TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

reddtormtnliv Archive

View 0 posts and 1,591 comments by reddtormtnliv on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,591 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

The incel problem is a result of the NEET/Peter Pan crisis. You're describing a chicken/egg scenario though. What came first, the crisis in masculinity or the start of NEET culture? Your position seems to be that the NEET culture came first. But when men don't have purpose, or society takes away that purpose or mocks it (part of the masculinity crisis), then men tend to retreat.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/23 09:40 AM
0

One could argue that neoliberalism and red pill are intertwined though. Just the same as a man doesn't want to be told where to work or how much to be paid, a woman doesn't want to be told who to date or whether she can work the same job as a man. Ultra freedom has entrenched our society where the phrase "don't tread on me" is built into everyone's ego. So you say this is a symbolism that people really don't want, but then why does no one want to abandon it? Possibly they unconsciously do really…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/23 09:37 AM
2

But then you are admitting there is no solution because the solution isn't your problem. So you confirm what blue pillers say. The blue piller above you said "You’re literally making shit up about the blue pill." Seems you two have a disagreement.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/23 09:31 AM
3

Okay, if you are a blue piller, admit some of the problems facing men. When this question is usually asked to a blue piller, they say say something like "men are privileged so therefore they don't have problems, and if problems exist, they aren't the responsibility of women or other men".
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/23 09:27 AM
1

That's why you date until you find an emotionally mature woman. But if you are a red piller looking at this, it seems kind of bleak. Assume 50% of women are mature enough (it could be higher or lower, but there are a lot of people that have emotional issues, both men and women), and only 5% would consider dating you with the 80/20 rule in effect. That would mean you have about 2.5% eligible women to pursue. This is why a lot of men just give up. But I'm not saying it is rosy on the other side of…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/23 01:24 AM
2

A lot of men and women play these games in relationships and don't go to therapy. All I know is that there is a reason men don't like sharing feelings with women in general. I'm not saying every woman is like that, but there are enough that men are holding back. Also, follow what woman do and not what they say.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/23 09:23 AM
-1

I would argue the man possibly didn't express himself because of how he was treated when he did, so he held it inside. Men sometimes can't win either way. If the man didn't throw a tantrum and vented his problems when he came home, the wife might say "well I had a rough day too so you just have to deal with it". But my main point is that women say stuff on how they want men to express their feelings more but then make the man look bad either way.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/23 06:23 AM
7

Men don't express feelings because people are bound to use it against them, and men don't find sympathy as well as women. I could tell you that I had a bad week last week but you would probably think why is this random guy on the internet telling me this. It's not a communication problem but a lack of listening and doing something about it problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/23 03:06 AM
4

Additionally, if you’re constantly sad and need a woman to validate you to make you happy, that’s not vulnerability. That’s mental illness and codependency. Life for me and my husband got a lot better when we stopped trying to read each other’s mind, stopped assuming the other was playing games, and started communicating our honest needs like grown adults. Statements like this make men confused, because in one sentence you say "women shouldn't validate men... that's codepency", and then in anoth…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/23 03:02 AM
2

Same could be said of "it's mens' fault"
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/23 02:54 AM
–

If anything I do think manosphere stuff has been oddly useful to me, as I’ve picked up a few general ideas on how to make myself a more attractive potential partner to men I’m interested in. Doesn't this mean you admit some of the general ideas of red pill are true and you conform to some to impress men? Or are you saying you are watching what to avoid?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/23 02:50 AM
1

You keep are saying that you have an argument but can't point to where I said anything. Who is your employer and how much are you being paid to argue here?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/22 09:02 PM
0

No, I said shootings are happening but domestic violence is a much larger issue. Show where I said they aren't a big deal? You don't argue your points very well. I would guess you are a paid shill here to sow confusion and discord.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/22 11:50 PM
0

Can you point where I said that? You're just making stuff up now.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/22 09:45 PM
1

I didn't defend them. I said there are much worse problems going on right now. You are twisting my argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/22 09:22 PM
1

And your argument is just looking for a scape goat.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/22 09:18 PM
4

Yes, I wish people in relationships the best. I wish every human could experience a great relationship. I've just come to the conclusion that some are toxic and harmful, so they aren't for everyone. I don't know the answers though. In a way I do feel like some are playing stupid games but at the same time I think people need to learn to forgive and not give up. So I actually agree with you and the poster you responded to in a way.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/22 03:30 AM
4

