TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

NoDanaOnlyZuuI Archive

View 1 posts and 5,419 comments by NoDanaOnlyZuuI 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)
53

DiscussionNoDanaOnlyZuuI/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 01:02 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 5,419 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
–

You’re still making the same unsupported leap. I never said those comments don’t exist. I said you haven’t shown they’re representative of society. Reddit, Instagram, and TikTok aren’t random samples of the population. People choose to use those platforms, choose what to engage with, and algorithms decide what gets pushed. A post getting thousands of upvotes or 100k likes tells you it resonated with that audience. It doesn’t tell you what society as a whole believes. And you’re doing the same th…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:42 AM
–

Both things can be true.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:20 PM
–

Ok, and? I have friends I’d lend money to and friends I wouldn’t. I have friends I’d invite to trivia night and friends I wouldn’t. We all apply different standards to different people. That’s a normal part of life. Stop pretending it’s unique to women or that it’s inherently wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:20 PM
1

We’re talking about anonymous internet banter, are we not?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 01:19 AM
1

Can you point to the part where I said women want unattractive men to approach them? Because I didn’t. I said women don’t all react the same way.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 12:16 AM
-1

You keep substituting “this opinion gets a lot of engagement online” for “this is what everyone believes.” Those aren’t the same claim. I never denied those comments exist. I denied that they’re representative of society.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 05:41 PM
–

I never said this was justice for history. I said OP is taking problems that exist today and attributing them to women or feminism without demonstrating the connection.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:59 PM
–

Saying that men historically held political, legal, and institutional power isn’t blaming every man alive today. It’s just acknowledging history. Funny how collective history is fair game when some men want credit for “building civilization,” but the second that same history involves power instead of praise, suddenly it’s “don’t blame me.”
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:45 PM
–

Isn’t that something? Almost every solution you listed is about taking something away from women. Your solutions seem less about helping men and more about hurting women. How predictable. Why not put that energy into improving men’s mental health, helping boys who are falling behind in school, funding addiction treatment, homelessness programs, job training, or fatherhood initiatives? You know…things that would actually improve men’s lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:26 PM
–

I’m not even going to guess what women would’ve done because it doesn’t matter. That’s not the world we live in. We can deal with the history we actually have instead of inventing one we don’t. We know who held political, legal, and institutional power for centuries. And if you’re claiming women are broadly being hired without merit, that’s something you need to support with evidence. As for what feminism has done: - The right to vote - The right to own and inherit property independently - The r…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:15 PM
–

Did you think that one through at all? Giving birth to someone isn’t the same as holding political, legal, and institutional power for generations. Saying women are responsible for men’s actions because they gave birth to them is a pretty convenient way to erase men’s agency.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:11 PM
–

Instead of trying to pressure people into having more kids, I’d rather see us fix the systems that depend on endless population growth. We should be investing in automation, innovation, and adapting to demographic change instead of expecting every generation to produce more people. Infinite growth isn’t a sustainable model anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 10:31 AM
–

That’s not what the paper says. It argues that women’s increasing independence may change partner selection. That’s very different from claiming average men are inherently undesirable or that the paper proves systemic misandry.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 10:12 AM
–

If this were happening to any other group, people wouldn’t be spending all their time trying to figure out who to blame. They’d be talking about solutions. So what are yours, other than blaming women?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 10:10 AM
–

It’s always interesting watching men point to systems men built, maintained, and enforced for generations, then call the consequences “misandry.” Women didn’t exclude themselves from dangerous jobs. They were excluded. Icelandic women working in the public sector still pay taxes like everyone else, so pretending men are solely funding their jobs is misleading. Men are less likely to seek mental health support, which contributes to worse outcomes, but that isn’t evidence that women hate men. Most…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 10:04 AM
1

Definitions evolve. All incels are involuntarily celibate. Not all involuntarily celibates are incels. Hope that helps.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 09:54 AM
1

You can popularize it if you want. I don’t think women are going to care nearly as much as you think they will. We already get called worse by men on a daily basis.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 09:53 AM
-2

Cool. And? One statistic doesn’t magically make the other disappear.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 09:46 AM
–

So you’re quoting the exact thing I’m disagreeing with? That’s your evidence?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 09:39 AM
–

Nothing said was specific to men.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:46 AM
-1

Pick one. Either it has “no basis in reality,” or it’s “extremely rare.” Those are two different arguments. Multiple attacks have been explicitly linked to incel ideology, to the point that violent incel ideology is recognized as a form of extremist terrorism in several jurisdictions. So no, the association didn’t just appear out of thin air.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 12:21 AM
–

What is the point? Spell it out.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 12:06 AM
3

“There absolutely are women who do have different standards depending on how they’re perceiving their date.” Yeah, no shit. If I have instant chemistry with one guy and I’m unsure about another, of course I’m going to behave differently. That’s called being human. Men do the exact same thing. I don’t know why you think you’ve uncovered some uniquely female behaviour. “And that is a problem that should be fixed.” Fixed how? You can’t force attraction to be distributed equally. People don’t feel t…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 12:05 AM
-1

“No basis in reality” isn’t true, though. There have been multiple, and recent, attacks explicitly tied to incel ideology. That doesn’t mean most incels are violent or that every sexually unsuccessful man is a threat. But it does mean the association didn’t come out of nowhere. As for violent criminals being sexually successful, I don’t disagree that some are. But I don’t see how that proves your point. Plenty of abusive men are charismatic, manipulative, persistent, or simply approach more wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 12:01 AM
0

Even if I accepted everything you said about those studies, it still wouldn’t support your conclusion. “Not all sexually unsuccessful men are dangerous” and “society unfairly stereotypes them” are different claims. One doesn’t automatically prove the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 10:39 PM
-1

You’re confusing “a lot of Redditors agree” with “this is what society believes.” Reddit is a self selected group with its own culture, biases, and echo chambers. It’s not a representative sample of the population. Also, you’re oversimplifying the comments. Saying someone should work on their personality isn’t the same as saying all sexually unsuccessful men have bad personalities. Most people are responding to the men who are blaming women, not quietly existing as virgins.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 10:33 PM
1

Cool, and there are tons of places on Reddit where women get called cat ladies, whores, gold diggers, or told they’ll die alone because they rejected a guy. What’s your point? Reddit doesn’t prove what society believes. And you’ve changed your argument. First it was “society.” Now it’s “there are places on Reddit.” Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 09:22 PM
5

You’re still making the same unsupported claim. You keep saying men are labeled creepy, evil, and moral failures simply for being sexually unsuccessful, but you haven’t shown that’s actually what’s happening. And no, I don’t believe in a “just world.” I’ve already said attraction isn’t fair and dating success isn’t entirely within someone’s control. What I disagree with is your claim that being sexually unsuccessful is what gets men labeled creepy. Being sexually unsuccessful and behaving in a c…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 09:02 PM
1

I wasn’t just talking about bitterness after rejection. I was talking about the behaviours that lead to repeated rejection in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:56 PM
8

So you’re just trolling?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:47 PM
6

How is this even a question? Of course we’d pick the person who’s actually present. Why wouldn’t we? That doesn’t mean women just fall for whoever hangs around. There still has to be attraction. But if you’re interested in two people, the one who’s consistently there, spending time with you, talking to you, and actually building a relationship is obviously going to have the advantage. Relationships don’t just appear out of thin air. They grow because people are present in each other’s lives. I’m…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:47 PM
4

Most people know that if they take their shot, they might get rejected. They don’t complain because they never thought they were entitled to a yes. The criticism isn’t about being rejected. It’s about acting like someone did something wrong by rejecting you.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:27 PM
4

And there it is again. Instead of accepting that attraction is individual, you jump to “women secretly don’t want unattractive men to approach them.” No. Women don’t all want the same thing. Some are flattered by being approached. Some aren’t. Some will reject you politely. Some won’t. That’s people, not some hidden ideology.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:24 PM
3

You’re doing it again. You keep telling everyone what they secretly believe without ever showing that’s what they actually believe. Most people don’t think lonely men deserve to be lonely. They just don’t think women are obligated to solve that loneliness. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:11 PM
5

Or their virginity is a direct result of their behaviour
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:11 PM
5

So now “society” has a subconscious urge? You’re still assigning motives to millions of people you can’t possibly know. “People disagree with me” is one thing. “People subconsciously do it to protect the peace of mind of the sex havers” is an extraordinary claim, and you’ve given no reason to believe that’s what’s actually happening.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:48 PM
5

I understand it just fine. You’re the one arguing against something I never said. I never claimed consent was based on morality. I said it’s based on whether that person wants you. A woman can consent to one man and not another for any reason she chooses. That’s literally what consent means.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:43 PM
4

“No, you” isn’t an argument. If you think I’ve got the cause and effect backwards, explain why instead of just declaring it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:41 PM
8

You say “looks like we’re posting this shit again” like you just dropped a peer reviewed study. It’s a fucking comic strip. Some genuinely good men struggle with dating. Some genuinely awful men don’t. The exact same thing is true for women. Some amazing women struggle to find a partner, while some objectively shitty women always seem to have men lining up for them. That’s life. It doesn’t prove women are applying some secret set of rules. It just proves attraction isn’t a meritocracy.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:40 PM
5

How exactly would I know a man is a virgin unless he tells me? The criticism isn’t about being a virgin. It’s about the attitude that sometimes comes with it, like blaming women, acting resentful, or expecting women to fix it for you. Those are two completely different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:34 PM
7

That’s not gaslighting. Treating different people differently is just normal human behaviour. You probably don’t joke with your boss the same way you joke with your best friend. You don’t trust every stranger the same way you trust your family. Why would attraction be any different? How about you stop trying to gaslight women into believing this is something only women do. Men do it all the time. Men don’t treat every woman the same either. They make exceptions for women they’re attracted to, wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:32 PM
7

I don’t know. Ask an American. What you’re calling “selective behaviour” is just consent. A woman can enthusiastically sleep with one man and not want to kiss another. She doesn’t owe every man the same level of access because she gave it to someone else. And calling these men “bitter rejects” is an interesting choice when you’re arguing women are unfair to them. If that’s genuinely how you see them, don’t be surprised when women pick up on the bitterness.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:29 PM
1

Most people have no idea who’s a virgin. The ones who get called out are the ones who loudly advertise it by making their lack of sex everyone else’s problem and directing their anger at women. The virginity isn’t what people are reacting to. The behaviour is.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:25 PM
6

Yeah, and plenty of people on Reddit think the earth is flat and birds aren’t real. It’s social media. Random people saying something doesn’t mean it represents everybody.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:24 PM
5

Unless you were there, you don’t know whether he was creepy or not. Wanting a kiss and acting in a creepy way aren’t mutually exclusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:23 PM
5

“Society is afraid of acknowledging that most of these men are unsuccessful because women are free to not need men.” No, it isn’t. I see women acknowledge that all the time. Women have been saying for years that they don’t need men financially, and that’s hardly some taboo topic society is afraid to talk about. “They want peaceful, good boy workers and tax payers so that the sex havers can live without worry.” Who is “they”? Women didn’t create the tax system. Women didn’t build the economic sys…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:21 PM
9

I think you’ve got the cause and effect backwards. Men aren’t criticized because they’re sexually unsuccessful. They’re criticized when they turn that frustration into resentment and start treating women like they owe them something. Being involuntarily celibate isn’t a moral failing. Believing women are responsible for fixing it is. All incels are involuntarily celibate, but not all involuntarily celibate men are incels. Those aren’t interchangeable terms.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 05:23 PM
4

Congratulations. You’ve learned about consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 05:13 PM
5

So now the bar is “unless it started before puberty, it doesn’t count”? That’s a convenient way to dismiss anyone whose experiences don’t fit your preferred narrative. Trauma isn’t only valid if it began in childhood.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 03:33 PM
2

You mean the way men call women lonely cat ladies without knowing anything about their lives? It’s almost like insulting people isn’t a gendered trait.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 03:27 PM
42

You’re comparing different women as if they’re the same person. - Some women will sleep with a guy on the first date. Others won’t sleep with anyone on the first date. A woman deciding not to sleep with you doesn’t mean she’s applying a different standard. It means she’s making her own choice. - Wanting sex doesn’t make someone entitled. Thinking someone should want to have sex with you because you want it does. - Attraction isn’t distributed fairly. Some people click instantly, some don’t, and …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 03:25 PM
1

Oh, well TIL forgetting your password is something only irresponsible young men do. Women have obviously never lost anything, forgotten a password, or had a payment issue. OP’s best examples are just everyday customer service interactions. The only point I’m missing is how OP managed to take those completely ordinary situations and turn them into a flaw that’s supposedly unique to men.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 02:12 PM
1

You’re only looking at this from the man’s perspective. A woman approaching first doesn’t magically make things safer or easier for women. It creates a different problem: is he interested in me, or is he just saying yes because he thinks sex is on the table? There was literally a study where attractive students asked strangers if they’d have sex. Around 75% of the men said yes. Women were essentially at zero. That tells you women can’t assume a man saying yes is actually interested in them. That…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 05:40 PM
1

Did you stretch before those leaps?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 05:34 PM
4

It's such a nonsense question. It doesn't matter what someone brings to the table. It matters what you value in a partner. If you asked my brother what he brings to the table, he'd probably say he's a great, experimental cook. If you asked his wife, that wouldn't even make her top 10 because she couldn't care less about food. She'd happily eat the Matrix gruel every day without complaint. What matters to one person can be completely irrelevant to someone else. I don't know what you value, so ask…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 04:43 PM
7

Good thing he's in an opinion sub then.....oh., wait
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 04:28 PM
7

"Women are so narcissistic they don't want to talk to meeeee." It's pretty self-centred to assume that if women don't want to have deep conversations with you, they must not like deep conversations at all. Women have those conversations with other women, their partners, friends, family, and peers every day. They also make up huge portions of academia, journalism, law, medicine, politics, science, and countless other fields built around discussing complex ideas, so they're clearly having those co…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 04:27 PM
0

This reads like you started with the conclusion that feminists think women are morally perfect, then worked backwards looking for examples that support it. A few Reddit comments aren’t evidence of what millions of feminists believe. They’re just a few Reddit comments. Do some people make excuses for women who commit crimes? Sure. Just like some people bend over backwards to excuse men. Neither proves an entire movement believes women are morally perfect. Then you make a huge leap from “some femi…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 11:35 AM
1

It simply should not be treated as the universal standard or the ultimate measure of confidence and romance. I don't think it is. It's just one common way relationships start. Plenty begin through friends, work, hobbies, school, social circles, or family introductions.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 03:58 PM
–

Are you telling me you've never dropped or lost something? Your arguments are so unserious I feel like I'm the one talking to a child.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 04:15 PM
5

Because you're acting like being broke, clumsy, or forgetful are not only male only behaviours but somehow make someone undateable,
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 04:08 PM
–

JFC it’s not too late to delete this.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 03:47 PM
8

Why would a gym going crowd be more competent? That makes absolutely no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 03:45 PM
85

People go to the front desk because that’s literally what the front desk is for. If someone’s membership defaulted or they can’t access their account, what exactly are they supposed to do? You’re taking interactions that require employee assistance and using them as proof an entire generation of men is helpless. That’s confirmation bias. And none of your examples are male-specific. Women lose things, forget passwords, have payment issues, and ask customer service for help too. That’s called bein…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 03:14 PM
–

I’m glad it worked for you. I have no issue with sharing advice that people have found helpful. What I disagree with is the conclusion you’re drawing from it. If a particular approach improves someone’s relationship, that doesn’t prove that most women don’t know what they want. That’s the claim I’ve been challenging this whole time, and you still haven’t provided evidence for it. You’ve offered personal experience and anecdotes, which are useful for generating hypotheses, but they don’t establis…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 11:43 PM
–

I’m not pissed, I just disagree with you. You spent a lot of time explaining why you hold that opinion, but not providing evidence that it’s true. “I used to think like other women,” “I found a course,” and “I’ve observed people online” are all anecdotes. They don’t establish that most women don’t know what they want. Now you’ve shifted to “women don’t tell men what they want,” which is a completely different claim. Not communicating what you want isn’t the same as not knowing what you want. You…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 10:06 PM
1

Your evidence for “most women don’t know what they want” is that some women are single, divorced, ask for validation online, or change their minds. That makes zero sense. Being single doesn’t mean you don’t know what you want. Neither does getting divorced. If anything, those can both be evidence that someone knows what they don’t want. Seeking validation online is a bonkers example. And changing your mind is completely normal human behaviour, not uniquely female. So does that mean that the coun…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 08:12 PM
–

I did read it. Twice. You said men “insist,” “make,” and “fail.” Not having a stable income doesn’t change anything. You’re still describing a series of joint decisions as though only one adult is making them. A man can make anything his goal, but he still needs a woman to agree to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 02:36 PM
0

Congratulations, you’ve discovered that women are human. Some women are shitty. Some men are shitty. This didn’t need a dissertation.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 02:31 PM
–

Why are you talking like women have no say in any of this? Marriage, kids, and whether one parent stays home are decisions that involve two adults. Women aren’t passive bystanders in their own lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 02:13 PM
36

This falls apart the moment you realize “I don’t want to raise my partner” and “I won’t support my partner when he needs me” are completely different statements.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 12:46 PM
1

Never. I can recognize an attractive man without reducing him to a sex object.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 12:41 PM
–

Anecdotes aren’t evidence
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 07:07 PM
8

Another day, another “it couldn’t possibly be me” post. You’re taking “I got rejected by liberal women” and turning it into “liberal women don’t like liberal men.” Those aren’t the same thing. Plenty of liberal men date and marry liberal women, so your theory falls apart pretty quickly. “Higher testosterone = conservative = more attractive” is a pretty big leap. The evidence doesn’t support that chain of reasoning. Attraction is influenced by a lot of factors, and political ideology isn’t determ…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 06:08 PM
10

You’re confusing a generalization with a universal statement. Saying women know what they want doesn’t mean every woman is perfectly self aware 100% of the time. Just like saying men know what they want doesn’t mean no man has ever been indecisive. I never said no one should give advice. I said strangers can’t diagnose why a specific person isn’t getting dates because they don’t know that person. Generic advice has limits. Some of it can be helpful, but it isn’t tailored to the individual, so it…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 11:31 PM
2

Yes, she genuinely desires that you support her family
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 10:40 PM
43

Dating advice for men doesn’t work because you’re asking internet strangers. How the fuck are we supposed to know why you’re not getting dates? We don’t know if your profile sucks, if the way you come across is off putting, if you dress like a hobbit, or if you smell like a bag of hot garbage. Ask people who know you for advice, not strangers. Women do know what they want. The problem is that you’re treating millions of women like they’re supposed to all want the same thing. One woman wants ABC,…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 09:21 PM
1

They do exist. They just don’t need to make their dating problems everyone else’s problem
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 08:14 PM
3

Maybe femcels just aren’t flooding this sub with bitter rants
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 07:26 PM
4

How do you tell the difference between AI and someone who just knows how to write properly?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 07:22 PM
12

Again, what evidence do you have that feminists were behind the outrage or got her banned?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 06:50 PM
15

You’re still conflating rights with approval. Supporting someone’s autonomy doesn’t mean you have to approve of every choice someone makes. And what evidence do you have that feminists got them banned? Plenty of people who aren’t feminists think what they’re doing is ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 06:20 PM
15

Believing someone has the right to do something doesn’t mean you have to approve of what they do. Supporting someone’s autonomy isn’t the same as endorsing every choice they make. It’s like saying that if you support free speech, you have to agree with everything people say.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 06:08 PM
1

“Just don’t decry failing marriage and birth rates” Um…ok.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:49 PM
2

Did you get this idea from Ted Lasso?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:46 PM
2

“Your lack of imagination” wasn’t a personal attack. It was a criticism of your reasoning. Not considering alternative explanations isn’t evidence. More importantly, you’ve shifted your claim. You started with “had to be true for all fathers throughout history.” We’ve already established that isn’t true. Now you’re asking what was more common. Those are different claims. I don’t know which was more common, and neither do you. That’s an empirical question, not one you can answer by intuition. If …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:04 PM
3

“Had to be true for all fathers throughout history” Why? Gay men have fathered children through heterosexual intercourse too, so that assumption clearly doesn’t hold. You’re treating intercourse as proof of attraction for men, but not for women. Where’s the evidence for that asymmetry? Men can have erections and father children without being sexually attracted to the woman they’re with. Your lack of imagination isn’t proof of your conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:35 AM
3

Which conclusion do you think these papers don’t support? My claim was that stress, relationship quality, health, communication, and mismatched desire are common contributors to dead bedrooms. Every one of these papers discusses one or more of those factors.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:03 AM
1

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-022-00026-2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20545400/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24677217/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32773572/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40208220/
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 11:42 PM
2

You’re starting with your conclusion and then working backwards. Men can and do marry for security, companionship, children, religion, social expectations, and status too. The fact that an erection is required for conception doesn’t suddenly make every husband deeply sexually attracted to his wife. You’re confusing physiology with motivation. Men can get erections for all kinds of reasons, so an erection isn’t proof of desire any more than the absence of a female orgasm is proof there was none.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 11:36 PM
4

You just described reasons people get married, not reasons women get married. Men also marry for security, companionship, kids, social expectations, religion, and status. None of that demonstrates women are uniquely likely to marry someone they don’t desire. And the orgasm argument is especially bizarre. Women don’t need to orgasm to conceive, but orgasm and desire aren’t the same thing. A woman can desire sex and not orgasm, just as a man can orgasm without desiring a long-term relationship. Yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 10:16 PM
1

Different standards can explain some disagreements, but they don’t explain the overall pattern. Research consistently finds women do more housework even when both partners work similar hours and report similar standards of cleanliness. And a lot of household tasks aren’t arbitrary. Dishes, laundry, bathrooms, and garbage all need to be dealt with. If one person keeps waiting until the other finally does it, that’s not just a difference in standards. It’s one person carrying more of the responsib…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 09:11 PM
8

Great, so we’ve gone from “dead bedrooms are because women settle for men they don’t desire” to “there are multiple causes, including relationships changing over time.” That’s been my point the whole time.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 07:14 PM
0

It’s not 1955. Women don’t have to settle
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 07:13 PM
5

And you’re assuming the woman’s wants changed instead of her circumstances. Maybe she wanted a relationship all along but had some casual encounters that didn’t turn into one. You’re giving men the benefit of the doubt while denying women the exact same grace.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 07:07 PM
4

That’s quite the leap. “It couldn’t possibly be anything I did. She just never desired me.” That’s a remarkably convenient story to tell yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 07:06 PM
6

You’ve abandoned your own argument. First it was “if someone changes what they want, be suspicious.” Now it’s “well, men’s circumstances are different.” You’re making exceptions for men while insisting the worst interpretation for women. That’s not a consistent principle.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 06:38 PM
5

“Single mothers exist” isn’t evidence that women lie about what they want. It’s evidence that relationships sometimes end. You’re skipping about ten logical steps to get to the conclusion you already wanted.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:33 PM
7

That’s called unfalsifiable reasoning. You’ve built a theory that can’t be wrong because you redefine every alternative explanation as proof of it. That’s not how evidence works.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:30 PM
6

By your own logic, she should be suspicious of you. You’ve never had casual sex before, so why do you suddenly want it with her? If people aren’t allowed to want different things at different stages of life, that standard applies to you too.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:29 PM
5

So women aren’t allowed to grow or change? Are you the same person you were 5 or 10 years ago? Nobody is. People evolve. Maybe someone wanted casual sex at one point and doesn’t anymore. If you’re exactly the same person you were 10 years ago, that’s probably not something to brag about. Are you just as doting and romantic five years into a relationship as you were on the first date? Probably not. Novelty fades, comfort grows, and relationships evolve. That’s not inconsistency. That’s life.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 04:15 PM
20

Most women would rather be single than settle. Research consistently points to the following as causes of dead bedrooms: • Mismatched libido. This is by far the most common issue. One partner naturally has a higher libido than the other, and the gap becomes harder to manage over time. • Relationship dissatisfaction. Couples who experience unresolved conflict, resentment, poor communication, criticism, or emotional distance are significantly more likely to report little or no sexual activity. Sex…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 04:05 PM
61

How do so many of you simultaneously believe women’s standards are impossibly high and that they’re all dating men they aren’t attracted to? The cognitive dissonance is wild. If she doesn’t date you, her standards are too high. If she does, she’s settling. Either way, you’ve created a worldview where women can’t win and your assumptions can never be wrong. It’s a self-serving narrative that lets you stay the victim no matter what happens.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 02:53 PM
2

So your argument is that the study doesn’t count because you assume the peer reviewers were feminists? That’s not a critique of the methodology, it’s an excuse to ignore evidence. And who are “you people”? I haven’t dismissed men’s self-reports. Pick a standard and apply it consistently. I’d bet good money that if this study had reached the opposite conclusion, we wouldn’t be having this conversation about self-reports or peer review.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 12:54 PM
–

Do you think maybe your friends have a “type”?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 02:26 AM
-1

“A significant % of women if not a majority.” Men confidently telling women what “most women” think will never stop being maddening. There’s literally a whole movie trope of a guy asking, “Can I kiss you?” and it’s portrayed as sweet, sexy, or respectful, not a turnoff. Yet you’ve decided that “most women” secretly hate it, based on… what exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 02:01 PM
4

Peer review isn’t “we investigated ourselves.” If you think the study is flawed, point to the flaw. Otherwise you’re just rejecting evidence that doesn’t fit your conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 12:40 PM
–

If someone posts their dating preferences online, people are going to have opinions. That’s true whether it’s a woman saying men are trash or a guy saying he wants a 22-year-old virgin who cooks and never argues. Welcome to the internet My point hasn’t changed. If your standards mean you stay single, so what? You’re acting like not getting a relationship automatically means those standards are unrealistic. It doesn’t. If someone would rather stay single than settle, and they’re perfectly fine wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 02:32 AM
–

You’re describing loud people on social media, not women. There are just as many men online posting laundry lists of what women should be. I don’t care if either sex has high standards. If you can’t find someone who meets them, stay single.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 01:42 AM
3

“He literally did everything in his power.” Except he didn’t. He was using the free tier, which limits how many people you can even swipe on. That’s like saying you read the whole book after only reading the back cover blurb. And from one guy’s experience you’ve concluded that only four types of men ever get laid? Come on. Most men in relationships aren’t famous, aren’t massive steroid bodybuilders, and aren’t players. If your theory reflected reality, the majority of couples wouldn’t exist. Thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 12:24 AM
–

Some people blame the opposite sex. Some don’t. Men do the same. Plenty of women simply decide they’d rather be single than be in a relationship they don’t want. That’s not entitlement. That’s making a choice. Funny enough, women aren’t the ones all over the internet telling men to lower their standards. Men are the ones constantly telling women to lower theirs.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 11:55 PM
7

You call them unrealistic. They call them standards. Nobody is obligated to date someone they don’t want to. Being single is a far better outcome than settling for a relationship that isn’t right for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 05:02 PM
5

That’s a bit rich coming from someone whose entire argument has been “women do it too.” Every time I point out a contradiction, you respond by accusing women of the same thing instead of addressing it. At this point, I’m struggling to believe you’re not a troll.** **I’m done entertaining this.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 02:29 PM
5

So when you don’t address “not all men,” should I assume you think it is all men? Or is it only important to avoid generalizations when they’re about men? I’m not going to respond to every point because you’ve repeatedly ignored mine, moved the goalposts, and changed the subject. That’s not good-faith discussion. The irony is you’ve spent this entire conversation accusing women of behaviours you’ve repeatedly demonstrated yourself. The empathy you’re asking for is the empathy you’re refusing to …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 12:32 PM
6

You want women to extend empathy and grace to men while writing several paragraphs explaining why women are manipulative, delusional, emotionally reactive, and incapable of good faith. Every sentence starts with “women…” as though 4 billion people all think and behave the same way. Then you complain about being treated like a monolith, while conveniently forgetting how often we hear “not all men”. Do you see the contradiction?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 12:16 PM
5

“Every gendered discussion ever” isn’t evidence. It’s confirmation bias. If I judged men by every gendered discussion on Reddit, I’d think they hate women too.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 11:34 AM
7

I do. Criticism isn’t hate. Disagreement isn’t hate. And a few women using the word “hate” doesn’t mean most women hate men. If I judged men’s attitudes toward women based on what I read on Reddit, I’d conclude men hate women too.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 11:33 AM
4

A peer-reviewed paper can absolutely analyze survey data. That’s how a lot of psychology and social science research is conducted. This is a lot of deflection for someone who was asked for one thing: evidence that most Western women hate men. Where’s the evidence that most Western women hate men? I’m still waiting.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 11:26 AM
12

By that logic, anyone who disagrees with someone else hates them. I’m an atheist. I don’t hate Christians. I’m an omnivore. I don’t hate vegans. I’m childfree. I don’t hate parents. Disagreement isn’t hatred. Are you just going to ignore the peer-reviewed study I provided because it contradicts your claim?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 08:45 PM
22

I asked for evidence that most Western women hate men. Instead, you switched to talking about: - how many women identify as feminists - political affiliation - different branches of feminism - progressive vs conservative views - patriarchy theory. None of those establish that most women hate men. The Misandry Myth analyzed nearly 10,000 participants across six studies and found that feminists’ attitudes toward men were positive overall and did not differ significantly from non-feminists’. It als…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 06:51 PM
1

You’re not even going to pretend to be asking in good faith? Interesting.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 04:38 PM
1

If someone makes a broad claim in a reply, I’m free to challenge that claim without debating the entire original post.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 04:27 PM
1

That’s correct. Their comment was in response to the OP. Mine wasn’t. I was responding to what they said, not the OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 03:13 PM
3

None of that answers what I said. You went from “some women did X” to “women.” That’s collective blame. If you’re okay with that, then you don’t get to complain when people generalize about men.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 03:11 PM
5

But that’s a different claim. Having more resources available on paper doesn’t mean someone is privileged or able to access them. Cost, wait lists, location, family pressure, fear, and abusive partners all stop people from getting help. I’m not arguing that women in some countries don’t face far greater barriers. My point was simply that “grew up in the West” isn’t the same thing as “grew up privileged.”
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 03:09 PM
3

I wasn’t replying to OP. I was replying to the claim that growing up in a Western country means someone’s life has been privileged.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 03:02 PM
3

That’s a country-level trend, not an individual one. You don’t get to tell someone they’ve lived a privileged life just because of where they were born.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 02:48 PM
5

A few people do something, and suddenly all women own it. Are we doing collective guilt now? Because I’ve got plenty of examples too. “Manspreading” being a commonly used term doesn’t mean women think men sitting is misogyny. And “powerful women have stopped men getting help by claiming misogyny” is a pretty big claim. You’re going to need to provide sources for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 02:45 PM
1

You’re doing exactly what OP did. OP turned “negative views” into “hate.” You’re turning “positive stereotypes” into “men don’t hate women.” Neither source actually measured what you’re claiming.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 02:35 PM
2

“Women” don’t call those things misogynistic. Some women do. You’re taking a handful of fringe examples and treating them as representative of women as a whole. And OP is taking a survey about “negative views” and turning it into “hate.” It’s the same kind of exaggeration.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:33 PM
2

You’re conflating different things. The “women are wonderful effect” measures positive stereotypes, not whether men hate women. You can believe women are kinder or more nurturing and still hold misogynistic views. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:31 PM
5

Aren’t they? If a survey of 2,000 people is enough for you to conclude “most Western women hate men,” then surely the existence of large misogynistic communities online would be enough to conclude “most Western men hate women.” Or maybe neither conclusion is justified.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:20 PM
17

Ironically, you’re doing the same thing as the OP by painting millions of people with one brush. Plenty of Western women have experienced abuse, discrimination, poverty, or other hardships. Growing up in a Western country doesn’t mean someone’s life has been privileged.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:16 PM
57

Can you cite a survey that actually concludes most Western women hate men? Not “less positive,” “more critical,” or “more likely to view men negatively.” I’m asking for one that measures or explicitly concludes women hate men. I swear some of you forget words have meanings. It’s a bit ironic to accuse women of claiming everything is misogyny while claiming surveys show women hate men. Your own source doesn’t support that claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:15 PM
0

