TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TheMedPack Archive

View 0 posts and 501 comments by TheMedPack 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

What abuse are we talking about? Are we still talking about church culture?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 09:56 PM
2

But for some reason, these excuses don't apply to men who grew up in church.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 09:51 PM
1

Or public infibulation. Right?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 09:48 PM
1

The OP has already confirmed that he doesn't believe we live under patriarchy. Irrelevant. You were suggesting that holding more power automatically makes a person/group better off, but that's not true: children can be better off than their parents despite the power dynamic. What actually matters, for the question of well-being, isn't who has power, but rather how power is applied. And in many ways, men/parents tend to use their power to benefit women/children at their own expense. (But not alwa…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 06:59 AM
1

I would argue that the actual comparison But you'd be wrong, because the topic right now is who has it better, not who has more "rights, authority, and advantages". Men and women did not equally create society together. They did different things, because of their different traditional roles, but they both contributed approximately equally to the project of perpetuating civilization. But I understand that this is ideologically inconvenient for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 05:37 AM
1

It's impossible to live under patriarchy and argue that women objectively have it better. "It's impossible for the child to have a better life than the parent when the parent has more power than the child." Do you see why that's a stupid thing to say? we see how systems men have created Men and women created society together. Let's not scapegoat.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 10:29 PM
1

All women need to do is take the rose colored glasses off, step back and observe men’s actual actions to become misandrist. Well, men's actual actions are probably more good than bad overall. The problem is that people focus on the bad while taking the good for granted.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 10:08 PM
0

Do you think this is an apt definition? No. It'd be better to define heterosexuality as attraction to the opposite sex, not the opposite gender. Then we don't have to worry about the squishiness and fluidity of gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/26 08:51 AM
1

What's your evidence that men created the patriarchy (more than women did)?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:52 PM
1

if there is a system (other than biology, which was created by no one) that turns men into rapists, men are the ones who created and uphold it. How do you know? (I asked for the third or fourth time.)
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:50 PM
1

they are the ones who created the idea that men always want sex and men should be strong and not speak up when they are victimized. Well, and women created/perpetuated that idea too. The blame is shared.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:46 PM
1

prove that early childhood upbringing turns men into rapists. Early childhood upbringing is when children learn gender roles, and patriarchal gender roles promote rape culture.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:46 PM
1

i never denied the biology aspect of it. So you concede that men didn't create the system (ie, biology) that turns them into rapists. i just find it funny how you think men should take all the glory for things like inventions and heroism but somehow rape is 50% women’s fault. Society is 50% women's fault, but the fault is light, because people can't really be blamed for perpetuating the culture they were raised to perpetuate.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:43 PM
1

What do you think turns men into rapists, if not upbringing or biology?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:36 PM
0

you prove that first Women do most of the childrearing, and gender roles are learned early in childhood. What do you think turns men into rapists, if not upbringing or biology?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:25 PM
0

because that’s who they are? But why? you are acting as if the patriarchy is a virus that forces people to act a certain way. That's basically what culture is, yes. men are the ones who made up these kinds of ideas and choose to uphold them. You didn't have the courage to address the question before, but I'll try again: what's your evidence for this?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:13 PM
0

because they prioritize their own pleasure over the lives of women Why do they do that?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 09:45 PM
1

ah yes, women are the ones who created the standards Women and men together, yes. Society, in other words. and you accused me of victim blaming. I'm not really blaming anyone for the existence of patriarchy, though. People generally don't know what they're doing when they create and perpetuate culture. maybe prove that some outside patriarchal standard is what forces poor little men to rape women in the first place Culture attitudes toward gender do a lot to influence how men and women behavve, …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 09:17 PM
2

Agreed.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 09:14 PM
0

It's what feminists have traditionally done. What's your explanation, if not that?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 09:14 PM
0

a system they created What's your evidence that men created the patriarchy (more than women did)? Also, no person who's alive today created the patriarchy. This is obvious to decent people, but you're committed to dehumanizing people by denying their individuality, so it doesn't matter to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 08:48 AM
1

"Yeah, the [racial minorities] who [do stereotypical bad stuff--gang violence or whatever] are such victims", said the racist.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 08:28 AM
2

Men and women are both victims of the patriarchy. It's the 21st century, and we understand this now.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 08:08 AM
1

oh the gender roles that men made up for themselves So now you're adding victim blaming to your repertoire. That tracks, but the "I'm a disgusting bigot" routine wears thin at some point, doesn't it?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 08:04 AM
0

Probably a combination of biological factors and patriarchal gender roles, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 07:34 AM
1

except racists aren’t running the same playbook, they use out of context statistics or no statistics at all. No, they're kindred spirits with you, using the exact same tactics. Their crime statistics aren't any more "out of context" than yours are. except 90% of men aren’t good. an even larger percentage of men admit to doing bad but less bad stuff Which is still outweighed by the good, when we average it all together.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 06:58 AM
1

why do you keep comparing this to racism Because racists run the same playbook you're using here. as if men have been oppressed for thousands of years You haven't even heard of toxic masculinity. Maybe you aren't qualified to discuss gender at all. you keep saying “yeah but 90% is huger” as if women are just supposed to be like “oh well i guess that makes it okay then” The good outweighs the bad. It doesn't make the bad "okay".
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 06:40 AM
0

why would i feel shame posting rhetoric like this Because you're no better than the racist who uses racial stereotypes to justify their bigotry. when you clearly feel no shame in the fact that TEN FUCKING PERCENT of men admit to raping women via drugging and using physical force? Yeah, I guess lying is all you have left at this point. If I say again that I feel shame about it, will you stop lying? How many times will I need to say it to get you to stop lying?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 06:32 AM
1

You dont make the world better by just being a decent human being. Of course you do. By my standards, a decent human being has a net positive effect on people around them. how? By being supportive to friends and family, by contributing to society, by showing kindness and generosity, by sharing knowledge and wisdom. Simple and mundane stuff, for the most part.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 06:29 AM
1

10% of men drugging and using physical force to rape women is a fucking huge number. 90% not doing it is nine times huger. (Assuming this is true, just to humor you.) i like how you asked me if i feel shame posting rhetoric like this And you cowered away from the question. do you feel shame for the shit your gender does? Yes. Shame in the bad and pride in the good. But the good seems to outweigh the bad, thankfully. You should feel the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 06:14 AM
0

Compared to 90%, yes. But either way, you should treat people as individuals. Let them show you who they are individually, instead of prejudging them with generalizations and stereotypes. It's 2026, and I'm explaining this to an adult. (Unless you're actually a preteen or something. That'd explain the writing style, at least. But you still should've gotten this lesson from Sesame Street or something.)
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 06:03 AM
1

why do i have a moral obligation not to be sexist when a study posted earlier today on this sub showed 10% of men admitting to drugging and using physical force against women to rape them? "Why do I have a moral obligation not to be racist when 10% of [racial group] are [cherry-picked worst examples from racial group]?", said the racist. You really feel no shame when posting rhetoric like this? men have a moral obligation not to be pieces of shit Yes. But so do you, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 05:42 AM
0

Well, you have a moral obligation not to be sexist. Otherwise, maybe you're right.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 05:24 AM
1

at best i should feel neutral about them Yeah, I'm fine with that, as long as you're also neutral toward women. A human being is a patchwork of good and evil. Seeing people positively is probably the more morally virtuous option, but seeing people neutrally is at least fair.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 05:14 AM
1

Even if that's all as prevalent as you're suggesting it is, men in the military and law enforcement would still be doing more good than harm.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 05:05 AM
0

men also rape women all the time. And vice versa. But men benefit women more than they harm them. (And vice versa.) men don’t put themselves in harms way for random ass women And then you remembered the existence of the military, law enforcement, dangerous industrial jobs, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 04:31 AM
0

By trying to be a decent human being. That's what I'd hope for all of us. Don't make it personal, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 04:29 AM
0

the “particular way of doing it” you gave me is some shit men rarely ever do. No, men put themselves in harm's way for others all the time. And they pursue nerd shit all the time too. you asked me for a real life example of men not caring about women’s intelligence then got upset with me for giving you an example lol And then you admitted that women are just as bad about that, so we're square.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 04:08 AM
-1

that is not a particularly male quality. But men (like women) have a particular way of doing it. That's what you asked. do you have anything to say except “muh women do it too” Yes. As you've already seen. you asked me for a real life example of men not caring about women’s achievements or intelligence. If you grant that women have the same vice, then fair enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 03:52 AM
0

so? for every albert einstein there’s a million rapists and murderers For every (male) rapist and murderer, there are five men who leave the world better than they found it. Overall, men have probably done a lot more good than harm. the example in real life is all the cultures where women aren’t allowed to go to school and her biggest selling points to get married to an old man is that she’s a young virgin. Yeah, there are backwards cultures in the world. Women uphold them as much as men do. I'm…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 03:41 AM
–

Of course it is, they don't have to cover every angle to be responsible researchers. But they have to cover this one. Imagine a study that asks "How likely are Black people to depend on welfare?", and then gives the stereotype-confirming results for Black people without looking at other races for comparison. I'd be arguing that it's irresponsible research, and you'd be over there with your obtuse excuses.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 03:36 AM
-2

Not as much, apparently. Whether (and to what extent) the difference is innate is something we're still figuring out.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 03:31 AM
-1

but why would i love men for the second thing? Because things like math, science, philosophy, technological innovation, etc make the world a much, much, much better place. men tell us all the time they don’t give a shit about a woman’s intelligence or achievements Give me an example of this from real life.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 03:29 AM
1

There are specifically male forms of self-sacrifice that produce courage and heroism in the face of violence, adversity, and/or death. There's also a specifically male form of intellectual curiosity that seeks understanding of systems and theories, leading to math, science, philosophy, technological innovation, etc. Just two obvious examples off the top of my head.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 03:23 AM
2

You'd rather let your outrage turn you evil?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 02:48 AM
–

it makes sense that nobody was talking about what women do It makes sense in light of the agenda. It isn't responsible research, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 02:27 AM
–

I seriously doubt that, since women can very easily get sex without coercion. Women don't just want to "get sex". They want specific things with specific people, and that's not always easily attainable.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 02:04 AM
3

I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this issue. I have faith in you. You're capable of open-mindedness.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 02:00 AM
3

I'm not sure we have. Objectively and indisputably, we have. The world is a much more ethical place today than ever before in history/prehistory. Men are abusing and killing an awful lot of women and children. Far fewer than ever before, proportionally. And besides that, the good they do probably outweighs the harm. We have wars raging endlessly. Not as much as they used to.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 01:45 AM
–

Dear lord, is it not looking good for men that "95.1% reported having recently used at least one of the strategies to force or coerce a woman to have sex". I would have guessed less than 10% are for real creeps and predators, but if this data holds up to the general population it's way higher than that. It's probably about the same for women, though. The people behind the study weren't honest enough to check for comparison, and that by itself says a lot.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 01:09 AM
2

Maybe not, but we've made a lot of moral progress since then. Let's not lose it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 12:51 AM
3

At the individual level, yes. Individual men (and women) who infringe on others' rights forfeit their own, at least to some extent. But we need to be vigilant about keeping that at the individual level. Collective punishment is one of the oldest forms of dehumanization.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 12:30 AM
–

It worked because of male disposability. This is one reason why we need to keep reminding ourselves that men's rights (like women's rights) are human rights.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 11:41 PM
1

How does the first scenario push this meaning? It doesn't. I'm just curious, as I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 09:23 PM
1

Just because you may at one point have the technology to mutate humans for a fucked up fantasy doesn’t mean you should or will. Yes, but it's possible that we should. So we need to engage with the question instead of dismissing it as an impossibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 09:20 PM
2

In a truly postgender society, there'd be no men or women, and thus there'd be no trans men or trans women. Would you welcome that result? Just curious.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 06:04 AM
2

It doesn’t matter, because clearly binary expressions of gender are hard-coded into us. But so is the intelligence to develop technology that lets us change our hard-coding. It's a live question.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 06:00 AM
1

Etymologically, it means "take by force", as seen in words like "rapacious", "raptor", and "rapture". So it fits in that sense. But "divorce rape" is bad rhetoric, so I'm not defending the term.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:12 PM
0

Which part?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 09:04 PM
5

Most scholars (as in, most gender theorists) are working within a sexist framework that systematically disregards male perspectives and experiences. But despite that, gender theorists these days usually acknowledge that the patriarchal conception of masculinity is oppressive to men (that's the whole "toxic masculinity" thing), so you're just wrong about that part.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 03:03 AM
8

They are only saying that men are the oppressors of women on a societal scale, which is categorically different. But still misandrist, since women are half of the people who perpetuate patriarchy, and men are half of the people oppressed by patriarchy.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 01:32 AM
3

Things were pretty shit before. Things were pretty shit before because nature is terrible. The history of humanity is a long, gradual improvement over the awfulness of nature. Men made most of the improvements, but of course they had the stabilizing support of women along the way. Just offering some optimism.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 11:37 PM
1

Although the numbers for the last 12 months were sinillar that doesn't discount the fact that lifetime rates women had huger victimization rates. But it does imply that today, in the current century, rape is close to 50/50. And rape today is what we can actually do something about, so this is the more relevant information to use.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 11:28 PM
3

common definitions of rape don't reflect what you're saying True. Common definitions reflect an underlying patriarchal framework. But if we use correct and socially just definitions, men are "made to penetrate" (ie, raped) about as often as women are raped. (In the US, anyway. According to the CDC.)
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 10:02 AM
3

Ah, that's a strawman. It wouldn't be just "information from the 70s," it would be information across a lifetime until 2025. In order for the lifetime information to be useful, it'd have to show the actual trends year-over-year. Your lifetime rape information doesn't do that. But twelve-month stats give us actual data points showing the state of the world over time.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 02:30 AM
3

Okay. So - if I were to take a snapshot of how the stock market and housing market performed during that same timeframe, I would get more accurate and "recent" information than the lifetime trend. Correct? Correct. You would judge the entirety of this data based on those two years? Ideally, we'd have even more recent information. But if all we have is those two years, then that's more reliable (though still defeasible, obviously) information on how the market works today compared to information …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 02:25 AM
3

If you want to make claims for recent data, my link in the only one that includes the most current information and it doesn't support your claim. Your link doesn't give the twelve-month comparison. Mine does. So mine is our current best information on how rape happens in the 21st century. (Unless you have something else that looks at modern-day victimization rates.)
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 02:19 AM
4

We do. The more recent data (as in, the data that only looks at recent victimization) shows gender parity in rape victims.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 02:14 AM
3

"Different cultural settings" is your made-up hamstering that isn't supported by the data that has been provided. It is supported, because when we look only at more recent information, we see a significant change.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 02:13 AM
5

No, I already said my data includes your years and then some. Continue the sentence: it includes your data and then some older data from a different cultural setting that doesn't necessarily reflect how the world works today. You lost the debate. This sort of thing makes you look insecure in your position. Just letting you know for future reference.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 02:10 AM
7

