TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mmpro55 Archive

View 5 posts and 267 comments by mmpro55 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
–

When we allowed some bullshit tolerance position like "purple pill", whatever the fuck that means, as some enlightened centrism, it paves the way to paint the red pill in any negative manner they deem. Purple pillers are non-committal cowards.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/22 06:13 PM
1

So, it wasn't a joke; it was ideologically motivated. Don't try to pass it off as such next time.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/22 06:05 PM
–

A joke that you would, no doubt, apply in such hyperbole to the other side. Let's at least try to be honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/22 05:39 PM
0

And, yet, which one of us immediately established factions and devolved the conversation into nonintellectual, tribal conflict, thereby providing a tangible example as to why decision making shouldn't be left to those of middling capacity.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/21 02:41 AM
1

If merely suggesting the greater male variability hypothesis can lead to one's resignation as Harvard President, it's pretty clear the underlying motivations. I'd urge you to test speaking about the concepts inside each book with others, let me know which one elicits greater repugnance and vitriol.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/21 02:29 AM
0

But thats it, once you keep delving into religion into your adult years,it becomes a crutch, you use it as an excuse to commit atrocities and then say 'its okay god will forgive me', you find out religion is actually a political and business operation, so at the end of the day its all about control, influence and money. As opposed to enlightened atheism, which paved the way for deaths of millions under leaders such as Stalin and Mao, via beliefs that rational thought can illuminate higher morali…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/21 02:12 AM
2

It made me realize that democracy isn't a system that is terribly useful, unless you want the slow deterioration of morality, the tyranny of the majority and feminine sensibilities, and an acceptance of mediocrity.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/21 01:51 AM
0

I was talking about infidelity, but I'm going to need a source for that any way. And FYI, the same 50-n man would have a much higher rate of infidelity and lower marital satisfaction. I'm not convinced of your argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/21 01:31 AM
2

How does that have relevance to the merit of your statistic as an indicator of wealth?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/21 01:26 AM
4

That statistic is more or less useless. Do you think rich people keep their money in savings accounts and bank CDs?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/21 12:48 AM
17

I'm sure that speaks more towards your own attractiveness than the ignorance of men. If an attractive woman does something even remotely nice, men will go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that she's actually feeling them.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/21 12:44 AM
5

Yes, we should instruct them how to hide their money in business assets.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/21 12:39 AM
2

Comparing the Bell Curve to the God Delusion is apples to oranges. They're both books but the main reasons for criticism are so fundamentally different that it's a ridiculous comparison. Mistakes though there may be in the Bell Curve, you're trying to pass off the book as a complete mess in terms of statistics, and that the overwhelming majority of content within is of little merit. There is information in there that is relevant to our political system and most actually is valid data. But, the r…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/21 12:24 AM
2

Not affected, how? Because you would already have cheated in a marriage?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 11:49 PM
2

Well, another factor is the capacity to attract women, so I don't know why you even waste your time.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 11:48 PM
2

Because I have no knowledge of David Buss, but I can assure you that simple titles won't magically make Rollo Tomassi's work more digestible and acceptable to women. Without having read his book, I'd imagine David Buss's acceptance has to do with the gynocentric packaging, "When Men Behave Badly". This immediately makes me assume that he places the blame on male behavior, which of course would remove the wall the women put up when they experience anything that would contradict their feelings.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:47 PM
1

That's likely a result of selection/survivor bias rather than general agreement.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:23 PM
-1

No. Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein had tremendous accolades and yet their book was nothing short of controversial, sparking genuine outrage from ideologues rather than consideration.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:18 PM
2

Man, I really like that sylvesterstalone ppd user. So many people here seem to have a preformulated argument and conclusion that they just roll out as they're going, not really reading the other person's points in detail. He seems to really examine and then attack the structure of an argument. Are there any more people whose arguments are worthwhile? I guess parahacker.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:08 PM
1

And that's where you use your noggin and create value. It's these opportunities that allow you to pull ahead of the pack and really leave your mark.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 05:38 PM
5

The problem is you're assuming that it's normal for guys to have a woman beyond his looksmatch. It may be more normal than a woman to have a guy beyond her looksmatch, but compared to the typical relationship, which is roughly equivalent, it would be relatively non-existant, due to women no longer needing a man to provide for her. At the same time, women are much more prolific social media users and much more overtly concerned with their appearance to others. Just listen to the women on PPD, how…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 04:47 PM
4

My friend drunk dialed me once and asked me to be her "trophy husband". I wouldn't say men are "equally" as guilty. I'd imagine being a "trophy wive" is a luxury that only exists for the upper echelon of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 04:39 PM
3

Except you are an outlier. You are lucky to have a husband you do, and he is lucky to have you, because many men won't remain with the women they lose their virginity to. If I could wave my magic wand and let all women and men know if they're dating the person they're going to marry, I would. Because this allows the people that know they're dating with the goal of marriage to act freely. Having sex before marriage with the person you know you'll marry is not a bad thing. And having sex if you ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 04:33 PM
5

It's incredibly misleading to list OR in descending sequence like that when some are binary variables and others are integers. The likelihood of infidelity increases by 13% for each additional partner, which makes it exceed the racial marker after passing 5 partners (which is below the median for Americans). Remarriage is obviously intimately linked to sexual history as well, so that goes without saying. Besides, we're dealing with a predominately UMC user base, it's pretty much a guarantee for …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 04:19 PM
1

Is that the crimson chin?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 03:55 PM
4

Ok, so what was your purpose of getting married? What changed in your life from your situation as boyfriend/girlfriend to a married couple?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 03:53 PM
8

While your list is nice, Whisman and Snyder showed in their examination of n=4,884 women that the most important predictive factors of infidelity were three-fold: Lifetime sexual partners (OR = 1.13 per Sexual Partner) Premarital cohabitation (OR = 5.16) Childhood sexual abuse (OR = 4.44) As you can see, the main three factors directly coincide with sexual activity prior to marriage. The other issues you listed that were examined made such little impact in comparison they aren't even worth menti…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 03:28 PM
6

The goal of marriage is to stay married and raise a family. If that's what you want to do, why wouldn't you choose the optimal strategy to accomplish that? More sexual partners demonstrably provide worse outcomes, with high rates of divorce, infidelity, and marital unhappiness. If a woman has had 21 partners, whether she cheats becomes a coin flip. People who wait until marriage, even when accounting for religiosity, have the most successful ones. In our modern times, there are fewer and fewer b…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 03:14 PM
2

Because the propagation of our species relied on evolving to assign higher social importance to female feelings than men. That biological propensity has continued on into modern times, and now we rationalize our innate emotional prioritization of women post hoc. Hegemony of female dating standards is just one example; people interpret the female perspective more favorably because we care more about female feelings, not because of any genuine rational explanation.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 02:58 PM
1

There were also the "machines", but I don't think Red Pill guys believe in those.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 02:34 PM
2

Why not go through my comment history and verify for yourself which one it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 01:53 PM
2

I told you I've never heard anyone say that, so the point is moot.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 01:39 PM
1

Because she didn't directly attack me. She implied it. I don't know if you're genuinely autistic, but when someone, especially women, insult something you're doing, unless it comes from a place of care, what they're really trying to do is insult you, not the action. When a girl says "that's really creepy", they're also saying "you're really creepy". If someone says "that's unfunny and cringy", they're often implying "you're unfunny and cringy". You have to examine what a person typical behavior …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 01:34 PM
3

What kind of loser says they'll pay for a surrogate to have their children? I've literally never seen a person admit this.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 01:13 PM
1

I'm not talking about this anymore. Please read the long ass thread. I'm tired of semantic disputes.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 12:51 PM
1

For what is a man, what has he got If not himself, then he has naught To say the things that he truly feels And not the words of one who kneels The record shows I took all the blows And did it my way
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 11:13 AM
1

And I thought we were getting along. What a shame, I thought I made a new friend. I'm glad we at least established the definition of refute in the end.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 10:51 AM
1

Stay on target. We were doing so well with one question at a time. Let's re-establish the definition of "Refute". What is the 2nd definition listed on Merriam-Webster for refute?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 10:43 AM
1

Ok, so you were wrong. Good to hear. But now we've also established that you believe "Pot. Kettle. Black." is an assertion as well. Can you refute that assertion? I'll remind you; Refute: to deny the truth or accuracy of
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 10:37 AM
1

So that's a yes. You can refute an assertion. That's different than your previous response of: Nobody refutes an assertion because you don’t refute assertions. Can you explain what changed?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 10:31 AM
0

Nobody refutes an assertion because you don’t refute assertions. Can you refute an assertion? Yes or no?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 10:22 AM
0

You are quite possibly the most ill-informed, grammar-obsessed pedant I've ever encountered. Here, simpler for you. Refute: to deny the truth or accuracy of Can you refute an assertion?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 10:11 AM
0

This entire conversation is you starting a semantic dispute, gatekeeping words to specific use cases, and validating your intellect by viewing the situation from your own verbal perspective with complete disregard to the dictionary definition. Woman logic: "Redefining words to fit my argument, and declaring I'm winning an argument, so that means I'm winning an argument." Irrational pedantry.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 09:33 AM
3

Which makes their elevated sense of self-worth dysgenic. And yet these smart women still have trouble finding an intellectual equal when there is a 2:1 ratio of men to women at an IQ of over 120.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 09:22 AM
0

