TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ayyeih-na_eloheykhem Archive

View 0 posts and 46 comments by ayyeih-na_eloheykhem 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

This ideal of "feminine, self-sacrificial mothers" is the province of the monetarily privileged and it has always been that way. Hmm, I'm very curious, is there a general or consistent trend of women in more affluent classes working less?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/14 01:42 AM
1

For you, with my feminist hat on, I have only this reply: Gird your loins like a man; I will ask, and you will inform Me. Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations? Speak if you have understanding. Who put wisdom in the hidden parts? Who gave understanding to the mind? Have you an arm like God's? Can you thunder with a voice like His? Deck yourself now with grandeur and eminence; clothe yourself in glory and majesty. Scatter wide your raging anger; set every proud man and bring him low.…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/14 01:25 AM
4

Cool. This definition might be a letdown for some people but I could get behind it. Its a philosophic lenses in which to examine human social interactions and power dynamics that assumes equality of worth and power of both genders. Are you referring to "power" in the most general sense of being a rational agent, viz. having both goals and the capability to achieve them? And [considering that you said "a", not "the" philosophic lens, as feminism entails a specific analytic tradition or theoretica…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/14 12:48 AM
1

Some isolated specific predictions of EP might be wrong, but I find that evolutionary psychology is overall a quite robust edifice - there is an upper bound on how wrong the entire thing can be. The "biosocial" thesis that we are nigh-infinitely adaptable is definitely appealing but I don't think it's really supported.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/14 02:51 AM
6

Possible yes. It depends whether that "deserve" thought manifests as "women ought to like me more" or as "a good universe would be one where positive qualities lead to positive outcomes, I wish this were a good universe". The former is entitled the latter is not. What about "based on what women say one would expect that they wouldn't be attracted to these men with no morals"?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/14 07:44 PM
1

Digression: I would say, Say not "Masculine means X", say "X means masculinity". Perhaps the concept of masculinity is universal, although how it is expressed may not be. Viz. the underlying semantics or meaning of masculinity is universal: that males are put by nature to be the more competitive sex. I think you can say that human-universally that's roughly what masculine things are for essentially, to prove your manliness. So it doesn't have to be like "masculine means doing this thing". Or may…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/14 03:33 AM
3

So, this means, the following type of human relationships all follow this model: if you are a man and do things what people respect, men want to be your friend, women your lover and also friend. If you are a woman who does things people respect, women want to be your friend, and also men want to be your friend. So there is only one exception: men are not attracted to women who do things people respect. Men are more likely to be attracted to women who look sexy. Does not this difference re: respe…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/14 03:03 AM
1

BTW it's not about blood T level. I believe it's androgenization of the brain in the prenatal or some other stage.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/14 02:56 AM
2

I always consider TRP insistence of semen removal and dinner service being ideal as being a matter of holding women to extremely low standards- like you feel like you can't do better. For men this arrangement is better than nothing, whereas for women it's worse than nothing (because women value certain qualities a lot more than men). IMHO that's the key difference that makes vaginas much more expensive than penises.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/14 01:31 AM
-1

How often do you see men specifically going after financially secure or high-status women? Or after creative/geek/whetever types? Do men even categorize women by these types at all (as women seem to do)? No, men's "types" aren't based on the same criteria as women's "types". (Ignoring the ethics of categorizing people... well everyone does it. It goes into criteria for whom you want to date after all.) I believe (though I'm not sure) that when men use these categories or criteria, they are looki…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/14 09:25 PM
3

have not lost any rights. By the way, from a (radical) feminist perspective, just having legal rights for women isn't enough, right? Are you applying the same standards to feminism as to MRAs?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/14 06:13 AM
2

Attraction: Consensus mate preferences are the most sex-differentiated component of mate preferences, and aren't affected much by social roles. In the attraction domain (as well as in other domains), in some ways most men are like that and most women are like that. That's why consensus attraction is a thing. There seems to be a human universal template to attraction, and it continually strikes me how little individual variation there is in this template. In some ways that template is sex-differe…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/14 04:37 AM
2

Yeah and like fizolof said you would need more data points, you'd need to chart every country in the world and not just a select few to prove the existence of the association you claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/14 11:36 PM
1

A case of Simpson's paradox? Or maybe the data that you present is confounded by factors such as wealth/GDP.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/14 11:18 PM
0