That isn’t what the survey says. It surveyed about 2,000 British adults aged 18 to 30, which isn’t representative of “most women.” It found that 35% of British women under 25 had a positive view of men. It doesn’t say most women hate men, and “not positive” isn’t the same as “hate.” Those are different claims. Words have meanings.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:09 PM
1

Being attracted to competence and ambition doesn’t mean women don’t love men deeply. And men being more likely to physically protect women isn’t evidence they love more. People are generally more willing to protect someone they see as more physically vulnerable. I also don’t think either sex has a monopoly on “better” love. Both men and women can love selflessly, conditionally, possessively, or generously. That’s a human trait, not a male or female one.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 04:17 AM
14

A lot of unmarried men are respected for what they contribute. Scientists, artists, entrepreneurs, athletes, teachers, firefighters, soldiers, mentors. Their value isn’t dependent on having a wife. Society values people, men and women, who contribute something meaningful. You’re also making a huge leap from “society encourages stable jobs and families” to “society manipulates men for women’s benefit.” If that’s true, why are women now nearly half the workforce and increasingly the primary earner…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 05:02 PM
–

We’d need to see the rest of the conversation, not one sentence in isolation
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 03:29 PM
–

The research doesn’t really support your premise. Men are generally more likely to overestimate their intelligence, competence and even their own attractiveness, while women tend to rate themselves more modestly or more accurately. So where’s the evidence that women, specifically, don’t consider themselves average? And even if some women have high dating standards, that still doesn’t mean they think they’re above average. Those are two completely different claims. You’re assuming one proves the …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 03:28 PM
0

53% saying they’re worried about being seen as creepy doesn’t prove women told them never to approach. It proves they’re worried about how they’ll be perceived. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 10:51 PM
-2

Give me a break. Very few women tell men they can’t respectfully talk to women in normal social settings. They’ve been told not to harass women, ignore boundaries, or keep pushing after someone’s clearly not interested. Those aren’t the same thing. They also tell men to read the room. Acting like saying hi at a bar, club, or hobby group is somehow “a hair’s breadth away from violence” is a massive leap. That’s not what most women have been saying. If some men have decided the only safe option is…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 02:54 PM
1

You’re also a virgin I presume?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 02:39 PM
1

If it gets to the point where it negatively affects someone’s real life, then yes. That’s why I meant by “like any other addiction”.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 01:47 PM
0

The ones who are actually addicted to porn and let it affect their day to day lives. Like any other addiction.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 01:33 PM
1

You did. You said her past with another man “inside” makes intimacy “nothing special.” That’s you defining intimacy almost entirely by sexual exclusivity. Calling everyone else hedonistic doesn’t change that. It just means you care more about being first than building a meaningful relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 01:31 PM
7

Pathetic. If all she is to you is a vagina, just buy a Fleshlight. Sex is only one small part of intimacy and a relationship. If another person’s past means you’ll never feel close to them, that’s a you problem, not a her problem. She’s better off without you.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 12:01 PM
0

My gender doesn’t do anything collectively. Just like your gender isn’t collectively porn sick.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 11:59 AM
0

Go outside and look around
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 10:45 AM
-2

That’s dumb. You’re confusing fantasy with standards. Men consume porn featuring women who look nothing like their partners all the time. The existence of a fantasy doesn’t prove that’s the only type of person people actually want to build a life with.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 10:44 AM
3

Doesn't this contradict your whole post? Here, nobody's deciding based on who has a spouse or kids. They're deciding based on who's able to help. That's not the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 05:22 PM
1

Are we debating whether childfree people are more expendable, whether you'd sacrifice yourself, or whether you'd survive fictional disasters? Because those are three different conversations. If your point is that people without children are expected to make more sacrifices, sure, that's debateable. But that's hardly exclusive to men. Welcome to being childfree. Women hear, "Can you work this weekend? You don't have kids," and "Can you switch days off? You don't have kids," all the time. People w…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 05:19 PM
1

If your hypothesis is that women evolved not to empathize with men because it served no evolutionary purpose, why are you treating that as a moral failing? You're criticizing women for behaving exactly as your own hypothesis predicts. I'm exhausted by this revisionist history where men are cast as humanity's selfless protectors. There was a time when people believed women reading novels would make them infertile. These weren't societies that viewed women as equals. You really think those same so…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 12:42 PM
–

Media has been selling unrealistic ideas about relationships for decades. If porn lied to men, Disney and rom-coms lied to women. Unrealistic expectations aren't gender exclusive. We all grew up consuming fantasy. Eventually, everyone has to adjust to reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 12:25 PM
3

There’s a difference between not expressing emotions in your personal relationships and spending hours online complaining about women. This post seems to be an example of the latter.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 12:11 AM
–

But she’s still wearing makeup.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 04:35 PM
1

I don’t think those are mutually exclusive. Some people really are emotionally immature and don’t connect repeated conversations with long term consequences. That’s why they act shocked when a breakup “comes out of nowhere.” But weaponized incompetence is absolutely a thing too. Plenty of people learn that if they do something badly enough, someone else will do it instead. They might not think of it as manipulation, but they’re still making a choice because it gets them what they want. Being sho…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 03:56 PM
1

I’m married, but when I was single, and if I were single again, I wouldn’t spend any time trying to figure out what “men like” because there isn’t one universal standard. Men aren’t a monolith any more than women are. If I met a man I liked, I’d get to know him and what he values. If we’re naturally compatible, great. If I’m not what he’s looking for, I’m not going to change who I am just to fit his preferences. I wouldn’t expect him to change for me. The whole point of dating is to figure out i…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 12:13 PM
2

It’s quite literally the first sentence of his post
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 09:35 AM
3

That’s a leap. Men having different dating outcomes doesn’t prove women all have similar preferences. Those are two completely different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 09:26 AM
4

So we agree women aren’t a monolith. Men being more variable doesn’t suddenly make all women think alike or support OP’s conclusions about dating, “high value” vs. “low value” men, or feminism. Women still vary a lot in personality, income, values, goals, and who they’re attracted to. The overlap between men and women is still much bigger than the differences.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 09:25 AM
5

I’m not disputing that men can be more variable on some traits. The leap is going from “more men are at the extremes” to “women are a monolith.” Those aren’t the same claim, and one doesn’t prove the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 01:48 AM
4

Even if men show greater variability on some traits, that doesn’t make women a monolith. Women vary just as much in personality, values, politics, income, relationship preferences, and pretty much everything else. And “high value” and “low value” men aren’t scientific categories. They’re internet labels. You’re taking a population-level observation and using it to justify a worldview that the hypothesis itself doesn’t support.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 11:30 PM
1

The maximum legal penalty isn’t the same thing as the most appropriate sentence. Sentencing is supposed to be proportionate and based on the facts of the case, not just the maximum allowed by statute.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 07:34 PM
1

You keep making this about single moms. I’m talking about the offence, not the offender. My point has been that this is a non-violent fraud against another individual. Jail time is not the most proportionate response, and if there are children involved, that’s another reason to consider alternatives. That has nothing to do with whether it’s the mother or the father.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 07:17 PM
1

But the debate was never about which betrayal feels worse. It was about what punishment is proportionate.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 05:43 PM
1

What part of one adult lying to another adult is so difficult for some of you to grasp? Every time someone responds, they swap in a completely different crime with different victims, different risks, and different legal considerations. If your argument only works after changing the offence, maybe it isn’t that strong to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 03:41 PM
8

I know. You told us custody laws were one of the reasons you wanted to move. That’s why people concluded custody mattered to you. That’s not exactly a leap.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 01:59 AM
9

Right. You assumed the death penalty mattered to them because they brought it up. That’s exactly what people did with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 01:26 AM
6

It’s like someone saying they want to go to a restaurant because they have amazing crème brûlée. You’d naturally assume they’re planning to order the crème brûlée. That doesn’t mean you’re accusing them of anything. You’re drawing an inference from the reason they chose to emphasize.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 12:59 AM
1

Paternity fraud is one person lying to and defrauding another person. One on one. That isn’t remotely comparable to robbing a bank or embezzlement, which can affect dozens or even hundreds of people. It’s much closer to finding out your spouse drained your bank account or forged your signature. That’s the scale we’re talking about. Let’s at least pretend we’re comparing like with like.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 11:30 PM
9

You literally volunteered that divorce custody law was one of the reasons you wanted to move. Of course people asked about it. If someone told me they were moving to a state because it doesn’t have the death penalty, I’d probably wonder why too. That isn’t hypocrisy. It’s a pretty normal follow up to the reason you chose to emphasize. You’re also taking a handful of Reddit replies and turning them into a claim about how society treats men and women. That’s a huge leap. If someone accused a woman…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 09:35 PM
–

Men have problems. Women have problems. They’re not the same problems, but pretending one sex is playing life on easy mode because you’ve made a list of the other sex’s struggles isn’t a serious analysis.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 09:26 PM
6

They don’t have to be. /thread
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:55 PM
2

I’m not diluting the topic. I said taking a child away from a loving parent is an extraordinarily severe consequence. You responded by bringing up rape and adoption. If anyone’s diluting the topic, it’s you. We’re talking about paternity fraud, a non-violent financial fraud against another adult. That’s the topic. Not rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:54 PM
2

This is a non-violent financial fraud against another adult, not a violent offence or abuse directed at the child. Punishment should fit the crime
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:20 PM
3

Are you actually serious? Ask any parent if they’d rather spend six months in jail or have their child permanently taken away. I think we both know what the answer would be. The fact that you’re acting like losing your child isn’t an extraordinarily severe consequence is honestly unbelievable. If you think removing a child from a loving parent and putting them into foster care is a proportionate response to fraud against another adult, I honestly hope you never have children.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:10 PM
3

“Definitionally” according to who? There’s no universal definition that says paternity fraud is domestic abuse. It’s fraud. Calling it “domestic abuse” instead doesn’t magically make taking someone’s kids away the appropriate response.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:07 PM
2

You’re acting like every parent with custody is some moral saint. They’re not. Plenty of people have done far worse and still kept their kids because the standard is whether they’re a danger to the child, not whether they’ve ever done something terrible to another adult. Paternity fraud is fraud against an adult, not child abuse. Those aren’t the same thing. This sounds less like concern for the child and more like you’re looking for reasons to punish women as harshly as possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:03 PM
7

Someone can commit fraud and still be a competent parent. We don’t automatically remove kids from parents who’ve committed insurance fraud, tax evasion, or plenty of other non-violent crimes. If they’re abusive or neglectful, that’s different. But paternity fraud alone doesn’t mean it’s in the child’s best interest to lose their primary caregiver.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:48 PM
3

Repayment for any financial losses, a fine, and some form of public registry for people found liable for intentional paternity fraud. Not something equivalent to a sex offender registry, but one tied to fraud or family court findings. Plus probation or community service, not jail time. Putting the mother in jail punishes the child too, and that’s not fair. It could take away their only parent and end up putting them into the foster care system. Accountability should fall on the person who commit…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:29 PM
3

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. I was just adding another angle. I think you’re right. Women’s interests seem to get questioned a lot more. Men are more likely to be taken at face value, while women are more likely to be accused of doing it for attention or have their competence questioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:21 PM
1

You’re treating people like a collection of stats that can be ranked and compared, but that’s not how relationships work. You’re basically asking people to give you a sales pitch. “I’m a good cook. I make good money. I’m adventurous. Is that what you’re looking for?” That’s just a guessing game. People don’t fall in love because someone scored an 87 in charisma and a 92 in education. You get to know someone and decide whether they’re right for you. Dating is supposed to be fun.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:16 PM
10

You’re making a leap from “this is what my ex expected from me” to “this is what women want because they’re women.” Those aren’t necessarily the same thing. A lot of people expect their romantic partner to be more emotionally supportive, more patient, and more reliable than they expect friends or strangers to be. The real question is whether those expectations were reciprocal. If she expected support but wasn’t willing to give it back, that’s a double standard. If you both expected those things …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:01 PM
4

That’s exactly it. I don’t know why so many men act like everything a woman does has to be interesting to them. They’re her hobbies. When a man complains that women’s hobbies aren’t interesting, it just screams bad partner. I don’t give a shit about my husband’s hobbies, but when he wants to talk about them, I listen because it makes me happy to see the person I love happy. He doesn’t give a shit about my hobbies either, but he listens because my happiness makes him happy. “I don’t find your hob…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 11:53 AM
3

Isn’t that the whole point of dating, though? Why are we turning courtship into a job interview where people have to list their qualifications and hope they guessed what the other person values? Ask questions, spend time together, flirt, have conversations, and figure out if you’re compatible. That’s how you discover what someone brings to your life. If you need them to open with a sales pitch, you’re taking all the humanity out of dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 11:46 AM
6

Calling people defensive is just an easy way to avoid the point. The premise is flawed. There isn’t some universal checklist of what everyone should “bring to the table” because people value different things. That’s why compatibility matters more than a list of qualifications.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 02:29 AM
2

What do you bring to the table?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 02:27 AM
3

I don’t think anyone’s saying every single person in a country is the same. The issue is you’re still treating national averages as if they’re useful predictors of individual compatibility. Even if a trend exists, it doesn’t tell you whether the person sitting across from you shares those values. And “social awkwardness is interpreted as a cultural difference” isn’t almost always true. Sometimes people cut foreigners more slack, but awkward is still awkward. Being from another country doesn’t ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 09:23 PM
31

This is such a chronically online way of looking at relationships. What someone brings to the table isn’t universal. It’s whatever their partner values. You’re acting like there’s one objective list when there isn’t. And “women have less interesting hobbies” is such a weird criticism. Interesting according to who? They’re her hobbies. As for nagging, if we’re making sweeping assumptions, maybe she’s nagging because you’re not bringing as much to the table as you think you are. The better questio…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:32 PM
6

The criticism is usually aimed at the guys who talk about women in other countries like they’re inherently more submissive, less demanding, or easier to get. You’re making a lot of sweeping claims about entire countries and cultures. Things like social awkwardness is often interpreted as a cultural difference, that people from Asian cultures are much more likely to plan their whole lives in advance, and that STEM careers are more respected in many other countries. You can’t assume someone’s pers…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:03 PM
0

You’re assuming sex is what stops these relationships from progressing, but how do you know? Maybe they’re incompatible. Maybe they want different things. Maybe her standards are the problem. You’re picking one explanation because it fits your theory. It also reads like you’re treating sex as something women should strategically withhold to make men bond. But if the only thing keeping a guy interested is not having sex yet, then he wasn’t interested in her. He was interested in the chase. Once t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 05:33 PM
2

This isn't an either/or. Being attractive can increase your chances of getting attention. Being kind, respectful and emotionally healthy increases your chances of building and keeping relationships. Reducing men's struggles to looks and money is just as simplistic as reducing them to toxicity. You're also treating all loneliness as if it means "can't get a girlfriend." It doesn't. Loneliness includes friendships, family and community too, and attractiveness has a lot less to do with those.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 12:38 PM
–

My point stands
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 11:32 AM
–

Very mature
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 11:23 AM
–

“Any is better than none” is such a sad way to look at relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 11:21 AM
–

This is such hindsight is 20/20 bullshit. You picked men who were incredibly manipulative. You think Ted Bundy’s girlfriend knew he was a serial killer? You think Paul Bernardo introduced himself as a violent rapist? These men were often charismatic, knew how to build rapport, gain trust, and manipulate people. That’s how many of them found both victims and partners. Most of these women were lied to, manipulated, and in some cases became victims themselves. You’re looking at what we know after t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 11:16 AM
3

Maybe. But if he was masking it by being kind and making her feel special, then those are the qualities she was attracted to, not arrogance or being an asshole.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 07:04 PM
1

Completely different context
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 05:19 PM
–

By that definition, planning a surprise birthday party is cheating because you wouldn’t do it if your partner were watching. You don’t know their relationship. You don’t know what they’ve agreed is okay. So you have no idea whether what she’s doing is “micro cheating” or whether she’d do the exact same thing with her partner standing beside her. You don’t know their boundaries or agreements. You’re filling in the blanks with your own assumptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 05:19 PM
4

Do we? I never have. I’ve never heard anyone else say it. A few women saying a thing isn’t all women saying a thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 05:11 PM
5

Yes, but word choice matters. I can say my single friend would be an amazing catch without saying, “If I were a lesbian, I’d be all over her.” “I’d date him if I liked men” is a weird way to compliment another guy when “he’d make a great partner” gets the exact same point across.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 05:02 PM
7

He’s not even a bad boy. She said he was “kind, nice to her, and made her feel special”. What a monster /s
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:50 PM
7

“We're not gay, but if we were, I would do everything to be with him.”
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:48 PM
1

One guy you know got cheated on and somehow you’ve decided that means most young women want “bad boys.” Come on. Be serious. Also, nothing you wrote tells us what he was actually like as a boyfriend. You listed his looks, grades, job, and work ethic. None of that tells us what it’s like to date him. How do you know he “treated her like a princess”? Because he bought her flowers once a month? Did she even want flowers? Was he emotionally available? Controlling? Insecure? Judgmental? Did they comm…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:46 PM
–

Define “micro cheating”
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:39 PM
1

The Pew survey measured relationship status, not whether respondents had "any intimacy with anyone." You're talking about a different dataset. And other surveys on sexual activity don't support your claim either. The National Survey of Family Growth found that about 24% of men ages 22 to 34 hadn't had sex in the past year, and about one-third of both young men and young women hadn't had sex in the past three months. That's a long way from "the majority of men had no intimacy."
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 03:54 PM
2

Every time I read something like this, I wonder why some men are so desperate to be with someone, anyone, that it genuinely doesn't matter who. You talk like any relationship is better than being alone. It isn't. That's like saying you'd rather eat a poisoned steak than a perfectly good chicken dinner just because steak sounds better. Being in a miserable, unhealthy relationship is a hell of a lot worse than being single. Most women aren't afraid of being single. They're avoiding bad relationshi…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 01:33 PM
1

That number was based on just 929 respondents ages 18-29, not women in general. The study also gives several possible explanations for the gap, like women dating older men and differences in how people define relationships. If a 29F is dating a 30M, she's counted in that age group and he isn't. If one person considers something a relationship and the other considers it casual, that affects the numbers too. It still doesn't support the claim that most women always have someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 12:31 PM
3

“are the are we dating the same girl websites getting taken down” Then I used your prompt “are the male version of AWDTSG usually taken down or allowed to stay up relative to AWDTSG sites” “Male-targeted versions of "Are We Dating The Same Guy" (AWDTSG) are generally allowed to stay up on Facebook with the same frequency as female-targeted sites, provided they adhere to the same platform rules.”
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 08:18 PM
4

Let me try: No, the male versions of these forums—most commonly known as "Are We Dating the Same Girl?"—are not being systematically taken down. Like their female counterparts, they continue to operate across various regions, primarily as private groups on social media platforms like Facebook. Ultimately, if a "Are We Dating the Same Girl" page disappears, it is almost always due to localized community guideline violations, poor moderation, or lack of member activity, rather than a broad legal o…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 07:39 PM
2

What did you search? Because I searched “are we dating the same girl” and was directed to multiple regional Facebook groups and a website.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 05:08 PM
3

Someone mentions death grip, which is a well-known reason some men struggle to orgasm, and your response is But what about vibrators? That’s textbook whataboutism. You didn’t address the point, you changed the subject. And you’re proving exactly why a lot of women aren’t open about their sexual history. Women have been judged for having a past for decades. You brought up vibrators like they’re evidence against women, then act surprised that women don’t hand over intimate details to people who cl…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 05:07 PM
5

They haven’t been though. A quick google search would have shown you that.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 05:00 PM
6

This is a weird point. Men didn’t quietly accept AWDTSG. They lost their minds over it too. You’re literally still complaining about it. So what’s the gotcha? That women would react the same way men already did? Clutches pearls.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 02:11 PM
11

You’re describing your experience, not disproving the research. The orgasm gap is a population-level trend, not a claim that every individual who doesn’t orgasm has the same reason. That’s like saying, “I got lung cancer without ever smoking, so the discussion around smoking is unfair.” Your experience can be completely true without invalidating what the data shows overall.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 01:01 PM
2

What?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 12:53 PM
12

Don’t post on reddit if you want to be left alone The whataboutism is a nice touch
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 12:51 PM
5

I don't think it's my job to stop someone from going down the red pill pipeline. What I do think is that ideas should be challenged. If someone says something sexist, unsupported, or based on a caricature of women, I'm going to call it out. That's not the same as attacking men. I've almost never seen someone get called a woman hater, misogynist, etc., out of nowhere. It's usually after they've said something pretty out of pocket. People don't get those labels for struggling with dating. They get…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 08:02 PM
1

The moment you have to break people down by awkwardness, attractiveness, venue, age, and other variables, you’ve already conceded that one overall success rate isn’t particularly meaningful. At that point you’re talking about dozens of different ones, each applying to a different group.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 06:15 PM
3

You’re assuming every woman agrees on what her interests are. For some women, abortion is the deciding issue. For others it’s the cost of living, immigration, crime, taxes, healthcare, or something else. You can’t just declare that every woman who votes differently is voting against her own interests because you don’t share her priorities.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 02:10 AM
5

Women aren’t the only people voting. Men vote too. And you’re still acting like women have a lineup of viable candidates who support women’s interests every election. They don’t. If those candidates aren’t on the ballot or have no realistic chance of winning, what exactly are women supposed to vote for?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 11:39 PM
8

Women don’t vote for CEOs, though. Corporate leadership is largely decided by boards and executives, who have historically been mostly men. And you say women need to stop voting against their interests like we’ve been handed a buffet of female candidates every election. That’s not how it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 09:23 PM
11

This feels like you’re rewriting history. Feminism wasn’t created to optimize child outcomes. It was about women having the same legal rights, opportunities, and autonomy as men. If that helped mothers too, great, but that was a consequence, not the mission. The fact that many families now need two incomes is an economic problem, not a feminism problem. You’re blaming the wrong thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 09:21 PM
3

So now clothing is the equivalent of "offensive and obnoxious" bumper stickers? Even if I accepted that comparison, the person vandalizing the car is still responsible for vandalizing it. That's not a defence. It's victim blaming. If you're wearing a football jersey, does that mean strangers can tackle you in the middle of the street? Or is personal responsibility only a thing when it's convenient?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 01:48 PM
1

Are you separating people by age, attractiveness, social skills, confidence, venue, and what they’re defining as “success”? The socially awkward guy approaching strangers in the produce aisle isn’t comparable to the charismatic, good-looking guy meeting women at a club. Unless you’re comparing like with like, one overall success rate tells you very little. And even if you knew the average success rate, what would you actually do with that information? It doesn’t change your odds. It doesn’t pred…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 12:45 AM
1

Who is tracking this information?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:57 PM
12

Classic grass is greener mentality. You’re romanticizing one part of the experience while pretending the rest doesn’t exist. You see the free drinks. You don’t see the harassment, being dismissed, or having your value reduced to your appearance. Objectification isn’t wanted just because someone puts effort into their appearance. Looking good isn’t consent to be reduced to a body, just like driving a nice car isn’t asking people to vandalize it. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 08:19 PM
1

I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’m saying your experience isn’t evidence that “most women have someone.” You only know the women you happened to meet. You have no way of knowing how many women were single and sitting at home because you never met them in the first place. That’s selection bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 12:37 AM
1

“This is just my experience” That’s exactly why anecdotes aren’t great evidence. You’re only aware of the women who are socially active or already talking to someone. The women sitting at home single and lonely aren’t on your radar.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 12:09 AM
1

Make the decision that makes the most sense for your family. Divide work based on who wants what, who’s better suited to it, and what makes the most financial sense, not outdated gender roles.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 10:23 PM
2

You’re describing a distribution, not a normal success rate. Those aren’t the same thing. If you actually had a representative sample of everyone who cold approaches, you could estimate a distribution. My point was that there isn’t a single “normal” success rate you can cite because it varies enormously by the person and the circumstances. Also, the numbers you just gave are completely made up unless you have data to support them. If your argument is that we could estimate a distribution with go…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 08:54 PM
2

You could estimate it, but that still wouldn't give you a "normal" success rate. It would give you the average for whatever sample you happened to survey. If your sample is mostly socially skilled, attractive, confident men approaching in bars, you'll get one number. If it's mostly shy guys approaching strangers at grocery stores, you'll get another. The estimate changes with the population you're measuring, so there's no single universal success rate.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 05:01 PM
6

Colleges and employers actually track applications, offers, acceptances, and hires, so you can calculate acceptance and hiring rates. Who's tracking every cold approach?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 04:56 PM
8

Because there is no "normal" success rate. How would you even measure that? It depends on the person, their social skills, confidence, appearance, location, age, who they're approaching, when they're approaching, and plain luck. There are way too many variables to pretend there's one universal number.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 04:50 PM
0

(IMO) In places and situations in which people normally meet. Clubs, bars, parties, social events, concerts, hobby groups, etc. Don't approach women when they're running errands, at the gym, while they're at work, demonstrating that they don't want to be bothered (headphones), alone on the street. Be respectful and take no for an answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 04:49 PM
1

He's free to stop replying, remove her, or block her. Nobody's forcing him to stay in contact. The responsibility doesn't suddenly become hers because he won't enforce his own boundaries.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 05:28 PM
4

Source?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 05:18 PM
1

That’s bullshit. She’s already told you directly and clearly that she wants to stay friends. If you’re still seeing a romantic possibility after that, that’s coming from your interpretation, not from what she actually said. Most of the time she’s probably just treating you the way she treats her other friends. The difference is that you’re looking at those interactions through the lens of attraction, so normal friendliness starts looking like mixed signals.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 11:33 AM
5

Men openly admit that they treat “wife material” differently too. Men and women do the exact same thing. You just don’t like it when women do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 11:28 AM
8

Your definition of “wife material” is the same as most women’s definition of “husband material”: someone you’d want a serious future with. The only difference is that you assume positive motives when men say it and negative motives when women say it. That’s a double standard. The idea that “husband material” means “the guy she settled for after having fun” is a chronically online take, not the normal meaning of the phrase.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 11:57 PM
5

It’s not the context. It’s hypocrisy and a double standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 08:52 PM
3

If you can’t be friends with someone who literally just told you they want to “stay friends”, then you’re the one who needs to break contact.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 08:28 PM
4

Male victims obviously exist. What I don’t understand is why you’re taking comments from a handful of women and turning them into “in the eyes of women.” If a woman knowingly lies to someone, leads them on, and exploits their feelings for money, attention, favours, or anything else, she’s in the wrong. Most women would agree with that. The problem is that you’re presenting a few bad takes as if they represent women generally. I can find people defending all kinds of terrible behaviour online. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 08:26 PM
3

Okay, but that still doesn’t make most of the items on the list red flags. Being liberal isn’t a red flag that women commonly miss. It’s not a red flag at all. Plenty of women specifically want a liberal partner. A red flag is something that signals potentially unhealthy or harmful behaviour regardless of personal preferences. A guy trying to control what you wear is a red flag whether you’re liberal or conservative. A guy who lies, manipulates, or ignores boundaries is a red flag regardless of …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 06:46 PM
2

Two things. First, a red flag is not a marker for incompatibility. Words have meanings. A red flag is a warning sign that suggests potential problems with someone’s character or behaviour, such as dishonesty, manipulation, controlling tendencies, aggression, or a lack of respect for boundaries. It’s not just “a trait that might annoy someone later.” Second, you keep saying “women complain” as though women are a monolith. For every woman complaining that a guy is quiet, liberal, or smokes weed, t…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 06:44 PM
4

The problem isn’t that your list is non-exhaustive. It’s that you’re confusing pet peeves with red flags. Actual red flags are things like dishonesty, manipulation, controlling behaviour, aggression, chronic jealousy, refusing to respect boundaries, taking no accountability for mistakes, or treating people with contempt. There’s a difference between “this person may not be compatible with me” and “this person’s behaviour suggests they may be a bad partner.” Most of your list falls into the first…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 05:12 PM
15

What a bizarre list. The fact that "mumbles when he talks" made the list, but lying, anger issues, manipulation, jealousy, and contempt didn't, says a lot about how little thought went into this. Being soft-spoken isn't a red flag. Being liberal isn't a red flag. Smoking weed isn't a red flag. At most, those are compatibility issues. A red flag is something that points to dishonesty, manipulation, controlling behaviour, aggression, entitlement, or a lack of respect for boundaries. You seem to be…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 04:58 PM
7

We also distinguish between someone we want to raise a family with and who we just want to bang Interesting. Are those the same men who think "husband material" is an insult?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 04:19 PM
1

No, I didn’t ignore it. I disagreed with the assumption built into it. You said the problem is that if men stop dating women who expect them to pay, they’ll be left with those three groups. My point has been that they won’t, because those aren’t the only women willing to pay for themselves. The first sentence doesn’t change the issue I’m taking with your argument. The categories you’re using are still caricatures.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 11:52 AM
1

You’re moving between two different arguments. The first was that women willing to pay for themselves are mostly ball breakers, sugar mamas, and single moms. I don’t think that’s true. The second is that some men complain about paying for dates. Fine. Maybe some of them are whining. But even if that’s true, it still doesn’t make the first claim true. The existence of complainers isn’t evidence that your stereotypes are accurate.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 11:14 AM
5

What exactly is there to debate? You haven’t established any facts here. You’ve made a series of assumptions and interpretations, treated them as true, and then attached a prediction to them. “Women seem to not really like men that much to begin with,” dating women “feels like pushing a boulder uphill,” and long-term relationships “turn into deals that men didn’t sign up for” aren’t facts. They’re claims. Before anyone can debate the prediction, you’d first have to demonstrate those claims are a…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 10:09 PM
1

Why are you yelling? They’re probably complaining about the same thing people complain about in every area of dating: expectations that don’t match their preferences. Whether their complaint is valid or not, it doesn’t support your argument. You claimed women who pay for themselves are basically limited to a few extreme categories. That’s the part I’m disagreeing with.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 07:57 PM
1

You’re jumping from “these women exist” to “therefore men should exclusively date them.” Most people don’t choose partners based on a single trait. The fact that a woman is willing to pay for dates doesn’t automatically make her the best match for every man.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 06:21 PM
1

You’ve created a set of cartoon characters and then treated them as the only alternatives. Most women who split costs aren’t trying to dominate men, adopt struggling younger guys, or compensate for being unattractive. Plenty of attractive, successful, emotionally healthy women pay their own way sometimes and don’t fit any of the boxes you’ve listed. They’re just normal adults.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 04:35 PM
–

My point wasn't about attraction specifically. My point was that every example that doesn't fit your theory gets explained away. And "you can't disprove my theory" is a pretty wild thing to say in a debate about evidence. If literally nothing could convince you you're wrong, then you're not following the evidence. You're defending a belief. That's exactly why every example that doesn't fit your theory gets dismissed instead of considered. Since you've already decided there's no possible evidence…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 06:07 PM
–

You realize you've built a theory where every possible outcome proves your point, right? If a woman dates Chad, that's evidence. If she dates an average guy, he's a beta. If she's happy, she's settling. If she's unhappy, that's evidence. If she stays loyal, you can't know what she's really thinking. If she cheats, that's evidence too. So what exactly would disprove your theory? Because from where I'm sitting, you've set this up so you can never be wrong. Any example that supports your view count…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 03:11 PM
1

Your argument falls apart in the first sentence. The fact that abusive men can get relationships doesn’t prove personality doesn’t matter. It proves that having some attractive personality traits doesn’t prevent someone from also having terrible ones. People aren’t either “good personality” or “bad personality.” Someone can be charismatic, confident, funny, socially skilled, and still be abusive. And your example misses the point entirely. The question isn’t whether a man who bites people has wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 11:36 AM
1

He’s one guy. Anecdotes aren’t evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 11:02 AM
10

You’re doing exactly what you’re accusing other people of doing. You say Blue Pill people assume men’s dating experiences are the same as women’s. Then in the next breath you assume women’s dating experiences are so easy that any woman who struggles must have something fundamentally wrong with her. That’s not reality either. There are women who struggle because they’re shy, socially isolated, unattractive, disabled, older, living in small towns, have unrealistic standards, have poor relationship…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 08:41 PM
–