My data was most recent as of last year, and covers lifetime prevalence. Thus skewing the data toward how things were decades ago. (And this is assuming that there's no gender difference in how people interpret their experiences decades after the fact. That might be the case, or it might not.) you have nothing to support your hamstering that "this century" flipped some kind of statistical switch Well, there's the data I already provided, which gives us a more recent picture. Plus we know that cu…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 02:07 AM
1

These days, they apparently are. The twelve-month stats give us better information on how rape happens today, as opposed to last century.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 01:57 AM
4

Source
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 01:45 AM
8

At least in the US, it's 10 to 1 in the other direction. According to patriarchal assumptions that you haven't deprogrammed yourself from, yes. But if we include being "made to penetrate" as rape (because it is), then men are about half of rape victims (maybe slightly less) in the US, and most people who rape men are women. Source
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 01:43 AM
9

physically how can it be possible that men are the majority of rape victims? Rape usually doesn't involve physically overpowering the victim. It usually involves coercion through stated or implied threats. You understand this, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 01:39 AM
6

Compared with what percentage of women? (I ask this rhetorically, because the people behind those studies weren't honest enough to ask, and people who push the studies to make a point aren't honest enough to care about the comparison.)
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 01:35 AM
2

Outside of prison, it's somewhere in the vicinity of 50/50 (in the US). So it wouldn't be surprising if the inclusion of prison rape tipped the balance.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 01:33 AM
1

Yes. And that's part of female privilege, as I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 09:18 PM
2

How is it not relevant? Because this is still an example of female privilege (or male oppression, or both). Perpetrator gender doesn't change that at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 11:46 AM
5

It's "always a man" doing the dramatically bad things, and it's "always a man" doing the dramatically good things. (Not literally, but within the range of excusable hyperbole.) Protect them from who? Other men, because of facts of nature that women have the privilege of not having to deal with--or at least, not on the same level. So really, the deeper answer to the "protect them from who?" question is nature. So in some ways, it is the rebuttal they think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 05:46 AM
4

Yes. By other men. I find it funny that people think this is relevant. I guess, if nothing else, it shows that women have double privilege regarding violence: smaller chance of victimization and smaller chance of being driven into criminality.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 05:40 AM
0

Isn't this a reasonable thing to consider? Yes, but the Women Are Wonderful Effect is probably already a stronger and more general influence in the direction you're suggesting.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 09:16 PM
1

So you saw me insisting that women deserve half the responsibility for society, and you took that as me "asserting that women just stood by".
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 11:10 PM
1

Did you mean to write this to someone else?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 11:08 PM
0

They upheld the arts and clothes and lots of the culture. Including raising the children, as you mentioned. Thus doing the fundamental work of perpetuating patriarchy. But the rules and laws and overall power structure has always been created by man. Men who were applying the values and worldview their mothers raised them to have. Women didn't get the right to vote until the late 1800s. So men are still way more to be blamed Classic scapegoating. Raising children has ten times the cultural impac…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 11:00 PM
0

Women upheld all of the culture. Which means they deserve half the blame for patriarchy. But it amazes me how many people around here want to eat their cake and also have it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 07:10 PM
1

You are statistically way more likely to be attacked by a dog than a bear Per encounter, you're way more likely to be attacked by a bear. (I'm thinking of an encounter as a face-to-face meeting, within six feet or so.) Bears don't want to have interactions with people. Which is why they're so dangerous if they do encounter people. Fear easily turns violent. Focusing on some to represent an entire gender or group seems foolish. True. My point was just there are many ways the question has been fra…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 10:32 PM
1

Again maybe its more of an issue that you lack experience with wild animals they aren't rabid beasts that attack people for no reason WTF They're more like that than men are, though. The question was who would you want to be alone in the woods with. There are different versions. There's the "be alone in the woods with" version, and there's the "meet/encounter" version. Again if you have to twist it to be "6 feet away" or something else that it wasn't to try to make it say something it wasn't tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 10:16 PM
1

Why would a bear be more likely to attack? Because it's a wild animal. People see bears in the wild every all the fucking time Are they face-to-face with them? Within six feet or so? We're talking about personal encounters, not just visual contact.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 08:49 PM
2

The problem is men not understanding it's not about the odds of survival of attacked. The bear attack is less survivable, and the bear is more likely to attack than a man is. But fine. What is it about, if not the odds?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 10:39 AM
2

Because their mother's mother raised their mother that way. It's a "chicken and egg" situation. If you're asking about the origins of patriarchy, it emerged as a social structure because it was able to outcompete other available social structures in the context of the agricultural revolution. It developed organically, like a language or a religion.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 10:20 AM
2

Women raised men to subjugate them. Women raised children according to the example set by their mothers. This is a concept known as "culture". Also, I love that you're pretending never to have heard of internalized sexism. In 2026, no less.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 10:11 AM
2

Start with the agricultural era. Men were the only ones voting. They weren't, unless you're talking about classical Greece or something. But either way, who raised those men? So if that's true why did women eventually fight to earn the right to vote? Because culture evolves over time. A few hundred years ago, some people (of unspecified gender) came up with the concept of individual rights.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 10:01 AM
2

Except they were. Because they could vote. For 95% of human history, no one could vote. But if women had been able to vote, they would've voted overwhelmingly in favor of patriarchy, because they were raised (primarily by other women) to have patriarchal values. Culture is indoctrination. Women aren't to blame for being indoctrinated by their elders, and neither are men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 09:50 AM
-1

When you're born into a society where each gender has to be a certain way or suffer, you're going to ensure your kids don't suffer. Yep. True. That's why women did half the work of perpetuating patriarchy. Glad you came around. Women aren't at fault for the society they were born into and forced to raise their children in. Agreed. And neither were men. They couldn't even vote. lol
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 09:37 AM
-2

Is it funny that basically every anthropologist believes it too? I mean, I also have no doubt that you believe it. You just aren't accustomed to this framing of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 09:30 AM
-3

The women who preceded me who couldn't even vote. Women did most of the childrearing throughout history, and thus perpetuated patriarchal culture. It's funny that you think voting has any relevance to this.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 09:23 AM
1

Personally if I was a man I'd direct my anger towards my dad, and all of the men that proceeded me for contributing to the inequality of women over the centuries. Why not the women who preceded you? They made half of the contribution.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 09:15 AM
1

It's weird to be called sexist for wanting to avoid certain situations with people who are naturally twice as strong as you are. Bears are six or seven times stronger than you are. (Not a fact-checked statistic; just a meme-based illustration of an obvious point.) You have a much, much better chance of defending yourself against a man attacking you than against a bear attacking you. Again, the problem isn't being cautious around men. That's not (necessarily) sexist. The problem is the comparison…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 04:53 AM
2

Sexist women should be oppressed. So should sexist men. You probably agree with this.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 04:50 AM
2

It isn't legally the case. Because of patriarchal stereotypes about sex and gender. but there still is for sexual abusers at large. The latter is 90-10 gender ratio Now that you understand how badly the rape stats have been bungled (because people struggle to think beyond their patriarchal programming), do you see why it might be a bad idea to take the sexual assault stats at face value? Especially since sexual assault is a more nebulous concept than rape, and thus easier to distort in light of …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 04:48 AM
1

Its really hard to make the world a better place if you are uncomfortable having conversations about the discomfort of others without taking it personally though... True. Neither side should take it personally. The reason it's wrong is that it's sexist, not that it offends me (or whoever else). This whole fuck you for being scared of men responce The issue isn't being scared of men. The issue is being more scared of men than of bears.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:07 PM
2

Why would you compare it to the number of women who are raped? Because it's the number of men who are raped. You're wanting to include a separate category(men who were made to penetrate) which is adding a new category besides rape. Being made to penetrate is being raped. Do you acknowledge that?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:05 PM
0

Though, we should compare that 7.1% number to the percent of women who are sexually assaulted. No, we should compare it to the number of women who are raped, which is close to the number of male victims (if we count "made to penetrate").
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 10:59 PM
2

If a person has only had issues with men multiple times but never with a bear it might make some sense though. Only if the person has actually spent time interacting closely with bears. (Which they haven't.) But again i know number of men who picked the bear and none of our guy friends were offended either. Internalized misandry is one of the cornerstones of patriarchy, yes. But also, I should note that if people would also choose the bear over a woman (which I know some women, and even men, wou…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 10:52 PM
1

Most of the rapes men go through isn't to be made to penetrate, but rather they are penetrated... Nope. It's right there in the CDC source I linked. 1 in 38 men experience attempted or completed "rape". That's about 2.6%, and it's included attempts, so the percentage of men actually "raped" is lower than that. Meanwhile, 1 in 14 men are "made to penetrate". That's 7.1%, and it doesn't include mere attempts. Are you starting to see your programming? Does it disgust you to be a mouthpiece for the …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 10:47 PM
1

The vast majority of men who've been "made to penetrate" have been "made to penetrate" by women. (79% of victims reported only female perpetrators, so the proportion of individual instances committed by women is probably well above 79%.)
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 10:38 PM
2

Catering to likeability is one of the fundamental problems with society. Anyway, I was trying to hint that if you think it's morally acceptable to consider men more dangerous than bears, you should defend your position with reasons.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 10:20 PM
2

That'd require them to actually engage with the topic and defend their positions in argument. Hint hint.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 10:02 PM
0

Most rapists(over 90%) are men No, it's close to 50/50, at least in the US. This is what criminological research shows. But you believe the propaganda because your patriarchal programming makes you think of rape in a biased way. That's why the CDC classifies "made to penetrate" separately from "rape", for example, even though a man who's been made to penetrate has clearly been raped.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 10:00 PM
2

And there should be social pressure to correct bad morals.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:55 PM
0

I chose a comment that hadn't gotten criticized yet. (Or hadn't gotten the criticism I'd give, at least.) Anyway, the question was rhetorical. You gendered your comment the way you did because of your patriarchal programming.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:53 PM
-1

So you are mad at men for not punishing women enough over their general response to that question? Not men in particular, but society in general, sure. And it's more resigned disappointment than anger. Should men stop pursuing women because some would rather see a bear in the woods than a strange man? Men shouldn't pursue sexist women. But there are plenty of women who aren't sexist.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:47 PM
2

Why are you gendering this? Some women are rapists, and many more perpetuate rape culture.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:23 PM
-1

Social repercussions, at least. As I said. Shaming, ostracism, the usual.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:21 PM
-1

I don't know about job loss specifically, but if the person's rationale is that men are more dangerous than bears, then there should at least be social repercussions, as with any other kind of bigotry.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:04 PM
1

Fair point, you made up a claim and demanded to know why feminists (and only feminists) don't bend to your perception of reality. For the record, though, everyone, regardless of ideological outlook, ought to give men and women equal blame for the patriarchy. The part where you made shit up You don't think women do half the work of perpetuating society? What percentage of that work do they do, in your view?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 11:18 PM
1

You've made up a claim and then demanded to know why women (and only women) don't bend to your perception of reality. We were talking about feminists, who aren't coextensive with women. And this doesn't apply only to feminists, by the way; I never said or implied that, but I guess you can't help yourself. The answer is that you have nothing to back up your perception of reality and you in fact openly ignore reality, particularly when it's inconvenient to your agenda. What part do you disagree wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 11:10 PM
1

That doesn't answer my question. It does. Women do half the work of perpetuating society, and thus they get half the blame for whatever's wrong with society, including patriarchal social structures.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 08:34 PM
1

Proportionate is not the same as "equal." When the harm done is equal, then equal blame is proportionate. No? You've provided nothing to back up that assertion. It hasn't been the topic of discussion. (The topic was the meta issue of whether femininsts blame men and women equally for patriarchy.) men are far far far far far far more likely to commit violence against men This doesn't change the fact that women do half the work of upholding society and maintaining the culture, including patriarcha…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 08:12 PM
2

You feel men are being disproportionately blamed for something both men and women do. The blame is disproportionate because it isn't equal. That was the objection in the first place. I said feminists routinely discuss the fact that women also reinforce the patriarchy While ignoring the "more than women" part, yes, thus moving the goalposts. and then you moved the goalposts where it only counts if they blame women more. Blame women equally. Anyway, you've effectively conceded the point now.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 08:00 PM
3

So now you're just resorting to lying, I guess. When you look at my initial comment, do you see the parentheses with the words "more than women"?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 07:53 PM
1

Nope. The example I gave of misandrist rhetoric is feminists blaming men more than women for patriarchy. (But you tried to move the goalposts by responding that feminists do blame women and leaving out the comparative part, which was crucial to the point. I'm not letting you, obviously.) You concede, then? Or can you give an example of a feminist who doesn't blame men more than women for patriarchy?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 07:46 PM
3

Depends on our definitions, I guess. Even if the patriarchy is gone, by whatever definition, there's no doubt that we're still living in its cultural legacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 07:26 PM
1

women support the patriarchy and push harmful rhetoric as well Show me one example of a feminist who acknowledges that women do this as much as men do. (Or have done it as much as men have, historically).
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 07:22 PM
3

Blaming men (more than women) for the patriarchy and other social ills that are perpetuated by men and women alike, for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 10:32 AM
13

Agreed. If our goal is to dismantle the patriarchy, it behooves us to acknowledge and understand that the patriarchy produces both male and female privilege and both male and female oppression. Most people refuse to acknowledge at least one of those four things.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 03:43 AM
6

I’d suggest engaging with serious feminist thinkers. It'd be nice if popular discourse engaged more with serious thinkers (on all topics), yes. It'd also be nice if the serious feminist thinkers acknowledged and condemned the misandry-masquerading-as-feminism aspect of popular discourse.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 03:06 AM
2

You're basically asking if people would sacrifice one person to save billions, but with extra emotional manipulation on top.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:55 PM
3

If they can't be persuaded (which they probably could), then exile is the most civilized option, unless they can do something else to carry their weight. Same for the men.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:46 PM
0

You may just be realizing this, but countless generations of women have always known it and passed it on, growing louder and louder and stronger and stronger with every iteration. Is there any evidence of this? (Evidence of a female oral tradition expressing a female class consciousness, that is. It'd be ludicrous to suggest that there's a transcultural one, obviously, but maybe you can give an example of one from a particular strain of civilization.)
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 05:27 AM
1

Being anti-porn isn't necessarily misandry, though it sometimes is. People have lots of different motivations.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 12:01 AM
2

We got quite a few based bros ITT! So OP, would you call them misandrist too? We should expect half of misandrists to be men, right? We already know that half of misogynists are women. (But there are also non-misandrist reasons to be against porn, and misandrist reasons to be in favor of it. All kinds of reasons for all kinds of stances.)
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 08:48 PM
2

There is no systematic oppression of men. It's 2026, and you haven't heard of toxic masculinity.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 03:30 PM
1

If you want to believe this is natural to watch thousands of your own species starve to death while you could share without even remotely infringing on your own survival - be free to believe that. Do you think territorial animals say "Oh, hi there neighbor, I see you don't have enough resources. Let me share with you so that you can survive."? Is that how things work in your Disney fantasy?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 04:48 PM
1

