TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

PrizedWalrus Archive

View 1 post and 99 comments by PrizedWalrus on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

I agree that a class action against the hosting company is the one that can be won and is the route to go. That said it does remove accountability from the actual evil person, they will still create these pages elsewhere on a platform less beholden to the US legal system. This case is great for letting people know that this exists, but I just can't see a jury having much sympathy for men in this situation, as wrong as it may be. Seriously not trying to be dismissive, just being realistic.
/r/MensRights25/03/24 11:01 AM
1

Maybe, though losing this case may only encourage these groups
/r/MensRights25/03/24 08:46 AM
53

He's going to lose the case in court, though yes if the genders were switched it would be a different story A jury won't have the same kind of empathy for men
/r/MensRights25/03/24 01:47 AM
1

"These assholes want us gone." This is just such hilarious hyperbole. You are basically the same victim status as a radical feminist. These are edgy teenagers who've had their heart broken by some boy. You seem to understand that when feminists play word games like this that's it's incredible hyperbole, but don't seem to be able to apply the logic on the inverse. Utter emotional self victimisation. Bravo.
/r/MensRights24/03/24 04:33 AM
1

I do support mens rights, I do not support men descending into this victimhood complex. Here you go yet again, descending into extremes. Nowhere did I suggest anything like that, to hold the idea that our evolutionary history holds no value. I am contending that it holds quite a bit of value in describing society and blank slate thinking like both you and feminists display are problematic. Generalising women as dumb sacks of shit does nothing to support your ideas by the way and is hilariously i…
/r/MensRights24/03/24 04:06 AM
1

You absolutely seething and claiming eugenics over a few edgy teenage kids who don't understand what they are saying. BAHAHAHAHHAHAH
/r/MensRights24/03/24 03:54 AM
1

I'm not supporting it, I'm telling you that we don't live in a nonsense blank slate world where everything is driven by socialisation. So much is innate and this clearly is for reasons of survival. It may be outdated but there's literally nothing that can be done to have to ideologically equal land you seem to imagine. How about understanding and accepting this, men and women are not the same. We are both great and terrible in equal measure. We are dealt some worse cards as men, we are also deal…
/r/MensRights24/03/24 03:22 AM
1

Good we're somewhere driving these posts to extremes is hysterical and irrational. Getting to the calmer point of do women get softer moderation? Well obviously they do, it's how humanity has evolved. It's part of life, you seem to want to enforce blank slate ideals where we can just socialise society to treat men and women the same. It's a nonsense and won't happen, the idea will just make you miserable. Yes, men and women don't get treated the same. There no conspiracy, think about the million…
/r/MensRights24/03/24 03:06 AM
1

Mate your avoiding the question. Do you think feminists using a handful of cherry picked misogynistic posts are being rational when they suggest that men want them dead and are seeking the perform some level of eugenics. Is that rational or is it a hysterical framing? This is the question I'm begging you to answer, simply the above no need for obfuscation.
/r/MensRights24/03/24 02:50 AM
1

You seem to be obfuscating things here and barely touching on my question while filling up space with other text. You are suggesting that these women want [b]us[/b] dead, linking this to eugenics and making blanket claims from this cross section. Do you think it is reasonable for feminists to do the same, or is it hysterical. Do men want [b]them[/b] dead, or are in some way seeking to enforce eugenics? As anyone can easily source thousands women hating posts across twitter/reddit/insta/facebook …
/r/MensRights24/03/24 02:32 AM
1

So do you think feminists claims of the exact same thing are valid, or are they hysterical? Personally I would say they are hysterical. Keen to hear your rational view.
/r/MensRights24/03/24 02:15 AM
1

Mate, you are a carbon copy of feminists who claim that men want women dead all backed up by the exact same nonsense "evidence". Let's not do the hysterics, trying to liken this eugenics rather than recognising what it is, is about the most feminist brained thing ever. Honestly you need to start being an actual man, get off the internet play team sports and quite indulging in outrage porn this stuff will mess you up.
/r/MensRights24/03/24 02:07 AM
2

