TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

phillipsheadhammers Archive

View 4 posts and 247 comments by phillipsheadhammers 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)
1

When he was initially accused, his defence was "it wasn't rape because she was practically asking for it being so drunk" What? Where did you hear this? That doesn't sound anything like Brock Turner based on the statements he's made. The judge even said yeah this is a bonafide rape case but since you're a high tier athlete your sentence is super cut short The judge absolutely did not say that. No judge in the history of the world has ever said anything like "I'm such a fan of college swimming tha…
/r/MensRights02/10/19 03:01 PM
2

I'm not so sure about the "hero" claim. It seems they came across a man and woman doing sexual stuff outside in the dark, and with basically no investigation, attacked the man. Brock says that when the police arrived he was astonished they were arresting him and not the Swedes.
/r/MensRights01/10/19 05:53 PM
4

Chanel Miller has no memory of the night. She has no memory of flirting with Brock and making out with him and dancing with him, even though multiple people witnessed it. So, no, she can't testify that she was unconscious when he fingered her. She can't remember anything after about the fifth shot of whiskey. But the lights were on for hours before she passed out. As for the two Swedes, they came upon a man and a woman in the dark, saw that the woman's pants were down, and started shouting at th…
/r/MensRights01/10/19 01:20 AM
1

From the little I know of the case she was comatose and completely passed out and he assaulted her. That's the story we keep hearing for some reason, but the testimony doesn't support it. He testified that she was absolutely awake when he was fingering her; that when he said he had to throw up she laughed and said "okay," and as he started to get up, the two Swedes were shouting at him in Swedish with some English profanities. And nothing contradicts his account. he was found guilty of a crime f…
/r/MensRights01/10/19 12:33 AM
1

You yourself said that he was looking for an excuse to hit her. He was most likely going to hit her regardless of what she did or didn't say to him.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/19 06:49 PM
1

Nothing random about it. They wanted to booze up and riot. Seems really obvious to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 10:10 PM
1

I do not think you should just take any story about anything and headline it "Men Behave Badly When They Are Rejected."
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 10:06 PM
1

Nothing happens for no reason. They were drunk and looking for trouble. They stalked these two people and shouted catcalls at them, then attacked them. Sure doesn't sound anything like a man asking a woman out on a date to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 09:57 PM
1

Three men harassed and beat up a man and a woman after an exchange that included, among other things, the woman saying she wasn't interested. The headline is written like "man punches woman because she says no." I think it's really very deceptive. The headline doesn't even mention that there were three of them, or that they were clearly spoiling for a fight, or that a man was beaten alongside her. It seems to be trying to give the impression that a man asked a girl out and beat her up because he…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 09:44 PM
1

The article does not say that at all. It says a witness has come forward to "confirm what they saw happen" and then doesn't say what they saw happen. Also, the article doesn't have a single word in it about what Kyle said. They apparently didn't bother to talk to him.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 08:06 PM
1

That's post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's also a linear progression that he said he liked her feet and then he punched her. If "linear progression" is the standard, the headline might as well read "Woman attacked for having nice feet."
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 07:57 PM
1

I think there's absolutely no reason to believe that that was their motivation. Three drunken louts stumbling out of a nightclub at 3:30am looking for trouble? This isn't a guy making some attempt at courtship, becoming distraught and enraged when he was rejected. This is a small gang of thugs looking for any excuse they can find to throw a punch.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 07:51 PM
1

I don't really read "mental health" in the story. It's 3:30 a.m. Three "tough guys" have been drinking for hours. They go outside looking to start trouble. They start trouble. They beat up a young man and a young woman. It's pretty much as simple as that, as far as I can tell.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 07:09 PM
1

The headline leaves out a big portion of the story - the fact that a young man was also beaten and hospitalized, like that isn't even part of the story. And it implies that she was beaten because she said she wasn't interested, when nothing in her story supports that.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 07:01 PM
1

A succinct and accurate summary of the story would be "Teenagers Attacked, Hospitalized Outside Nightclub in Manchester." This headline, obviously, isn't anything close to that.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 06:55 PM
1

It seems to me that the headline is trying to generate clicks by being an example of "male fragility" - it wants people to share it and say "See? If you're a girl and you say no to a guy, his ego might not be able to take it and he might punch you right in the face!!" But that's really not what happened at all. It wasn't a guy making a genuine pass at a girl and then falling into a rage when she said no. It was three drunk guys who catcalled a girl and attacked her and her friend.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/19 06:51 PM
12

This isn't a very scientific assertion given that this is r/BlackPillScience. Muslim countries are extremely diverse; what is true in Afghanistan is likely not true in Lebanon, which in turn is likely not true in Indonesia, which in turn is likely not true in the UAE. If we consider Saudi Arabia as the "typical" Muslim country (which it isn't, really), then consider that two-thirds of its population are under 30 years old, and about 10% of Saudi women never marry. http://saudigazette.com.sa/arti…
/r/BlackPillScience24/05/19 06:48 AM
3

No, that's very incorrect. Human sexuality is so wildly diverse that there isn't a single rule that applies to "literally every one" of either sex.
/r/BlackPillScience23/05/19 02:41 PM
3

What this post suggests is that there is at least one person to whom size is very important and bigger is always better And I think we knew that already.
/r/BlackPillScience23/05/19 02:35 PM
2

No, not all women like to be dominated in bed. That's a myth. I have tried for years to find rigorous scientific data on this question, but all I ever find are SurveyMonkey surveys and FetLife threads and vast numbers of anecdotes. So all I can give you is my personal impression, which is not scientific, but I estimate that: 40% of men are mainly aroused by dominance/sadism 10% of men are mainly aroused by submission/masochism 50% of men do not have these kinks and are just aroused by sex with a…
/r/BlackPillScience22/05/19 11:36 PM
2

It's bizarre that they chose to present their data this way, as a line graph where IQ is the x axis. That's so counter-intuitive. If you turn it into language, you get things like "The average female Swede with an IQ of 100 has 1.8 siblings, but the average female Swede with an IQ of 70 has 1.9 siblings." See how uninteresting that finding is? The only conclusion I can really draw from this data is that Swedish geniuses are more likely to have one sibling than two, and that Sweden looks like one…
/r/BlackPillScience22/05/19 08:03 PM
23

Few important caveats here. It appears that this claim probably comes from a 2006 paper published at Boston College, possibly by someone named Hort - but I simply can't find the paper. Anywhere. Maybe it was a grad student who didn't publish in a journal, and the website eventually archived his work? At any rate, this is supposedly some kind of extrapolation based on data from 20,000 online daters in Boston and San Diego - and I've got to say, I find that weird. Why are they examining data from …
/r/BlackPillScience19/05/19 12:44 AM
2

That's a totally different statistic, though. The percent of couples who met online is not the same as the percent of women who participate in online dating. The first figure doesn't figure in single people at all; they're a non-factor. Take another look at the graph you posted. See how "has tried alcohol" and "ever date" are almost perfectly correlated? Do you just think that's a complete coincidence? How would globalization be preventing young men from drinking a beer?
/r/BlackPillScience18/05/19 12:43 AM
5

You're absolutely correct that young women are also staying at home, fiddling with electronic devices, instead of going out in public; all available data completely supports this. They largely aren't dating, either. Not online, not at all. Some numbers: There are 35 million Americans using online dating services. https://www.statista.com/statistics/417654/us-online-dating-user-numbers/ 30% are 18-29 years old, and 38% are women - that's 4 million young women using dating sites. https://www.datin…
/r/BlackPillScience17/05/19 03:05 PM
1

It is far, far fewer than "most women" who use Tinder. Using back-of-the-envelope calculations based on Tinder's size, there's no way that even one in ten women are regular, active users of that app.
/r/BlackPillScience17/05/19 02:46 PM
8

Per your link, in 1976, 86% of men were going on dates. They weren't all alpha wolves or chest-pounders. Some of them were George McFlys. And women weren't all sweet and subservient. This was the era of Andrea Dworkin, for crying out loud. No, everyone was dating, because... there wasn't anything else to do. Sit in the garage listening to LPs and gluing together model airplanes? The novelty wears thin.
/r/BlackPillScience17/05/19 11:03 AM
4