Territorial means they have their territories they defend based on their own survival. Based on maximal benefit for themselves. Animals don't limit themselves to whatever baseline they need for survival. It has nothing to do with the behaviour humans show where they randomly start to meddle in other territories to enrich themselves even above their own needs. Well, it comes from the same fundamental instinct to pursue one's own self-interest. That's the connection. You are trying to defend the d…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 04:33 PM
1

You keep saying that without providing any actual examples. You need examples of land vertebrates? Mammals, reptiles, birds. Big cats are a classic case of territorialism. They dont meddle in other territories if they dont need to for survival. They do meddle in other territories when the benefits outweigh the costs. No animal has ever limited itself to what it "needs for survival" when it could've easily taken more. You are trying to claim this is nature when all of it is human greed. You have …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 04:15 PM
1

Most land vertebrates are territorial, at least to some degree.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 04:04 PM
1

How often do you see animals take over more territory they actually need. Very often. Territorial animals claim as much territory as benefits them (measured in reproductive success), regardless of what they actually need. How often do you see animals trying to influence territory they aren't even in? Whenever it benefits them. (For example, if there's a neighboring rival they can easily kill.)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:59 PM
1

Why not?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:42 PM
1

Will you at least admit that territorial animals have the same flaw you call "greed" in humans?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 10:06 AM
1

And why all the other species suck. But really it's just nature that sucks.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 09:24 AM
0

Yes. And the greed instinct goes back hundreds of millions of years (or maybe even farther).
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 09:18 AM
-1

That's how natural selection plays out in the wild, yes. But it's not how human society should operate.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 08:57 AM
-1

Greed for me is favouring your own interests inside a species about the collective survival of the species. Literally every species does this. That's how species evolve. In some cases, organisms are "groupish", meaning that they favor the interests of their local community over their own individual interests. But I don't think there are any organisms that favor the species as a whole over themselves. (But I think I agree with you that people should generally do what's best for humanity as a whol…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 08:37 AM
0

Greed is favoring one's own interests. A species goes extinct immediately if it doesn't favor its own interests over the interests of other species. The whole concept of evolution is that species are competing over scarce resources, with only the winners surviving. Nature is shitty that way. We won't achieve utopia until we collectively recognize that nature itself is the problem we need to overcome. (And we already do recognize that, to some extent.)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 08:15 AM
-1

Literally all of them. (Unless we're accounting for the fact that humans are able to use their reasoning and moral judgment to counteract their instinctual greed. In that sense, humans are the least greedy species.)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 07:57 AM
-4

Just like all other species. Nature makes all of us that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 07:46 AM
1

The alternative was what was before patriarchy. So hunter-gatherer communities. If one of those were in competition with an agrarian, militarized, patriarchal city-state over resources, which one do you think would win? I have no idea what you're referring to. Do you have an example? Lots of animals practice infanticide, cannibalism, rape, etc. Lots of animals kill rivals over territory. Lots of microorganisms inflict horrific suffering on various animals through disease, pestilence, etc. These …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 07:43 AM
1

There's always alternatives. What were the alternatives at the time? Why didn't they predominate over patriarchy? Yes, you seem to be endorsing patriarchy. Nope. What's evolutionarily fit and what's good are two entirely separate things. If you really think about it, you might see the distinction.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 05:40 AM
1

Because people are capable of a lot more than just birthing babies and wiping out alternative non-patriarchal systems. The answer is: because there was no alternative system available at the time that was more evolutionarily fit than patriarchy. If you want to think you're only purpose is to be "militaristic", that's your perogative. I think that men are capable of more than just fighting and conquering. Do you think I'm endorsing the patriarchy? I'm an egalitarian gender abolitionist. I want al…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 05:22 AM
1

Suggesting that women's only purpose is birthing a child and men's only purpose is militaristic isn't a benefit or an improvement of evolutionary fitness. Why not? And why didn't patriarchal societies get wiped out thousands of years ago by alternative, non-patriarchal societies?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 05:00 AM
1

Do you understand that I'm using "benefit" in the sense of an improvement to evolutionary fitness?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 04:43 AM
1

It's a benefit for the society in that it promotes the perpetuation of the society. That's what ultimately matters for patriarchy's success or failure as a meme/virus/whatever.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 04:31 AM
0

The claim is that patriarchy promotes the stability and robustness of human civilization. (Or, at least, it did in antiquity. Hopefully we can dispense with it now.) In basic terms, it did this by assigning women a reproductive role (ie, what women are for, in society, is bearing and raising children) and assigning men a militaristic role (ie, what men are for, in society, is protection through violence). This combination of roles helps ensure 1) that there's a populace and 2) that it can be pre…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 04:10 AM
-1

I'll answer again: human civilization.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:52 AM
-1

So you can't define what is "first and foremost"? I can. I meant "first and foremost in the order of explanation". The primary reason patriarchy caught on is that it enabled societies to perpetuate themselves efficiently. The benefits (and detriments) for individuals are downstream from that. You can't say what a "stable and robust" social system is? I can. Did you consider asking? Initial gloss: the better a social system is able to persist across generations through changing circumstances and …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:48 AM
0

None in particular. Just human civilization in general (as it existed in the wake of the agricultural revolution).
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:33 AM
2

my short simple answer is because it was convenient for the men who benefited from it. (And the women who benefited from it.) First and foremost, though, it was the social system that benefited from it. The patriarchy caught on because it was an effective way for large-scale society to perpetuate itself. It's just the social equivalent of natural selection. Individual men and women benefit from the existence of a stable and robust social system, obviously, but that's secondary.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:07 AM
2

Bias is probably the worst sin of emotion, yes, but far from the only one. And I was just making an analogy anyway; I understand that bias isn't the thing we've been talking about. My deeper criticism is that emotion is a bad basis for valuation and motivation. It'd be much better if our values and motives had a purely rational basis. That might be difficult or even impossible right now, but we can still take steps in that direction, and those steps are improvements.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 02:26 AM
2

Again, I believe that that's a true description of how the average person currently operates. But I don't see why it must be that way. (Analogously, it's probably true that the average person views people differently, and treats people differently, based on the other person's gender, race, apparent socioeconomic class, cultural background, etc. And there's probably no clean division in brain process between these factors and the other prejudice-free factors that are actually relevant to the situ…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 02:03 AM
4

Experiencing emotions is hardwired. But our conscious cognitive processes are much more malleable. It's possible to experience emotions without letting them influence our behavior or decision making. (Also, with the sort of technology we might be seeing over the next century, even our hardwiring could turn out to be malleable.)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:43 AM
2

My point is, emotions are a filter through which so much of even our "logic" goes through. I don't doubt that that's true descriptively, but we should strive to be better than that. Ideally, we'd train ourselves to exclude emotions from our decision making entirely. That'd make human beings much more ethical than they currently are, on average.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:26 AM
1

how are you going to stop discrimination based on height, build, ethnicity, race, hair color, skin tone, facial features, eyes, age, nationality, heritage, etc. etc. Ban it legally, shame it culturally, etc. (When those traits are genuinely irrelevant to whatever context.) The usual methods. I don't understand the point of the question, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 08:13 AM
1

And as I said, there's plenty left over when you subtract gender. If you tell me "So, there's this human named X...", I already know volumes about X, just from the fact that they're a human being, without needing to know their gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 07:58 AM
1

That's too much hoping and guesswork. It's just letting people choose their own path in life. I honestly don't understand your misgivings. It's like someone fretting over the implications of getting rid of astrology, or something. "How will people know who they are without their horoscopes?"
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 07:16 AM
1

The losses could be straightforwardly repaired through cultural and technological mechanisms. (For example, we could promote a culture of individualized identity development, where people are encouraged to formulate their own conception of what role they want to play in the world, instead of just assigning it to them at birth. (In the modern era, we basically already do this anyway.)) The individual benefits are enormous. It's more difficult to assess the collective benefits, except to just trea…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 06:19 AM
2

How would they even reference themselves if any expectations and framing are off the table? There could still be genderless expectations and framing. Even if we abolished gender entirely, we could still have a common understanding of what a human being is, how human psychology works, what it means to treat someone with due respect, etc. There's still a shit-ton of fundamental cultural framework left if we subtract gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:57 AM
2

How would that be stable or consistent if everyone always did something different or unexpected? I agree that stability and consistency would become more challenging, at least in some respects. But I think we've developed enough by this point, both culturally and technologically, to make it work. Familiarity, expectations, and consistency are what brought civilization to progress as it did. I agree. But now we can stand on top of that progress and renovate the foundations using updated methods a…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:37 AM
1

You haven't given benefits The core benefit is that people would then have the opportunity to be authentically themselves, without having categories, assumptions, expectations, biases, etc imposed on them by broader society. you haven't mentioned the trade-offs The core detriment, in my view, is that we'd lose a shortcut for understanding people (the aforementioned categories, assumptions, etc), and this would remove one of the usual ways of maintaining social order. If everyone has a clearly as…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:33 AM
3

true but it’s also important to realize we truly may be better off keeping some of them .. Yes, of course. We have to evaluate each case by its own merits. I mean, how many women are going to feel ok in being the main provider of a family? Some but not all, I assume. Same as with men. Either way, it's probably better if each individual makes an authentic choice for themselves, instead of being pressured in one direction or the other by traditions and stereotypes.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 03:21 AM
1

Traditions die hard. That's why they're traditions. But this doesn't mean that they're impossible to get rid of, or that we're better off keeping them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 02:48 AM
3

would there be no gender roles at all? Yes, ideally.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 01:22 AM
1

What would be a replacement for the patriarchy that wouldnt cause harm? Gender abolition. A society in which someone's biological sex has no cultural implications, no relevance for their life outcomes, no effect on how people view them or treat them (or how they view/treat themselves). The full realization of this concept might require technological developments that seem science-fictional, yes. But it's still worth striving for as an ideal.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 01:21 AM
2

Do you mean that women oppress men by perpetuating male dominance in law, government, business, policing, etc More broadly, by perpetuating the whole traditional system of gender roles. That includes what you listed and more. How do they do that? Traditionally and primarily, by raising children to have patriarchal values. Secondarily, by exerting social pressure on their peers to conform.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 10:03 PM
2

we are not, actually, oppressing men. Women oppress men by perpetuating a cultural system (the patriarchy) which is oppressive toward men. This is the same way that men oppress women. It goes both ways. (Along with men oppressing men and women oppressing women.)
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 09:29 PM
1

Free will might exist, but it's much easier to describe a world in which it doesn't. All you have to do is point out that the brain is a physical object governed by physical laws of cause and effect. (Determinism, basically.)
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 09:26 PM
1

It’s either enthusiastic consent or none at all. Yes, but a lot of people don't assess the situation this way. That's probably the main reason why negligent rape happens. But this still doesn't mean that the rapist intends harm. I’m mentioning it because in the context of rape, very few cases are “accidents.” The nonconsensual part is probably an accident in the majority of cases. Obviously people don't typically engage in sexual activity "by accident".
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 11:22 PM
1

What other ways are there to mistakenly believe someone is consenting to having sex with you? Behavioral expressions of consent (or lack thereof) are often ambiguous. Maybe the victim is conflicted regarding whether they consent or not. Or maybe it's in the context of an ongoing relationship where each person regularly takes the other's consent for granted. Just because they didn’t intend harm doesn’t mean the other person doesn’t feel harmed. Yep. Obviously. Unintentional harm can be just as se…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 09:57 PM
1

Are we talking about someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol? The rapist or the victim (or maybe both) could be intoxicated, sure, but there are lots of other ways to mistakenly believe that someone consents. The decent thing to do would be to wait until the person is sober and find out if the desire is still there. Agreed. But even if someone doesn't do the decent thing, that doesn't necessarily mean that they intend harm.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 08:53 PM
1

Feeling entitled to use another person’s body without their consent is not intent to harm? Not necessarily. That's correct. But also, someone might (through lack of due diligence) believe the other person consents when they don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 06:37 PM
0

I do. Ask your housemates why there could be negligent homicide, but not negligent rape. In both cases, all it takes is someone who doesn't care about the harm they could end up doing. (And then ask yourself why your instinct is to deny that some cases of nonconsensual sex are rape.)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 01:45 AM
1

You're giving rapist vibes by placing more requirements on nonconsensual sex before it can be classified as rape. (Although maybe you didn't mean to? I dunno.)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 01:43 AM
1

I’m going to bet he’s one of the men who think that unless the woman is beaten almost to death by a stranger in an alley, rape is pretty much just bad sex (which in their minds is still better than no sex) so not really a big deal. You didn't understand anything you read. I'm the one calling a larger number of cases "rape", because it's still rape even if the rapist doesn't intend to harm the victim. The other person (the rape apologist, apparently) is calling a smaller number of cases "rape", b…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 01:41 AM
1

I literally said it doesn’t matter about intention - any rape is still rape. Yep. So it's possible to rape someone without intending them harm. That's all I've been saying from the beginning. (Plus one more claim, I guess: most cases of rape are cases where the rapist doesn't intend to harm the victim.)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:58 AM
1

RAPE, WITH OR WITHOUT INTENTION, IS HARM. Yes, obviously. I thought we were beyond that. I'm the one saying that it's still rape even when the harm was unintentional. You're the one saying that if the harm was unintentional, then it wasn't rape. EVERYONE WHO RAPES IS GUILTY That's been my whole point. People are still guilty even when the harm is unintentional.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:54 AM
1

how the fuck am I a rape apologist I'll explain it again for you. If rape requires the intention to do harm, then you're excusing a wide swath of nonconsensual sex and saying that it wasn't rape, because the person doing the sex never consciously intended to harm the person having sex done to them. YOU are the one excusing rape Bucko. In my framework, there's a larger number of people guilty of rape, whereas in your framework, there's a smaller number of people guilty of rape. Do you understand …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:50 AM
0

Rape apologist.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:46 AM
0

Lmao that’s not how it works. Says the rape apologist. It'd be a better world if we paid attention to the ways that harm can be done unintentionally. But you'd rather let people who do unintentional harm excuse themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:42 AM
0

You’re the one excusing rapists You are. And you can't even see it. If rape always, necessarily, requires an intention to harm, then the rapist can just say to themselves "Well, I never consciously meant to harm that person, so I guess I didn't rape them. I'm in the clear." You're giving rapists a way to avoid culpability.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:37 AM
0

It sounds like someone is trying to absolve themselves from guilt. My whole point is that someone can be guilty even if they never intended harm. That's the opposite of absolving people. You need to never make excuses for rape. You're making excuses for rape. You're giving rapists a way to avoid culpability. If rape always, necessarily, requires an intention to harm, then the rapist can just say to themselves "Well, I never consciously meant to harm that person, so I guess I didn't rape them. I'…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:36 AM
1

Yes if you drive recklessly you are consciously accepting the fact that you may harm yourself and others And that's why the person is guilty, yes. But that still doesn't mean that they intended harm. What is wrong with you? I just don't like your particular brand of rape apologetics. We need to stop giving rapists ways to excuse themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:31 AM
1