There's definitely tonnes of mentally ill incels here, who are basically mastubating to this outrage porn. To be fair there are real mens rights issues, there are some womens issues too though they are socially acceptable to discuss while the average mans issues truly are often ignored. I'd say it's worth looking into what many divorce lawyers think about how men are treated during divorce as they have the best view in the house. Anyway, yes this kind of post is thorough nonsense- if it was some…
/r/MensRights24/03/24 01:58 AM
2

Have to agree. This kind of stuff is literally right out of the feminist playbook. How about we maybe accept who are evolved to be and the modern context we live in, stop trying to create a male equivalent of feminism because it's clearly not based on logic and we proceed to live succesfully. Mens rights are about serious things like parental rights, domestic violence, divorce, suicide. Not getting whipped into an emotional frenzy over things edgy teen girls say. Scary how pathetic it all is and…
/r/MensRights24/03/24 01:44 AM
1

It's incredible fear mongering. Seeking out a few mentally unwell people is cherry picked nonsense. Detecting rates of this with broader context is meaningful. There will always be an amount of this, it can never be 0. The same goes the other way around, there will never be 0 men who don't say the exact same stuff about women. You have whipped yourself into an emotional frenzy and have lost rational thought. These posts are regressive and literally right out of the feminist play book. Lets be ra…
/r/MensRights24/03/24 01:39 AM
1

You are the mirror image of a feminist, all emotion.
/r/MensRights24/03/24 01:29 AM
0

I'm really sorry but this has crossed into the insane You are treating this just like a feminist treats it, which is absolutely not the solution unless you want to engage in endless tit for tat.
/r/MensRights24/03/24 01:17 AM
1

Mate, this is just too much. I agree that women receive more empathy and generally have an easier social world whether online or not, but your comments are appear to be seething. You have to accept life for what it is. Much of this is evolutionary driven, and no amount of "rightness" matters. This kind of crap is whipping you into a frenzy, women are not evil just the same way men are not evil.
/r/MensRights24/03/24 01:09 AM
-1

This is far too much. I agree feminism is problematic, men's rights are overlooked and misandry does exist. But this post is merely cherry picked hateful comments. They exist the other way around too and they will forever exist in both directions. The pervasiveness of the problem has to be understood and would be very valuable. Cherry picking comments from insane people around the net means little
/r/MensRights24/03/24 12:53 AM
-1

Yes, that's exactly my point if you read what I've said. It's obvious that it's often done disingenuously by feminists to make it appear more pervasive and this post is no different. This post holds next to no meaning in its current form. How about a study on this- could be very illuminating and useful. Or how about a story on this topic, where full context of a specific situation exists. This kind of post only serves to embitter men- why stoop to the same level?
/r/MensRights24/03/24 12:18 AM
2

This is pretty worrying. Zero accountability or ownership for her actions. Is the idea that she's a passive actor in her own life
/r/MensRights23/03/24 11:42 PM
10

Because it's just words. The truth is obvious and we all know it. It's silly to take it literally or expect it to contain logic
/r/MensRights23/03/24 11:38 PM
-1

With all due respect, you are searching out things to be offended by. I think there is a bias against men in general in social media but this serves no purpose other than riling people up. Similar posts exist the other and are used to rile up emotions too - but let's not get involved in the race to the bottom
/r/MensRights23/03/24 11:37 PM
8

Let's be real, this it's pretty obvious. Men and women generally have little of true common interest. The primary driver of all friendships is proximity. Equally women have many, many more people interested in them in general. Without proximity and common interest interest it's going to be hard to make friends with anyone. Anyway don't fall into the trap of women hating, the issue is modern feminism. Accept the world for what it is, live the best way you can and live without hate.
/r/MensRights23/03/24 11:22 AM
1

It's scary how socially acceptable misandry is now I think trash TV shows clearly curated to outrage the demographic watching it helps fuel this. People want the drama in their lives or at least have it normalised in their mind. Friendly reminder for everyone to think about the environment they steep their brain in
/r/MensRights23/03/24 11:16 AM
2