Even if these complaints about sexism in these fields were valid I don't think they explain the gender composition. Sexism doesn't explain why some traditionally masculine fields (e.g. medicine or law) have equalized faster than others (e.g. physics, CS). And take Christianity too: for all we know, it should be a misogynistic as fuck old boy's club (at least compared to atheism). So why do more women go to church, why are women more religious in the west? Does God see men as disposable or someth…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/14 05:45 PM
1

but that women are actually physiologically influenced more harshly by issues in the relationships than men. a.k.a. women become unhaaaapy? Yeah this is how I always interpreted it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/14 02:38 AM
1

This reminds me of a theory of why women with strong opinions, or are assertive, or women who disagree, are seen as less likeable - specifically, I am not sure how much this explains it, but it's one proximate reason. Whatever the reason, women are seen as people-oriented, not task-oriented - they are seen as being ad hominem creatures in the literal sense. So when women express a disagreement, to observers' eyes it's perceived as an attack on the person with whom she is disagreeing with. So if …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/14 01:16 AM
3

Did these studies check for confounders such as partnered/single status? (viz. as your comment stands now, "supportive relationships" confounds relationship status and relationship support. Perhaps relationship STATUS drives men's health outcomes, whereas relationship QUALITY drives women's health outcomes.) And it would be interesting to know what kinds of support men benefit from or are harmed by.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 01:12 PM
1

No, actually, status-seeking behavior is distinct from aggression. There is not a drect link between testosterone and aggression; there's a link between tesosterone and status-seeking, and that can just as well take the form of the opposite of aggression: greater cooperative effort. Why don't you believe testosterone level is responsible for greater status seeking behavior in males?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 07:03 AM
1

The truth of the matter is that actual survey of the facts shows throughout that time and in various cultures, women innovated I'm just very curious... can you e.g. give a list of examples of female inventions in diverse cultures (not just tell me to "read this book")?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 06:37 AM
2

Agreed, it may very well be that the red pill underestimates the importance of relational mate value. It would do redpillers good if they paid more heed to close relationships research in general and not just on SMV. Although it's possible they perceive themselves so lacking in consensual mate value/SMV that they might need to focus on that.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 06:06 AM
6

without the brokering reward of sexual access men will not be coaxed into commitment. What if sex was a necessary but not sufficient factor for commitment?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 04:26 AM
4

The problem causing "sexual economics" may actually be that men want sex and relationships more than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 03:33 AM
3

This study found no support for the sexual economics model (at least for money). But I would be more satisfied with a study showing that women aren't more implicitly attracted to financial success than men. So perhaps, this is the way I'd look at sexual economics. Sexual economics, at least in some forms, is actually a cheapening of sex for women by lowering their status. When women need providers to survive, the price is just money, it's easier for men to use that bargain. On the other hand whe…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 03:10 AM
1

You're proposing alternative, more utilitarian explanations for promoting patriarchy? I see. But I still see a big caveat to women being valued for their accomplishments... I think men value similar level of achievement to them, viz. a high status women will only be valued by high status men, and medium status men will value medium status women. (Which is in a way a good thing for the high status woman.) It's not high achievement ipso facto that causes men to value/women to be valued. It's women…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 12:08 AM
1

Perhaps I'm just dense, but... still curious about how you would respond to this: If men valued women's wealth and achievements then why would they/the patriarchy benefiting men have suppressed it in the first place? We should expect to see women be objectified for their accomplishments too, don't you think? And It's all about perspective, man I don't interpret it that way? These tribal beauty pageants could really be a competition over of how good a body artist you were... not how good you look…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/14 10:10 PM
1

And what happens when women are allowed all the same economic freedoms and opportunities as men? Their wealth and achievements will also attract mates, and they can pick and choose from those as they like the same as men (see Madonna or other rich/powerful women). If men valued women's wealth and achievements then why would they have suppressed it in the first place? Why would women still be preferring to show off their looks and clothes and not achievements? And meanwhile every study I read sti…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/14 09:35 PM
5

I've read that men frequently have submissive fantasies, so I wasn't surprised by that. I was more surprised by the number of women having dominant fantasies. Then I noticed this methodological issue. Perhaps if you measure frequency of each fantasy you might see more sex differentiation. Looks like we'll need a meta-analysis to settle this.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/14 12:59 AM
5

"I have fantasized" != "I often fantasize"... This survey doesn't tell you much about the rates people have these fantasies in day to day life.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/14 10:54 PM
1

Education and intelligence aren't absolutely necessary though, the way it seems to be for women.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/14 04:20 AM
1