You're not a debatelord, you're a misinformed pedant. Refute means to prove something wrong; it's use case is not limited to arguments. Ad hominem is used so often it has been redefined colloquially to mean a personal attack. It's not limited to use only when pointing out a specific non-sequitur. You're hamstering by redefining words posthoc so your argument makes sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 09:16 AM
2

First of all IVF isn’t the same as sperm donation. You can get IVF with a partner And? Did I suggest that I didn't know such an obvious thing? If you self-select out of the gene pool, you're still self-selected out of the gene pool, no matter how narcissistic you may be. And, if the women were as smart as you claim they are, you'd think they'd have the intelligence to realize they're pricing themselves much higher than they're worth, working far too much to take time to build a meaningful relati…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 09:11 AM
1

Yes, if you apply merit to qualities based on your arbitrary, culturally ascribed value set, of course you define them as "positive". A more practical approach is to apply them as far as they contribute to a goal. Biologically, these "great" women, can't find a long-term mate, end up getting IVF when they're old and higher risk for miscarriages and other fetal abnormalities, and are forced to raise a child without a father, a statistically bad bet. Regardless of who does the rejection, the resul…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 08:47 AM
0

I made an assertion, not an argument. If I make a claim, such as "you're a pedant" or "you're clearly someone who needs to prove their own intelligence", there's no argument there, but most people refute something they disagree with that points out a flaw in their character. Implicit ad hominem to avoid breaking PPD rules is still ad hominem, stop splitting hairs when the aim was to attack my person as unfunny and cringe because they were unhappy with my comment, not to suggest how I could bette…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 08:39 AM
3

And that makes those deleterious, masculine traits that cause them to forgo relationships any more dysgenic? That's like me arguing I'm not subpar as a man because I have traditionally feminine characteristics and am a fantastic homemaker, ignoring the fact that those qualities are subpar for mating in my gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 08:29 AM
2

That really depends on what data you're using. Dr. Irwing's meta analysis and sample from 20,000 university students done in the early 2000s, most definitely does show this.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 08:23 AM
2

Sure, but women complain about this kind of thing nonstop. Let me have my one moment to curse the world for giving me sloots instead of beautiful, quiet, glass-wearing nerds.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 07:56 AM
1

I'll take your lack of refutation and doubling down on ad hominem as an indication of acceptance.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 07:38 AM
3

Actually, you're right. My words are misleading. It's IQ 120+ and IQ 170+. No intent to exaggerate. I was referencing the "upper end of the distribution", and didn't realize that my words would more easily be interpreted as 'at that point' rather than 'at the upper end of the distribution of that point'.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 07:31 AM
1

Pot. Kettle. Black.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 07:14 AM
2

Your issue is thinking that schools have the explicit goal of helping their students. Schools are designed to churn out rule-following, tax-paying corporate sla.. *ahem* employees. Schools don't even have a finance course. Do you really believe they'd teach you a course that would stop you from paying the government boatloads in divorce settlements and child support, save you from undying servitude upon you in workforce to make these payments, and halt the proliferation of the next generation of…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 07:10 AM
2

Yes, and most people believe that having children when there is the potential of them inheriting a life-altering genetic disease is immoral and shouldn't be done due to the deleterious effects on the child's quality of life. The same can be said of a woman who willfully becomes a single mother. We know the statistics on education, on mental health, on poverty, etc. These women selfishly ignore the deleterious effects on the child's quality of life because they want a baby, even if they can't fin…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:46 AM
3

I know you're not a native speaker, we actually say "genetic disease" not genetical. It seems to me that when I suggest subpar genetics, you're interpreting that as having a genetic disease. Is that true? Genetics code for everything, height, looks, intelligence, personality, immune system, etc. When I say below-average genetics, a person can be perfectly healthy with regards to a genetic disease, but be uglier than average, dumber than average, less athletic than average, etc. I'm saying that t…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:32 AM
2

To clarify, you don't think dating and genetics are linked?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:23 AM
2

Because that is inherently linked. The value men place on women is fundamentally attached to the genetic potential of those women (their looks). Do you think an average or above average woman would go through the same plight as this woman? Typically, if a woman has trouble finding a man to commit to her and has to resort to becoming a single mother, it's due to the fact that she's not attractive enough to get a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:18 AM
4

Let's see. WHATGMG Had a loser husband Unironically believes in the wage gap Thinks that women are oppressed Has to get in-vitro at 40 years old because she can't find a man Blames men for her problems Why on earth would have to ask such a question, when it's perfectly obvious that she is bargain brand on clearance?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:13 AM
1

Yeah, the best option if we want to propagate the genes of below average women who make shit decisions, and then go on to raise further copies of themselves that believe in the same shit decisions. It's inherently dysgenic.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:06 AM
6

Yeah, the best option if we want to propagate the genes of below average women who make shit decisions, and then go on to raise further copies of themselves that believe in the same shit decisions. It's inherently dysgenic.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 06:06 AM
6

Wanting to be a single mother is well within any woman's rights. I'll agree with your first statement. But being a single mother after you and a man willingly choose to sleep with eachother, and unidirectionally applying eugenic principles and choosing the perfect chad to craft your beautiful designer baby when you can't even land a man that isn't a loser are completely different. Edit: Oh, and wanting to be a single mother definitely still makes you a loser. You're willfully subjecting your kid…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 05:50 AM
14

Honestly, when I hear about a single woman getting IVF with a sperm donor I go full autistic eugenicist. A subpar woman getting prime genetic material to then raise a child in a fatherless home? Bitch, you're subpar, accept that you shouldn't pass your genes on.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 05:39 AM
-2

Relationship dynamics reveal that, primarily, men expect sexual exclusivity while women expect emotional exclusivity. Biologically, this is an offshoot of paternal insecurity for men and pregnancy vulnerability for women. Men get in relationships to secure a woman that bears his children, while women get in relationships to guarantee resources while they're pregnant and need to raise a child. When taking these expectations into account, the reality is that the comparison of female vs male infide…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 03:02 AM
1

Did you just strawman? Jesus. Blocked. I can't.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 02:47 AM
0

First, the IQ test was created after education. Where do you get off making such ludicrous claims? There is no evidence to support that claim whatsoever. Second, certain races tend to be superior on different things. Environmental factors play a role in selecting traits. The idea that every single environment had the exact same criteria is preposterous. You think races just tend to look different, and somehow evolution decided to stop skin deep and neck down?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 02:28 AM
5

IQ is a terrible metric for intelligence and nobody in the psychiatric field respects or supports it’s use as a metric for such a thing. That is so veritably false that I refuse to read the rest of your post.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 02:21 AM
2

I'm sexually fluid for Henry Cavill.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 01:17 AM
3

Come on, man. Have some compassion. Martyr yourself. Do it for "equality". Realize how little you cared about the women you hooked up with, and what that says about any woman's judgement of character who has hooked up with a bunch of men. And then commit your entire life to that woman. You have to commit to someone. You see there's no other option. This is definitely not a false dilemma.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 01:12 AM
-2

Yes, because you're purposefully looking up all the people that disagreed with the unsavory, political implications of IQ differences. This is what is called "confirmation bias". You can also find loads of studies to show that it is an extremely robust, predictive measure of general intelligence, along with academic and overall success.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 12:57 AM
0

That premise isn't even true. You're going to come here, shouting axioms about how IQ is notoriously bad, and not even know that non-white, Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ? You know, the group that makes up .2% of the population yet 20% of nobel prize winners? The group that had Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Herzl?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 12:40 AM
-1

Notoriously bad to people who find it disagrees with their political ideologies and reveals to them they're much less intelligent than originally believed. Tell me you're a Gardner supporter without telling me.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/21 12:23 AM
1

Fiction can be illustrative and useful. Crime and Punishment for example. Every fable. Mythology. Religion, even.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 11:57 PM
1

What. Introverted and quiet is my type. It sucks that I'm a tall fit man who looks like a jock, so I attract the women obsessed with looks. Even though I'm a mega nerd.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 11:52 PM
2

And that's why women are more comfortable dating men that they feel are uglier than themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 09:40 PM
2

I don’t know dude if you cant find any value in women or view yourpartner positively and be happy to be with them I don’t think you’regonna be successful dating I never said anything of the matter. I simply stated the likelihood of a man finding a woman that is a prize drops off as the man becomes a prize himself. Expanding this by demonstrating how relationships developed historically, monogamy was introduced to reduce intrasexual competition and motivate below average men to be productive, non…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 09:36 PM
2

Hence why I said microcosm. The trend is true of virtually every characteristic, personality, attractiveness, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 09:11 PM
5

Given greater male variability hypothesis, this is statistically impossible for men at the upper end of the distribution. IQ is a good microcosm for this. At an IQ of 120+, there are twice as many men as women. At an IQ of 170+, there are 30 men for every 1 woman. If we were to match men and women 1 to 1, many men greater than one standard deviation above the mean would by definition be dating down. Edited due to data error.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 09:08 PM
1

DOI:10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147 and the NORC social survey 2014 data. Also we are not monogamous creatures, nor do we mate for life. That’s just biology. Patently untrue. Humans are on a spectrum of sociosexuality. Some have genetics that predispose them to monogamy and others have genetics that predispose them to promiscuity and polygamy. That's why partner-count is important, because it gives an indication of who is naturally inclined to monogamy or not. Also how do you determine happiness and …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 07:25 PM
1