Women do have to accept reality as well eventually. By the 30s most women really do settle and accept that they want kids and it totally reforms their life. Women have to feel like they settle for men they don't truly find all that attractive as in their 20s they could lend very attractive men who don't offer the commitment they want. (All of the above in general terms). So truly for young men, it's a much worse hand but women also get a very flawed hand too. You need to be careful not to look f…
/r/MensRights21/03/24 05:13 PM
3

Evolutionary forces influence much of society. Biologically women are the choosers and men are in competition. I don't think it's healthy to fight this. Fighting human nature leads to bad outcomes, and is basically much of what modern feminism is forcing on us (ie. pretending there are no innate differences between genders) I recommend reading the Blank Slate which gives a good overview of this debate of innateness versus socialisation. Again, have to stress we have to accept the cards we are de…
/r/MensRights21/03/24 12:31 AM
14

It turns into "we've earned it" and "it's men's fault for not grouping together and protesting" (not realising that stuff a group will just be called alt-right or something immediately)
/r/MensRights05/03/24 12:42 AM
1

Yep, so much of this stuff is obvious when you think about human history and evolution. There is a reason why extreme ideology hates evolution and it's because it directly dismantles the everything is a social construction idea. Everything has always been about the survival of women at all costs for men. A small amount of men might have been powerful throughout time, but women as a group have always been more socially powerful.
/r/MensRights03/03/24 02:32 PM
6

It's simply biology. This shit is hardwired into us from millenia of evolution. Protecting women has always been in both men and womens interest to maintain population (consciously or not). Men have always been expendable and thus put in positions of risk with the potential of reward and damage. If society back then felt equal empathy nobody would have been willing to let anyone taken the risks needed for the group survival. There is incredible difficulty in overcoming this- tbh I think it will …
/r/MensRights03/02/24 03:30 PM
2

Worst mistake I made....
/r/MensRights29/01/24 12:11 AM
4

Very much so, that's a quite interesting thing- we pose it from the perspective of "why are men killing themselves", which apportions no blame and allows for varied causes. While yes, the opposite would be squarely placed on the shoulders on men. Indeed I think we see this in the discussion, when the numbers of less progressive countries are reviewed. Instead we have to hear about the pay gap with a 12 year old kids statistical methods applied and no inquiry into the factors that may exist. It's…
/r/MensRights28/01/24 01:17 PM
8

I saw this data discussed on Twitter and of course it descends into "what is wrong with men". The true default/neutral position has to be that either gender may be charging, or the stances by either political side may be changing. Of course, like always media decides- straight white man bad. In reality all 4 of those elements are at play and need to be investigated. Clearly the impact of feminism to society is becoming increasingly extreme. It's socially acceptable to direct hate at straight whi…
/r/MensRights28/01/24 11:49 AM
1

I imagine the husband and kids are delighted just to have her out of their hair
/r/MensRights27/01/24 07:59 PM
1

You believe it's ok to scam people nicely instead of rudely. Interesting position.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/24 09:41 PM
–

I clearly stated there is no exclusion and that women played a small part in hunting. And yes, many people across Reddit and in the media are now claiming the fact that men were the predominant hunters as a myth. Search Reddit discussions on this topic and you'll find many feminists who either think it's irrelevant to discuss, or it's relevant because they interpret a study they don't understand to suggest a 50/50 split. It seems like it only matter when it suits. However, yes gender roles acros…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/24 04:48 PM
1

Yes, and I think everyone considers them pretty scummy scammers. The point is they are (correctly) afforded no plausible deniability. From a tribal perspective it makes sense to weed out problem men for the group. The value of women being able to continue the population is why we've evolved to be much more empathetic to them. If a woman is outcast from the tribe, that causes generational damage to the group- it would better be something very serious for it to come to that Whereas men simply were…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/24 11:10 AM
–

Oh, those nothing brainless tasks are simple and mostly done by young men. Young women want to pretend if they ever do any of this stuff it's a trauma these days. And of course men paying for dinner etc. is just an acceptable tradition - nobody wants chivalry to be dead right. So little Betty, pull up your sleeves and learn a bit of wiring. Fortunately nobody needs to learn to make a phone call, so you can do that too. Weaponised incompetence and victimhood can no longer be considered acceptable…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/24 08:53 AM
6

