TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

lynx_and_nutmeg Archive

View 0 posts and 335 comments by lynx_and_nutmeg 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)
-4

Stumbled on this from /r/all. Lmao of course MRAs are allying with TERFs here, with absolutely zero self-awareneness. They really took a look at the real life caricature of "evil misandrist feminists" and went "well I hate all feminists so if TERFs hate most other feminists and most other feminists hate them, that must mean TERFs are my allies". Same logic as TERFs allying with the far-right who hate women just because they hate trans women even more. Hope they prepared a nice marinade for their…
/r/MensRights20/04/24 01:39 PM
1

Because here comes super ma'am, with his (excuse me, her) higher bone density, larger frame, and increased musculature developed over years of of puberty with gallons of testosterone Did you read the study I linked at all or are you just being deliberately obtuse now? How many times I can repeat that neither muscle mass nor bone density, not even some parts of this "larger male frame" survive the loss of testosterone? Do you understand that older men tend to lose muscle mass as they age because …
/r/PussyPassDenied12/07/19 02:36 PM
1

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39158/transgender-player-dominating-womens-handball-amanda-prestigiacomo So she's 6'2 and 220lbs. That's the weight of an extremely buff male athlete. And still had high testosterone levels. Hasn't finished transitioning, then, should have been disqualified. Agree with you on that one. https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294 They don't say anything about her physical metrics, this is not evidence. h…
/r/PussyPassDenied12/07/19 10:53 AM
1

We only have the amazing coincidence that out of millions of female competitors, a few biological males dominate every sport they're allowed to compete in despite apparently being "disadvantaged" lol. Again, show me specific examples, please. I don't watch any sports so I wouldn't know. But there's like hundreds of different sports out there, you're claiming every single them is dominated by trans women, while in the same breath saying trans women in sports are too rare to conduct proper studies…
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/19 11:30 PM
1

I suppose you just think it's an incredible coincidence that trans "women" are dominating competition with actual women in any sport requiring physicality. Show me where all those dominating trans women are. I've literally only heard about a couple. As I said, selection bias. Nobody's interested in trans women who lose. Female weight lifting records that have stood for decades are suddenly all being shattered by these dIsAdvAnTagEd "women." what an incredible story of heroism. Stood for decades,…
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/19 08:59 PM
1

All I am saying is that actual trans athletes and hermaphrodite athletes should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. Trans women (as in, male to female) are no stronger than an average woman, even weaker if anything, because by the time they've finished transitioning, they actually have lower testosterone levels than an average woman - much lower, in fact, critically low, because they had to chemically block their testosterone all this time, unlike cis women who had naturally circulating…
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/19 06:36 PM
1

Those women are rare, but there are actually some women who have extremely high testosterone levels for women. The tallest woman in the world was 7 feet 7 inches, and shas biologically female. Exceptions always exist in nature. Unless they have proof that they're trans, you can't just automatically deny they're women. Last time I checked, sex was determined by chromosomes, because that's the only objective, mutually exclusive characteristic - either you have XY or XX (of course even there there …
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/19 03:50 PM
0

It's not a skill gap, it's a strength and speed gap. Women aren't inherently less talented, dumber or worse at technique than men, there are just a lot of spots where strength and speed wins over skill and technique. I mean, if giants existed (actual giants, like 20 feet tall), you could take one completely untrained and still have it wipe the floor with the men's world class team, simply because it has a huge advantage of strength, speed and reach. But you wouldn't say it won because it was mor…
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/19 09:16 AM
1

There are some cis women who just naturally have abnormally high testosterone levels, you just don't see them in sports because they get disqualified for "cheating"... Yeah, I guess if you automatically categorise every extremely strong woman as a man or a doper, there are no extremely strong women out there. But abnormal men don't get disqualified, they get celeberated, even if they literally have severe genetic abnormalities that put them a mile ahead of everyone else. Michael Phelps is litera…
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/19 09:05 AM
2

This is actually a very good argument for one theory how to improve women's sports - drop trying to make them exact copies of the male versions. Men and women are different, the sports they play can be different too, adapted specifically for women's bodies to bring out their strengths or minimise the impact of lower strength and speed. Sports were invented for men, by men, and obviously the standard is according to the upper limits of what men are capable of. Women have a much larger distance to…
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/19 08:52 AM
1

Only in modern times when we've created a strict cut off age for adulthood at 18. That's a cultural concept, not a biological one. Biologically speaking, a person who's gone through puberty and has a post-pubescent levels of sex hormones and developed secondary sexual characteristics would already be considered man/woman. If that 14 year boy has the teatosterone levels of a 25 year old man - as in, sufficiently high enough to give him a boost of ~30% more muscle mass for free - there shouldn't b…
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/19 08:31 AM
1

Does your wife genuinely dislike her career, or does she just hate that she has to juggle both her career and being the primary parent or being burdened by social gender expectations and prejudice?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/18 11:43 PM
1

Hence why I said potentially pregnant What does it matter? Either she’s pregnant or not, and if she’s far along enough to be encumbered by it, it’s going to be visible. You know, it wasn't a bear, but a tiger in East India killed 500 people. One tiger. That was certainly not the first time that a deadly animal decided to cause big trouble for humans. That is what they sent the men to deal with back in the day. It’s not that women would have been incapable of killing that tiger if they had to, an…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/18 11:12 PM
2

If they used spears to kill the bear it would still be men. Why would potentially pregnant women stand in the bear's sights? Women weren’t pregnant all the time. In current hunter-gatherer societies women have a child every 4 years or so, ~5 children per woman on average. It’s really unlikely that a bear would walk into a camp, but if they did, most likely people would stay away and wait until it leaves, or scare it away with fire, since most animals are afraid of it (and hence afraid of humans)…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/18 12:23 PM
1

Dude, a bear is so much stronger than a human that the strength difference becomes completely rrelevant. No man could kill a bear with his bare hands (no pun intended). Even with a weapon he would have an extremely hard time doing it alone. Earthquake, wtf? Women were likely the ones saving themselves and their children from the rubble while men were away, safer in open spaces. Seriously, you do realise that women didn’t have male guardians following them around 24/7? They would go out alone or …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/18 09:32 AM
1

So you think modern gender roles just suddenly appeared in a vacuum or what?... What do you think caused modern gender roles, then, if they’re completely unrelated to the whole human history or gendered labour division and reproductive roles? It just seems like you’re moving the goalposts now.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/18 06:55 AM
1

Dude, humans have had fire long before agriculture was discovered. And, no, you don’t get to redefine what “society” means just to fit your agenda. The cornerstone of “humanity”, what initially separated us from other primates, was our large brains and use of language. Hunter-gatherers were humans for hundreds of thousands of years. They had language. They were advanced tool makers. They had religion and culture. I don’t know why you think that planting crops somehow immediately made humans supe…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/18 03:49 AM
1

Those studies are on hunter-gatherers which is the way humans have lived for 99% of the human history. Why are you even bringing fire into this? Where did I say that fire wasn’t important? You really seem to have some very strong personal agenda.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/18 02:57 AM
2

Berries were just a condiment. The bulk of the supply came from starchy tubers and nuts that are relatively high in calories and nutritious, and honey (very high in calories, gathered by both men and women, depending on the society and type of bees). “Gathering” also includes insects, larvae, eggs and immobile animals such as shellfish. In some cases the definition of “gathering” even includes fishing and catching small game in traps, while the term “hunting” is reserved for an act of actively p…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/18 09:10 PM
2

What else should they do, finish high school and sit at home for the rest of their life, hoping that some high-earning man is going to pick them up right away? Having a career is not a problem, it’s never been. Telling women not to have a career because it’s mutually exclusive with having children is some conservative bullshit... Those women have either been unlucky in some other way, or they simply have too high standards.
/r/MensRights03/07/18 04:10 PM
1

Women didn’t have any more leisure time than men, unless you’re not counting childcare or some of their other tasks as work. I’m sure their productivity itself was lower than men’s, but that’s because an 8 months pregnant or 2 weeks postpartum woman physically can‘t do as much as someone who’s not pregnant or postpartum, and those women had a child every year or two. But maternity leave wasn’t a thing and women weren‘t given any allowances, they had to work as much as they could. Pregnancy can b…
/r/MensRights03/07/18 03:56 PM
1

Well, duh, of course most women in the past had to work. If there are feminists who claim otherwise, then they’re extremely ignorant, but I’m sure what most feminists are saying is that for most of history women didn’t have the same opportunities for education and prestigious, enjoyable and well-paid work, which is absolutely true. Female factory workers certainly weren’t clamouring for a right to work even more than they already were, it was rich wives of powerful husbands who were rightfully f…
/r/MensRights03/07/18 03:43 PM
2

There was a lot of overlap in the tasks of men and women, especially when it came to fieldwork. There was a recent study that came out in November showing that Neolithic women had 16% higher bone density than today’s female Olympic rowers, echoing similar findings from a study on the bones of medieval women from Northern England, they were found to have been very sturdy and muscular. This shows their work was by no means light - and they had to do it while pregnant too. There wasn’t a lot of let…
/r/MensRights03/07/18 02:54 PM
2

www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/300083 This is a very cute theory and all, except it goes to the contrary of all the research. In most societies women play an active role in providing food and other vital resources like water and firewood (the latter two are usually women's responsibility to provide), and in many they're the primary providers. Food providing is not a biologically sex-specific role but depends purely on the geographical location and type of society. The only sex-relevan…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/18 01:03 PM
2

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Read up on huntet-gatherers. You’re creating some fantasy scenario where the biggest baddest men were fighting and dominating everybody all the time, that’s not how any society operates at all, whether in humans or other animals.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/18 11:27 AM
8

Humans are quite weak and defenseless compared to most animals. We’re relatively slow and have low muscle mass to size ratio (a chimpanzee could easily tear apart a human with their bare hands while being only half their weight). Our skin is soft, we don’t have any defenses like scales or horns, no claws or sharp teeth. That’s why humans have always used their brains and tools to kill other animals and defend against them. Women can use tools just as men. “Man the provider” model is a myth based…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/18 08:22 AM
1

Men don't have it all, they just don't get pregnant, meaning they don't have to leave their jobs for years at a time, and can get more work experience. Women can do the same thing, there are just some fundamental obstacles that come with that. The only time women are physically forced to take time off in a way that men don't need to is physical recovery from childbirth, which is 4-6 weeks. That's a very short amount of time that's not going to jeopardise your career in any way. That's an amount …
/r/MensRights01/07/18 07:36 AM
1

Both men and women are expected to provide for their families, period. “Breadwinner” means someone earning money to provide for their family. Maybe what you mean is men are still encouraged to earn more than women, but these days it’s not a huge difference anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/18 01:02 AM
1

No it doesn’t. In most countries women have been expected to work for quite a while now. These days a double income is essential for most families. Red Pillers seem to be weirdly stuck in 1910s.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/18 12:18 AM
1

*American society. FTFY
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/18 06:57 PM
0

... do you do math? 1 in 400 is 0.25%. That's what you deem as "super high"? Remember those numbers are only averages based on nothing more than age anyway. The full risk of an individual woman is going to have only a very rough correlation with these numbers. That's why personalised testing is much more important while those preliminary age-based statistics should be ignored. And have not you seen down syndrome rates rise in the US? Iceland has almost eradicated Down syndrome because close to 1…
/r/MensRights28/06/18 03:00 PM
1

...No? That list you linked to literally includes "construction workers". Number 13. And construction work in the US is miles safer than it is in India. At least half of professions on that list are full of women in most countries outside the West.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/18 02:31 PM
1

What would you deem a dangerous job, then? Carrying a pack of bricks on your hear doesn’t meet your definition? How about walking through a forest carrying that huge load of firewood? You could get attacked by predators or people, accidentally trip and fall into some pit, etc... And you think those women have an option for light duty when pregnant? Childbirth is a lot more dangerous too in those conditions. The vast majority of jobs aren’t inherently dangerous, they just have a high risk of inju…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/18 12:40 PM
-1

Are you spending 16 hours per day washing clothes, with no days off? And, sorry, the soap you make isn’t anything like the soap they used 100 years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/18 12:35 PM
1

Are you kidding me?... Most of the European roalty became inbred eventually, because they were all marrying cousins and such. You realize it adds up, right? Takes generations to show. Genetic diversity is crucial for any species. That’s exactly why mating choice is so important, it filters out poor genetic material and allows animals (and people) to choose the most genetically compatible partner. Having only one man to choose from means zero choice... Also, funny how every single person who prom…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/18 12:32 PM
1

Everybody's disposable. Everyone has to earn some value in some way, do something to make people care about them and respect them, and in order to survive. Aside from maybe the royals, nobody's getting worshipped and taken care of literally just for existing. Yeah, that's just life, you know. You have to do shit to survive and make people care about you. Everybody does that. If you want people to love you, you have to make effort to be a nice person, help people and take care of them. If you wan…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/18 11:18 AM
2

if 49 men die, the size of the next generation is not affected. If 49 men die and the remaining one is lucky enough to be fertile and survive long enough to reproduce with all the remaining fertile women, the society would disappear within a few generations due to extreme inbreeding. Do people not understand the most elementary genetics?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/18 11:10 AM
1

Dude, this is 2018, not 1918. Most women everywhere today are expected to work, and can't afford not to. Men are non longer "breadwinners", an average woman is earning 80%-90% of what an average man is earning.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/18 11:06 AM
0

I don't think you have any idea of what washing clothes by hand with old harsh soaps and scalding water for 14-16 hours every day was like...
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/18 10:59 AM
1

and before, you were working 14 hours a day for 25 cents until you dropped dead of black lung at 30. Women in the past were working just as hard. Not just outside home, in factories and mines, but agricultural and farm labour was back-breaking. Archaeological evidence from the past shows women used to very butch compared to today, due to all that hard labour they were doing. And women in poor developing regions are still doing it today. Does this look easy to you? She doesn't even have shoes. Or…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/18 10:51 AM
1