You’re comparing a dating preference to an obligation. “I prefer men who pay” = preference. “Men owe me dinner” = entitlement. “I prefer women who are sexually compatible with me” = preference. “Women owe me sex” = entitlement. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 08:22 PM
–

You’re arguing against a point I never made. Of course women have agency. That’s exactly why they can choose not to date men who don’t meet their preferences. The part I disagree with is calling every preference you don’t like “entitlement.” If nobody is being forced to pay, and nobody is being forced to accept a second date, where exactly is the entitlement?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 08:03 PM
–

If the people you’re claiming are being harmed by the tradition support it at higher rates than the people supposedly benefiting from it, then maybe it’s not as simple as “women only support it because it benefits them.”
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 07:38 PM
–

No, entitlement would be thinking you’re owed a date, owed a relationship, or owed someone’s money. Preferring not to date men who split the bill isn’t entitlement. It’s a preference. Nobody is forcing men to pay. Women who want that can date men who do, and men who don’t want to can date women who split. That’s just compatibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 07:35 PM
–

More men than women think men should pay for a first date.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 06:57 PM
1

You really typed “most women go for the exact small minority of men and those men keep rotating them” and not once stopped to think, “wait, does this actually make sense?” Look around. The world is full of completely average men in relationships. Yet somehow we’re supposed to believe a tiny handful of men are dating all the women and endlessly “rotating” them? At some point you have to ask whether you’re describing reality or just repeating something you read online.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 06:55 PM
–

I don’t know why you thought that was a mic drop. You were the one claiming it wasn’t a tradition. Now you’re comparing it to another tradition. Whether a tradition is good or bad is a completely separate argument. My point was that it is, in fact, a tradition.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 06:48 PM
–

First, men paying for dates is quite literally a tradition. You can disagree with it, but calling it entitlement doesn’t magically make the history disappear. Second, if paying is a dealbreaker for you, just say that before the date. “I prefer to split the bill.” Problem solved. If she doesn’t want to go, then you’ve both learned you’re incompatible and can move on with your lives. I don’t know why this gets treated like some great injustice. Dating is mostly people filtering for what they want.…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 02:30 PM
1

You’re arguing with a statement you’ve rewritten, not the one I replied to. I wasn’t responding to your interpretation of what you think people generally mean on this subreddit. I was responding to the actual sentence that was written: “Women won’t sleep with men they wouldn’t date.” That’s false. Women do sleep with men they wouldn’t date. Once you start adding qualifiers like “average,” “distribution,” and “on average,” you’re making a different argument than the one I responded to.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 01:19 PM
2

You’re rewriting this as you go along. “Women won’t sleep with men they wouldn’t date” isn’t the same thing as “women do it less often than men.” Women absolutely sleep with men they wouldn’t date. Once you admit that, we’re just arguing about frequency, which is a completely different claim than the one that was originally made.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 01:08 PM
–

So women are supposed to be psychic now? How is rejecting someone “unfair,” but carrying pepper spray and preparing for the possibility of violence somehow isn’t? Or, hear me out: instead of expecting women to develop psychic abilities, how about men who get rejected just handle rejection like reasonable adults? How would that be? You’re putting all the responsibility on women to predict, manage, and prevent men’s reactions instead of expecting men to be responsible for their own behaviour. And …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 01:02 PM
1

Then we’re discussing a different statement. “Women won’t sleep with men they wouldn’t date” is an absolute claim. “Women do it less often than men” is a comparative claim. I challenged the first one, not the second
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 11:21 PM
5

Congratulations on identifying the demographic that was literally named in the comment I was responding to.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:41 PM
2

That wasn’t the claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:34 PM
4

Rejection can be handled better on both sides, but nobody is entitled to someone’s time, emotional labour, or a justification for not being interested. Women don’t owe every interested man a detailed exit interview. And the reason many women choose indirect rejections isn’t because every man is dangerous. It’s because they have no way of knowing which man will react badly until after they reject him. That’s risk management, not collective punishment.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:15 PM
14

“Once” 🤣🤣🤣
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:14 PM
17

That doesn’t make any sense. Women have been willingly having sex with men for all of human history. The existence of children, families, marriages, relationships, crushes, and hookups is pretty strong evidence that women are not universally repulsed by male sexuality. You’re taking the fact that women don’t want all men and reframing it as women not wanting men at all. Those are completely different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 06:29 PM
8

“Women won’t sleep with men they wouldn’t date” What? Of course they do.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 05:50 PM
24

You understand that doesn’t actually address what I said, right? You claimed women find male sexuality disgusting. Women not wanting every man who wants them isn’t evidence of disgust. It’s evidence that women have preferences. Those are two completely different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 05:46 PM
4

Being risk averse is reasonable. Assuming guilt is not. “I’ll be cautious because some men have behaved this way” is very different from “these hypothetical men don’t believe women deserve bodily autonomy.” The hypothetical doesn’t actually establish that.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 05:45 PM
4

It’s logical to say it’s possible. It’s not logical to assume it’s inevitable.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 03:00 PM
8

Some men have. That doesn’t tell us what these hypothetical men would do. You’re assuming they’d violate those women’s autonomy and then using that assumption as evidence. That’s circular reasoning.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 02:46 PM
–

Trying to assign percentages is impossible because the things you’re putting under “how he treats you” are often the evidence of “who he is.”
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 02:20 PM
47

“There’s no reason for women to take offense” is a wild thing to say. Who the hell are you to tell women how they’re supposed to feel? Maybe they’re offended because of how they’re being approached. Maybe they’re offended because the guy won’t take no for an answer. Maybe they’re uncomfortable because they’re being treated like a walking sex object instead of a person. And if women were genuinely “repulsed by male sexuality,” humanity would’ve gone extinct a long time ago. The fact that women ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 02:16 PM
11

Logically speaking, being upset is also a prerequisite to charity, protest, activism, voting, writing an opinion piece, or literally any action. Being upset about something doesn’t tell you what action will follow. Maybe one or two men in that scenario would try to coerce those women. Maybe none of them would. That’s the problem with hypotheticals like this. You’re just filling in the blanks with whatever behaviour supports your conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 01:58 PM
10

You’re jumping from “some men have done this” to “men as a whole don’t believe in bodily autonomy.” Most people can think a choice is selfish, stupid, unfair, or disappointing without believing they have the right to take that choice away. Those are completely different things. Also, your hypothetical assumes the very thing you’re trying to prove. You start with the assumption that these men would eventually coerce women, then conclude that they don’t respect autonomy because they would coerce w…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 01:55 PM
13

If those men didn’t respect women’s autonomy, they wouldn’t just be angry about the situation, they’d believe they had the right to force those women into relationships. Being upset that someone doesn’t choose you isn’t the same thing as believing they don’t have the right to choose.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 01:13 PM
2

No, I’m replying to the right person. Did you not read what she wrote? Because she said that all of her friends have had some sort of negative experience “ranging from”. She didn’t say all of them had been raped. That’s you willfully misinterpreting what she said.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 12:56 PM
4

You’re assuming women’s caution only comes from the most extreme crimes. It doesn’t. A woman doesn’t have to be raped to become cautious around men. Being followed, harassed, cornered, groped, pressured, catcalled, or having a man refuse to take no for an answer all contribute to that caution too. So when women talk about why they’re careful, you’re acting as if the discussion is only about serious sexual assaults. It isn’t. It’s about a much broader range of experiences that many women deal wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 12:13 PM
12

The only way for OP to overcome that misunderstanding is to ask his partner what they need. “Do you need me to listen or do you need me to help problem solve?” Sometimes people just want to vent.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 09:06 PM
24

Like the way you’re painting a picture of how most victims are? Apparently women sharing experiences is unfairly stereotyping men, but reducing victims to “here’s a tissue and a cookie” is totally reasonable. Got it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 08:31 PM
50

I think part of the disconnect is that people are telling you how they feel and you’re responding with statistics. Your ex wasn’t giving you a math problem to solve. She was telling you how she felt. If someone says, “I feel neglected,” and your response is to pull out a spreadsheet of your gaming hours, you’ve completely missed the point. It’s like if your favourite sports team loses and you’re bitching about the players. Do you want someone to immediately start reading off stats, or do you wan…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 06:50 PM
0

Shaming and guilt tripping? Quote me
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 03:25 PM
13

Why is this always framed as a choice between complete chaos and complete boredom? There is a middle ground. Why aren’t men all chasing quiet, modest church girls who stay home on Friday nights instead of women they find exciting and attractive? Because most people want more than the most extreme version of “safe.” Being reliable, loyal, emotionally available, and stable are great relationship qualities. They’re not a substitute for having a personality. The chaotic guy isn’t attracting women be…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 10:54 AM
0

That’s a pretty bold thing to say for someone whose answer was just “the female sex drive.” Calling your answer “correct” doesn’t magically make it less of an assertion.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 10:41 AM
2

The problem isn’t that men are asking women for dating advice. The problem is asking strangers for dating advice. People who actually know you can tell you things random people on the internet can’t. Maybe you’re coming across as arrogant. Maybe you’re terrible at reading social cues. Maybe your standards are unrealistic. Maybe there’s something you’re doing that’s actively turning people off. Maybe the way you chew is off putting. Maybe your hygiene could use some help. Strangers have no way of…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/26 08:04 PM
–

Are you really not hearing how your examples come across? “You’re an adult, do whatever you want, it doesn’t bother me” sounds dismissive. There’s a big difference between “I trust you to make your own decisions” and “I don’t care what you do.” Most people want a partner who’s engaged enough to have thoughts, feelings, or a conversation when something comes up. With the job example, maybe she’s trying to have an actual conversation with you. Maybe she wants your opinion. You’re just opting out o…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/26 07:36 PM
17

You really need a disclaimer that she’s not speaking for her entire sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/26 02:56 PM
8

You know what, you’re right. My husband is a Leafs fan and his cousin is a Canadiens fan. Men are constantly sending mixed signals. Why can’t they get their shit together? One of them must be lying. Or, hear me out, maybe different people just like different things. There’s no contradiction. There’s just no hive mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/26 02:52 PM
–

Are you going to answer my questions or keep deflecting?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 09:11 PM
–

Okay, then let’s focus on “promote.” What rights are women promoting the removal of? What specific legislation are you referring to? And how have you determined this is a women issue rather than a political disagreement where both men and women exist on both sides? Now let’s focus on “even more of.” The phrase “even more” implies some rights and freedoms have already been taken away Which ones? You’re making a claim about half the population. Surely you can be more specific than “they vote for t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:31 PM
–

You said women took away your rights. When I asked which rights, your example was gun restrictions. Then when I pointed out those are laws passed by governments, you jumped to abortion. That's not an answer, it's a deflection. Also, I never said anything about abortion, so let's stick to the claim you made and the question I asked. And the tax thing still makes no sense. I don't have kids. Some of my taxes go to schools. I don't accuse children of taking my money. Some of my taxes go to public t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 05:45 PM
–

What are you basing “best,” “worst,” and “average” on here? Are you saying average men can’t be abusive? Because that’s the only way your argument works. You’re taking cases where a man abused his partner and then declaring he must have been either exceptional or terrible, while arbitrarily excluding the possibility that he was just an average guy who happened to be abusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 04:03 PM
–

So your answer to “what rights have women taken away from you?” is that you had to buy a shotgun sooner than you wanted because of a law you didn’t like? That’s not women taking away your rights. That’s a policy outcome you disagree with. Men vote too. Men support gun restrictions too. Unless your argument is that women shouldn’t get a say, you’ve described democracy. And the tax argument is funny because it treats women as if they’re some separate species that doesn’t work, pay taxes, own busin…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 03:58 PM
–

taking away even more of my rights, freedoms, and money What rights and freedoms have women taken away from you, specifically? And what money? Be explicit. these women's fecundity is rodent-tier, and their half-psychopathic perma-angry unstable crotch fruits attend the same school as my kid. Are you arguing that women who date men you disapprove of shouldn’t reproduce, or did you just swallow a thesaurus and hope nobody noticed there wasn’t an argument underneath it?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 01:49 PM
1

Have you not been outside? Go look at real life couples. They are all remarkably average.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 10:26 PM
0

You quoted me saying women reinforce these norms and then replied by saying women reinforce these norms. I’m not sure what disagreement you think we’re having there. The fact that women enforce a norm doesn’t prove the norm isn’t patriarchal. It just means social norms are enforced by the people living under them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 07:33 PM
1

Some do. Some don’t.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 07:31 PM
1

Correct, you can’t negotiate or convince someone to be attracted to something. But that’s not how social conditioning works. If generation after generation blondes were mocked, ostracized, portrayed negatively in media, and treated as undesirable, eventually that would affect how people viewed blondes. That’s how social norms work. Not through persuasion, but through repeated exposure and reinforcement over time. We’re not going in circles because I don’t understand your point. You’re not correc…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 05:04 PM
0

I don’t know why you keep pretending I’ve said women have no role in this. I’ve literally been saying women reinforce these norms too. My point is that women participating in a system doesn’t prove the system doesn’t exist. I don’t get why “feminists are anti-patriarchy” is supposed to be a gotcha. These gender norms hurt men too, so men should be against them too.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 05:00 PM
1

Who is the patriarchy? Who is the internet? Who is capitalism? Who is religion? They’re systems, not people.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 04:15 PM
0

You’re acting like those are mutually exclusive. Women reinforcing a gender norm doesn’t somehow make it stop being a gender norm. My point wasn’t that women never reinforce these expectations. My point was that women’s reactions are one of the ways those expectations get reinforced.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 04:14 PM
1

You’re talking about female dating standards as though women throughout history were freely swiping through options and picking whoever they wanted. For a lot of history, marriage was heavily dictated by family, economics, religion, and social expectations. Women had preferences. That doesn’t mean they always had the freedom to act on them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 04:09 PM
1

All these comments are just going in circles. You think the preference created the norm. I think the norm can influence the preference. Repeating that same conclusion over and over doesn’t get us any closer to proving it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 04:08 PM
1

Okay, but you don’t have evidence for that either. How exactly do you know the gender empathy gap existed before patriarchy? We’re talking about prehistory here. And even if it did, that still wouldn’t prove patriarchal gender norms don’t reinforce it. Something can predate a system and still be reinforced by it. Those aren’t contradictory ideas. We’re at an impasse. Be well.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 01:10 AM
1

You’re just restating the conclusion. “These norms come from nature” is the thing you’re trying to prove, not the thing you’ve proven. And honestly, “weakness isn’t tolerated in males of any species” is doing a lot of work there. We’re not talking about a male deer failing to defend a herd. We’re talking about whether a guy saying “I’m struggling right now” gets treated differently. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 12:23 AM
1

No, what you’re “calling me out on” is a position I haven’t taken. I’ve never said women don’t reinforce gender norms. I’ve never said women can’t be criticized for reinforcing gender norms. I’ve never said women can’t do anything wrong. I’ve never blamed men. Saying social norms influence behaviour isn’t the same thing as saying nobody is responsible for their behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 12:11 AM
1

I don’t think anyone’s arguing that patriarchy is defined by men hiding their feelings. Your point is that you can’t have patriarchy without men holding primary power. Fair enough. But if your argument is that men would still be expected to suppress their emotions even after patriarchy ended, then all you’ve shown is that those norms can outlive the system. You haven’t shown they’re unrelated to it. The original comment described a world where men are valued for what they provide, expected to be…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:44 PM
–

Who are you to determine someone else’s reality? If someone says they’re lonely, you don’t get to decide they aren’t because you’ve concluded their circumstances should make them feel differently. If someone tells you they’re afraid of flying and you think flying is safe, does that make their fear invalid? No. It just means you disagree with their assessment of the risk. You can disagree with why someone feels something. You don’t get to decide whether they’re feeling it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 08:34 PM
–

That’s not actually true. Being alone and being lonely aren’t the same thing. Plenty of people spend a lot of time alone and don’t feel lonely at all. They’re content with their own company and have meaningful connections with friends, family, or their community. And plenty of people in relationships feel intensely lonely. In fact, many people would say feeling lonely while lying next to someone who doesn’t understand, value, or connect with you is worse than being single. Loneliness is a feelin…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 08:02 PM
2

If the same norms and expectations still exist, then you’ve changed the name, not the system. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 07:10 PM
–

That’s a pretty big assumption. Most average couples I see look like two average people who genuinely like and are attracted to each other. And if your argument is that average men are routinely dating women they aren’t particularly attracted to just to avoid being alone, then you’re no longer talking about solving loneliness. You’re talking about avoiding being alone. Those aren’t the same thing. A relationship with someone you don’t actually want can make you not single. It doesn’t automatical…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 07:07 PM
1

I don’t doubt you’ve heard some women say that. I’ve heard people call women shallow for wanting tall men too. What I’m pushing back on is the idea that this is some widespread belief rather than opinions from individual people. Because “men like attractive women” isn’t exactly a controversial position. The disagreement usually starts when people make claims like beauty is the foundation of a relationship or that men can’t develop deep feelings without a strong physical attraction first.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 07:04 PM
1

You literally brought up looksmaxxing. How is responding to the thing you said a derailment? If the culture attached to the term is irrelevant to your point, then why use that term instead of just saying people are improving their appearance?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 07:03 PM
1

Fair enough, I confused you with the other commenter. But I still don’t see how those are the same claim. “Beauty matters too much to you” and “beauty shouldn’t matter to you” are different arguments. If everyone agrees beauty belongs in the equation, then the disagreement isn’t whether attraction matters. It’s about how much weight it should carry.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:59 PM
1

I’m not fixating on the word. I’m talking about the culture attached to it. Nobody hears “I’m working on my appearance” and immediately starts talking about facial ratios, canthal tilt, or hitting their face with a hammer. Those associations exist for a reason. “Working on your appearance” is a normal description of a behaviour. “Looksmaxxing” comes with an entire online worldview about attractiveness, status, and self-worth. There’s a very toxic culture wrapped up in “looksmaxxing” that goes we…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:57 PM
2

But that’s exactly my point. You started by arguing patriarchy wasn’t about controlling women and was just a practical response to survival and agriculture. Now you’re saying some men opposed women’s independence because they were afraid of losing power, losing assets, or being unable to attract women. That’s not survival. That’s control. You’re no longer describing why patriarchy began. You’re describing why some people wanted it to continue long after the original conditions had changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:21 PM
1

Gossiping or mocking others is not attractive in anyone. Full stop. > a recurring thing I’ve seen… Where have you seen this IRL?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 03:16 PM
1

You’re explaining a possible origin story. You’re not answering the question. If patriarchy was only about survival and protecting farmland, why were women still being denied basic rights long after those survival pressures had changed?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:44 PM
–

“You could always just pick an average dude” doesn’t really address loneliness. Being able to get a date, a hookup, or even a relationship you don’t actually want might stop you from being alone, but it doesn’t stop you from being lonely. Lonely and alone aren’t the same thing. By that logic, a lonely man could solve his loneliness by dating a woman he’s not attracted to, doesn’t enjoy being around, or treats him like shit. Most people would recognize that isn’t a real solution. Why is it differ…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 01:38 PM
7

I can’t believe that was your takeaway. A sexual assault survivor took the time to share a nuanced account of what happened to him, and your response was to ignore most of what he wrote so you could recycle your anti-feminist talking point. You care more about scoring points against feminists than you do about actually supporting sexual assault survivors, so don’t pretend otherwise. He spent several paragraphs explaining why this isn’t a simple “feminists bad” story, and your response was to tur…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 12:48 PM
1

You’re moving from “biology influences behaviour” to “therefore this preference is biological.” That’s the leap I’m asking you to justify. I’ve never denied that biology affects sexual selection. What I’m asking for is evidence that women’s attitudes toward male emotional vulnerability are mostly biological rather than being shaped by both biology and social influences. Because so far the argument seems to be “biology exists, therefore biology is the explanation,” and that’s not the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 12:37 PM
1

That’s not evidence. That’s an evolutionary narrative. You’re basically saying “this would have made sense from an evolutionary perspective, therefore that’s why people think this way today.” Maybe. Maybe not. The existence of a possible biological explanation doesn’t automatically mean social influences stop existing.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 11:05 AM
2

That’s a different claim. You started with “feminist doctrine” teaches that men are superficial and are blamed for valuing beauty. Now you’ve shifted to “many feminists think men place too much value on beauty.” Those aren’t equivalent statements. And no, not all the branches I listed would agree on that either. Feminists disagree on whether beauty standards are primarily social, biological, economic, patriarchal, empowering, oppressive, or some combination of the above. Also, saying “don’t fixa…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:52 AM
1

People improving their appearance isn’t chronically online. Calling it “looksmaxxing” is
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:46 AM
6

Thank you for sharing your story. I’m really sorry that happened to you. What happened to you was wrong, and no one should be assaulted, dismissed, harassed, or punished for reporting it. I also appreciate the nuance in your comment. A lot of people would have taken an experience like yours and turned it into a sweeping statement about an entire group of people. Instead, you acknowledged the people who supported you, the people who harmed you, and the reality that neither of those groups can be …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:38 AM
4

According to OP “universities are run by feminists” so basically the same thing
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:33 AM
1

Google “Jake and Josie poster”. There are lots of articles about it
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:48 AM
11

Link his posts So your evidence for the claim that feminists don’t believe men can be raped is a single Reddit anecdote? If that story happened, it’s terrible, but one person’s experience doesn’t prove what an entire movement believes. Plenty of feminists recognize that a blackout drunk person can’t consent, regardless of sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:41 AM
9

Which feminist theory, specifically? Liberal feminism? Radical feminism? Marxist feminism? Intersectional feminism? Equity feminism? They don’t all agree with each other, so you can’t just say “feminist theory” like it’s one thing and then declare victory. And none of those are summed up by “men are oppressors, women are victims.” That’s your description of feminism, not theirs. As for the criticism, “I haven’t seen it” doesn’t mean much. You didn’t go looking for criticism of the poster. You sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:39 AM
8

Is this an actual scenario or did you just make it up?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:33 AM
12

Of course the backlash is relevant. You just want it to be irrelevant because it undermines your argument. You claimed this was an example of what feminists believe. If the ad was criticized for its double standard, including by feminists, then it’s weak evidence that the double standard is a feminist belief. And “universities are run by feminists” isn’t evidence. It’s an assertion. Your argument seems to be: A university made a poster. Universities are run by feminists. Therefore the poster rep…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:32 AM
22

Just because someone posts something on TikTok doesn’t mean they actually believe it. Influencers get paid for attention, not accuracy. If outrage, controversy, or saying something ridiculous gets more views, likes, and engagement, that’s what many of them will post. Their income depends on clicks, not sincerity.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:25 AM
30

You can just admit you don’t have a credible source.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:23 AM
46

“Just go on tiktok” makes this the most unserious argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:22 AM
11

That ad faced massive backlash and criticism for exactly the double standard you’re pointing out. So I’m not sure that’s the example you think it is. If anything, it’s an example of people criticizing that double standard, not defending it. And a university posting an ad isn’t the same thing as feminism. The university is not feminism. You can’t just point to something you dislike and declare it feminist.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:18 AM
5

“I am disappointed that this belief isn't applied equally to men” It is, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:14 AM
3

If patriarchy was just about survival and protecting farmland, why were women still fighting for property rights, voting rights, education, legal personhood, and financial independence centuries after those survival concerns stopped being relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 06:07 PM
11

Once you’ve decided all women are the same, you stop paying attention to all the women who prove you wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 04:03 PM
3

I don’t really get the point of this post. You spend most of it describing a human behaviour, then acknowledge at the end that both men and women are influenced by looks, confidence, status, and other superficial traits. If that’s the case, why is the entire argument framed around women? Men date attractive toxic people too. This isn’t evidence of some uniquely gendered flaw, it’s just people being people.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:51 PM
11

Because they’ve spent more time listening to red pill influencers talk about women than actually talking to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:47 PM
1

Where did I say it was just a social construct?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 12:08 PM
2

You’re arguing against a position I haven’t taken. I’ve never denied biological differences between men and women. I said expectations about how men and women are supposed to behave are gendered expectations.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 02:35 AM
3

It’s not a “notion”. It’s a biological fact. What does that have to do with whether social norms can influence behaviour and preferences?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:37 AM
1

How’s that relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:25 AM
-2

Oh, I’m sorry. We call it patriarchy. Patriarchy was the answer we were looking for. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:24 AM
-3

You realize you’ve agreed with the point you quoted, right? I said women’s aversion to emotional men reinforces the norm. You replied that women reinforce the norm. Okay. Glad we got there. Now you’ve moved on to arguing about feminism, which wasn’t the point I was making in the first place and not one I’m interested in engaging with.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:23 AM
2

I can see why you read it that way, but that’s not what I meant. When I said he was describing patriarchy, I meant he was describing the gender expectations people are talking about when they use that word. I wasn’t saying his experiences weren’t real or that he didn’t learn those lessons through life. I just don’t think “life taught me this” automatically rules out social norms playing a role in why those experiences keep producing the same lesson.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:17 AM
2

Something can exist before, outside of, or independently from a patriarchal society and still be reinforced by patriarchal gender norms. I swear half the replies I’m getting are to arguments I never made. I never said patriarchy invented these expectations. I said they’re patriarchal gender norms. Those are not the same claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:49 PM
0

I think you’re conflating assertiveness with emotional invulnerability. Those aren’t the same thing. A guy can be assertive and emotionally open. A guy can be emotionally closed off and completely unassertive. And your example doesn’t really disprove what I said. You had women tell you to be more assertive. Okay. That’s still a gendered expectation about how men are supposed to behave.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:47 PM
2

You’re acting as if the only two options are “people were taught this” or “people observed this.” Why can’t it be both? People observe the world through the lens of the culture they were raised in all the time. And it’s kind of wild that in the same comment where you’re denying gender norms, you describe women as emotional, men as stoic, emotional expression as feminine, and masculinity as what women are attracted to. How is that not gender-role thinking? And while we’re on the subject, it’s pre…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:43 PM
1

Where did I claim it exists uniquely in patriarchy? I’ve said it’s a patriarchal gender norm. That’s not the same thing as saying it can only exist in patriarchies.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:37 PM
4

That sounds rough, and I’m not going to argue with your experience. But I don’t see how it disproves what I said. You’re basically describing people expecting you to deal with your problems yourself, stay functional, and push through it. That’s the exact kind of expectation we’re talking about. And the reason I brought women into it is because another comment specifically brought up women’s aversion to emotional men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:35 PM
1

That doesn’t make any sense. A norm doesn’t stop being a norm just because it exists somewhere else too. By that logic, captains can’t be a sports norm because ships have captains too.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:29 PM
2

I never said patriarchy created these ideas from scratch. I said they’re patriarchal gender norms. Whether those expectations came first or patriarchy came first is a completely different conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:18 PM
3

I never said biology doesn’t matter. Not once. I’ve been saying social conditioning matters. Both things can be true. You seem very confident attraction is mostly biology. What I still haven’t heard is why social conditioning couldn’t also be part of the equation.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:01 PM
0

“Incorrect” is doing a lot of work there. We’re discussing a society that doesn’t exist. Neither of us has any way of verifying it, so we’re both speculating.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:53 PM
5

You’re acting like finding one example of something outside a patriarchal society somehow proves it can’t be part of patriarchy. That’s not how that works.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:49 PM
5

I think you’re kind of proving my point here. You’ve started with the assumption that an emotionally expressive man is more likely to be unstable, violent, or a mess, while a stoic man is the safer option. Why? That’s not some self-evident truth. That’s a belief about masculinity. And then you make another leap from “some people have that belief” to “therefore it’s genetic memory.” I don’t see how you’ve established either of those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:08 PM
0

Attraction is part of dating. Calling women shallow for caring about looks while men do the exact same thing is a weird double standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:07 PM
3

How are you not getting this? Women get fed the same patriarchal gender role bullshit as men. The idea that men should be stoic, tough, self reliant providers didn’t just appear out of nowhere. Why is it so hard for you to believe that might influence what some women find attractive?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:37 PM
4

I think you’re treating emotional vulnerability, emotional instability, emotional expression, and weakness like they’re all the same thing when they’re not. A guy can be emotionally open without being a mess. A guy can be emotionally composed without being emotionally unavailable. Those aren’t the same things.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:33 PM
4

No, it won’t disappear tomorrow, but social norms aren’t some immutable law of the universe. If people stop teaching, rewarding, and reinforcing the idea that men are weak for showing emotion, eventually that shit changes. What you’re describing, whether you realize it or not, is exactly what feminism has been trying to do for decades: challenge and dismantle restrictive gender norms.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:22 PM
1

WTF are you talking about? Do you just scream AI whenever you lack an argument?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:14 PM
2

Men enforce them too.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:13 PM
7

The fact that basic literacy now gets mistaken for AI is a little depressing
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:11 PM
3

Are complete sentences too confusing for you?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:09 PM
1

I’m not interested in debating an imaginary matriarchy. Neither of us has any way of knowing what people in that society would believe, so it’s a pointless tangent. As for “we don’t blame patriarchy for it now,” that’s exactly what I’m doing. That’s the position you’re arguing against. You’re responding as though nobody is making that argument while actively responding to someone making it. And “it’s human nature” isn’t evidence. It’s the claim you’re trying to prove.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:09 PM
5

I’m not the one who introduced the claim that women are turned off by emotionally vulnerable men. OP did. I’m simply following his argument to its logical conclusion. But it’s interesting that your response is essentially, “What if it’s biology?” Okay. What evidence do you have for that beyond the fact that the preference currently exists? And if men would do a complete 180° the moment emotional vulnerability became attractive, that sounds a lot less like hardwired biology and a lot more like pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:05 PM
-1

He’s insecure about his masculinity. That’s what that insult is targeting. Also I never said “only”, “always” or “ever”. I forgot how pedantic Reddit can be.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:03 PM
6

This is honestly fascinating. You’re not arguing against patriarchy. You’re giving examples of it. At this point I’m convinced you think patriarchy just means “men bad,” because you keep describing patriarchal gender norms with remarkable accuracy and then denying that’s what they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:00 PM
2

Mate, if we lived in a matriarchy and men were still being taught that vulnerability is weakness, we’d be blaming the matriarchy. You’re arguing over the label while completely missing the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:48 PM
11

Step by step: Men are taught that emotional vulnerability makes them less desirable. Women are taught to see emotional vulnerability in men as less desirable. Both are gendered expectations. Gendered expectations that shape how men and women are supposed to behave are what people mean by gender roles. Patriarchy is a social system built around those gender roles. So “it’s women’s aversion to emotional men” isn’t an alternative explanation. It’s an example of how those norms get reinforced.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:44 PM
0

Mate, you’re so close. What do we call a system that teaches men they’re weak if they’re emotional and teaches women that emotional men are unattractive? Take your time.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:43 PM
–

RIght?! This reads less like a rebuttal of patriarchy and more like a definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:36 PM
24

Mate, you’re describing patriarchy almost word for word and then calling it life. Do you not see the irony?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:35 PM
1

So you still don’t know how insults work.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 01:11 PM
11

“Feminist doctrine”? Which branch exactly? Liberal feminists, radical feminists, Marxist feminists, socialist feminists, intersectional feminists, and fourth-wave feminists disagree with each other on all sorts of things. So which specific branch is teaching that men are morally wrong for wanting an attractive partner? Or are we just treating millions of people with wildly different views as a single hive mind? The funny thing is that nobody in this thread has actually shown this widespread beli…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:32 PM
14

This feels like a very long post arguing against a position most people don’t hold. Who exactly is saying men should apologize for wanting an attractive partner? “People want partners they’re attracted to” isn’t exactly a controversial revelation.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:38 AM
22

“Most men are looksmaxxing” is the most chronically online sentence. Most men probably don’t even know what looksmaxxing means.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:35 AM
–

I agree perception matters. What I don’t agree with is treating feeling blamed and being blamed as the same thing. The argument started as “young men feel blamed.” At some point it became “young men are being blamed.” Those are two very different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:16 PM
2

Of course boys aren’t born knowing what women find attractive. Neither are girls. You’re acting like there’s some hidden master list of female preferences that women are refusing to disclose and the manosphere is bravely revealing. There isn’t. Do you have the exact same taste in women as every other man you know? No. There’s overlap, but there are also plenty of differences. Why would women be any different? That’s why I don’t think a woman is being dishonest when she says she wants a good man …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 03:19 PM
3