Oh it was constructed to stop the spread of STD’s. Stop gay people, and stop infanticide. It is assume it was introduced to humans socially about 1,000 years ago. You forgot to mention that "body count" is the single, largest predictor of marital success, with an odds ratio of 1.31 of infidelity per sexual partner. Women with 2 partners have a rate of infidelity of 10% while women with 21 partners have a rate of infidelity of 50%. Even accounting for religiosity, women with no past sexual experi…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 05:39 PM
2

Social constructionism is value indeterminate. The concept simply explains how something originated, not why something originated. It's a non sequitur to use constructionism as some kind of evidence for irrationality; ironic given your emphasis on logic. Scarcity equals value. This is true across the board, if you make something scarcer it becomes worth more to us. Hence, virginity is prized, and the women who go through the mental gymnastics to explain how their past behavior should have no eff…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 04:34 PM
1

The idea is to figure out how to channel your existing income and expenses through your corporation to benefit from the lower tax rates and the use of tax deductions. Not alter your lifestyle substantially to create a brand new product/idea to generate profits.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 04:25 AM
-1

Yes, I have a profitable corporation. And no, I'm not going to go into the details. Edit: BTW, I was not suggesting people create a successful corporation in the same way you are implying with your question. I'm simply saying that people should figure out how to impact their financial situation for the better using the tools and protections provided by the government, such as with a corporation, not through the profits of a corporation.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 03:59 AM
1

All I can say is good luck. I hope your strategy works out for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 03:58 AM
1

And yet, the information is available for anyone inquisitive enough and 99%+ still don't care in the slightest. People understand that 40% of their hours spent working pays the government money directly, but they just accept it. Why? Because most people will take the guarantee of safety in slavery over a chance at freedom, especially if the chance requires investigating strange, new territory. Placing the blame on politicians and corporations for taking advantage of the system achieves nothing. …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 03:28 AM
0

Not true. Commoners are too indoctrinated by the educational system and too satisfied with comfort over exploration to put in any effort in learning how our system functions and sacrifice the safety of their 9-5. I guarantee every person who complains about wages has never formed their own corporation.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 03:09 AM
3

If people took the time to learn finances, figure out tax laws, and use corporations correctly, instead of wallowing in their slave morality and following what is accepted, maybe they'd be worth getting paid more.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 02:53 AM
-1

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/Belmi%20Neale%20Mirror%20Mirror%20OBHDP.pdf I never specified obesity, but I say it falls under the umbrella of "ugly".
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 01:55 AM
6

Some parents want to live vicariously through their children, forcing terrible labor upon them in order to roleplay as prodigies and geniuses. Many environmental variables are tremendously impactful on IQ during the younger years, but as the kids age, the impact shrinks to nothing. Like most prodigies, she'll likely end up roughly average but with emotional trauma due to her parents' obsession and choice of study. This is a sad case. The authorities should get involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 01:34 AM
5

Pitbulls are actually no more aggressive than other dogs towards people. The issue is they're much more aggressive to other dogs than any other dog breed, and their strong jaw muscles allow them inflict much more serious injury than other breeds if they were to be aggressive to a person/dog. I personally think they're ugly as hell too. Not as ugly as corgies. But a close 2nd.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 01:26 AM
-1

When every vote is worth the same, the change is a bad thing. Ugly, loser-type dudes are more likely to support liberal policies, big government, and redistribution programs than attractive, successful men. The end result is an increasing difficulty of standing out as your efforts are redistributed to the government in the name of "equality". But hey, had sex, amiright?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/21 01:18 AM
2

I don't expect 15 year olds to have a completely developed sense of morality. Nor do I expect a one size fits all solution. In masturbation. In relationships. In everything. As a man, I ultimately understand that we all have sexual urges, more-so than women. Women's rejection of pornography often stems from a lack of understanding of how the male mind works; they feel no need to be drawn to such imagery, so they can stand atop their moral highground and shout down at us, shame us for our base ne…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 11:18 PM
2

Apples serve as sustenance. Fish serve as sustenance. Therefore, fish are also apples.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 08:57 PM
2

causing an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease. If someone were to text you about how he "humanizes" you by thinking about your lack of experience, suggesting that he doesn't regularly see you as a human, you're telling me you wouldn't feel uneasy?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 08:29 PM
3

I think this is the most creepily condescending thing I've read.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 08:22 PM
1

Creepy.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 08:18 PM
2

Creepy?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 08:15 PM
3

Those are insults, aimed at defending his own pride. He's desperately seeking your validation (through sex), which is why ignoring him has such an impact. Negging consists of a compliment to suggest a person is better than most but not better than all. Like "you're the 2nd most beautiful girl I've seen here tonight." There is no way to positively interpret his words.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 07:56 PM
1

That wasn't the point. It's clear to me the point of the OP was not to suggest that sexual socialism should be pursued, but rather the underlying motivations for sexual and economic socialistic positions, if value-based, are one and the same. If one supports the latter without the former, as women often do, the reasons are self-serving. The argument is intentionally inflammatory to point out the mental gymnastics one has to go to to not default to the obvious position: both sexual and economic s…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 07:35 PM
1

Your idiocy is the embrace of a traditional institution, marriage, as an end-goal, while suggesting to the same women, that they should engage in behaviors that are counterproductive for that end-goal, rejecting traditionalism for the sake of equality and emotions. There's no point in this vacuous conversation when one party illogically throws out "axiomatic" truths like "This is good advice" and "Women shouldn't have zero sexual experience by the time they're married" without even elaborating t…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 06:58 PM
1

Yes, the pursuit of "equality" and "fairness" is generally just the embrace of envy wrapped in a prettier bow.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 06:30 PM
3

I actually understand what you're saying in a broad sense. Applying economic principles to the sexual marketplace is very unsavory for many, and you can see the result in many of the angered replies, but it's illustrative conceptually when you realize that at a fundamental level, relationships are the exchange of sexual goods of the woman for the nonsexual goods (commitment, protection, finances) of the man. The tendency of women to be much more progressive and liberal than men is a direct resul…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 06:24 PM
1

It's not muscle mass. It's glycogen stores. Glycogen, which serves as fuel for your muscles, pulls in even more water weight. When you stop working out, your body no longer has the need to store glycogen in your muscles, thereby causing weight loss which you see when you stop going to the gym for a week or two.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 06:10 PM
5

"Sowing wild oats" is the single, largest predictor of marital infidelity, accounting for 1.31 odds ratio per past sexual partner. You decide to strawman by focusing on the example given that attempted to illustrate the trend of a broader concept for those who can't conceptualize odds ratios. "Hamster wheel dismantler". Pfff ironic.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 05:56 PM
5

Good advice? What rationale do you have for that? "Sowing wild oats" is the single, largest predictor of marital infidelity, accounting for 1.31 odds ratio per past sexual partner. Women who have had 21+ partners have a 50% of infidelity compared to 10% for women who have had just 2 partners. Women with no sexual experience have the best statistical chance of a good marriage, even when accounting for the impact of religiosity. Your advice is encouraging behavior that will set women up for greate…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 05:48 PM
10

Ignoring the omission of the work done outside the home to push a narrative, the root of the problem is believing studies can quantify the "value" of labor within a household by time-based metrics. You can slice labor in any way to push any sort of conclusion you want. Why not use opportunity cost? Impact? Calories burnt? See the problem? Sociology has the issue of using words that assign value to data. The correct phrasing would be "women spent more time on nonmarket work inside the home" not "…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 04:09 PM
2

The idea is to avoid entertaining your primal instinctual fantasy of copulating with women that aren't your wife. I'm not your dad, I'm giving advice not forcing you to rigidly follow a "correct and approved procedure". How do your actions contribute to your role as a husband? As a father? As a role model? What are you encouraging your mind to think about? I suggest ruminating on your set of core values and what kind of man you strive to be remembered as, and examine how furiously masturbating t…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 03:44 PM
14

Ardent defenders of pornography in relationships are like smoking addicts trying to rationalize their slow, self-inflicted suicide. Cognitive dissonance arises upon realizing that one's actions follow the same "ooga booga" pathway of cheating, playing to the male sexual fantasy as a king of a harem, and therefore, speaks to some regards about one's moral propensities. Stop watching porn you druggies.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 05:05 AM
1

I'm a catholic. If you have a christian discussion group, I trust your word over my sorry ass that stopped going to mass until recently.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 04:15 AM
4

I've said and done some of the most cringe shit to women and thought to myself, "I must have had autism." Somehow shit still worked out. The first time I went back to a girl's dorm as a 1st week freshman in college, the girl (really cute too) chased me around the lobby trying to do stuff to me because I was terrified of my own lack of experience. We ended up cuddling, and passing out drunk, and when I woke up, I fucking dipped like a pussy when she asked if I wanted to head back to her bedroom. …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 04:09 AM
2

Saying yes to life even in its strangest and hardest problems, the will to life rejoicing over its own inexhaustibility even in the very sacrifice of its highest types--that is what I called Dionysian, that is what I guessed to be the bridge to the psychology of the tragic poet. Not in order to be liberated from terror and pity, not in order to purge oneself of a dangerous affect by its vehement discharge--Aristotle understood it that way--but in order to be oneself the eternal joy of becoming, …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 03:54 AM
1