I find it peculiar that you think it's unrealistic and insulting to suggest that young men are playing many hours of video games, and yet you do not find it unrealistic or insulting to suggest that young men are all terrified of being called names if they speak to a young woman. I believe that the young men who are too terrified of recent social movements to introduce themselves to a girl are a small minority - while the young men who don't hesitate to kill more than three quarters of their spar…
/r/BlackPillScience17/05/19 10:49 AM
22

I don't think most young men are really obsessed with shame and awkwardness. I think it boils down to this: 1994: "What should I do tonight? Go out and drive around and sit in cafés or bars or diners and probably be bored, or watch bad cable TV and definitely be bored?" 2019: "What should I do tonight? Go out and drive around and sit in cafés or bars or diners and probably be bored, or play video games with my friends, or kick it in a chatroom, or shitpost and troll, or try out a new app, or wat…
/r/BlackPillScience17/05/19 10:25 AM
23

Fourth-wave feminism - the "prohibit rough-and-tumble play" ideology you're talking about - is brand new. It started around 2015 with the Isla Vista "massacre" and GamerGate. We have not seen a generation of young men who internalized it from childhood. No one is ever asked the question "would you rather play video games or have your dick sucked." Rather, the question every day is: "What am I going to do tonight?" And often the answer is: be at home with an electronic device.
/r/BlackPillScience17/05/19 10:07 AM
40

I disagree. Feminism was fierce in the 70s; people still had lots of sex. I think the downward trend is probably best explained by an over-reliance on technology to simulate social interaction. Many teenagers and men in their 20s rarely leave their homes to socialize these days.
/r/BlackPillScience17/05/19 09:55 AM
2

...wherein Julian A., who seems to have no background in psychology or medicine, declares himself smarter and better-informed than doctors and psychologists.
/r/BlackPillScience15/05/19 12:19 AM
43

The truly interesting sentence there is "Marital status only weakly confounded the associations." Short married men are still almost twice as likely to kill themselves as tall men, married or single.
/r/BlackPillScience14/05/19 10:28 PM
14

In terms of the blackpill, this is largely only relevant if you live in Asia, northern Africa, or the Balkans.
/r/BlackPillScience10/05/19 01:38 AM
2

Wow, I think that sentence really needs to be worked on. It cites a transcript of a 1988 lecture; that lecture contains the "90%" quote and cites "Kleiman 1977." I pulled up the Devra Kleiman paper, and lo and behold, it says something completely different: that only 3% of mammals have been reported to be monogamous, and that there is a "paucity of information" about the mating habits of rodents and bats. Seems Wikipedia has repeated a very sloppy 1988 paraphrase of a 1977 paper.
/r/BlackPillScience10/05/19 12:32 AM
2

I think that's wrong. Insects don't have the brainpower for that kind of thing.
/r/BlackPillScience09/05/19 09:36 PM
4

Wow. So nearly one hundred percent of the world's one trillion insects are ALPHA BUGS How strange our language becomes
/r/BlackPillScience09/05/19 09:33 PM
6

So if you're a mouse, running around nibbling on seeds and living your three-month mouse life before a bird eats you, and you see another mouse and she smells good so you fuck her real quick, then you're an alpha male?
/r/BlackPillScience09/05/19 09:31 PM
6

So I understand that 90% of mammal species have a high degree of polygyny which means alpha males have many female partners Where are you getting this from? As far as I know, the entire concept of "alpha males" has not stood up to any rigorous scientific investigation. Also, 40% of all mammal species are rodents, and most of those don't have any kind of mating rituals or herd or pack behaviors. They just meet, fuck, and pour out thousands upon thousands of babies in the hopes that one or two of …
/r/BlackPillScience09/05/19 07:54 PM
1

Interesting. The question this doesn't address is why women want to be with the kids. Because they feel the heavy weight of tradition? Because they love children? Because they see a housewife lifestyle as less stressful it more fulfilling than going to work?
/r/BlackPillScience07/05/19 11:50 PM
18

As always - LOOK AT THE STUDY. Don't ever read the Daily Mail and think it's telling you the truth. It's the Daily Mail. It's garbage. Read the study. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12147-015-9142-5
/r/BlackPillScience05/05/19 08:33 AM
1

Your daughter will have 22 chromosome pairs that contain genetic material from your father and all his fathers before him.
/r/BlackPillScience30/04/19 06:55 PM
0

No, the hundreds of hours it takes to secure a high quality partner doesn't even begin to compare to the tens of thousands of hours it takes to raise a child.
/r/BlackPillScience30/04/19 10:43 AM
6

It's not *that* cheap. It's not so cheap you can afford to provide them with resources for eight, nine, ten years only to have them drown. Maybe if you're a third-century Chinese warlord or something.
/r/BlackPillScience30/04/19 10:39 AM
35

I cannot fathom why anyone would ever save their mate before their offspring. That kind of goes against both every piece of theory about biology and also the way any parent would feel about their children.
/r/BlackPillScience30/04/19 10:28 AM
1

Without experiencing the sensation of attraction, or without solid evidence that someone has been attracted to them?
/r/BlackPillScience27/04/19 06:23 AM
1

Are you seriously whining about being a victim now? Are you adopting fourth-wave feminism? Trying to beat them at their own game? Trying to whine so hard that someone pays attention to you? Stop doing that. It's absurd. Grow up.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 12:35 PM
1

Well, the Daily Mail says she stabbed him in the heart, which means we should doubt these people exist. But did you not see that photo of that guy? Did you not look at it with your eyes?
/r/MensRights12/04/19 12:32 PM
1

It doesn't "bring proof to life" to point at one instance where a trashy woman stabbed a trashy man. It doesn't mean jack shit. It means absolutely nothing. And hopefully, deep down, you know that. Otherwise you're just deranged.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 12:31 PM
1

Well, here's the thing about Congresswoman Ilhan Abdullahi Omar: She's a woman She's young She's African She's Muslim So, she says something that's semi-inflammatory, and the country loses its shit. We wonder: if Kurt Schrader had said the exact same thing, would anyone give a flying fuck? Or would we just... not care... because no one gives a fuck about Kurt Schrader? So, yeah. I think AOC is justified in saying: why is Ilhan giving everyone a giant hate boner? What the fuck is going on? Is it …
/r/MensRights12/04/19 11:51 AM
1

Children first. Primary caretakers of those children second. In centuries past, that meant women. Today, it only means women three quarters of the time. If there's still space after children and their primary caretakers, draw straws.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/19 11:16 AM
1

I bet you think you imaged your black hole. You got a microscope and put it right in your lap and you said "Feminism! Thy name is 16BitError!" Nah, man, I jest You're not a black chick You're just some fat dude from Arizona who thinks he knows the implications of the NASA story really well because his wisdom is so fucking powerful He could blow out your cervix with that wisdom
/r/MensRights12/04/19 08:40 AM
1

I am incredibly drunk. I have had so much rum, and so much peach vodka, and so much Jameson. But I guarantee you that if you weren't a black woman, you wouldn't be blathering about your black hole.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 08:36 AM
1

Let me just respond to your rant in a way that is erudite and totally has nothing to do with how much alcohol I've had tonight. I'll put all kinds of things in your black hole, you dumb n***r. I'll put a fucking armadillo* in there. I am going to strap your black ass with a narrow strip of birch. Birch, as we all know, is what you use for that. You are not a scientist. You are not a woman. You are not a man, either. You are just a scroller. Just a little anonymous scroller who needs a lubed-up a…
/r/MensRights12/04/19 08:34 AM
1

The best way to minimize the occurrence of harm is to ban sex. That way, nobody who isn't ready for sex would ever be fucked.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 08:25 AM
1

Yeah, but look who she stabbed in the heart. I mean, look at that asshole. Do you really think he wouldn't have beaten the fuck out of you and stolen your wallet?
/r/MensRights12/04/19 08:12 AM
1

Uh-huh. So you can't judge a man's character based on the fact that he's obviously a soccer thug chugging a beer, but it's totally fair to judge a woman's character based on a Daily Mail article, even though the Daily Mail is wrong like 60% of the time.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 07:54 AM
1