I’d need evidence that they don’t actually believe what they’re saying. That’s the part you keep skipping over.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:55 PM
4

Your entire argument seems to be: “I don’t find Lizzo attractive.” Therefore: “Nobody finds Lizzo attractive.” Therefore: “Anyone who says they do is lying.” That’s not reasoning. That’s just assuming your own preferences are universal and working backwards from there. Your inability to imagine that other people might genuinely have different preferences than you is not evidence of dishonesty. It’s a failure of imagination.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:48 PM
2

I literally just did.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:45 PM
3

How do you know they’re lying rather than genuinely believing what they’re saying? Because “they’re wrong” and “they know they’re wrong but say it anyway” are two completely different claims. You’ve asserted the first and assumed the second.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:45 PM
3

If I say “it’s raining,” are you going to accuse me of lying because somewhere in Arizona it’s sunny, or do you understand that human beings communicate with context? Same thing here. When someone says “Lizzo is beautiful,” normal people understand they’re expressing an opinion. They don’t need to preface every subjective statement with “I think” or “in my opinion” for it to count as an opinion. We do this constantly. “That movie was great.” “That car is ugly.” “Pizza is delicious.” Nobody hears…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:40 PM
2

You’re acting like women saying “I want a good man” is some deliberate attempt to conceal the shocking truth that attraction matters. It’s not. I don’t buy the idea that young men are wandering around genuinely confused about whether attraction matters. They’re attracted to some women and not others. They know this from their own experience. So why would they assume women operate by completely different rules? Nobody needs to hold a press conference announcing that people date people they’re att…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:36 PM
2

You can keep asking the question, but the answer is never going to be “be nice” because that’s not actually an answer. Being nice is the bare minimum. It’s not a personality. If the first and only thing people can say about you is that you’re nice, that’s usually a sign they can’t think of anything else memorable about you. Having a personality and social skills means having interests, hobbies, opinions, stories, things you’re passionate about, and being able to connect with people. None of that…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:16 PM
5

Have you never called in sick when you weren’t sick? Never said “I’m fine” when you weren’t? Never told a white lie to spare someone’s feelings? If your standard is that anyone who has ever lied has questionable integrity, then you’ve just discredited the entire human race. The real issue is that you keep treating ordinary human behaviour as evidence against women specifically. You haven’t actually established that women lie more than men, or that women who disagree with you are lying at all. Yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:12 PM
2

Kind of like what you’re doing right now? You start with the conclusion that women don’t care about truth, then interpret everything women do as evidence for that conclusion. That’s literally the ideological reasoning you’re complaining about. Just because you don’t find Lizzo attractive doesn’t mean women who do are lying. People disagreeing with you isn’t evidence of dishonesty. Sometimes it just means they disagree with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:07 PM
3

What quiet part? All I ever see is women saying “looks matter, but they’re not the only thing that matters.” And some of you interpret that to mean “looks don’t matter.” Also, what exactly is being left to interpretation? Do you really need it spelled out for you that people date people to whom they’re attracted? That shouldn’t even need to be said.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:04 PM
2

By having a personality and social skills. Nice isn’t a personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:24 PM
2

Why are some of you constantly surprised that women want to date people they’re attracted to?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:24 PM
7

That’s not what you originally said, though. You said it “pulls into question the integrity of what ALL women say” and that “women just don’t care for speaking truth.” That’s a lot broader than “some women lie when their ideology is threatened.” It sounds like you’re walking back your original claim now that people are pointing out how sweeping it was.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:21 PM
4

Women don’t say that, though. A lot of women quite loudly say the opposite. “Nice” isn’t a personality. “Nice” isn’t a dating strategy. Nice is the bare minimum. Being nice doesn’t get you into someone’s pants. You’re arguing against a position most women don’t actually hold. > It really pulls into question the integrity of what ALL women say That’s a fascinating standard. One subset of women says something you disagree with and suddenly all women’s credibility is in question. Yet somehow when w…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:20 PM
4

A racial slur isn’t just “an insult.” That’s why we don’t call them insults. We call them slurs.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:52 AM
–

I don’t think young men are imagining the pattern. I think they’re often interpreting the pattern differently than I am. Talking about male privilege isn’t saying men don’t have problems. Talking about toxic masculinity isn’t saying masculinity is toxic. Talking about male violence isn’t saying all men are violent. A lot of these conversations are about specific behaviours, incentives, or social dynamics. Somewhere along the line criticism of those things started getting interpreted as criticism…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:46 AM
2

Wasn’t yours “mainstream media”? Nobody automatically assumes they’re a bad person. “Automatically” is an important modifier that you keep ignoring.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:42 AM
–

I don’t think anyone is saying women aren’t involved or that men exist in a vacuum. What I’m pushing back on is the tendency to make women the explanation for everything. Men are lonely because of women. Men don’t support each other because of women. Men can’t open up because of women. Men organize politically because of women. Men don’t seek help because of women. At some point men have to be more than just reactors to women. You just spent several comments describing men organizing, building c…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:15 AM
5

I actually agree that men voting, building communities, supporting each other, creating podcasts, and discussing their problems is men exercising agency. What I don’t agree with is the leap to “women don’t like it.” Women generally don’t have a problem with men supporting men. They don’t have a problem with men improving themselves. They don’t have a problem with men having friends, mentors, communities, or spaces of their own. What people tend to object to is when those spaces become centred ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:58 AM
3

I think the disconnect here is that every solution seems to get dismissed. Women won’t change. Society won’t change. Help isn’t available. Men can’t support each other because women will punish them for it. If that’s your view, then what’s left besides suffering? At some point you have to stop treating men as passive bystanders in their own lives. If men are lonely, isolated, struggling, and unsupported, then the answer can’t be that everyone else needs to change first while men do nothing. Men …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:23 AM
2

But this is exactly what I don’t get. The original complaint was that the left isn’t helping young men. Now your argument is that nobody will help them, so they should shut down emotionally and expect nothing from anyone. How is that helping? And what do a handful of comments from women on Reddit have to do with men helping themselves or helping each other? If men’s problems are real, then surely the solution can’t just be “look at these women being unsympathetic, therefore stay silent and suffe…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:07 AM
0

I think a lot of young men genuinely do feel abandoned, but I also think people often exaggerate how much of that comes from “the left” versus social media outrage and partisan messaging. There are real issues affecting boys and men that deserve attention. Where I disagree is the idea that criticism of certain behaviours is the same thing as saying men are the problem. Criticism is criticism. It’s not blame, hatred, or demonization simply because you don’t like hearing it. I also think it’s too …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 11:31 PM
4

You’re treating every insult like a sworn affidavit of the speaker’s deeply held beliefs. Most people understand that insults are often chosen for their ability to get a reaction, not because they’re a carefully reasoned moral position. You continue to confuse “I know this will hurt your feelings” with “I think this is objectively bad.” Those are completely different things. I’ve explained this a dozen different ways at this point. If you’re still not getting it, I genuinely don’t know how to ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 08:46 PM
1

You’re focusing on the word nobody and ignoring the word automatically. The point wasn’t that it never happens. The point was that “this man struggles with dating” and “this man is a bad person” are not conclusions most people automatically treat as interchangeable.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 05:32 PM
1

Where did I say you should go somewhere else? I'm saying a gender debate forum is a pretty poor place to gauge what's "commonly believed." The people here are specifically here to argue about these topics. That's like going to a Star Trek convention and deciding that's a representative sample of the population.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 03:48 PM
1

It would’ve been a much shorter conversation if you’d read the context instead of the words in isolation.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 02:35 PM
–

Considering the very next sentence was "'therefore women are shallow' and 'therefore women only want assholes,' that wasn't exactly a difficult conclusion to reach, Einstein.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 02:25 PM
7

Do you genuinely not understand how insults work? People target things you're insecure about. That's it. If you're insecure about being blonde, I can use "blonde" as an insult. That doesn't mean being blonde is morally wrong, bad, or undesirable. It just means I know it will hurt your feelings. This is something most people figure out in elementary school.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 02:22 PM
0

You're asking me to prove a claim I never made. "The people you want" means the people you're interested in dating. It doesn't mean "women out of your league," and it doesn't mean "this is why men are upset." You're arguing against an interpretation you added yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 02:15 PM
1

"Spaces like this" isn't helping the argument
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 02:12 PM
5

Do you hate every woman you’re not attracted to? No? Then grow up and stop pretending rejection and hatred are the same thing. It’s embarrassing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 11:18 AM
3

This is the third time you’ve said this, so I’ll repeat myself. A woman not wanting to fuck you does not mean she hates you. In reality, most women who reject you aren’t sitting around thinking about you at all. They’re simply not interested. You’re mistaking indifference for hatred.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 11:03 AM
2

Not wanting to date you isn’t the same thing as hating you. That’s a very childish way of looking at other people. Nobody is obligated to be attracted to you, and rejection is not evidence of hatred.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 11:01 AM
2

Because that’s how attraction works. You’re not attracted to every woman who’s attracted to you. Is she entitled to be angry at you for rejecting her? Or is she expected to accept that not everyone is compatible with everyone else? Being disappointed, frustrated, or hurt by rejection is normal. But nobody is entitled to someone else’s attraction. The problem is you’re treating attraction like a reward that people are owed if they meet certain criteria. It doesn’t work that way. And honestly, bei…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:59 AM
3

The claim was “mainstream media and the press.” You’ve responded with a meme and a tweet. Those are not the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:57 AM
0

Data to prove what? That people get criticized for making sweeping generalizations about the opposite sex? Have you read this thread?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:51 AM
2

I think you’re conflating two different things. Sometimes people assume a struggling man is misogynistic. Sometimes they’re responding to things he’s actually saying. The fact that misogyny can be a factor in some men’s dating struggles doesn’t mean people believe every man who struggles has a preexisting moral failing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:49 AM
4

“Ugly” still isn’t a moral judgement.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:46 AM
1

> a heap of caveats One. One caveat. I asked you to support the claim you made. You said women blaming men for all their problems is widespread and at least as common as men blaming women for theirs. What are you basing that on? Because so far you’ve gone from “it’s everywhere” to “if you don’t already see it, no example will convince you.” That’s a convenient way to avoid providing any examples. > the whole feminist movement is women blaming men for everything wrong in their lives Feminism is a…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:45 AM
7

Sure, pretty privilege exists. People absolutely make assumptions based on appearance, and media has reinforced a lot of those stereotypes. But that’s my point. The fact that people make those assumptions doesn’t mean they’re correct. It means they’re biased. You’re describing a prejudice people have, not evidence that being unattractive, awkward, or unsuccessful in dating is a moral failing. Those are two different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 11:42 PM
2

You’re proving my point. I asked for examples and you responded with another general statement about women. You keep asserting that women do this constantly, but whenever I ask for actual examples, the conversation shifts back to vague claims about “society,” “the media,” or “women.” If it’s that widespread, show me.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 11:41 PM
3

But those aren’t the same thing. “Getting mad at women isn’t going to help you date” is a criticism of behaviour. “Women can smell your misogyny a mile away” is saying that misogyny is a factor in why some men struggle. You can disagree with how often that’s true, but that’s very different from claiming that any man who struggles with dating must be misogynistic. And honestly, I see far more men being told to improve their appearance, social skills, confidence, or expand their social circles tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 11:40 PM
4

Okay, if we’re arguing semantics, fine. Replace “nobody” with “most people.” Most people are not saying that a man who struggles with dating is automatically a bad person. Now, can you cite some examples of these mainstream media that supposedly say otherwise? Because there’s a big difference between “you’re single because you’re a bad person” and “if you’re angry at women and blame them for everything, that’s part of the problem.” You seem to be treating those as identical.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 11:01 PM
0

Okay, then show me. How many posts in this sub every day are women making entire threads blaming men for all their problems? You’re changing the subject instead of addressing the point I made. Do you have anything beyond whataboutism?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 10:58 PM
0

Sure, some people make that assumption. I never said nobody does. I said struggling with dating is not inherently a moral failing. The fact that some people wrongly assume it is doesn’t change that. And “hot people have an easier time dating” isn’t moralizing attraction. It’s the opposite. It’s acknowledging that attraction isn’t a reward system where the best person automatically wins.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 10:56 PM
0

“Some people unfairly assume single men have bad hygiene or bad character” can be true. “People criticize men who turn rejection into resentment toward women” can also be true. They’re two different things and two things can be true at once.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 10:55 PM
1

I think you’re mistaking “people don’t always react the way I want them to” for “this is socially accepted.” Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 07:50 PM
2

That’s a pretty wild interpretation of what I said. I never said men have to blame themselves or pretend society plays no role. I said there’s a difference between talking about your struggles and turning women into the villain of your life story.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 07:38 PM
5

If by “delivery” you mean completely different words with a completely different meaning, then sure. Just like “he made a mistake” and “he’s an idiot” differ only in the delivery.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 07:30 PM
2

That’s a weird response to me saying there’s a difference between struggling with dating and blaming women for your struggles.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 07:26 PM
6

You're looking for a level of consensus that doesn't exist on any topic. We can't all even agree that the earth is round. Some women make bad generalizations about men. Some men make bad generalizations about women. Criticize both when you see them. I don't know why this needs to be more complicated than that, or why the existence of one is supposed to excuse the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 06:43 PM
13

Thankfully, most people aren't using you as their moral compass.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 06:39 PM
3

You're arguing against a point I never made. I didn't say dating struggles are entirely men's fault or that systemic factors don't exist. I said people often react to the bitterness and blame, not the fact that someone is struggling.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 06:37 PM
12

If someone calls me old, are they accusing me of immoral behaviour, or are they just trying to be insulting? If it's the latter, then you've already disproven your own argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:45 PM
3

Or you're noticing the men who are struggling and assuming that's why they're being criticized. I've seen plenty of men talk openly about being lonely, inexperienced, virgins, or struggling with dating without getting attacked for it. What I see people getting criticized for is the bitterness, entitlement, and blaming women for their problems. Calling that a "post hoc rationalization" doesn't make it one.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:43 PM
25

The same way "short," "bald," "poor," or "ugly" function as insults. People use things they're insecure about, or things society stigmatizes, as insults. That doesn't mean those things are moral failings. Being short isn't immoral. Being bald isn't immoral. Being a virgin isn't immoral. You're confusing "people mock this" with "people think this is morally wrong."
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:33 PM
5

Of course "shallow" is a value judgment. "Women care about looks" is an observation. "Women are shallow" is a judgment. The fact that you're pretending those are the same thing tells me you know exactly what you're doing. And are we done because the conversation is over, or because your argument falls apart the second you're asked to apply the same "attraction is amoral" standard to women?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:32 PM
3

No, they say that to men who turn their dating struggles into bitterness, misogyny, and blaming women for all their problems. There's a difference between struggling with dating and making your struggles everyone else's fault.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:31 PM
5

Except that's usually not being said because he's unsuccessful with women. It's being said because of the behaviour he's displaying right now. There's a difference between "women don't want me" and posting a rant about how women are shallow, only want assholes, and are responsible for all your dating problems. People are responding to the misogyny and bitterness, not the lack of dates.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:29 PM
11

Ok and? Have you just learned how insults work? People use things they think will hurt someone as insults. That doesn't mean they genuinely believe being a virgin or struggling with dating makes someone a bad person. This is just common sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:27 PM
9

Then criticize those women too. "Women make bad generalizations sometimes" isn't an argument for men making bad generalizations. It's just another example of the same problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:25 PM
4

How?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:22 PM
12

Yes, but what does that have to do with being a bad person? Being mocked for something and being viewed as morally wrong are two different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:18 PM
6

You're still trying to have it both ways. If attraction is amoral, then women choosing attractive men, including attractive men with flaws, isn't evidence that women are shallow. It's just attraction. You're taking an observation, "some women date attractive assholes," and treating it as proof of a moral character flaw in women as a group. That's the part people are criticizing. Also, if the problem is simply genetics and attraction is completely amoral, then why are you so intent on assigning b…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:16 PM
4

I think that's a pretty uncharitable interpretation. When someone says "women don't want me," most people understand they're talking about their own experience, not literally every woman on earth. The issue isn't saying you've struggled with women. The issue is when people use that experience to make claims about women as a whole.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 03:56 PM
16

You're proving my point. Nobody said women don't sometimes choose tall, attractive men who are assholes. Men do the exact same thing with attractive women. People overlook flaws in people they're attracted to all the time. But if attraction is amoral, then you don't get to use "women date attractive assholes" as evidence that women are uniquely shallow or morally failing. That's just attraction doing what you claim attraction does. And no, an attractive man saying the same thing wouldn't necessa…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 03:54 PM
40

You're treating two completely different arguments as if they're mutually exclusive. Nobody is saying a man who struggles with dating is automatically a bad person. In fact, most people would agree that you can be kind, respectful, employed, emotionally stable, and still not be attractive to the people you want. Attraction isn't a meritocracy. What people push back on is when someone takes "I'm not attractive to the people I want" and turns it into "therefore women are shallow," "therefore women…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 02:59 PM
1

Yes, men get rejected more often. Life isn’t fair. This whole discussion is about whether men make choices, not who gets rejected more. You’re arguing against a point nobody made.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 12:42 AM
3

Why are you changing the subject? This whole discussion was about whether men make choices, and they do.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 08:36 PM
1

Your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 08:19 PM
2

Of course women suffer rejection. What an absurd thing to say. The irony of calling women deluded while insisting no woman has ever been rejected is incredible. Being turned down, ignored, ghosted, cheated on, dumped, strung along, or not chosen is rejection. It doesn’t magically stop being rejection because the person experiencing it is a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 06:36 PM
2

The analogy wasn’t about power. It was about whether both people make choices. But if a woman approaches you and you’re the one deciding whether to say yes, is that power imbalance a problem too? Or do you only notice it when you’re not the one holding the leverage?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 05:45 PM
2

What’s the relevance of that to anything being discussed?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 05:34 PM
3

You’re missing the point. I didn’t say women can’t approach men. I said that if a man decides to approach a woman, he’s already made a choice. Her ability to say yes, no, or approach first doesn’t change that.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 04:47 PM
2

In that part of the analogy, yes. But both sides are making choices throughout the process. He chooses which jobs to apply for. She chooses whether to interview him. She chooses whether to offer him the job. He chooses whether to accept the offer. Same thing with dating. He chooses who to approach. She chooses whether to say yes. He chooses whether to pursue things further, commit, or walk away. At every stage, both people are making choices.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 04:46 PM
2

Mate, that’s not what we’re talking about
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 10:42 AM
2

Everybody gets rejected. Approaching people has always been a numbers game. If you’re not willing to approach because you don’t like the odds, that’s your choice. But it’s still a choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 11:44 PM
1

Sure she can, but that’s not what the conversation is about.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 11:41 PM
0

Selection is the act of choosing someone or something from a number of alternatives. It doesn’t require a guarantee or the final say. You select who to approach. She selects who to say yes to. Both people are making selections. At this point you’re just redefining words so only women’s choices count as selection while men’s choices somehow don’t. Stop stripping men of agency and acting like they’re passengers in their own lives. Men make choices every day about who to pursue, date, commit to, re…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 10:08 PM
1

I didn’t say those claims came from your personal experience. I said they were generalizations about women. You asked me to quote them, so I did. Whether you think they’re true or not is a separate discussion. You went from “when did I generalize?” to “my generalizations are correct.”
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 09:53 PM
2

Yes. You can choose to date someone you don’t like or you can choose to be single. And if you are doing the approaching - you are choosing whom to approach.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 09:52 PM
1

I’m referring your original post. You literally made multiple sweeping claims about women as a group: “Women are the ones who concentrate attention on a small slice of men.” “Women have the picking power.” “Almost all women can have sex and relationships anytime they want.” “If she has trouble it’s because of her standards.” That’s what I was referring to. You were criticizing women for generalizing from their experiences while making broad generalizations about women’s experiences and behaviour…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 09:33 PM
1

You’re acting like a choice only counts if you get the final say. That’s not how choices work. You choose which jobs to apply for. The company chooses who to hire. You choose which women to approach. They choose whether to say yes. Both people are making selections.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 09:31 PM
0

You’re arguing that online dating gives women more options. Fine. But that doesn’t address my point. In your own example, you’re talking about your standards, your preferences, whether a woman is worth committing to, and how you compare one relationship to another. Those are all choices. You can argue men have fewer options. You can’t seriously argue men aren’t making choices. You’re describing how men make decisions, not proving they don’t.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 09:29 PM
2

“Men should be selective” doesn’t mean every man has endless options. It means having standards is generally better than accepting any relationship simply because it’s available. Plenty of men date women they don’t even seem to like simply because those women said yes, then use those experiences to make sweeping claims about women as a whole. That’s still a choice. If you’re willing to enter relationships with people you’re fundamentally incompatible with, that’s not evidence that men have no ag…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 08:57 PM
1

I don’t think online dating changes the basic point. Even on dating apps, men are still choosing who to swipe on, message, match with, date, and pursue. Women aren’t the only people making decisions. And calling men’s choices “not really choices” is a strange argument. If men are so indiscriminate that they’ll go along with whoever is available, then why do men reject women, ghost women, end relationships, refuse commitment, have preferences, or swipe left at all? You can’t simultaneously argue …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 08:55 PM
7

The irony is that you’re complaining about people generalizing from their own experience while doing exactly that. Not every woman is flooded with options, and not every man is struggling for attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 08:54 PM
4

If I choose which jobs to apply for, I’ve already made a selection. The employer makes another selection when deciding who to hire. Both are selectors at different points in the process. You’re confusing final approval with selection. A man choosing who to approach is selection. A woman choosing who to accept is also selection. Both are making choices. You’re just counting one type of choice and ignoring the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 08:52 PM
20

The irony is that you’re describing women as selectors while completely ignoring that men select first. She can’t choose you unless you chose her to approach in the first place. Men aren’t passive participants being sorted into relationships. They decide who to pursue, who to ignore, who they find attractive, and who gets their attention. That’s selection too. The difference is that you’re counting women’s choices as choices and men’s choices as something else.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 07:54 PM
–

You’re comparing accusations from random people to accusations from your life partner. If a stranger thinks I’m a liar, I don’t care. If my spouse suddenly tells me they think I cheated and am trying to pass off another man’s child as theirs, that’s a completely different situation. The issue isn’t the test. The issue is the accusation behind it. If you genuinely believe your partner might commit paternity fraud, why were you trusting them enough to have a baby with them in the first place?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 12:58 PM
–

So he’s the cheater but she’s the one being accused? That makes sense to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 12:54 PM
–

You’re joking, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 03:19 AM
–

> women always have feelings involved in everything So do men.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 03:16 AM
–

It’s an accusation of cheating. How is that not offensive?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 03:14 AM
1

Feminists have been some of the biggest advocates for paternity leave, which directly benefits men. Feminists have pushed for breaking down the idea that men should be stoic, emotionally closed off, and handle everything alone, which is directly relevant to men’s mental health and suicide. Feminists have challenged the idea that childcare is inherently women’s work, which makes it easier to argue for fathers as equal caregivers rather than just providers. Feminists have pushed for workplace flex…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 02:28 AM
2

You keep giving examples of specific feminists, organizations, and policies. What you haven’t shown is how you got from that to “the vast majority of feminists.” And no, “I argued with a feminist who had a bad take” isn’t evidence. I’ve argued with plenty of anti-feminists who think women shouldn’t vote. I don’t use that to define everyone who disagrees with me.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 02:27 AM
0

Do you have a source for that? I’ve looked for it and can’t find a scientific study where men and women were placed on separate islands and the women starved. The closest thing I can find is a reality TV survival show, which isn’t exactly the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 02:22 AM
2

You keep turning “some feminists did a thing I don’t like” into “the vast majority of feminists believe X.” That’s a pretty big leap. I’ve seen feminists with terrible takes on men’s issues. I’ve also seen feminists push for paternity leave, more involved fatherhood, men’s mental health, and breaking down rigid gender roles. At some point you’re going to need something stronger than “trust me, most feminists are like this.”
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 01:28 AM
1

> feminism specifically fighting against equality for men Examples
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 01:25 AM
3

A lot of trans men talk about noticing clear differences once they pass as male. They describe being taken more seriously at work, interrupted less, assumed competent or authoritative without having to constantly prove it, and receiving more baseline respect in everyday interactions. That’s not theory. That’s people comparing their own before and after experiences. Ben Barres wrote about how differently he was treated after transitioning. Before, his work was questioned and dismissed. Afterward,…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:08 PM
2

What?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:06 PM
2

You asked for group-level disadvantages. I gave examples. And ironically, many of the male disadvantages you’re pointing to come from the same system you’re defending. The expectation that men should be stoic, disposable, self-sacrificing providers wasn’t created by women. It’s strange to point to those outcomes as evidence against patriarchy when they’re often cited as examples of how patriarchy harms ordinary men.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:06 PM
1

You’re talking about feminists as if they’re a hive mind. If your argument is that some feminists dismiss men’s issues, sure, I’ve seen that too. But that’s very different from claiming feminism has never done anything that benefits men. A lot of things feminists have pushed for help men too. Better mental health awareness. More acceptance of men expressing emotion. Paternity leave. More involved fatherhood. Challenging the idea that men have to be stoic providers who solve every problem alone. …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:02 PM
2

The existence of queens doesn’t prove women as a group weren’t restricted any more than Taylor Swift proves women are billionaires today. And “why didn’t women just build their own society?” doesn’t prove incapability either. It assumes women had the same freedom, resources, and opportunities to do so in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 03:57 PM
3

Sure. But “women sometimes receive a hiring preference in STEM today” isn’t the same thing as “women were never disadvantaged.” Those hiring initiatives didn’t appear out of nowhere. They were largely created because women were historically underrepresented and excluded from many STEM fields. It’s a course correction. And the evidence isn’t one-sided The 2012 Moss-Racusin study found that science faculty rated an identical application as more competent and hireable when it had a male name rather…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 02:00 PM
3

Men were typically excluded by class or property requirements. Women were excluded by sex. Those are fundamentally different restrictions.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 01:46 PM
–

One bank account. We don’t keep track or nickel and dime eachother
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 01:44 PM
1

That’s fair, but you seem to have assumed I was one of those people before I’d even made my argument. If you’re looking for objective and constructive discussions, it helps to approach people as individuals instead of assuming they’re going to fit the worst stereotype of whatever group you associate them with.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 01:01 PM
2

Sure, men are stronger on average. But women weren’t just excluded from hunting and warfare. They were excluded from voting, higher education, property ownership, many professions, and political office. How exactly does upper-body strength determine whether someone can vote or study medicine?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:59 PM
2

• Men are overrepresented in political leadership, corporate leadership, and other positions of institutional power. • Studies have found that identical or near-identical résumés can be evaluated more favourably when perceived as belonging to a man rather than a woman. • Research has found that men are more likely to be promoted based on perceived potential, while women are more often expected to demonstrate proven performance before receiving the same opportunities. • Women’s competence is more…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:59 PM
4

It’s hard to claim women were less capable when, for much of history, they weren’t even allowed to compete on equal footing. Women were often excluded before anyone had evidence they were less capable. If you don’t let people vote, own property, get an education, or hold office, you’re not discovering they’re incapable. You’re assuming it. That’s not testing a hypothesis. That’s starting with a conclusion and working backwards.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:48 PM
0

You’re inventing a contradiction that isn’t there. If society’s most powerful positions were disproportionately held by women for generations, I’d have no issue describing that as female-dominated. Nothing about my comment depends on using a different standard for men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:46 PM
1

I can agree that some people frame these discussions badly. But that’s still not the same thing as the definition of patriarchy. If someone says “men are the problem,” judge that statement on its own. If someone says “patriarchy is a social system that affects both men and women,” judge that statement on its own. Otherwise we’re not discussing ideas anymore, we’re just lumping together everything anyone who calls themselves a feminist has ever said.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:45 PM
5

No. Just like a society doesn’t magically become a patriarchy the moment men make up 51% of people in power. The point is that men have historically held a disproportionate share of power and authority in major institutions. You’re reducing a discussion about social systems to counting heads.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:15 PM
4

Even if there are average differences in variability, societies were treating women as less capable long before anyone had the ability to measure that. So that can’t be the original reason those beliefs developed
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:13 PM
3

Interesting. A minute ago you were arguing that group-level advantages for men don’t exist because some men struggle. Now you’re asking me to look at group-level disadvantages for men. Either group-level patterns matter or they don’t. Use spellcheck.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:08 PM
3

We were talking about patriarchy, not random things individual feminists may have said. If someone says “men are a problem,” judge that statement on its own. It doesn’t magically become the definition of patriarchy
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:06 PM
6

Patriarchy isn’t a criticism of men. It’s a criticism of a social system. Feminists have been arguing for decades that it harms men too. If people stopped reacting to the word and started listening to the argument, they’d know that
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 11:36 AM
-1

You’re confusing individual outcomes with group-level patterns. Some men struggling doesn’t mean men as a group have no advantages, just like wealth inequality doesn’t disappear because some rich people go bankrupt
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 11:34 AM
1

Patriarchy doesn’t mean every man benefits equally. It means society’s most powerful positions are disproportionately held by men.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 11:32 AM
1

I’ve never seen someone so committed to missing the point. Nobody is denying that some men supported women’s suffrage. I’ve acknowledged that. What you’re doing is taking the fact that men cast the final votes and turning it into a story where women were generously granted rights by men who wanted them to have autonomy. That’s not what happened. Women spent decades organizing, protesting, lobbying, getting arrested, publishing, campaigning, and changing public opinion. Some men supported that mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:38 AM
7

Have you considered that the women who say they want emotional honesty and the women who lose attraction are not the same women?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:19 AM
2

I don’t know how you don’t see the flaw in this argument. The only people who voted were the only ones who were allowed to vote. Sure, some voted because they believed in equal rights. Others voted because the suffrage movement had built enough public support that fighting it was becoming politically costly.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 10:25 PM
0

You can’t exclude women from the vote and then turn around and say, “See? Men were the ones who voted for women’s suffrage.” Of course they were. Men made themselves the only people allowed to vote on it. That’s like a thief expecting praise for returning stolen property after getting caught and being forced to give it back. Giving back something that never should’ve been withheld in the first place doesn’t make you the hero of the story.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 08:16 PM
-2

You’re moving the goalposts. First it was “men gave women those rights.” Now it’s “it was a large-scale social movement that persuaded enough people, including men, to support change.” Those aren’t the same argument. Nobody said every man opposed women’s rights or every woman supported them. Of course there were women against suffrage and men in favour of it. Pointing to exceptions doesn’t change the broader reality of who had those rights and who was fighting to obtain them. The point is that w…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 06:51 PM
0

You’re treating “not universal” as “doesn’t exist.” Those aren’t the same thing. The details varied from society to society, but most societies still had different expectations, rights, responsibilities, and social norms for men and women. That’s what gender roles are. That’s like arguing Christmas isn’t a tradition because different countries celebrate it differently. A tradition doesn’t have to be identical everywhere to be a tradition. The fact that gender roles varied across societies doesn’…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 06:41 PM
13

JFC. You’re looking at a gossip subreddit, reality dating shows, and pop music, then concluding women only care about sex. That’s like looking at MMA, porn, and Call of Duty and concluding men only care about fighting and shooting people. It’s a ridiculous generalization. One of the most popular shows among women is Grey’s Anatomy. By your logic, women must be obsessed with surgery too. People talk about relationships because relationships are a huge part of most people’s lives. That doesn’t mak…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 05:17 PM
0

So which society was your post about? Because your original argument wasn’t that different societies had different roles. It was that traditional gender roles are a recent invention. The details varied from place to place, but most societies throughout history had different expectations, responsibilities, and rights for men and women across Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas. You don’t get to make sweeping claims about “all of history” and then switch to “every society was d…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 04:52 PM
0

If nobody had primary social roles until recently, why did men and women have different legal rights, inheritance rights, political rights, and family obligations for most of recorded history? “Everyone worked” doesn’t mean everyone occupied the same role in society.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 04:16 PM
5

“Men were the ones who gave women those rights.” Well, yeah. Men were the ones holding most of the political power. Who exactly do you think had to vote to change the laws? This isn’t the gotcha you think it is That’s like saying workers don’t deserve credit for better working conditions because management signed the paperwork. Having the power to approve a change isn’t the same thing as being the reason it happened. Acting like women didn't spend decades organizing, protesting, campaigning, and…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 03:44 PM
1