Fine. You are right. I am wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 03:50 AM
2

God made the rules you blasphemer.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 03:34 AM
3

You can find relief without using porn. It's called "imagination".
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 03:32 AM
3

That's the kind of thing a guy who needs all the chances he can get would say.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 03:14 AM
1

Bahaha. No response? As if your condescendingly dismissive remarks of "MMk" and "Doesn't answer my question" while maintaining an illogical position doesn't reek of "I think I'm so much smarter than I am".
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 02:58 AM
1

Make yourself feel smart, I guess And what is the purpose of this portion? Ah, to "make yourself feel smart, I guess."
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 02:39 AM
1

I'll help out because you seem to have trouble making abstractions. Only an idiot would have no concern with dating someone that has a factor that is the single, strongest predictor of future infidelity. A female partner who has 21+ partners has a roughly 50% chance of cheating in a marriage according the the NORC 2014 study, as opposed to women with 1 partner who have a 10% chance of cheating. I'd reckon men are of similar tendencies. Seeing this data, if you have no concern whatsoever about th…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/21 02:00 AM
-1

You're making fun of a person with clear mental issues. You are all despicable people. You should be ashamed.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/21 08:23 PM
1

Enlighten me as to how anyone could infer the second sentence given your previous words. Or as to how one could conclude the first sentence given the contents of our previous conversation. And now you’re defensive because your purview isn’t being validated? the the range of your experience of thought affects how you see the world and your perceptions and hot takes. I'll give you some advice, free of charge for use in future arguments. Burden of proof - Provide premises that can logically be tied…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/21 04:15 PM
1

I’m saying that the the range of your experience of thought affects how you see the world and your perceptions and hot takes. That's not what you wrote nor implied. There was a very poignant focus on an individual belief with your words "repeating" and "exhaustively" to describe my actions. It's strange to shift the theme and direction of attack with a single, uncommon word. My perception, which may be incorrect, is that you used a word you were unfamiliar with as a substitute for belief/opinion…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/21 02:17 AM
2

Sure. I misinterpreted slightly. However, the point still stands. You're failing to understand human psychology by comparing behaviors in two completely different environments with differential consequences. A person in real life will be dissuaded from saying things that create an immediate social sanction, like a negative emote. In addition to some anonymity, the internet removes the salience of feedback and thus permits people to act more freely. So, it's frankly a worthless point to even brin…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/21 01:06 AM
6

You don't hear non-politically correct opinions that could make one appear bitter in real life? You only hear them on a sub dedicated to talking about these problems in anonymity? Color me surprised.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/21 12:46 AM
1

It's really not. That definition isn't even correct. Purview means "Range of experience or thought" You're exclaiming that the range of my thoughts is invalidated by your words. If your assertions were true, it wouldn't be the range that would be invalidated, it would be an individual belief... the one of comparing the morality of between consumers and creators... You could have used the phrase "... your purview is limited." Or "... your purview is inadequate". To say my purview isn't being vali…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 11:46 PM
1

I have to point out, because this bothers me. Purview isn't the correct word here.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 11:28 PM
2

I'm not sure you understand what either of those words mean. The men creating demand are as depraved as the women they’re watching. Here you create a comparison between the consumers and the creators, making them appear equal in their lack of morality. In my previous comment, I made the assertion, using the trolley dilemma and the meat paradox, that deliberate impact plays an important role in morality. And it's demonstrated time and time again that people view behaviors that require more though…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 11:10 PM
1

Personal perspective/opinion doesn't change the innate qualities of an idea. Likewise, being annoyed by complainers of a practice doesn't make their (more individually affecting) contribution equally as impactful as those who facilitate the dissemination of said practice to others. You're preaching solipsism.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 10:42 PM
1

I'm saying your moral perspective suffers from an abundance of naivety and a lack of nuance. It also seems you get very defensive when your position is challenged.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 10:29 PM
2

"Throughout the animal kingdom, when the sexes differ from each other in external appearance, it is the male which, with rare exceptions, has been chiefly modified; for the female still remains more like the young of her own species, and more like the other members of the same group" In the greater male variability hypothesis, Charles Darwin illustrated greater differences in the extremes of phenotypic expression amongst the men of a species vs. the women. Due to the more salient differences bet…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 09:24 PM
1

That's a reductive perspective of human morality, an important factor of which is and has always been deliberate action and intent, as evidenced by the trolley dilemma and the meat paradox. From the intent and amount of action required, creating an evil because it benefits you is far worse than consuming an existing evil.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 08:47 PM
1

Yes, it's a shame that the brains of so many on this subreddit have such low coefficients of friction.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 08:15 PM
0

As shown by the moonbattery, if they didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have standards at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 08:09 PM
4

I know, we should start arresting the people who volunteer at soup kitchens and those that donate half of their money to charity. They're at the top of the individual corruption index. Despicable.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 08:05 PM
1

Have you heard of strawmanning before? You seem to enjoy it.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 05:20 PM
2

Yes, all the happy, content people living full, enriched lives come to Reddit using impression management techniques on a bunch of strangers to prove how full and enriched lives they live. I'm sure you'll be singing the same tune when you're approaching your 50s and 60s.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 05:07 PM
2

Ma'am. This is a Wendy's.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 03:21 PM
1

False premise. But my false premise would be assuming a sound argument from such an aerodynamic brain.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 02:28 PM
1

Unfortunately, there's no data to support your claim of "hugely common" and "certainly". That is merely conjecture. Furthermore, adding an illustration as the final sentence of your argument doesn't add substance, though it may impress onlookers. In the early years of Christianity, marriage was hugely prevalent and separation/divorce didn't occur due to the social norms and expectations during the era. Only after the weakening of the bonds of marriage through sociocultural effects in places such…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 02:09 PM
1

At risk of sounding contrarian, how does one become 'best friends' with someone of the opposite sex without having some social inadequacy preventing him or her from becoming best friends with someone of the same sex? Friendships are built upon shared experiences, motivations, etc., things that connect you to the other person via your personalities. Due to the clustering of world-perceptions and life-experiences of men and women, wouldn't someone of the same sex have an astronomically higher leve…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 01:41 PM
1

So the idea that my father, ex-stepfather, and current stepmother are all assholes and abusive because of a lack of a father figure, lack of motherly care, or lack of a stable home environment is not true. They had all of those things, whereas I had none of it. This is why I brought up the 8 hour workweek, and the zeitgeist of prioritizing work over family following the industrial revolution. A two-parent household does not guarantee good parenting, but it is all the more likely compared to the …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 01:23 PM
1

Interesting. Two parent households have been shown to be paramount to the success of the children, whether by education, income, or behavioral propensities; the benefits are irrefutable. I reckon that the modernization of the 8 hour workweek and removal of parents from the home, by the social pressures from industrialization, corporatism, and the feminist movement, are similarly disastrous on childhood outcomes, and, thus, their future parenting outcomes. In a society where divorce is frowned up…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 12:54 PM
1

This begs the question. Do you believe that your mother would have been as likely to marry your father, had she known she would be unable to get divorced?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 11:35 AM
1

People would separate without legally divorcing. False premise. For a psychologist, he has a pretty poor understanding of how people work. Ironic. Socialization, norms, and incentives have tremendous effects on human behaviors.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 11:32 AM
3

What did you do? Rescue children from a burning building? Adopt a litter of kittens? Plant 1000 trees?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 03:03 AM
3

Haha, mad about the downvotes, honey? Regardless of prior context and feelings of righteousness, I remain unconvinced this isn't taunting. People tend to get upset and lash out when they feel that they are socially rejected and outcast from what they perceive as the group. Sometimes, it's important to be the bigger person and exit the situation rather than fan the flames.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 02:42 AM
3

Yes, I, too, find the hilarity in posting the temper tantrum of an angry person after deliberately taunting them. Hoho.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 02:24 AM
2

Why post this argument here other than for social validation and to shame the other person? Don't you think it would've been appropriate to whiteout his name?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 02:13 AM
1

It’s statistically proven that married couples earn more money. Questionable cause fallacy. Cum hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 02:00 AM
3

It's because our current culture glorifies two things 1) equality and 2) masculinity. As in, we care about the success of the "underdog" and we interpret success through the use of traditional "masculine" metrics. It's funny because feminism is the most sexist, anti-woman creation in our modern time, and people don't even realize it. If you examine it at a deeper level, they believe the concepts of the "feminine" that are so invariably present in most mammalian species are somehow less critical …
/r/MensRights23/06/21 04:25 PM
2

To me, they're completely different. Calling men virgins pushes them towards unhealthy behaviors, while slut-shaming pushes women towards healthy behaviors.
/r/MensRights20/06/21 09:10 PM
2

I'm being intentionally facetious. But, what I'm really saying is you're suggesting men to take a bad investment. Look at it this way, men are logical creatures who examine most things from a cost-benefit perspective. If you look at marriage and relationships, in the olden times, men benefited by having a supportive women that would make their careers and lives easier through cooking, cleaning, and finances and provided secure access to physical intimacy that was relatively rare outside of relat…
/r/MensRights19/06/21 08:39 PM
1

Imagine dating a 3d western woman in 2021. Kinda cringe.
/r/MensRights19/06/21 08:19 PM
3

Lo and behold this kind of study will be used in a way that allows women to ostensibly benefit while not adjusting any expectation on men.
/r/MensRights19/06/21 08:16 PM
4