Did you fail to look at him with your eyes?
/r/MensRights12/04/19 07:48 AM
1

Hey, look at all the fake anecdotal evidence! You live in your mom's bedroom but you can type stuff because you went to eleventh grade. And you share the same basic values as everybody else! How fucking virtuous you are! When you die they'll put "HE WAS VIRTUOUS" on your tombstone because you uncritically accepted everything you heard! What a fucking guy you are.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 07:37 AM
1

I get there are 20yr olds who aren’t ready, and I get there are 17 yr olds who are ready. Why such a narrow range? There are 40 year olds who aren't ready, and there are 13 year olds who are ready. Yeah, people recoil in horror at the idea that there are 13 year olds who are ready... except for people who were ready at 13. Like my ex-girlfriend's best friend, who says he was sucking cock at age 13 and he's never felt abused or felt regret. Or my wife, who says that age 13 she was trying to seduc…
/r/MensRights12/04/19 07:27 AM
1

This is the story of how a big alcoholic soccer thug was killed by a single stab in the heart by his deranged white trash girlfriend. I'm not sure what it has to do with men's rights, unless you're just trying to prove that women can be violent.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 07:23 AM
1

Well, we can beat the fuck out of her with a stick, but all that means is that our values are that we should beat the fuck out of her with a stick. It doesn't mean anything about the objective nature of what a relationship between a 16 year old and a 30 year old might look like. It just means that the society we live in has decided BEAT THE 30 YEAR OLD TO DEATH WITH A STICK.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 07:17 AM
1

Hahahahahahahaha There are numerous studies showing that most women aren't that interested in still photographs. Most women like video, and most women like stories, but most women are completely unaroused by still photographs. Online dating has not "exploded." It has existed for more than twenty years. People like relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/19 07:15 AM
1

I think you're working backwards. "He was under 18. Therefore he was a child. Therefore he was a victim." Bullshit. Not everyone can pursue a sexual relationship before they're 24. But not everyone can't. Pretending that everyone is the same at every given age is just a delusion. And we get insanely high and mighty based on those delusions.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 06:32 AM
1

All you learn from that is what still pictures people enjoy looking at. And that doesn't translate into jack shit. Especially since studies show consistently that women aren't that interested in still pictures, period.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/19 06:24 AM
1

You have to consider all the data in its specific context. Like, if you look at Tinder's data, you have to consider: this is the data for when you shove a picture in a man or woman's face and say: DO YOU WANT TO FUCK THEM SAY YES OR NO RIGHT NOW RIGHT FUCKING NOW TELL US TELL US YOU BITCH The answer to that is... possibly interesting... but also possibly uninformative.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/19 06:04 AM
5

There were like 400 people working on that project, and 60 of them were devoting huge amounts of time to it. Katie Bouman was important, and so were other women, and so were dozens of men. Turning this into gender shit is retarded.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 05:30 AM
1

I'm just going to be the unpopular asshole and say that Molly Shattuck and Brock Turner are both not evil people and should both have received zero days of prison time.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 05:18 AM
1

There's a species of bird that selects for males with the longest tailfeathers. The longest tailfeathers are a survival disadvantage. They make the bird less fast, less aerodynamic, more likely to be eaten by predators. The best theory that biologists have is that the tailfeathers prove that the bird is as genetically fit as possible despite having these huge, stupid, unwieldly, shitty tailfeathers. Perhaps big ole clumsy lurpy seven foot tall men are essentially the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/19 05:15 AM
1

Your view is wrong. The optimal male sexual strategy is to impregnate eight women and financially provide for the 25 children you have with them. There's no laziness in that at all. You have to work every single second of your life until you collapse from exhaustion and die at age 58.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/19 05:02 AM
1

She says, in a nutshell, that some of the backlash is motivated, not by policy, but by a dislike of "women of color." I guess the question she's asking is: if a man made a comment like Omar, would the media have run with it? Would Twitter collectively shit itself? Would there be all this wailing and gnashing of teeth? I actually kinda doubt it.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 01:30 AM
1

Frederiks' 1927 work wasn't even done alone. He published his findings with a partner - a man named A. Repiewa whose first name does not seem to be accessible on the Internet. And he was a physicist, not an inventor. Richard Williams, in 1962, was apparently the first person to make anything resembling a liquid crystal display.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 01:16 AM
1

I don't understand what the relevance to this sub is, unless you think all men are neoconservatives.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 01:07 AM
1

Let's have a look at Wikplipedia's article on the history of the LCD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display#History It lists several dozen inventors and more than ten institutions, spanning almost 150 years. It is not an invention that one man cooked up in his garage and declared "A-ha! And they said it couldn't be done!'
/r/MensRights12/04/19 12:53 AM
1

This has literally nothing to do with men or our rights. Obese women buy razors too.
/r/MensRights11/04/19 11:11 PM
1

Excellent post. The problem isn't who we're picking to be the "genius inventor." The problem is that the idea of "genius inventor" still persists in our culture, when there hasn't really been once since Tesla. It's all corporations and governments and giant collaborations now.
/r/MensRights11/04/19 11:07 PM
1

I have a son. No daughter. I don't understand the relevance of the question.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/19 01:54 AM
1

You seem to be a married mother of two; what's your answer? Should your husband use your body for pleasure? Should you perhaps wake up five years later and learn you have a two year old daughter?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/19 01:45 AM
1

Oh dear. This is some kind of weird attempt at a Theory of Everything. He seems to actually be suggesting that a cabal of powerful people intended that women compete ferociously with each other for a small percentage of men, fail to secure those men, and then turn their wrath against men in general. And that everything is going according to plan. The title could be the title of a well-considered article, but this isn't that article.
/r/MensRights10/04/19 10:46 PM
1

Gross. Redpill is fucking gross, and anyone not part of that cult is likely to experience a knee-jerk reaction that maybe men don't need any further rights because we're collectively awful.
/r/MensRights10/04/19 10:00 PM
1

The whole concept of "rapey types" is largely a fiction. Men in their twenties get horny. They rarely throw a woman down and rape her, but they very often push too hard. Almost every man I know has done that in their twenties. The horniness can be overwhelming. It can leave you crazed.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/19 11:52 AM
1

America is less promiscuous today than it was in 2000. In 2000 it was more promiscuous than it was in 1980. In 1980 it was less promiscuous than it was in 1960. In 1960 it was more promiscuous than it was in 1940. In 1940 it was less promiscuous than it was in 1920. There tend to be about 20-year swings. Although - this is the lowest it's ever swung. Kids these days seem incapable of having sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/19 11:24 AM
1

No, it's fear. Women are being forcefully taught to be terrified; they're being taught that if they walk from their car to a building, a pack of rapists will rape them. They're living in terror and they're lashing out in terror.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/19 11:19 AM
1

Promiscuity in the US is low since the Victorian era. No. That's a ludicrously simplified version of history. The Victorian era ended in 1901 - and it's a far more complicated period of history than we make it out to be. The 20th century is not a tale of "promiscuity being low." And the 21st century is very obviously not a tale of "promiscuity being high." Your claim that "5% of the population was open about their sexuality" is entirely made-up; that statistic doesn't come from anywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/19 11:17 AM
1

There's nothing that was "always there" in the U.S. If you study history, promiscuity goes up and down and up and down and up and down. The Georgians were a promiscuous lot, and their influence spread to America. The Victorians were very sexually repressed, and their influence spread to America as well. In the twenties, women were known for being loose and lascivious. In the fifties, they were known for long skirts and prudishness. In the sixties, "free love" hippies pushed the culture further a…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/19 11:05 AM
1

There's no such thing as "traditional values." That's a hallucination by people who don't know enough about history to know that every value swings wildly back and forth every twenty to fifty years.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/19 10:57 AM
1

There's absolutely no way there's enough of a "view" here for a CMV. Fewer young Americans are having sex than at any point in history; but the majority are still having sex. Most people in their twenties are having sex. That's probably good or else, you know, we'd all go extinct and there'd be nothing here but mosquitoes.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/19 09:29 AM
1

There are 32 counties in Ireland, though that's two different countries. 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland and 6 counties in Northern Ireland. Tulsa says it would like all of Ireland - which has about 6,650,000 people living there - to provide 32 beds for male victims of domestic violence. One per county. The National Women's Council says that's "completely unacceptable." What the fuck, Ireland?
/r/MensRights10/04/19 08:54 AM
1