Are they dying because they're men or are they dying because they're in more dangerous jobs? I suspect the latter. Yes, unless you believe there's some conspiracy to deliberately kill a select number of men at work (which would be totally counterproductive from financial perspective), it's definitely the latter. "Workplace death gap" is the MRA version of "wage gap" - it's a result of men and women making different choices, not some conspiracy or systematic discrimination. Are the choices men an…
/r/MensRights28/06/18 06:50 AM
0

What of it? Similar numbers. 1 in 400 risk at 35 is extremely low. Doesn't really matter if it's double or triple, or quadruple of that at 20, it's still way too low to warrant any alarm. Now at 42 it's more significant, but still the vast majority of cases are healthy.
/r/MensRights28/06/18 06:30 AM
0

Military service is a social responsibility. One can object to it on moral or other grounds and do so fairly. They can also do so while maintaining that IF its a social responsibility, that it has to be one born by everyone. It'd be like saying "I think we should get rid of income tax and replace it with a higher national sales tax" ....but while we're all paying income tax, everyone needs to do it. Including women. I don't understand this position... Either you agree to something or you don't. …
/r/MensRights28/06/18 06:28 AM
1

It's in the same article... What about birth defects? The risk of chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome does rise with a woman’s age—such abnormalities are the source of many of those very early, undetected miscarriages. However, the probability of having a child with a chromosomal abnormality remains extremely low. Even at early fetal testing (known as chorionic villus sampling), 99 percent of fetuses are chromosomally normal among 35-year-old pregnant women, and 97 percent among 40-y…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 06:06 PM
2

That term was used in the past but not anymore. Before family planning became the norm, the average age of last birth for women was 42, getting pregnancy beyond 35 was completely normal, the vast majority of women continued having children beyond that age. However, in later half of 20th century people started having a lot fewer children than before. Women usually married early, had 1-3 children in their 20s and then stopped. That's why back then, being pregnant in mid 30s or beyond was seen as a…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 05:54 PM
2

No, it’s 40. Dude, the term “geriatric pregnancy” hasn’t been used for decades... It’s called “advanced maternal age” now. And it doesn’t really mean much, only that you get offered few additional tests. “Advanced maternal age” simply means there are certain increased risks, it doesn’t mean it’s impossible to have a healthy pregnancy beyond that age. The vast majority of women between 40 and menopause still do have healthy pregnancies. In most cases foetal abnormalities tend to be naturally reso…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 04:00 PM
1

Statistically speaking, a single mother with a career and children will have to severely neglect either the children or the career. Not to mention there is a very high tendency to realize that it was huge mistake to do those things, but only after it is too late. Yes, because most single mothers have to work two jobs. Good thing most children have two parents, then, isn't it? Too bad most of them don't have grandparents heavily involved, or other relatives. Extended family, not nuclear family, i…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 01:35 PM
1

I just don’t think they should warrant extra time off from work or on exams, etc. Well, whether they should or not depends precisely on whether or not it's deemed a pathology. In literally any other body part than the uterus, chronic pain is deemed an actual disability. People having this condition do get time off work on their bad days.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 12:44 PM
2

As my mother can assure you, having a good job and being a good mother at the same time is practically fucking impossible. In her case, she literally didn't have enough time to both be at home and working as a doctor full time. What would you consider spending "enough time at home"? Why can men "have it all", then? They have jobs and they have children. They still spend enough time with their children that they get to know them, and their children grow to know them and love them. Women can do ex…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 12:42 PM
1

But menstrual pain is a pathology. No normal regular bodily function should be causing chronic pain if you’re healthy. We should be pathologising menstrual pain, that way women can actually get help and treatment instead of being told “suck it up, that’s just part of being a woman”. Just because most women’s periods aren’t that painful, doesn’t mean it’s not a problem, even if it doesn’t affect their productivity, it still affects their wellbeing and quality of life. Acne is extremely common and…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 07:28 AM
-5

So just because the half of the population is getting screwed, you would want the other half to suffer the same, out of sheer spite? Let me guess, while we’re at it, if we can’t bring down the number of workplace deaths for men, we should kill the same amount of women to make it fair? Or how about reintroducing female circumcision to the US because it refuses to let go of male circumcision? Nevermind that 50% more innocent babies would be subjected to mutilation, at least there would be equality…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 06:20 AM
-1

Millions of women all over the world who have both a successful job and children are begging to differ. Seriously, is this an American thing? I’m European and have never, in my whole life, encountered this attitude that a woman must choose either to have children or a good job. In my country “stay at home mothers” aren’t even a thing, women just take a maternity leave for 1-2 years and then return to work. The most successful woman I personally know has two children and is a very devoted parent,…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 05:58 AM
2

if you're the only female in a male dominated area.. you're going to get a lot of appreciation, encouragement, inclusiveness, and warm regards. Tell that to all those hundreds of women who share their sexism stories in those fields. You can't possibly believe they're all lying, can you? Ok, some of them maybe, but all of them? I think MRAs and anti-feminists tend to be disproportionately exposed to this highly feminist social environment, so much that they don't realise it's a tiny, tiny bubble …
/r/MensRights22/06/18 04:01 PM
3

I've been saying it the whole time. I wonder when the media and feminists *and* MRAs will finally catch on. I suppose from feminist perspective, there's a simple explanation why there are enough women in all STEM fields except computer science and engineering. Both of these fields are known to have certain cultural connotations that others don't. There's a very strong "geek culture" in them, and parts of it are seen as not welcoming or even outright hostile to women, at least much more so than o…
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:05 AM
4

It's not about the "special bond". Not all women get it. What I'm saying is it's absolutely, utterly impossible for any man to even begin to imagine the whole physical experience of it, with all its aspects, both positive and negative. I wouldn't say a woman like myself who's never given birth can imagine it either, but of course if it came between men and women, the women would still be closer. What I'm saying is that physically bearing children shouldn't be taken for granted. It's a legitimate…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/18 04:35 PM
14

I've done manual labour in a factory. I've also taken care of my grandmother with Alzheimeirs. I would rather do 40 hours per week of that factory work than 20 hours per week of that emotional labour.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/18 04:29 PM
3

That's why fertility rates in developed world are so low. In half of Europe it's already as low as 1.4 children per woman. Heck, even in India it's already down to 2.4, down from 6 just four decades ago. Fewer and fewer people anywhere in the world choose to have children, because the costs are increasingly high and the benefits increasingly low. Why did people in the past want to have children? 1) extra labour force at home. Not needed anymore. 2) your children would take care of you when you g…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/18 03:25 PM
6

You don't have to have children. This is the 21st century. Most men still want to have children today. And for them, having children is a completely different experience to which they can't even relate to.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/18 03:16 PM
6

So you automatically consider any physical labour to be harder than any intellectual or emotional labour? Plenty of non-manual labour jobs can be very stressful.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/18 03:11 PM
1

That sub is cancer. I remember when it used to be funny memes and pictures of kittens, now it's a victimhood fest just like /r/TwoXChromosomes, if not worse.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 04:13 AM
5

women's skin thins/ages/wrinkles in a way that men's doesn't (women's skin often shows striking signs of aging before the woman even hits 30) No it doesn't. This is just part of the old "men age like wine, women age like milk" myth. It's true that there are some sex differences in ageing, but overall one sex doesn't age better or worse on average than the other. The shitty thing is that signs of ageing on men are often socially constructed as attractive or at least ignored, while the same signs …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/18 11:37 PM
4

That's because famous men in modern societies aren't judged on their looks the way women are. Look at ancient Greek statues, they worshiped men's bodies, not women's. Men's bodies were seen as the paradigm of human beauty. And, actually, according to more reliable sources Cleopatra wasn't abnormally beautiful, she was likely just an averagely attractive woman, but a great politician and manipulator. But her enemies slandered her by portraying her as a whore who enslaved men with her looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/18 11:31 PM
1

Women tend to take better pictures.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/18 04:23 PM
1

Women have evolved to naturally have more body fat than men. Also, women carry body fat differently than men, many women can have higher body fat levels while still retaining beautiful figure. Men have evolved to have relatively little body fat, and it's harder for them to gain fat. The fact that today there are more overweight and obese men and women just shows the disparity of how women take better care of their health and appearance. So, if you have a man and woman with the same body fat leve…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/18 04:20 PM
1

Oh, right, I always forget Reddit is mostly Americans... In my country we don't call staying with kid for 2 years "stay at home parenting", we call that "maternity leave". Anyway, I agree that for older children daycare is more beneficial than staying at home (I also believe it's more beneficial for babies to be taken care of by more people than just one, by their father, relatives or nanny at home), but still you do realise that one way or another someone is taking care of them, right? Working …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/18 01:13 PM
1

According to posters here on PPD, women always worked. In the mines, in the fields, from home; almost everywhere one found men working, a woman could be found working nearby. They also had grandparents or older children at home who were looking after the young kids while mothers were at work. That is, if all those children weren't out working alongside them. So unless extended families and child labour become a thing again, it's not exactly feasible... Women always had a choice. They didn't have…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/18 11:48 AM
2

All women had full time jobs and did all of the household chores and child rearing. So they left 2 year old toddlers alone at home while they were out to work? No they didn't. They were paying someone else to take care of their child while they were at work. That's how it work. Young children require constant care and supervision, which kind of makes it hard to get other things done at the same time, and definitely doesn't allow you to leave home for long periods of time. Women can't be in two p…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/18 11:43 AM
1

Of course women would be happier being SAHMs if they weren't thought of as trash by the rest of society. That still doesn't mean they'd be happy being SAHMs. People who endorse SAHMs generally believe in what they think are "traditional" gender roles, as in, universal gender roles that have existed for most of the human history. There are two problems with that: their ideas of historical gender roles are mostly wrong, and actual historical gender roles would not be possible to replicate in a mod…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/18 11:40 AM
1

There are jobs where diversity actually matters. Do you really think it's a complete coincidence that just as more women started entering academia in areas of history, anthropology, psychology and medical sciences, that we've been discovering more about women's history, bodies and lives in two decades than in the past hundred years? Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of historical and anthropological research on non-white and non-heterosexual people is conduced precisely by p…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/18 10:50 AM
1

Here's some more recent science for you. "Advanced maternal age" is an age where pregnancy gets risky enough that it's automatically classified as "high risk" and is followed much more closely with a lot more interventions. Most countries have looked at the science and decided that 40 is the age where the actual risk warrants the time, effort and money cost of providing all that extra attention to a pregnancy by default. The US isn't exactly known to have reasonable judgment when it comes to pre…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/18 01:23 PM
2

What makes you assume you'd still be able to pull 25 year old women when you're 65 years old versus when you'r'e 45? You can't just keep "upgrading" women every couple of years indefinitely, not unless you're extremely rich, but even then those women hot enough to pique your interest would be much better off picking a less rich (but still rich) a guy who they could still stomach the idea of having sex with.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/18 03:00 PM
1

At 35, women are considered to be advanced maternal age. In most countries "advanced reproductive age" is considered 40, not 35. Much more scientifically accurate.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/18 02:47 PM
1

No, that’s not how it works. After ovulation there’s a drop in estrogen and rise in progesterone. The pill increases estrogen, to higher levels than are found during ovulation, even. And there’s estrogen-only type of pill that doesn’t contain any progesterone. And, as you yourself said, that state is permanent. It’s not supposed to be.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 09:39 AM
1

It’s you who’s clueless, I think... The hormones that make a woman are all the hormones in her body, all of them are equally necessary. Take away one of them and the whole body will unravel. It’s not about the quantity either. Women have much less testosterone than men, but they also need much less, they’re much more sensitive to it. Same with men and estrogen. And, regarding levels, too much of a hormone can be just as bad as not enough of it. Too much estrogen and progesterone doesn’t make a w…
/r/MensRights20/03/18 03:01 AM
1

Dude, your revenge fantasy sounds sweet and all, but I have to disappoint you, most women would be a lot more overjoyed at the option of artificial wombs than most men. Most women don't actually want to be reduced to nothing more than baby incubators. No longer having to endure all that pain, discomfort and sacrifices to have a biological child of their own, being free of the reproductive burden that has defined and limited their roles for thousands of years, this would have FAR bigger positive …
/r/MensRights19/03/18 11:29 AM
4

Well, what do people expect? This is what women have to deal with. Excess estrogen and progesterone are not exactly great for health either (and it blocks testosterone in women as well). I know women who said their whole personality change on the pill, they came off and couldn't recognise themselves. Some studies even show it changes the brain structure, and affects sexual attraction and choice in partners. That's not even touching the other known common risks like blood clots, mental health iss…
/r/MensRights19/03/18 10:54 AM
1

Oh no, believe me, Karen Straughan would be one of the worst choices here. She's to mens rights what Andrea Dworkin and the like are to feminism. Her videos are an embarrassing mix of 20% cherry-picked facts and 80% misrepresentation and ridiculous extrapolation of said facts, factoids, personal anecdotes and strawmen arguments. All presented in the most mocking and condescending way possible, and in an incoherently rambling manner, turning what could easily be 15 minute videos into an hour long…
/r/MensRights15/03/18 12:34 PM
1

How exactly does that prove that "society has historically been much harsher to the average man than the average women"? Reproducing might be the basic evolutionary goal for animals, that doesn't mean it's the ultimate marker of quality of life. Quite the contrary, today women who have more children tend to be poorer, have poorer health, less education and lower quality of life in almost all accounts. Of course it might have been different historically, but still, for all we know most women coul…
/r/MensRights15/03/18 12:29 PM
1

Are most women who put of having a family really doing it because they think it's going to advance their career? To my knowledge, most people today are putting off having children because they can't afford to have children at the same age their parents did. Generally most women these days only have children where they and their partners are financially and mentally in a good place, and that just happens to be in late 20s to early 30s - which is when women are still highly fertile. Another common…
/r/MensRights15/03/18 12:05 PM
3

No, not all of them. Seriously, you think the law in India just operates flawlessly and is equally accessible for everyone? Yeah, that's not how it works there, sadly.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 04:15 PM
1