Depraved indifference is not negligence. It literally is, yes. Negligence is a failure to take the degree of care that should've been taken. Rape is never negligence. Is it possible to assume that someone consents when they don't?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:29 AM
0

These people have intent, to hurt, harm, and assert dominance. Sometimes, but usually not. In most cases of rape, the rapist just wasn't careful enough about confirming consent. It’s a choice to rape someone. It's a choice to drive recklessly, but this doesn't mean that the reckless driver is consciously intending to harm anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:26 AM
1

Yep. You're saying stuff I've already covered.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:05 AM
3

Women. Some do. Some don't. Doesn't matter for the question of misandry, though. Someone can be a misandrist (or misogynist) without intending to harm men (or women).
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:04 AM
2

Rape is LITERALLY harm. You can harm someone without meaning to. Did you realize this?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:03 AM
3

It is depraved indifference. Which is a severe form of negligence, yes. (I'm using these terms in the everyday sense, by the way, not in any technical legal sense.) It depends on the situation, though. Someone can appear to consent without actually consenting, and in those cases, the rapist might be only mildly negligent. On the other hand, if the victim appears not to consent--but doesn't actually say anything--and the rapist continues without checking, that's a more severe form of negligence, …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:01 AM
3

Then misandry doesn't exist because it's not towards enough men. I don't know whose misandry, or lack thereof, you're talking about here. Some people have a general prejudice against men, and others have negative views toward particular men only. Oh great, then misandry doesn't exist because they don't mean to harm any men. Who doesn't? Also, intention is irrelevant to whether someone is a misandrist (or misogynist). Someone can be a misandrist (or misogynist) without intending to harm anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 11:53 PM
-3

What in the entire fuck are you saying here? As far as I understand, most cases of rape are cases where the rapist isn't giving due consideration to the other person's consent. It's not that they consciously want to harm the other person; they just aren't taking enough precaution to avoid harming the other person. It's recklessness, not malice. Obviously, there are cases involving malice. But the ordinary, typical instances of rape happen because people just aren't diligent around consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 11:50 PM
2

I think you are letting a perpetrator off easy by saying it is negligent. Negligent people can still be extremely culpable. Suppose a reckless driver kills a family. They never meant any harm, but they're still guilty, and they should still spend decades (at least) in prison.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 09:56 PM
3

You have to be a psychopath to have someone say no to you and deny you consent and think that what you are doing does not harm the victim. Agreed. But again, lots of rape victims don't say no. What you describe is not negligence. If the victim never expresses their lack of consent, and the rapist assumes consent without thinking carefully about the situation, that's negligence. There are no excuses for rape. I didn't say that this was an excuse. A negligent person is still guilty.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 09:41 PM
5

Misogyny towards one woman is still misogyny. By definition, misogyny is an attitude toward women in general. There's no such thing as "misogyny toward one woman". There's only the one definition. Nope. I'm sure you've seen a plurality. The broad definition is probably the best one to use, though. Raping someone is harming them. True. I never implied otherwise. But someone can harm a person without intending to. There is no conceivable argument to say rapists don't know they're harming their vic…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 09:32 PM
3

Misandry doesn't exist. You think there's no one who hates men, or who has a general prejudice against men? Or is this a word game?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 09:29 PM
0

What you said is a definition of rape. Yes, obviously. Someone one says no and you not listening makes it negligence? In some cases, yes. But someone can get raped without saying no. No, that is rape and there is every intention to harm. Sometimes, yes. But usually, the rapist harms their victim without intending to.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 09:27 PM
-3

If the rapist doesn't care about the other person's consent, or takes the other person's consent for granted without checking. This is bad, but it isn't an intention to harm.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 09:20 PM
-5

So when men rape and murder women...it's not out of hatred? It's usually not out of hatred for women in general, no. Lots of violence is motivated by ill-will toward the victim in particular, obviously. If we're using a broad definition of "rape", most rapists (whether male or female) don't actually intend their victim any harm, despite stereotypes that I'm sure you know are wrong. Most rapes (by the broad definition) result from negligence, not malice.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 09:13 PM
–

Did invention of new medicine take away from motherhood? In some ways, yes, according to lots of women who were there when the new medicine was hitting the scene. But artificial wombs would be a medical advancement unlike any we've seen before--a truly unprecedented departure from nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 09:05 PM
1

Yeah, agreed. In most contexts, replacing biological processes with technological processes would be an improvement (as long as nothing goes catastrophically wrong).
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 09:03 PM
3

Just more inclined to keep the status quo, as men do benefit from it more in totality. Both debatable statements. But either way, men would benefit more from an egalitarian system than from a patriarchal system.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 07:41 AM
1

If you're not upholding the patriarchy, then they're not talking about you. It's really very simple. "Simple" is a good word for this way of thinking, yes. In reality, the rhetoric we use when we talk about general groups of people matters a lot, and we need to think much more carefully about how we assign blame for society's problems. In other contexts, you'd see this easily. (For example: "If you're not one of the immigrants who's taking a job from a native-born citizen and driving up crime in…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 04:37 AM
1

Feminists have acknowledged that the patriarchy harms men too since at least the 1970s. Yes, although this is often an afterthought. (But maybe less so as time goes on, optimistically.) The deeper problem with feminist discourse is its tendency to blame men for the patriarchy, or at least to say (or imply) that men are more at fault for the existence and perpetuation of the patriarchy than women are.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 03:43 AM
1

Did you forget the "over the past thousands of years" part? We aren't talking about today. Obviously people care about men and women today.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 02:34 AM
1

There will never be solutions to men's issues as long as the loudest voices for men's issues are the manosphere, because they do not care about solving men's issues, they only care about bashing women/feminists. Yeah, there's some truth to this. And by the same token, there'll never be a solution to women's issues as long as the loudest voices for women's issues insist on blaming men for patriarchal social structures. It's a zero-sum game as long as men and women point fingers at each other. But…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 02:18 AM
–

Not really. They haven't given one about men either, though. The concept of individual rights is only a few hundred years old.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 02:06 AM
0

It would be propaganda if there wasn't any truth to it. What women are talking about online are their own experiences rooted in truth. That's not how propaganda works. Someone can engage in propaganda by telling part of the truth while ignoring or hiding another part of the truth. This is a common method of spinning the facts toward a particular narrative. In this case, a lot of women are emphasizing their negative experiences with men while disregarding their positive experiences with men. (And…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 09:29 PM
–

it looks like this now because it's an old movement. Even when it was new, feminism didn't meet the level of resistance a lot of other identity-rights movements faced. So many people died for their ideologies and men give up because of a fire alarm? That's a low-IQ narrative. Let's retire it. Masculism is still doing its thing, and it's probably healthier now than ever before. You are all welcomed to fight gender stereotypes and share the power with women. But you don't like that, no? Lots of me…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 05:31 AM
1

I agree with the basic notion that men should strive for a better sense of class consciousness and should do a better job organizing to effect progress on men's issues. But we should keep in mind that activism for women is activism on easy mode, while activism for men is activism on hard mode. When it's for women, activists can take advantage of the fact that traditional gender roles readily position women as victims who need help and protection against forces that could overpower them. Even tod…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 11:33 PM
1

And of course you dismiss all these other examples as meaningless and unimportant. Relatively, yes. In comparison with the radical departure that artificial wombs would represent. For just one example, epidurals (and other pain relief techniques) challenged the very foundational religious concept that women should and must suffer in childbirth as their eternal punishment for Eve eating the fruit in the garden of Eden. If epidurals had been invented in the medieval period, maybe the cultural effe…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 09:13 PM
1

It's because of the way culture constructs masculinity. (I mean, maybe innate biological factors play a role too.) Therefore, it's gender-based.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 06:11 AM
1

Do you know how revolutionary it was for women to be able to have sex knowing they could prevent pregnancy? For the first time, you make a reasonable comparison here. And it supports my point: birth control changed the cultural meaning of sex. This came with both upsides and downsides, but I think the upsides outweigh the downsides. That's my prediction with (widespread use of) artificial wombs as well. It will not rob women of the ability to have children themselves Nor did I ever imply that it…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 06:10 AM
1

Yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:56 PM
1

Obviously not. And so "poverty and environment" can't be the entire explanation of the 80/20 homicide disparity. It really seems that another factor is gender, but you aren't allowing yourself to admit that, because it doesn't fit with ideological commitments you've already made.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:23 PM
1

You are trying to find some way to make this one specific medical intervention seem totally unique… Artificial wombs would be an unprecedented level of deviation from the traditional norm. In that sense, the situation would be totally unique. But I acknowledge that there've already been lots of other, smaller technological deviations from the traditional norm, and that there's been gatekeeping regarding those. Yet you think, for some bizarre reason, that if artificial wombs are even invented And…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:20 PM
1

It is because there are multiple other reason (environmental, poverty, etc.) And why do those reasons apply to them? Is it because they're men? The percentage of women looking at men and go "I am going to murder you because you are a man and I am superior to you" are miniscule. Correct. And vice versa. That's not how femicide happens either.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:04 PM
2

Women do not “do half the work” women could not even vote when these systems were started. But they did raise the children. That's how women did their part, historically, to perpetuate the patriarchy.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:02 PM
2

You said "The homicide disparity isn't because they're men, it's because of this other factor." I'm asking why the other factor ("connection to the perpetrator"--I'm not sure exactly what you meant by that) doesn't apply to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 10:11 AM
3

Which doesn't mean the causation is because they are men but because of their connection or lack of connection to the perpetrators. Why don't women have the same connections or lack of connections?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 09:05 AM
7

That's called the patriarchy. Yes. It's held up by men. Men and women each do half the work, actually. I didn't think you were sincerely endorsing the "women lack accountability" thing. Only men have the power to change it. This is the patriarchy speaking through you, by the way.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 08:46 AM
3

So what causes the 80/20 gender disparity in homicide victimization, if not gender?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 08:40 AM
5

By other men. I'm hoping you'll explain why that matters. Why wouldn't it be possible for men to target men for violence?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 08:11 AM
4

It obviously is. Did you pay attention to what you wrote before? You said: "If the gender matters it is a gender based crime. [...] Otherwise the death rate would be equal. Which it is not." Men are four times more likely than women to be victims of homicide. If gender didn't matter, then men and women would be equally likely to be victims of homicide.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:45 AM
3

Male on male violence is womens fault. The culture that drives male-on-male violence is half women's fault, since women are half the culture. Aren't women supposed to be the ones who lack accountability? This is your chance to prove otherwise. (If you're a woman.)
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:13 AM
5

No. Why would that matter?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:12 AM
3

That's now. Women don't have to do the dirty work themselves, obviously; they just have to perpetuate patriarchal attitudes that instrumentalize and dehumanize men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:08 AM
2

If it doesnt matter what gender a person is, it is not a gender based crime. If the gender matters it is a gender based crime. Ok. Fair enough. This is for instance partnered crimes are gendered. Because if we have equal men and women in relationships but women are predominantly killed inside of the relationship there is a underlying gender based reason for it. Otherwise the death rate would be equal. Which it is not. Yep. I agree. By the same reasoning, men are roughly 80% of homicide victims i…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:07 AM
1

What a leap. Not really. The partriarchy implicitly specifies lots of conditions in which men are killable.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:04 AM
6

What does that have to do with misogyny or misandry for that matter? When a man is intentionally killed, toxic gender roles are usually doing some of the work to bring the lethal circumstances together. Toxic gender roles are misandrist in their effect on men. "Well men are killed more (by other men)" Those other men often exhibit internalized misandry, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 06:57 AM
6

Men are killed all the time in situations that they wouldn't have been in if they hadn't been men. I said this before. No, they aren't killed simply for being men. But women also aren't killed simply for being women.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 06:53 AM
8

Androcide mostly happens during war Mass androcide, yes. But androcide in a more general sense (the counterpart to femicide, as usually defined) happens to individuals every hour. It happens even more frequently than femicide, in fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 06:49 AM
8

If "femicide" means killing a woman simply because she's a woman, then femicide is almost nonexistent. If "femicide" means killing a woman in circumstances where her gender is relevant (eg, she wouldn't have been in that situation if she hadn't been a woman), then femicide is common, but androcide is even more common.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 06:38 AM
4

Women are almost never killed simply for being women. The cases you referenced are cases where the woman is killed in a situation she's in because she's a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 06:19 AM
10

Men are killed more often than women, and most cases of men getting killed are cases where he wouldn't have been in that situation if he hadn't been a man. (None of this diminishes the killing of women. But the gendered grandstanding doesn't help the situation.)
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 05:55 AM
1

That is an exact, perfect parallel to your belief It's not. The gestation part is much more crucial to some mothers' sense of identity than the birthing part. You seem very eager for the development of artificial wombs to strip women of the ability to feel like a mother. I'm eager to see sex differences become less relevant, sure. I'm guessing you are too. With all this technology, you must think no women are mothers! Without traditional gestation, a lot of women would feel like they aren't real…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 03:54 AM
1

How would artificial wombs strip those women of the right to view being pregnant as essential to their own experience of motherhood? The widespread use of artificial wombs would probably cause a shift in cultural attitudes toward motherhood and undermine one of the ways that mothers have traditionally found meaning and purpose. As I said originally, though, this would still be a positive development overall, in my view. Making the gestational relationship (really, any biological or genetic relat…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:44 PM
1

A very silly hypothetical to try to overreach on your claim that artificial wombs will strip women of the identity of being a mother. Are you denying that there are mothers who view gestation as an essential element of their motherhood? So you believe with every fiber of your being that adoptive mothers are not real mothers? That women who have medical issues are not real mothers? No. I believe that there are mothers who believe gestation is essential to real motherhood. You've probably met plen…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 08:27 PM
1

Why… would anyone “have to” use an artificial womb? I was speaking hypothetically. It was a way of saying that many mothers view gestation as an essential aspect of their identity. It's not hard to imagine why the artificial womb might be necessary in some situations, though. Maybe there's a medical issue that would make natural gestation hazardous to the fetus, or to the woman, or to both.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 07:29 PM
1

A core aspect maybe, but nobody wants being a parent to be the one trait they're valued for. Yeah, probably not. It's still an essential part of many people's identity, though. And for many mothers, the gestation and birth aspect is crucial to that. They just don't want it to be an expectation at all regardless of how much of it is expectation now. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "expectation", but there are plenty of mothers who view motherhood as part of their calling. Part of their purp…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 07:27 PM
1

You said that there are women who would prefer to be defined by motherhood We agree on this much, at least, right? Many mothers gladly see their motherhood as a core aspect of who they are. and expected (not just they choose to, they're expected) to do most of the child rearing. I'm guessing this is the controversial part. And it's tricky because the relationship between choice and duty is complex-- it's complex in general, not just with regard to motherhood or parenthood. In a lot of contexts, …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 10:16 AM
0

Nobody actually would. You just assume these women exist. I've known many mothers who'd prefer, with every fiber of their being, to gestate rather than use an artificial womb, and who'd have an identity crisis if they had to use an artificial womb instead of gestating the traditional way. You've known many mothers like this too, unless you're confined to the basement of one who hates you, or something.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:59 AM
0