You’re still treating “women worked” and “traditional gender roles didn’t exist” as if they’re the same claim. They aren’t. Women working in fields, factories, and family businesses doesn’t mean men and women occupied the same social and economic roles. Traditional gender roles can exist while both sexes work. In fact, that’s how most pre-industrial societies functioned. And yes, women were excluded from many occupations. But that doesn’t support your argument. If women were legally and socially…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 02:07 PM
2

You’re mixing up “women worked” with “women participated in the labour force at the same rate as men.” Nobody denies women worked. The question is whether men were generally the primary earners. Historically, they were. In the U.S., female labour force participation was about 33% in 1950 compared to roughly 86% for men. Even by 1970, it was only around 43% versus about 80%. You’re also overlooking the fact that women were legally and socially excluded from many occupations for much of history. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:50 PM
5

Men didn’t want to give women equal rights. Women had to fight for them. Women organized, protested, campaigned, lobbied politicians, went on hunger strikes, got arrested, and spent decades fighting for those rights. Rights weren’t simply handed over out of generosity.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:38 PM
1

What did he lose? Because from where I’m sitting, the only thing being lost here is your sense of proportion. If you’re keeping score this hard over ten minutes on public transit, you’ve got bigger problems than chivalry. I’m not engaging with this anymore. It was funny at first, but watching someone turn a guy giving up a bus seat into a manifesto about male oppression has gone from amusing to just plain pathetic.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:31 PM
6

You’re treating “men suffered too” as if it disproves “women had fewer rights,” when both can be true at the same time. Being expected to provide, fight wars, or work dangerous jobs isn’t equivalent to being barred from owning property, controlling your own finances, pursuing an education, or having legal authority over your own life. You’re responding to an argument about rights and legal status with examples of responsibilities and social expectations. Those are related, but they’re not the sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:22 PM
7

“Both sides had gender roles” isn’t an argument that there was no misogyny. It’s an argument that both sexes were constrained by gender roles. And if your standard is “some people in a movement hold sexist views,” then you’d have to apply that standard consistently. Otherwise you’re just excusing sexism when men do it and generalizing it when women do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:19 PM
33

You say misogyny isn’t derived from hatred of women but from older ways of thinking and poorly thought out beliefs. Where it comes from is fucking irrelevant. It’s still sexism. If a woman believes men are violent, incompetent, or disposable because of some misguided belief, would you suddenly stop calling that misandry because it wasn’t motivated by hatred? Your argument relies on a double standard. When men are sexist, you explain it as outdated beliefs. When women are sexist, you treat it as …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 07:20 PM
8

This is honestly just making me sad for you. If you’re this worried about what men lose by being kind to other people, I suspect you’re losing a lot more by viewing the world this way. I hope you find some peace. I’m done here.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 07:10 PM
12

Or maybe a guy gave up a seat, someone appreciated it, and everyone moved on with their day. Not every act of courtesy is the first domino in a societal collapse.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 07:08 PM
9

Inflation affects my purchasing decisions, sure. What I don’t do is stand in the grocery store lecturing strangers about how buying the name brand is keeping them from achieving greatness. Because that would be fucking crazy.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 06:59 PM
15

Mate, he gave up a bus seat, not a kidney. If a small act of politeness is all it takes to keep a man from achieving greatness, that greatness probably wasn’t much to begin with. Do you even hear yourself? 🤣🤣
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 06:58 PM
22

Imagine defining your masculinity by how much you dislike women. If women are influencing every decision you make, you’re not independent of them. You’re obsessed with them
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 06:44 PM
21

Nothing says “I’m definitely winning at life” quite like getting angry at a stranger for being polite. And then some of you wonder why men are lonely. If basic kindness feels like oppression to you, that’s a you problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 06:42 PM
5

This is a massive stretch. You start with a paper proposing a solution you don’t like, then somehow end up at “we don’t care about men and want them gone.” Those are not remotely the same thing. And if people are studying men’s problems, writing papers about them, discussing them in the media, and proposing solutions, even bad ones, that’s literally evidence that people care about the issue. You can argue the solutions are wrong without pretending the discussion itself proves men are being aband…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 12:56 PM
–

We actually just want you to listen
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 06:51 PM
1

You’re describing basic social skills.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 03:25 PM
–

No. Cheating requires a lack of integrity and a willingness to betray your partner. The fact that you keep framing loyalty as a confidence issue makes it sound like you think most people would cheat if they had the opportunity. Not everyone views relationships that way. And that’s what I don’t understand about your argument. Do you genuinely believe men who are confident enough to approach women are automatically more likely to be cheaters? That’s such a bizarre leap. You’re taking a trait share…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 01:39 PM
–

No. Approaching a woman requires confidence and a willingness to risk rejection. Cheating requires a lack of integrity. The fact that you’re treating those as the same thing is bizarre.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 01:33 PM
–

Confident? Maybe Arrogant and cocky? Definitely Those aren’t the same thing
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 01:20 PM
–

I’ve never seen someone make this many assumptions about a complete stranger with this much confidence. And your argument doesn’t even make sense. Confidence isn’t toxicity. Physical attractiveness isn’t toxicity. Being outgoing isn’t toxicity. You’re taking traits that exist in both healthy and unhealthy people and treating them like warning signs. The problem isn’t that women are attracted to confidence or attractiveness. The problem is that toxic people aren’t required to announce themselves …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 12:35 PM
–

You’ve got to be really right-brained to think “study people” answers the question. People decide whether to approach someone in seconds. They don’t conduct a behavioural analysis first. Being nice isn’t stamped on someone’s forehead, so your advice ultimately boils down to observing people and guessing their character.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 12:32 PM
1

more confident What? Confidence is confidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 12:01 PM
2

Lighting up a room is charisma. Taking charge is leadership. Making people feel at ease is social skill. Those traits can overlap with confidence, but they aren’t the same thing. Plenty of confident people aren’t charismatic, aren’t leaders, and have no interest in commanding a room. It sounds like you’re conflating several different traits and calling all of them confidence. Wanting a confident partner also doesn’t mean someone is looking for a person to compensate for their shortcomings. Confi…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 12:00 PM
–

The rest is irrelevant
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 11:53 AM
–

So be psychic? That’s your advice to women?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 11:52 AM
–

How are we supposed to know who they are?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 11:48 AM
–

you can never know who will be nice You’re so close to getting. It.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 11:47 AM
–

How are women supposed to know who’s genuinely nice and who’s not? That you can make an ignorant comment and then follow up asking “ignorance of what?” is peak Reddit
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 11:36 AM
–

countless normal, unabusive men simply invisible to you How are women supposed to reliably tell them apart from the toxic men?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 10:51 AM
–

This is such nonsense. you could have limitless options Why do some of you act like all these “nice and good men” are approaching women all the time and women are just turning them down? Why do some of you act like toxic men start relationships that way? The level of ignorance is staggering.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 10:49 AM
1

Imagine being the one being stared at. It’s not a comfortable position to be in.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 07:44 PM
0

Many men are willing to pursue and value women who do not fit idealized standards of attractiveness. They pursue women they find attractive. They just don’t have the same taste in women as you do.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 06:54 PM
3

Glancing at someone is normal. Noticing an attractive person is normal. Staring, gawking, or treating someone like public property is not. And “dressing revealingly” is incredibly subjective. If I’m wearing shorts and a tank top because it’s 30 degrees outside, am I dressing revealingly or dressing for the weather? Plenty of women get unwanted attention in jeans, hoodies, work uniforms, gym clothes, or fully covered outfits. The idea that there’s some clear line where attention is simply the nat…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 06:10 PM
11

We try so hard to protect women Who’s “we”? Women get criticized constantly. Their appearance, weight, age, sexuality, parenting, careers, dating choices, all of it. Misogyny is so common it’s basically background noise at this point. I also don’t buy the idea that misogyny exists because society is too reluctant to admit some women are bad. People acknowledge bad women all the time. Nobody seriously believes women are incapable of being toxic, selfish, abusive, manipulative, or cruel. The part …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 06:03 PM
4

The entire argument falls apart once you stop pretending “some” and “all” mean the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 02:13 PM
6

You’re looking for hypocrisy by treating millions of women as one person. “Women say X but women do Y” only works if the same women are saying and doing those things. Acknowledging risk while still participating isn’t hypocrisy. It’s how adults navigate literally every risk-reward decision they make.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 01:34 PM
8

You’re treating “some women complain about men” and “women think all men are dangerous” as if they’re the same thing. They aren’t. People complain about dating, marriage, work, family, and friendships all the time. Then they continue participating because most experiences aren’t the worst-case scenario. And your argument keeps collapsing into absolutes. Women taking precautions doesn’t mean they think every man is a predator. It means they acknowledge a risk exists and act accordingly. By your l…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 12:04 PM
17

Can your eyes see through walls? You have enough idea what’s going on behind closed doors.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 11:06 AM
13

Women date despite safety risks for the same reason people drive despite car accidents existing: the potential reward is worth managing the risk. Participating in an activity doesn’t prove the risk isn’t real. You’re also comparing completely different things. Rejection, embarrassment, and awkwardness are common dating experiences. Assault, rape, and murder are far less common, but they’re also far more severe. Frequency and severity aren’t the same thing. Women’s behaviour actually does reflect…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 11:03 AM
–

Speaking of “acting dumb”
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 08:17 PM
–

Banking dates back to around 2000 BCE, coinage became widespread around 600 BCE, Italian merchant banks were operating in the 1400s, and the Bank of England was founded in 1694. In an age where the world’s knowledge is sitting in your pocket, there’s really no excuse for being this wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 08:16 PM
–

They’re using their parents and grandparents as reference points.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 08:11 PM
–

“does that imply that men’s primary value in relationships historically was providing resources and financial security?” Yes. Just like women were historically valued for having children, cooking, and running a household. “how do you reconcile it with the idea that relationships are about companionship, love, emotional support, family, and partnership?” Because for most of history, marriage was primarily an economic and social institution. The expectation that it should also provide companionshi…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 08:10 PM
4

I bet you started this thread convinced you’re one of the good guys. Then someone explained how abuse works, and your response was to mock the victim for not spotting it sooner. You’re so focused on why women didn’t spot the red flags that you haven’t noticed the ones you’re waving.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 07:56 PM
4

“I just wish women would explain why they think abusive men have such great personalities.” This is such a bizarre strawman. Women: Abusers often hide who they are, manipulate people, and don’t reveal the abuse until later. You: So you’re saying abusive men have great personalities? No. That’s you saying that. Nobody is claiming abusive men have wonderful personalities. You’re taking “people can be deceived by manipulators” and translating it into “women think abusers are great guys,” then argui…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 07:50 PM
1

This only makes sense if you have absolutely no understanding of how abusive relationships work. Abusers don’t come out swinging on the first date. They love bomb, manipulate, isolate, and gradually erode their partner’s self-esteem. That’s why people are constantly shocked when they find out someone’s abusive. “But he seemed so nice” is practically a cliché at this point. The fact that an abusive man got into a relationship isn’t proof he had a great personality. It’s proof that abuse is often …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 07:47 PM
1

That’s not a No True Scotsman. I’m not saying she isn’t a real feminist. I’m saying she doesn’t represent all feminists. Those are completely different claims. Andrew Tate is a man. He doesn’t represent all men. This YouTuber is a feminist. She doesn’t represent all feminists. A person can belong to a group without being the spokesperson for everyone in it. That’s not a complicated concept.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 03:02 PM
–

This sounds less like romance is dying and more like people can no longer build entire fantasies about the opposite sex. Your partner was never supposed to be special because they were mysterious. They were supposed to be special because you knew who they were and loved them anyway. If learning what men and women are actually like kills the attraction, then what died wasn’t romance. It was idealization.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 02:20 PM
–

If this is really about family formation, social isolation, and community, why is almost the entire post about men? Women are also reporting loneliness, isolation, difficulty finding partners, and declining relationship satisfaction. Yet every problem here gets framed through the lens of what happens when men can’t get dates, sex, marriage, or children. And on the population side, maybe it’s time to start asking whether systems that depend on endless population growth are sustainable in the firs…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 02:08 PM
1

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that women already have equal pay, equal status, equal opportunities, and equal responsibilities everywhere else. That’s a pretty convenient starting point. Women still earn less on average, are underrepresented in leadership, do more unpaid labour at home, and take bigger career hits for caregiving. So the idea that society is already perfectly equal except for dating is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. If your point is that some dating expectation…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 02:01 PM
7

Why does a woman need to justify posting a bikini photo, but men don’t need to justify making sexual comments? I’ve never seen someone so confidently explain why women are cautious around men while thinking he’s making a point against women. You’re literally arguing that women should alter their behaviour because some men can’t control theirs, and somehow you think that’s a criticism of women. JFC
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:59 AM
4

The answer is the same reason people keep going outside even though some strangers are rude. The existence of bad behaviour doesn’t create an obligation to accommodate it. The question isn’t why women post bikini photos. The question is why some men think seeing one entitles them to comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:46 AM
8

Is it really that hard to keep your opinions to your fucking self? Do you just walk around narrating everything you see? “Nice car.” “There’s a pigeon.” “That’s a tree.” “Dog poop.” Because most people learn somewhere around childhood that not every observation requires a public announcement. Learn some self-control.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:41 AM
4

Except women know many men will enjoy it quite vocally. We don’t know this. Because we hold some shred of hope that men are decent human beings. Thanks for proving us wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:32 AM
10

Me: “Understood. Respectfully… what exactly am I supposed to do with the visual information that has just been delivered directly to my eyeballs?” Nothing. That’s what.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:30 AM
5

“I’ve never heard it IRL” doesn’t really mean much anymore when huge amounts of modern social interaction happen online. A lot of women are reacting to things they hear constantly in podcasts, comment sections, dating content, TikTok clips, Twitter threads, YouTube channels, etc. I’ve never been stung by a bee either, that doesn’t mean bees don’t sting people.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 09:43 PM
2

Except the standards themselves are still gendered. A man being judged for income or status is tied to what he provides. A woman being judged for aging, body count, makeup, clothes, voice, weight, being “too masculine,” “too emotional,” “too loud,” “too opinionated,” “too old,” “too easy,” or “too hard to get” is tied to her existence as a woman. That’s why the insults aren’t interchangeable. Men are usually criticized for failing performance expectations. Women are constantly criticized for fai…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 09:41 PM
5

You’re still flattening completely different things into “everyone gets criticized.” Asking a 30 year old guy when he’s settling down is not the male equivalent of entire conversations about women “expiring,” “losing value,” or being undesirable after 30. Nobody’s out here calling men “ran through” because they had too many partners or comparing them to worn out objects. And calling your buddies sluts (an insult usually directed at women) as a joke is not the same thing as women constantly heari…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:16 PM
6

So do you also call your male friend “ran through” when he sleeps around? When a guy turns 30 do you tell him he “hit the wall”? Do you call stay at home dads lazy parasites living off women? Do you assume men who cry are manipulative? Do you tell divorced fathers they’re “damaged goods” and nobody wants another woman’s leftovers? Men roasting each other over bad decisions is not the same thing as gender-specific insults and double standards aimed almost entirely at women. That’s the part you’re…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:08 PM
2

Apparently saying “a random YouTuber with 28k views does not represent all feminism” now requires me to produce the officially certified borders of Feminism™ first. I also don’t need to define the exact boundaries of “mainstream masculinity” to know Andrew Tate doesn’t represent all men. This isn't a difficult concept What point are you actually trying to make here, exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 05:52 PM
1

It’s wild watching you complain about “men hating sexism” while calling anyone who disagrees with you “men-hating sexist pieces of shit.” You accuse everyone else of cherry-picking, then immediately start adding vague, unmeasurable stuff like “do or die culture” because the actual data clearly isn’t giving you the slam dunk you want. And no, housework didn’t disappear because dishwashers exist. Automation reduced labour for everyone. Women still statistically do more childcare and domestic labou…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 05:43 PM
1

You keep having these full blown meltdowns over arguments nobody even made. Nobody said men don’t suffer. Nobody said male issues aren’t real. Nobody said men never faced historical disadvantages. You just keep hearing “women also faced sex-based restrictions” and reacting like it’s a personal attack. And honestly, the irony of accusing everyone else of ideological hysteria while calling people “fraus,” “feminazis,” and “retards” every second sentence is pretty incredible. You sound way more emo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 05:38 PM
5

Right? I love these “imagine if men did this” comments because it’s basically just men reacting badly to being treated the way women have been treated for generations.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 12:51 PM
5

You should probably be asking OP that since he’s the one trying to turn a random YouTube creator into the face of feminism.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 11:06 AM
1

You’re just machine-gunning grievances now without actually responding to the point. Nobody said men never have health issues, or that prostate cancer shouldn’t get more attention, or that male health disparities don’t matter. None of that disproves that women’s health has historically been understudied in specific ways, especially around reproduction, pain, hormones, medication side effects, etc. And the “well drugs get tested on men first” point is not the gotcha you think it is. Part of the c…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 11:01 AM
0

That stat gets a lot less convincing once you isolate full-time working couples with kids. Women working full-time still tend to do more childcare and unpaid domestic labour overall, while men tend to do more paid work hours and commuting. So no, the “everything evens out perfectly” argument isn’t really supported as cleanly as you’re pretending it is. Also calling researchers “men-hating sexist pieces of garbage” isn’t evidence. It just sounds emotional.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 10:59 AM
2

You’re acting like “poor men also suffered” somehow disproves women facing specific restrictions relative to men in the same societies. It doesn’t. Both class oppression and sex-based restrictions existed at the same time. And it’s funny watching you dismiss women’s historical restrictions as ancient irrelevant history while bringing up the draft in the same breath. Women in the US couldn’t even get credit independently without discrimination protections until the 70s. The last US draft call was…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 10:56 AM
2

You’re kind of answering your own question though. You describe masculinity with words tied to competence, strength, building, utility, achievement, power, dominance, etc. Then femininity gets framed as prettiness, softness, innocence, sensuality, pleasantness, and decoration. That’s exactly why people say femininity is often socially undervalued. Not because nobody enjoys or desires feminine traits, but because the traits associated with masculinity are more often linked to authority, capabilit…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 10:34 PM
1

“Who is supposed to be paying you” kind of gives away that you missed the point entirely. Nobody is saying your husband should literally hand you an invoice for doing dishes. The point is that domestic labour is still labour even when it happens inside a relationship and often falls unevenly on one person. And honestly it’s weird to call childcare, household management, caregiving, scheduling, emotional support, etc “mundane nothingburger minutiae” when society literally falls apart without peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 10:33 PM
2

Nobody is saying femininity is never seen as powerful. The point is that sexualized or fetishized forms of “power” are not the same thing as broad social respect, authority, or status. A dominatrix existing doesn’t disprove that femininity is often trivialized, objectified, underestimated, or associated with softness compared to masculinity. You’re taking one very specific context and trying to generalize it into a universal social reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:35 PM
4

“Unpaid domestic labour isn’t real” is such a funny argument because unless dishes clean themselves, children raise themselves, appointments schedule themselves, groceries appear magically, and elderly relatives care for themselves, somebody is obviously doing labour. You can argue about distribution, expectations, or how to measure it. Pretending it doesn’t exist at all is just unserious. And emotional labour absolutely exists too. Remembering birthdays, managing social relationships, planning …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:35 PM
8

28k views is not proof of “mainstream feminism.” That’s a tiny YouTube video, not government policy. The internet is also full of men saying women have too many rights, should submit to men, are inferior, manipulative, low IQ, unfit for power, etc, and most of that content stays up too. You keep treating algorithm ragebait like it’s some massive institutional movement instead of what it actually is: a controversial YouTube video getting engagement because people are mad at it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 07:41 PM
3

You keep collapsing attraction, desirability, and interpersonal influence into “power” while ignoring the massive difference between being desired and being respected. And now you’ve jumped from “some women dislike male submissiveness” to “women have a monopoly on weakness because that’s how they like it,” which is just a sweeping projection. Women are not a hive mind. Plenty of women like dominant men, some like egalitarian dynamics, some like submissive men, and most people are more nuanced th…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 07:37 PM
13

Ah yes, the classic “I didn’t mean the words I used, you just read them too accurately.” At some point “you’re too literal” just becomes code for “I phrased my argument badly and my fragile ego won't let me own it.”
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 07:35 PM
12

You changed the claim from “she is citing established feminist doctrine” to “feminist doctrine can be used to justify this conclusion.” Those are different arguments. One means “this is an established feminist position.” The other means “someone can take feminist ideas and extend them into something extreme.” The problem isn’t my comprehension. It’s your inability to stick to one argument for longer than two replies.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 07:00 PM
8

Convenient.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:52 PM
11

Mate, you literally said, and actually fucking bolded, “she is citing established feminist doctrine to justify what she says.” Now suddenly it’s “well duh, feminism doesn’t explicitly say that, it just creates the logic for it.” That’s not my reading comprehension failing. That’s you shifting the claim after getting pushback. Own your words. How else is anyone supposed to interpret “citing established feminist doctrine” other than “this comes from established feminist doctrine”? Sigh indeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:51 PM
6

This is just a pile of disconnected grievances pretending to be an argument. “Men were expected to fight in war” does not somehow disprove that women historically lacked legal, financial, reproductive, and political autonomy. Both things can exist at the same time. Men being treated as disposable in some contexts doesn’t erase historical restrictions placed on women. And the unpaid labour point gets mangled constantly. The discussion isn’t just “who technically worked more total minutes today.” …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:47 PM
0

What’s interesting about it? I’m responding to OPs claim about feminism as a whole, not doing a full moral review of a 20 minute YouTube rant. And you didn’t preface your own comment with condemnation either, so by your logic I guess you’re lining your sons up for vasectomies?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:46 PM
11

It's on topic. If you're going to condemn one woman for saying vile shit about men, then where's your outrage when men say vile shit about women? that their gender views are nowhere near becoming law Oh, so women have to recognize this but you don't? Convenient,
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:39 PM
14

she is citing established feminist doctrine Which feminist doctrine specifically says boys should be forcibly sterilized? Liberal feminists? Radical feminists? Intersectional feminists? Marxist feminists? Which one? She’s using feminist analysis about gender roles, violence, unpaid labour, autonomy, and historical control over women to build a provocative role-reversal argument. That is not the same thing as feminism having an official doctrine that leads to forced vasectomies. And honestly, if …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:35 PM
4

Nobody said power only exists institutionally. Obviously people can have influence over each other in interpersonal dynamics. The issue is you keep treating “some men are deeply attracted to femininity” as proof femininity is broadly respected or empowered socially. Those aren’t automatically the same thing. And women rejecting a kink interpretation of femininity isn’t “denying men see them as powerful.” A lot of women just don’t interpret sexual desirability, submission fantasies, or pedestaliz…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:30 PM
36

“Voices like this exist online” and “this is mainstream feminism” are not the same claim. Most of the video is a structural argument about gender roles, unpaid labour, violence, and historical power imbalances. Then it pivots into deliberately extreme role-reversal rhetoric meant to provoke the same discomfort women have dealt with for generations hearing suspicion, restriction, and control aimed at them. You can think the rhetoric is hateful, stupid, or counterproductive without pretending it r…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 04:26 PM
1

One involves mutual attraction and enthusiastic consent, and the other involves money being used to access consent that likely wouldn’t exist otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 04:14 PM
8

You’re bouncing between physical power, social influence, sexual desirability, emotional leverage, fetish dynamics, cultural respect, and fear/intimidation as if they all mean the same thing. They don’t. Men being attracted to femininity or intimidated by women in dating doesn’t mean femininity is socially valued the same way masculinity is. Sexual desirability is not the same thing as social, physical, or institutional power. And using kink dynamics as proof of broader society doesn’t really wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 04:11 PM
1

Convenient? Feminists are usually some of the loudest critics of benevolent sexism because “positive” stereotypes still get used to limit women. Benevolent sexism isn’t respect. It’s paternalism wrapped in compliments. And none of that contradicts men being punished for femininity. Both come from the same rigid gender roles.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 03:43 PM
–

You keep throwing out “99%” like repeating it enough magically turns it into a fact. And no, people opposing some MRA groups does not automatically equal “misandry.” A lot of criticism toward modern MRA spaces comes from the fact that many of them spend more time attacking feminism and women than actually advocating for men in productive ways. Also, feminism is not a single person or organization. It’s a massive movement with different waves, ideologies, and internal disagreements spanning decad…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 12:38 PM
3

being a woman is often treated as something special in society Right. That’s why women were paid less, denied basic autonomy, excluded from entire professions, treated as property for most of history, and still have their value tied to youth, beauty, fertility, and desirability. Putting women on a pedestal has never stopped society from limiting or dehumanizing them. Infantilizing a group and respecting a group are not the same thing. And feminine men being mocked does not disprove misogyny. It …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 11:29 AM
–

Nobody said those things never happened. There absolutely have been feminist organizations and activists with terrible positions on custody, male victims, and gender roles. That is not the same thing as proving “99% of feminists are anti-equality.” You keep taking specific examples, then inflating them into sweeping claims about millions of people and an entire movement spanning decades, countries, ideologies, and waves of feminism. And the irony of accusing other people of echo chambers while s…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 10:59 AM
–

Calling me “too young” while agreeing with absurd blanket statements like “99% of feminists are anti-equality” is honestly embarrassing. I’m a Gen X woman. I’m old enough to remember these debates before social media turned everything into ragebait and cherry-picked screenshots. And yes, there have absolutely been feminists with terrible takes on male victims, custody, gender roles, and other issues. There have also been feminists who fought to recognize male victims of abuse and rape, challenge…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 10:57 AM
–

OK but you’re literally arguing against things I never said. I never said “men are dangerous” or “all men are predators.” I said women exercise caution around unfamiliar men because they do not know which men are safe and which aren’t. That’s not collective moral condemnation, that’s basic risk assessment. So at this point you’re lecturing me about linguistic descriptors while responding to positions you invented instead of the ones I actually stated.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 10:49 AM
–

“99% of feminists are against equality for men” is one of those claims people throw out with absolutely nothing backing it besides personal vibes and online arguments. Most feminists support things like men being able to show emotion openly, fathers being active parents, male victims of abuse being taken seriously, and men not being trapped in rigid gender roles. They might disagree on causes or solutions, but that’s very different from being “against equality for men.” A movement focusing prima…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 10:17 PM
–

Are those men wearing T-shirts identifying themselves as violent, unstable, or dangerous? Because if not, people make risk assessments with the information they have at the time, not after the fact. And when women don’t do that, the first thing they get asked after something happens is “why were you there?”, “why were you alone?”, “why weren’t you more careful?”
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 10:15 PM
–

“Potentially millions of feminist posts” is such an unserious thing to say. Nobody has personally analyzed millions of posts in any meaningful way, you’re just using exaggeration to make your anecdotal experience sound empirical. At this point we’re going in circles anyway. You think feminism fundamentally means collective guilt toward men, I don’t. I think some people absolutely weaponize feminist rhetoric online, but that’s different from claiming an entire movement has one universally agreed …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 10:11 PM
3

But due to the "women are wonderful" affect, this isn't a popular a opinion though. What does that have to do with men opening up to other men? People confide in their friends. That’s normal and nobody’s denying it. Men opening up to male friends has never been controversial. Men are more likely to understand men’s struggles. No shit. Women are more likely to understand women’s struggles too. That’s what friends are for. But your partner doesn’t have to perfectly understand “men’s issues” or “wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 07:58 PM
2

You’re still conflating caution with condemnation. Women being cautious around men in certain situations is not the same as believing all men are evil or identical. If women truly saw men as a monolith, they wouldn’t date, marry, trust, or build lives with men every day. And your own point undermines your argument. You admit violence is driven by factors strangers can’t immediately know, like upbringing, psychology, or environment. That’s exactly why people use broad risk assessment in situation…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 06:35 PM
7

Feminism is not one centralized ideology with a single doctrine. It’s a broad political and social movement with competing schools of thought. Liberal feminism, radical feminism, intersectional feminism, Marxist feminism, etc. often disagree with each other substantially. Saying “if you claim the label, you own every extremist under it” is not a standard people apply consistently to literally any movement. Conservatives are not automatically responsible for every white nationalist. Leftists are …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 12:35 PM
3

Where socializing is expected.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 01:14 AM
4

Pretty privilege is obviously real. Attractive people get away with more socially in general. That’s not some uniquely female thing. But you’re conflating “I’m more receptive to someone I’m attracted to” with “all my boundaries magically disappear if the guy is hot,” and those are not the same thing. Women being cautious around male strangers also is not comparable to prejudice the way you’re framing it. Women aren’t cautious because they irrationally hate men. They’re cautious because they can’…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 11:49 PM
4

Nobody said men can’t approach women in public. The point is that women are also allowed to become cautious based on repeated negative experiences. And it doesn’t really matter whether you personally think those experiences are statistically common enough. Human beings don’t base their behaviour purely on averages. Men do the exact same thing when one bad experience changes how they interact with women emotionally. You don’t need every rejection to turn hostile for women to become more guarded. …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 10:44 PM
1

That’s not really a good faith standard though. Tons of recognised social issues don’t affect every single person in a group. Not every person experiences domestic violence, workplace harassment, addiction, sexual assault, or financial abuse, and we still treat those as serious systemic issues worth researching and addressing because recurring patterns matter even when they aren’t universal. By that logic I guess we should stop researching cancer unless 100% of the population gets it. “Consider …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 10:39 PM
5

That’s just how people work though. Negative experiences stick harder than neutral ones. Men will say they stopped opening up emotionally because one woman mocked them years ago, and everyone understands why that sticks with them. So why is it irrational for women to become cautious after being insulted, screamed at, followed, or threatened over rejecting someone? A coworker of mine was literally spit on outside a Starbucks by a guy in a business suit because she said she was married. Stuff like…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 07:23 PM
5

I agree social media amplified the worst examples and made people more cynical and distrustful in general. But I still think you’re understating how common uncomfortable experiences are for women. It’s not just a few viral TikToks convincing women to be cautious out of nowhere. Most women have personal experiences behind that caution. And yes, attraction obviously affects how an approach is perceived. That’s true for literally all human interaction. People generally respond better to people they…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 06:51 PM
31

The mental gymnastics some of you do to blame women for absolutely everything is honestly impressive. Women didn’t “ruin” cold approaching. Men who ignored boundaries, couldn’t take no for an answer, and kept approaching women at inappropriate times ruined it for everyone else. Most women aren’t offended by a respectful guy saying hello in a normal social setting. They’re reacting to being cornered at work, followed in parking lots, interrupted while clearly busy, or dealing with men who turn ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 03:13 PM
4

Pick better women.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 10:52 AM
20

You bring up male loneliness, mental health, and suicide rates while ignoring that feminism spent decades challenging the exact gender norms that tell men to be stoic, suppress emotions, never ask for help, and see therapy as weakness. Did you expect feminist movements to write manifestos specifically about fixing men’s suicide rates? Or did you think dismantling the stigma around vulnerability and mental health might naturally help men too? That’s the contradiction. You acknowledge the damage r…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 12:30 AM
3

I didn’t say they were literally the same individual men. I’m talking about broader social messaging around masculinity. If a culture constantly glorifies men as protectors, providers, leaders, stronger, braver, etc., then people are obviously going to absorb expectations from that. That’s how social norms work. And a lot of that messaging absolutely comes from men too, not just women. So acting like men had zero role in creating or reinforcing those expectations makes no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 11:44 PM
1

Nice deflection.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 09:38 PM
4

Ok and? She doesn’t speak for anyone other than herself. She doesn’t speak for other women, she doesn’t speak for feminism.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 07:58 PM
4

Nobody is enforcing it though. Men are the ones constantly glorifying “protector” roles themselves. Every day you see men talking about being providers, protectors, leaders, “real men,” masculine duty, etc. And feminists didn’t invent men shaming other men as cowards either. Men have been doing that to each other forever. Feminism absolutely does challenge restrictive expectations on men too. A lot of men still romanticize theirs until the expectations attached to them stop benefiting them.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 07:55 PM
6