No need for cognitive dissonance, they'll just chalk this up to "internalised misogyny". That said, I'm getting tired of anti-feminists pointing to examples like this one and going like "Ha, take that feminists!" It just detracts from the actual issue, the fact that there are people out there getting abused. I'm sure those victims don't give a fuck whether their trafficker is a man or a woman, it sucks equally as much. I'm baffled by this common implication that if women are experiencing sexism/…
/r/MensRights10/03/18 11:24 AM
6

"Women in India" aren't a class. There's an extreme level of wealth and class inequality (you think the US has inequality? That's nothing at all compared to India's caste system), and different women lead very different lived based on sheer luck of having been born in a certain family. There are women who have the power to falsely accuse men of rape or campaign for sexist segregation laws like this one, and probably a right to be provided by men while still having their own powerful career. And …
/r/MensRights10/03/18 10:57 AM
2

Yeah, if the woman is passive and the man is in control, that's true. If the man is passive and the woman is in control, it's the opposite. Women can masturbate to orgasm just as easily as man. If, by your words, the woman is "just lying there", literally doing nothing (starfishing?) and the man is doing all the work, he's basically just masturbating with his body, of course it's easy for him to come. But I've met so many men who can't orgasm easily from blowjobs or when the woman is on top or o…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/18 03:52 PM
0

Men are stronger than women, yes, but women aren’t made of porcelain and men aren’t made of steel. It’s definitely very possible for a woman to break a man’s nose or jaw or cause a concussion. Depends a lot on the angle, where and how exactly you hit... The question is whether women are as likely as men to have that necessary level of aggression or drive to really hit with the full intent of causing as much damage as they can, with no inhibition. I’m not saying women are kinder or better people …
/r/MensRights07/03/18 01:40 PM
2

You're in a former satellite state of the Soviet Union, which promoted feminist reforms for a long time. What Soviet ideology promoted was very different from modern feminism. In theory they preached "gender equality", but what it meant in reality was that most women had to work outside home just like men (and often in jobs that today in the West are deemed as masculine) and received equal education with men, and had quite a lot of rights in general, and generally were expected to be strong (phy…
/r/MensRights03/03/18 03:30 PM
1

Serbia is not a "3rd world shithole"... When people talk about societies where women experience lots of actual issues, they're talking of rural regions of central Africa and such. But, yeah, when you think of it it's quite a paradox that in countries where feminism isn't really a thing, women are actually doing better in many ways. I'm from an Eastern European country. Feminism in its current Western form (you know what I'm talking about) is literally nonexistent here. Yet some of the markers ar…
/r/MensRights03/03/18 03:10 PM
1

Both men and women are much less likely to marry someone who already has kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 04:42 PM
2

I think most people deep down fear being single. Not being single temporarily, but ending up alone for the rest of their lives. It's pretty natural. Probably also more likely for people who don't have a strong support network.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 04:39 PM
1

Men can get all those same issues as well. Especially men who have foreskin (except for the dryness one, that's more likely in circumcised men, but women having sex with uncircumcised partners are much less likely to experience dryness either). In fact, sexual injuries men experience are much worse than anything women's genitals could experience. What's the worst injury that could happen to a woman's genitals from bad sex? Irritation, pain, some tearing. What's the worst that could happen to a m…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 04:27 PM
1

Well, most of these countries don't actually use the draft, just have mandatory military training. But they're not training women only to have them sit and done nothing, that would be a massive waste of resources. They're training them to actually put their skills in practice if need be. Of course infantry positions are probably all-male, but that's not because women are protected but because men are better at them.
/r/MensRights28/07/17 01:16 PM
1

They put them everywhere. Some of those countries even have female-only units that are utilised in similar ways as men's units.
/r/MensRights28/07/17 10:14 AM
1

Sure but consistently withholding affection is widely considered a sign of an emotionally abusive relationship. I've always found the term "withholding" in this context to be pretty off. To me the term itself seems to imply a deliberate and manipulative intent not to have sex in order to make a point or achieve some goal, like, "I'm feeling horny and would actually want to have sex with you otherwise but I'm going to deliberately hold it off because fuck you/buy me this thing". How many people a…
/r/MensRights28/07/17 12:58 AM
7

Abolishing the draft is only seriously being considered now because women might have to sign up for it. There are several countries out there that have been drafting women for quite a while and have no intention of abolishing the draft.
/r/MensRights28/07/17 12:45 AM
1

Do you think Kim Jung Un would get on his knees and put my junk in his mouth? Where sure he can bite my dick off but I can smash his face in or easily break his neck. He currently has your dick in your mouth, he could bite your dick off before you could smash his face, and even then you'd still be the one who sustained more damage. "Getting on his knees", so what? Yeah, in some contexts kneeling is a symbol of submission. Not in all contexts, though. If you're kneeling before your dog to pet it,…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 07:39 PM
2

So, the woman has your very sensitive organ in her mouth... full of teeth and all... and your balls being very close to her mouth too... could cause you immense pain very easily at and instant, and at that moment you're extremely vulnerable. And she's in full control of your pleasure, she's the one granting it to you. Yet you still think you're the one in power? Well, keep on believing that if it makes you feel better.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 06:04 PM
1

Modern combat doesn't mean no heavy lifting is required. Yes, and being a woman doesn't mean you can't lift heavy. The problem and question isn't whether women are as strong as men - the answer is no. It's whether women are strong enough - the answer is, yes, some women are. There are highly talented, motivated, brave and strong women out there, women who have already proven themselves capable in combat, but you're just choosing to ignore all the ample examples of women successfully engaging in …
/r/MensRights18/07/17 08:48 AM
1

Ok, so those 3 particular female cops were overpowered by that particular criminal in this particular case. No way this could mean that those individual female cops just happened to suck - yeah, maybe they were accepted by too low standards, maybe they're just too cowardly to fight, or super small and weak. Nope, obviously this must mean that every single female cop in the world sucks. Because this one single video is an objective scientific proof of the whole of female and male population. By t…
/r/MensRights17/07/17 08:44 PM
1

It's alright, you can come out now.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/17 08:25 PM
1

I'm not blaming anyone. There's only so much you can get from statistics, every relationship is an individual one with different faults and failings. All I'm saying is that lesbians' higher break up rate is definitely not due to poorer sexual satisfaction.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/17 08:24 PM
1

No, I'm guessing they have higher breakup rates because women are less willing to tolerate a bad relationship, that's why women also initiate most divorces in heterosexual marriages. However, lesbians do have an easier time orgasming than straight women.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/17 06:34 PM
2

It doesn't have to be submissive... So, what, every time a woman gives you a blowjob you take it as asserting dominance over her or something like that?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/17 06:30 PM
1

Did you not read the article? It happens all the time. Even if women do get accepted under lower standards (which I don't approve of), those standards not lowered enough to compromise the military. Nobody would accept a useless woman to the military no matter their ideas on equality or feminism. Why would you think the government cares about its soldiers? Because it's expensive and time-consuming to train them and there's a limited amount of them? Every business takes care of its equipment. In m…
/r/MensRights17/07/17 01:50 PM
1

In relationship, maybe. But with casual sex? Definitely not, not in my experience at least.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/17 01:27 PM
1

< They aren't capable of being in the army and before the second half of the 20th century they hadn't been accepted in a national/ royal/ imperial army in the ENTIRETY of human history. Many women in all societies have joined the army pretending to be men and performed well enough that nobody suspected them. There have even been female military leaders - not many, of course, but there have been. Ever heard of Celtic queen Boadica who led a successful rebellion against the Romans? Tomoe Gozen, a …
/r/MensRights17/07/17 01:27 PM
2

I was saying i thought it would be nice if women would regularly get horny and feel the urge fuck anything with a dick. Well, if more men stopped assuming that casual sex has to revolve around their dick and were willing to go down on their partners, things might change. But, from what I know, women are a lot more willing to give oral to men than men are willing to give oral to women, and men going down on women in casual night stands is virtually unknown.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/17 12:02 PM
-3

If women weren't capable of being in the army, they wouldn't get accepted, simple as that. You're really overestimating the influence of feminism. No military, even in the most feminist society, would intentionally sabotage itself in the name of false gender equality... Some of the least feminist societies in world, like those in Middle East, have included women in their military for far longer than any Western country. There are different roles in combat, not all of them include having to carry…
/r/MensRights17/07/17 12:00 PM
1

but it's obvious that men and women are not interchangeable sexually, and your post is an example. I'd rather have sex with maybe 75% of women than masturbate. You feel the opposite. Yes, it's obvious that male and female sexuality is not exactly the same. Though it feels ridiculous to me that people would generalise all men and all women to have the same sexuality. In reality, there are immense differences in sexualities between individuals of the same sex. That's why there's such a huge variet…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/17 11:53 AM
1

In caveman times, women needed men in order to survive. She needed to have a man around to hunt and protect her, especially when she was pregnant. In most hunter-gatherer societies women provide half or more of the food. Among Hadza hunter-gatherers, for example, grandmothers provide the most food of all people, they're the ones who provide extra food for their daughters when they're pregnant.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/17 12:54 AM
0

This doesn't test the differences in sex drive between men an women. This tests the difference in men and women's willingness to have random sex with a complete stranger. I have an extremely high sex drive. What do I do when I'm feeling extremely horny? I don't go to a bar and seek sex with random strangers. I masturbate instead (at the highest point of my cycle I masturbate 10 times per day or more, I'd love to see a man who could keep up with that; no refractory period and the chafing-free and…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/17 12:30 AM
3

That said I'm sure in an ideal world it would be nice if women lowered their standards as much as men did when they were horny. When I'm horny I don't lower my standards, I just masturbate. I have sex with men because I'm very attracted to them and actually want to have sex with them, everything about it, not just release the urge. Masturbation >>>>>> mediocre or bad sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/17 12:21 AM
1

Women have been snipers and air pilots in wars ever since early XX century and have performed well (not all women, but the good ones, just like not all men are suited for combat either), to the point that they've actually been allowed in those roles, as opposed to infantry where most countries still don't allow women into, and not without reason because that's one combat role where the sex differences do account for too much.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 11:19 PM
0

Well, that's actually a smaller gap than I'd thought.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 11:17 PM
1

the strength gap is 75% on the same weight category. No, not 75%. ~40 in upper body and ~25 in lower body, between individuals of the same height and training level.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 11:02 PM
-2

Whenever someone supports women in combat roles, they are essentially claiming that a 13-14 year old athletic boy is combat ready. Well, good thing combat these days relies heavily on various machinery and weapons that don't take a huge amount of muscle mass to operate, isn't it? Wars in XXI century aren't fought with fists or swords. I don't get how an average woman being weaker than an average man means women shouldn't be allowed to be snipers or aircraft pilots, which is exactly where the vas…
/r/MensRights16/07/17 11:00 PM
2

Well, I don't choose men I date based on whether or not they like period sex. If they don't, then that's fine, people can't control what they're into.
/r/MensRights08/07/17 10:17 PM
1

Well, personally I'm very much down to sex on my period in the second half when it's light, but of course if a man looks disgusted by my period, it doesn't exactly put me in the mood.
/r/MensRights08/07/17 09:27 PM
0

There's this amazing thing called masturbation, which can quench your thirst in a very easy, low-effort and risk-free way and you have 100% control over it. I'm a woman. I have a very high libido. And yet I'm not interested in casual sex with men I'm not attracted to. For me, masturbation >>>>>>>>>> shitty sex. And masturbation >>> mediocre sex. I have a theory that maybe masturbation feels better for men than women. As a woman I have so many different choices - clitoral masturbation, vaginal ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 02:08 PM
0

women are still 33% more likely to visit a doctor and they live much longer, have significantly longer end of life care As far as I know, there's no law forbidding men to visit doctor as often as women do. It's mostly social masculinity norms, I think - and, from what I've seen, mostly imposed on men by other men. As for women living longer than men, this only started happening since XX century, actually, it used to be the opposite. Women only started living longer when they got a reliable acces…
/r/MensRights18/06/17 06:22 PM
1

Women talk more than men. Much, much, much more. No they don't. Actually, most studies have found the opposite How about, let's not interrupt people in general? That's how I was raised. As a woman I never noticed that men interrupted me more often than women, what I noticed is that more reserved and less charismatic people who talk in a less engaging way tend to get interrupted more often, but it's mainly the pushy and arrogant people who interrupt others a lot. The type of people who love heari…
/r/MensRights17/06/17 08:28 PM
1

Women are legally protected from being charged more for health insurance - even though they cost much more to insure where no such protection exists for men and life and car insurance... "but that's different". Well, this one is different... Women cost more for health insurance because they go through pregnancy and childbirth (and I guess birth control also falls on that... but only because there's no equivalent birth control option for men). Women get pregnant on their own will mostly, but soci…
/r/MensRights17/06/17 07:58 PM
1

they actually make pretty decent money unless they are very low level. Yeah, but they're the exception.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/17 12:40 PM
2

Yeah, and I guess everybody wants to deal with homeless, drunk and criminals/potential criminals, or wipe the shit and pee off disabled people's butts, or wipe the floor? Those jobs are female-dominated. And garbage men aren't paid $10 an hour, it's a pretty well-paid job. Most of these female-dominated ones aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/17 11:32 PM
3

I'm a woman and I agree. If men can't handle being in the same unit as women, then I guess they should be separated. All-female combat units are certainly not a novelty, some countries' examples like the Kurdish female fighters prove that women can fight successfully.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 11:20 PM
2

There's no gender imbalance in STEM. There's gender imbalance in computer science and engineering. How long are people going to parrot this myth? Most other STEM fields like math, chemistry, biology, genetics or neuroscience are much more evenly divided, some even female-dominated. I've yet to hear an explanation what exactly are the huge differences between applied maths and software engineering that the former agrees with women's biological "nature" and the latter one goes against it. Is appli…
/r/MensRights30/05/17 11:15 PM
1

The only similar experiment I remember is that with rhesus monkeys, not chimpanzees, and it showed that the male cubs preferred "boys' toys", but female cubs had no preference and played with both "boy" and "girl" toys equally.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 11:03 PM
2