Oh I agree. It is a scam. I think part of it is that there's a sense of plausible deniability when a woman does this- the gap between it being a legit date or not can appear so slim. Men are not afforded that plausible deniability in this case- well because of the societal expectation that men pay. It's actually another example of letting women off the hook- young women out earn young men, but the expectation is still that men pay. Some people may try to logic that by "whoever asked the other pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 11:47 PM
8

Redpillers make up 0.1% of society. I'm not talking about illegality myself. I'm talking about social acceptability. Society judges women much less harshly
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 10:39 PM
–

Yes, true almost as easy as household chores and the "emotional labour"
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 10:37 PM
12

If a man was convincing women to date him and buy his food, people would be appalled and consider some form of lover boy scam
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 10:06 PM
25

It's true. That guy is a prick just walking out. But if he didn't walk out and used manipulation it would be considered a "lover boy" type of scam. The woman who was going on "dates" was manipulating and scamming men, but it's not naturally obvious to us at a basal level. The fact that it's ok and expected for men to buy dinners/drinks requires huge justification for any ideology centred around "equally". Though of course, at the centre of it all- feminism will say that Patriarchy is the cause a…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 10:04 PM
–

I guess given its so easy, it's something women should pull up their socks with and start taking up 50% of the chore!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 09:57 PM
1

They aren't accepted specifically by people who have heavily invested in one specific ideology that cannot coexist with the idea that gender roles existed through the existence of humans. This is what it's all about, of evolution backed what feminism wants to get across- it will suddenly be valuable but of course it doesn't. Want an example? Well there's a commonly misunderstood article about female hunters in tribes, that feminists think is relevant. Surely it's irrelevant if evolutionary psych…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 09:45 PM
1

Your legacy means nothing, nobodies of legacy means anything- we're tiny specs in the universe who will die out in the blink of an eye. 100% of people will be forgotten about, including you and I. I will however enjoy sleeping with women who are still attractive with my big fertile balls
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 09:38 PM
1

Apologies, it's hard to hear you over my big hyper fertile balls over here.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 08:40 PM
1

Yes, this is something that is missed. If men had the option to be stay at home husbands with wives who are happy to provide for them, very men nowadays would do it. The reason it doesn't happen, is because women would hugely resent that dynamic. I'm married and there's no way I'll be let stay at home while she works, and it's the same for 90% of couples that I know. Meanwhile most of us don't really care if our partners work full-time, part-time or were stay at home mother's. Somehow this is pa…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 07:56 PM
1

What you say for the risks of older sperm, also applies to eggs by the late thirties. Of course men lose fertility too. This is no myth, men have a significantly longer fertility window, it seems like denial of reality to claim otherwise. Fair enough if you want otherwise. Here's another fact, women live longer lives. Are you going argue every caveat under the sun to deny that? Or for some reason is that comfortable for you?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 07:50 PM
2

I guess so- I come from a fairly non-religious place, though we have imported much of Americas thought police/ideological stuff I actually remember watching that video before. It makes me sad to how science and academics are being used as a platform to mislead in the name of ideology. It is actually incredibly evil. Funnily it even came up in this thread! There are articles from major media companies and serious scientific outlets spreading this kind of headlines https://www.forbes.com/sites/mar…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 07:38 PM
1

You're comment about hunting is absolute nonsense and it's clearly something you have never looked into. Men massively overwhelming hunted large game. There's no denying women took part but not to the frequency or scale of men- this isn't an unknown, men literally were the primary hunters and women the primary caretakers. Not only do we have the knowledge of this, it makes blatantly obvious sense. Certainly ideologies are literally denying science trying to claim that gender roles were not a par…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 07:21 PM
1

There was a disingenuous representation of a study last year that the media and feminists have latched onto. Of course nobody has read the study and latches onto the headlines and the nonsense this person is regurgitating is spewed out all over Reddit. What the study they are referring to looked at was a binary check if women in tribes were ever involved in hunting. What they did not look at was the frequency or volume of hunting. What they found is something we already knew- women did take part…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 07:09 PM
1