Too many women complain. Yes, we get it Becky. Society's expectations are so demanding. Men are so cruel. It's hard to push through with your daily coffees from starbucks, cushy air conditioned job, and stellar educational background. How is possible to live through all the oppression that you've not directly experienced but are sure exists because everyone says it's there?
/r/MensRights11/01/21 02:21 AM
1

I don't agree. Being fat isn't the problem. More often it's the entitlement or double standard that accompanies it, man or woman. Personally, I find the fat acceptance movement fine, it allows for a "wider" visibility for critique. Via social approval, more people feel comfortable being overweight, and, if the only thing keeping them from moving in that direction is the opinions of others rather than intrinsic values, I'd rather know now than some time down the road when I've emotionally investe…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 08:10 PM
5

A spoiled child may come to interpret their parents' love as oppression.
/r/MensRights29/12/20 02:51 AM
2

I understand that. I'm replying for everyone else who is looking at the conversation.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 04:15 PM
1

Men are more likely to shame you to your face. From all my female friends, I can guarantee women are more likely to shame you overall by talking about it behind your back.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 04:13 PM
3

Yeah, those are great points. Honestly, that's the real problem with feminism, myopia such that issues can only be seen as they are related to gender. Didn't get the job? Must be gender expectation. Don't get paid as much? Must be my gender. Man being toxic? Must be his gender. Relationship failing? Must be societally ingrained gender roles. Complete and utter lack of accountability and responsibility. (I was confused about your use of "you" in the second paragraph, but understand you're referri…
/r/MensRights28/12/20 03:59 AM
1

Huh, I guess you're right. Legally. Personally. Telling women outright that I won't have sex with them has worked for me every time. Though women have pleaded, I've never given in nor been raped yet.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 02:16 AM
18

Social shaming (slut shaming, body shaming, and yes, women are the main perpetrators of this, not men) Rumor spreading Verbal Abuse Gaslighting Giving the cold shoulder Withholding sex Monkey-branching Domestic abuse without fear of physical retribution Using sex appeal in exchange for money or services
/r/MensRights28/12/20 01:03 AM
7

Yes, it's sexist. Toxic masculinity is a linguistic tool specifically designed to push and validate an ideology: feminism. If feminists can use this language to associate toxicity solely to the traditionally "male" gender role, they can: lend credibility to the idea that men oppress women in a patriarchal society. diminish social acceptance of traditionally male behaviors that feminists are unequipped to counter. elevate female qualities as superior to male qualities. Social validation is the st…
/r/MensRights28/12/20 12:54 AM
3

Extra frustrating given that under UK law, women can't even commit rape. "A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis..."
/r/MensRights27/12/20 11:48 PM
30

Not a valid point. Look at the actual facts and numbers. According to the Make a Difference Campaign (which pushes for women's rights), in 33.5-90% of reported rapes, rape did not occur. Only 8% of reported rapes are deliberate lies. The remaining percent is due to women misremembering, not having experienced a crime under the definition of the law, or reporting something as rape that wasn't rape. Often times, text-based evidence is the deciding factor. The only data on "non-reported" rapes is f…
/r/MensRights27/12/20 04:59 PM
18

For the love of god, leave. No one wants you here. Don't you have something better to do than be intentionally contrary and ideological? Stop wasting your time. You're not convincing anyone and you're not even learning a new perspective.
/r/MensRights27/12/20 03:52 PM
2

Also, abstinence or selectivity. We can say no too. Stick it to em (or not ;) )
/r/MensRights27/12/20 02:38 PM
1

I was just trying to help you out man. If you don't believe me look at the data. Women are better able to interpret social signals. Women care more about maintaining positive social relationships. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-018-0980-y https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190130175604.htm https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/male-female/201910/women-s-advantages-in-social-cognition You can believe what you want, but I guarantee you will be sad, lonely, and unhapp…
/r/MensRights27/12/20 02:43 AM
2

Masculinity is being confident in doing what you believe is right, regardless of social pressure. If you understood true masculinity, you wouldn't get hung up on believing in "toxic masculinity". When you mocked a friend for doing gymnastics, you were not masculine, you were a naive child. You were insecure in yourself, and lashed out at someone else to make yourself feel better. If you were masculine, you wouldn't find the need to do that. Women are much more influenced by social norms and the …
/r/MensRights27/12/20 01:48 AM
4

Yeah, imagine having depression ONLY amid the pandemic. haha (help me)
/r/MensRights26/12/20 10:34 PM
8

Exactly. And only one of us is ignorant enough to view themselves as knowledgeable on the subject because of things they've been told.
/r/MensRights26/12/20 05:30 PM
11

Have you visited any of those places?
/r/MensRights26/12/20 03:45 PM
7

Data from the make a difference campaign suggests that at least 33.5% (and up to 90% if you include the grey area where we're not really sure if a crime occurred) of rape reports to police were undeniably false. In 8% of the reports, the police were able to prove the reporter deliberately lied, and in the remainder, the reporter didn't actually experience a crime, possibly just "perceiving" they had. It's a larger problem than feminists try to convince you of, who cite statistics of how 95% of r…
/r/MensRights26/12/20 03:17 PM
20

Lol. You hear a clearly biased, non-objective description of the video, and say "sounds about right." And accept it as fact. Might as well ask, "please tell me how to feel about things because I'm too lazy and too unscrupulous to discover my own set of values and apply it accordingly".
/r/MensRights26/12/20 02:57 PM
16

Both bad, yes. Both sexist, yes. Similar, yes. But not the same. There is a clear difference in severity. While the recount might be biased, there is a difference between the statement of "most men would prefer to be with other men over women" and "men will become unnecessary and I can't wait until they die out". The first one is sexist and discriminatory. The second is sexist and endorses genocide. Just like there's a difference between saying, "I dislike jews and most people like me would choo…
/r/MensRights25/12/20 07:56 PM
8

How dare you discriminate against me based on religion... Only kidding. Merry Christmas bro.
/r/MensRights25/12/20 02:44 PM
1

I think you're confusing long-term vs short-term benefits. Short-term you're ignoring conflict, but long-term you're signaling that those topics are acceptable in your presence, that you accept deliberate half-truths, and that you care more about her opinions than you respect your own. You don't necessarily have to commit to an argument, but simply expressing your disapproval is sufficient. Regardless, if she doesn't approve of your ideas, she doesn't need to be in your life anyway.
/r/MensRights25/12/20 01:36 PM
15

Yeah I feel you. Even with most women not describing themselves as feminists, I've seen the deep reaches of the ideology. I've tried talking about gender issues with even my non-feminist friends and family. I've yet to find one woman who doesn't believe that her life would be easier had she been born a man, despite actual facts indicating otherwise.
/r/MensRights25/12/20 01:30 PM
25

One of the core pushes of men's rights is to repeal gender-based discriminatory laws favoring women over men. The basic argument for the existing of these laws is to counteract the implicit bias against women in different areas, such as the work place. Taken together, the article and your point cast doubt on that basic argument, corroborating that men aren't experiencing advantages solely on their gender. Look at it this way. The same line of thinking, as you pointed out, would suggest we're rac…
/r/MensRights25/12/20 01:20 PM
5

I'm confused by your phrasing. When you say male oppression do you mean oppression of men or by men? While I wouldn't use the word "oppression", women, by dint of their sexual selection, or more aptly "nature" ultimately were the creators of the male disposability. Biologically, men need to take care of women to have children. After or in order to secure a high quality mate, men need to be useful, providing resources and protecting the women and children to ensure that their progeny survive to r…
/r/MensRights25/12/20 04:05 AM
3

Ah yes, the right of "stopping people from hurting your feelings". How could I forget? Right there between free speech and bearing arms.
/r/MensRights25/12/20 12:52 AM
2

In the famous words of Inigo Montoya, "You Keep Using That Word (rights), I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"
/r/MensRights25/12/20 12:44 AM
3

You're the one who said, and I quote, "REAL men's RIGHTS activists should stand up for a mans right to wear what they want."
/r/MensRights25/12/20 12:39 AM
-3

I already proved it has merit. Do you really need me to handhold you through the connection between wearing dresses, feminist sociocultural theory of gender roles, and men's rights' fundamental assertion of biological sex's impact on gender roles? Seriously? Wow, so I'm inclined to agree with one wrong thing just because the position on the opposite extreme is worse? Quit being dishonest with your phrasing because it's convenient to the current point. You're misrepresenting what you said. To "be…
/r/MensRights25/12/20 12:34 AM
6

Obviously, you responded to my other post. If we start including trivial bullshit like "people insulting men for wearing dresses", we're diluting men's right activism to the point where we're no different from the feminists who complain about "mansplaining" and "toxic masculinity". Men's Rights Activism is fundamentally based around rationality and data-supported causes, not subjective emotions on asinine trivialities.
/r/MensRights25/12/20 12:21 AM
4

The movement is called Men's RIGHTS. Not Men's "Fragile Sense of Self Worth that Depends on the Validation of Others".
/r/MensRights24/12/20 11:31 PM
4

Yeah, and based on the data, only 20% of cases led to arrest (less than 50% were found guilty), which suggests that while 33.5% were most likely "false claims", the remaining 50% could also have been, we just don't know.
/r/MensRights24/12/20 11:19 PM
5