Men need to stop branding themselves as “protectors” if expecting protection from men is suddenly oppression. You can’t glorify masculinity around being stronger, braver, and more protective than women when it benefits men socially, then turn around and act shocked that those expectations exist. Nobody is obligated to risk their life for strangers. But a lot of these expectations were reinforced by men long before feminists started talking about them.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 07:28 PM
–

A female judge convicted her. And 30 women supporting her is still just 30 women. What proof do you have they even identify as feminists? Meanwhile Andrew Tate literally had young male supporters protesting in the streets after his arrest, plus massive online campaigns like #FreeTopG and #TateIsInnocent defending him and claiming he was framed. So if a few dozen women supporting one woman supposedly condemns all feminism, what exactly does an international movement of men rallying behind a guy a…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 07:14 PM
1

Where did I say that? Quote me
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 01:57 PM
1

How is that relevant to literally anything I said
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 10:40 AM
0

I can’t decide if you trolling or just not smart. You keep swapping in completely different kinds of fear because you can’t defend the original point. Fear of a wild animal isn’t the same category as fear of social judgement and rejection. This really isn’t that complicated. The irony of you calling my arguments pathetic after this entire exchange is kind of unbelievable.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 10:48 PM
1

You’re pretending these situations are interchangeable just because both involve judgement. They’re not. Fear of social disapproval and fear of violent persecution are completely different categories of risk.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 10:46 PM
1

It quite literally is. Merriam-Webster defines insecurity as “a state or feeling of anxiety, fear, or self-doubt.” Fear of social judgement and rejection falls under that whether you like the word or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 10:40 PM
3

Can you explain to me how fear of social judgement is the same thing as fearing imprisonment or death under an authoritarian government? That comparison is so disproportionate it honestly just sounds ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 10:35 PM
1

You’ve just literally described insecurity. So we agree then.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 10:28 PM
1

Are you seriously acting like men don’t have agency? Like what the actual fuck is this comment?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 09:59 PM
8

Yes. If someone genuinely likes a person but avoids dating them mainly because they’re scared of how other people will judge them for it, that is insecurity. Glad we could clear that up.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 04:10 PM
18

Some men would. Some men wouldn’t. People respond to incentives in every area of life. That’s not unique to women or dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 04:04 PM
2

LOL You don’t know anything about me but nice try. And no shit social expectations influence people. That was never the disagreement. The disagreement is you acting like men making dating choices based on fear of judgment somehow stops being insecurity the second women also participate in those norms. If a man won’t date who he wants because he’s worried how people will see him, that’s insecurity. Explaining where it comes from doesn’t suddenly make it something else.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 04:01 PM
2

Did you just discover how boundaries work?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 03:44 PM
11

JFC You wrote an entire essay trying to turn men choosing conformity into women’s fault somehow. If a man won’t date who he wants because he’s scared of losing status or validation, that’s still male insecurity and cowardice, not women controlling his life. Take accountability for your choices.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 03:43 PM
1

Where did I say I disagree with “believe women”? Do you even know what that phrase was referring to? Because it had nothing to do with women blindly trusting every man they meet. And “bigotry = bigotry” is not some profound point when you strip away all history, context, power dynamics, and lived reality to make every social dynamic interchangeable. Also, I genuinely do not understand why some of you think calling women “bigots” is this devastating gotcha. What exactly do you think happens next?…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 03:39 PM
1

Who said women “completely trust” unfamiliar men? That’s literally the entire point of caution. Two things can be true at once. Women can exercise basic stranger danger around men they don’t know while also trusting and loving the men in their life. Those things are not mutually exclusive. And yes, men help women too. No one denied that. But “men are more likely to help than harm” still does not remove uncertainty from individual interactions, especially when a lot of the time the danger women a…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 02:48 PM
0

And?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 01:04 PM
1

Dismissing repeated experiences from large numbers of women as “just anecdotes” while acting like that’s a complete argument isn’t engaging in good faith either.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 01:01 PM
0

Except I’m not “shitting on undesirable people.” That’s the part you’re inventing. Women talking about caution around men is not the same thing as racial supremacist movements obsessively using crime statistics to dehumanize minorities they already hated. You are flattening completely different social dynamics into one lazy comparison because it’s easier than engaging with what women are actually saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 12:49 AM
1

I did not say “any man who disagrees is bad.” I said good men generally understand where women’s caution comes from instead of instantly jumping to race analogies and calling women bigots for talking about safety. And you keep saying “you’d have to change” as if women exercising caution is some immoral behaviour that needs correcting. It’s not. Women are going to continue assessing risk in ways that make them feel safer whether random men online approve of it or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 07:19 PM
1

But nobody denied decent men exist or that men contribute to social stability. You keep arguing against a point nobody made. The disagreement is that you seem to think acknowledging women’s caution around men somehow becomes illegitimate unless women constantly stop to verbally express gratitude toward men as a class first. And calling women discussing safety concerns or male violence “anti-male rhetoric” is exactly why these conversations keep going in circles.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 07:18 PM
2

The problem with your argument is that you keep interpreting women exercising caution as “blaming men.” It’s not. It’s stranger danger. The same basic concept we teach children from the time they’re little. And yes, men do heroic things. Men also commit the overwhelming majority of violent crime. Human beings are capable of both good and bad behaviour. Pointing out one does not erase the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 07:15 PM
–

So basically, any woman who makes a choice you don’t approve of must just be too ignorant to understand her own situation? Do you hear how arrogant that sounds? Women have been discussing marriage, dependence, security, power dynamics, and the risks attached to all of it for generations. Just because a woman weighs those tradeoffs differently than you would doesn’t mean she’s too stupid to understand them.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 02:32 PM
–

Okay… and? Most people go along with existing social systems because change is risky and security matters to them. That’s not some unique revelation about women. Your original argument was that women supposedly don’t understand these dynamics, and now you’ve shifted to “people often choose stability even when they do understand the tradeoffs.” Those are two completely different arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 01:04 PM
2

I did engage with the substance. Your position is that luck, upbringing, predispositions, and circumstance explain a large amount of why some people become violent and others do not. I understand that point perfectly fine. What I disagree with is your conclusion that this therefore meaningfully blurs the line between ordinary people and people who commit atrocities. Explaining behaviour is not the same thing as reducing people to inevitable products of circumstance.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 01:01 AM
2

“Female nature never changes”? Okay, then you don’t get offended when women exercise caution around men either. You can’t argue immutable gendered behaviour exists only when it’s convenient for your side. And the difference is when men say they’re choosing AI, most women genuinely do not give a fuck. But when women made a hypothetical joke about choosing the bear, men spent months having emotional meltdowns over it. So this whole “we chose AI” thing is not really landing the way you think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:58 PM
3

How do I know they’re less likely to hurt me?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:55 PM
2

Okay. And? I really do not get why some of you think calling women “bigots” is some devastating gotcha. Call me whatever the fuck you want. I’m still going to prioritize my safety over some random man’s hurt feelings, because I already know if something does happen, people will immediately start asking why I wasn’t careful enough. I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t, so yeah, I’d rather be damned if I do.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:53 PM
2

Because context matters. History matters. Social dynamics matter. “These are both inherent characteristics” is an incredibly shallow way to analyze prejudice. Women discussing caution around men is tied to physical vulnerability, socialization, and lived experience interacting with men constantly from childhood onward. It is not remotely the same thing as racial prejudice built on segregation, dehumanization, and stereotypes about groups people often have little actual interaction with. And hone…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:51 PM
2

Understanding why violent people become violent is not the same thing as blurring the line between them and ordinary people who choose not to commit atrocities every day. At some point “understanding context” stops being nuance and starts becoming a way to dissolve personal responsibility into inevitability.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:41 PM
5

Race and sex are not interchangeable.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 10:25 PM
0

> does yes all men ring any bells No. It doesn’t. Women discussing caution around men is not based on “genetic inferiority” or racialized stereotypes. It’s based on navigating a real-world pattern of risk tied to physical vulnerability and violence statistics. Women taking precautions around men they do not know is not equivalent to believing men are morally inferior as a class.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 10:22 PM
3

Except women discussing caution around men is not based on “genetic inferiority” or racialized stereotypes. We’re not committing hate crimes or denying men jobs m, loans, or housing. Caution is not the same thing as hatred. Women taking precautions around men they do not know is not equivalent to believing men are morally inferior as a class. And honestly, even if I granted your comparison entirely for the sake of argument, what exactly changes? Women are still going to prioritize their safety o…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 10:21 PM
2

A provocative book title and a few women on The View 13 years ago are not evidence that “women hate men.” Come on. And that Pew stat doesn’t prove men are “rejecting women.” It proves a lot of people are burnt out on modern dating. Also, I don’t know why you think “we chose AI” is some kind of mic drop. The kind of men who’d genuinely rather date an AI than a real woman are exactly the kind of men women are perfectly fine opting out of dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 10:12 PM
3

Caution is neither fear nor vitriol. What do you think “exercising caution” looks like in practice?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 10:04 PM
4

“Insofar as you would’ve done the same in his place” is doing an insane amount of work there. No, I would not throw acid in someone’s face for rejecting me, and neither would the overwhelming majority of people. Violent criminals are not just average humans helplessly acting out unavoidable biological programming. You started with “understanding sociobiological causes,” and somehow ended at “you shouldn’t judge acid attacks too harshly because you’d probably do it too.” That’s not nuance. That’s…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 10:03 PM
6

Acknowledging male violence is not “misandry.” It’s reality. And pointing out that women are often told to feel gratitude toward men for protection from violence that is also overwhelmingly committed by men is a valid observation, not hatred. Also, “sociobiological causes” explaining behaviour is not the same thing as removing accountability for it. Humans have biological impulses for all kinds of behaviours. We still expect adults to control themselves and take responsibility for their actions.…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 07:57 PM
6

How can we reliably tell which ones will? I'm all ears.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 07:52 PM
6

You just completely changed the argument. We were talking about women exercising caution and now suddenly we’re talking about women finding confidence attractive. Those are not the same thing. Being attracted to confidence does not mean women “demand perfect unwavering confidence,” and it definitely does not prove women hate cautious men. A 13-year-old clip from The View that plenty of women also criticized at the time is not the mic drop you think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 07:52 PM
6

Did you even read that book or the synopsis or did you just get triggered by the title? The actual book is about modern gender dynamics and critiques both men and women. And The View? JFC, that’s not a serious intellectual source for anything. The “society would collapse without men” speech is honestly embarrassing. You don’t get to take collective credit for every bridge, power plant, and civilization milestone men contributed to, then suddenly scream “not all men” the second women talk about m…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 07:46 PM
7

Except I’m not defending “all forms of bigotry.” I’m saying your comparison is flawed because women discussing caution around men they interact with constantly is not equivalent to racial prejudice. You keep collapsing any general discussion about patterns women navigate into “misandry” so you never actually have to engage with the substance of what’s being said. And no, “if it sounds bad with black people it’s the same with men” is not some universal law of logic. Context matters. History matte…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 07:33 PM
5

Interesting. Because that sounds a lot like the point women have been making this entire time.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 07:32 PM
5

Which is what, exactly? Explain what you think women’s “caution” actually looks like in practice. Because for most women it’s things like texting friends their location, avoiding isolated places at night, meeting dates in public first, watching their drinks, or being aware of exits. Do you really think women will care if men start doing that?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 07:29 PM
7

Very graceful way of saying you ran out of counterarguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 07:27 PM
5

Your “90% are known to the victim” point does not make fear of unfamiliar men “BS.” Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Women do not know in advance which unfamiliar men will later become familiar men who harm them. That statistic does not remove uncertainty. If anything, it shows that familiarity by itself is not a reliable safety filter. And “the risk is low” is not really an argument against precaution. People lock their doors despite burglary rates being relatively low. People wear …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 06:41 PM
9

Yes. Exercise caution around women. Literally, no one is stopping you. And what do you think "exercising caution" means? Some of you act like women are pepper spraying and tasing every guy she sees.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 06:35 PM
7

I guess you missed this part: "Civilizations are interdependent. That’s how societies work." More men protect women than attack women Source? Because not actively being a threat doesn't count as protection. See just how long women last fighting the bears and cougars. How many bears and cougars have you personally saved a woman from? What an absurd fucking thing to say Or the long hard winter when it hits. Bro, what year is it where you live?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 06:33 PM
7

And does the portion of aggressive men somehow make caution irrational? If a minority of dogs bite, people still take precautions because they cannot reliably identify which ones will. That’s the entire point. Women do not have advance knowledge of who is safe and who isn’t.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 06:28 PM
9

I’m so tired of the race gotcha because it’s not comparable. Most racists avoid the groups they’re prejudiced against entirely, and their prejudice is usually built on ignorance, stereotypes, and distance. Women cannot avoid men. We’re raised around men, work with men, date men, live with men, and many of us start dealing with sexualization or harassment while we’re still children. Race and sex are not interchangeable categories, and forcing every conversation about women’s safety into a race an…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 06:26 PM
11

You're switching between “women exercising caution” and “women demonizing all men” as if they’re automatically the same thing. Most women are not treating every man as evil. They’re acknowledging that they cannot reliably identify who is safe and who is not ahead of time, which is why caution exists at all. And “most assaults are committed by someone the victim knows” does not weaken that point. If anything, it explains why women cannot rely purely on familiarity as a safety filter. Also, people…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 06:19 PM
11

Because we’re not talking about the men who aren’t doing those things. If someone talks about dog bites, nobody jumps in with “well most dogs don’t bite.” That’s already understood. The conversation is specifically about the ones that do and the precautions people take because you cannot tell beforehand which ones are safe. Same thing here. Acknowledging that most men are not violent does not change the fact that women still have to navigate the possibility of the minority who are.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 05:00 PM
29

People already do distinguish between harmful men and non-harmful men though. Recognizing that male violence is statistically male is not the same thing as believing every individual man is dangerous. But the reality is women usually do not know who’s going to harm them and who’s going to help them until after the fact. That uncertainty is exactly why caution exists in the first place. And “some men defend women” was never the point being argued against. The existence of decent men does not inva…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 12:59 PM
17

Dismantling your argument really wasn’t that much work because you keep presenting obvious facts as if they prove something they don’t. Yes, societies require infrastructure, security, and deterrence. Nobody argued otherwise. But “some men protect society from violent people” does not logically lead to “misandry is uniquely irrational” or “women have a sociological blind spot.” You’re also acting like physical force is the singular foundation of civilization when stable societies depend just as …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 12:56 PM
7

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. That women aren’t a monolith? Yeah, we know.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 12:54 PM
48

This whole argument is built on pretending women don’t contribute to society unless they’re personally fistfighting invaders in the street. Men absolutely make up a large share of physically dangerous and infrastructure-heavy jobs. Nobody denies that. Women also make up huge portions of healthcare, education, social services, caregiving, administration, research, logistics, and countless other systems society would collapse without. Civilizations are interdependent. That’s how societies work. Bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:48 AM
5

Every day I’m reminded how little people actually know about the cycle of abuse. It’s embarrassing that none of you even bothered to understand it before turning around and blaming victims for men’s actions. Funny how the same men constantly demanding women “take accountability” somehow think abusive men themselves should carry none. Reddit really is obsessed with finding ways to make women responsible for what men do.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:45 AM
10

I literally already said two things can be true at once. Some women rejected those dynamics and pushed for more independence, and some women knowingly chose traditional ones anyway. Those things are not mutually exclusive. That still doesn’t change the fact that women have been discussing the risks of financial dependence on men for generations. So acting like women just never noticed this until a man came along to explain it is ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:34 AM
0

This argument falls apart once you stop treating male attention like it’s automatically some huge advantage. Getting approached for sex is not the same thing as being valued, respected, loved, or chosen for commitment. And saying women “have it easy” because men are willing to sleep with them makes no sense. That’s not the same thing as having good relationship options. Also, you can’t say women are drowning in options while also saying most men are invisible. Those arguments directly contradict…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:11 AM
20

Oh wow, women don’t understand the risks of being financially dependent on men? That’s crazy, considering women literally started the feminist movement in part because of that exact issue. Bruh, seriously? What you don’t seem to understand is that two things can be true at once. A woman can understand those risks perfectly well and still choose a more traditional dynamic anyway. Women having agency means they get to make choices you personally wouldn’t make too.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:07 AM
37

Depends on the man. There are dozens of porn categories, and last I checked, men aren’t a monolith.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/26 09:48 PM
–

Well, this is clearly being asked in good faith 🙄
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 10:53 PM
2

What women are doing now is the reverse uno.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 10:52 PM
2

It’s bold of you to assume men don’t already hate women. Women have been dealing with misogyny, violence, harassment, degradation, and outright vitriol from men for basically all of recorded history. This isn’t some new phenomenon women invented on social media. A handful of women venting online does not suddenly justify men “forming teams” against women like men haven’t already been doing that for centuries.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 10:49 PM
–

You are making a lot of assumptions about women’s experiences while massively aggrandizing men’s. You have no idea how severe women’s pain can get from abuse, coercion, harassment, assault, stalking, domestic violence, or date rape. Acting like women are not experiencing suffering severe enough to destroy their mental health is absurd. Men’s suffering being real does not require minimizing women’s.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 05:33 PM
–

“We all know women go for bad boys” is such a tired sitcom-level stereotype. Grow up. And men do the exact same thing. They also pursue the women they actually want, not just any woman willing to say yes. So if women wanting someone they’re attracted to supposedly invalidates their dating struggles, then by that logic men’s access struggles are also self-inflicted because they could lower their standards and pursue women they don’t want.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 05:29 PM
–

Nobody’s denying loneliness can seriously damage people mentally. What I disagree with is this idea that because men struggle more with initial access, their dating problems are therefore inherently deeper or more important than women’s. And while loneliness can absolutely affect mental health, men still have agency in how they respond to that. Becoming “deranged” is not some inevitable male outcome women are responsible for fixing. Women having different dating struggles does not invalidate mal…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 05:14 PM
–

So if I break my leg in a car accident, it’s suddenly not a car accident because people can also break their legs falling out of trees? That’s your ridiculous logic right now. Women’s dating issues are also tied to dating contexts. A woman would not have to worry about date rape outside the context of dating. That is literally why it’s called date rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 05:08 PM
–

You’re so close to getting it. Qualifiers specify the context the issue occurred in. That’s literally the point. A car accident is still an accident. A workplace harassment case is still harassment. A sports injury is still an injury. And if something happens through dating or romantic interaction, then it is also dating-related.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 05:01 PM
–

I was obviously paraphrasing the tone of your post, not claiming it was a direct quote. That’s kind of the point of quotation marks used sarcastically or rhetorically. Comprehension skills
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 04:42 PM
–

Have you genuinely never heard the term “date rape”?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 04:37 PM
–

So sports injuries aren’t sports-related because injuries can happen outside of sports? Car accidents aren’t driving-related because accidents happen outside of cars? Workplace sexual harassment isn’t workplace-related because harassment can happen anywhere? Your logic falls apart immediately because something does not need to be exclusive to an activity in order to be related to that activity. If a woman gets assaulted, stalked, manipulated, or coerced through dating, then yes, that is still a …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 04:36 PM
–

If it were actually true, no. But “men struggle in some areas of dating more” is not the same claim as “women don’t have dating issues at all.” Those are two completely different arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 04:34 PM
3

This isn’t an airport, you don’t need to announce your departure.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 04:17 PM
–

Because dating men introduces specific risks and vulnerabilities tied to romantic interaction. This really isn’t complicated.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 04:08 PM
–

You’re missing the point. Nobody said women become immune to violence outside of dating. The point is that dating introduces specific safety risks tied to romantic interaction. And yes, men can experience safety issues while dating too. That still makes them dating-related issues. You keep acknowledging these things happen during dating, then bizarrely insisting they “don’t count” as dating problems because they can also happen elsewhere. That logic makes no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 04:07 PM
–

“Pregnant while in a coma” is a weird way to say she was raped.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 04:05 PM
–

Did we not read the same post? This entire thing is textbook victim mentality. It’s literally “boo hoo men have it so much harder, women’s problems don’t count, nobody understands male suffering”.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 04:04 PM
–

Nobody said safety risks only exist in dating or that men are never assaulted. This is just lazy and dismissive. Would you say car accidents aren’t a driving issue because accidents can happen outside of cars too? Or sports injuries aren’t sports-related because people can get injured outside of sports? No, because those risks are still tied to those specific activities. Same thing here. Women face specific safety risks and vulnerabilities while dating that are directly tied to interacting with …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 04:01 PM
–

This is just disingenuous semantics. You’re arbitrarily separating “dating issues,” “relationship issues,” and “safety issues” as if they don’t all exist within dating. If women are dealing with harassment, coercion, stalking, manipulation, violence risk, pregnancy risk, or men lying for sex while dating, those are obviously dating-related problems. Your entire argument relies on relabelling every female dating problem into some other category so that only male access issues “count” as dating pr…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 03:57 PM
–

This is such a narrow and self-serving way to define “dating issues.” You’re basically reducing all dating struggles down to one metric: how easily someone can get attention, sex, matches, or dates. Yes, men on average struggle more with initial access. Nobody’s denying that. But that does not magically mean women therefore have no real dating problems. Women’s issues are not usually “I can’t get a human being to speak to me.” Their issues are things like safety, harassment, coercion, stalking, …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 02:34 PM
1

Power imbalance, manipulation, isolation, emotional dependency, and lack of life experience are hard things to quantify on a spreadsheet. And honestly, the fact that so many women independently describe the same patterns should probably matter too. Dismissing lived experiences because there isn’t a perfect dataset for it feels selective, especially when we accept anecdotal patterns in plenty of other areas of life. Also, nobody said every age gap relationship is doomed or abusive. The concern is…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 01:07 PM
3

It actually has everything to do with the point. Someone who knows you personally can give useful, specific feedback whether they last dated a month ago or 30 years ago. A random Redditor can’t do that regardless of how recently they used Tinder. Most people here are just projecting their own experiences, biases, and frustrations onto strangers. And linking another Reddit comment doesn’t really prove your point either. Reddit is full of smug people, bad advice, therapy speak, bitterness, and gen…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/26 12:23 AM
–

> why are they bothering to spend their time on this subreddit Why wouldn’t they? It’s pretty funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/26 01:58 PM
34

Don’t ask strangers for dating advice. We don’t know you. At best you’re getting broad generalizations and recycled talking points. We can’t tell you your small talk is dry as hell. Or that the way you flirt comes off awkward. Or that your standards are unrealistic. Or that your photos make you look miserable. Or that you talk too much about yourself on dates. A lot of dating success is personal and social, not just “the market changed because apps exist now.” If you want useful advice, ask peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/26 01:54 PM
1

You wrote a 20 paragraph manifesto to say “many women prefer traditionally masculine men.” Okay. Most people already know that. The weird part is acting like acknowledging variation somehow equals “gaslighting men.” Nobody said every woman is attracted to feminine men, bisexual men, or pegging dynamics. People are just saying women aren’t a hive mind and attraction isn’t identical across all women. And supporting LGBT people while not personally wanting to date certain people isn’t hypocrisy. At…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/26 01:46 AM
2

How do women make it any more transactional than men do? Women didn’t invent transactional dating. Men online literally turned relationships into podcasts about “sexual marketplace value,” “high value men,” and “what women bring to the table,” then act shocked when the conversation sounds transactional.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 10:47 AM
1

How are you being punished? Explain
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 02:56 AM
–

I already explained this. Lesbians criticizing mainstream lesbian porn for being performative doesn’t somehow mean no straight woman can enjoy watching it. Those are two completely different perspectives and audiences. You keep acting like “made for men” means women are biologically incapable of enjoying it. Women consuming something that was originally marketed toward men is not a plot hole.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 01:29 AM
–

I genuinely don’t know what’s confusing you here. If women don’t enjoy a lot of mainstream straight porn, they’re going to watch categories that focus more on female pleasure instead.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 01:15 AM
–

Because most mainstream lesbian porn is literally shot through the male gaze and marketed to straight audiences. Lesbians themselves have complained for years that mainstream “lesbian” porn feels fake, performative, and designed for straight men, not reflective of actual lesbian sex. Gay male porn is made for gay men. That’s the difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 11:12 PM
–

You’re comparing two things that aren’t equivalent. Most lesbian porn is already made to appeal to straight viewers, so obviously straight women aren’t reacting to it the same way straight men react to gay male porn.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 10:47 PM
–

Lesbian porn focuses solely on female pleasure. Straight porn doesn't. End of fucking story. Start obsessing about something else. This is getting boring and disturbing.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 02:52 PM
2

Then stop dating women like that instead of acting like you uncovered some dark truth about female nature because one woman expected you to pay for a blooming onion. You met someone you weren’t compatible with and turned it into a gender manifesto. That’s pure projection.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 02:36 PM
2

Do you think every first date is supposed to lead to marriage? You found out on the first date that you weren’t compatible. Good. That’s literally what first dates are for. You don’t have a second date and you move on. It’s not that deep and it’s definitely not some grand statement about women.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 02:19 PM
0

Women aren’t the ones saying “I bought dinner so now you owe me”
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 02:06 PM
3

No, that’s how you see relationships, and because you see them transactionally you assume women do too. Your entire opening argument was literally “what do women provide?” and reducing human relationships down to measurable value exchange. That is a transactional lens. Then you project that mindset onto women and act like you’re exposing female nature instead of exposing your own worldview. Most women are not sitting there calculating dates like invoices. Men online just convince themselves they…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 01:57 PM
20

The funniest part of these arguments is how transactional and bitter they are while pretending to critique women for being transactional. You reduce a woman’s “value” down to what she provides a man, then get offended when some women evaluate men by what they provide in return. You just did the same thing you’re complaining about. And the “having kids is something animals can do” line is especially ridiculous because by that logic making money is also something animals do. Birds gather resources…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 11:53 AM
–

If that actually happened, I’d assume one of two things. Either they don’t feel safe, comfortable, or emotionally connected enough with me to want that anymore, or they simply don’t want to be in the relationship. And if it’s the second one, then we should break up. No one’s forcing either person to stay in a relationship where they don’t feel wanted or desired.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 11:09 AM
–

How is a woman having a life before she even knew you devaluing you? How are her actions before she even knew you existed about you at all? Do you hear yourself?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 11:01 AM
–

2 isn’t grounded in reality
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 10:30 PM
–

Yes, people can leave relationships. Yes, people date multiple people throughout their lives. That applies to literally everyone, including men. But you’re taking “this person had a life before me” and interpreting it as evidence you’re secretly unwanted unless proven otherwise. And calling “she had stronger chemistry with someone once” a red flag is exactly what people mean when they say some men are impossible to satisfy. She chooses you, stays with you, builds a relationship with you, and it …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 06:54 PM
–

She’s literally with you and somehow you’re still competing with imaginary ghosts from her past. How do you even know she was “more enthusiastic” with someone else? Because she dated before you? Because she had sex before you? Women are human beings, not dolls sitting untouched on a shelf waiting for your arrival so they can finally experience real desire for the first time. “She chose me” should be enough. If someone actively chooses to build a life with you and you still can’t stop obsessing o…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 04:58 PM
12

Not what you think it does. One is about how you treat an actual partner you built a life with. The other is you acting personally victimized that women had consensual sex before meeting you. How you convinced yourself those are remotely comparable is beyond me.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 03:51 PM
11

And you know that because you were there? No one is forcing you to “wife that up.” Date whoever you want. But acting like a woman is damaged because she had consensual sex she enjoyed before you existed is pathetic. Also, if your entire self-worth collapses because a woman once found another man attractive, that’s an internal problem. Not a female moral failing.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 10:50 AM
17

how is that fair for average men You’re talking about women having free choice like it’s some cruel act against average men. Read that again slowly. Nobody is being oppressed because women aren’t handing out pity sex to men they’re not attracted to. The fact you even frame female autonomy as “unfair” says way more about you than it does about women.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 10:47 AM
–

The best approach is to just break up with her. A lot of you love to throw around the stat about women initiating divorces and then actively encourage men to emotionally abandon relationships instead of communicating directly. You’re describing a passive-aggressive breakup. Withdraw attention, stop calling, stop texting, emotionally check out, then wait for her to pull the trigger so you can pretend you got “left.” Act like an adult and communicate directly.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 10:41 PM
0

Reddit is millions of users, not a hive mind. You’re taking random comments and upvotes and treating them like an official position. And venting frustration or talking shit is not automatically the same thing as genuinely hating an entire demographic. Sometimes people cross the line into toxic rhetoric, sure, but your argument jumps from “I saw hostile comments” straight to “feminism hates men,” which is a massive leap. A lot of these posts are women venting about real experiences. You can disli…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 10:31 PM
1

I’m not moving any goalposts. Analogies are not “whataboutisms.” Comparing situations to test whether your logic is applied consistently is literally the purpose of an analogy. Sex and race are not interchangeable, and a lot of you are deliberately missing that point. Some of you use this argument like it’s some devastating gotcha, but at the end of the day women are still going to prioritize reducing personal risk over avoiding hurt feelings. Go read this and then come back and explain why wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 10:24 PM
1

Interesting how the guy I wasn’t even talking to got the most emotional about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 05:57 PM
-1

Are women restricting men from jobs, property ownership, voting rights, education, or public spaces? Are women committing hate crimes against men at remotely comparable rates? Are women telling men to “go back where they came from”? Are men being systemically segregated or excluded from society on the basis of sex? Sex and race are not interchangeable social categories, and pretending they are ignores massive differences in history, social structures, and lived reality. If your Black friend told…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 05:56 PM
–

This is ironic because I asked you twice how women are “acting entitled to chivalry” and you still haven’t actually answered it. You just keep cycling between “women say as he should,” “women prefer men initiate,” and “courtly love existed.” That’s not proof of entitlement. People having preferences, expectations, and social norms around dating is not automatically entitlement. Men constantly have expectations of women in dating too. Your “1000 year social contract” point kind of undermines your…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 05:51 PM
–

You’re accusing me of dishonesty while constantly inflating basic dating dynamics into this grand theory of female aristocracy. Yes, I understand you’re critiquing a norm. The problem is your analysis is wildly one-sided and loaded with melodramatic language about “higher beings,” “jestering,” and “vassals” because men are more often expected to initiate. That’s why this reads as resentment. And the irony here is you’re demanding everyone engage deeply with your historical framing while you flat…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 05:45 PM
1

That’s not motte and bailey. I responded directly to what you actually said. You went from “men are unfairly generalized” to talking about men “rising up in insurgency” against women and the genders separating because women discuss patterns and lived experiences. If you can’t see why women would be cautious around men expressing that kind of hostility, that’s not me changing arguments. That’s me pointing out the obvious implication of your own words.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 12:49 PM
2

The weirdest part of this take is treating men not valuing confidence in women as some normal unquestioned thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 12:47 PM
0

when they are accusing men, they are accusing good men as well. This is where we keep getting stuck. We're not accusing men of anything. We're just being cautious around strangers. If you were in a coffee shop and took your wallet and keys with you to the restroom, or when you lock your car door, you're not accusing anyone of being a thief. You recognize the risk of theft exists, so you take precautions. That's all women are doing.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 12:43 PM
–

You’re describing normal dating dynamics with the language of feudal oppression because women don’t instantly hand out romantic interest to every man with zero effort. And you keep acting like men initiating is the only “effort” that exists while completely ignoring the pressure women deal with around appearance, safety, emotional labour, sex, age, etc. Calling women “higher beings” because some prefer being approached first is insanely dramatic. You’re talking about dating like men are medieval…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 12:40 PM
–

"In favour of" is not the same thing as "entitled to." Not by a long shot. I’m in favour of my employer giving me a raise and 8 weeks vacation, that doesn’t mean I think I’m entitled to it. See how that works? And calling basic flirting, compliments, and showing interest “pedestalization” is exactly why this comes off like resentment toward dating more than some deep observation about women.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 12:37 PM
1

Here we go with the wall of text again. Mate, be economical with your words please. I didn’t say men can’t suffer, be abused, manipulated, victimized, or harmed by women. You’re arguing against a position I never made. I also never said men recognizing patterns from personal experiences is sexist. I asked you if you’d apply the same logic there too, or if suddenly lived experiences and pattern recognition become valid when men do it. The point you still aren’t engaging with is that recognizing a…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 10:55 AM
–