It's an interesting question with lots of diverging thoughts that come to my mind. 4k years isn't a long time for evolution but I'm sure especially in modern time survival of the fittest has changed. Nowadays it is almost survival of whoever wants or can afford kids. Fun rabbit hole to dive into!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 06:03 PM
1

Yes, well I'm not arguing against using logic and reason. My point is that many of the issues we see in society are quite often assigned to evil patriarchal forces tend to correlate with evolved tendencies, which are taboo to mention, and those evolved tendencies were largely for the protection of women and children. That is my point, for discussion of those topics should include discourse around evolution if we want to understand why things are the way they are. Of course other factors matter t…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 01:21 AM
2

I don't get the problem. Women objectively have a significantly shorter window of fertility- that is my point. Nowhere did I say it slams shut at 35- but the window isn't all that lengthy when people leave it to their mid thirties and it's not uncommon for women to find out they have issues getting pregnant when they eventually try.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 01:14 AM
1

I mean it's quite incredible to believe that evolution has had no impact on our instincts, subconscious orv tendencies. I'm not sure what you are even talking about- I'm not suggesting we decide to base things on our biology - but it quite clearly will have some impact society and culture. Why do you think it's men who are dying in Ukraine and the women are shuttled off to safety? We inherently value women more than those men due to their ability to sustain population. Yes, we are animals who ea…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 01:09 AM
2

Thought I'd share another pretty thorough debunking of that study here-> https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-myth-of-the-female-hunter I am really sorry, but a lot of academia is heavily influenced by culture wars and it clearly influenced the way this paper was presente and received. Yet again, the consensus among people in the field is that the overwhelming majority of hunting activity was carried out by men- and how can it but no obvious, it's mere human nature that we are trying to cast in …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 12:46 AM
2

I agree that's not how people date, people do end up in situations where they might have a few people at varying levels of potential interest, and while the hard number of what age is doesn't matter and consciously men don't think about fertility, relative youth/beauty will stack the odds on that womans favour. To be clear I'm not hinting at discussing "the wall" or speaking in hard terms. Some women will be more attractive at 35, some will maintain fertility until 45! But focusing on the except…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 12:29 AM
2

Please take a look at this for a better interrogation of the study than I can offer-> https://www.vivekvenkataraman.com/blog I am afraid this study is fairly well known for being a case where there was a hypothesis to prove (which is not uncommon in academia, even in harder science). The wording around this whole thing in the media is so disingenuous but of course leads to way more headlines than objective factual study. I do think it's worthy to state that women were hunters too, but throughout…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 11:59 PM
2

Well you can do an apples-apples comparison by getting a group of women aged >35 to provide the passport/similar photos they had at ~25 and ~35. From this it would be quite trivial to carry out a study and analysis. That said, we do know what the results will be. Probably fun to quantify the difference across genders. I guess you could even just get a large enough sample of 25yos and 35yos and the average group rating by members of the opposite sex would probably get the result too. Almost defin…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 11:48 PM
2

It's still the consensus following the study. Most hunting activity is and was carried about by men. Clearly you haven't even read the study- it doesn't capture the volume/frequency of the activity- merely captures had taken part. As I say, is likev saying men did as much housework as women in the 50s- not true of course. Funnily enough I studied anthropology in University too. It's well accepted that women have taken part in hunting, and I don't deny that- however I never came across people who…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 11:41 PM
2

The only number you cite is the most optimistic and misleading figure out of context from that study- this is my point about having an agenda. There is a desire to state women as hunters from certain ideologies. That study itself doesn't capture the frequency of hunting activity- it captures who had ever performed hunting tasks. I mean it should be no surprise that many women in tribes have hunted - but the primary hunters who carry out the majority of hunter have always been male. I have repeat…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 11:18 PM
2

Naturalistic fallacy is not the same thing as it being worthwhile to consider the effects of evolution on our psychology and on society more broadly. I repeatedly state that it's not the only effect and that cultural and environmental impacts matter- but it's been taboo to consider evolutionary effects for more than 20 years now- something that is clearly anti-science and regressive all because it sits rather uncomfortably beside popular ideology and religions and thus is politically unwanted fr…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 11:12 PM
2