Yeah, the pack is the top 50%. The bottom 50% are needing help because a select few are taking all the resources at the expense of everyone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/22 12:04 AM
11

Insinuating that people in relationships are "playing stupid games" is demeaning. At the same time showing apathy to others that have had relationship problems is demeaning. You can't blame them for checking out. I do disagree with the above poster because they talk about the "pack", and then revert to talking about the bottom 50%. What they fail to realize is that the pack is often the top 50% of people, and many pretend to be successful at the expense of others.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/22 12:02 AM
1

If you want sources that show the true numbers, refer here: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/UN\_BriefFem\_251121.pdf https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/03/incel-movement-terror-threat-canada The numbers are very disproportionate. We are talking 45,000 worldwide in one year for death from partners or family vs 50 by incels over 5 years in the US and Canada. You have more of a chance of dying of a multitude of other conditions or problems than by i…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/22 08:18 AM
1

To be clear, crimes involving murder and attempted murder are less common than instances of domestic violence--and the stats aren't even close. Murder is a subset of domestic violence. I already know hitting is much more common than murder. That had nothing to do with my point. My point was that murder in relationships is much more common than murder by incels. Moreover, it is akin to saying that police shootings don't matter because gang shootings are more common. No it's not, because that anal…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/22 07:58 AM
1

How do we know this is a trend though and not just lone wolf attacks? I don't have the data, but I would wager if you compare incel attacks vs dangerous domestic violence attacks, the numbers would be at least 10x higher or more for domestic violence attacks, possibly up to 100x higher. Type in "man kills girlfriend" in the search bar, and you will find articles that aren't older than 1 day. Here's one right now https://ktla.com/news/local-news/man-found-guilty-of-murdering-girlfriend-after-tikt…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/22 06:48 PM
1

I've never heard of sexual partners meaning anything other than people you have had sex with. I don't think most would consider casual sex or short term relationships partners. But depends how you phrase the question. even if the average is 13. with most people settling down around 30,that would only be about one partner a year which isn't that much. But it shows that one gender is being dishonest, because the average should be the same for both genders as the gender ratio is 50:50. So it's eith…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 05:47 PM
1

Is the fact that you are high earning person because you were born a woman?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 06:12 AM
1

Because you probably have an easy job with benefits. Did I assume right since we are just projecting our beliefs onto others at this point? Again, as I said, women get preference with welfare and jobs. I wouldn't be complaining if I had a million in my bank account now. It's easy to look like your winning when you are swimming with the current and not against it.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 06:04 AM
1

Yes, but job preference goes to women and net welfare goes to women while net taxes is from men.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 06:00 AM
1

You should know when you read something, not to selectively read it and or cut the last part of the sentence. Anyways, it ends with "plus 300 per month per kid". I know men are eligible, but it benefits more women than men. I would guess up to 75% of women are eligible, while maybe 50% of men. That's a bias for women. I've already told you that I'm for welfare if everyone gets help and we don't just pass the bill onto poor people.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 05:59 AM
1

I never said that. Read my original comment since you are great at reading comprehension. I was pointing out a significant bias of the welfare system. 25,000 per year isn't small change when men deserve nothing. It's also just one point to illustrate an idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 05:43 AM
1

Yes, but most of those benefits go to women. That was my whole point. That we have engineered a welfare system that has replaced men with the state, and somehow ends up giving all these benefits to women over men. It's not only the tax credits. It's everything like preferential jobs, housing, food stamps, and medical. Why are poor men asked to pay for this, and minimum wage hasn't been increased in almost 20 years while the country has more millionaires than ever before? This was just one aspect…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 05:39 AM
1

You need to do some reading https://www.rocketlawyer.com/family-and-personal/personal-finance/personal-taxes/legal-guide/2022-child-tax-credit-legal-guide "Sweeping changes were made to the nation’s tax laws as part of a coronavirus relief package in 2021. As a result, many Americans received additional Child Tax Credit relief, which was distributed in monthly payments of up to $300 per child. For tax year 2022, the Child Tax Credit is reduced to $2,000 per qualifying child and the $300 advance …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 05:28 AM
1