Or maybe boys and girls are so different because they're treated so differently? Studies have shown that the differences between newborn boys and girls are pretty minor, in some cases no difference at all, or pretty small differences, yet as children get older, the gap grows wider. Why is that, if not because of different treatment? Traditionally, "masculinity" and "femininity" are seen as complementary, they're supposed to be almost polar opposites. For example, men were taught to be strong and…
/r/MensRights29/05/17 08:42 PM
2

Women have these human rights. Not all women, not everywhere. In many countries in Africa little girls get their genitals mutilated just like boys. The only developed countries that still do circumcision are Israel... and the US. In many countries women still don't have the right to abortion and birth control. Once they become pregnant, they cease being seen as person and pretty much become public property. In many parts of the world they still get driven away from society during menstruation li…
/r/MensRights29/05/17 08:24 PM
0

It makes me laugh how TRP has this idea that all women are having tons of casual sex left and right before they marry. Red Pillers think that just because they get a lot of pleasure from casual sex, that means women do too... Most women I know, myself included, would rather have a relationship. So do most men I know. There's a reason that most societies both today and in the past have been monogamous.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/17 10:03 PM
5

it's called hypergamy. The majority of women are having sex with the minority of men. The majority of women are in a monogamous LTR or marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/17 05:12 PM
5

So, let's get this straight. 22 people were killed and 60 injured, and many others probably shocked into trauma, and yet you're the one feeling victimised by this because the callous unexpected mass murder of innocent children and teenagers activated your natural human decency and desire to help? Yeah, ISIS killed those children in cold blood just to make a point, just like they'd killed many others before them, and yet you're the one who's "disposable" because this made you feel bad for the vic…
/r/MensRights25/05/17 07:48 PM
1

It absolutely is an inherent value. What do you mean? Inherent, by definition, is something that is a natural part of something or someone. One cannot trade their ability to give birth and one cannot buy the ability to give birth. It is a natural part of being female and therefore of being a woman. The ability to give birth is inherent value. Actually giving birth is not. Pregnancy, childbirth, taking care of the baby are hard work. The ability to give birth is of no value at all if it's not use…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/17 01:37 PM
1

Women were never considered useless. At worst, their only use was "to have children". It is men who have always had to earn their way. That is the difference between men and women, it always will be. Women have inherent value, men do not. Having children is not "inherent value". It's something that's temporary, which women lose after barely more than a couple of decades of their life. It's not something effortless, they have to work very hard for it. Pregnancy is physically straining and childbi…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/17 09:34 PM
1

And yet TRP still claims that men are the "disposable sex" and have always been seen like that?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/17 09:32 PM
2

Bonobos are equally close to humans as chimps are (in fact, a new study speculated they're closer then chimps) and they have a completely different social dynamic, females are the dominant sex in society and it's more or less an open polyamory with everyone fucking everyone all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/17 09:28 PM
1

Hundreds of years ago, sex was a prize to be won. Women were property to be given away by their fathers. Hundreds of years ago where, exactly? And how many hundred years ago? There was never such a thing as one homogenous human society, the world is made up of thousands of societies, both today and historically, with different cultures. Contrary to popular beliefs (both traditional and feminist), there were actually many societies where women had quite a lot of say in their marriage and weren't …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/17 09:20 PM
3

Are you forgetting all those men in long-term relationship? Or do really believe men only get into relationship if it's the only way to get sex for them?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/17 09:14 PM
2

I don't understand MRM sometimes... When women stay at home: "Those lazy evil women, forcing their husbands to break their backs financing them while they just sit at home cozily rocking their babies, and then force men to pay alimony and child support after divorce!" When women work: "Those heartless evil women, leaving their children to provide for their families!" If you think daycare is bad, then why aren't you also blaming men for working, not just women? And besides, most women in Sweden d…
/r/MensRights22/05/17 02:57 PM
4

The more you carry heavy stuff, however, the stronger you become. Yes, men are on average stronger than women, but women can increase their strength by lifting weight just like men can. But if society never gives women an opportunity to carry anything heavier than 5lbs without snatching it away from their hands and telling them "you're to weak/it's too heavy for you", then they're never going to get stronger. Personally I don't mind carrying heavy stuff. So what if it's heavy, as long as it's no…
/r/MensRights22/05/17 02:31 PM
1

but you can have 20% body fat as a woman and meet most ideals. Maintaining 20% isn't hard. But men are expected to have sub-10% and that's insanely difficult. That's not how it works... Women naturally have about twice as much body fat as men - more body fat and less lean mass in general, plus butt and boobs. 14% is a perfectly normal amount of body fat for men, 20% for a man would be overweight. The most shredded top level male bodybuilders have as little as 3% body fat, but that's obviously ve…
/r/MensRights22/05/17 02:21 PM
1

Iget suspicious when people cite their chosen papers, their chosen stats, rather than just picking the first results. Thats why I link wikipedia a lot. It's not the best objective source... But it indicates I ain't cherry picking, I take whats available. People link Wikipedia when they're not interested or not able to critically analyse the original sources. Anybody can link to Wikipedia, it's the easiest way. However, if you're son keen on Wikipedia, why are you ignoring the bits from it which …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/17 01:54 PM
1

Yeah, those are old statistics, you might want to check some of the new ones It debunks many of those most-cited statistics, revealing that some of them were actually taken from 200 years old French church records, and many of the others lead to no source or are based on flawed methodology. I recommend reading the whole article, it's fairy interesting, but if you want the relevant bits: The widely cited statistic that one in three women ages 35 to 39 will not be pregnant after a year of trying, …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/17 12:25 PM
1

and women who are 40 are very commonly not. The average age of last birth for women in natural fertility societies is 42-43 years. Most women are still fertile at 40.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/17 12:23 AM
0

The problem is women ACTING AS IF THEY ARE ENTITLED to have kids and to start when they want to. Yeah, how dare women exercise control over their own bodies like they're full human persons or something. We should totally start impregnating women by force at 18 whether they want it or not, regardless of whether they can afford them and are emotionally mature and responsible enough or not. But of course men won't be subjected to it, that would be simply unfair.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/17 12:17 AM
1

Seriously, this idea is some serious case collective historical amnesia. Until the invention of birth control pill, the average age of last birth for women in the US was 42. This is in line with the known records of various historical populations and currently existing non-industrialised natural fertility populations. Actually, among Ache hunter-gatherers in Paraguay it's 45. Apparently when birth control was invented and women started artificially cutting off their fertility, society gradually …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/17 12:13 AM
4

Honestly, though, what would be different if she did talk to him about it? She's clearly already made up her mind about it. I think most men don't understand just how much the possibility of pregnancy is constantly in women's mind - we're not always consciously thinking about it, but it's always somewhere deep in the corner. We start considering this possibility (what would happen if we accidentally got pregnant) pretty much as soon as we're old enough to know what sex is and what it leads to. I…
/r/MensRights19/05/17 02:03 AM
6

Or men are simply less likely to admit to having PTSD symptoms?
/r/MensRights19/05/17 01:43 AM
4

I know this may not be feasible (depending on what you'd be teaching and your education) but maybe come to another country? Here in Eastern Europe this shit doesn't happen, whenever I read articles like this one it feels like another planet, I just couldn't imagine it... Where I'm from, a student would actually have a lot more difficulty to come forward if they were legitimately raped by a teacher, rape is still very stigmatised and in many cases schools and universities want to keep it quiet in…
/r/MensRights19/05/17 01:30 AM
0

Patriarchies exist when male strength is required No, patriarchies exist where male gender roles are deemed superior and more valuable to female gender roles and hence men are given a higher status and more respect. There are many non-industrialised societies that utilise men's strength but it doesn't result in ultimate male dominance.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/17 12:22 AM
1

Romance and love have existed for as long as humans have had powerful feelings and emotions. It's true that in the past most people couldn't choose their partners based entirely on feelings, and since marriage was largely a practical thing it wouldn't have been advisable either, but that doesn't mean romance and romantic love didn't exist. The oldest known love stories or love songs and poems are thousands of years old and there are so many of them, that's like number one most popular theme in a…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/17 12:16 AM
1

You act like the human population is going to fall to extinction tomorrow unless we keep pumping out 2.5 children. Decreasing the human population would take many many years, and we could honestly use it at this point. You do realise that if, starting today, no children were born in the whole planet for 50 years, the humanity would be doomed to extinction, right? 50 years might be a long time for an individual person, but for a society as a whole relative to the rest of the history it's a very s…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/17 06:21 PM
1

No, it doesn't. Read my link. This information is from old and flawed studies, often from fertility clinics clients (a demographic that's already skewed to fertility difficulties), some of them are actually from several hundred year old church records. The new and properly conducted studies show that there's only a small difference in fertility between women in late 20s and late 30s, a gap that can be eliminated by something as simple as adding an additional sex session per week/month. Women had…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 10:51 AM
0

Have you actually read what you linked?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 01:18 AM
1

want kids around 30. Funnily that's also the age where the risk of birth defects, autism, downs etc skyrocket and she'll start to have trouble conceiving. Maybe you should check actual statistics instead of stereotypes. The risk of birth defects only begins to "skyrocket" past 40, and even then it's still relatively low. In 30s it's only a small gradual increase. Same for fertility. The vast majority of women are still fertile in late 30s, it's only from 40 that it really starts dropping rapidly…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/17 04:32 PM
1

I looked at the big picture and there women were twice as likely to pass on their genes, that's the definition of having it better/easier to me. I've heard many MRA arguments. I've heard many of their arguments for their beliefs that women have it better and that men are the ones oppressed and victimised. Some of those arguments, I thought, were really good. Others were really bad. But this is the first time I've ever heard this argument and I must say it takes the winning place as the worst one…
/r/MensRights02/05/17 02:43 PM
1

If you don't use it is of no use... Of course the utility comes from actually having a child with the womb. You really are acting needlessly obtuse. No shit. That was exactly my main point you kept ignoring. You were claiming that having a womb meant that women were valued just for having it. Now you're admitting that women need to actually birth children in order to be valued for it. So, it's not inherent value, its still utility value, just like men's muscle is. Because giving birth is also be…
/r/MensRights01/05/17 09:37 PM
1

Inherent doesn't have to imply permanent it can just mean it is there by default or it is a characteristic. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/inherent Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute. Yes, women have an uterus by default. Men also have more muscle mass by default. Men naturally start overtaking women in physical strength as soon as they reach puberty, they can gain even more strength than training, but an untrained man will be stronger than…
/r/MensRights01/05/17 07:23 PM
1

but having it provides inherent value for no other reason than having it. The whole purpose of having an uterus is making babies. If a woman doesn't use her uterus for its intended purpose, then it doesn't provide any extra value to her. If she didn't use her uterus, then she would be more like a physically weaker version of a man. Women are inherently valued for their womb Do you understand what the word "inherent' means? It seems like you've just invented your own definition of it in order to …
/r/MensRights01/05/17 04:13 PM
1

If you actually think the womb isn't a gift I guess no amount of reality might help. I love a man who doesn't even have one and could never even have an idea of what having one could feel like telling me how I should feel about owning a uterus. Yeah, suppose you can understand the "reality" of having a uterus much better than a person who actually has one. Every woman who doesn't love her uterus is a delusional idiot. Fuck menstrual cramps, fuck the hardships of pregnancy and maternal mortality,…
/r/MensRights01/05/17 02:28 PM
2

So we'll hear no more of the "husbands could legally rape their wives until the 60s" talk from feminsts? Red Pillers deny that residual sexism against women still exists.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/17 03:11 PM
1

Most humans have evolved far beyond seeing the meaning of their lives solely through "passing their genes". Why do you care so much about your great-grandchildre having kids when you'll be long dead by that time and it will not affect you in any way? Is it an ego thing for you? You've just completely missed all the points I've made on this. But whatever, if that's how you see it, you're welcome to keep seeing it that way. As I said, if your philosophy and goal in life is to have as many children…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 02:56 PM
2

No he didn't. Yes, if what you want to hear is "it's 100% blatant misandry and discrimination against men, absolutely no other factor is involved", then obviously you'r not going to like it. And it is due to residual effects of the tender years doctrine. Tender years doctrine was discontinued in 1980s. Why are Red Pillers still harping on about it like it's still there? Joint custody is now the default, in EU at least. Right he just claims that it's all due to men not really wanting to see their…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/17 01:41 PM
1

What would I care if men had sex. They're out of the gene pool. Sure it's nice to have the same access to sex but it doesn't 'matter'. So, according to you, the only or the best measure of having a good life or "privilege" is whether you had children or not, or how many you have? That's ridiculous. Reproduction is a passive instinct for humans. What we actually want to do is have sex, that's why having sex feels so good physically, while having children doesn't, it's an emotional desire - one th…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 01:19 PM
1

We don't know anything else about those fathers. We don't know how motivated their were or what their living situation was. Men are much more likely to be alcoholics and drug abusers, for example. They're also much more likely to work extremely long hours that would make them unsuitable for 50/50 custody. We don't even know what split of a custody they actually wanted, it's you who's assuming that all of them always want equal custody, there's no proof of that - or can you show men any? I'm not …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/17 12:09 AM
0

Yeah, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this doesn't mean what you think it means. They only tested 480 volunteers, so this was only applicable for a small number of people from a certain region, and just like they say, only go up to 8000 years ago. That was still like, 1% of the whole human history, and yes, the Neolithic period was known to be a lot less equal than how Paleolithic hunter-gatherers lived. Hunter-gatherers couldn't accumulate resources the way people in settled agricultural co…
/r/MensRights29/04/17 08:36 PM
1

Most custody cases are not decided by courts, so even if there was a court bias (and I'm not denying there probably is some, just not as much as Red Pill claims), it couldn't be blamed for most custody cases. I know it seems completely incomprehensible to you but perhaps there's a chance most of those men actually didn't want 50/50 custody, they were fine with getting less. Seriously, can't you see this is exactly the same fallacies and pitfalls with the "wage gap" argument from feminists? Many …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/17 07:35 PM
1