I'd be inclined to say that the natural position might be to prefer more diverse genes as generally it leads to healthier offspring- that may not extend to race though. Equally it could be argued that people may naturally be wary of people who are different. This one I am less sure, and I suspect there might be no strong evolutionary position on- as it must have been extraordinarily rare to meet people of a different race. It's entirely possible to me that racial preferences could be a case wher…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 10:48 PM
1

That's generally not true unless you bring property ownership and patriarchal values into the picture, in which women are still usually the ones doing the work while the men often take credit for owning the farms. In many parts of Africa, women are legally not allowed to own property (laws usually written by men) even if she is virtually running the show on the farmland. The only time that women stay home is when men break nature norms and force them into the home. I'm talking about primitive tr…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 09:49 PM
1

I probably take a pretty nihilistic position personally, though can see why you interpreted it that way- whatever it is, I will live through and I accept that if anything the current accepted beliefs will only become more extreme. My post probably does rail against the trend, but I do that as I feel it's only way to evidence to point. I do question how on earth it isn't obvious to people how so much of human behavior shows tendencies of what we expect from evolution. It feels similar to what I p…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 09:45 PM
1

I don't agree that it has a meaningful amplification effect- but even this idea seems to concede taller is more handsome at some level (?). It seems entirely natural for women to prefer strong, tall, confident men who can provide for them as it just so happens they do. It don't think any tin foil hats are needed to justify why this is the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 09:39 PM
1

Why does the media want women to be attracted to tall men? As far as I remember they are trying but failing at making obese women attractive to men pretty overtly.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 09:17 PM
2

I'm sorry to say so much of this is hopeful and fanciful, descending beyond what has been known and can even be evidenced now in 2024- I feel pity for anyone so knee deep in an ideology that reality is ignored. "That's not even true. The only reason we think it is is because anthropologists would literally just go "that skeleton is buried with a spear, so it must be a male". Recent studied find that women hunted just as often as men did, often with children in tow." Look at any primitive tribe t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 09:12 PM
1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570677X20301970 I don't think for a second that this is taught behavior. Who is teaching it, some secret group of tall men who gather in the middle of the night and spread tall-hot propaganda? Pretty sure there is a large volume of small, weak, bald men who would be highly motivated to teach women to be attracted to them if it was possible. Pretty much every masculine trait (tall, leader, strong) is highly attractive to women- but only few …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 09:01 PM
1

Yes, genetically the kids will be somewhat similar to Ungas brother. And let be totally real the brother will presumably have some kind of bond themselves, so it's not quite as simple as men being delighted to provide for random mens kids (some men are ok with it though, most men aren't keen). Go Unga family!! Seriously though, even physical trait preference that would make sense so long ago- ie. women preferring tall and naturally strong men (provides good protection to little Stacya!) all seem…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 08:52 PM
1

income Is income a personality trait?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 08:44 PM
3

I would say confidence threshold is part of it. High confidence + good looks certainly bypass being a good or interesting person. Men probably prefer a girl who is more agreeable + high looks, than ultra confident. So basically there are components of personality in particular that both tend towards
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 08:42 PM
15

Yep, the roles are always the same. Man => active abuser (whether he likes it or not) Woman => passive victim (completely powerless to be anything else)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 08:35 PM
2

I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of years. I don't agree- I think the current structure is largely beneficial to women. Going by the actual definition of Patriarchy I don't believe it is actually still the case. "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. " Women are no longer excluded from power in western countries. Around 40% of the members of the European parliament are women, around 30% members of US congress etc. I don't thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 08:23 PM
2

Disagree- ancestral gender roles protected women at all costs, some men got significant rewards, most men were fecked over. Women have had, and still have more social influence than men- though it is true that a small number of men end up power grabbing the highest positions almost exclusively for self benefit. That is the power that feminism focuses on- the situation the majority of men faced throughout history has never been a part of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 08:11 PM
3