Women having weakened expectations to put in more effort with their children and being defined by motherhood less would be no loss A lot of women would consider it a loss, surely. And they're right in some sense, but the gain would outweigh the loss, in my (and presumably your) opinion. but I don't think artificial wombs would do it. You don't think artificial wombs would have an effect on mothers' sense of identity?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:45 AM
1

That's probably the minor part, while the biological aspect is the major part. And the two are interconnected, obviously. One of the primary reasons women do more of the raising is that they're the ones who gestate. In a world with widespread use of artificial wombs, we should expect the maternal and paternal contributions to equalize in many ways, including time spent with the children.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:37 AM
-1

I think the additional valorization motherhood receives, compared to fatherhood, is mainly about pregnancy and birth. Some of that additional valorization has to do with stereotypes about women being more nurturing, but I think the biological aspect carries more weight. That's my informal assessment.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:27 AM
2

Which would do a lot to undermine the cultural glorification of motherhood.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:17 AM
0

What is it about the child that would justify terminating them?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 08:46 AM
0

there's nothing to lose! There are some things to lose, like the cultural glorification of motherhood, but it'd still be worth it overall.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 08:41 AM
4

There's a decent chance of it happening within the next half-century, with AI-assisted developments in biotech and nanotech.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 08:08 AM
1

the entire premise of patriarchy is anti female I agree. But the aspects that make it anti-female also make it anti-male. women are the minority class not men By what definition? The patriarchy oppresses both men and women. You seemed to grant this.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 11:40 PM
1

A society can instrumentalize men without being ideologically anti-male. And it can instrumentalize women without being ideologically anti-female. The patriarchy values both men and women, yes, but it values them in ways that don't respect their inherent worth as human beings. Patriarchal systems historically assigned men the role of protector/provider/soldier precisely because men were viewed as the dominant social class No. It assigned them that role because that was a useful way to expend men…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 11:01 PM
1

Misandry means prejudice or contempt toward men because they are men. And if someone believes that a man's worth consists in his embodiment of patriarchal values, rather than the basic fact that he's a human being, then that person has prejudice and contempt toward men. but the system was not historically organized around hatred of men It was, yes. Dehumanization and objectification are forms of hatred. Meaning it is a misogynistic system What's misogynistic about it is that it values women for …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 09:57 PM
–

The patriarchy is misandrist. That's the point. (It's also misogynistic, of course. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact they usually show up together.)
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 09:22 PM
-3

There was a study recently showing that when you don’t call it rape, 95% of men admit to coercive tactics and other behaviours which undermine consent. And what was the percentage for women?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/26 11:54 AM
1

We are flying supersonically backwards from egalitarian transhumanism when it comes to freeing men from arbitrary gender roles. When were men more free from gender roles than they are today?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 01:51 AM
4

Just like women of the same demographic, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 09:09 PM
4

Civilizations flourished under patriarchal systems throughout history. But individuals didn't. At least, they didn't flourish as much as they could in a better system. We've only had a feminist non patriarchal system for a couple of decades and are already seeing a population collapse. Whether that's a bad thing remains to be seen. If technology can pick up the slack, then "population collapse" might be the optimal outcome.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 12:37 PM
2

Egalitarian transhumanism seems like the current trajectory. That's my optimism, anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 09:34 AM
2

I guess there are other possible systems of gender roles besides the traditional human one. Regardless, the best option for humanity is to dispense with all gender roles, patriarchal or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 09:01 AM
5

The traditional system of gender roles (the patriarchy) oppresses both men and women. The best solution is to get rid of gender roles and simply treat everyone equally, so that gender (and biological sex, if possible) becomes irrelevant to a person's opportunities, well-being, life outcome, etc. An end state like this would be a huge net benefit to both men and women. The end state isn't zero-sum. But getting there takes resources of all kinds (time, effort, intellectual labor, emotional labor, …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 06:29 AM
15

And this goes for both male and female privilege. Maybe you already knew that, but some people don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 06:21 AM
1

And no, I still don’t think “human behaviour follows patterns” points nearly as hard toward “free will and responsibility are basically fake” as you seem to think it does. Optimistically, there's still room for some semblance of (libertarian) free will. But the vast majority of human behavior conforms to social expectations, psychological generalities, and neuroscientific mechanisms (which makes sense; civilization would be impossible otherwise), so genuine free will is probably the tiny excepti…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 12:55 AM
1

To a limited extent. And in many contexts, it's a choice that women have the privilege of not needing to make. (And vice versa in other sorts of contexts.)
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 12:14 AM
1

Exactly. That's why we've been able to make improvements and live in conditions that are better (less violent and brutal) than our former natural conditions. This is a long and difficult process, though. That's why humanity still contains vestiges of the brutality of nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 11:47 PM
1

You keep turning “women exercise caution around men” into that. Well, it's not me doing it. But I agree that no one should. Risk assessment is not the same thing as saying men are inherently evil or morally inferior. True. But we should also be careful to avoid framing the risk assessment with moral connotations. If you already take care to avoid that, then great. But many people don't, as you can easily see around here. And no, “human behaviour is influenced by patterns and conditioning” still …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 10:33 PM
1

But influence and predictability are not the same thing as inevitability. They aren't the same thing as inevitability, but they lean toward inevitability, and we'd need to specifically describe some remaining non-inevitable factor if we think there is one. Otherwise every harmful action just collapses into “the conditions made them do it,” and at that point concepts like responsibility, accountability, praise, blame, deterrence, rehabilitation, and even personal growth all start becoming incoher…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 10:16 PM
1

“Explained” does not have to mean “inevitable.” But it does have to mean "what would naturally be expected", at least. We explain human behaviour in terms of influences, pressures, predispositions, incentives, environment, trauma, social conditions, etc. all the time without treating people like passive machines with no agency. There's clearly a strong tension there, though. Most people just ignore the question of free will in that sort of context--often because they don't like the implications …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 09:24 PM
1

Society isn't? That's true; society is a massive improvement over nature. This doesn't change the fact that nature is brutal and violent.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 09:15 PM
2

Raising children ≠ “perpetuating” patriarchy. Raising children to have patriarchal values = perpetuating patriarchy. And throughout history, women raised children to have patriarchal values. That's why the adults had patriarchal values.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 03:52 AM
2

They didn’t perpetuate shit Do you deny that women did the majority of child raising throughout history? Or do you not understand what it means to raise children? It's one of the two. I'm hoping you'll help me out.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 03:28 AM
2

You realise women are primarily child carers BECAUSE they don’t have a choice, right? Nor do men have a choice regarding breadwinning. This doesn't change the fact that women are the primary raisers of children, both today and historically (although we're shifting more toward gender parity these days, which is a good thing). You say it as if women had a choice to not do child rearing I don't. Glad I could clear that up. So what are you on about, saying women are “perpetuating” thy and have done …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 03:15 AM
2

Explain how women perpetuate that, and it’s not men perpetuating it, exactly? Just by perpetuating the general culture, as women have done throughout history--primarily by raising the children and socializing them into the culture's values, traditions, roles, etc. And men have done this too, by the way; I never said or implied that it's only women who perpetuate patriarchy. It's 50/50. And no, not your thoughts and feelings, but statistics and facts to support your claims. I mean, I can try to f…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 03:05 AM
2

Yes. The traditional system of gender roles. I think it's deeply harmful to everyone, but apparently you think it's harmful to "kissless virgins" exclusively.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 02:31 AM
2

Patriarchy is only bad to kissless virgins? I guess that's what a traditionalist would say.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 02:26 AM
2

I did engage with the substance. Not really. Engagement would mean elaborating why you take the position you do. Explaining behaviour is not the same thing as reducing people to inevitable products of circumstance. Why not? When we explain why X happens, what that means, conceptually, is that we're showing that X was to be expected given the surrounding conditions. If X isn't the outcome we'd naturally expect given the conditions we point to in our explanation, then we haven't actually explained…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 02:24 AM
2

But still harmful to society. Have a good one.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 02:15 AM
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. It does blur that line, yes, because it shows that a lot of the difference between people who turn out normal and people who turn out atrocious is just a matter of luck. At some point “understanding context” stops being nuance and starts becoming a way to dissolve personal responsibility into inevitability. At some point, vague…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 11:47 PM
2

No, I would not throw acid in someone’s face for rejecting me, and neither would the overwhelming majority of people. Unless they'd had that person's upbringing, life experiences, psychological predispositions, etc. And it's only a matter of luck that they didn't. Violent criminals are not just average humans helplessly acting out unavoidable biological programming. To a large extent, they are. Maybe not completely, and maybe not in every instance. That’s not nuance. It is, yes. You're rejecting…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 10:11 PM
1

Okay, what are men going to do about the world being unsafe that women can't? It's not that women can't. It's that they haven't had to, because men have been willing to. Both genders have made sacrifices for sake of improving the world. If the virtues outweighed the vices, men wouldn't do bad things as they'd all be stopped. Or they'd be stopped more often than not, at least. Which appears to be the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 09:47 PM
1

But you acknowledge that you're more safe than you'd be without the perks of (especially first-world) civilization. It's all relative.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 08:53 PM
0

How so?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 08:47 PM
1

The only reason they would be unsafe in the first place is men. No. The default, natural state is unsafe. The world is inherently unsafe. If you're claiming the virtues of men who aren't you, you must also claim their vices. Yeah, that's fair. And the virtues probably outweigh the vices. At the very worst, it's neutral.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 08:44 PM
0

But ultimately, it's nature that necessitates it. Male violence is a manifestation of the brutality of nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 08:41 PM
1

If your protection worked, we wouldn't be harmed by men If the protection worked, you'd be harmed by men less than you'd be harmed without the protection. And that's almost certainly the case: you're harmed less than you'd be if there were no protection.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 08:39 PM
4

The argument could be made that men are only able to build civilization because they have largely been able to extract the benefits of women's domestic labor And women are only able to perform domestic labor because they're extracting the benefits of men's nondomestic labor. It's an interdependency.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 08:34 PM
1

Yes, but it's easy to take for granted. First-world entitlement mindset and all that.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 08:30 PM
1

If you want praise for the good then you take criticism for the bad. Yeah, that's fair. And if the good outweighs the bad, then it's also fair to criticize people who focus on the bad while ignoring the good.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 08:27 PM
3

Perpetuate patriarchy and other toxic traditions.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 08:21 PM
1

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. Rightly told, yes. (And men are rightly told this too.) I'm not sure if you meant to imply otherwise. Also, “sociobiological causes” explaining behaviour is not the same thing as removing accountability for it. It's the same to some extent, at least. People aren't morally responsible for things that are outside of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 08:08 PM
3

“Women need men for protection” loses a lot of moral weight when the primary thing they’re supposedly being protected from is also overwhelmingly male violence. Pointing that out is not “misandry.” No, but emphasizing the negatives while taking the positives for granted is misandry. Our overall assessment of men, if we actually weigh the positives and negatives together, should be neutral at worst. Also, by the way, stopping the analysis at "male violence", without looking at the sociobiological…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 07:54 PM
1

The funny part is that universal karma is currently visiting men based on bad actions towards women for thousands of years. But the good actions probably outweigh the bad, right? Overall, in the grand scheme, men have probably benefited women more than they've harmed them. So the karma visiting men nowadays should be positive. (This application of the concept of karma is very stupid, though; I'm not actually endorsing it.)
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/26 12:21 AM
1

You say men should hate women because women drain men of resources I didn't say they should (and I don't think they should), but this is one cause of misogyny among men, sure. while failing to show adequate deference Not deference. Acknowledgement as equal human beings. That's what we were talking about, remember? and sex This is where you lose all credibility. No one said anything about sex. I've never implied that anyone owes anyone sex, and the concept of sex as part of a social bargain is re…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/26 09:24 PM
0

Did you mean to post this in a different conversation? (Possibly an imaginary one?)
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/26 11:11 AM
1

Women make less money and get more benefits because they are more likely to be single parents. That's one factor among many. Another is that women live longer and thus receive more medical and social security spending in old age. Another is that men are more pressured into higher-paying careers. I like to read history, and until recently, a lot of colleges didn’t even admit women to study engineering or architecture or hard sciences. Women weren’t allowed to drive buses in New York City until 19…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/26 02:45 AM
–

I mean, men do pay more in taxes, while women receive more in government benefit spending, but that's only a small part of what I'm talking about. Better examples of what I'm talking about are men's disproportionate (and disproportionately dangerous) contributions to infrastructure, law enforcement, military defense, etc. And then there's the fact that the technology that makes comfortable first-world living possible was developed almost exclusively by men.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/26 02:26 AM
2

Lots of ways, obviously, but the main example of what I'm talking about here is that (the worst of) women will shit on men while taking for granted the things men do, and have done, to provide women (and everyone) with safe, comfortable, first-world lives. Some of it is just standard objectification under capitalism, but there's definitely a gendered dimension to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/26 12:04 AM
0

I wouldn't attribute this to "feminists", but the worst of women want men's resources, or the benefits of men's resources, without having to treat men as equal human beings.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 11:37 PM
1

Yeah, I figured it was something more like that. But the converse can also be claimed, of course, as long as we're being cynical.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 11:16 PM
0

Men hate women for existing. You think men would prefer if women didn't exist?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 09:11 PM
2

Even now misogyny does more harm to women and men than misandry They're inseparable. Two sides of the same coin. But if you disagree, you're welcome to explain.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 08:36 PM
1

“Misandry” is a response to thousands of years of misogyny. Those thousands of years were misandrist too. Instead of directing their enmity toward each other, men and women should both direct their enmity toward the cultural system that oppresses them both. (The patriarchy.) But it's easier to scapegoat, unfortunately.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/26 12:21 PM
1

Can you think of anything comparable that women do systemically? Perpetuating gender roles would be the main thing, and it implicates women (usually indirectly) in a lot of the other stuff you brought up.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 07:31 PM
1

Would you think it's "better" to be a powerless pet/work horse/brood mare, who is owned by your Lord and master, subject to his whims, with the law and his fellow lords and masters on his side? Better than being cast out of society or executed, yes. Undeniably. But yay, she performed femininity and she got treated "well". Don't copy the other person's dishonesty. The claim was that women who performed femininity were treated better than those who didn't, not that they were treated well. Almost n…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/26 08:06 PM
1

What objective probability are you looking at? Chance that a random bear will attack you, versus chance that a random man will attack you. Do you acknowledge that the bear is likelier to attack you? It's okay to say "Yes, but that's not what decides the issue". There are other reasonable considerations at play.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 09:06 AM
1

Men are more dangerous to women because there are so many of them. Yes, exactly. But if the question is one bear versus one man, your chances are better with the man.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 05:24 AM
1

You’re trying to put how you perceive the world on to us. I'm just looking at it in terms of objective probability. That supersedes any individual's perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 05:04 AM
1

The thought process you just described ("I've never met a bear, but I've met men") is the definition of taking it personally. Do you understand that?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 04:50 AM
1