Fuck that. A man's right? Are those mean fucking twitter posts stopping men from wearing dresses? Are the opinions of right-wing people so harmful to men's fragile psyche that they feel shamed into wearing suits? News flash. No one is stopping you from dressing how you want. Wear a dress for all I care, but don't shift men's rights activists' focus to shallow, non-issues. And "real men's rights activists"? Ya know, what about actual issues like discrimination in the hiring practices, under-repre…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 11:14 PM
4

I wonder how this 8% number factors into the actual number from the make a difference campaign. Out of all the reports of rape, 33.5% were "false claims", which included: Unfounded/false reports (i.e. the police know that the person was lying): 7.1% Unfounded/baseless (i.e. "those that do not meet the elements of the offense and those that were improperly coded as a sexual assault in the first place." including cases in which a "follow-up investigation reveals either that no crime occurred or th…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 10:24 PM
-3

I just gave a reason why the conservative perspective actually has merit in the men's rights sphere. Calling it "utter nonsense" is dismissive without support. Prove how it is "utter nonsense". Just like the youtuber, you're invoking an untenable neutral stance. You just admitted "one thing might be more wrong than the another", but at the same time, said you "don't agree that men's rights should be more sympathetic to the religious conservative position". So which one is it? Or are you really a…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 10:06 PM
7

Obviously. Feminism makes sense from a capitalistic perspective. Let's see: Increase the total labor force, driving up supply and, therefore, allowing companies to offer lower wages. Decrease the demand for raises/promotions due to the increased representation of women (biological tendencies and raising them on the idea that external forces rather than assertiveness govern progress in life). Decrease the likelihood of women exploring options outside of the typical 9-5, as they're more susceptibl…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 09:52 PM
11

This feels more like pandering neutrality without real reflection. The "un-biased" equating of the liberal feminist ideas of "toxic masculinity" and hatred towards men as a group to the religious conservative ideas of "bringing back the gender norms" and hatred of "feminine" men is extremely reductive, especially given the bulk of the video focuses on commenting on the religious, conservative issue. While I agree with the general sentiment of "mind your own fucking business", anyone with 2 brain…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 09:26 PM
11

The Empathy Gap is a cognitive bias whereby our states of mind influence our attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. This is one of the many reasons why men's issues are often times secondary to women's issues. The mainstream social acceptance of the feminist movement inevitably creates the state of mind wherein women perceive themselves to be victims of a male-dominated patriarchy. This feminist-tinted glass through which many women (and many men) see society leaves them unable to understand the…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 06:22 PM
2

If you're genuinely asking, male methods of releasing emotion are more often through problem solving, hobbies, and work. Men are pragmatic, and see that sometimes emotional expression is simply self-indulgent and value-less. Hence why women often are frustrated when men try to solve the issues that they're simply venting about. Men, on the other hand, become frustrated, because in their eyes, "why vent when you can just work through the issue?" There's a fundamental disconnect between how both p…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 04:05 PM
3

"Toxic" masculinity also involves shunning feminine values such as emotion and empathy which is a cause of so many mental health issues in men. Who are you to claim this? This is such a gynocentric viewpoint. The idea that because men don't want to talk about their emotions that a) this is caused by society and b) this is the cause of the mental issues in men is so myopic and lacking in perspective it borders on infantile. Maybe your association of male methods of releasing emotion with toxicity…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 11:51 AM
2

Prove it. What have you, in the name of feminism, specifically done to support men's rights besides posting on the internet, claiming you support men's rights?
/r/MensRights23/12/20 07:42 PM
1

most of these movements want equal rights, but not equal responsibilities. Basically true, except "equal rights" isn't the right phrase. The things they desire, like power and respect, aren't rights, they're privileges. No feminist can name any right afforded to men that women are not afforded.
/r/MensRights23/12/20 05:44 PM
11

‘What happens if these bromantic relationships really take off… Women actually just become the sexual fulfillers of men and nothing else. That’s the worrying aspect’ Because that's exactly what's happening now. There is a reason for the rise of MGTOW and the red pill, increasing singledom, and men generally avoiding long term relationships. With women being pushed away from the "traditionally feminine" roles and qualities and being put in direct competition with men, what exactly do they expect …
/r/MensRights23/12/20 05:32 PM
2

Exactly. So why lie and say feminism is striving for equality. Their goal is to advantage women over men, as evidenced by their discriminatory legislature and opposition to laws in favor of men's rights.
/r/MensRights23/12/20 01:56 PM
2

First, the core idea of feminism is that a male-dominated patriarchy has enforced gender norms through the use of culture and socialization, resulting in the oppression of women. Even the non-extreme feminists lend credibility to these ideologies leading to society wide acceptance of male-blaming attitudes, female favoritism, and demonization of men's rights movements: True ignorance of the biological differences between men and women. Second, those "radical dipshit idiots feminism" are the ones…
/r/MensRights23/12/20 01:47 PM
11

This is not true. First, the core idea of feminism is that a male-dominated patriarchy has enforced gender norms through the use of culture and socialization, resulting in the oppression of women. Even the non-extreme feminists lend credibility to these ideologies leading to society wide acceptance of male-blaming attitudes, female favoritism, and demonization of men's rights movements: True ignorance of the biological differences between men and women. Second, those "radical dipshit idiots femi…
/r/MensRights23/12/20 03:51 AM
2

Sure, but this mindset is what causes the problems in the first place. If more men were willing to set aside their own personal gain for truth and justice, feminists wouldn't hold the social capital to inflict tremendous injury on the lone man that has martyred himself.
/r/MensRights22/12/20 02:25 PM
1

`> aw, i’m sorry about your friend. she truly got lost in the sauce. She's actually a biology pHd candidate, which circles back to my original comment about left-leaning ideologies in academia. While, like in your experience, feminism may not be directly taught, the underlying concepts of victimization and power struggles are enforced in students heads over years and years through professors and peers. The ideas that women and minorities have it more difficult due to oppression are lambasted int…
/r/MensRights22/12/20 11:28 AM
2

i’m sorry for calling your claim disgusting. I appreciate that. Thank you. sorry i’m not citing much of anything either. i don’t argue with people online ever so i don’t have a my own lil database saved haha. I, at least, appreciate the attempt, and even if the sources are not perfect, it's better than nothing. The reason I'm both demanding and critical of sources is that many self-identifying feminists haven't even looked up the actual numbers nor the studies. They've heard other feminists say …
/r/MensRights22/12/20 02:49 AM
3

you don’t know me personally, don’t accuse me of deliberately trying to take men’s rights away. First off, I never said that. Don't misrepresent my words. Second off, don't intentionally attempt to derail the conversation. You seem to have ignored all the statistics I brought up regarding over-representation of women and discrimination against men by focusing on your feelings. I'm sure it's an easier argument to label me as a pig for "insulting you" and bringing up the "disgusting" facts regardi…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 11:37 PM
4

i am not aware of any. i’m not part of any group. just cause they don’t advocate for men’s rights doesn’t mean they want to see men suffer. feminist groups are for advancing women’s rights. Then don't lie and claim to be "striving for equality". Claim what you're doing. You're striving for advantages exclusively for women. Advantages to women in areas where they're actively competing against men inherently results in disadvantages to men. there are groups who fight for men’s rights. do they also…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 09:56 PM
2

You certainty are trolling, no? On science comparisons: No. Data is data. Data is not "more flexible" even if it is in support of "social sciences". Data is not subject to opinion. Conclusions are. Claiming "false equivalency" is purposeful avoidance. On bullying: The cited article is a meta-analysis of studies that takes into account different definitions of bullying. Many of the studies that demonstrate men bullying more often omit relational aggression and rumor spreading. The workplace bully…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 09:09 PM
3

You didn't answer my request. I named a couple of feminist groups that actively have opposed men's rights. Name one feminist group that has done anything for men's rights. Here's a parallel that might help you: if I'm a member of a white nationalist organization whose core tenet involves how immigrants are stealing jobs away from white people, yet I am only looking to improve white representation and acknowledge that immigrants have their own problems, would you find fault with my support of the…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 06:23 PM
1

Interesting that you find drawing a logical parallel "insulting". I never assigned any moral/ethical value to "all lives matter". That was you. And just no, its a problem that increases every year, only 1% of homeless veterans were women in 2015, its now 10%, really not focusing on the problem is doing wonders for fixing it Do you have a source? By all accounts, this is factually untrue. The proportion of homeless veterans that are women has remained relatively constant, and the overall homeless…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 06:09 PM
2

the majority of feminists are striving for equality and acknowledge that men commit suicide at higher rates, are more often homeless than women, etc. a lot of the issues men face is because we view women a certain way Exactly. You, like many other feminists, only acknowledge. Saying that you care is not the same as "striving for equality". In my world, actions speak for character, not words. Name one feminist organization that has actively pushed for any legislature to support any of these issue…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 05:25 PM
1

Yeah. Don't ever date a feminist. Anyone who believes that there is a tyrannical system in place that subjugates women and favors men will never find your problems as important as their own. The great part of being a man is that we don't need women as much as they need men. You don't find men feeling the need to profess their independence on social media. And, masculinity is inherently polarizing, while feminity is inclusive. Just think back on all the times women are nice to someone and then ta…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 02:59 PM
3