And that male status is enhanced by partner choice and vice-versa, but also familial ??? So, for example, we know that guys won't marry "down" very commonly either. And we also know that in inherited status what girls and boys get from their family is different. (Except eldest girls get a bump in life achievement compared to their sisters- theorized that being an only child balanced the being a girl effect). HOWEVER historically there's not that much actual marrying up going on- with males pairi…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/14 12:42 AM
1

basically I keep saying to various people -but there's many ways to be attractive, and people keep reading that as "All you need is quality X!" Bingo, it's basically the consensus vs. idiosyncrasy aspect. A large part of PPD debates revolve around how much partner variance (i.e. consensus) vs. relationship variance (i.e. individual differences) in mate value there is. It's common sense that the former exists but TRP often overstates the importance of the former. And it makes sense to me that con…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/14 05:15 PM
1

Sorry to resurrect a week old thread but... let's talk about this a bit more. This speed dating study and this study show that the effect of intelligence is significant only for women. There is a significant sex difference. So basically there seems to be only a small difference in stated preferences for intelligence (which is often gender reversed if you look at recent studies) but a larger difference in actual preference. Which suggests nature and not nurture. And let me share a personal anecdo…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/14 03:34 PM
3

That's where we disagree here... I think owing to their upbringing a lot of men want to be "feminist" (i.e. positive toward agency of women) or "not superficial" in their preferences. But their behavior and desires don't match that. There was a study about men's responses to women who are smarter than them. Men who were told that a woman outperformed them, but who did not witness her do so, were more attracted to the smarter woman than the dumber woman. However in a live interaction they were le…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/14 05:13 PM
3

Digression about female selectivity: It is influenced by social scripts in which men approach women. (When only women approach the sex difference in selectivity disappears.) However, I believe that social script exists because men want more sex than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/14 03:03 PM
1

Namely, I don't know exactly what the clinical significance of the greater difference in implicit than explicit gender identity is. The study is overall a very high powered study that found small (but I guess significant) gender differences. We may find a larger difference for implicit agentic/communal traits, which may be smaller or larger than differences in self-reported agentic/communal traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 04:47 PM
2

I think there's no difference for looks, period: This is often cited in support of sex differences but it shows a null finding in dyadic interactions. This study found no consistent difference for either short-term or long-term mating mindsets for physical attractiveness. Plus there are many speed dating studies performed on a wide variety of attractiveness targets.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 07:02 PM
2

Not with literally everything else. They may value niceness and kindness but less for agentic ( = conventionally masculine) traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 04:56 PM
1

http://psych.nmsu.edu/faculty/marks/pubs/Marks2006.pdf A paper from the same authors finds that the double standard emerges consistently only in social situations.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 04:53 PM
5

Implicit associations between words, which makes no sense at all. The study used sexual pictures, not words for sex. And traditional IAT with words has been found to be very valid, look it up. That a woman makes no implicit connection between the words "money" and "sex" has nothing to do with whether she perceives a man wearing her culturally context sensitive high wealth/status symbols as more attractive than an identical man in garb indicating he is of lower social class. I wish I could just s…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 05:31 AM
2

You do have a point though, social role theory vis-à-vis mate preferences hasn't really been tested yet, until someone demonstrates that the sex difference in valuing earning prospects in actual attraction settings varies in the predicted direction with gender equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 05:18 AM
2

The term "equality" does seem to be loaded with extraneous political and affective connotations. So here are the terms I use: "gender parity" denotes "equality of outcome", or to denote more neutrally the sexes being the same in some particular aspect. "gender equity" denotes "equality of opportunity" or what we want: fairness/no unfair treatment based on sex itself, or unfair role limitations. "gender equality" is reserved for the ideological stance, or an objective index of gender equ(al)ity, …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 05:08 AM
2

Read what I wrote. The study isn't just a survey - they primed the subjects first, and measured implicit association. (see this for another example) which tends to predict actual behavior more.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 05:02 AM
5

The study measured implicit associations too not just conscious ones. The lack of an effect of priming on implicit associations is their main result.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 04:57 AM
-1

Yeah, certainly there's a confound that men are thinking about how to get sex more than women (so rather than patriarchy the tradeoff may just be more salient for men), and that many women aren't attractive enough to be able to negotiate an exchange (i.e. more attractive women may display this effect). But I think the study itself is mostly OK, modulo these confounds.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 04:00 AM
1

This finding may be a non-negligible determinant sometimes but I think it fails to explain the invalidity of explicit/stated preferences for physical attractiveness. If men really are more affected by physical attractiveness than women but just don't want to be mean, you would expect their implicit preferences (which are valid) to correlate with this difference, and be less valid in live interaction settings. And couples do stick together because of their bond developed with one another, and any…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/14 11:25 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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