Read the article I just linked and you will see it is true "The legislation made the existing $2,000 credit per child more generous". That credit has been ongoing and is still in place. That is just one piece of the welfare system. There are many other parts of welfare that are available. It's getting easier to make more money on welfare as opposed to working. I'm just saying when a country gets to that point it's in trouble.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 05:25 AM
1

The 2000 is still in place. The expanded is not ongoing but they want to make it permanent. I'm okay with it if you can get the millionaires to pay for it, but I know that won't happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 05:19 AM
1

I'm just playing your same game. You keep making assumptions about my beliefs or positions, so I'm just assuming you are a leftie socialist feminist. Am I correct? I could probably guess 90% of the positions you support.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 05:14 AM
1

It's not ongoing. Google it. Actually you are partially right. They still get the 2000, but Democrats are still wanting to make it permanent, and might get their wish. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/05/why-the-child-tax-credit-has-not-been-expanded-despite-democrats-support.html I don't think you want me speaking about mens' rights because you know I have a point.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 05:11 AM
1

And yet your crowd can never do it, but if abortion gets taken away your crowd will riot and storm the government. Really shows your priorities. It's all just talk and you know it. And then you get on here and play like you care more.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 04:55 AM
1

It's also not currently ongoing. I'm not going to begrudge children being provided for. Where's your source? It is ongoing. I'm not going to begrudge them either if it is actually going to kids and not another vacation or car. But you should be making the rich pay for it when there are several millionaires in the country and an excess in resources. It's immoral to ask poor men to pay for it. I thought you said earlier that women are independent and don't need help from men anyways, and it looks …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 04:51 AM
1

If you want to be generous with other peoples' money, it shows what kind of person you are when you can't make the rich pay for it, but have to go to poor men to pay for it. It's funny that you and your cohort can't make a stand against the rich because you might hurt their feelings.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 04:33 AM
1

ignore the corporate welfare That's not my position. I will tell you my position since you keep getting it wrong. Right now every women in the US is eligible for a 2000 dollar yearly stimulus plus 300 per month per kid. This means a family of four could theoretically receive 20,000 while a man gets nothing and might be lucky to get a minimum wage job. A man might be making less than someone else on welfare if that puts it in perspective. Which is immoral especially with the economic problems fac…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 04:25 AM
1

Well that likely isn't to come from the Democrats, as some of the largest Democrats supporters are billionaires. I believe in UBI also, but it's most likely not going to happen. The economy is going to collapse and reset before anything like that is considered. I just don't think it is fair to hand out all this welfare to people the Democrats like and make poor men pay for it. Because they are getting the brunt of the bill as they aren't eligible for the same benefits and wages aren't rising. So…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 04:09 AM
1

Who said anything about hating poor people. I want welfare given to all people regardless of gender. I don't believe a rising tide raises all ships when you have some ships that much larger than others. Income inequality is obscene right now, and both men and women elites perpetuate that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 04:00 AM
1

Like everything you brought up was mind numbingly stupid and not actually supportive. Well, that's nice. There's exhibit A of what not to do. Do you talk to all your friends this way, or do they only say woke stuff that you approve of? Also, why are we having this discussion if you think it is stupid?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 03:53 AM
1

​ I was just bringing it up because you asked about ways to support men. The welfare system by far gives more benefits to women than to men. But I agree that men shouldn't cling to the nearest women so she'll fix your problems. I'm suggesting ways to support men so they feel like participating in the gynocentric culture. But everything I suggest you don't seem to like. Maybe men and women should just part ways and don't need each other?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 03:01 AM
1

Being more independent and fulfilled outside of a relationship makes a person more attractive. Great, then you will be okay with cutting all welfare programs since women don't need men any more or their money. Also, you don't understand the difference between the sexes. Men don't care as much about independence as much as women. Also I support ubi, medicare for all, and shit so like fuck off with that welfare queen lie bullshit. Funny that your dream hasn't happened in 50 years since welfare sta…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 02:29 AM
1

Yes, that is a fair comparison, but women do clutch their pearls more because they are more emotional than men as a general rule. It's why women tried to ban Red Pill, while men just ignore FDS on the whole. But also, I don't agree with Red Pill on their position. I believe hook up culture is toxic for the genders and is going to lead to the decline. I know Red Pill says to enjoy the decline, but I'm sure they won't like the decline when they actually find out what it means.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 02:24 AM
1