It’s if you happen to came across one in the middle of the woods, which one would you pick. Man or bear. Man, obviously. I'd have a much better chance. As would anyone. Most women have a vague sense of “bear” as a concept. When I think of the concept of “man.” I remember things in my own sphere. So you're saying the choice is made in ignorance. You're probably right.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 04:47 AM
1

Statistically, women are far more likely to be killed by a man than by a bear or by a child. Statistically, women are far more likely to be killed by a child than by a bear. Would you prefer to encounter a random child in the woods, or a random bear? There are enough dangerous men on this planet that every woman has had an encounter with some time of predator Now you're starting to get it. Men seem more dangerous than bears because there are so many men. If the question is one bear versus one ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 04:45 AM
–

Do you wear a seatbelt? Caution is fine and reasonable. This doesn't change the fact that a bear is more dangerous than a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 03:58 AM
1

More women are killed by women than by bears. And, yes, more women are killed by children than by bears too.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 03:56 AM
–

You've probably never met a bear at all. Regardless, a bear is more likely to attack you than a man is.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 03:38 AM
–

True. It's a matter of probability. But your chances are better with a man than with a bear. (Also, you think men attack women for food? What the fuck am I reading?)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 03:33 AM
–

Far more women are attacked by children than by bears. This doesn't mean that children are more dangerous than bears; it means that we encounter way, way more children than we do bears.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 03:32 AM
–

To be completely honest, as a woman, I would rather cross paths with a bear than a man I don't know.. Think about how broken your brain has to be, if that's your honest preference. I'm sure you understand that the man is objectively less likely to attack you than the bear is. Also can't be an incel. I'm married. But you can still be a propagandist for incel ideology.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 03:30 AM
–

Take a step back from being an incel propagandist for a moment. In real life, most women understand that a bear is more dangerous than a man (on average).
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 03:19 AM
–

Women think there is less of a risk of being utterly destroyed by a bear than they think there is a chance of experiencing violence or sexual assault from a man. It's pretty misogynistic to imply that women would be this stupid. No, they don't actually think that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 03:12 AM
1

Everywhere else women are considered less competent for the same skills Time to update.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 03:09 AM
2

(Also, aren't men already punished for having overly toxic traits? Why even bother pretending to have a principled position on this?)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 01:10 PM
2

Sure, and the same goes for women. The system wouldn't have survived the ages if men and women hadn't worked together to perpetuate it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 12:35 PM
2

Nope. The patriarchy exists to perpetuate itself, and it uses and expends men and women to that end. That's how social systems work.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 12:32 PM
2

Women are already punished for being overly emotional. I didn't say "overly". They aren't already punished for being at all emotional. I think what you’re failing to understand is that women are oppressed, and masculine cis men are the only people protected by patriarchy. You already forgot that masculine cis men are oppressed by patriarchy? If you want to say that they're "protected" for falling in line, that's reasonable, but the same goes for feminine cis women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 12:28 PM
2

Why wouldn't it just be the counterpart of what you were talking about before? Calling traditionally feminine women repulsive, punishing them with beatings for being emotional, etc. It's only as misogynistic as your prior scenes were misandrist.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 12:17 PM
2

We're currently talking about how the patriarchy views femininity. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Yes, there's room for broader conceptions of masculinity and femininity if we're moving away from patriarchy (although that's all going away eventually if we do the whole gender abolition thing). But in this conversation, we've been talking about whether the traditional system of gender roles--ie, the patriarchy--hates femininity. As you might've come to realize by this point, …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 12:06 PM
2

I don’t agree that bitches are unfeminine. Certainly sluts are not unfeminine. By traditional standards, they are. But let’s be clear these roles are set out by the patriarchy, and feminism has long fought against them. Sure. Is this relevant to what we're talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 11:56 AM
2

The patriarchy doesn’t necessarily label a woman who is powerfully and assertive as manly. But it does label her as unfeminine, which is all that matters here. She gets labelled a bitch. So it does recognise this sort of femininity. The problem with bitches (according to the patriarchy) is that they're unfeminine (which doesn't imply manly, as I'm sure you understand by now). Anyway, the point of all this is that your rationale for attacking masculinity itself also permits attacking (traditional…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 11:40 AM
2

The role patriarchy tries to force feminine people into is submissive. But that’s misogynistic. So we agree. Thank you. But that doesn’t mean they’re not feminine. It means that they're not feminine in the traditional sense, which is the only sense the patriarchy recognizes.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 11:25 AM
2

It’s perfectly possible to be feminine and autonomous and powerful. Not if we mean "feminine" in the traditional sense that the patriarchy recognizes as feminine. If you’re conflating femininity with being submissive… well that’s a problem. Traditional femininity is submissive, yes. You agree with this.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 11:19 AM
2

The patriarchy doesn't view that as femininity at all. The patriarchy hates autonomous and powerful women (and men), but that's not what we're talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 11:17 AM
2

The patriarchy wants women to be feminine Yep, and so it encourages femininity in women, because that's useful for the perpetuation of the system. Hence it doesn't hate femininity, as you claimed. All of this is oppressive. Yep. But still better than defecting from society and trying to fend for oneself in the wilderness. That's why men went along with patriarchy too.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 11:12 AM
2

No? The question was whether femininity was treated better in women than nonfemininity. The question wasn't whether femininity was treated well in women. Femininity is punished by being made a sex object or pushed into wifely or motherly duties. So you think the patriarchy doesn't want women to be feminine? Or maybe you don't know what "punish" means.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 11:07 AM
2

Being a servant confined to childrearing and the home is not being treated well. You see the dishonesty in this phrasing, right? You must see it. And it’s not like feminine women don’t experience violence. I hope it's self-aware, at least. You understand that what you said is wrong, but you just don't want to own it in front of me. I won't make you, I guess.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 11:02 AM
2

So it’s not like femininity is treated well either. But it was treated better, in women, than nonfemininity, as you're now conceding.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 10:54 AM
2

It was difficult and dangerous to do. Why dangerous? Because they'd be treated worse than if they performed femininity? Well yes, I agree that the gender binary and cisnormativity oppressed everybody. That’s why I call myself a gender abolitionist. Same.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 10:48 AM
2

Nope, there’s lots of historical examples of women adopting men’s roles (or even being trans men) in order to have the same rights as men to work and have freedom etc. So why didn't all women do that, if it was such a better option? And yes I do agree that effeminate men are oppressed in society By the system that oppresses all men (and women), yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 10:44 AM
2

I don’t. It still is one, though. You acknowledge, I'm confident, that women who performed femininity were treated better than those who didn't. (Traditionally. Centuries ago.) Some men seem to believe that in order to be submissive and degraded they need to be in the feminine role. Sounds like we agree. But again, try to remember that feminine and nonmasculine are different things. A man can be emasculated without being portrayed as feminine, and that still replicates societal oppression (of me…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 10:37 AM
2

If you call being forced into sex object or motherly roles a “reward”. I call being protected and provided for a reward. Men and women were both compelled to submit to society's needs, which is obviously oppressive, but people who went along with this were generally much better off than they would've been if they'd defected. That's the reward, as grim as it is; life was shit back then. Often women have had to mimic masculine traits to be successful in business, politics and other male dominated …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 10:09 AM
2

Denigrating attitudes that are associated with toxic masculinity, punishing them with beatings etc, and encouraging the behaviours which are soft, emotional, servile, and effeminate. Fine. I guess it's possible to do that in a gender-neutral way. Yes in women Well, no. Traditionally, women are rewarded for being feminine and punished for not being feminine. Femininity is seen as weaker, less capable, less intelligent, just an object for sex or mothering. Sure, but not hated. That's what you clai…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 09:53 AM
3

The opposite, attacking men who are succeeding at masculinity. Okay, and what does the "attack" consist of? Just calling them "repulsive"? Nope, because femininity is hated and oppressed in our society. Well, not in women, right? Not traditionally, at least. I guess my confusion is you calling denigration of men for failing at masculinity “misandry”. I’d say this is closer to femmephobia. From the sound of it, your confusion stems from assuming that someone who fails at masculinity is thereby fe…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 09:43 AM
5

I’d say it would be offensive to mock men for being effeminate or for failing at masculinity. Which is a lot of what happens to male subs, patriarchy being as ingrained as it is. But attacking masculinity itself? Fair game. What's an example of attacking masculinity itself without the implication that the man is failing at masculinity? Also, by the same token, attacking femininity itself is also fair game, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 09:37 AM
5

Men aren’t attacked for having masculinity by the patriarchy? Men are attacked for not being masculine enough. You've really never heard of "fragile masculinity"? (Sometimes the term used is "precarious" instead.)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 09:29 AM
6

I disagree, a male being a sub is subverting existing power dynamics. Depends entirely on the methods used. If the methods being used are the patriarchy's methods (attacking his masculinity), then that's just reenacting the same patriarchal oppression that's been harming men for millennia. Who's doing it doesn't matter at all. Men want to be doms so they can play out the power and abuse of women. Which is no better or worse than playing out the power and abuse of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 09:24 AM
3

I personally also have a policy in BDSM of not engaging in any dynamics that replicate societal oppressions, e.g. no misogyny, transphobia, racism etc. There’s a lot of problematic stuff out there. Does this include misandry? Almost everything done to a male sub is straight out of the patriarchy playbook (harming his genitals, denying his sexual prowess, etc).
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 08:59 AM
2

So when a woman (krayon_kylie) explains what it's like to be a man, you call it "incredibly enlightening!" and "very well written :)". But when a man (midnight_blue77) disagrees and gives a different take--still on the subject of what it's like to be a man--you call it "mansplaining".
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 10:51 PM
1

i don't consider people finding people useful the same as reducing them to subjective-less inanimate objects. Right. Those aren't the same. The problem isn't "finding people useful"; the problem is viewing people as having value only insofar as they're useful. The latter is what we call "objectification". In order to avoid objectifying others, we have to see them as having intrinsic value, just as human beings, regardless of how useful they may be. As you're pointing out, it's fully possible to …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 10:40 PM
3

people do that to people all the time. Yes, unfortunately. Society is built around the ways that we're useful to each other. The moral challenge is to step beyond that and view others as full human beings with their own subjectivity. nobody out there is dating anyone who isn't in some shape or form "useful". Maybe. But the problem is when we view others only in terms of their usefulness.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 10:02 PM
4

People are objects (living conscious animate objects). People aren't mere objects, though. They're also subjects (ie, minds with a point of view). Objectification is disregarding someone's mind, experiences, subjectivity, etc and viewing them only in terms of how they're useful to you--which is how we view inanimate objects like desks and chairs, as tools for our use.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 09:34 PM
2

I mean, no decent adult should let empathy determine how they treat others. We should treat others with kindness and fairness regardless of whether we have any sort of emotional feeling toward them. Maybe the idea was that it's feminine to be empathy-driven. (Which might be true descriptively, but I think women--and men--are capable of being better than that.)
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 12:51 AM
1

Hunger isn't an external application of force. I don't see why not. But we can look at a clearer example if you want, like predation. Prey animals are coerced into fleeing from predators; this is behavior under duress, but it's still entirely natural. You are still insisting on conflating "natural state" with behavior under coercive conditions. Are you trying to argue that the two are mutually exclusive?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 09:15 AM
1

Defining it so broad as to include any and all conditions that motivate one to take action is silly. I agree. That's why I'm only including conditions that motivate action on pain of death or severe harm. It requires an external application of threat or force. Yes, and nature often presents us (and other organisms) with situations where there's an external application of threat or force. That's how nature works. Natural selection is a brutal, horrific process.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 08:41 AM
1

To use a relevant example, I'd say that we're coerced into eating food, and that food-seeking behavior is behavior "under duress", as you put it. But food-seeking behavior is still natural, because the duress itself is natural. Therefore, some of our behavior is both coerced and natural. Again, though, I suspect that we're defining "coercion" differently.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 08:30 AM
2

I'm hoping you'll explain why.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 08:20 AM
1

They clearly are. Why does the masculine gender role (which is oppressive, as you've pointed out) apply to the people it applies to? Because those people are men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 08:19 AM
2

Their natural states are how they behave free of coercion. This doesn't make sense. Coercion might be the natural state of society (unfortunately). In fact, that seems likely, since social stability is evolutionarily beneficial (all else being equal), and coercion is a straightforward way to achieve social stability. Maybe we're defining "coercion" differently, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 08:15 AM
1

Men don’t face any problems because they are men. Wow. You don't think gender roles can be harmful? Or maybe you're a gender essentialist who thinks the harms caused by gender roles are "correct" in some sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 03:56 AM
1

As I said, there's probably no direct evidence either way on this question. It's embarrassing that you think there's nothing to talk about here in the absence of direct evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/24 06:58 PM
1

So let me get this straight - the "cusp of sexual viability" is more sexually appealing than actual evidence of sexual viability? Well, it's more appealing than actual infancy, at least. That was your question. Lack of curves and lack of breasts also "extend to the cusp of sexual viability." But again, men claim to not be attracted to that. This might be because an extra bonus of hairlessness (among other cusp-of-viability traits) is being able to see the underlying anatomy more clearly. If some…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/24 04:25 PM
1

Why would hairlessness a symbol of youth that sexually arouses men, and not other symbols of youth that I gave examples of in my comment? Because hairless extends to the cusp of sexial viability, whereas the others don't. I'm asking for direct evidence that removing female pit; pubic; and leg hair is an evolutionary, biological preference. I don't think we have direct evidence one way or the other on that question. All I'm saying is that it's plausible that there's an evolutionary basis. (Which …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/24 12:30 AM
1

It's not just a symbol of youth, it's a symbol of sexually unviable youth. Why can't it be a symbol of youth in general? (I'm hoping the response is smarter than "Because only prepubescents are hairless, not youths in general." Something that derives from only a part can still become a symbol of the whole. Pandas are from a relatively small region of China, but they can still be a symbol of China as a whole.) I notice a complete lack of evidence in any of your comments. You already acknowledged …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/24 11:55 PM
1

Hairlessness is distinctively pre-pubescent. Adolescent human beings are still young. This doesn't prevent hairlessness from being a symbol of youth. It seems likely that something that has only been a norm for the past century, and only in some areas of the world, has a biological, evolutionary basis? That's historically inaccurate, but yes, something recent can have an evolutionary basis. A diet full of junk food has an evolutionary basis, for example: we like sugar for evolutionary reasons. D…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/24 10:47 PM
–

So not different with regard to the pedophilic implications (or lack thereof).
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/24 11:58 PM
–

Not "youth," pre-pubescence. Right, but the explanation has to do with youth in general, not prepubescence in particular. that you similarly believe there's a biological, evolutionary basis for men's current preference of near, or total hairlessness on women Yeah, that seems likely. Because, evolutionarily speaking, the entire point of the hair is to signify a sexually mature female who can be bred. That's dubious. When we look at our evolutionary history (say, the past few million years or so),…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/24 11:12 PM
–

if only post-pubescent women were just expected to remove pubic hair Leg hair, etc requires a different explanation, yes. It probably does have to do with the appearance of youth. men "see" the sign of sexual maturity. For evolutionary purposes, this is far more beneficial than men having a slightly harder dick but having sex with a pre-pubescent female. Usually the developed breasts are there too in full view if you can see the pubic hair, soooo... I don't understand what point you're making he…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/24 04:02 PM
–