No, I think the point is being lost here. I am not making an argument for how society should be. I am not even saying that behaviour is mostly driven by our evolutionary past. I am making the argument that if we want to explain the issues we face in society, out evolutionary history has to be part of the discussion. Seeking to include it, is often dismissed nowadays and almost taboo to suggest- the socially acceptable perspective is appears to be that the current dynamics are largely manufacture…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 08:07 PM
1

I don't get how this isn't obvious. If people just think about survival of the fittest and Darwinism things become so obvious. We all have so instincts and preferences that are not logical decisions that we make (unless we fool ourselves)- these tendencies overwhelmingly align with what has been needed for our survival as a species. Yet we want to pretend it's all just social constructs. While I do think it's fair to say that Evolutionary Psychology very often isn't clear cut- for people to igno…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 08:02 PM
4

Why is it 5 times more likely for men to be the older party in marriages with 5+ year age gaps? Why is fertility well known to be linked to sexual attractiveness?(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614361/) I mean how can it not be blatantly obvious to you that men find women in their 20s more sexually attractive. Sure women in their 30s have babies, men will have sex with anything. It's not the same thing as suggesting equal sexual preference. Clearly in denial, next thing you'll be …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 07:55 PM
4

Yes, in a modern world where women want to have kids at 35+ and the fertility window is closing at that stage it's an extremely short window. It is not uncommon to find couples who need significant medical support due to female infertility and sadly this doesn't always succeed. If people are entertaining having kids at 18, then it's a long window- but that is certainly not the default. The majority of human history has been men preferring more fertile women. You have absolutely no point and seem…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 07:49 PM
2

Oh, I absolutely agree. Elsewhere I've been discussing about Polygny (ie. one man with several partners and others with none) was probably quite common. I think the point is that the current sociall acceptable assumption that power dynamics have been the mens benefit throughout history. I would argue that it's been to the benefit of select few men and many women who received protection.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 07:38 PM
3

I mean the point is simple- mens sexual preference is for the woman in their 20s and womens fertility at that age is high for their short window of reproductive capability. It seems like you obsessed with focusing on the exception rather than the obvious general rule of thumb that stares us all in the face.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 07:33 PM
2

I really don't get this- throughout age men have found women in their 20s more attractive than women in their 30s+, this can hardly be that contentious for you? Feels like some kind of projection. My post is about how evolution is influencing behavior in the modern era- it is my specific point that you want to avoid.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 07:30 PM
2

How much power do the ones that typically has to wait to get asked hold, tho? Yeah, there is the “right of refusal” but just like a store with no customers- isn’t the real power shown by the purchasing power of the consumer? So isn’t there real power in who a man chooses to ask and who he doesn’t? Seems like the only way there is “no power” is if a person doesn’t think he would ever hear yes, so he never asks. I think you are very specifically focusing on dating dynamics- I think the overall soc…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 07:29 PM
2

My point isn't that everything is wholly governed by evolution. My point is that evolution deserves to at a minimum be a part of these conversations. It seems almost taboo to do so now. I repeatedly added caveats that other (environmental/cultural etc.) factors do matter too- but like most conversations about this- suggesting that evolution plays a part is for whatever reason hugely controversial.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 06:37 PM
0

I think if people just look at the tribes still in existence the fairy tale of polyamoury being the default is binned, and versions of pair bonding (even one man with several women) occur. It makes sense. Less STDs and men raise there own. The idea of "raising their own" isn't that wild- I believe that there are many animals who go so far as to kill offspring that are not their own.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 06:34 PM
6

yes he will want to fuck both. But, make him choose one. The majority will choose the 25yo (supposing they are the 25yo/35yo version of the same woman). There will be exceptions, but let's not pretend there isn't a clear preference. Modern women (and men) are not ok with their partner sleeping with other people- so this choice has to be, and is made
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 06:30 PM
1

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Nowadays men can, sure. Millennia ago, men could not carry out this task. I'm not saying it is/isn't correct- indeed much of the roles cast on us by society are "unfair" by current standards. What I'm saying is that caretaking/child rearing role was something that women carried out throughout history, clearly that will leave a mark on basic biological drivers just thinking about how evolution works. Men are drawn to it less, women are drawn to it more and have mor…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 06:28 PM
2