Chimp logic is "You hit me so I'll hit you back." ME MAD! ME PUNCH! That's chimp logic.
/r/MensRights10/04/19 08:26 AM
1

Then you hit them. I don't know why people seem confused about this.
/r/MensRights10/04/19 08:24 AM
1

If you're in danger, you stop them. If you're not in danger, you use the least amount of force necessary to leave. Pretty simple.
/r/MensRights10/04/19 06:16 AM
1

This is a stupid question. "Hitting someone back" is always wrong. It's chimp logic. You hit someone if you or someone else is in danger and you have to stop them. Otherwise you don't. If a 90 pound man, woman, dwarf, child, hit me, I would not hit them back. There is no need.
/r/MensRights10/04/19 04:17 AM
1

"SPECIFIC worldviews" is another way of saying "a cult's theologies."
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/19 08:48 AM
1

No, that wouldn't be a cult. It would get a little more cultish if you removed all opinions about motorcycles that you didn't like, like "Hondas are every bit the equal to Harleys." It would get more cultish still if you removed all opinions that didn't cleave to certain theories about Harleys, like "Harleys signal that the rider is uncreative. Those who ride Harleys have never had a creative thought." And if you got to the point where you had a whole legion of people upvoting each other for say…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/19 08:44 AM
1

"lol," he says. Yeah, it's impossible to exile dissent from a subreddit. There's no ban button. Moderators can't exercise any power at all. People can just say whatever they feel like. Of course it's cultlike. You think cults can't just say "Well, he was straying from the cult's purpose, so we told him to leave"? Sounds perfectly reasonable when you put it that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/19 08:34 AM
1

Well, that certainly doesn't change my view. No. It's not ludicrous. If you say something that doesn't adhere to their dogma, they exile you. That's exactly how cults operate.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/19 08:28 AM
1

Yeah, I'm well aware of that, but enough do that the consequences are felt by everyone. Most 50 year olds have no fucking idea what Pepe the Frog even is, and yet that was an integral part of getting the President of the United States elected.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/19 06:15 AM
1

Aw, look at that, a Cowboy who was born to shoot the Indians. It takes a certain kind of mind to see when the status quo is an atrocity, and I guess you just don't have one. Though you'll certainly whine specifically on your own behalf.
/r/MensRights05/04/19 03:33 AM
1

Yeah, I think you'd find that I'm against any prison time 60% of the time, and against excessive prison time 38% of the time. Only maybe 2% of the time do I think our system gets it right. I hate prison, and I think we're fucked in the head for locking so many people in prison for so long, and I think whoever approved private prisons should be flayed alive. That isn't a gender issue. But it's perhaps the thing I believe in most strongly.
/r/MensRights05/04/19 03:09 AM
1

I specifically said the answer wasn't yes and you took it as yes anyway. Therefore, fuck off.
/r/MensRights05/04/19 12:44 AM
1

According to Charlize, she tried to dress him as a boy and he three massive temper tantrums until she put him in dresses. Not sure if she's being honest or not, but... I definitely won't say I'm sure she's not.
/r/MensRights05/04/19 12:14 AM
1

I hate people who think there are two modes: attack and defend. Life is more interesting than that. My ex-wife attacked me and tried to beat me up. She was 105 pounds, so I just sat on her. Am I totally happy that it happened? Course not. Should we get the government involved in locking her in a cage for twenty years? I don't want that and I can't see whose interests it serves.
/r/MensRights05/04/19 12:09 AM
1

Women cannot match the brutality of men in, like, maybe 85% of relationships. But in 15%, they can.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 11:32 PM
1

I can't tell you how many times I had to change my son on two folding chairs or something :/
/r/MensRights04/04/19 11:06 PM
1

Amanda says they already sell those at Wal Mart. There are no other comments in the last five days. There ya go. Checked your FB for you.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 11:03 PM
1

I know where the cougar bar is in my city, but that's not gonna be of help to you. It's hard to say what these women want, because in my experience we get more diverse as we get older. We all graduate college with the same basic life experiences and largely the same values and tons of social pressure to conform. And as life goes on we just get truer and truer to our genuine selves. So I can't tell you anything useful about impressing 50 year old women. Just... go where single older women tend to…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/19 10:59 PM
1

Here's my main problem with your view: you aren't factoring in age in any way. Perhaps when I was 19 I would have leapt at the chance to have the most beautiful woman possible on my arm. At 39, the #1 most attractive thing in a woman is that she assumes good faith and won't throw some kind of tantrum if I take a nap on the couch.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/19 10:00 PM
1

Really, the best bet is more long-form journalism. Quick headline-based journalism - "Woman Goes to Prison for Severely Beating Husband" - doesn't shift anybody's biases. They're likely to make a joke of it. Furious advocacy often seems to the general public not to be in good faith. But thoroughly telling the victims' stories over several pages, humanizing them and making them more than some anonymous man - that will have an impact on people.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 06:08 PM
1

Oh, for fuck's sake. Buried in all the garbage is a kernel of an interesting idea: it might help sell eco-friendly products if they weren't advertised in anti-masculine ways. Lot of garbage heaped on top of that idea, though.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 05:47 PM
1

She's Maisie Williams - she plays Arya Stark on Game of Thrones. From what I can tell, it's something she typed on her blog.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 08:17 AM
1

Oh. So basically the same thing as SMV, but you add in fortune and fame and pedigree and such and such?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/19 07:37 AM
1

Ah, I did not catch your breezy sarcasm. ...but what the fuck is RMV??
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/19 07:36 AM
1

That's a little circular, isn't it? Sort of seems "gay men are treated more harshly" and "society punishes men harder for not following traditional gender roles" are barely distinguishable.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 07:35 AM
1

Challenge my view. It's necessary for dating success. Now I understand even less. "You need to worry a little too much about your challenge-my-view"? What does this mean?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/19 07:33 AM
1

Why the fuck is the Daily Mail the primary source for this? The old joke is that if the Daily Mail says that the price of milk has risen, you should doubt the existence of milk.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 04:14 AM
1

I have never once worried about my SMV; I don't know what CMV means; and I don't go into a date with expectations. I just go into it with the hope that we drink, laugh, and maybe end up in bed, and that I'll want to see her again tomorrow.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/19 04:08 AM
1

Definitely a quote that suggests she has no conception of the massive scope of feminism.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 02:01 AM
1

I have most certainly visited TRP. It's interesting how insiders to that sub and outsiders read the same words yet come away seeing completely different meanings. Obviously each one is inclined to call the other delusional, though I suppose there are "third possibilities." As for whether "nice" in and of itself is attractive, I've got to go back to what I said before: define "nice." Obviously that cartoon doesn't provide a definition, and obviously there's a whole family of behaviors that could …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/19 12:36 AM
1

Yeah, TRPers are indeed pretty goofy and do seem to fancy themselves warlords, after a fashion. It's largely a big ole power fantasy. It's true that "nice guy" can be used in a way that implies sexlessness, but that doesn't mean that being decent or egalitarian or respectful or supportive is going to shrivel your dick and make it fall off.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/19 12:14 AM
1

Well, that's not my experience at all. I've had way, way more success being nice to women than trying to be their conquerer. Maybe it's that there are many forms of "nice" and sometimes the concept gets confused with "simpering." Also, radicals in the 70s were, like, Andrea "all penis sex is rape" Dworkin. So no, that's not normie stuff today.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 11:54 PM
1

I would disagree with that! Bluepill is just a word for the "normie" experience. Normies are not radical feminists. A lot of us are just fat alcoholics. I do like people who are nice, though. I mean, they're better than dudes who are like "I CrossFit and thus you will submit to me."
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 11:46 PM
1

Who says Queer Eye is bluepill? Just because the hosts are gay and probably vote for Democrats? Redpill is a specific philosophy, part of which is: improve your shit. Bluepill is not a specific philosophy. It's just conventional wisdom, some of which includes: there are limits to improving your shit because eventually it turns you into a vain, self-obsessed cockscomb. Maybe also try thinking of others.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 11:34 PM
1

Well, sure. It's one of the five enjoyable things: sex, drugs, music, love, and power.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 11:24 PM
1