If you're attracted to the development of breasts, and breasts are a sign of fertility, then so is body hair and you should be equally attracted to that. There's an obvious solution in the case of pubic hair: men are attracted to signs of fertility and also to female genitalia. Female pubic hair (unlike male pubic hair) conceals the genitalia, and thus a lot of men would prefer to have it cleared away, so that the genitalia are visible. Likewise, if a woman prefers that men shave their faces, th…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/24 03:15 PM
–

How so?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/24 02:31 PM
3

Yes. Using biological terminology is considered degrading, especially when it's for only one sex/gender instead of both.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/24 06:15 PM
-2

Bro what? It’s misandrist but it’s overwhelmingly made by men? You’re gonna have to explain that one chief Internalized misandry. (Better known as 'toxic masculinity'.) But ultimately, it's nature that's misandrist--as well as misogynistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/24 02:54 PM
–

The enablement is part of the privilege, presumably.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/24 06:30 AM
2

I don't know what you consider 'on-topic'. The topic was the disadvantages of being a man, and cultural gender norms are within the scope of that topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/24 05:02 PM
3

because your comment was off topic nonsense Yours was off-topic, since you were trying to pivot to legal discrimination, which wasn't what we were talking about at all. you’re trying to compare You don't understand the comparison? Both men and black people commit disproportionate violent crime. In both cases, we can take the bigoted interpretation where we condemn them for choosing to be bad, or we can take the reasonable interpretation that looks at toxic cultural systems that influence people …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/24 04:56 PM
1

Nope. You tried to for a little bit, but then you gave up.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/24 04:49 PM
1

So I guess you can't defend your position.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/24 04:47 PM
4

Pressure =\= legal discrimination. I didn't say it was legal discrimination. There's virtually no legal discrimination with regard to gender anymore (in the first world). But there are still oppressive cultural norms, and that's what we're talking about here. There is no Jim Crow system forcing men to commit more violent crimes. Right, and the same goes for black people. Do you think black people are just inherently more violent? Or do you recognize that culture can be oppressive even without th…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/24 04:25 PM
–

Your actions have consequences. They also have antecedents, and those antecedents are often beyond our control. This mitigates moral responsibility. No one is forcing men to rape people. No one is forcing men to commit more violent crimes. No one is forcing men to work in high risk occupations. But there's gendered cultural (and maybe also biological to some extent) pressure to do those things, and that's an injustice against men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/24 04:16 PM
–

Right, but nearly every one of those examples are consequences from men’s actions, not from societal discrimination. It's always possible to blame men or women for their own oppression, but this is almost always the wrong approach. Yes, men and women perpetuate the culture, and thus they have some responsibility for their own oppression. But for the most part, people are just doing what they've been raised to do, and so their degree of responsibility is very limited. Men are more likely to commi…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/24 04:07 PM
–

Specifics on the disadvantages of being a man? You can start here.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/24 04:02 PM
–

Across all venues, it's pretty rare for men to be taken seriously when they bring up the disadvantages of being a man, especially if they do so in a way that deviates from the standard feminist framing of gender issues. There are some exceptions, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/24 03:58 PM
–

Probably more because men get blamed for social ills.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/24 03:52 PM
1

Women, for example, have traditionally been denied power Well, not cultural power. Raising the children is an immensely powerful role. "The hand that rocks the cradle", etc. and have been totally dependent on men, seemingly by design Not deliberate design, but sure, I can agree. And the unintentional 'designing' was done by both men and women, since both men and women (unintentionally) create and maintain culture. but women broadly didn't really have a choice in this decision True. And neither d…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 11:07 PM
1

So I'd say I'm primarily asking you about the first case; where do you see that women promote violence in men? Women promote (and have historically promoted) traditional gender roles, and traditional gender roles characterize men as appropriate agents (and targets) of violence. Therefore, women promote violence in men. This is gradually changing over the decades and centuries, though, as women (and men) become more aware of a better alternative to traditional gender roles.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 10:13 PM
1

There are two main components to that claim. 1) Women promote violence in men 2) Violence in men benefits women Are you challenging both of them, or just one?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 08:51 PM
1

Conspiracies are intentional. The cultural effects of people's actions are generally unintentional, and thus can't be attributed to conspiracies. (Though they could still be worthy of criticism and such.)
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 08:44 PM
1

what I've said is that it's irrational to think that women have an equal role in facilitating the culture of masculinity Do you think that men raise children as much as women do? Maybe they should, and maybe they will in some future egalitarian society, but I'm asking about the past and present. How much do you know about makeup, beauty & skin care, fashion, soap operas, romance novels, women's magazines, home decor, women's health issues or maternity? Not much, but single dads probably do, espe…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 08:31 PM
1

the broader overarching culture that defines gender roles Why wouldn't we expect that culture to be half maintained by men and half maintained by women? Do you think women are culturally irrelevant, or something? Of which, entertainment has been primarily driven by men leading up to contemporary times, where men dominated the industry Men who were raised by women, who were also raised, etc. Instead of continuing to trace the question back, you're stopping at the scapegoat, like a racist who says…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 07:03 PM
1

Would you mind defining what you think that my particular bias is? There's an obvious disparity in your charitability, benefit of the doubt, willingness to employ positive/negative stereotypes, etc. I'm sure you're aware of this. And regarding your last statement, why do you assume that because women make up 50% of the population that they are 50% responsible for men's behavioral development? I mean, they're 50% responsible for the part that's cultural. If there's a biological aspect, then they …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 02:59 AM
1

So you'll bite the bullet and say that man's nature to be violent and to sexually assault women? It's possible. But nature vs nurture is always a difficult issue. It seems highly likely that at least some of it is cultural, but the difficult question is whether all of it is. In any case, I acknowledge both possibilities (all cultural vs partly biological); I was asking what your position is, because that determines the direction of the conversation. Then you're going to turn around and call me s…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/23 11:08 PM
1

We're talking about violent crime here, which women are statistically far less likely to engage in. No, we're talking about gender roles ("that their gender role as a man was to get angry and break things or to be a soldier and fight when things don't go their way"). Look back at the context. As for violent crime, though, insofar as the disparity is due to cultural factors, what I said applies. But maybe you attribute the disparity in violent crime rates to biological factors. The first thing I …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/23 05:48 AM
2

Because women don't have that problem. Well, of course they do. Women are half the culture. it's primarily a belief perpetuated by men What makes you think so? If men are unwilling to take that task on for themselves I mean, they have/are. That's why we're here having this conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/23 05:25 AM
2

In a lot of situations, a person like that is given a lot of information to choose from But they usually aren't given an impartial position from which to do the choosing. There's a whole spectrum of situations, though, and responsibility comes in greater and lesser degrees. If someone can't take responsibility for that, then what is an example of something that someone can take responsibility for? In the fullest sense? Maybe very little, or nothing. If someone learned that their gender role as a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/23 04:56 AM
1

it is your fault in the same way that becoming a radical that commits atrocities is your fault Well, is that the person's fault, though, if they were indoctrinated into the ideology from birth?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/23 01:00 AM
1

men as a gender group have a ton of problems that stem from early development gender role expectations, etc Agreed. because it IS your fault Wait, what? How is it men's fault, given what you just said about gender role expectations?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/23 12:49 AM
1

Maybe that's true, or maybe not. But even if it's true, it wouldn't entail that civilization must be patriarchal.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 08:26 AM
1

Women don't have the size or power to defend their own rights they're all granted by men. It's possible to have a social system wherein a person's physical strength has no bearing on their social standing. And there are ways to defend one's rights without using physical force. Those two facts seem very obvious and elementary to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 07:16 AM
1

There is nothing that certain racial groups, immigrants, or LGBTQ have that would result in imbalanced potential for harm. How about Muslims, then? Islamic terrorists generally claim that their terroristic actions stem from their Muslim-ness specifically. Do you endorse Islamophobia?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 03:13 AM
1

Maybe; it'd still be debatable. But patriarchy doesn't seem necessary for civilization anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 03:09 AM
3

I hope the new species do a better job than us. This sentence tells me that you're applying value judgments to the issue. (Which I think you should. But you implied earlier that you don't.) What counts as a 'good job' here, and why?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 01:28 AM
3

It does. It doesn't. Even if patriarchy is good, its goodness wouldn't follow from the mere fact that it perpetuates itself effectively (or more effectively than any competing system). We can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'; we can't derive a value judgment like 'patriarchy is good' from a descriptive statement like 'society evolved patriarchally'.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 01:04 AM
2

Yeah we have made loads of species extinct, destroyed trees, destroyed land, pumped god knows what into the atmosphere, I could go on. Even if our effect on the world has been negative, the point is simply that we have an effect, and thus we should seek to have a good effect rather than a bad one. And this requires some conception of what's good and bad--ie, some conception of how things should be. We have destroyed the planet we used to have a balance with. Is this you withdrawing the whole "it…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 12:56 AM
2

Even if it "should" be something else, it isn't. But it might be possible to make the world better, at least in some respects, than it was when we inherited it. Right? Hasn't that happened many times?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 12:36 AM
5

I find it explains life to me in a way that is understandable. It explains the way things are, yes. But it doesn't tell us how things should be. That's a crucial distinction.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 12:17 AM
1

It probably has a lot to do with mammals' increased investment in their young (at least maternally). Gestation and nursing are highly demanding.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 12:12 AM
6

Exactly. That's why we shouldn't try to draw normative implications from evolution. Evolution and morality are independent of each other, so it might be bad that evolution took the course it did. (And in some ways, it arguably is.)
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 12:08 AM
2

Okay. And how many references to male pagan gods are there? Many times more, I'm guessing. I'm not sure why you think this shows anything about the true origins of patriarchy.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 12:05 AM
1

There is evolutionary sense in it. Yes. Again, though, this doesn't justify it in a moral sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:52 PM
5

It isn't misogynistic if we also believe the same of men. Culture in general is a form of brainwashing, and everyone is susceptible to it. (And--you didn't mention this, but I'm sure you agree--we also shouldn't attribute the brainwashing to men in particular, since that's a misandrist notion. Everyone does the brainwashing, because everyone is brainwashed into doing it.)
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:50 PM
7

But they inherited the culture and received the same cultural indoctrination as everyone else in their upbringing. Even the ruling elites are still subject to this sort of intergenerational power.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:26 PM
3

Probably. But putting them on the spot is the best way to expose the nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:25 PM
2

Give me some of those biblical references to goddess worship. Cite the verses. You can use Bible Gateway or whatever.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:23 PM
5

They were brainwashed in their own ways Yes, but also in a lot of the same ways. They were brainwashed into the culture in general, including the culture's attitudes toward gender, just like women were. Ruling men Who were also brainwashed, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:18 PM
6

Yes women were intergenerationally brainwashed Just like men. Right?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:09 PM
5

if it wasn't a reaction to female goddess worship, there wouldn't be so many references to it in the bible. Give me some of those references.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:08 PM
1

Conservatives like living in a world that's a utopia. If you have bad parents or made poor life choices you're just shit outta luck. It's a bad way of doing things. I agree. My point is just that the (stereotypical) conservative position is consistent with regard to fetuses and children.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:06 PM
7

You men oppress each other through maintaining a social hierarchy and power structure between themselves. I mean, women do half the work of maintaining it. But otherwise, I agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:04 PM
8

The nature of men are naturally hierarchal and dominance seeking especially in competition with other men. This is another way of describing what I was talking about. Nature--unfortunately--forces competition, and the result is a kind of brutality that permeates the wilderness with violence and suffering. To our credit as a species, we've managed to take some steps away from that sort of paradigm, but it's been a long and fraught road. Men also didn't see women as equal. Nor did women, of course…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 11:03 PM
3

That might be true to some extent, and if so, then it's a good example of how nature is oppressive to men.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 10:58 PM
1

Yeah but if they get raised badly or have poor lives that's okay then Conservatives don't think that's okay. They just think that it shouldn't be the government's role to prevent it. Which means no, they don't care about the babies. They care about the babies not getting killed.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 10:57 PM
1

Because the alternative is to permit killing, yes. And they take the same position with regard to born children: killing them is impermissible.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 10:45 PM
26

There's a lot we don't know for sure, but the best explanation seems to be that the traditional system of gender roles (ie, the patriarchy) developed because it had an evolutionary advantage over other types of social systems in the context of the agricultural revolution. In other words, societies that instituted the traditional gender system (roughly: men are expendable for purposes of war/violence, women are expendable for purposes of sex/procreation) were able to outcompete their rivals and p…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 10:36 PM
1

More precisely: anti-killing
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 09:57 PM
1

It isn't a hypocritical position. "The government shouldn't actively support them, but it should prevent people from killing them" is the (stereotypical) pro-life position on both fetuses and children. It's a consistent position, although I agree with you that it's morally dubious and that there should be more social support for children who need it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 09:54 PM
1

In order to be consistent, pro-life people only need to oppose the murder of children--which they do. There are independent moral reasons why pro-lifers (and everyone) should support the sorts of social programs you're alluding to, but the anti-abortion position, by itself, doesn't commit someone to endorsing those programs.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 09:49 PM
1

I'm pro-choice, but I'm not sure I'd be pro-choice if I thought it made sense to view a fetus as a person with rights. So I can see why someone might consider an abortion ban to be the lesser of two evils, if the other evil is killing babies. I'm challenging your position because I'm tired of pro-choice people dumbing down the conversation with simplistic arguments that don't engage with the crucial question of the fetus's moral status.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 01:11 AM
1

No, I cannot as its not a baby. Suppose it were. Can you see how someone might believe that murdering a baby is even more disgusting than prohibiting a 10-year-old's abortion? I understand that you don't consider a fetus and a baby to be morally equivalent (neither do I in most cases), but that shouldn't prevent you from comparing the badness of the two things above (forcing to term vs infanticide) and telling me which is worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 01:00 AM
1

Do you see how someone might believe that murdering a baby is even more disgusting than prohibiting a 10-year-old's abortion?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 12:51 AM
1

You really think making a 10 year old girl to have her rapists baby is not grosser than aborting? I'm pro-choice. But pro-life people generally think that abortion is the murder of a baby. That's why I'm asking you which is grosser: forcing a pregnant person to carry to term, or murdering a baby?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/23 12:05 AM
1

"The fetal nervous system begins forming at about five weeks gestation." Tell me why people who've been pregnant can understand the above fact 'more deeply' than people who haven't.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 10:45 PM
1

I'm still hoping for an example of a morally relevant fact that requires a person to have been pregnant in order to understand at the deepest level. Don't just say 'all of them'; choose one example.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 10:40 PM
1

But it's still possible to understand all the morally relevant facts, regardless of one's background?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 10:36 PM
1