You’re acting like your own participation in dating is something being inflicted on you. This just sounds like resentment that dating requires effort.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 10:49 AM
–

That’s not an answer. How are women acting entitled to chivalry?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 10:49 AM
2

You’re literally proving why women are cautious and somehow still missing the point. Good men who’ve done nothing wrong usually understand where women’s caution comes from because they don’t interpret every discussion about patterns as a personal attack. Meanwhile you jumped straight to talking about men “rising up in insurgency” against women because someone said context and lived experiences matter. And you think men walking around with that attitude aren’t exactly the kind of behaviour women …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 10:31 AM
1

r/pointlesslygendered
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 01:13 AM
17

This whole thing reads like terminally online men trying to turn dating into an RPG because normal human interaction isn’t going well for them. “HVM” and “LVM” aren’t genders. They’re just labels men made up to rank each other and cope with rejection. And acting like the manosphere is mostly “self improvement” is insane when half the content is just endless obsessing over women, feminism, body counts, hypergamy, divorce, and why they’re mad. Meanwhile women apparently “have no strategy” because …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 10:46 PM
3

No, my analogy explained why people react differently to the two statements. You keep treating “both acknowledge exceptions exist” as if that makes them functionally identical in conversation. It doesn’t. “Well not everyone who speeds crashes” redirects attention toward exceptions. “Not everyone who speeds crashes, but speeding is still a major factor in fatal crashes” acknowledges exceptions while still engaging with the pattern being discussed. That distinction is the entire point, and you kee…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 06:38 PM
2

And like I’ve said, they’re not seen differently because one is said by a man and one by a woman. They’re seen differently because they function differently in the conversation. My analogies already pointed out the distinction pretty clearly, you just keep ignoring it and collapsing both statements into “they’re basically the same.”
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 06:34 PM
0

You’re flattening everything into “all generalizations are identical” so you never have to engage with context, scale, history, or power dynamics. Pointing out patterns connected to measurable outcomes is not automatically “hatred.” And no, acknowledging that women disproportionately experience certain behaviours from men is not the same thing as believing women are inherently superior or men are subhuman. You’re just asserting that equivalence without proving it. You also quietly switched betwe…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 05:30 PM
5

Nope, they're two different statements with two different meanings. “Most fatal crashes involve speeding.” “Well not everyone who speeds crashes.” That’s the equivalent of “not all men.” It’s technically true, but it mostly derails the conversation into focusing on exceptions instead of the pattern being discussed. “Not everyone who speeds crashes, but speeding is a common factor in fatal crashes.” That’s the equivalent of “not all men, but always a man.” It already acknowledges exceptions while…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 05:24 PM
1

This only sounds comparable if you strip away all context, nuance, history, power dynamics, and lived experience until everything becomes the same blob of “people making generalizations.” Women talking about patterns tied to harassment, violence, intimidation, safety concerns, etc is not remotely the same thing as racist ideology rooted in superiority, dehumanization, and prejudice. Recognizing a pattern is not automatically hatred or bigotry. Otherwise every crime stat, health warning, or risk …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 03:56 PM
2

Those aren’t remotely the same statement. “Not all men” is usually said to derail a conversation about a pattern women are talking about. The focus immediately becomes reassuring men they’re not personally being accused instead of discussing the actual behaviour. “Not all men, but always a man” is already acknowledging it’s not every man while still pointing out a pattern. Those are not equivalent. It’s like saying: “Most house fires start in the kitchen” and someone jumping in with “So you thin…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 03:54 PM
8

You’re describing basic empathy and social awareness like they’re some kind of oppressive burden on men. Most normal adults manage to care whether they’re making someone uncomfortable without collapsing into paralysis. And the irony is the men constantly complaining that feminism “ruined dating” are usually telling on themselves. If treating women like human beings makes your entire approach to romance impossible, maybe the issue isn’t feminism. Also, reducing women advocating for themselves to …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/26 01:02 AM
2

How are women acting entitled to chivalry?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 11:31 AM
3

Nobody’s denying courtly love codified and romanticized male devotion, pursuit, pedestalization, etc. The disagreement is your claim that it originated these dynamics instead of formalizing and culturally amplifying behaviours that already existed. “Courtly love made these behaviours influential in Western romance” and “courtly love invented these behaviours” are not the same argument, and you keep sliding between them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 07:49 PM
4

I’m staying on topic. I understand your argument is specifically about romantic dynamics, not all of society. What I’m disagreeing with is your claim that courtly love created these behaviours rather than formalized and romanticized instincts and dynamics that already existed. Men pursuing, performing, competing for approval, and women being more selective did not begin in medieval France. And yes, courtly love absolutely framed women symbolically as elevated figures in romance. But symbolic ele…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 05:29 PM
3

You’re mistaking idealization for hierarchy. People change themselves for people they desire. Men do it for women, women do it for men. That’s not proof one sex occupies a higher social caste. And courtly love didn’t invent male devotion or pursuit. It stylized behaviours that already existed cross-culturally and even cross-species. Male competition and female selectiveness are far older than medieval France. You’re also ignoring the contradiction here. If women truly occupied the “higher” roman…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 05:16 PM
8

You keep treating “men pursue more” as proof women occupy some higher social class in romance when that dynamic exists cross-culturally and even cross-species. Male competition for female attention did not start with medieval French poets. Yes, courtly love romanticized women. Nobody’s arguing otherwise. But you’re taking a literary trope and acting like it explains a near-universal mating pattern that existed long before troubadours were writing poetry. And attention still isn’t the same thing …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 02:42 PM
2

You are acting like you speak for all women Was it the “hear ye, hear ye, the official spokesperson for womankind has arrived” part that gave it away? I’m speaking for myself, and the other women who also don’t treat random male attention like it’s some sacred gift.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 01:58 PM
9

You’re taking a niche medieval romance tradition and trying to use it as proof that men are some oppressed lower caste today. That falls apart pretty fast when you look at actual history. Courtly love was mostly aristocratic literature and fantasy, not society as a whole. Meanwhile men still held basically all the legal, political, economic, and physical power for most of history. And men pursuing women more doesn’t automatically mean women are “higher status.” That dynamic exists across culture…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 01:35 PM
5

Male birth control has been tested before and some trials got stopped because of side effects. Even though women’s birth control comes with serious side effects and risks, pregnancy carries bigger medical risk, so regulators judged the risk/reward differently The bigger issue is that it’s just biologically way harder to make. Preventing one egg from releasing every month is a lot simpler than trying to reliably shut down millions of sperm
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 11:21 AM
1

they don’t even really appreciate Why would unwanted attention be appreciated? Stop acting like male attention was ever some kind of gift.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 11:05 AM
1

Your personal experience isn’t evidence of a universal gender rule. And if she was the one who ended the relationship, there’s a good chance the relationship was emotionally over for her long before the actual breakup, while you were only starting that process after it ended. Also, finding someone new quickly doesn’t necessarily mean someone “moved on” faster. Rebounds, validation, and casual dating aren’t the same thing as healing. A lot of research actually shows men tend to re-partner faster …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 11:04 AM
1

That doesn’t really address what I said though. I wasn’t arguing humans are perfect or rational. I was pointing out that people are massively overhyping AI as some flawless replacement for human relationships when it still regularly fails at basic things. Saying “the bug got fixed eventually” doesn’t change the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 10:55 AM
3

That’s not a blue pill argument, though. Looks matter but they’re not the only thing that matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 12:11 PM
–

How did you turn confidence into aggressive and rapey?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 11:45 AM
0

AI thinks there are only two Rs in strawberry <image>
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 10:40 AM
4

RealDoll’s been around since 1997, and robotic versions showed up around 2010.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 01:11 AM
5

I take it you’ve never heard of podcasts?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/26 07:37 PM
–

I never said no woman lies. I said when a woman says something that doesn’t align with what you think, she’s not automatically lying.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/26 11:03 AM
–

I agree modern dating strips away a lot of the built-in familiarity people used to have through community, family, mutual circles, etc. That absolutely changes how people evaluate each other early on. But I still think you’re overcorrecting by treating women’s stated preferences like they’re irrelevant or dishonest because they don’t all apply in the first 5 minutes. Of course emotional intelligence, stability, reliability, etc aren’t fully measurable immediately. That doesn’t mean women are lyi…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/26 11:00 AM
–

Are you replying to the right person? Because I never said men can’t have opinions on women because they’re men, and I never said flirting comes naturally to all men. What I actually said was that men have been the ones doing the approaching forever. Whether that was approaching women directly, through family, through community, whatever, men initiating courtship is not some unnatural new thing. Some people absolutely struggle socially more than others. That’s real. But if “most if not all” peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/26 10:56 AM
3

The social structures changed, sure, but men were still generally expected to do the approaching. Whether that meant approaching a woman directly, her family, or through community/social channels, men were still the ones initiating courtship. That’s been normal human behaviour for a very long time, not some unnatural modern challenge.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 09:07 PM
–

Do you really believe that abusive men come out swinging on the first date?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 09:04 PM
–

Women hate “choose better” because you’re blaming men’s behaviour on women and calling it accountability. There’s a difference between learning from patterns and acting like women are responsible for what men choose to do. If a man lies, cheats, manipulates, or plays games, that’s his behaviour. That doesn’t suddenly become a woman’s fault because she picked him. And this idea that men get told to “choose better” the same way is just not true. If a woman screws a guy over, most people don’t turn…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 05:49 PM
7

Are you serious right now? Bro, your wife wasn’t speaking in hypotheticals. She was telling you her actual lived experience. And you kind of proved the exact problem in real time. She said “this isn’t happening to me,” and instead of taking that in, you overrode it with what you believe men do in theory. Also, saying women can’t empathize with men while actively dismissing what a woman is telling you about her own experience…that doesn’t really land the way you think it does. Listen to your wife…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 05:39 PM
4

Read the question again.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 05:33 PM
6

You’re calling courting “unnatural” and “the most challenging thing a man can do,” but men have been approaching women and forming relationships forever. There’s nothing unnatural about it. You’re turning a basic human interaction into some extreme difficulty to justify why you need a theory for it. And the “what if they’re both lying” thing doesn’t hold up. That just gives you an out to ignore anything women say unless it already matches what you believe. At that point you’re not trying to unde…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 05:33 PM
9

Where did she say that?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 01:20 PM
18

Most of what I see isn’t men trying to figure out women. It’s men deciding they’ve already figured women out, then dismissing any woman who contradicts that as lying or confused. You don’t need to “figure women out” like we’re a puzzle. You need to actually listen. And that includes accepting that different women want different things. If one woman says XYZ and another says ABC, that’s not hypocrisy or proof women don’t know what they want. It’s just basic reality that we’re not a hive mind. The…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 01:19 PM
1

That’s a skewed dataset, not a reflection of women as a whole.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 10:49 AM
-1

Sure you can. Elites tend to have a bias against non-elites. Both men and women are in that category.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 08:36 PM
1

minority of powerful elites are men, but have a bias against the majority of normal men, this means... most men are at a massive disadvantage to women Those same powerful elites have a bias against women too
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 06:58 PM
6

That’s why we’re friends.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 01:27 AM
11

Get better friends
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 12:49 AM
25

Internet strangers will give you generic advice because they don’t know you. If you want to know why you’re so single, ask your friends.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 11:20 PM
5

There’s a difference between mutual attraction and just reducing someone to a body with zero awareness of timing, comfort, or consent. You’re treating those like they’re the same thing and they’re not. An attractive guy can still come off creepy if he ignores boundaries or pushes too hard. And a less attractive guy isn’t automatically “predatory” just for showing interest. How you show up matters. Awareness, timing, and respect matter. Saying women only reject men “beneath them” is a bit of a c0…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 04:53 PM
1

Don’t say shit if you’re not willing to back it up
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 04:19 PM
1

I’m not taking it “too literal,” I’m pointing out that your analogy doesn’t actually carry the weight you’re putting on it. Saying “it’s not a literal market” and then using it to explain behaviour like it is one is the whole issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 01:56 PM
28

You’re contradicting yourself. You say men are dropping out because “there’s no love,” but then you narrow what counts as a valid partner so much that of course you’re not finding it. That’s not proof love doesn’t exist, that’s your filter. You’re also not describing women “not understanding love,” you’re describing women not showing it the way you want. Big difference. And the 25–35 take isn’t insight, it’s preference dressed up as fact. Plenty of women in that range want real love and build it…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 01:23 PM
1

Cop out
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 12:48 PM
1

Now you’re just describing preferences. Yes, people bring different things to the table. That’s always been true. But listing “one offers this, one offers that” doesn’t magically turn it into a structured marketplace with clear roles and leverage. Also, calling it “unfortunate” that people have options is kind of the tell here. People categorizing and choosing is literally the point of dating. That’s not some broken system, that’s how autonomy works.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 12:47 PM
5

You’re stuck on the label instead of the point. I never said there aren’t market elements. There obviously are. But you’re stretching that into “men are sellers, women are buyers” like it’s a clean system, and it’s not. In a real market, roles are fixed. Here, both people are picking and rejecting each other at the same time. Men aren’t just sitting there hoping to be chosen, they filter too. So just repeating “it’s a marketplace” doesn’t actually prove anything about hypergamy or leverage. It’s…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/26 10:34 PM
7

It only “fits” if you ignore half the variables. In a real market, one side has the product and the other pays. In dating, both people are choosing each other at the same time. That alone breaks your analogy. Men aren’t just “sellers” either. They reject, filter, and hold standards all the time. If it was a clean market, average men would just pair off easily with average women. That’s not what’s happening, which tells you it’s more complicated than supply and demand. What you’re calling a marke…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/26 08:46 PM
11

People aren’t products. Dating isn’t just buyers and sellers. Men are just as selective, just about different things. Acting like women are the only ones filtering and men are just compromising doesn’t line up with reality. That stat about women marrying higher earners gets misused a lot too. It says more about income distribution and who’s in the dating pool than some built-in hypergamy rule. And the NBA example isn’t proving anything. Men chase status and extremes too. That’s not a female-only…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/26 12:18 PM
1

People aren’t either universally liked or universally unlikeable. Most people are somewhere in the middle and end up with people they actually click with. I’m not being naive, you’re just being weirdly fatalistic about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/26 11:52 AM
1

The right person will like you as you are enough to choose you, and you’ll feel the same about them. That’s what makes it a match. That doesn’t mean everyone’s gonna like you. It just means the right mix clicks for the right person. You’re acting like if it’s not broadly appealing, it doesn’t count. It does, it’s just not for most people.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/26 11:18 AM
3

Bruh, the root word of relationship is literally relate
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/26 12:15 AM
3

That definition describes what keeps a body alive, not what makes someone a person you can care about. A heartbeat and brain activity don’t give you anything to relate to.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 09:01 PM
4

How is this a real question ? If you care about someone as a person, what exactly are you caring about if not their personality, interests, and how they spend their time? Those things aren’t extras, they’re the substance of who they are. You don’t have to share their hobbies, but showing zero interest in them is basically saying you like the idea of them, or just their face, not the actual person.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 08:42 PM
8

I hate to be the “Google is free” person but it quite literally is free https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickme_girl https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/pick-me https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pick+me
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 07:16 PM
4

JFC you typed that and thought “yeah, that’ll show her”. “I manipulate people to get what I want” isn’t a flex, mate
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 07:13 PM
9

Because if you care about her as a person, you care about her hobbies and interests. If you don’t care about her as a person, get a sexbot.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 07:11 PM
8

Incorrect. Pick me’s seek validation from men - not just the man they’re with - often by belittling, mocking, or distancing themselves from traits, interests, or behaviours associated with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 07:08 PM
4

A woman that’s pleasant, loves being around him as long as she looks good enough it’s no problem That’s not a pick me. A “pick me” is a person who seeks validation by portraying themselves as “not like other women/men,” often by belittling, mocking, or distancing themselves from traits, interests, or behaviours associated with their own gender. The goal is to seem more desirable, “low-maintenance,” or “cool” to the audience they’re trying to impress.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 07:08 PM
3

People don’t all define “catch” the same way. You’re acting like it’s one universal standard measured by who gets picked the most, and it’s not. What one person sees as a catch, another person won’t. That’s the whole point. I can think someone’s a catch but that doesn't mean they think I am. That doesn’t make me wrong or them worthless, it just means it’s not mutual.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 05:38 PM
2

Being nice, kind, reliable, those are “catch” qualities. They’re just not the thing that creates attraction by themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 05:07 PM
0

Yes, people are just people, but there are people who are right for me and people who are wrong for me. That’s what I meant. Just like your example if someone doesn’t like tattoos, then someone with tattoos is the wrong person for them. They’re not wrong as a person, they’re just the wrong person.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 05:06 PM
0

If it only takes one person, then not finding them yet doesn’t make it worthless. It just means you haven’t found them. And if someone would pay $500, then it clearly has value. You just haven’t connected with that person. You’re turning “hasn’t happened yet” into “doesn’t exist,” and that’s the stretch.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 02:24 PM
3

Dating isn’t a mass market, it’s individual fit. A rock has one job, to be bought. People don’t work like that. Attraction isn’t about how many people want you, it’s about the right people wanting you. If most people aren’t into you, that doesn’t suddenly mean you have no value. It just means you’re not their type. That’s normal. Most people aren't into most people. And your whole “market value” thing assumes everyone’s seeing the same thing and judging it the same way. They’re not.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 01:55 PM
3

They still need to get to know you to know if they're open to a relationship with you. Being good looking ≠ being a catch. It means their basis for being a catch is about more than just looks. I thought I was clear.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 01:48 PM
6

Apps are technically putting yourself out there, but they only show a thin slice of you. If you don’t immediately hit someone’s type off a photo, your “catch” qualities never even get seen. And the whole “open to sex and relationships” thing still assumes you’re actually initiating. If you’re mostly passive or sitting in friend roles, yeah, that number’s gonna look low. So yeah, results matter, but they’re not happening in a vacuum. They’re shaped by exposure, behaviour, and context.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 01:18 PM
5

That only works if people are actually getting the chance to want you. Look at OP’s list, it’s all surface level. Being looked at, people buying you things, app matches. None of that tells you if someone’s a catch. People don’t know your character from a glance or a couple photos. The people calling you a catch are talking about your personality, and that’s not something strangers or apps can see right away. OP's judging depth with surface-level metrics.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 01:11 PM
7

If the jacket’s sitting in the back room and only the employees see it, of course it’s not getting bought. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad jacket, it means it’s not being put in front of the right people. OP's whole “proof is in the pudding” list is passive as hell . He's basically saying stand there and wait to be chosen, then use that as your scorecard. Nothing in that is proactive. No one’s going to know he's a catch if they don’t actually know him. And the “signals” listed only happen after you…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 01:01 PM
5

Being friends is already a valid reason though. I can like a guy, enjoy being around him, think he’s a catch, and still not be sexually attracted to him. That’s not a contradiction, it’s just how attraction works. You’re acting like “catch” should equal “I want you,” and it doesn’t.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 12:58 PM
15

Saying someone is a catch isn’t the same as wanting them. I can say a jacket is high quality, well made, looks great on other people, and still not want to wear it. That’s not a lie, it just doesn’t fit my taste. You’re confusing “not chosen” with “not valuable.” Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/26 12:38 PM
1

So, no answer then?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 11:11 AM
–

Correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 11:17 PM
1

You’re still trying to turn this into a clean “so women have it easier” conclusion, and it’s not that simple. I already said men can have it harder in some parts of dating. That’s true. But that doesn’t automatically flip the whole thing into women having it easier overall. The filtering and risk aren’t the same on both sides. Saying “men have that too” doesn’t make them equal in how they show up or what the impact is. And having more options isn’t automatically an advantage if a lot of those op…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 11:12 AM
1

You’re not asking for empathy, you’re asking for agreement with your framing. Men have issues. No one serious is denying that. But women not centring men the way they centre themselves isn’t a lack of empathy, that’s just how people work. A lot of what you listed isn’t being ignored, it’s just not being framed the way you want. Suicide gets brought up constantly, but the conversation turns into blaming women instead of asking why men don’t seek help and who pushes “man up.” That’s bigger than wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 03:17 AM
0

I never said men don’t struggle or don’t have it harder in some situations. Of course they do. Just like women do in others. Both can be true at the same time. Where you lose me is turning that into “so women have it easier overall.” That’s not what your examples prove. Having more options doesn’t cancel out the filtering, the risk, or the quality issue. It’s a different set of problems, not an easier version. And no one said women have it worse in everything. That’s you pushing it to an extreme…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 03:11 AM
1

You don’t get to call women delusional and then pretend anything that challenges that is “irrelevant.” It’s directly related. You’re just brushing it off. And the whole “manosphere is harder on men” thing… sure, while also telling men they’re inherently valuable and women need to prove themselves. That’s not balanced, it just feels that way to you. Also, you don’t have to give guidance to be making a claim. You’re still pushing the idea that women are out of touch and men are grounded. That’s th…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 02:52 AM
0

What does “empathy, sympathy, or compassion” look like? What changes? And what “empathy, sympathy, or compassion” are you extending to women?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 02:49 AM
0

Why can’t you be more concise? You’re still turning this into “women are privileged, men are oppressed” and that’s where it loses me. Men struggling is real, but that doesn’t make women’s side easy or privileged. More options doesn’t automatically mean better outcomes. It just means more filtering and more risk. Calling that a privilege is oversimplifying it. And the “men get torn down, women get hyped” point is selective. Both get hyped in some spaces and dragged in others. Nothing here shows w…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 02:46 AM
2

Explain how being with someone out of desperation is romantic
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 10:44 PM
5

You’re acting like validation is some one-way thing when it’s not. Women get hyped in some spaces and torn apart in others. Same with men. You’re just focusing on the side that proves your point. And the “buffet vs starvation” thing is dramatic. Women having more options doesn’t mean those options are good. A lot of it is filtering through low effort, bad intent, or straight up risk. That’s not a privilege, it’s a different problem. Also lowering your standards to “whatever I can get” isn’t some…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 07:18 PM
18

In the past week alone I’ve seen like half a dozen posts from men going on about “men built civilization” as if that makes every individual man high value by default. So let’s not act like only women are getting gassed up. Social media hypes everyone. Women get “know your worth,” men get told they’re kings for existing or for what other men did 200 years ago. “Cute and not crazy” is what you say when you don’t want to think too hard about compatibility. That’s not being chill, it’s just avoiding…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 04:26 PM
1

ok, and?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 03:37 PM
2

False equivalence that ignores context and history. Women aren't preventing men from attaining housing, jobs, or basic rights. Women aren't committing hate crimes against men. Women aren't persecuting men - they're just not automatically trusting them. If women had institutional power over men and were using it to restrict their rights, then your comparison might make sense. But they don’t. Being cautious isn’t oppression.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 03:37 PM
1

Complicated how?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 10:16 AM
0

That only works if the effect is actually strong and consistent. It’s not. You’re taking a small, context-dependent bias and pretending it applies the same way across “hundreds of actions.” It doesn’t. Sometimes it shows up, sometimes it fades, sometimes it flips depending on the situation. Compounding only matters when you’ve got something stable. This isn’t. You’re basically multiplying noise and calling it a trend. Saying “4x” and “it compounds” sounds nice, but you’re stacking something that…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/26 09:47 PM
1

A 4x ratio only sounds huge because the baseline is tiny. Going from ~0 to slightly positive isn’t some “massive gap,” it’s still a small effect size in actual research terms. And your “0 vs 1 = everything vs nothing” argument doesn’t apply here because men aren’t some pure zero with no bias. They just cluster closer to neutral. That’s not “nothing,” it’s just weaker on that specific measure. If the gap was as massive as you’re claiming, it would show up consistently in real behaviour. It doesn’…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/26 09:46 PM
-1

In the actual research the difference is small, not some massive gap. Women lean slightly pro-women, men are closer to neutral. That’s it. It’s like saying going from $1 to $4 is “4x higher” while ignoring it’s still just a $3 difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/26 07:28 PM
45

Women’s arousal patterns are less rigid than men’s. Their bodies can respond to a wider range of visual stimuli without that defining their orientation. So reacting to female bodies doesn’t suddenly make them not straight. Also, visual appeal isn’t the main driver for a lot of women. Attraction for them leans way more on context, connection, behaviour, how a man makes them feel. So a female body might look better aesthetically, but that doesn’t mean they actually want to date or sleep with women…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/26 02:16 PM
2

Women show a slightly higher in-group bias on average, not some blanket “they always side with women” rule. Context matters, and men show in-group bias too, just in different ways.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/26 11:46 AM
1

Seeing a pattern in your own dating pool doesn’t mean you’ve discovered how “most women” are, it means that’s the pattern in who you’re attracting or choosing.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/26 09:19 PM
4

You’re dismissing that women start assessing risk as kids. Dads and brothers telling them to stay away from boys, schools putting dress codes on girls so they don’t “distract” boys or even teachers. Caution didn’t just appear because of a few men, it’s been baked in from the start. So calling it a “direct consequence” for men doesn’t really land. Even if caution is higher, it still comes down to feeling safe and actually being wanted. Both have to be there. And the halo effect doesn’t prove your…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/26 08:56 PM
9

overlooking red flags Define them. What are the red flags you think are so obvious that women keep missing them? Give us a list.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/26 08:53 PM
6

You’re mixing two things that aren’t the same. Safety and attraction aren’t interchangeable. Taking precautions doesn’t stop existing just because someone decides a guy feels safe enough to get closer to. That’s literally the point. You don’t keep your guard at 100 forever, you lower it when someone shows they’re trustworthy. That’s not performative, that’s how trust works. And calling it a “consequence” that some men don’t get sex or relationships doesn’t really land. No one is owed that. Not g…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/26 06:35 PM
45

Am I “hunting ghosts” when I lock my car because some people steal? Or when I wear a seatbelt because some people drive reckless? Everyone adjusts their behaviour based on risk, not because they think everyone is dangerous, but because some people are. Women do the same thing. It’s not saying all men are predators, it’s knowing some are and you can’t always tell who. That’s the part that doesn’t add up. This kind of behaviour is normal everywhere else, but suddenly it’s a problem when women do i…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/26 02:37 PM
15

You don’t want women speaking in general terms about men, but you’re doing the same about women and calling it a pattern. That doesn’t make it different. Calling something a pattern is fine. Acting like it defines the whole group isn’t. If women started calling it a pattern, would that suddenly make it okay?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/26 11:29 AM
3

Losing testosterone was your example, mate, not mine. There’s no “which is it.” Both can exist at the same time because women aren’t a monolith. And men do get that same grace. When different men want different things, nobody turns that into “men don’t know what they want.” So what are you actually saying men aren’t given?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 07:01 PM
1

So once again, you’re overgeneralizing. “Countless men” isn’t evidence, it’s just anecdotes you’re choosing to treat like a rule.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 03:41 PM
2

Because you didn’t just describe your experience, you made a blanket claim about women and defended it with “enough to generalise.” That’s exactly the kind of take people push back on. Saying “not all” doesn’t change the claim, it just softens the wording. You’re still presenting it like a general truth, not a personal pattern. So yeah, I responded to the generalization. If you meant it as “this has been my experience,” you should’ve said that.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 03:13 PM
1

That’s not moving the goalposts, it’s just basic standards. You’re making a broad claim, so yeah, it needs more than a couple examples. And when you bring up systems, nuance isn’t dodging, it’s reality. You’re calling it pattern recognition, but there’s no consistent pattern shown. Just a few points you feel strongly about and a conclusion you’re trying to force. A few men bend over backwards for the women in their lives, sure. That’s personal. But men as a group doing that for women in general?…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 03:06 PM
1

If you're not going to debate in good faith, we're done here.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 03:04 PM
4

You’re still skipping a step and acting like it’s automatic. People recognizing an issue can lead to action, but that doesn’t prove the action is men “bending over backwards” or that it comes at men’s expense. You’re assuming the outcome matches your conclusion without showing it. Saying you avoid stats because they’re “abstract” just leaves you with anecdotes. If you’re making a broad claim about society, you need broad evidence. The court system point is oversimplified. Divorce and custody out…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 02:33 PM
2

That example doesn’t prove your point, it proves mine. If someone’s consistently “doing good” just to manipulate people, that is who they are. Being deceptive is part of their character. You don’t get to separate actions from identity when it’s convenient. And no one said those women don’t exist. They do. So do men who use women. That’s not the point. You’re taking a type of person and acting like it’s how women operate in general. Calling that out isn’t being “triggered,” it’s just pointing out…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 02:31 PM
6

You’re still stretching your points past what they actually show. Empathy in public perception doesn’t automatically turn into men “bending over backwards.” That’s the jump you keep making without proving. People recognizing barriers isn’t the same as men sacrificing anything or being over-accommodating. And Chicago Women in Trades still doesn’t prove your point. A program existing, even if it struggles with recruitment, doesn’t mean women as a group aren’t interested or that men are overcompens…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 01:34 PM
1

Asking someone out isn’t doing something to them either. It’s just expressing interest. Same with rejection. It’s them expressing they don’t feel the same. No one’s acting on anyone. No one’s being wronged. And the entitlement part comes in when you frame a “no” as something done to you. That’s when it turns into “I was treated unfairly” or “she did this to me.” But she didn’t. She just wasn’t interested.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 01:18 PM
2

Asking someone out is you trying to create something. Rejection isn’t them doing something to you, it’s them not agreeing to it. You made a move. They didn’t reciprocate. That’s not something being done to you, that’s just no mutual interest. Framing it like something was done to you is how you end up with “how could she do this to me” energy. That’s where bitterness and entitlement come from. You’re not entitled to her time or interest. She didn’t do anything to you. She just doesn’t like you l…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 12:48 PM
2

You’re taking a handful of behaviours and stretching them into a blanket statement about half the population. Women questioning their sexuality at some point doesn’t make them lesbian or asexual, it just means sexuality isn’t always rigid for everyone. That’s been studied for years in Human Sexuality Research, especially around what’s called sexual fluidity. Also, women criticizing men or certain types of masculinity isn’t the same thing as not being attracted to men. That’s like saying men who …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 12:47 PM
12

You’re stacking a bunch of unrelated points and acting like they prove one thing. They don’t. You jumped from “men aren’t given empathy” to a Pew survey about perceptions of women leaders. That doesn’t show men are bending over backwards, it just shows people recognize barriers women face. Different claim entirely. Then you lean on your ex’s experience in one trade program as if that proves women broadly “aren’t interested.” That’s not how evidence works. One anecdote doesn’t cancel out larger p…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 12:45 PM
1

women don’t know what they want That only makes sense if you think all women want the same thing. They don’t. The women complaining about men “losing testosterone” aren’t the same ones getting the ick from men being too masculine. Different people, different preferences. If a guy says he likes blondes and I see another guy with a brunette, I don’t jump to “men don’t know what they want.” I assume they’re not the same person.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 12:43 PM
2

And even if you do get rejected, that’s not something being done to you. “Doing something to you” would mean they acted on you. This is just them deciding for themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 12:41 PM
6

Most people aren’t really arguing the observation. Some people get more attention. That’s obvious. The reaction comes from the leap. After “these men get most of the attention” turns into “women are all chasing the same guys,” “they’re sharing them,” or “lower your standards or you’ll end up alone,” that’s when it starts sounding bitter. That’s why it gets labelled misogyny. Not the point itself, but the conclusions being attached to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 11:10 AM
1

we bend over backwards How?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 11:03 AM
4

This is such a pointlessly gendered take. It’s not a revelation, it’s just how relationships work. People love their partner for who they are and how they show up. That’s not gendered. No one’s loved in a vacuum. If the only way you feel valued is for what you provide, that’s the dynamic you’re in, not some universal truth about women. Plenty of women stick around through job loss, illness, all of it. If men were just resources, those relationships wouldn’t exist. And “who you are” isn’t separat…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 11:00 AM
2

Most of the time there wasn’t even a rejection. A lot of guys who complain about the “friend zone” never actually say they’re interested. They act like friends, hide it, and just orbit hoping it turns into something. So no, they didn’t get “put” anywhere. They showed up as a friend and got treated like one. And even if they do say they’re interested and she’s not, that’s still not something being done to them. There was no action against them, it’s just a lack of interest. That’s how it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 10:48 AM
0

