TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TheMedPack Archive

View 0 posts and 276 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)
2

Agreed.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 09:14 PM
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
-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
3

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
–

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
–

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
–

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
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

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
2

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

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

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

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
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
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
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
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
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
–

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

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

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

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
–

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
–

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
–

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
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

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
–

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
–

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

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

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

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
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

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

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

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

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
–

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

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