Look. It seems like you care about how they respond to your points. The goal of discussion should never be to get the other side to agree/concede. As long as your points are backed by facts and solid logic, regardless of how they respond, you'll have a small impact on their viewpoint. Say your piece, but be ultimately fine regardless. This isn't to say ignore outside evidence, but you need to internally validate your points. That's what makes men into great men; total and unwavering confidence i…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 02:48 PM
1

No. Not an accurate comparison. It'd be like posting about police brutality to blm. Yes, it affects all races, but police brutality occurs more often to black individuals. Can you not see the obvious parallel?
/r/MensRights21/12/20 02:28 PM
2

Are my words highly emotionally charged? Out of all my responses to you, I urge you to name one thing I said that seemed angry or hostile. Just one thing. And then go back and read your own comments. Which one of us cast aspersions on a group? Was it me? Or maybe the individual that labeled men's rights as filled with "toxic men" and an "anger vacuum chamber"? I'll ask you a 3rd time, because you conveniently aren't responding to avoid cognitive dissonance, do you believe in the saying "all live…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 01:37 PM
5

Sure, but that's not the point of the post at all. The point is to illustrate the attribution of most problems faced by feminists to misogyny and a male-dominated patriarchy, regardless of actual reason. The graphs are a secondary aspect. Just look up any piece of literature that attempts to show discrimination against women. There's never an adequate number of controls, and a conclusion reached by the assumption that any inequality stems from inequity.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 01:23 PM
1

Observation and data is not toxicity. I'll let you try the experiment. Go to any women-centric subreddit, like femaledatingstrategy or feminism, and make a post/comment as a man dissenting against their premise. You've certainly cast doubts on men's rights. Have you been banned?
/r/MensRights21/12/20 01:10 PM
1

No. Focus does not imply neglect. You should be able to see a difference between affirming something exists and negating something else entirely. But what you're doing is the same as pushing for "all lives matter" over "black lives matter", because, while black people are predominantly affected by police brutality, white people experience it too. Again, I'll ask a second time, do you support saying "all lives matter"?
/r/MensRights21/12/20 01:02 PM
1

I disagree. This isn't a matter of opinion. You're disagreeing with scientifically supported data. This would be tantamount to me seeing statistics on temperature change in our climate and saying that "I disagree, the temperatures haven't been raising". The downstream thing, whether or not this is worthwhile addressing, is the matter of opinion. Many male bullies are popular. Sure, exceptions exist, but the data suggest otherwise. Male aggression was associated with higher peer rejection and low…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 12:49 PM
14

Take a second to reflect on what you said. The very fact that you specified the group as "feminists" while leaving the general as "men" indicates the issue men face. There is a huge distinction between generalizing a gender and a generalizing a substrata of a gender that supports a detrimental ideology that is predominantly on one side of the political isle. Feminists actually hold the similar ideas, espouse similar values, and support similar legislative actions, unlike men. There is a reason i…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 12:04 PM
1

Hadn't thought about it this way. Guess it makes sense. Every time I've tried opening up about my problems, I've felt worse, like a burden. Channeling it through music and song-writing feels more productive and helpful for me.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 05:09 AM
31

Or lack of observation, poor analysis, and use of passive aggression.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 04:51 AM
33

The feminists aren't out to get you This is a strawman. I never said they're out to get me, I said their policies affect me. Don't de-legitimize my argument by misconstruing it. Feminists don't affect your life at all. Trust me. You have no evidence for this assertion. I provided an evidence of feminist policy resulting in a direct impact on representation of men. You offered no refutation of this nor other political institution that could possibly affect me. If we know that feminist policies ex…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 04:42 AM
29

Excuse me? Did you watch the lecture?
/r/MensRights21/12/20 04:12 AM
40

Yeah, feminists are not actively trying to oppress men, they're just trying to make life easier for themselves. However, by believing in a "patriarchy" and trying to correct injustices in the distribution of "power" between the sexes, feminists have instituted legislature and instilled ideas in society that excuse female favoritism. Discrimination against men is an obvious after effect. Just look at what just happened in Paris. They instituted a law to achieve equal representation, and once wome…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 03:51 AM
1

It'll likely be a bonus on her application form to colleges. It's only a minor so likely not a huge deal. I guarantee it will not have the same effect on her job prospects. I'd definitely raise my eyebrow at anyone with a gender studies degree applying for my company. I'd be concerned that they'd be too difficult to teach and generally unproductive because they're more biased towards assuming any problem they experience is grounded in sexism.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 01:41 AM
8

It could be. But imagine if the roles had been reversed. Do you think she would afford you the same luxury? I'm gonna guess not.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 01:35 AM
2

What toxicity do you see in this subreddit? Free discussion is allowed. Or would you prefer to be banned outright for having a different opinion like any of women's rights subreddits?
/r/MensRights21/12/20 01:27 AM
3

Do you support saying "all lives matter" as well? Do you think the fact that "1 out of 4 homeless people is a woman" is an issue that impacts women more than men? Obviously we want nobody to homeless, but it's by far a larger issue for men. By forcing all primarily male issues to be inclusive of the significantly smaller number of women impacted is what happens continuously by society to put men's rights as a secondary concern to women's rights.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 01:24 AM
2

You do realize that the 3% number for male rape victims is intentionally misconstrued by only including acts in which the male was penetrated. The number grows to over 1/3 when you include men that have been forced to penetrate. This is the same way that data on false accusations has been misconstrued. 8% of rapes are undeniably false accusations, which is typically purported as the actual percent of false accusations to push bias in favor of feminists. When looking at the numbers and taking int…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 01:13 AM
4

It's because, inherently, women, whether they like to admit it, value themselves based on men's perception of them. Therefore, many issues that women experience will be related to something doing with men. It's inescapable, but it gives you tremendous power if you can harness it.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 12:52 AM
2

I honestly would have no idea. Maybe hiring? Maybe college grading? Who actually knows? There was one time that a teacher (who was different from my actual history teacher, so he had no idea about my academics and only knew me as my sports coach) graded the most important paper of my high school career as a C-, while every woman took the top 5 spots on his grading scale. I had never gotten a C before and had the highest marks out of everyone in my class overall each year. That was the only time …
/r/MensRights21/12/20 12:48 AM
1

Sure, I guess you could say that. Though, you'll find that people are, by and large, unable to truly empathize with and understand experiences they have not had. It's hard to fault women for not examining men's issue from a different perspective as the only experiences they've had are through the female lens; men are just as guilty of doing the same. Just think about how time you see women completely unhappy in the dating market, but from a man's perspective they have loads of options. In that v…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 12:34 AM
3

Good luck. College has been and will likely always be moving in a left-leaning direction. With SJW courses only employable option being academia, it becomes more and more filled with people who believe in these ideas. Couple that with teachers more likely to have subconscious bias against male students and some teachers specifically attempting to grade women higher to fight against the patriarchy, men will continue to be less educated and fall further behind women in this space and in job opport…
/r/MensRights20/12/20 10:50 PM
24

Always a straight razor here. That ad just bothers me because it paints all the issues as a male-centric problem when it's just a people problem. Women just approach each of the issues depicted differently, and, in my opinion, using more insidious methods. Bullying: Women bully other girls more often than men bully other men; however, while male bullies tend to be unpopular, work alone, and use physical force, female bullies are popular, work in groups, and use social means like rumors Sexual Mi…
/r/MensRights20/12/20 10:42 PM
10

That's not true. People care about men. Well. Not all men. Just men that provide something. So if you're handsome, rich, or famous, you're all set. Screw the other 80%, right? Might as well not be people. Your numbers on false rape accusations are actually an under-representation. See the link below for details. Rape statistics are more likely: It is unlikely anyone was raped: 33.5% We have no idea if anyone was raped: 58.7% Someone was almost certainly raped: 7.8% https://www.reddit.com/r/Purpl…
/r/MensRights20/12/20 08:34 PM
1

Fair enough. To be honest, the main thing I've learned through dating women is to watch their actions and don't listen to their words. Too often will I see them say things they don't believe just because they seem more socially acceptable. At the same time, women will push your boundaries until you stand up for yourself. That's why anyone that has dated women shouldn't take the feminist movement seriously. They will keep pushing and pushing until they have it all.
/r/MensRights20/12/20 08:23 PM
1

I think it depends on the context and the relationship. Roses are a big step man. Maybe go with something less intimate. And only give gifts to women who reciprocate. I gave a girl I had been seeing exclusively a snake plant. She appreciated it. She gave me some succulents.
/r/MensRights20/12/20 05:38 PM
1

You're right. In case anyone is interested, they have a pinned doc here
/r/MensRights20/12/20 03:21 PM
3

Look, what I'm asking for is not up for debate. Numbers are numbers and nothing more. They tell me nothing about the ideology, core tenets, and framework of argument.
/r/MensRights20/12/20 03:20 PM
3

I wasn't particularly clear. I want actual literature that outlines and argues for feminism. A bunch of statistics that demonstrate economic disparities is not particularly insightful in this regard. I'm only interested in the beliefs and the "why". If I wanted to just see data, I'd look up peer-reviewed double blind studies that use constants and variables to indicate cause and effect.
/r/MensRights20/12/20 02:53 PM
1

Funny how they cite "studies" (they should use this term loosely) in which men can learn of male privilege and how learning about male privilege leads to a change in behavior, but refuse to cite any sources that show the existence of male privilege (because psychological studies actually show female privilege).
/r/MensRights20/12/20 01:48 PM
1