That's kind of the antithesis of dating though. That's like say decreasing your reliance on practicing basketball or being less around the court will improve your game. But I believe that is a fair argument as long as you expect the same out of women. Getting less validation, emotional support, and life purpose from men. If that is your argument, all welfare should be cut to zero since women can fend for themselves and less reliance makes them better and happier.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 02:20 AM
2

suggesting taking any type of hurtful action toward men? I never saw anyone suggesting violence, but also never saw this on any mens' forums. But there were many remarks that seemed hateful. Such as defining low value men and that most men were creeps or dangerous. But I likewise saw these remarks on The red pill. The red pill and FDS almost seemed similar in their remarks, but the red pill had twice as many hateful comments and were stronger to a degree.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 01:58 AM
4

The incel violence thing seems pretty rare. From what I've read, women that are in relationships are much more likely to experience violence at the hands of men than men that are strangers and incels. The whole violent incel thing is way overhyped. There was Elliot Rogers, but that seemed to be a lone wolf attack and there haven't been many more attacks since then. A women has more of a chance of being attacked by someone they know or date.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 01:49 AM
1

Clutching at pearls? More so wondering if these ladies got their pearls mixed up. They love to put men into boxes with high value men and low value men, but many display the same traits as a lot of the low value men they complain about. It's more so perplexes me rather than angers me.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 01:38 AM
1

You guys are both right. It started out with older divorced guys, but by around 2014 or thereabouts it started being filled with college aged incels. They didn't call themselves incels, but were looking for answers on how to deal with women. And these older guys reached out and said "you don't need a woman". But the problem was many had never even had a woman, so just took most of the advice on trust, and some of it ended up turning into hate speech because men almost need to be trained to avoid…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 01:29 AM
1

The original OP thread was talking about supporting men, not male loneliness. "Well no one wants to support them, and men only support women because they have a sex drive." Men are hyper focused because women demand it. You keep evading that point, and also keep renouncing any kind of responsibility for treating men better. I will also say this much. How do you expect men to treat other men better or as friends when you can't even get people to care about peoples' basic needs or respect as a per…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 01:12 AM
1

Not so sure about that. I know of several men that are not in the least interested in sex bots. Every man is different, but in many ways there is nothing appealing about touching rubbery skin of an inanimate object. I would wager some men would try them out but then become quickly disinterested once the novelty wears off.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 10:26 PM
1

Male loneliness and lack of support system is a male problem created and perpetuated by men. I disagree with this. If anything, it is perpetuated more by women because women ask for more state support and welfare and also demand that their romantic partners treat them like queens. This takes any attention that men would be getting and diverts it to women. And then men complain to women to help fix the problem, and women say back "not my problem, fix it yourselves". So can men have this attitude …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 10:12 PM
0

You're missing what I am saying. Women aren't the only solution for men's loneliness. But you're missing what I'm saying. Why should men be the solution, if women don't want to be the solution and just want to push the responsibility back onto men? This a major complaint men have against women, particularly the mens' rights activists. They complain about a lot of stuff but don't offer any solution themselves. Until men become more supportive to other men they'll continue to feel lonely and disaf…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 09:52 PM
1

Because men could look after one another. Men can show each other respect. But they don't seem to. The same argument could be made for women though. Why should men care for other men if women won't do the same? Another thing is that when you put accountability on a man, you are saying you will only like them if certain conditions are met. That is earning respect rather than just showing respect from the onset.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 09:22 PM
0

Why can't men just be better friends to men? It's a solution completely independent of women. People should be friends with people though. I would argue though that men start caring about other men when women care more, and how women treat others should be independent of men same as you claim. Many women don't seem to care about men on the whole. For sure, they care about their relationship partners and family, but that is about the extent. I'm not saying this is you though. Just a general impre…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 09:14 PM
2

Because men would rather compete than be friends. There are some organizations that have some kind of brotherhood, but it usually stops at paying for someone else. Men also tend to joke and goof around when together, while women will sympathize and talk. Would you pay for your girfriends' meals if they didn't have a great job? Another problem is that society usually views women as defenseless so they need extra help and resources. For men, it is the opposite. It's usually sink or swim and fend f…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 08:33 PM
2