Because why else would I be standing here pushing this little terrorist on a swing instead of being out there snorting coke and banging bitches?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 11:18 PM
1

Baby, don't hurt me, don't hurt me no more. Love's complicated and there are at least a dozen distinct forms of love. Not everyone means the same thing when they say love, and maybe no two people do. And not everybody experiences love the same way. So with those four colossal disclaimers: yes, love exists.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 11:15 PM
1

Well, scientists should do what scientists do best - try to reproduce the results. There's no indication that what WaPo posted is wrong - just that it should be taken as preliminary, not as settled fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 10:23 PM
1

It is a huge problem that's only getting worse. Some people blame modern feminism; some blame video games and online socializing; some blame the economy; some blame helicopter parenting. I suspect that all of those factors play a role... and several others.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 09:51 PM
1

I think it's just a lunatic who's mad at his dad and turning it into a paranoid screed against hypothetical enemies.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 09:25 PM
1

Well, we're back to not having a source for any of that, since all we have is a line saying they control 60%.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 04:07 PM
1

To "control" is much different than to "own." To "control" the money basically means you do the shopping.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 04:01 PM
1

There's absolutely no chance the Federal Reserve would track that number. That's not what they do. Is is just something you heard someone say, then?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 03:51 PM
1

I'm curious what the polls will have to say about this. As usual, no one's talking about race, because race is awkward to talk about, but - as of last week Joe Biden was far and away the first pick of Black voters, and the hysterical White women pitching a fit about hair-smelling were not typically Biden supporters to begin with.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 03:46 PM
1

Where does the "women own 60% of the wealth" stat originate from?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 03:41 PM
1

I don't know - what is this thing?? It seems to be scripted. The dialogue doesn't feel natural to me. It feels like they've memorized their lines. Is it part of a "reality" show? Is it a little skit some up-and-coming website created? What did I just watch?
/r/MensRights03/04/19 06:39 AM
1

What a weird story. Some totally anonymous woman said that when she was 13, Vega told her he wanted to teach her how to kiss - and that she didn't let him touch her. The very next day, apparently before anyone had even written anything about it, Vega killed himself. ...he may have overreacted.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 06:24 AM
1

My grandmother was terrified of getting stolen from, her whole life. She didn't even live anywhere dangerous. She didn't even own anything particularly valuable. It was just this constant terror with her. So she did ridiculous shit. She wrapped garbage and put "decoy" presents in her car. She parked in ridiculous places and walked a half-mile to some stores. She paid a fortune for security systems. And when she died, in her mid-nineties, indeed: she had never been stolen from. Her life probably …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/19 05:41 AM
1

Sigh As far as I can tell, the term "toxic masculinity" originally, in Academia, referred to the concept that men can harm themselves with the internalized expectation to be masculine. You know, like you feel like you can't talk about your feelings, or you feel like you have to fight someone you don't want to fight. Then the phrase hit the Internet and all people saw was "toxic" next to "masculinity." That shouldn't mean "masculinity is toxic" - just like "poisonous mushrooms" doesn't mean all m…
/r/MensRights03/04/19 01:55 AM
1

Of course it is. Holding someone to awful principles says you're okay with the idea of holding someone to awful principles. It helps normalize the principles until people stop considering them awful and start saying "Hey, those are just the rules of the game." If someday your son goes to jail for rubbing a woman's shoulders, you'll be able to look right back at the moment you helped us get there because of your hate-boner for Joe Biden.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 12:00 AM
1

No one's gonna "sanction" me for telling a girl to knock off the tailgating (I know because I've done it plenty of times), and any boyfriend of hers who got in my face would regret it. (Not because I'd hit him.)
/r/MensRights02/04/19 11:58 PM
1

It is an interesting question. Corporations are liability shields by their nature. And a liability shield says: if I burn some woman's flesh off, I don't pay for it. My minimum-wage employees pay for it. The broader question of: should the man most responsible for hurting that woman, and others, be made to pay personally - well, it's not a stupid question. It certainly merits exploration. ...though that's a bit outside the scope of this sub.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 11:57 PM
1

How about if it's your girlfriend or wife, or your friends girlfriend or wife? Do the same rulz apply? Pretty much, yeah. Sex isn't important if they're doing something shitty that profoundly annoys me, like tailgating. I will say: that's dangerous to us, it's annoying to them, stop doing it right now. Of course, there are exceptions. I wouldn't say that to, like, somebody I was trying to do business with. Or to someone a friend desperately wanted me to like. Or someone who was already depressed…
/r/MensRights02/04/19 11:30 PM
1

Your presentation up to now has been pretty black and white. Only with respect to the issue of whether a boycott makes sense. Why should any man be responsible for controlling anyone else, with the possible exception of their kids? It depends on what that "anyone else" is doing!! Are you really telling me that there is nothing a friend of yours could ever do that wouldn't inspire you to tell him to stop, and if he didn't, to tell him he's a fucking asshole and walk away from him? You really thin…
/r/MensRights02/04/19 11:13 PM
1

It's not a totally black and white issue, is it? Sometimes when your friend is being a jackass, it really behooves you to say "Dude, stop." There are times when you're kind of an asshole if you don't. But sometimes when you friend is being a jackass, you let it go because he's a grown-up and he's allowed to be a jackass. There are times you're being an asshole by continually trying to control him. I don't think this is one where there's a singular principle that should be adhered to at all times…
/r/MensRights02/04/19 10:56 PM
1

Well, if some old man who was talking to me looked at my niece, said "Hi, cutie!" and gave her a little peck on the top of her head, I would definitely not chimp out on him. Because that's not pedophilia. It's not sexual assault. It's not even sexual in any way. It doesn't traumatize the girl unless we teach her to be traumatized by it. It's just friendly affection. And the way our society can't tell the difference between the two anymore is fucking sick.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 10:10 PM
1

Well, just keep in mind that anyone who agrees that a Biden's career should end because he nuzzles women's scalps would certainly have no leg to stand on in arguing that Kavanaugh belongs on the Supreme Court. It's a lot of ground to give up to feminists just because you personally dislike someone. You're basically saying: yeah, flirting with a woman in any way that involves physical touch is indeed harassment and should indeed end a man's career. We agree!
/r/MensRights02/04/19 09:09 PM
1

Yeah, I'm sure you would, just like if you got stabbed with a machete you'd go to the hospital and heal. What is this, just pure nihilism?
/r/MensRights02/04/19 09:07 PM
1

I'm sure you'd be thrilled if you were fired from your job because some guy making ten times your salary offended some group of people on the Internet, and the response was "Dude, stop whining, you can be employed at another job."
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:56 PM
1

A subreddit most certainly can develop a roadmap for masculinity and strive to get people to accept it. You'd need really heavy moderation for a subreddit to get on the same page about a single roadmap, but it could be done. Why would you think I'd dispute that that's possible?
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:54 PM
1

Well - I would. I mean, this is an important men's issue, I think. You kiss a woman on the back of her head, and society tells you that's sexual assault, you've traumatized her, you're a danger to society, and you belong in a cage. I refuse to accept that. It's bullshit.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:52 PM
1

Well, let's look at those brands and who owns them. Schick: Edgewell Personal Care. Runs feminist ads. "Being a man is a spectrum, not a binary." Harry's: Harry's. Runs feminist ads; in fact, seems to have run the first batch of feminist ads. "Hyper aggression and sexualization and machismo—can actually be really harmful. Not just to guys, but to communities." Philips: Koninklijke Philips N.V. Enormous electronics conglomerate in the Netherlands. They only make electric shavers - not blades. Bic…
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:48 PM
1

Yeah, it's a fucking shame that Biden is going down for something this innocuous, and it sets a terrible precedent. But it's politics. People have the right to vote for any idiotic reason they want to, and people certainly exercise that right.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:15 PM
1

Men who can be employed at their competitors or other jobs. There's really only one competitor. It's Edgewell Personal Care. Who run feminist ads about how masculinity is changing - those feminist ads are the reason Gillette made the commercial in the first place. There are various Chinese factories making cheap shitty razors, and there's a tiny company in Germany that makes a great razor, but there's nothing that could absorb hundreds of laid-off workers in Boston.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:13 PM
1

