most women are not accepting of men's emotions. It's 99% women making fun of men, calling them "little babies" "fragile masculinity" "weak", e…
/r/MensRights14/06/22 10:52 PM
2

https://www.instagram.com/p/CeyHclgNMm7/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
/r/MensRights14/06/22 10:41 PM
7

Wrong. Every thing I described is toxic femininity. It has nothing to do with men. It's 100% women control and is 100% supported by feminism. Feminism is exclusively harmful to both men and women. There is no movement within feminism against "Toxic Masculinity", there is only a movement to blame men for all of society's ills, even those blatantly created and upheld by women.
/r/MensRights14/06/22 10:38 PM
7

Let's start with the second. It is undeniable. Who do you think taught men to "man up", "boys don't cry", to push down their emotions, to be good little(eventually big) soldiers who will work themselves to death providing for women, die to protect them, die in wars to secure more resources? Surely not men. The men were too busy working from before their children even opened their eyes in the morning until well after they were asleep. Why is it that showing emotions and vulnerability to a woman i…
/r/MensRights14/06/22 10:26 PM
10

Far from the truth. Toxic female environment has done far more damage. Most of what feminists consider to be patriarchy is almost exclusively taught and upheld by women.
/r/MensRights14/06/22 10:05 PM
6

Perhaps in middle east currently. That hasn't been true for very long and is scheduled to be gone very quickly. Certainly isn't true of Asia. Men are docile and under the control of their women in places like Japan and China. It's not a real thing. Actual patriarchies are historically short lived and are usually the result of majority male plutarchies extending somr of their privilege to men in general. This does not, and never has, lasted very long.
/r/MensRights09/06/22 01:47 AM
11

There is not and never has been a patriarchy. It's a myth. A lie. Western society is a plutarchy which is majority men. The ruling class being majority male is not patriarchal, it's a direct result of men being forced by women to work outside the home. As the person who then earns a paycheck it is predominantly men who become rich and thus powerful in society. The heirs to Sam Walton, his daughters, are as much a part of "the patriarchy" and are as privileged as the male CEO of any Fortune 500 c…
/r/MensRights09/06/22 01:38 AM
1

Feminism directly hurts women. And they know it. They do it on purpose. They can't get their damage done if women weren't harmed. They then misdirect the anger for the damage done at men.
/r/MensRights09/06/22 01:29 AM
8

There are no positives to feminism. It hurts men and hurts women even more. It is damaging to everyone.
/r/MensRights08/06/22 07:44 PM
16

Anybody with sense consider men an oppressed minority. Men are the minority, if only by a small percentage. Men are also the oppressed gender. Psychology, Medical, education (k-12 and college), the criminal court system, the family court system, even the laws, are directly advantaging women over men.
/r/MensRights08/06/22 07:41 PM
-6

I think it's kind of a misnomer that feminism is aligned with Democrats. Dictionary definition feminism is aligned with Democrats. Radical feminism is a fat right wing movement using the cover of the dictionary definition to use democrats for its aims.
/r/MensRights08/06/22 02:17 PM
1

I've read the literature. It isn't even debatable. The research is extremely clear. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
/r/MensRights05/06/22 01:10 PM
1

It's already been discussed at an intellectual level. Has been for over 50 years. It's been proven true.
/r/MensRights05/06/22 01:04 PM
1

Women do NOT attempt more often, women fail and end up in the hospital more often. When you add failed and successful attempts together, the rate is 3-1 male.
/r/MensRights04/06/22 12:29 AM
2

Nope. A right winger did and is now blaming it on "the left".
/r/MensRights20/05/22 08:14 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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