I didn’t “only list downsides.” I corrected your assumption that attention = advantage. It doesn’t. If a big chunk of that attention is unwanted and comes with risk, calling it a benefit is the stretch. And I never said all marriages were abusive. That’s you putting words in my mouth so you can argue against something easier. The point is the system made abuse easier and safer for the abuser, and harder to escape. That’s it. The SSRI thing is the same move again. “We can’t measure the past perfe…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 06:36 PM
8

The person saying “friend zone” is acting like something was done to them, when really they built a friendship and wanted more. No one put you anywhere. You showed up as a friend, you got seen as a friend. They’re not into you like that. That’s it. What matters is what you do next. Either be a real friend, or move on. Hanging around trying to turn it into something else is just a waste of time.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 06:17 PM
0

You’re acting like “some women might enjoy attention” cancels out the reality of what that attention actually is. It doesn’t. Unwanted attention isn’t a perk. It comes with risk. Most women would trade a chunk of that “advantage” for not having to constantly be on guard. Calling the 1950s stuff “rare” misses the point completely. If something isn’t illegal or taken seriously, of course it’s underreported. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening. It means nobody cared when it did. The SSRI argument…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 04:57 PM
3

You’re confusing “someone exists” with “nothing was lost.” Yeah, there are a lot of needy guys. That doesn’t mean every option is equal or that outcomes stay the same over time. Your whole example hinges on Joe still being there at 33 and acting like that makes it a wash. It doesn’t. That’s a different position with different trade-offs, even if someone says yes. And the “men will take anything” angle is just not reality. Some will, plenty won’t. Standards go both ways. Men won’t end up alone ei…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 04:13 PM
13

There’s so much wrong with this. Loyalty isn’t the only thing that matters, it’s the baseline. You still need connection, communication, and actually liking each other. You’re also confusing lack of opportunity with character. Being smooth doesn’t make someone a cheater, and being awkward doesn’t make someone loyal. That comes down to values, not lack of options. And why would anyone choose someone who can’t relate to them? That’s the whole point of a relationship. Also where exactly are women s…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 01:38 PM
2

Some women do, yes. Some call him attractive. Some call him hot. Some call him unattractive. What's your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 12:57 PM
0

The advantages don’t out weight the disadvantages Valium was called “mother’s little helper”. Women couldn’t have their own bank accounts. If everyone was happy, why did women fight so hard for change? Why did our mothers and grandmothers warn us not to fall into the same situation they did? Why did women leave their marriages in droves when divorce became legal? Domestic violence was common. Very common. It just wasn’t reported or taken seriously. The truth isn’t misandry because you don’t like…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 12:14 AM
1

“Looks like” Attractiveness is subjective
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 08:47 PM
10

You’re not wrong that people cope differently, and some people (not just men) lean more toward doing than talking. But where this goes sideways is acting like therapy is basically “for women.” That’s just not true. Stuff like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or Solution-Focused Brief Therapy is literally built around goals, problem solving, and what to actually do next. That’s exactly the style you’re saying men need. Saying it’s mostly biological is also a reach. A lot of men were never taught how…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 08:27 PM
3

“Average” is subjective. It wasn’t that long ago some men were calling Margot Robbie “mid”.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 08:22 PM
19

You really don't think we have average men in our lives? You don't think we have friends, relatives, co-workers?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 03:45 PM
9

Dating has always been easier for women. More attention is not a privilege. Having men follow, harass, catcall, touch you isn’t a privilege Because they’re dismissing that it wasn’t better for women. It was markedly worse. What they’re saying is “things were so much better when men could rape their wives and their wives couldn’t do a goddamn thing about it”. Why wouldn’t women push back on that? I’m not going to guess at anyone else’s motivations. Maybe it’s a reaction. Maybe it’s engagement bai…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 02:42 PM
5

Does it really beg that question? No, it does not.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 10:16 PM
2

Take a moment to appreciate the fact that women do not experience this at all. You know that how? It’s not “clarity,” it’s just a hormone drop, women have that too, you’re just losing interest and calling it insight.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:40 PM
6

If you want specific advice, ask people who know you well. “Women” can’t give anything other than generic advice because we don’t know you.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 08:05 PM
–

Yes, Switzerland has male-only conscription. That’s a policy choice. You can say you don’t like it, but turning it into “proof” that women are entitled is a reach. Let's not forget that you're the one who brought up Switzerland to begin with. “If you’re a man, you owe something” isn’t some unique injustice. Different groups get different obligations depending on how a country structures things. You’re just hyper-fixating on one and ignoring everything else. And tossing out “73% of women are fine…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 06:42 PM
0

I’m not American. And you’re still not making a point. Switzerland choosing male-only conscription is exactly that… a choice. Other countries do it differently. Calling a penalty a “male privilege” is just wordplay. You either serve or you pay. That’s an obligation either way. And saying “only a handful conscript women” doesn’t prove anything beyond different systems exist. It’s not the gotcha you think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 03:33 PM
1

You’re mixing completely different systems and acting like they prove the same point. Switzerland has mandatory service for men, not an active wartime draft like what we’re talking about in the U.S. That’s a policy choice in one country, not proof of anything global. And the “pay to skip” thing isn’t some privilege, it’s a penalty. You either serve or you pay extra taxes. It’s not a loophole, it’s the system. Also, pointing to one country and yelling “equality” doesn’t really land when plenty of…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 01:42 PM
3

You’re comparing apples to oranges. The 30–35% number is the overall rate of shared custody across all cases. That includes situations where dads never asked for it or both parents agreed to something else. What I’m talking about is contested cases where fathers actually pursue custody. That’s a much smaller group, and in those, fathers end up with joint or significant parenting time far more often than 30–35%. So no, it’s not a “blatant lie,” you’re just using the wrong baseline. The overall ra…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 01:41 PM
7

The standard is best interests of the child, and a big part of that is who was doing the day to day parenting before the split. Courts usually keep that consistent because it’s more stable for the kid. That’s not bias, that’s continuity. And dads don’t “only get custody if they fight.” When they actually pursue it, they usually end up with joint or significant parenting time. The overall gap mostly reflects how roles were split before separation and the fact most cases are negotiated, not handed…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 01:41 PM
0

People size each other up. Men do it too. Attraction, status, personality, stability… everyone factors that in. That’s not some female-only “game,” it’s basic dating. The gym example proves nothing except you improved how you look and probably how you carry yourself. Of course people treated you differently. That happens to men and women. The “women keep backups and settle in their 30s then leave if the money drops” take is a stretch. Some people date like that, sure. Plenty don’t. And let’s not…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 11:12 AM
16

That’s a lot of words for “men need to step up their parenting game”
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 11:05 AM
15

Most custody decisions never even reach a judge, they’re agreed on beforehand. And when fathers actually push for custody, they get some form of it in the majority of cases, often joint. What courts look at is who’s been the primary caregiver and what’s most stable for the child. If that’s been the mother, that’s usually what gets maintained.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 11:04 AM
2

So do the men who bring coffee get fewer rights too?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 10:55 AM
2

Drafted is drafted, mate.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 10:48 AM
1

Yeah, drafts increase manpower. That doesn’t make it the next logical move. Going from recruiting issues to a draft means Congress, legal fights, and massive public backlash all at once. That’s not a small step, that’s a political nuke. Saying Congress would just go along with it is an assumption, not a given. A draft is wildly unpopular. And “they’ll do things that don’t make sense” isn’t really an argument. You can justify anything with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 10:47 AM
2

You’re going from “recruitment is down” to “draft is more likely than not,” and that’s a big jump. The U.S. has been all-volunteer since end of the Vietnam War draft. You don’t just quietly roll a draft out. That takes Congress, legal changes, and public buy-in that isn’t there. Raising enlistment age or tweaking standards isn’t “slow-rolling a draft,” it’s just trying to fix recruiting without blowing everything up politically. And once you start saying stuff like “rounding people up” and “kidn…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 01:37 AM
5

You’re reducing “responsibility” to only combat so you can pretend everything else doesn’t count. That’s the whole problem with your argument. During World War II, it wasn’t “rich men in nice neighbourhoods” keeping countries running. It was millions of women and civilians doing the jobs that made war even possible in the first place. Armies don’t function without supply chains, production, healthcare, and logistics. And your Israel point doesn’t really save you. Israel already has women in comb…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 01:34 AM
3

Conflicts existing doesn’t mean a draft is around the corner. And the “women will never be drafted” thing isn’t some fixed rule. Women are already in combat roles, and there’ve been pushes to include them in the Selective Service System. Also, you’re ignoring that military service already comes with benefits. Education through the GI Bill, healthcare and support through the Department of Veterans Affairs, housing perks like VA loans. That’s part of the trade-off. You want those benefits? Enlist.…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/26 01:32 AM
6

Who do you think keeps everything running while men are gone? During World War II, women were running factories, hospitals, farms, logistics, raising families, basically keeping the entire country from collapsing. That’s not optional support, that’s core responsibility. And the “no one wants women on the front line” point doesn’t really land anymore. Women already serve in combat roles. Look at Israel, it’s been standard there for years. You’re also blending two different things. Who gets drafte…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/26 09:07 PM
3

A war that would result in reinstating the draft in the U.S. is hypothetical. The U.S. military has been 100% volunteer since 1973
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/26 09:02 PM
9

Then expand it to include women.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/26 08:16 PM
7

They do get appreciation though. There’s Veterans Day, Memorial Day, military discounts pretty much everywhere, public tributes at games like the Super Bowl, and organizations like Wounded Warrior Project and USO built entirely around supporting them. Even the Department of Veterans Affairs exists specifically to provide care and benefits. On top of that, there are real benefits like education through the GI Bill, healthcare through the VA, and housing support like VA home loans.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/26 07:42 PM
17

How about abolishing the draft entirely?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/26 07:32 PM
11

One woman’s fuck boi is another woman’s future husband. Each woman defines long term and short term differently.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/26 06:43 PM
21

This is all over the place. You’re jumping from a hypothetical war to “rewrite the entire system for men.” That’s not how any government works. And the idea of giving men weapons so they can enforce promises…that’s chaos. You’re also lumping unrelated shit together. If you think family court or paternity fraud is unfair, argue it on its own. Tying it to the draft just makes it look like a bargaining chip. The draft point doesn’t even make sense. If it comes back, the real argument is either ever…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/26 06:40 PM
2

Repeating “any man knows this” isn’t proof. And you’re still mixing up “some women expect men to pay” with “women only value men for resources.” Not the same. If even some men aren’t dealing with “pay to play,” your claim isn’t universal. So what’s different about who they’re choosing?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/26 03:44 PM
2

You switched your argument. “Men sometimes pay” isn’t proof that women only value men for resources. And “most men agree” still isn’t evidence. If even a chunk of men aren’t having your experience, it’s not universal. It’s your pattern.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/26 02:41 PM
1

You’re calling it “collective behaviour” to avoid looking at your own patterns. If it were actually most women, all men would be having your experience. They’re not. So what’s the variable?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/26 02:17 PM
0

No, they’re not. If you keep attracting the same kind of women, that requires some self reflection.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/26 01:13 PM
-1

Not all women
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/26 12:34 PM
–

Way to be part of the problem. 👍
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/26 12:32 PM
–

This might fall into a “your experience“ territory. Women get harassed often, I don’t deny that part. But most women aren’t being harassed daily.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/26 12:31 PM
3

Define "signals"
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 06:25 PM
3

You can see makeup. You can’t see manipulation.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 06:22 PM
1

That’s not a concession. You’re stretching it. Saying gender is relevant to the kind of risk isn’t the same as saying people are sitting there making probability calculations about individual men. They’re not. It just means the risk shows up in a pattern, so people act accordingly. And the “misfire” point doesn’t really land. You’re focused on false positives, but the behaviour is about avoiding false negatives. Those don’t cost the same. So yes, “not all men” is true, but it still doesn’t help …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 01:43 PM
1

You’re trying to make this symmetrical, but it’s not. Women aren’t just “feeling unsafe” in the abstract. They’re responding to a specific kind of risk that actually affects how they move through the world. That’s why it’s gendered. Not because men don’t face risk, but because the pattern and context aren’t the same. And these conversations didn’t create that behaviour, they explain it. Women were already taking precautions long before this was being talked about like this. picturing a man getti…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 01:41 PM
1

You’re treating this like people are running probability models on individuals. They’re not. They’re responding to a type of risk they can’t reliably identify upfront. Gender is relevant to that risk, that doesn’t make it a blanket judgment about men.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 10:51 AM
2

Changing the wording might soften the message, but it doesn’t remove the uncertainty or the risk, so it doesn’t change the behaviour. You’re focused on men feeling unfairly seen as a threat. What about the impact on women of constantly having to manage that threat? Being told to stay alert, be careful, don’t go there, don’t wear that, don’t trust too quickly. And if something happens, being asked what you did wrong. And then getting labelled misandrist for responding to that reality in a pretty …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 10:49 AM
1

You’re applying the same standard to two different kinds of statements. Qualifiers matter when you’re making claims about what a group is like. This isn’t that. It’s about behaviour under uncertainty. And in that context, averages don’t help if you can’t tell who’s who. You don’t leave your keys and wallet on a table because most people are thieves. You don’t know who is, so you act accordingly. Same thing here. The behaviour isn’t a judgment on everyone, it’s a response to uncertainty. So point…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 10:22 PM
2

You’re arguing about feelings, women are talking about safety. Saying “not all men” might make some men feel better, but it doesn’t make women safer, which is the actual point of the conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 10:18 PM
1

Yes, people often drop the “some,” but that doesn’t change what’s being said. It’s not a claim about all men, it’s about uncertainty. If you can’t tell which men are safe upfront, people are going to default to caution. So adding “not all men” doesn’t really do anything here. It’s true, but useless. It doesn’t make anyone safer, doesn’t help identify who’s safe, and doesn’t change behaviour. It just shifts the focus away from why the precautions exist in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 08:33 PM
1

Calling everything “gaslighting” isn’t a rebuttal. I’ve explained my point clearly. You don’t agree, that’s fine. I’m done here.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 04:15 PM
2

Calling that “gaslighting” doesn’t make it true. Acknowledging risk isn’t the same as defining an entire group. People do this in all areas of life without it being some attack. If you can’t separate “some risk exists” from “this defines everyone,” then we’re not even arguing the same thing anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 03:06 PM
3

You’re arguing the analogy instead of the point. Obviously there are multiple risks. That doesn’t change anything I said. People still adjust their behaviour based on specific risks. And no, saying “I exercise caution around men” isn’t “defining men as risky.” It’s recognizing that men are one category where risk exists. That’s not the same thing as saying all men are dangerous. By your logic, you wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge any specific risk without it becoming a blanket statement. That …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 01:19 PM
4

Calling it a “lie” doesn’t make it one. That’s like saying wearing a seatbelt is “pathologizing all drivers.” It’s not, it’s basic risk awareness. We teach kids stranger danger, but somehow adults are expected to ignore risk entirely. Same thing here. Saying “I exercise caution around men” isn’t defining all men, it’s acknowledging risk. You’re turning it into a blanket statement so you have something to argue against.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 10:57 AM
2

Would you prefer “not all women,” the same way men use “not all men”? Because that’s literally the whole point of this thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 10:49 AM
1

You’re doing it again. You keep zooming out to “feminism,” double standards, society, all of that, instead of sticking to what we were actually talking about. This isn’t about defending every term or every feminist or every take you’ve seen online. It’s about how these phrases get used in a conversation. And you keep collapsing “talking about patterns” into “attacking all men,” even while saying you agree they’re different. If someone says “men are rapists,” yeah, push back. I’ve already said th…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 10:47 AM
3

This started about how phrases like “not all men” and “not a monolith” are used. Now you’re bringing in feminism, terminology, double standards… that’s a different conversation. Let’s stay on the actual point. Naming patterns or behaviours isn’t the same as saying an entire group is that thing. You keep collapsing those into one. If you don’t like a term, fine. That doesn’t change what’s being described. And some people misusing a term doesn’t mean every use of it is an attack on men. And to you…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 02:00 AM
1

You’re overplaying this “pattern” thing to justify reacting to stuff that wasn’t actually said. Not every sentence is secretly pushing some bigger narrative. “I’m cautious around men” is a personal choice, not a coded generalization. You’re taking it, expanding it into something broader, and then arguing against that instead. If someone makes a blanket claim, call it out. But this isn’t that. At this point you’re not responding to the statement, you’re responding to what you’ve decided it repres…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 01:08 AM
0

You’re stretching “implication” to the point where you can read anything into it. If someone’s being vague or actually making a broad claim, then yeah, call it out. I’ve already said that. But “I’m cautious around men” isn’t vague. That’s just someone explaining how they move based on risk. You’re the one turning that into some bigger statement about men. You don’t get to take a specific comment, plug it into a broader narrative, and then respond like that’s what was actually said. At that point…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 12:54 AM
5

You’re listing a bunch of phrases and calling it hypocrisy without looking at how they’re actually used. Terms like “toxic masculinity” aren’t saying men are toxic. They’re naming specific behaviours. Same idea as saying “toxic workplaces” doesn’t mean all workplaces are toxic. “Teach men not to rape” is about who commits the vast majority of that crime. It’s about addressing a pattern, not saying every man is a rapist. You’re collapsing “talking about patterns” into “attacking an entire group,”…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 11:39 PM
0

You’re shifting this from what’s actually said to what you feel is being implied. If someone says “men are X,” then yeah, push back. I’ve already said that. But if someone says “I’m cautious around men,” that’s not some broad attack on men as a group. That’s just describing how they move through the world. You don’t get to take that, read it as “men are dangerous,” and then justify “not all men” based on your own interpretation. If something is vague or actually generalizing, correct it. Fine. B…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 10:00 PM
2

I’m not treating it like it’s always invalid. I’ve already said it makes sense when someone’s making a blanket statement. What I’m saying is it’s not always relevant, and the context people react to most is when it doesn’t add anything. In my experience, “not all men” shows up way more in response to women talking about being cautious or describing risk, not making blanket claims. That’s why it gets the reaction it does.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 07:02 PM
1

You’re not poking a hole in anything, you’re missing the point. I did apply the same standard. “Some” vs “all” is the whole distinction. If someone already says “some men can be dangerous,” then “not all men” isn’t correcting anything. It’s redundant. That’s why it comes off dismissive, because it pulls focus instead of adding to the point. You’re acting like that’s “controlling the narrative,” but it’s just basic context. Not every statement needs correcting, especially when it’s already specif…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 06:00 PM
14

If wording didn’t matter, “not all men” wouldn’t even be a thing. But it is. So clearly it does. Or does it only count as “nitpicking” when women say it?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 05:57 PM
14

You’re still trying to strip the context out and then call it inconsistent. That’s the issue. She used a safety example to explain why “not all men” gets pushback. You don’t get to ignore that context and then say your reply was “going deeper.” It wasn’t, it was a pivot. She was talking about who women are at risk from. You switched to who gets victimized more overall. Those aren’t the same question. And your consistency question has a simple answer: Generalizations are fine when you’re clearly …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 03:58 PM
11

You’re still doing exactly what she’s pointing out. When women talk about safety, they’re talking about who is harming them. Not total victim stats across everyone. “But men get killed more” doesn’t address that. It changes the topic. Both can be true: Men are more often victims overall. Women are disproportionately harmed by men in gendered ways. Bringing up male victim stats in that moment is why “not all men” gets called dismissive. It shifts the focus instead of engaging with the point. If y…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 03:49 PM
21

You’re acting like those phrases do the same job and they don’t. “We aren’t a monolith” is used to push back when someone turns a pattern into a blanket statement about what women are. It’s correcting overgeneralization. Men do the exact same thing. “A lot of women on dating apps ghost.” is a pattern and open to discussion “Women are flaky and can’t communicate.” is when “women aren’t a monolith” comes in “A lot of men struggle with emotional communication.” is a pattern and open to discussion “…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 03:42 PM
–

Irrelevant. The question was whether they’re separate, not how common it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 06:29 PM
–

How many examples do you need? The claim was that they’re not separate. Even one valid case shows they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 05:09 PM
–

So you've never heard of asexual people?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 02:53 PM
–

Sure it is. They often overlap but they're distinct. Case in point: one night stands or friends with benefits, where there’s sexual attraction without romantic interest.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 02:28 PM
–

Keep in mind romantic attraction isn’t just different from sexual attraction, it’s also distinct from platonic attraction, which you seem to be overlooking. People form deep, long-term emotional bonds with friends and family all the time, and we don’t call those romantic. Attraction is a strong word, and you’re stretching it to cover things it doesn’t actually describe. If your definition of romance includes all of that, then the definition is the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 11:43 AM
–

This is a lot of words to force a conclusion that isn’t there. You’re redefining basic things like friendship and self-image as sexual orientation just to make the theory work. Men having male friends isn’t romance, and women noticing other women isn’t hidden homosexuality. The whole thing leans on selective examples and ignores everything that doesn’t fit. It’s very immature.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 11:09 AM
8

The person I turn to for advice is the person best suited to provide that advice. Their relationship to me is irrelevant. Asking someone for advice isn’t choosing them over someone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 02:32 AM
1

I’ve already explained it’s not about the bear, it’s about how women assess risk. The only productive response to man vs bear was “what have we done to make women feel this way?” Then the comments filled up with “stupid women don’t know shit about bears.” Refusing to engage with that is exactly why women pick bear. You only refuse to see it because living in prejudice is easier for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:49 PM
2

Local man discovers capitalism, inequality, and bad managers exist. If she doesn’t know her finances, that’s not some deep gender failure, that’s just bad money management. That happens to athletes, actors, influencers all the time. It’s not unique to women or sex work. MC Hammer made tens of millions and still went broke because of mismanagement and the people around him draining money. Mike Tyson earned hundreds of millions and ended up bankrupt after promoters and handlers took huge cuts. All…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 11:37 AM
1

Y’all behave like men are desperate and lack agency
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 10:40 AM
0

Then what was the point of your video? Never mind. I don’t care. We’re done here.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 10:37 AM
1

Most people who encounter bears will encounter black bears.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 10:37 AM
10

I don’t think you know what “social skills” means.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 01:23 PM
1

All that stat shows is how women identify politically. It doesn’t tell you how they behave in dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 12:12 PM
0

Pick one thing. Literally just one thing 8 billion people all agree on. You can’t. So this whole “men and women will never agree” angle doesn’t actually prove anything. People don’t agree on anything at that scale, so why would dating norms be the exception? What you’re calling an impasse is just normal disagreement. And you’re also acting like both sides are a monolith when they’re not. Some women approach. Some don’t. Same with men. All that’s really happening is people are adjusting their beh…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/26 10:22 PM
5

She didn’t have a hypothetical though. When she said “ask women in your family”, it’s because she has asked women in her family. Because women and her family have told her, just like mine told me.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/26 02:58 PM
8

You’re both using anecdotal evidence, the difference is you’re treating your family like proof. Plenty of women will tell you the opposite, and a lot of us heard it directly from our mothers and grandmothers warning us not to repeat their mistakes. Dismissing that because your family seems happy doesn’t prove anything, especially when you don’t actually know what those women would say privately. And if you’re a man, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t tell you the full truth anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/26 12:03 PM
14

Unmarried couples also have children
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/26 11:57 AM
25

And let’s not forget that marital rape was legal until the 1970s in some places and up to the 1990s in others
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/26 11:57 AM
10

If your argument only works when women have fewer choices, it’s not a strong argument. Women aren’t less attracted to men. They’re less attracted to ones who bring nothing but entitlement and a paycheque
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/26 11:55 AM
1

Yeah, there can be multiple interpretations. The question is which one actually maps to something real and testable. Your “agency bias” idea is interesting, but right now it’s mostly describing patterns, not clearly isolating causes. That’s the issue. You’re saying “this is what it looks like,” not showing how it operates in a concrete, testable way. On empathy toward men, I agree that’s real. But it’s harder to pin down causally. Is it norms, behaviour, risk, roles? Probably a mix. That’s why i…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/26 11:16 AM
1

That doesn’t answer the question and you’re not living in reality if you think a woman can get “any guy she wants”
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/26 11:08 AM
1

Such as?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/26 11:08 AM
1

You’re mixing obligations, policies, and outcomes and calling it one thing. Conscription is a policy. Education gaps are outcomes. Hiring programs are targeted measures. That’s not one unified system of “men being restricted.”
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 11:40 PM
3

You’re treating all interpretations as equally valid, and they’re not. You can frame conscription as “men are disposable,” but that’s an interpretation. The actual policy is tied to a role, men as combatants, not a claim that men are lesser. That’s the difference. We don’t infer bias from how something feels, we look at what it does and how it’s justified and applied in practice. Same with your earlier point, restrictions don’t have to come from hostility, agreed. But they’re still measurable in…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 11:39 PM
3

It’s not arbitrary though. There’s a difference between intent/bias and outcomes shaped by roles or history. You don’t prove “hostility” by guessing feelings, you look at patterns, laws, and norms. If something consistently restricts or targets a group because of their gender, that’s bias. Conscription isn’t based on “men are inferior,” it’s based on “men are expected to fight.” That’s a gender role, not hostility. Same with a lot of the examples listed. And this does apply to misogyny too. Not …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 10:06 PM
2

That’s not symmetry, that’s just expanding the definition until it includes any harm men experience. For something to be misandry or misogyny, it has to come from bias against that gender, not just be a negative outcome that affects them. Things like conscription or dangerous roles come from gender norms, not hostility toward men as a class. If you label every issue affecting men as “misandry,” the term stops meaning anything. And once you separate cause from outcome, the asymmetry point still s…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 09:51 PM
4

So when men get cheated on or end up with toxic partners, is that their fault for not spotting it early? Or do you only apply that standard to women? Pointing to hindsight takes doesn’t prove anything. It’s easy to label someone “obvious” after everything comes out. That’s not how it looks in real time when someone is being charming and selective about what they show. Also, where did I say women can smell it a mile away? You’re arguing with something I didn’t say. Stick to what I actually said.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 03:41 PM
0

"I’m not denying that happens." was my first sentence Misandry exists. It can be harmful. But calling it “systemic” in the same sense as other structural inequalities doesn’t really hold up.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 03:39 PM
4

That’s not how rights work. On “parental testing,” you’re pointing to specific regulations around paternity tests, which are usually about consent, privacy, and the child’s welfare, not women having extra rights. Courts can still order testing where it matters. That’s not men lacking rights, it’s how evidence and family law are handled. Calling that “men’s rights are non-existent” isn’t an argument, it’s exaggeration. If you’re going to claim a whole category of people has fewer rights, you need…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 12:42 PM
-1

How?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 11:46 AM
2

That makes no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 11:23 AM
2

Why do you keep acting like those are the only two options? You’re creating a caricature of a person and acting like that’s real life.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 11:11 AM
2

You can argue that, but you’d be wrong. By definition, that’s not a right. It’s a burden placed on men, not a privilege given to women. You’re describing unequal treatment, not unequal rights. Those aren’t interchangeable.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/26 11:00 AM
9

You don’t think a guy acts different when he’s trying to get laid vs how he acts with everyone else? Be serious. “Good guys” cheat and abuse all the time while everyone around them swears he’s such a great guy. That’s literally why people get stuck, because from the outside he looks fine. People don’t walk around advertising who they really are. Your whole take depends on them doing exactly that. That’s the delusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 11:35 PM
3

No, I’m implying men aren’t labelled “good” and “bad” on sight. “Obviously nice” is exactly the problem. Plenty of guys look nice at first. That’s how this works. They don’t open with cheating or abuse, they ease into it. So no, it’s not about women being idiots. It’s about you pretending people are transparent when they’re not. Your whole argument only works if bad men advertise themselves upfront. They don’t.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 11:32 PM
2

That’s not a right. It’s an exemption from a government obligation. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 11:31 PM
8

You’re acting like women can predict who’ll cheat or turn abusive. They can’t. Those guys lie, charm, and switch up later. And the “99%” thing is something you pulled out of nowhere to blame women for men’s behaviour. Also, can we stop pretending “average guys” don’t do this. Plenty of normal, everyday men cheat or abuse. There’s no clean way to screen it out upfront. Agency means making choices, not having mind-reading powers. Acting like it does is just a lazy way to dodge reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 10:55 PM
-1

How do men have fewer rights? Which rights do women have that men don’t?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 08:52 PM
1

We agree it’s connected. Where we disagree is impact. You’re overvaluing arguing, I’m pointing out that without action behind it, it doesn’t go anywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 08:08 PM
0

Narratives matter, sure. But arguing about them isn’t the same as changing them. Education, outreach, real examples, that’s what actually moves public opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 07:50 PM
18

Where did I say that? It’s not about blaming one side. Dating outcomes usually come from both people and the situation around them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 05:55 PM
8

The point wasn’t which specific terms were used. The point was that Ngrams track language in books, not real-world attitudes. Changing the words being graphed doesn’t fix that, so it still doesn’t support the conclusion being made.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 05:53 PM
21

“Misandry” becoming more common in text just means people started using the word more, not that it suddenly surpassed misogyny in society. Same thing happened with terms like sexual harassment. The word goes up when people start naming something, not when it magically becomes more prevalent than everything else. And this idea that misogyny should’ve peaked in 1920 and then just declined in a neat line doesn’t hold up. Social progress doesn’t work like that. You get gains, then backlash, then shi…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 05:24 PM
28

That's a bit of a strawman. You’re assuming agency = perfect outcomes and then using exaggerated scenarios to prove a point. That’s not really a good-faith question, it’s just a setup
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 05:18 PM
–

Men outnumber women on dating apps and men will swipe indiscriminately. If a woman is getting hundreds of likes and messages, she has to filter. This is what happens when the market is flooded. If three people apply for a job, you hope one of them will be qualified. When 300 people apply for a job, you throw out resumes if you don't like the font they use.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 01:01 PM
–

Of course they still would because that's how dating apps function. Looks get you a first date, personality gets you a second.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 12:59 PM
-1

Arguing about narratives isn’t the same as improving outcomes. You can push back all you want, that’s fine. But if that’s all you’re doing, don’t call it advocacy or act like you’re actually helping men. At least be honest about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 12:01 PM
0

You’re acting like pushback is the work. It’s not. If most of your energy goes into arguing with feminists instead of actually supporting men somewhere else, then it’s still reactionary and performative.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 11:36 AM
2

That’s like saying you support animal rights because you sat through an ASPCA ad. If the only time you care about men is when you’re arguing with feminists, that’s not advocacy. Real support exists without women even being part of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 11:16 AM
2

Q4W: all other things being equal, do you respect your husband/partner/boyfriend/date less if he doesn't work in an "alpha" type of career or works less than you? Yes Do you consciously or unconsciously expect men to be go-getters, continuously improving, and/or always taking on new responsibilities to maintain attraction? No
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 06:42 PM
5

That’s a convenient little theory.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 06:22 PM
0

and women have it better in other areas
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 05:03 PM
2

Pick different women.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 03:58 PM
1

oh FFS. Men have hormones. Women have hormones. No gender has it objectively worse or better than the other. We both have shit to deal with, it's just different shit
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 03:56 PM
3

Your point? Anyone can. That's the thing. Some of you try to gender things that aren't gendered. Some men have it easier than some women. Some men have it easier than other men. Some women have it easier than some men. Some women have it easier than other women. There's no universal answer. Both men and women have struggles at a population level and individual level. Fighting over who has it worse it just a stupid pissing contest that does nothing but further divide men and women and create more…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 03:54 PM
2

Don't do what things? Plan dates? Sure they do, if the women you date don't - pick different women. But if you're the one asking her out, expect to plan it. Split the bill? Sure they do, if the women you date don't - pick different women,
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 03:49 PM
1

all of it: mood swings, anemia, back pain, breast tenderness, cramps, diarrhea, migraines - the whole kit and kaboodle
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 03:46 PM
0

That’s part of what I meant by “everything that goes with it”
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 12:20 PM
1

The bleeding isn’t the hard part. It’s everything that goes with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 11:43 AM
2

This might shock you, but women also have hormones
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 11:43 AM
5

You knew someone would use common sense?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 11:42 AM
8

Neither has it easier. Both have issues, they’re just different issues. Stop turning it into a contest.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 11:41 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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