No, what he did is present a balanced opinion, acknowledging the bias of some older judges (especially older male judges... tell me again how it's mostly women who want to fuck over men?) but explaining that this is not a major factor like Red Pillers and MRAs claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/17 07:28 PM
0

Because historically 80% of women have reproduced and only 40% of men and when times got rough this ration moved as high as 17 women for every 1 man. You can't possibly claim something so ridiculous without providing a source. And even if it was somehow true, how's that an objective definition of privilege? You know that back then women didn't have a choice whether to reproduce or not? There was no birth control or it wasn't very reliable. Maybe you should try getting used as a baby incubator fo…
/r/MensRights29/04/17 07:18 PM
3

Typically you only hear of the woman's sacrifice and not the mans. Well, on this sub it's certainly the opposite. The single dads I know are way better at holding down jobs and taking care of kids than the single moms I could believe that, maybe. Mothers taking the children after divorce is more of a "default" position, since mothers are socialised to be primary caregivers and if the child is young, the mother is probably doing much more childcare. Single dad who get the kids are probably the si…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/17 02:20 AM
4

Second Jesus Christ you act like the father hated his kids. No, i don't. I can use my own father as an example. I love him very much, and I love him very much too. But I'm going to be honest, that if my mother and him got divorced when my brother and I were still young, my mother would definitely had gotten the custody, and he would have agreed. He simply wasn't competent enough to take care of us as young children alone. That just wasn't him. We've had really fun times playing together or havin…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/17 12:34 AM
1

The feminist will start arguing that being privileged with a womb is somehow sexist biological oppression all the while ignoring how historically the opposite is true? Maybe let's leave this one alone... Historically, tons of women died in pregnancy or childbirth. Many still do in underdeveloped countries, even in developed countries some women still do die in childbirth. I don't see how dying in the pool of your own blood in extreme agony with your cervix being torn apart is a "privilege", and …
/r/MensRights29/04/17 12:00 AM
1

I said civilization rests on the backs of men. How is this any different from saying that women are less important, just paraphrased? If civilisation "rests on the back of men", then what part do women play in it, are they just sidelined or somewhere in the background, or barely in the picture at all? How would this mean women are not inferior, then? Seriously, how do you think this "civilisation" thing happened, according to you? (Of course the fact that you see "civilisation" as this tangible …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 11:28 PM
2

Look who's rewriting history... The past is not a monolith. There's one one single "Past(™)", or one single "Society(™)" spanning the whole world where all women had exactly the same status and rights all the way up to XX century. It's not true now (e.g women lead very different lives in Canada versus Afghanistan), it wasn't true back then either. No, women were definitely not seen as cattle everywhere in all societies throughout all the history until XX. That's actually as much of a mistake mos…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 11:11 PM
4

What if the father was working hard to provide for his family, had an absolute bitch for a wife at home, and subsequently kept his distance? You could think of an infinite number of these hypothetical situations, and equal number to portray both the father and the mother in a more positive or negative light. What if the mother grew up in a traditional setting, was taught her whole life that her only purpose in life was to bring up children, married a man who promised to provide for her and took …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 10:46 PM
1

FIY, Iceland had something like this in 1975. 90% of the country's woman abandoned all of their duties (both at home and at work) and went out into the streets to protest. The consequences were abysmal, the whole country basically shut down. And that was just one day. And today there are more women in the workforce than back in 1975. Countries like Sweden already have almost 50% of women in the government, some countries even more than 50%. As I said, in some regions like sub-Saharan Africa wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 10:39 PM
2

How is it insensitive or selfish to say that children need their parents from the day they're born? That's a common sense fact. The first few months and the first year, especially, is the most vulnerable time for the baby when they need a lot of physical skin-to-skin contact with their carers. The bond between (good) parents and a child is so deep precisely because they've known each other very closely their whole lives. How can some people really think a parent can just decide after divorce "Oh…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 10:18 PM
2

If all women quit their jobs today, it would take more time for the society to collapse than if all men quit their jobs today, but in the end it still would. And it also depends on where you are. In Africa women produce 80% of the food... so, yes, they would certainly starve. And how about we include women's unpaid labour? If all women stopped having children today and taking care of the children they currently have, society would collapse in ~50 years.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 10:11 PM
2

Men never "controlled the world". Men always needed women just as much as women needed men. Women weren't the powerless inferior beings that most people think they used to be right up until XX century.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 10:07 PM
6

Did you miss the part that the reason mom can work part time is because the man sacrifices his time with the kids so she can work less and do more with them. And the reason why the man can work 60 hours per week while having a young child is because his wife does most of the childcare, leaving him free to work 60 hours. It's a two-way street, this type of partnership. You hail the man's input but put down the woman's input. Typical... People make their choices. The woman made the choice to sacri…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 10:03 PM
4

The rate at which fathers get what they ask for if I remember correctly is somewhere around 60-70% less. That would seem about consistent with the percent of childcare fathers do before divorce. Even in families where both parents work full-time, women still do twice as much childcare as fathers.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 10:00 PM
1

The time to develop the bond with your child is from the day your child is born, not from the day you get divorced.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 09:57 PM
2

Tender Years doctrine was a thing in XIX century. It hasn't been a thing for a long time. And it was created in the first place because before that the father would always be the one getting the custody, children were considered his inherent property.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 09:55 PM
5

Men who were not very involved in the day to day of raising their kids during the marriage are literally afraid to do it and therefore do not fight for i So, if those men didn't care much about taking care of their own children while they were still married, why do they suddenly think they're entitled for full custody, or why do they even want it? It's not like it's either sole/joint custody or being forbidden from ever seeing your children again. Not having custody still mans you're allowed to …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 09:53 PM
6

Funny how Red Pill endorses the "you made this choice, now take responsibility for it" mindset... but only for women. Yes, people make their own choices in a relationship, and they have to live with those choices. The mother chose to sacrifice her career for her child, either not having one or earning much less than she could have. She's taken care of the child right from the birth, sacrificed much of her time and energy for this. Whereas the father prioritised his career over family. If he sudd…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 09:48 PM
8

A person who's actually an expert on the subject, due to working in that field (as opposed to most of "experts" on Red Pill or MensRights) writes down a well-argued comment. Several other people in the same field lower down in the comments back him/her up. But of course, they must all be wrong or brainwashed by feminism. Right, it's simply impossible that perhaps in most cases it's better for a young child to live with the parent who's been the one taking care of them this all time and has a muc…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/17 09:40 PM
1

When we use the word "women" here, we are very, very clearly not talking about all women No, I wouldn't say it's clear at all.
/r/MensRights27/04/17 07:55 PM
1

You're misinterpreting the 2nd one, it's talking about women as in some women, not all. The first is largely true, it's a biological matter. The second one is: You're completely right, except when women spend their time objectifying men and then complain about how they're objectified So you're saying that women are biologically hardwired to be hypocrites, or what? Yeah, that would sound like misogyny to me... And no, it didn't say "some women", it just said "women". I wouldn't have had a problem…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:28 PM
1

How about this one (Didn't have to look for nearly as long as I thought I would have...) This whole post, though. So, the invention of artificial wombs. What are the implications of this? Covering of this article in other subs like /r/science: "Awesome, now finally women don't have to suffer extreme agony, damage to their bodies or even death due to their reproductive biology, or be regarded as nothing more than baby incubators in many underdeveloped regions that still see women mainly this way"…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 12:32 PM
1

Just look over at "againstmensrights" sub. I'm not really fond of satire subs since I think they go overboard and can get just as extreme, but they're still a good option for calling out the nastier bits of various movements.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 08:30 PM

Just look over at /r/againstmensrights. I'm not really fond of satire subs since I think they go overboard and can get just as extreme, but they're still a good option for calling out the nastier bits of various movements.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 08:19 PM
2

I constantly see comments on this sub deriding women specifically, not just feminists. Sometimes those comments are downvoted and other members call them out, but often they get upvoted.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 06:49 PM
1

Loose low neckline top with short or no sleeves Maybe slightly lower, but definitely not very low. short or no sleeves Ok, agree on that one. short open bottomed unrestrictive skirt No. Definitely not short, and pretty restrictive actually. If you haven't tried wearing one, maybe you shouldn't be making claims what wearing a business skirt feels like... no tights There's pantyhose. a light jacket that I guarantee can be taken off Men can take their jackets off. Being with just a shirt and a tie …
/r/MensRights23/04/17 10:51 AM
2

Yes, women can wear skirts instead of pants while men can only wear pants. That's about the only thing. Where do you work that women are allowed to wear sundresses? Are we talking about the same piece of clothing? This is what a sundress looks like. Do you see women wearing these to work? If you do, i'm certainly jealous, I love sundresses. Where I work, this is how women dress for a hot day. She can take off the jacket, but so can men, and last time I checked, men's shirts aren't made of fur. M…
/r/MensRights21/04/17 08:29 PM
0

Women are also expected to wear shirts, and a bra underneath, all that also gets sweaty. Right now as most places still require heels, and makeup as well (it's a nasty feeling when you can feel the foundation sweating off your face...) it's definitely no picnic for women either. Professional clothes aren't made to look comfortable, they're made to look good. Why are you singling this out as men's issue when it's, in fact, genderless issue - both men and women are expected to sacrifice their comf…
/r/MensRights21/04/17 08:01 PM
-1

There's no mention of making women's suits and professional clothing illegal either. Women would still be required to wear business clothing just like men are, the only thing that goes is the heels. Suits or ties don't damage your health, high heels do, and that's exactly the reason for this petition. They're not campaigning to allow women to come to the office in sweatpants... Seriously, OP? You do realise that it's exactly posts like this that make feminists and most of society sneer at MRAs, …
/r/MensRights21/04/17 07:43 PM
1

I'm all up for women in college that genuinely want to be there. However I want old college back, college should be difficult. You should be able to have your textbook for most exams because memorization is not what passes you. The focus should be on creating free and critical thinkers. Not, degree factories for corporations to use to filter out if someone can handle the corporate workload and deadlines well as it now is. I agree that the main focus should be on critical thinking, however, that …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 07:49 PM
1

You're not wrong that plenty of men want to raise kids and spend time with them. I never said otherwise. But that is not a man with true ambition's primary focus. ... so, let's get this straight. Just a few paragraphs above you said that "true ambition" is not about earning money, it's about helping the world. How is raising your children to be good, intelligent and well-adjusted people not helping the world? Or how is raising children somehow preventing you from doing other good things for soci…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/17 09:40 PM
1

Too dumb is not the issue as much as not requiring it because memorization is way easier and sufficient for corporate work, more readily achievable by women. What type of work do you have in mind that's in corporate setting, requires "memorisation" but no university degree? Anyway, it appears that most women like uni. It's not like they were forced to choose it (originally), they were fighting hard for the right to enter. And they will not be driven away by some sexists who think women don't bel…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/17 09:34 PM
1

Right this nearly 50/50 ratio is bad. It's completely artificial, and women can only compete because school caters to women and not men. The focus is on memorization, not understanding and developing critical thinking, and the environment is far too lax in competition. Are you saying that women are too dumb to study at university unless it's dumbed down for them, or what? What are you basing this on? Is this the most literal manifestation of RP belief that women are like children? All studies on…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/17 04:47 PM
2

Men are second thoughts in education, which is massively detrimental to them, and reduces their potential significantly. Male to female ratio in university students in most countries is 55/45 to 60/40. That's only 5-10% difference, hardly significant either. And it's not like all men who don't go to uni end up on the streets or in unqualified jobs. A lot more men than women enter trade schools, most trades are definitely a more prospective option than a degree in English literature. Even though …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/17 01:29 PM
2

You're talking as if women earning money is a recent trend. Most women were employed outside home as early as 1970. By 1985 most families had a double income, the definition of "breadwinner" only made sense when either only one person in the family was working, or the other person made so little money compared to the one who earned more that their income was irrelevant. An average woman today earns, what, 80% of what men earn? Up to 87% in some of the most gender-equal countries. At this point i…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/17 08:52 PM
1

The strongest people will be assigned to the most physically demanding jobs (that are usually the most dangerous). It just so happens that men are on average stronger than women. Is being born female a crime now? Yes, biology is not fair. But I don't hear men complaining about having all that extra muscle or the fact that they're in zero danger of dying in a pool of their own blood with a baby stuck in their pelvis, or dying of dehydration in a pool of their own vomit of after vomiting 10 times …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/17 08:27 PM
1

This is 2017. Wars are fought differently these days. "Boots on the ground" would be a very ineffective strategy by today's standards. However, I always get a laugh at this "women have babies so they shouldn't go to war" argument. Even the two world wars combined didn't wipe out more than half of the male population in the whole world. Some Inuit tribes were known to kill 30% of infant girls and still have their population grow. Even if there was a mass war and women actively took part in it, mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/17 08:14 PM
3

As a woman I can't fathom this either, but I can imagine that women who've never been pregnant before just don't have any idea what it's going to be like and underestimate the impact and consequences; and for women who have been pregnant before... well, pregnancy is a different experience for every woman, you tend to hear the horror stories a lot more, but many do have very easy and problem-free pregnancies and births, and luck out with easy non-fussy children. But honestly I don't believe a wom…
/r/MensRights03/04/17 12:21 PM
1

That could have told you a lot if you'd actually read all of it. The evidence is everywhere. The evidence is mixed, and most of it - exactly why we need meta-analyses and systematic reviews - fails to take into account the fact that risk-taking is, in fact, not a fixed trait but something that varies a lot within an individual depending on the type of activity they're engaging, the situation, their mood, certain other traits like confidence level, etc. Believe it or not, someone who enjoys extre…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/17 06:16 PM
2

Ah, good ol' /r/badwomensanatomy.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/17 07:17 PM
3

How is deference different from submission? My dictionary literally says "polite submission and respect". It's just a milder-sounding synonym for submission.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/17 07:13 PM
1