Funny, I'm pretty sure I said quite a lot more than that.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:11 PM
1

Depends on the company; depends on the advertisement; depends on the context. It's kind of like asking "If another man offends you, how do you respond." There's no one-size-fits-all answer to it. Sometimes you say "Thank you sir may I have another." Sometimes you punch him right in the face. Usually you do some third thing. But in all cases, you should do something that makes sense.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:10 PM
1

You have just linked us to a Chinese razor that doesn't ship to the U.S., and there's no information given about who makes it. It's just some random razor that someone named "tentre" is selling on eBay.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:08 PM
1

The management team are the people least affected by loss of revenue. They're all millionaires. Nothing affects them.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:05 PM
1

In the U.S. there are basically two megacorporations that control all razors: P&G and Edgewell Personal Care. They both run the same kinds of mildly-feminist ads because the general market is reacting well to it. I can't even figure out who the #3 razor manufacturer in the world is. I assume it's something Chinese. DOVO is tiny - less than a hundred people. If we all tried to give our business to DOVO, you can bet your ass there would be years of disruption: you just can't scale up from 100 peop…
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:04 PM
1

Who do you think "they" are? Who is Gillette? How can it "think"?
/r/MensRights02/04/19 08:00 PM
1

Kind of a weird question. I saw it one time. I rolled my eyes at it. There's nothing exactly wrong about its message, which I think is basically "If your friend is being a dick, tell him to stop being a dick." But it's patronizing to be told that. It's kind of like when Barack Obama told everyone to monitor their tire pressure to save gas. Like: Yes, that's a good idea. No, I don't need you to remind me, Mom. So I said "Well, that was dumb," and that was kind of that. I wouldn't say I support or…
/r/MensRights02/04/19 07:59 PM
1

I think this flyer is just an argument and not an advertisement. In the fine print it says it's advertising an "interactive workshop" with a "free drinks reception." Doesn't look like anyone is actually selling coffee.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 07:55 PM
1

Yeah, eventually you would probably create manufacturing jobs in Germany while permanently destroying them in Boston and Connecticut. Most likely the jobs in Poland, Mexico, etc., would just be disrupted - people would get fired, new people would be hired a few years later.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 07:50 PM
1

Wilkinson Sword is owned by Edgewell Personal Care. Society is ever evolving and so is a man’s role within it, and this timely work is our positive contribution to the much discussed topic of masculinity,” noted Chit Itchon, men’s systems global marketing director at Edgewell Personal Care. “The previously established road map for masculinity is gone, and with this new campaign, we felt the time was right to bring forward a more positive and diverse celebration of masculinity, while aligning wit…
/r/MensRights02/04/19 07:47 PM
1

If you don't hurt the appropriate people financially, then boycotting is less effective than just complaining. Because then it says: "I have complaints and let me just go ahead and prove how ignorant and powerless I am by taking a meaningless action." All that proves is that nobody has a reason to care about your complaints. It massively overplays your hand.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 07:45 PM
1

Do you really see corporations as people? Do you see "Gillette" as a person who you can "hurt"? You're pissed off at maybe 100 guys who made a commercial you hate, and 90 of them don't work for Gillette. So you hatch a brilliant plan to harm ten thousand factory workers while doing no harm whatsoever to the 90 actors and ad execs you're pissed at, and minimal-to-no harm to the 10 corporate guys at Gillette you're pissed at. You question my judgment? You might as well set your own car on fire for…
/r/MensRights02/04/19 07:40 PM
1

Lol, so you think it's impossible to make a reasonable argument unless you have secret information, huh?
/r/MensRights02/04/19 07:36 PM
1

Fully ninety percent of razors are made by either Gillette or Schick. Perhaps Gillette employees could go find a job at Schick - if they're willing to relocate their families from Boston to Hartford, Connecticut. So, is Schick standing standing strong for traditional masculinity? "Society is ever evolving and so is a man’s role within it, and this timely work is our positive contribution to the much discussed topic of masculinity,” noted Chit Itchon, men’s systems global marketing director at Ed…
/r/MensRights02/04/19 07:35 PM
1

I'm saying that not all reactions make sense. You could choose to react by the Glllette ad by setting your car in fire in protest. If I pointed out that that was a senseless response, would you interpret that as a solid vote for the status quo?
/r/MensRights02/04/19 07:25 PM
1

Yeah, you really can't separate activism from science, can you? You think it's all the same thing. Which inspires you to declare "all study is worthless" and just rely on folksy wisdom about how the sexes interact with each other. Which inspires everyone else to ignore you. Why is exactly why the men's rights movement is seen as a stupid joke by the world at large.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 06:25 PM
1

Yeah, because running around spitting testosterone and feelin' manly is working out so well for the men's movement.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 04:18 AM
1

This was obviously cleared by Bieber and his publicist ahead of time, though. That's how talk shows work.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 03:30 AM
1

Where's the part about the magic trick? Looks like one woman says he raped her 21 years ago and one says he raped her 15 years ago.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 02:21 AM
1

So basically, you're telling me that 50% of the women had to suffer through shitty marriages they couldn't really escape. And to you those were the good ole days. Christ.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/19 02:14 AM
1

There is tremendous power in being a victim right now. In my city a girl just got a guy fired from his job and kicked out of his band because she got in bed naked with her ex, made out with him, fell asleep with him, and he started fucking her. If you can convince yourself that you're emotionally devastated by an event that shouldn't emotionally devastate any reasonable person - then you're given tremendous power and an outpouring of love and support. Weakness and fragility is a new currency.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 02:13 AM
1

In any system, some people are happy and some people are miserable. The excessive misery of women in the '50s is well, well documented.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/19 02:08 AM
1

Absolutely. My grandmother was ecstatic when my grandfather finally died.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/19 01:59 AM
1

It empowered them just enough to express their constant misery at always being under a man's thumb at every step in their lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/19 01:57 AM
1

Your proposal is basically that men should focus exclusively on themselves while women are expected not to annoy those men. So basically, World War era gender relations. Shame that era made so many women so utterly miserable.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/19 01:39 AM
1

You went back way further than one post. You want to talk about principle rather than politics? Fine, I'm absolutely down. But when I talk about principle and you keep jawing and jawing about politics, it's pretty clear what you're actually interested in.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 11:32 PM
1

Look at that, I made a post with no politics in it, and you spoke exclusively about politics, while accusing me of being obsessed with politics. Looks like you done fucked up there.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 10:26 PM
1

Yeah, people are really, really fond of beating on other people while shouting "You're beating yourself! No one is doing this but you!" It is always - one hundred percent of the time - a lie. In my view, any man who would tolerate another man going down for smelling a woman's hair is no ally to men at all. You're closer to being a man-hating feminist at that point.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 10:23 PM
1

Oh, sure, I know all about how consistent Republican voters always insist they're not Republicans. "Republicans are terrible, I just vote for them!" Whatever. Six in one, half dozen the other. It's like I've said six times now, and no one has dated to engage - if you want to destroy this guy with his little peck on the scalp, you're implicitly telling feminists you agree that a peck on the scalp should lead to a ruined career.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 10:06 PM
1

Sigh. Well, I guess you have your whole brigade of upvoters to make you feel proud of burping out this conculsory bullshit.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 09:41 PM
1

That's rich coming from someone who's done little but attempt to discredit messengers. I mean, I haven't really seen you do anything except attempt to discredit Democrats, feminists, men's libbers, and the entire field of gender studies. And by "attempt to discredit" I mean "Declare it's all a bunch of hooey, so phooey!"
/r/MensRights01/04/19 09:28 PM
1

You think that because the only things you know about the field are the complaints of fraud. It's exactly the same way Creationists interface with Biology. They only read about fraud and errors, so they think biologists collect no data, scam the public, and are nothing more than a plague on the world.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 09:21 PM
1

You don't have a point. Your point is that you hate Joe Biden so much that you want him to go down the river for smelling a woman's hair. And apparently you don't give a shit if it happens to any other man - the precedent is fine with you so long as Joe Biden is harmed.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 09:18 PM
1

Ah, yes, a version of the argument that since Piltdown Man was a demonstrable fraud, therefore biology is a pseudoscience and God placed all the animals on the Earth just as they are.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 09:17 PM
1