I think on this point, men will have sex with anyone yes. But there's a pretty obvious correlation between peak sexual attractiveness and fertility (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614361/)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 06:22 PM
2

I don't disagree that women can and do have babies at "older "ages (my mother was 40 for example!). But equally we have to admit that it's easier for women to get pregnant in their 20s than 30s. Equally as someone who born to an older mother I am well aware that there is higher risk of complications. Equally there is no denying that men have a significantly broader window of fertility. Stuff like this is clearly going to play into sexual dynamics. For couples who have an age gap of 5+ years, in …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 06:19 PM
1

I'd say this one is complex. There are certainly different sexual practices amongst our closest relatives. However, I suggest something less unclear. What happens in tribes that are still in existence! And equally what is the standard across all cultures in the globe Monogamy- This is obviously the most common is modern society, it does occur in primitive tribes still in existence where people pair bond Polygamy- Where one person can /bond marry multiple partners (typically a very prestigious ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 06:16 PM
1

Agreed, and all that time ago it's not as if it would be one planned kid there were having. Women would have multiple kids in a much shorter life-span, with much higher risk of death during child birth. Not only for the pregnancy and immediate aftermath, babies are dependent on their mother for an extended period. I'm not sure how it can't be more obvious that this was a necessary role that a male could not carry out.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 06:08 PM
6

Yes some women hunted, but the majority of hunters were male. How about this- take a look at the tribes that are still in existence. The hunters in those tribes are overwhelmingly male, the caretakers are overwhelmingly female. This is evidenced information that we have available now, without the room for speculation which certain ideologies may want to take advantage of. Edit 2: copying this link here which debunks the headline making study I reference below totally as I realise it will set peo…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 06:04 PM
2

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-in-5-stay-at-home-parents-in-the-us-are-dads/ 7% of fathers stay at home, 26% of mothers stay at home. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4801008/ A study carried out in China- that funnily enough finds the exact same trend we find everywhere else in the world. I wonder why that is... "Furthermore, self-perceived mate value is sex specific. Men's mate value is based more on resources than women's mate value, while women's mate…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 05:56 PM
1

So let's for example discuss the fact that men(in general) are quite ambivalent about their partners job and tend to be ok with a stay at home mother or not while women (in general) want a partner with the capability to provide for them, and aren't so keen on a man being at home? Why do you think this is? And why would you rule out any evolutionary cause?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 05:43 PM
-1

Primarily men went out hunting and partaking in dangerous activities. I'm sure some women did. I do realise that anyone who survived long enough to be elderly would be exception- but that of course is not the rule. How about this basic thought. If you are a tribe, and you need someone to partake in risky activity. Will you have a man do it, or a woman- when the survival of the tribe depends on the survival of the women in particular.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 05:41 PM
1

Ah it's fine if people hate the post or it get's downvoted to oblivion. It would be nice to see if people are even able to handle it in a civil way- first "against" respondent seems to just avoid even thinking about the idea and writes it off. I wonder where we'll be in 50-100 years, will the obvious impact of evolution on basic drives ever be digestible- or will humans be considered ever increasingly "special".
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 05:37 PM
2

I mean you could try to address any points... Worth noting for the claim of black/white thinking- I've repeatedly stated that it's part of the situation and that yes cultural/environmental factors matter too. Did you actually read the post, or are you just upset by it? It's the fact that people want to pretend that evolution has had zero impact on our psychology or society- it clear nonsense. All of it matters, but we have to pretend that evolution plays no part in how society has turned out.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 05:30 PM
2

I don't mind doing myself no benefit. It's interesting to understand how the currently socially acceptable viewpoint can avoid putting any weight into the millennia of evolution we have gone through. I cannot understand for the life of me how evolution and the history of our species can just be written off. When we look at animals I think we all can see how obvious it is- the male/female of the species often have unique biological drives which create specific dynamics and roles. Yet for humans, …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 05:20 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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