Many men say they don't care if the woman is confident, until they date a woman who spends 2 hours and a third of her salary (or his...) on makeup and hairstyles because she's so insecure about how she looks, keeps asking "Does this dress make me look fat?" every few hours and calls them 20 times an hour if they go on a guys' night, and yells at them every time they spot them interacting to any attractive woman for longer than 3 minutes.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/17 07:08 PM
1

Overly confident men are a turnoff for women too.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/17 07:04 PM
2

I think confidence is overrated. There's a certain minimum level of confidence below which it would be very hard for me to date that man, I would find it difficult to deal with extreme insecurity or anxiety. However, more confidence is not always better, if anything, it's worse. I noticed that what many men think is "confidence" is closer to arrogance, machismo and being full of themselves, and I hate all of those. If there's a type of confidence I'm super attracted to, it's this quiet, "humble"…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/17 07:03 PM
1

Did you not understand what I said? I'm sure they do want to control their reproductive choices, I agreed they might like the idea of birth control. What I said is that nobody can know how synthetic hormones will affect them and whether they'll like it or not until they actually try it.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 04:03 PM
1

Over half of men surveyed want to take it. That's without any marketing whatsoever by the government or corporation. They might like the idea of taking it; doesn't mean they'd like it in practice. Tons of women quit oral contraceptives too. You can never know how the hormones will affect you until you try them. As I said, women are already more accustomed to the idea of "being ruled by their hormones", since that's the image society pushes on them - women being ruled by their menstrual cycle, be…
/r/MensRights29/03/17 03:07 PM
2

Wtf, I can't even... I mean, if they don't want to be deployed, why do they even get into the military at all? Do they think this is some kind of game? As a woman, I utterly despise women like that. They're destroying everything that women who are for real equality are fighting for. There are still many women who are against the very idea of a woman in the military, and there are women out there working their asses off twice as hard as many men to earn the same amount of respect, and those women…
/r/MensRights29/03/17 12:22 AM
1

Don't confuse culture with biology. The way you currently see men treating women in your society is only a remnant of XIX century chivalry culture, which pretty much didn't exist until then, and never existed outside West. Husbands had a legal right to beat women "for discipline", just so long as the beating wasn't too severe; rape used to be legal in the past, and even where it wasn't the crime was considered to be towards the father due to "spoiling his property", not to the raped woman hersel…
/r/MensRights29/03/17 12:01 AM
1

You're painting a way too rosy picture. Even if the "male pill" became official and legal, it wouldn't mean the majority of men would take it. Yes, I know that most men on this sub probably want to take it (for those reasons you mentioned...), but this sub is a pretty specific demographic that's not necessarily the majority elsewhere. Honestly, I can't imagine an average man in a happy relationship with a woman he trusts being all too eager to mess with his hormones. By that time he and his part…
/r/MensRights28/03/17 11:26 PM
1

Unqualified people have been entering positions of power since the beginning of civilisation.
/r/MensRights28/03/17 11:13 PM
1

Good. Could use more. Yay, women dying, awesome! You want women to be able to kill their babies if they can't afford it. But you have absolutely no sympathy for men who can't afford babies. They get thrown in jail if they can't pay child support. So, you're against women "killing" babies if they can't afford them, but a child whose father walked away from him/her would survive just fine, right? Let's just put all the responsibility on the mother, she was the one who spread her legs, while men sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/17 12:47 PM
1

Nobody wants to force women to have an abortion. Well, in that case, men will always have fewer reproductive rights than women, at least one reproductive right - they will have no say whether a It is completely legal for women to have abortion. Yeah, let's see... Countries where abortion is illegal with no exceptions (not even when it's rape or when the mother is dying): Chile Dominican Republic El Salvador Nicaragua South Sudan Malta Countries where abortion is only legal to save the woman's li…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/17 10:50 AM
1

I'm a woman, not a guy, and all I said was that men shouldn't have the right to force women to have an abortion. I'm actually in favour of legal paternal surrender as long as women have full access to abortion - which, sadly, not all women do. Yes, that is relevant to biology. Women are the ones who get pregnant and give birth. They should have control over their own bodies. What does sex differences have to do with voting or other rights, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/17 01:50 PM
1

No need for strawman. You were the one who somehow translated "men and women are different" into "women are inferior". Though, when I think of it, that's exactly the way it usually happens... Maybe that's why most feminists are so against the idea of sex differences - because there's this deep-seated, unconscious belief that men are inherently superior and the "default standard" for women to live up to, so women can either be exactly the same as men or else they must be inferior. This is a very …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 07:11 PM
1

Yeah, as I said I think it has a lot to do with the fact that men only see blood pouring out of their body in case of an injury, so even if they rationally know that menstruation is not an injury, they still can't help finding it scary. Equally, I think a woman would find it very odd to have a penis. Yes, as a woman I definitely wonder sometimes what it would feel like to have a penis. If there was a possibility to become a man for 24 hours, I'd definitely try it just for curiosity. But, from al…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 07:03 PM
1

Here on Reddit, definitely not. I've seen more than enough men losing their shit at the suggestion that women will always be the only ones who can choose whether to abort or keep the baby, because they're the ones carrying it. If men want equal reproductive rights in that particular aspect, they're welcome to grow an uterus. Same with with the common Red Pill and MRA argument of "society doesn't care about men because men have always been the ones fighting wars". Well, I don't know about you but…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 06:58 PM
1

Don't forget than an average woman is hardly healthy even before she gets pregnant, and gets progressive less fit and healthy during pregnancy. Most of your pregnancy symptoms will be heavily influenced by your general health. For example, studies show that women who were fit before getting pregnant and continued to exercise during pregnancy had much less back pain, more energy, better sleep, better digestion, quicker and less painful labour and many other advantages. Yet the last study I read s…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 06:32 PM
1

Abortion should be a basic human right, it should be free just like the rest of healthcare. Oh wait, I forgot America doesn't even have free healthcare.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 06:16 PM
1

Yes, that was the whole intent - that there's no solid proof that women are more risk-averse than men, there are more studies showing no difference and the "reverse" difference than the "stereotypical" difference, and in most of those showing a difference in either direction portray only small differences, many studies even contradict their own research in the abstract. That's what we get when gender norms get in the way of science...
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 06:15 PM
1

Not all women get those, and many women only get very mild symptoms.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 04:44 PM
1

Descriptions of period are very exaggerated on Reddit. Nothing horrible about it. Yeah, it's blood, but it's not a wound (there's no pain from the bleeding itself or its source) we just learn to see it as healthy bleeding and don't associate it with pathology but something normal, just like any other bodily function. I guess the reason why it freaks men out so much is because they always associate blood with an injury. Most women just put a tampon in there and carry on with their lives just like…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 04:41 PM
2

When there's a sex difference in men's favour, "Duh men and women are different, it's biology, deal with it." When there's a sex difference that results in any sort of advantage for women, then suddenly it's unfair.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 04:22 PM
1

Women have actually died from the pill before. It was brushed under the carpet, that pill is still on the market with exactly the same composition. Those side effects weren't any worse than what a substantial number of women experience from the pill either. Acne, depression, even suicidal tendencies, severe mood swings? Those are very common side effects experienced by women who use hormonal birth control. And that's today. When the pill was first invented in 1960s, with much bigger estrogen dos…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 04:18 PM
1

Too bad not everybody can afford abortion because there are many places where it's either very expensive or not even legal or very hard to get. I'm all for legal paternal surrender after we make abortion free, unstigmatised and easily available for everybody regardless of class.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 04:16 PM
1

No, they're not.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 04:13 PM
3

That's just so ridiculous to me. Ok, so let's say you're an average man. This would make you safe from an attack by the vast majority of women... if they attacked alone and unarmed, and we all know the majority of attacks men experience are conducted by lone unarmed women. Oh wait, they're not. Usually its' men. So, if you're an average man, there would be at least 50% chance that this man attacking you was stronger. That is, if he was alone and unarmed, if you were both equally good at street f…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/17 04:08 PM
1

Give you three debunkings lol? Why one isn't enough? If I gave you three you would somehow understand? Technically, three studies would have more weight than just one. But of course it depends on the type of study. One meta-analysis has more weight than three single studies. One randomised controlled trial has more weigh than three correlational studies. Besides, didn't you just say there were literally thousands and thousands of studies? Or was it a lie? You know what would happen if I did post…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 11:28 PM
1

Yes the typical tradcon bullshit "study" that had been debunked fifty thousand times. If it's really been debunked "fifty thousand times" (ha... more like, fifty thousand times an exaggeration), it should be very easy for you to find these studies and link them. I'll be generous - give me just 3, that will be enough. Am I going to get a reply to this comment in a span of a couple of days containing the said links? Hm.... my guess is, no. This isn't the first time I tried to argue with a Red Pill…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 10:46 PM
3

These are the studies in question (sources at the bottom). Married women, however, were less happy and satisfied than their single peers If you have any studies that debunk those, feel free to post them. I won't listen to anecdotes.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 09:03 PM
5

Studies show that married men live longer and are happier, whereas married women are less happy on average.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 06:34 PM
2

And how about their most beloved OK Cupid survey... It had some serious flaws and did not indicate what Red Pillers think they indicate, and yet "Women find 80% men unattractive" has become a gospel statement here.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 05:05 AM
1

That's why I said "most." Have you learned all the sex positions there are and compared the ratio of "male active" vs "female" active and this is how you arrived to the conclusion that most are "male-active"? Or are you just making a guess, again based on that popular belief that "male-active" is the default while "female-active" a rare oddity? There are actually quite a few studies that confirm this Can you link to all those studies please? The high-quality ones that take into account all those…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 11:40 PM
1

Ye, childcare was a lot more communal. That's not the opposite of monogamy, though. Living in closely-knit network of extended families instead of isolated nuclear units helped with that. Humans have always been extremely adaptable and mixed species, there's no one single universal model. There's monogamy, polygyny, polyandry, a mix of either of those, or even a mix of all. However, while monogamy is not universal, pair bonding certainly. And not in all societies marriage was the only way to hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 04:21 PM
1

Let me guess, you're picturing some stereotypical pop-culture polygynous Bronze age village where many men have lots of wives which leaves many men with no wives. Or some warring tribe where men constantly raid other tribes for women and some men manage to catch lots of women, but many men die with none at all. This is not what most societies were like, nor the current non-industrialised societies either. Most societies are monogamous. In all human societies marriage existed, humans didn't just …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 01:16 AM
2

Most PiV sex positions involve men being active and women being passive. There are lots of PIV positions that don't. You can choose any of them. Most women can't/don't orgasm from PiV I hear this statement parroted virtually every time a discussion on female sexuality comes up, but whenever I tried to track it down to actual research, the only thing I could find was one single study. As far as I remember, it was on American population. Keep in mind that, unlike in other developed countries, most…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 12:52 AM
3

men just compete more. Men don't compete more, they compete differently. Men more often compete in more overt and direct ways while women in more covert and indirect ways, but just because they're more subtle and harder to spot, doesn't mean they're less influential.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 12:30 AM
3

No, it doesn't negate competition between males, it only adds that females compete too, and males have a say in sexual selection as well. Something that Red Pillers are very often ignorant of.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 12:28 AM
2

Wikipedia seems to think the theory is pretty relevant still. Yes, it's still relevant to some degree. To other species, not humans. But the original experiment was very flawed. This is a good example of what happens when gender beliefs hold back science. Your second link leads to a site that advocates intelligent design over evolution theory. LOL. Sorry, didn't read it fully until the end. Anyway, what it says there on the experiment still stands. And, actually, the classic Darwin theory does h…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 12:27 AM
0

She specifically stated how much it pissed her off that her clients would resists her so much and how this slowed down her work significantly. You think she hasn't tried to do something differently before, Those weren't face-to-face interactions. How do you "project more confidence" through email? This is by far probably the most objective way to see whether it's really sexism or not because written interactions are blind. They don't involve potentially contributing factors like body language, t…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/17 09:26 PM
3

Sex itself is kind of a submissive act for women, what with the whole being penetrated thing. It doesn't have to be. There's nothing inherently or objectively submissive in being penetrated. In mainstream social framework of PIV, the penis is considered to penetrate the vagina. However, just think how weird it would sound if the same framework was applied to eating. We never say "food penetrates our mouth", even though from the outside the action looks just the same. It doesn't help that mission…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/17 09:17 PM
0

Men and women are a lot more similar than Red Pill and most traditionalist conservatives claim. however, they're not identical. The major fundamental differences in reproduction alone cause some big differences in their life experience. A man could never even begin to imagine what it feels like to be pregnant and give birth, or to be pregnant against their own will and not be able to do anything about it. Besides, generally people are much more invested in causes they can best relate to. On aver…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/17 08:58 PM
6

What you're describing here is how evolution works for many animal species, but not humans. And not most primates either. Female competition is present in many animal species, again including humans and most other primates. Do you know why women have permanent breasts while other mammals don't? Because men found them sexually attractive. Men also perform sexual selection, and females compete with each other as well. Regarding Bateman, though, he's responsible for this whole classic outdated sexu…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/17 08:52 PM
0

You're confusing putting your toddler around a few minimum wage workers and putting them with a biological relative. Pretty sure kindergarten workers are paid more than minimum wage, in my country at least... But if it's different where you live, don't you think that's a problem, then? Yeah, I imagine it would be hard to take good care of a child when you're overworked, undervalued and need to manage a huge group of children at a time. I went to a pretty good kindergarten with only small group o…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 03:23 PM
2

I think it comes down to entitlement in the end. In the US employers feel entitled to be number one most important priority in their workers lives, the workers should literally sacrifice everything for their work - health, family, personal life. That's why the US has arguably the shittiest employee rights in the Western world. In most other developed countries employers recognise that their employees are more than just cogs in the system, they're human beings who have other needs as well, and fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 03:22 AM
1

Well kids is the reason. There are a ton of studies out now that show putting kids 5 and under into daycare is basically child abuse and fucks the kids up. What the fuck? Can you show me all those "tons of studies" please? Specifically studies that prove it's the daycare itself and not bad daycare that damages children? I still have some memories of being in kindergarten at 5 and it was awesome I made friends, there were tons of toys to play with, there were lots of various events and everything…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 03:09 AM
1