No man can serve two masters, and it's very obvious you're a Republican first and anything else second.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 09:09 PM
1

Well, that much is good to hear, but I'll believe it if I haven't been banned within a week ;) Because it sounds like this place pretty much thoroughly hates liberal-leaning men and men with respect for academia.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 08:52 PM
1

Yeah, yeah, I know Sargon doesn't call himself an MRA. I know the "manosphere" is full of MRAs and MGTOWs and Redpillers and Menslibbers and people who came up with their own personal acronym. Some people also think PUAs and Incels are also part of it all - I wouldn't conclude that. It would be better to be ignorant, because do you have any idea how that looks to the world?? Do you know how far the women's movement would have gotten if women were like "I'm not a feminist, I'm a WWITGHE!" The ord…
/r/MensRights01/04/19 08:51 PM
1

Well, like I said, I think those mods are incredibly arrogant pricks. I don't care for that sub. They overmoderate, they don't let people tell their own stories, they believe in rightthink and wrongthink. I'm not sure it's any better here, though. Honestly, the men's movement is a fucking disaster.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 08:33 PM
1

...and people wonder why we're just one step above Nazis.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 08:25 PM
1

No, I understand the movement pretty well. And Farrell is absolutely saying very different things from the "thought leaders in the MRM." The guy presents data. There are no crazy theories about "how women are" in his work - no residue of armchair redpillism. Farrell properly sees men's struggles as structural and cultural mistakes. He doesn't casually conflate social constructs of masculinity and femininity with biology. He doesn't spout these quasi-social-Darwinist philosophies about what we're…
/r/MensRights01/04/19 08:24 PM
1

Amusingly glib and Laconic, but, no, anyone who thinks data collection isn't part of gender studies is speaking from a place of ignorance about the discipline.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 08:13 PM
1

Saying it's "totally discredited" doesn't make it so. Truth is, gender studies isn't phrenology. They collect actual data, and they create theories that fit that data, and they argue the validity of those theories, just like any other discipline. Warren Farrell comes out of a gender studies background and he's one of the only men's rights advocates worthy of attention. Most of the rest of them are just ignorant, whiny losers. And the entire world immediately sees that they're ignorant, whiny los…
/r/MensRights01/04/19 08:06 PM
1

The philosophy of menslib is that gender studies is a valid academic discipline, and that men should use it instead of denying it. That we don't have to come across as anti-intellectual troglodytes. That we're capable of accepting that social science is a thing that exists and can actually describe and change human behavior. That's their philosophy in a nutshell.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 07:55 PM
1

And does any of that have anything whatsoever to do with men's rights? Or does it just move us closer to "we agree with the feminists that burning men to the ground for being creepy is a good thing"?
/r/MensRights01/04/19 07:49 PM
1

No, economic standing does not have more impact on single motherhood than race. Not. Even. Close. The fact you believe that suggests that your ideological beliefs have divorced you from reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 07:39 PM
1

Regardless, if you're going to tear him down for kissing the back of a woman's head, you're implicitly admitting that the feminists are right when they claim kissing the back of a woman's head is an unforgivable act of sexual abuse. And fuck that.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 07:38 PM
1

I like the philosophy of that sub, but the mods are the snuggest fucking assholes you're likely to find anywhere.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 05:35 PM
1

I think this kind of post is a huge mistake. The expansions to Title IX were a disaster for men. They're monstrously unfair and they basically get you expelled from school for dating and irritating your girlfriend. They're literally that bad. It's a no-proof, no-due-process, limited-discretion situation. But now we're going to say that it's evil, wretched, despicable to smell a woman's hair and peck her on the scalp, just because someone who did it was in the administration that fucked up Title …
/r/MensRights01/04/19 05:31 PM
1

The article says they didn't free her. They convicted her of manslaughter. And she's going to prison at age 73.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 05:27 PM
1

So you'd leave your kids alone with Marco Rubio?
/r/MensRights01/04/19 04:54 PM
1

Men are more diverse than women in their attraction. Oh, man, that is incredibly false. It's the exact opposite of the common stereotype. Men aren't as unified in our attraction as the stereotype says, but to suggest that women are unified is just an opinion from another planet.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 04:49 PM
1

No, man. You don't get hard for every woman you say you despise, do you? You're not going to tell me with a straight face that I already know exactly which women make you hard, based on whether other men are attracted to them, are you?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 04:45 PM
1

You mangled this statistic. I think you're trying to say that, of everyone who receives alimony, nearly 98% are women. That would be true. But the claim that 98% of women receive alimony after getting divorced is totally false. In fact, about 90% of divorce settlements involve no alimony at all.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 08:58 AM
1

I mean, nothing scarier? Not nuclear war, not economic devastation, not a swarm of venomous spiders? Naturally, women are wary of any man who doesn't read nonverbal cues well and clearly wants to fuck her. Because, you know, what if he decides to, and he's too strong to stop? But, yeah, you're absolutely correct that something has changed. Around 2014 we made the transition from third-wave feminism to fourth-wave feminism. Third-wave feminism was about empowering women and fourth-wave feminism w…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 07:28 AM
1

I started high school in what I suppose you might call the bronze age (1992) and I just didn't have that experience. If anything, the weird nerds were much more likely to have serious girlfriends. Half the debate team just coupled up with each other. The popular jocks were more likely to hang out with each other 99% of the time. For all their swagger, they put ten times more effort into getting alcohol than getting women.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 06:51 AM
1

Do you know what the phrase "race baiting" means? Do you think it just means "mentioning race"? Like I said, if you discuss single mothers without talking about race, you're getting an incomplete picture. It's integral to the conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 05:31 AM
1

It's probably not your best best, statistically speaking. First of all, to get this out of your way, I think the absolute worst way to live your life is to aim statistics at "what works" and then try to shape yourself into that kind of person. But often - and you can probably think of a dozen examples yourself - there's a popular thing, and there's ten thousand people doing that popular thing. And then along comes someone doing a less popular thing, and - holy shit, suddenly he's more popular th…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 05:06 AM
1

Yeah, that's bullshit. Do you really think ever man wants to marry Kendall Jenner? Is that also your belief? That there are just people who are objectively "the most desirable" and those people are Jon Hamm and Kendall Jenner, and everyone who isn't them is settling for something less than them?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 05:01 AM
1

There are 13.6 million single mothers in the United States - a significant but really very small proportion of the ~108 million adult, non-senior women. Of course, people are loathe to say it, but when you talk about single mothers without talking about race, you aren't having an honest conversation. It is one of the single most stark racial statistics.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 04:53 AM
1

Well, of course. I've been in lots of traffic and lots of grocery stores. Sometimes it's a pile of people. Sometimes I'm the only car in sight or the only person in the store. I'm definitely not living in buttressed steel room just outside a giant, sweaty, pulsating mass of human flesh.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 04:46 AM
1

I think what's controversial is this idea that heterosexual women have a sort of "programming" - that regardless of what philosophical beliefs they hold, regardless of their life experiences, what they really want is handsome muscly men who bring home big paychecks and are quick with a joke. A guy like that might do fine in life, but a lot of women despise those kinds of men. Not every woman is aroused by Don Draper. Some think a world of Don Drapers would be a living fucking Hell. Also, this "c…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 04:38 AM
1

Avenatti doesn't work harder than me, or than most people - and the people who work the hardest tend to make the least money. He just collects expensive watches, cheats the government, and goes to prison. And with every defense of the idiot, you delegitimize everything you believe in.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 04:17 AM
1

If you said Online Dating you overshot. There is no chance this data applies to PoF, Tinder, Bumble, Christian Mingle, r/r4r, or even the modern incarnation of OkC - they will all generate their own numbers and those numbers will all be quite different.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 03:00 AM
1

Exactly - the data says that on one website, organized one specific way, at one specific point in time, women sent far fewer messages than men and the fee messages they did send were concentrated among a small portion of men. Since then, different websites have organized themselves different ways to cause adjustment in these numbers. To suggest that this is indicative of male-female relationships in general, or in any offline context, is just much too far a stretch.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 02:34 AM
1

And before you met your husband, how enthusiastic were you about letting random dudes fuck you because they wanted to and sex feels good?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 02:08 AM
1