Agree with you on dating apps. They are just a meat market at this point, and heavily favor women over men anyways (at least for meeting up with someone). The companies are just there for profit and are not actually trying to bring about more relationships. I'm okay with keeping dating apps, but they should be more straightforward. They should just have something like Tinder where you cycle through all the available users and they only let you message if the other person is interested. Wouldn't …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 08:28 PM
2

I will add this though. The average partners for men is 13, and the average for women is about 10 as you say. But both those numbers should be the same. Also, depends how the questions is asked, because most would not consider a hook up a sexual partner. A partner implies a solid relationship. For all we know, hookup culture is more prevalent and those numbers could be double.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 08:02 PM
0

One of the groups are lying though because the average would have to be the same for each gender. And since men are less monogamous than women, this would suggest that the average is spread more equally among the women than the men.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 07:22 PM
1

Except the state whenever there is a divorce.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 07:05 PM
1

if it's monogamy they're studying. the numbers between men and women have to remain constant. It's not monogamy, and not sure if the study is anonymous. They are studying the frequency of sex compared between the genders by ages. What the study is suggesting is that more women are sharing men rather than practicing monogamy 20 years ago. I'm not sure what you mean that the numbers have to remain constant? If you have 10 women and 10 men, but 2 men share 8 of the women, you would have a situation…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 07:03 PM
3

There is still dependence though when men are expected to provide for their families more than women but are not offered precedence for careers.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 05:49 PM
1

They've done studies that women are less likely to date men that aren't working, or are only working part time. So most relationships are about money. Also, many women will not date a man unless he is willing to have children. I would guess this is as high as 75%, unless you have an older woman that has already had children. But they still expect you to be working.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 05:46 PM
1

Are you sure? They've done studies about women swiping left 20 times for every 1 time they swipe right for a man on Tinder. Hookup culture is more prevalent than we are led to believe. Women are known for not being honest about this. Then there are men that are dating 3-4 women at a time and the women either don't know or okay with it. If you look at this report https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066, it suggests that the number of men that have only 1 sexual partne…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 05:43 PM
1

But that already isn't the case. Men can't abandon child support if they want, and have to follow divorce proceedings. Everything already works through the framework of the law. Are you suggesting we throw out the laws and let men and women deal with relationships on their own terms from now on?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 05:25 PM
2

It's more the other way around. Men feel like they are getting a bad deal by committing to women that had tons of sex with men that didn't offer commitment. If women expect men to wait for sex until after commitment, the same should be expected of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 05:20 PM
2

There was an era though where every man was pretty much guaranteed a job and the job paid barely enough to support a family. Now men have to compete with other women and the elites that are never satisfied. You are lucky at this stage as a man to have a job that isn't lower tier. Combine this with 1950's expectation for men, and men just don't want to bother.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/22 05:15 PM
1

But own countries have their own banks and regulations, so this won't matter to a degree.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/22 09:25 PM
1

Those regulations only apply to certain countries.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/22 11:27 AM
1

How does one person, or a country? It's a different mechanism.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/22 05:20 AM
1

Don't think that can be regulated at this point. There are probably 100 exchanges or more, and not even all of them are located in US. You would basically need to turn into China and how they regulate the internet with censorship. Don't even think US citizens would support or go along with this or that a majority of the US population supports intervention in Ukraine at this point. And even if the US censors its own citizens, Russia can still trade with its allies that have US dollars.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/22 04:37 AM
1

You are speaking on the level for the average citizen. Yes, everything can be tracked like you said for the average citizen. But a whole country can make their own rules. Anything that the US deems as illegal, Russia could counter and say they are doing illegal transactions. It's pretty much make up the rules as you go along. The US doesn't control the Bitcoin markets, nor the blockchain. They only control the US dollar markets. If Russian needs dollars, they can just go to another country. You …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/22 04:14 AM
1

Those addresses would have to be constantly monitored though, and Bitcoin currently has 460 million addresses. And Russia could trade through one of their allies, say Cuba or Venezuela. So not only would you need to block access to Russia, but access to all other allies of Russia. And then there are Tor and VPN browsers that make transactions almost impossible to track. Let's say it would be very difficult to track and keep track of all transactions. And then you consider the fact that Russia co…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/22 03:25 AM
1