Just because she doesn't work, doesn't mean she doesn't have her own life and is going to just drop everything at the flick of your fingers. Expecting your wife to suddenly move across half the world, to basically sacrifice her life for your smart career move would be a huge thing to ask no matter whether she was working or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 02:49 AM
2

My mother worked full-time and she still helped me with homework whenever I needed. "Helping with homework" didn't mean she did everything for me. I did it by myself and would ask her help if there was something I didn't understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 02:46 AM
1

People in every developed country other than the US are allowed to take paid sick leave days for cases like this.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 02:42 AM
1

Working women aren't caring for their small children for at least half a day, though. They either have someone else home with them, a relative or a nanny, or put them into daycare of kindergarten. SAHMs take care of their children full-time. But I agree there's no reason to stay at home with older children who can be left alone.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 02:39 AM
2

No, it's mostly women who do unpaid version of this too.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/17 02:23 AM
1

Anyway considering women make up around 50% of the workforce I think if they were to all drop out of it there would be significant effect. You'd be surprised how many people on Reddit believe otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/17 02:14 AM
1

i've argued with many people in the past couple of days who genuinely believed that women work "mostly cozy useless jobs" and that society could function just fine without them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/17 02:06 AM
1

... come on, I'm not a feminist either, but you don't need to invent fantasies in order to criticise it, there are plenty of very real and common feminist arguments to criticise.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 10:03 PM
0

They survived because there were other areas that did have electricity/etc to help them. A universal walk out does not leave room for assistance in operation of critical infrastructure. No, there have been occurrences where people literally had to go without electricity for several days in a row. Do you know what happens during and right afterwards a grand-scale tsunami or earthquake? Even aside from major natural disasters, there are regions like the poorest slums in India or Brazil that routin…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 06:20 PM
-2

Society would suffer severe damage if men did the same, even for just a day. No, just one day is not going to do that much harm. Societies have survived a day without electricity or running water before. In Iceland certain second sector fields were so female-dominated that they had to cease too, still no major harm, only huge inconvenience. Many industries had to shut down, they did experience financial harm too. Even though nursing was female-dominated, still nobody died that day for this reaso…
/r/MensRights07/03/17 09:50 PM
2

Still seems crazy to me. 3 jobs! Aren't there any options for daycare or kindergarten where you live? And how is your wife going to get a job after 7 or more years of empty gap in her resume? It's not easy even for much more experienced people with no gaps to get jobs. Well, it's your choice, not my business... But you certainly don't seem like a typical MRA.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 04:39 PM
-11

imagine a day without men. Just imagine it. I agree that it should happen... that being said... I agree there should be a day without men in certain industries that lack respect and high pay despite being dangerous or otherwise extremely important. A day without all men would have no point, though. Nobody believes that men as a whole don't contribute to society (I mean, you could probably find a few super extreme feminists who genuinely believe this, but then again, you could find feminists who …
/r/MensRights07/03/17 04:36 PM
-6

The fuck, you have to work 3 jobs so that your wife can stay at home? I'm not against all SAHPs per se, it depends on the motivation and individual case, but people who take on this role voluntarily generally have a suitable financial situation, a partner who earns enough to comfortably support the whole family on their own. Working 3 jobs is driving yourself to an early grave, you know... As a woman (not a feminist), I actually support this event, though. This isn't some new radical idea - Icel…
/r/MensRights07/03/17 04:15 PM
2

This sub makes it seem like all men are super confident and forward and whenever they see a woman they like, they instantly hit on her. In the country where I'm from, that's not how it works at all. Even chatting with random stranger is considered weird, let alone hitting on a random stranger women. People are much more reserved there. Catcalling pretty much doesn't exist. Women are still very much shamed for having casual sex, the bar hookup culture is not nearly that big. Basically, the vast m…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 11:53 PM
1

Actually that's a horrible picture of her. In this picture, after searching I would say she is just above average https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/29/1a/96/291a963b17500d2f02ff087e757d817f.jpg Really? She looks less attractive to me in this one... Alright, maybe let's just agree that attractiveness is hugely subjective, then? An average girl who starts a squat regimen, where's short dresses, lipstick, booty shorts, etc will definitely see an increase in attention. Yes, I do get mor…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/17 08:17 PM
1

I look a lot like her in this picture (except without the bags under eyes). Well, I guess now it's clear why I don't trip over hordes of men dying to fuck me or date me every time I step outside, like Red Pill claims every woman who's not outright ugly does.... Or Red Pill really does have a ridiculous notion of what "average woman" is. Yeah, Bonnie Wright is not topping the lists of hottest famous women, but if she's considered "hideous", then yeah, someone like me really does have no hope. Eve…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/17 05:32 PM
1

So, basically, in order to be attractive to men, women have to erase their own faces and make them as different as possible with layers upon layers of makeup and hair styling. You're outright admitting that "average women" are not attractive in their natural state. That's like saying "all women would be attractive if they got plastic surgery". Because some of those women there really look like different people in the left and right photo. I highly doubt that some of those women are the same ones…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/17 12:17 PM
2

I'm a slim 22 year old with long hair, I'm still not as attractive as them, nor do I get lots of attention from men (very rarely, actually, and mostly from drunk men), and I know many other slim women in late teens and early 20s who don't look as attractive as that and aren't drowning in male attention either. As I said in my other comment, plain women are so invisible that for many people it's impossible to even mentally picture them. I typed "average looking woman" into Google and half the pic…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/17 11:36 PM
3

not hard to achieve for women. You can change your weight. You can change your hair, or out outfit. You can't do anything about your facial features, or about the shape of your skeleton. My college had a lot more women than it did guys. There weren't overweight girls. There weren't dumpy girls. The most you could reach for unattractive girls was a cute face with acne on it, which can be solved and bam. Either you have extremely low threshold for "cute/pretty", or girls who are actually plain and…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/17 03:06 PM
3

They still look above average to me. Not the hottest, but definitely not plain either. Notice how all pictures on this thread are pictures where women are still looking made-up and posing? What about actually "average" pictures where the woman has no makeup, or not an extremely flattering angle and lighting, or hair in a ponytail? Here's a photo of Bonnie Wright (she played Ginny in Harry Potter. And she's still wearing professional makeup in this one. How about this one?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/17 03:05 PM
2

Yeah, I think most women misread it, because OP was surprised too and tried to clarify it in comments, and many women replied that they can't be attracted to men enough to date them based on just looks, that's why the percent is so low.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/17 02:12 AM
1

a 13 yrs old kid starts to play the guitar because he wants to impress his peers (including girls) and he daydreams about a lucrative career as professional musician. Those are the kids that become the most annoying people in parties who can half-arsedly strum a couple of songs, not professional musicians. In order to become a real professional musician, or a good musician at least, you need immense amount of dedication. Wanting to impress a few girls in parties is not nearly enough. If you're r…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/17 02:09 AM
9

I'm beginning to see where the root of the wrongness of Red Pill beliefs lies... A completely ridiculous idea of what an average woman looks like. This only confirmed what I thought, women who are actually plain or even unattractive are so invisible that for many people it's impossible to even picture one, the media itself is so saturated only with the most attractive women that they have become the default image of a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/17 01:53 AM
1

Don't feel bad, it's just a fact of life. We are bombarded with images of beautiful women every day. We are powerless to resist this. Why is it ok for men to be attracted to the hottest women, but when a woman is attracted to the hottest men, she's a shallow hypergamous bitch?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 02:35 PM
8

There's nothing telling women they can't make the first move. My mom. My grandmother. My teachers. Most women I know who had any sort of influence over me as a child and teenagers. I've never been approached by men until I started approaching them myself. (Except by some drunk men in clubs or parties, except those had no interest next morning when they sobered up.) My best friend who, like me, is average-looking, or maybe slightly below-average, though I think that's subjective (no, she's not fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 02:26 PM
1

I don't have a problem with this concept on its own. I have a problem with the idea that it must always be men who get to be the "Captain" and women can only be "first mates". Also - I don't agree with this concept when taken to an extreme, which is often is in Red Pill. No matter whether it's a man or a woman assuming either role, I think the best relationship is where two people are a team, they pull equal weight in the relationship, help each other when in need. Nobody wants to (or is capable…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 08:38 PM
1

Exactly. This argument is just dumb. Let's say there's a super traditional XIX century - style relationship where the husband is the "lord of the house" and the wife must submit to him. He makes a bad financial decision which leads them to bankruptcy. So what if he "takes responsibility"? The wife might take some temporary glee in pointing a finger and saying "It's all your fault!" but in the end it's not going to make her feel better, they're still bankrupt.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 08:32 PM
1

Women aren't disposable, but they certainly aren't going to destroy the world if they stop working for a while. To you, "destroy the world" means "everybody dies". To me, it means "experiences severe economical and social negative consequences." Seriously, as I said, the workforce is currently about 50% women. What do you think would happen if allthose women quit? What do you think happened during WW2 when at some point he majority of men of working age were deployed? Women took their place, oth…
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:09 AM
1

Essential means that the entirety of society collapses in three days without it. No, that's your definition of essential. And how are doctors and nurses not essential even by your definition, then? If women were in essential jobs, you would have posted some. I don't think you fully understand the depth of the difference in how essential the jobs primarily done by men are compared to those done by women. Since you brought up education, nursing, and lawyers. No one is going to die because we don't…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 10:26 PM
1

... you do know that in most countries except Muslim ones women comprise about 50% of the job market, right? In most countries women completely dominate most healthcare and education fields, do you really see those as inessential? "Essential roles tend to be dangerous" - some of them, definitely not all. But, in fact, nursing is one of the most dangerous jobs out there. Women also make up about half of lawyers. Seriously, this isn't 1950s where most women either don't work or have "cozy inessent…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 07:40 PM
1

I recently read "Pink Brain, Blue Brain" by Lise Eliot. She's a neuroscientist and doesn't believe in "blank slate", she laid out somewhat of a "middle ground" approach between the "men are from Mars, women are from Venus, it's 100% nature" and "It's 100% nurture, gender doesn't exist." At this point it should be obvious to everyone even remotely educated that it is a mixture of nature and nurture. The problematic part is figuring out which parts exactly are nature/nurture and by how much. She d…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 07:11 PM
4

You mean, work exactly the number of hours that their contract obliges them too, 40 hours per week which is an average for a full-time job in most other developed countries? How lazy and undedicated of them, they should take a page out of Japan's book and stay at work until 9 every day and then go party with their colleagues and boss, coming home at midnight. Screw taking care of children or any resemblance of personal life, who needs those? /s I'm very against quotas as such, but I think wore w…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 05:13 PM
1

... why would someone choose an engineering major with no plans of actually becoming one? Like, what's the point? I've heard the course is hard as fuck too. I know this happens in some countries like Iran and Pakistan because being highly educated adds to the woman's status for marriage and men seek highly educated women, and it's actually becoming an issue because some fields like medicine are female-dominated yet too many women waste their degree. But I've never heard of this happening in the …
/r/MensRights15/02/17 05:02 PM
1

I got tons of matches on Tinder. And when I messaged those guys, guess what happened? Most of them didn't even reply. Most men who I didn't message did not message me first either. This means that they did have a choice. They used the numbers strategy to pull as many matches as possible and apparently had enough options too choose from so that they didn't even look at me.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 04:21 AM
2

Sex with a person you're not attracted to is not $100, it's like -100%. It's a bad experience, not only it doesn't add anything to your life, it takes away from it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 04:17 AM
5

No matter where you live, as a student you'd still be spending a lot of time at uni, not only in lectures but various events, clubs and societies, etc. And if you weren't living in student halls, you'd probably be living in a house share with other students. Maybe it's different in the US, here in the UK university is the centre of social life for most students, and most students other than first year. And not having a car isn't an issue, most students don't have cars. Public transport is great …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 12:26 AM
5

Pretty sure most men can understand that, at least those who've actually had enough sex to be able to compare good sex and bad sex. I used to believe that... until I got out of Red Pill circles and heard more from other men. What I found out is that sex can absolutely feel meh or bad for men too. Apparently, it can even feel bad if they're able to climax. And plenty of men say that sex is better in a relationship, that they too need some sort of connection and familiarity with that person in ord…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/17 06:30 PM
1

That's not true for me at all. While clitoral stimulation feels better than vaginal stimulation, PIV still feel good to me, even on its own, and PIV actually makes my clitoris more sensitive - makes sense, since clitoris actually extends far deeper than its visible part. Vaginal stimulation can even feel good to me outside of the sexual context - for example, taking out the tampon feels pleasurable (but not if it's dry; and putting it in doesn't feel the same way).
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/17 06:29 PM
1

But it's still attention, a hell of a lot more than the average guy would get. It's not "attention" if they literally swipe right to every single woman without so much as glancing at the picture to see if they would actually want to meet her if she swiped back.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/17 11:36 PM
2

Same here. The first time I tried Tinder, I got about 30 matches in one hour. How many of those matched men actually wanted to talk to me - messaged me or replied when I messaged them? 5. And how many of them actually wanted to meet? 1.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/17 11:35 PM
1

If you're the only girl in a venue full of men, then yeah of course you're going to get attention. It would be the same if you were the only guy in a place full of women. I've done a lot of volunteering and all the time it's mostly women, with only a couple of men around. Those men definitely get a lot of attention, if anything simply because they stand out. If there's 50% men and 50% women in one place, it would be completely different.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/17 11:30 PM
0

Or maybe, just maybe, not all 3,5 billion of women on this planet are treated exactly the same way. The most determining factor is where they live, in some cultures (usually the more extrovert ones ones where interaction with strangers is common and socially acceptable) men are a lot more forwards about expressing their attraction to women, whereas there are cultures where men are notoriously shy and reserved. As someone from Eastern European country, common descriptions of dating on Reddit ofte…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/17 11:25 PM
1