People who acquire/perform abortions, according to pro-lifers. I myself don't think it makes sense to view a fetus (early on, at least) as the moral equivalent of a baby. But if someone does take that view, then the dilemma is: forcing someone to carry to term versus murdering a baby. And I can see why someone would think that forcing the pregnant person to carry to term is the lesser evil.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 10:34 PM
1

Name some morally relevant facts about it that are difficult for people who've never been pregnant to understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 08:45 PM
1

Are there morally relevant facts about abortion that can be known only by someone who's been pregnant? Give me an example of one.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 08:38 PM
1

So as long as men and women are equally informed about abortion, they have an equal right to an opinion on it? That's reasonable.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 08:27 PM
1

We also know about it. That's why there's a question about the status of our opinion of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 08:16 PM
-1

Sure. But is it grosser than killing a baby?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 08:12 PM
1

Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 08:11 PM
4

The consequences of that "little chance" are not worth playing with. Do you endorse the same reasoning with regard to racial groups, immigrants, LGBT people, disabled people, etc, since some fraction of them will be bad people? I guess my question is: is there any kind of bigotry you don't approve of?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 01:21 PM
7

The entire world and social infrastructure (laws, workplaces, relationship dynamics) were all built from the perspective of men No, they were built from the perspective of whatever best enables society to perpetuate itself. And (in the West, at least, but probably elsewhere too) one of the things that helps society perpetuate itself is to extend special protections to women, like granting them extra empathy and excluding them from violence.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 01:12 PM
1

you'd think they have more of a right to an opinion on a situation they could potentially be in than men Why? If there's a genocide happening in another country/culture, do we have less right to an opinion on the situation, since we're not from that country/culture?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 12:59 PM
1

Im betting if men could get pregnant and all men could just get an abortion no problem. This is about as smart as saying "If men were the ones who went to war, there'd be no more conscription". Its about controlling women bodies. For pro-life people, it's generally about preventing what they see as the murder of babies. Preventing murder is a legitimate form of control; you acknowledge this, unless you're an anarchist or something.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/23 12:43 PM
1

Yeah try living in this world without Money and Power. That'd be difficult, yes. But nobody's talking about lacking money and power. The claim was that while women as a whole have a lot of money and power, men as a whole have a little more. You need money for all those. Which first-world women generally have, yes. (As do first-world men.)
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/23 01:58 AM
1

Gender would be irrelevant to how people are treated, how people's lives turn out, how people see themselves, etc. In my view, gender abolitionism is the best way to get to this goal, but it's a complex problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/23 07:35 PM
1

What do you think is the cause? There's probably a small biological factor, with the rest being due to cultural gender norms. What could we do to solve this? Change the culture to achieve gender equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/23 07:30 PM
1

So put the blame for that squarely where it belongs. This doesn't change anything about the advantages and disadvantages involved. Internalized misandry is still misandry, just as internalized misogyny is still misogyny.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/23 07:22 PM
1

Which examples am I passing over Everything cultural, for example. One of the main categories of relevant factors is stuff like cultural attitudes, stereotypes, gender roles, etc. Another main category is life outcomes as defined in terms of health, life expectancy, education, happiness, etc. do you really think money and power don’t equate to privilege generally? Some people simply define 'privilege' in terms of power, but that's a dumb approach that ignores the entire question of well-being. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/23 07:17 PM
1

You're clearly cherrypicking, but even the factors you chose don't necessarily favor men over women. Money and power don't automatically make a person better off.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/23 06:54 PM
1

The state is still largely set up to help men How so?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/23 06:16 PM
6

But as you said, when you zoom out the past 50 years or so are a tiny fraction of human history, which is why most complaints about female privilege fall flat. If people are specifically talking about today, the statements don't fall flat, do they?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/23 06:13 PM
1

Women are generally more respectful to men than the other way around. They help them more, insult and bother them less, are less condescending, and believe in their abilities more. Is there any evidence of this?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 07:33 PM
1

the pertinent question is: who defined those roles? That's a crucial question, yes. And the answer is that nobody did. People don't intentionally design culture; culture emerges organically from the unwitting actions of millions of people who see only their own immediate context. The traditional system of gender roles exists because in the circumstances of its emergence (the agricultural revolution), it had an evolutionary advantage over competing systems. Overwhelmingly, a society designed to a…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/23 09:54 PM
2

We can start with this: contrary to your position, toxic masculinity, misandry, and sexism against men are all terms for the same phenomenon. They all stem from the masculine gender role (just as toxic femininity, misogyny, and sexism against women all stem from the feminine gender role), which is a fundamentally harmful construct because it degrades and objectifies men by defining them in terms of their usefulness to society (just as the feminine gender role degrades and objectifies women by de…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/23 09:08 PM
1

Are the actual demonstrable instances of misandry and misogyny and their effects on people that suffer the consequences equal? Fuck no. Not even close. They seem pretty close, yeah. Both cause enormous amounts of suffering and are at the core of the general social problem of gender. Moreover, they're intertwined, so if you care about eliminating at least one of them, you should seek to eliminate both. Just looking at the tangible disadvantages suffered by men and women that are arguably the cons…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/23 08:44 PM
5

The true paralleling is men with white people and women with black people. Not if we're looking at things like prison populations, educational outcomes, violent victimization, lifespan and general health, empathy given, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 07:49 AM
3

Men -Privileged Group Black People- an oppressed group Men, like women, are privileged in some ways and oppressed in other ways. Why is this relevant to what I said, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 06:51 AM
1

At the risk of blowing your mind: there are different kinds of hardship.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 06:48 AM
1

Men suffer systematic and unjust hardship from external forces, both social and biological. If using the term 'oppression' for this sort of thing makes you feel insecure, we don't have to use that term. The point, again, is simply that we should turn to empathy instead of bigotry.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 06:31 AM
1

Always have been, actually--or at least, since the institution of gender roles. But probably before then too, since we can consider nature an oppressor.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 05:22 AM
1

Yes, and also for men, since both are human beings.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 05:00 AM
2

Anyway, as I said, we should use disparities like these to inspire empathy for people oppressed into violence by their circumstances, instead of using such disparities to rationalize bigotry.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 04:23 AM
2

Relatively speaking, yes. But there's still a correlation with race, such that black women are more dangerous than white women (statistically, on average, as given by violent crime rates in the US).
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 03:25 AM
2

There's a correlation with both race and gender. What's your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 12:05 AM
6

Racists make an analogous argument about black people. In both cases--regarding race and regarding gender--instead of becoming bigots, we should seek to understand the social (and, for some aspects of gender, the biological) pressures and incentive structures that push people toward certain kinds of behavior. Violence and criminality, whether in black people or in men, are symptoms of their oppression and signs that they need to be liberated from the aforementioned pressures and incentive struct…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 07:11 PM
1

Misandry doesn't exist. Does gaslighting exist? The negative impact gender roles may have on men is simply a matter of systemic misogyny being a double edged sword. In other words, the traditional system of gender roles is oppressive to both women and men. (But it also benefits them both in various ways; that's a double-edged sword as well.) Men don't design the world to be harder for them. Or at all. But nature clearly made the world hard for men in certain ways (and for women in other ways).
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/23 06:31 AM
1

We quite literally agree you just dislike that I am saying that men are viewed as oppressors despite it negatively impacting them. Yes. That's a harmful characterization that obstructs progress on gender issues. Hence my attempt to dispute it. Please genuinely research it or take courses in the field online it’s very interesting and it will answer the questions you’re asking me here. I'm challenging you, though. I'm trying to get you to think critically about your beliefs. I'm familiar with the …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 10:45 PM
1

I’m really not interested in your personal opinion if I’m being honest. Are you interested in being responsible with your beliefs? Academically it is not contested that patriarchy is something that is negative. I'm not contesting that. I'm just pointing out that it's also negative for men--which is a statement that most academics would probably agree with. It also isn’t contested that the cycle was initially started by men Do you have evidence that it was started by men in particular (as opposed…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 10:18 PM
–

Of course women perpetuate culture. And the culture oppresses men (in addition to women). Hence men and women are both oppressed, and they're both oppressors, since they both perpetuate that culture (ie, the culture of toxic gender roles). Both men and women individually are not responsible for the systemic issues that we see take place that causes patriarchy. Well, they're causally responsible for systemic issues in small ways (and that's why they're oppressors), but they probably aren't culpab…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 09:57 PM
–

So you deny that women perpetuate culture? Or what?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 09:05 PM
–

Likewise, men as a whole are oppressors And also oppressed. And women are likewise both oppressor and oppressed. This is because the system of gender roles is oppressive to both genders and supported by both genders. So your argument fails at the ground level.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 09:50 AM
–

Of course it does. It's a basic facet of traditional gender roles, just like misogyny. And gender roles are structural/systemic.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 09:45 AM
1

Apart from the obvious sexual objectification, the main way men are objectified in the media is through violence.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 09:08 AM
1

Cling to the conspiracy theory at all costs!
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 02:06 AM
1

Women never subjugated men. Nor did men subjugate women. It was the cultural system that subjugated both of them, and both of them supported that system (because it indoctrinated them into doing so). To try and partially blame women for their own lack of human rights is particularly heinous. Not really. Men are also partially to blame for their own oppression. People work against their own best interests all the time; it's very difficult to see the big picture. And this is why misandry will pers…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/23 09:16 AM
1

Are you saying men didn't have a choice, but to subjugate women? Yes. Neither did women. Both genders did the subjugating, and both genders got subjugated, and nobody had a choice in the matter because they were all indoctrinated by irresistible cultural pressure. Is acknowledging that males actively and knowingly treated women like objects that difficult? 'Knowingly' is tricky, but otherwise it's not difficult. Is it that difficult to acknowledge that everybody treated everybody like objects (a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/23 05:34 AM
1

Gee I don't know maybe women being property of men and seen as less than human for centuries of human history? The same goes for children, but this doesn't mean that the purpose of the social system was to oppress children. Was this your best evidence? Unless you're forced to because, you know, property. Both men and women were forced into their roles. This doesn't negate the inherent power in shaping the minds of the next generation. So you acknowledged they didn't have many choices in the past…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/23 05:19 PM
1

For example, there are young males constantly sharing nude images of their female peers. And there are women who constantly share intimate sexual details about their partners with their female friends. Both genders need lessons in consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/23 08:17 AM
1

Yeah the system set up to benefit men and only men all right /s Is there any reason to believe that (apart from political convenience)? It's a mainstream feminist position now that patriarchy is harmful to men. I meant the laws that were put in place solely by men ...who were only enacting the values they'd been indoctrinated into in their upbringing (primarily by women). I find it particularly distasteful that you would write something like that when women were powerless in a patriarchy Raising…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/23 08:13 AM
1

Misandry doesn't result in the "devaluation" of male lives, that is the result of the patriarchy. The patriarchy is intrinsically misandrist (as well as misogynistic), yes. When our society was founded it was not women who decided that men's lives were less. Well, nobody made any conscious decisions about what the culture would be. But women were half of the maintainers of the culture. Some women do play a role in reinforcing gender roles. Virtually all of them. That being said it is often due o…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 11:16 PM
1

For example, misandry doesn't result in male killings. You don't think the disproportionate violence against men has anything to do with cultural attitudes that devalue men's lives and downplay the evil of harming men? Women have never systemically oppressed males. Women have supported the traditional system of gender roles, which is oppressive to men. Often times misandry, fear or hatred of men, is simply a reaction to misogyny And vice versa, right? Why wouldn't it work both ways?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 08:28 AM
0

Sir who do you think the PATRIARCHY are!? It’s men. Men are the patriarchy. And so are women. Culture comes from everyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 04:31 AM
0

Women are assaulted, sexually assaulted & killed by men more than women. But it still happens to men more, thus disproving your point.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 04:30 AM
1

Women have never oppressed men. Of course they have. Patriarchy is oppressive to men, and half of the support for patriarchy, both historically and today, comes from women.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/23 11:16 PM
1

You literally can “walk outside daily” & not have to fear for your life. Men are much likelier than women to be victims of violence and homicide. Did you know this?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/23 11:15 PM
0

In the twenty-first century, we're finally starting to acknowledge that the traditional system of gender roles is oppressive to men too. And of course, that system has always been perpetuated by people in general--both men and women. This means that both men and women are oppressed, and both men and women are oppressors.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/23 07:18 PM
3

Men who are actually misogynistic (meaning ALL women, not just “manipulative women” or “slutty women” or “cruel women”) have a majority of complaints of women not doing what men want It seems pretty likely that both misogynists and misandrists would rationalize their bigotry in the same basic way, blaming the targeted gender for being abusive or causing harm. It also seems likely that both kinds of bigots would portray the two bigotries asymmetrically, so as to make excuses for their own brand o…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/23 04:59 PM
2

If anything, all your statements do is prove that patriarchy also harms men. Yes. And half of the people who perpetuate patriarchy are women.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/23 09:34 AM
7

Women don’t choose to hate men. Men do choose to be misogynistic, etc. Women don't have agency, but men do? That's a pretty patriarchal mindset, isn't it?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/23 09:24 AM
3

But taking accountability for men, as men What exactly would this entail, and why would it be good to do this?
/r/MensRights26/08/22 07:31 PM
7

Yes. A major tributary into homophobia is the traditional notion that male sexuality defiles what it touches. This is at least one important reason why sexual promiscuity is thought to lower a woman's social status but not a man's, and it's at least one important reason why male homosexuality is stigmatized far more than women's homosexuality. Part of masculism's vocation is to dismantle that traditional notion and reshape our cultural attitude toward male sexuality in a positive, or at least va…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/22 02:17 AM
4

I sometimes wondered why there were slightly more women on the planet That's not the case. There are slightly more men on the planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/11/21 08:50 PM
14

Men from our past have passed on things that we still do today. So did women. But the blame is highly mitigated in both cases, since people were generally just perpetuating what they'd been taught. And no one gets credit/blame for the initial design and implementation of gender roles. That stuff emerged independently of anyone's understanding or control.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/10/21 07:19 PM
10

Sometimes I see people, of various ideological backgrounds, make a really bad argument. Something like: "The other side will accuse us of [negative trait] no matter what we do, so we may as well just carry on however we want, without worrying about [negative trait]!" Maybe it's true that you'll be accused of the negative trait no matter what you do, but you should still do your best to ensure that the accusation is false rather than true. (I'm assuming here that the trait really is negative; som…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 07:32 AM
20

'Girls run things' and similar slogans strike me as bizarrely antifeminist messages. At least, they're antithetical to the usual feminist concept of patriarchy, which says in essence that it's men who run things and women who are unfairly excluded from running things.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/08/20 03:40 AM
9

I take no issue with terms like 'fragile masculinity' and 'male fragility' if they're used in the right spirit. There is indeed something fragile--sometimes the term used is 'precarious'--about masculinity. In the traditional system of gender roles, men are 'human doings' whose worth is always subject to revocation and who thus constantly need to prove themselves and thereby earn or re-earn their status and respectability. The problem is when people talk about 'male fragility' as if it's some so…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/20 12:23 AM
1

The global population is majority male, actually.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 07:28 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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