The most effective role for women in helping with men's rights would be to de-legitimize arguments that support feminist theory. Men have a legitimate issue breaking into the discourse regarding women's rights/discrimination, due to, well, not being women. So long as women find an ideology that claims women are oppressed by the male dominated patriarchy tenable (even to the small extent that they believe life would be easier as a man), there can't be any movement towards equity.
/r/MensRights20/12/20 01:38 PM
3

I actually wholeheartedly agree, but believe an expansion is necessary. As you imply, women are highly responsive to male approval/validation towards their behavior. While male feminists certainly lend support to female critique of men's issues, the silence that most men take in regard to disguised misandry is also impactful. People often times take silence as tacit approval, and by allowing women to say things like "men have it easier" and "the future is female" without explicit disapproval, we…
/r/MensRights20/12/20 01:24 PM
7

Legislative discrimination is a problem, but until we as a society recognize male rape and sexual assault as an equivalent evil to female rape, men's rights regarding sexuality will always take the backseat. To share a personal anecdote of one among the numerous sexual assaults I've experienced from drunk women. One time I was at a club and was dancing with a buddy just having a good ol' time. We're bopping to the music and what not, and I see a tiny girl, maybe 5'1" on a good day, swaying on th…
/r/MensRights20/12/20 01:01 PM
1

Men already better themselves on their own accord. It's called the dating market, and higher levels of testosterone cause it. Differently, there's no inherent driver for women to better themselves, as a lot of the validation they get is inherent to their beauty or what not, that's why the support is there. Men don't have this luxury, so most realize that to receive validation they need to be successful in other areas. That's why we find so many self-improvement and dating channels that cater pri…
/r/MensRights20/12/20 12:43 PM
7

Yes, but popular consensus has never been an objective measure of truth. Would you say that about nazism in 1940s Germany? Slavery in pre-war America? Feminism in recent times? Are men's rights a non-issue simply because most don't come to the conclusion that men experience discrimination/sexism in certain respects? If you want actual supporting data, check out FINSEX, which has surveyed Baltic men/women each generation to track trends in sexual behaviors. It shows an increase in the sexuality a…
/r/MensRights20/12/20 12:03 PM
8

This is crazy. While many of the issues that feminists purport have been debunked by science, the number of women who believe in the tenets of feminism has been steadily increasing. It was around 20% a few years ago IIRC. I guess emotions rule. No wonder that when I reached out to a former friend of mine, someone I believe to be truly kind, she espoused that I was one of the "good men", that toxic masculinity is a result of the patriarchy, and that men should be jailed for cat-calling. I was so …
/r/MensRights20/12/20 02:58 AM
27

His tone of voice and portrayal is not the best; I'll give you that. It's definitely patronizing, and rudely targeted. As a man with many female friends approaching their 30s, I can assure you that his characterization is not entirely inaccurate. My friends have slept around a lot using online dating apps, and now are desperately trying to find someone to be in a relationship with. I think he's wrong that women just sleep around with bad boys "for fun" during their youth, however. My friends nev…
/r/MensRights20/12/20 02:48 AM
50

I think most men here would agree with you. While the feminist movement likes to push more women into leadership in an argument for equality and egalitarianism, this ends up inevitably taking those positions away from qualified men. Until there is actual scientific literature consensus that holding ALL factors equal except for gender results in this same under-representation of women, it is irresponsible to initiate any policy regarding sex-preferential hiring practices. However, I'm abundantly …
/r/MensRights20/12/20 02:19 AM
6

Oh my gosh. Haha. Get out of here with your strawman argument.
/r/MensRights20/12/20 12:24 AM
10

You commented on this article: https://quillette.com/2020/07/27/the-myth-of-pervasive-misogyny/ Did you read it? It's an article that demonstrated systemic bias that causes us as humans to unconsciously favor doing things for women over men. This is from saving their lives, to educational selection, to prison sentencing, and the list goes on. This stems from what we know as the "Women-are-wonderful" effect. If you're as egalitarian as you say, do you seriously need to see evidence of a widesprea…
/r/MensRights20/12/20 12:00 AM
4

Totally man. I wish I had shorter legs. I feel like I'm mostly legs at 6'3", and my horrible squat shows it. It's a great thing for women to have preferences. It allows for healthy competition leading to male improvement and respect/appreciation between any partners.
/r/MensRights19/12/20 11:43 PM
2

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that employers recognize that men are graded more harshly than women, and this leads to male preference in hiring? If so, that's a funny way of saying the oft repeated meme, men suffering, women most affected. I sincerely doubt that employers even realize that women are graded substantially more favorably.
/r/MensRights19/12/20 11:30 PM
1

That de-legitimizes the claim, and, unsurprising, as that is what the article on quillette suggested and seems to be the general consensus of legitimate academic papers: people seem to generally favor women over men when all other things equal. I don't know if I'll be able to find sources through this subreddit due to lack of purpose. It's troublesome, because I oddly feel as though asking mensrights rather than askreddit or askfeminists is more likely to lead to unbiased, factual studies.
/r/MensRights19/12/20 09:56 PM
1

I think we may have different understandings of the word "egalitarian". What does it mean to you?
/r/MensRights19/12/20 08:11 PM
1

What is your goal? At what point would you be happy? 40% female representation in leadership? 50%? 60%? I'm in no way "throwing my hands up and saying nah it's biology". I'm saying that while it's great that the option exists for women now-a-days, inherently, men are drawn to leadership roles more-so than women, which has its basis in biology. This can be shown that despite the continuous social pressures and movement from the left for women to enter stem, and leadership, they don't have nearly …
/r/MensRights19/12/20 07:52 PM
12

Meh. Funny how it has to be said. Hating men is just the inevitable combination of societal acceptance and personal experience. The current media narrative provides women with the rationale that helps them understand why they were hurt by a man in the past. Instead of requiring the difficult act of individual analysis and self reflection, it's much easier to say "that man did this evil thing because all men are evil" or "that guy broke my heart because all men are trash". Heuristics and prejudic…
/r/MensRights19/12/20 07:33 PM
7

Come on. What do you expect? That's r/female dating strategy: the gathering hub of immature women who have been slighted by men in dating, but instead of learning from their mistakes, doubled down and became resentful.
/r/MensRights19/12/20 07:22 PM
1

How do you personally think that we could ever get more equality of outcome in terms of managerial positions between the sexes without preferentially treating women and leading to greater resentment? Whether by instituting preferential hiring practices or preferential esteem support, I don't believe that there is any way without inevitably creating the subconscious opinion that most women need help to be a leader and wouldn't be able to get there on their own accord. I mean, look at what's been …
/r/MensRights19/12/20 07:12 PM
3

That's a fair point. I find it interesting that you say this. I would not have expected that since you had earlier stated that the article "... does show a good amount of bias in STEM job applications." Which I don't believe it does. It does show subtle advantages in obtaining a laboratory managerial position in academia, at least in 2012. I assume you're a feminist or at least lean in that direction. Why? What advantages have you found, possibly supported by research, that men exclusively have …
/r/MensRights19/12/20 05:17 PM
3

Thanks. By the way the article was described to me, I was definitely expecting an actual career, not a laboratory manager role in academia. While it does show bias in this specific area, this is irrelevant for the larger population. This article seems abundantly more relevant due to its application to actual academia careers and recency.
/r/MensRights19/12/20 04:22 PM
1

Ok. Instead of responding to my example, you've decided to just be rude. Tangentially related ad-hominem attacks on my dating potential, my red flags, my opinions on discussing politics, and my dating history again only serve to elucidate things about yourself rather than me. Respond to my words or don't at all. As stated earlier: 3. Emotional/ego defense when refuted: It's often times impossible to have a genuine conversation in which both parties are seeking to learn more. When I hear about wo…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 07:42 PM
1

That's a mildly dismissing take that anecdotally supports their claim. This article states multiple studies showing that people are more likely to question the validity of information that show men in a favorable light relative to women. In this case, "victimhood" would be the topic, and you're questioning the validity: proving their point. I took a look at your post history. Would you be questioning the validity of any study that showed the opposite of this article? I believe the prerogative li…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 06:56 PM
3

Sure, I agree with the first sentence. Women and men alike have a prerogative to discern who takes part in their lives. I, likewise, am allowed to "weed out" the types of women that I view as tactless and selfish due to their assertion of what I see as a shallow, self-serving agenda on a night on which I'm just trying to have fun. Unfortunately for these women, while they may have "weeded me out", they never know that's truly the reason that I decline a second date; they only know what I tell th…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 05:16 PM
10

I believe I described my rationale somewhat, and I'm more biased against feminists, not biased towards. But, if you need my rationales spelled out more apparently, here they are: Inappropriate venue: It is widely inappropriate to bring up politics when getting to know someone. Because I have no emotional connection nor emotional investment in these people I'm dating, I am detached from their beliefs. These same people that I'm divested in complain about certain issues over and over, so, I, like …
/r/MensRights17/12/20 11:00 PM
1

Haha. That sounds oddly like a typically female issue.
/r/MensRights17/12/20 09:31 PM
7

I completely agree. I let them bring it up and don't argue. I just don't ask them out for another date and cite differences in personality/compatibility. My issue is that it feels like more and more women are buying into a victim mentality. Where I never experienced it before, I experience it a majority of the time.
/r/MensRights17/12/20 08:48 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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