100% agree. I'm rewatching GoT right now, so might as well chip in. I prefer the "old" Jaime Lannister to the "new" one. I like that he turned out to be a good man underneath, but it felt like shortly after he lost his hand, half of his personality seeped out of the stump. I really loved his interactions in Season 1, loved his conversations with Catelyn, Robb and especially Brienne. Every time he talked with someone, it's like he could see right through them, guess their weak points and say just…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/17 11:59 PM
1

legally you've been wrong since the 18th century. I am not talking about the feudal age. Really, so you think farmer's wives in 18th century were just sitting on their asses all day? And plenty of women worked in textile factories or domestic services during industrial revolution, there were even women working in coal mines as well. Not just women but young children... Nope. Legally, it was the man's legal responsibillity to take care of the home and children. That's why the man got the children…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 11:19 PM
0

Men are also punished for losing their virginity. It's just much rarer that it's proved. Never heard about it. However, hymen is not a proof of virginity. Many girls get their torn during sports or some other activities, and for some girls it stays intact even after intercourse. As you mentioned, financial. Working. Providing. Dying. Women have more restrictions, but fewer responsibilities. Like I said, you do seem to have this 1950s America picture in mind when saying this. In most societies fo…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 07:23 PM
1

Men have had more legal responsibilities in history. There's no such thing as one monolithic History(™), there were thousands of different societies that all had different culture and laws. Speaking of Islam, the legal age of criminal responsibility in many Muslim countries is 9 for girls and 15 for boys. And a man can divorce a woman for any reason he wants by just saying "I divorce you" three times, whereas a woman can only obtain a divorce if she can prove to the court that she was being mist…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 05:41 PM
3

As a woman, I'm very against measures like that, and here's why. First of all, to put it simply - they don't solve the root cause, only suppress the symptom. It's an equivalent of constantly fanning away the smoke without putting out the fire causing that smoke. Segregating seats on a plane is not going to solve harassment, it's only going to prevent it for those few hours when people are on the plane. But, as minor a measure as it is, it's a slippery slope to something much bigger. Different pl…
/r/MensRights17/01/17 02:22 PM
1

I think this comes full circle to supporting my point. In order to appeal to girls, it has to emulate infantalism and in order to appeal to boys, you have to emulate somekind of battle robot warsteed or something. Yeah, so maybe some of it is biology, but some is definitely culture. Making something more infant-like might look appealing to girls because of some inherent mothering instinct, but pink is entirely cultural. Same for robots - the association of robots with warfare might explain some …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/17 08:23 AM
1

In those societies women would chop would and make fire too.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/17 07:55 PM
2

The boys still like dinosaurs and super heroes and the girls still like My Little Pony. That's an interesting choice of examples. If you used something like swords and dolls instead, at least that could actually have an evolutionary explanation - women have evolved to be primary caregivers and men have evolved to engage in warfare (at least whenever necessary). The actual truth is not quite as simple, but at least the theory has logic behind it. However, dinosaurs and ponies, really? There's not…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/17 07:32 PM
5

It's not just about weight. Pregnancy stretches out your belly skin, and it doesn't always return to 100% perkiness afterwards, it can remain permanently loose and flabby to some degree. There's nothing you can do to prevent it completely - you can try your best to minimise it by not gaining too much weight, you can eat a healthy diet and use various skincare products to preserve collagen and skin elasticity, but beyond that you have no control over it. You have equally as little control over st…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/16 01:35 PM
2

I'm actually in a humanities course, not STEM. And this wasn't a philosophical thesis, just a comment. Yeah, I guess I could summarised my points better, but I don't think my comment was significantly worse than an average comment of a similar length on this sub.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/16 10:48 PM
1

Can you elaborate more on this? Which parts/sentence did you think were awful and why? I don't think "larger" words are always better. This is a laymen's sub, after all, and I'm no scientist myself.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/16 10:16 PM
1

Some might, but the general proclivity of women across the population is to try and marry up, a tendency that has some basis in biology and has been observed scientifically. Men don’t tend to exhibit this proclivity and prioritize beauty over someone’s socioeconomic position much more than women do. Yeah, it's pretty convenient to redefine "marrying up" in a way that acknowledges money as the only legitimate value, thus making women look more shallow as if they're the only ones who want to marry…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/16 10:00 PM
1

No separations? There are 4 paragraphs. Don't see anything verbose.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/16 09:48 PM
1

Why would women be less picky for a LTR/marriage than for casual sex, unless she absolutely has no choice? People can be picky about different things for long-term relationship and casual sex. For example, women might be picker about men's looks for casual sex, because personality, living situation or anything else doesn't matter for a one-night-stand. Whereas men might actually be less picky about women's looks for a one-night-stand because there are much fewer risks and potential investment fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/16 09:45 PM
2

Most species fall in between 100% polygamous, no male investment / 100% monogamous. Most mammal species are polygamous, especially non-social species. The mother protects and provides for the offspring alone while the males just roam around looking for more mating opportunities and competing with other males for territory. There are few species where the male is more invested than the female, but there are more than a few where the male is equally invested. This is actually the norm among birds,…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/16 02:07 PM
3

All creatures which practise sexual reproduction have a female gender which is more picky. No. You couldn't be more wrong. Females are more picky in species that are purely polygamous and have zero paternal investment. Aka, exactly the scenario Red Pillers and many pseudo-evolutionary psychologists love to paint: a highly polygamous male moving from female to female "sowing his oats" and the female being left alone to take care of the offspring. This leaves females unavailable for mating for ext…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/16 12:53 PM
1

These are still big differences. See, here's the beauty of interpreting statistics. You can have two people seeing exactly the same facts, something solid and objective, yet interpret them in a completely different way, depending on where they put the emphasis. One could look at this and say "Yup, this confirms Red Pill, women care more about money than men," Or you could look at this and say "Huh, this is pretty different from what Red Pill and traditionalists claim, so many men actually do car…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/16 12:35 PM
4

The numbers are quite different in this study 24% of men vs 46% of women said it was essential for them that their partner earned as much as they did 47% of men vs 69% of women wanted a partner who makes/will make a lot of money 33% of men vs 61% of women wanted a partner with successful career. Do women are more about money? Yes. But a lot of men care too, a lot more than Red Pillers claim. The difference between sexes is only ~20% in most of these. More than half of women wouldn't reject a man…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/16 09:08 PM
1

Evolutionary biology is a legitimate field of study I know it is. I'm quite interested in the subject and have read a lot of books on it. What I'm saying is, the actual evolutionary biology is often quite different - certainly a lot more complicated and nuanced - than the pop-culture version of "evolutionary biology" that most people seem to be more familiar with, especially on the anti-feminist or "manosphere" side of the internet. Those are the people who are more likely to completely or almos…
/r/MensRights24/12/16 08:55 PM
1

Self-assured IS the same as confident. It's a crucial part of confidence. The opposite of confident is insecure. Insecure people are not self-assured. "Pissing contests" are not confidence, it's arrogance. Very different. And, in fact, most women aren't attracted to arrogant men either. Arrogance more often actually stems from insecurity. Truly confident people don't feel the need to constantly measure themselves against others. It's the "Any man who must say I am the king is no true king" situa…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/16 01:15 PM
1

Yeah, I've heard so many men say "I don't care if a woman is confident" or even "I like insecure women". I can't help but think that they're picturing women's lack of confidence/insecurity manifesting in such a way that they'll seek help and support from him (within reasonable level), appearing all femininely fragile and dainty, so that he can feel like the "saviour". They don't seem to picture the situations where insecurity manifests in ways that aren't attractive but annoying or even dangerou…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/16 01:07 PM
3

Does anyone want to be with someone with low self esteem? Yes, abusive people. It's much easier to abuse and manipulate someone with low self-esteem.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/16 01:03 PM
2

other than perhaps how a woman "presents" herself in public settings. (meaning if she isn't confident, she may not "present" herself at all.) That's exactly how it works for men too. Confidence doesn't automatically make a man attractive if he's not good-looking. But it can help him become more noticed by women and create a better first impression.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/16 01:02 PM
1

It can be extremely fine for everybody. This is what the "men are jerks" stereotype comes from - many men think they're being confident, but they're massively overdoing is so they just seem massively arrogant instead, and often in a fake way - which is not attractive at all. Women aren't socialised to emphasise their confidence as much so they're less likely to overdo it when trying to appear more confident. Confidence is definitely one of those things where more isn't always better.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/16 01:00 PM
2

Yes. Whenever men or women say they like "shy girls/guys", I'm pretty sure what they're imagining is a super cute guy/girl who's quiet and non-arrogant, but still looks very approachable. This is completely different from someone who's socially anxious and has poor social skills so they don't look "cute". Most women I know who are painfully shy or socially anxious, or shy in a non-cute way definitely don't attract men easily. Whereas highly confident women seem to be drawing all men's attention.…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/16 12:57 PM
2

Plenty of armchair "evolutionary biologists" on the internet do. I haven't actually seen many feminists who believe in "blank slate". That theory was a lot more popular a couple decades ago than it is now.
/r/MensRights24/12/16 08:48 AM
1

So is the "100% nature" theory, though.
/r/MensRights23/12/16 05:05 PM
1

Why do Red Pillers constantly complain how they were "deceived by society", supposedly told by everybody that women don't care about looks?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/16 10:58 PM
1

You really doubt that it's harder for short men in the dating market ? even reading this thread ? There are over 7 billion people on this planet. This thread comprises, like, 0,00000001% of the whole human population - not randomly selected but of a very specific demographic that comes to Reddit. Nope, I'm sorry but this thread is not a proof of anything at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/16 12:28 PM
1

This might have been true 40 years ago. Well, too bad there are still lots of people who were alive 40 years ago (in fact, about half of society is 40 or older) and this is what they were taught so they keep pushing it on the younger generation too. Could you please call my mom and all my female relatives and most of my female teachers and inform them that the times have changed? I wasn't able to convince them, maybe you will.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/16 11:35 AM
2

There's a difference between being genuinely good and being "nice". "Nice" can mean simply not being an asshole. You speak to others politely, don't insult them, don't break things or commit crime, etc. That could pass as "nice". It doesn't make you a genuinely good person, it simply makes you a non-bad person. One can be "nice" by simply adopting certain surface behaviour to look pleasant to people and have some basic manners. In order to be genuinely good, you have to actively strive to be a t…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/16 11:24 AM
3

You're talking about a medieval type of chivalry, which was: 1) highly romanticised and applied more to songs and epics than actual reality 2) largely confined to the most beautiful and noble women (notice that all those songs and epics and knight tournaments only hailed the young and most beautiful women, not some average or old ones?) 3) a purely Western phenomenon for a certain period of time that didn't last
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/16 03:42 AM
1

Most types of porn would be a minority compared to "mainstream" porn But they add up. Like I said, it's not a minority in Japan...
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/16 05:54 PM
5

Those numbers have been increasing, even doubling and tripling throughout XX and XXI century. In some countries, women now hold up to 40% of senior management positions, and, for example, China has 30% female corporate CEOs. One important thing to remember is that people don't rise to the top positions in the span of a couple of years. It takes decades. Most CEOs are well into their 50s or even older than that. Gender relations in workplace were very different 30 years ago than now. That's also …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/16 04:38 PM
3

And I doubt that women watch more yaoi than men do. Yaoi is specifically aimed at women. It's not just sex, it's romance too. Yes, women definitely watch it more, and read it more. It's much less popular in the West, but in Japan there's a huge business, especially with manga. And manga is often a lot more explicit. You can find stuff specifically aimed at women that's incredibly graphic, violent featuring different types of men - hyper-masculine men, "effeminate" small men, etc. But it's quite …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/16 04:28 PM
1

All of these? WoW and swords maybe, but military history, really? That seems like a pretty intellectual interest to me. And, honestly, the stigma against gaming seems very overstated to me. I'm sure many conservative people might be against it, but most young people play video games at least to some extent. The stigma is not so much against gaming itself, but everything else associated with it - being overweight, a slob, anti-social, etc. If you're not one of these, gaming isn't going to hurt yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 02:21 AM
1

Nothing wrong with these interests. Maybe as long as they don't interfere with the rest of your life. If you spend literally all your free time playing WoW and neglect your health or appearance, then it could become a problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 01:39 AM
1

Exactly. It also means "don't pretend to be someone you're not". For one, you'll inevitably get tired or distracted at some point and your artificially constructed fake persona will "slip", and then you'll creep your date/SO out. Yes, suddenly discovering that someone you've been seeing for weeks or even months is a completely different person than they'd presented themselves to be is certainly disorienting. It would make me angry too, for him deliberately deceiving me. But even if it did work p…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 01:38 AM
1

No. Hair length has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it's purely cultural. Men and women have equal capacity of growing hair. In fact, in many societies historically it was the norm for both sexes to have long hair: imperial China and Japan; ancient Egyptian wigs for men were often shoulder-length; if you look at medieval portraits of men, it was common for them to have shoulder-length hair too; Viking men depictions usually show men with long hair; XVIII century featured long-haired elaborate…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 01:22 AM
1

Are you going to deliberately misinterpret and twist everything I say?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 08:43 PM
1

No, sex differences are mildly relevant when the task requires less strength than women have. Sure, your wife could chop a cord of wood in eight hours, but why have her do it when you could chop that cord in only five hours? If a man is better at a certain task than a woman, it still means that the amount of strength or endurance requires is high enough that men's excessive strength/endurance has an advantage. Chopping wood isn't that hard. 7 months pregnant women in Nepal are doing it on their …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 06:49 PM
1

That's one single study and it doesn't prove anything definite. There could be a lot of variables - for example, couples that share housework more equally are generally less traditional and more liberal, and those people are more likely to divorce.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 06:04 PM
1

Sex differences in strength are only relevant when the task requires more strength than women have. There's a threshold of the amount of strength required below which the sex differences become completely irrelevant because women, despite having much less muscle mass than men in general, still have enough muscle strength to perform that particular task. For example, do you agree that men are not any better than women at opening doors? Opening a door is a physical act and, like any other act, req…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 06:00 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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