OkCupid is interpreting data. It's quite clear that dating sites are full of men who bombard every woman with a warm hole with messages, and with women who receive hundreds of messages, are horrified, and delete their accounts. Even despite that, I went on about ten dates on OkCupid and married one of them... even though no one in the world would consider me to be in the top-anything percent of men. These "data interpretations" rarely align well with anyone's actual life experience and thus are …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 02:07 AM
1

Well, I have hair, a service mows my lawn, and I stayed the fuck away from crypto. I like to drink. I like to play guitar. And every time, I think: damn, where are all the kids? Why is everyone so damn old now?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 01:59 AM
1

Is this really the hill the MRM wants to die on?? Obscenely rich man could be using part of his obscene wealth to buy more ivory backscratchers, but instead he has to buy his bastard children ivory backscratchers, but perhaps various women he fucked and left with kids are going to buy ivory backscratchers instead. I can't find any outrage here. If we have a problem with the child support system, maybe we should be talking about people who actually need their child support money. Not someone who …
/r/MensRights01/04/19 01:38 AM
1

Gen-Exer, thanks. I can see it with my own two eyes. There's only like twenty bars in town. I occasionally go to them all. Twenty years ago they were all full of 20 year olds with fake IDs. Today they're all full of 40 year olds with beer guts. In fact, they're the exact same people. Where are the youth? They're not out and about. They're all over the Internet, though. Here on Reddit there are 20 year olds with non-fake IDs everywhere and nary a 40 year old with a beer gut in sight.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/19 01:03 AM
1

I wouldn't leave my child alone with any politician; that would be insane. But the fact that Biden smelled an adult woman's hair and gave her head a peck would not make me any less inclined to leave my son with him than with, say, Marco Rubio.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 12:11 AM
1

One hundred million things are wrong, period. You do twenty wrong, period things a day. We all do. So yeah, the question of how wrong is a pretty fucking important one.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 12:01 AM
1

Hmm. This whole argument seems to be based around the idea that sex is as important to a man as food, and significantly more important than safety. I don't want to diminish the importance of sex - I do see it as a fundamental need. But on the level of food? Absolutely not. Thirty-six hours without food and I'm a crazed beast. Thirty-six weeks fucking my hand instead of a vagina and I'm nothing worse than pretty depressed. The argument is that men need sex more than women need safety? I have a re…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/19 11:59 PM
1

I don't think it's "incredibly" creepy. I can think of a hundred more creepy things. It's a fairly minor-to-moderate level of creepy. I'm pretty sure it's explicitly not criminal, nor is it anything I care about, nor is it anything anyone should strongly care about. He smelled her hair and gave it a peck. Stop the fucking presses? Really??
/r/MensRights31/03/19 11:47 PM
1

And it doesn't magically become unfair because he's rich and we're looking at large numbers.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 11:45 PM
1

The error you're making is supposing men and women to have approximately the same needs. It's like you're a Mughul who drives a trade caravan thousands of miles north, north, north to Denmark and says "This is our most precious commodity: it is called ice." Men love casual, NSA sex. They feel enlarged and validated by it Women hate it. They feel diminished and made worthless by it. And men are somehow staggered that the Danes don't want their ice. They call it marketplace inequality. They call i…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/19 11:43 PM
1

And so your contention is that men have the right to make false rape accusations against Kavanaigh, make a million dollars a month doing so, and refuse to give any of it to the illegitimate children they've sprinkled all over the country. Because that doesn't seem like a right anyone should have.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 11:33 PM
1

The system is totally and utterly fucked simply based on the fact that this dumb asshole makes enough that his monthly income is nearly a million dollars. That's an absolutely absurd level of income inequality. His illegitimate children probably deserve the money more than any random person does, but any random person most assuredly deserves it more than he does.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 11:29 PM
1

Sure, men can also have all the sex they don't want. Just go to a gay bar. It'll be approximately as pleasurable for you as the feeling of being used for their vagina is for most women. If you pay attention even a tiny bit, you will find that there are tons of depressed, lonely women with absolutely zero dating success. They could get a guy to stick his hot dog in her meat tunnel, of course, but they cannot get a boyfriend who loves them, and that's all that matters to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/19 11:22 PM
1

Is it wrong when the man has no particular political beliefs and just feels like smelling some hair and giving a little scalp kiss? How wrong is it? Is it as wrong as cutting someone off in traffic? Is it as wrong as slashing someone's tires? Is it as wrong as stabbing someone in the gut?
/r/MensRights31/03/19 11:07 PM
1

This doesn't resemble the experience of anyone I've ever met. You seem to think life is a giant sex party and you're not invited, but - no - there are tons of shy, insecure basketcases of women sitting in their homes watching reruns of Friends. Women can certainly invite men to run a train on their vaginas. Almost none of them actually want to do that, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/19 11:05 PM
1

I don't think we're looking at a "false accusation," as you've tagged this, at all. I have exactly zero reason to believe Flores is lying. The real question should be: if a man smells a woman's hair and gives her head a little kiss, is thst particularly wrong, criminal, or any reason to change your vote?
/r/MensRights31/03/19 11:03 PM
1

In many ways this is the opposite of the mouse utopia experiments. The mice ended up in a giant pile, surrounded every second by hundreds of mice. We're locked away in bedrooms, surrounded by depictions of people who aren't. Pretty different.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/19 10:59 PM
1

That is astonishing. How much fucking money does this clown make? Why does he make so much? Does he have a pile of family money? How many kids did he abandon? How many mini-Avenattis are running around while he plays P.T. Barnum and commits white-collar crimes?
/r/MensRights31/03/19 10:31 PM
1

No, it's your interpretation of data. It's certainly not data presented dispassionately. You're using words like "advantage" and drawing conclusions about which sex is more pleased by the experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/19 10:28 PM
1

I don't believe #2 and #3 are particularly valid. They were all pretty much equally true in 2008, when sexlessness in one's twenties was one third of what it is today. I would agree that #1 and #4 have some merit. Online dating is badly broken (though you neglect to mention what a miserable experience it is for women, too); and fourth-wave feminism really does teach that male sexual desire is fundamentally dangerous, which both young men and women internalize. But the #1 reason sexlessness is on…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/19 10:25 PM
1

So, video game footage with a misleading title? What's the point?
/r/MensRights31/03/19 07:18 PM
1

Well if we're talking about, like, physicists taking grant money, they don't generate any wealth. We paid huge salaries to all those guys who dig the LHC and discovered the Higgs Boson and they didn't generate a cent. So suggesting their salaries are reflective of what they can generate in wealth is just silly.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 06:56 AM
2

Yeah, we older men got married and had kids and most likely you will too. I guess time will tell. If you want to live a risk-free life, just guillotine yourself right now, 'cause it ain't gonna happen.
/r/MGTOW31/03/19 06:54 AM
2

If you're trying to "go your own way," that isn't particularly compatible with loving anyone other than yourself.
/r/MGTOW31/03/19 06:51 AM
1

Engineers can work in a fairly "de-risked" context, like trying to put more blades on a cartridge razor. The very nature of scientists is they're never de-risked. Either they succeed, and the engineers take over, or, more often, they fail, and all the money is lost. Science is always a massive risk.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 06:50 AM
1

I don't really believe that either. Truth is, science doesn't create much value. It actually tends to be a gigantic money pit in which investors' money is set on fire. Engineering tends to be much better, but still a huge risk. None of them are consistent wealth-generating jobs.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 06:16 AM
17

So it seems what they agree on is that she said "I won't say anything if you give me $68,000." Pretty gross.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 04:50 AM
1

Yeah, that's not what those stats mean at all. There's an argument to be made that men's and women's salaries are not based on discrimination, but you haven't found that argument. It has nothing to do with total hours worked - the statistic is based on hourly pay.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 04:46 AM
1

A somewhat valid point - though most occupations fot men are not risky.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 03:58 AM
1

Tinder should not implement a height setting for men. It's that simple. That's fucked up, and whoever made that decision should be killed.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 01:52 AM
1

Most women I've been with have strongly disliked men who kill themselves in the gym. They've all told me they prefer my doughy, shitty body. Women are weird.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 01:50 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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