Yes, new coins do have extra privacy levels. It gets all very technical, but there are ways to hide addresses and transfers.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/22 01:11 AM
1

This isn't 100% accurate. You can also create new accounts from transferring money. And Russian would just need one exchange or customer to do business with in order to make this work. Not all KYC exchanges are just in one country.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/22 01:10 AM
1

The purpose is to make it more annoying to everyone though. Because not only are products like Gucci boycotting, but the commoner products like cash, Facebook, Google, and Apple.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/22 07:57 PM
1

Seems like some think that we can move cancel culture to wars now. These tactics are hardly going to make a dent.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/22 12:38 AM
11

It is partly true. Women are more strict with deal breakers when it comes to looks. You either have it or you don't. But if you have it, women are relaxed and flexible. Men on the other hand are more flexible with looks, and don't have the deal breaker attitude. But if the woman wants the man to commit and provide resources, then the men start becoming more picky about the whole package (looks and personality). So in some ways, women are indeed more looks focused. I can't tell you many times I'v…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/22 12:13 AM
1

The draft isn’t active in the USA. The registration part is- that is what matters. And I’m assuming if women and men were both included, age limits wouldn’t be restricted to one gender But the country could only draft young people of BOTH genders, but only evacuate older women. That is the problem we are discussing. function of expectations for traditional gender roles rather than “feminism” There are no traditional gender roles, so why don't women press their elected officials to abolish the dr…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 07:52 PM
1

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 07:37 PM
1

You don't seem to understand that every Bucharest is viewed by Russia as a threat to their power and sovereignty. They feel that the west couped the country anyways in 2014. Not saying they are right, but they feel justified in what they are doing.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 07:14 PM
1

That's most likely posturing. They most likely want access to the Black Sea, and possibly may invade Moldova since it is on the coast. They also probably want Kiev as it is the center of government power and most populated city. The east has ethnic Russians, while the west Ethnic Ukrainians that closer to Polish. So cities like Lviv they could part with to the west. My impression is the the west does not like Russia that much, but the east part is friendly.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 07:12 PM
1

Don't believe it is. They have a mandatory service for young men, but nothing that says every man has to stay behind and fight. The fighting part is already optional for older men, but the staying behind is mandatory.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:14 PM
1

Well, the age requirement as you describe it doesn’t exist and isn’t likely to It already does exist in the United States. Men ages 18-25 are required to register for selective service. Older men are not required to register. I personally think people would still be upset (rightfully so) if women weren’t drafted but were still in the country. And likewise a lot of men. Living in country isn't just about what one group of people want. I also still think the draft and fleeing are inextricably rela…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:11 PM
1

Not sure how an age requirement is related Because they could say the draft is only for 20-24 year olds, but all men up to 65 have to stay in the country. Which is exactly pretty much what they are doing in Ukraine already. If you made a draft for women as well, it would just keep the 20-24 year old women, but all the rest of the women could flee and we are back to our original problem. So you’re saying you support the idea that, in these more traditional societies, it’s alright for only men to …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 09:22 AM
1

Yes it would, because some have age requirements on the draft, or may have exceptions if you are a mother. So the men could still be locked in the country. What you should support is getting rid of the draft all together. Fleeing is not common in traditional societies because it shows that women don't support their men. That is kind of the purpose of a traditional society. Men fight when necessary, and women will be the caretakers or cheerleaders. If they flee, it's like them literally saying "g…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 08:56 AM
1

This was the original comment in the OP: "Ukraine, a feminist nation that forces men to die for their government, while women and FEMALE children (male children still have to stay and die) get to flee." So that was about the draft and the fleeing part. But your reply said this "Which is probably why they only drafted men." We've kind of gone on a tangent, but I was just trying to say back to you that fleeing isn't part of being traditional. And then you reverted back to saying "what about the dr…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 08:33 AM
1

I didn't address it because that wasn't the main focus of the discussion. It was that men are being locked into their country and this didn't happen in traditional societies, not whether or not men are drafted in traditional societies. I already agree that men are more likely to be drafted in traditional societies, so I don't dispute that.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 08:24 AM
1

I addressed everything you asked, and you did the same for me. But you kind of twisted your statements to your suppositions. Like pretending fleeing for woman was common in traditional societies, and making it sound like men were just being drafted, when the real issue is the men are being locked into their country like a prisoner.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 08:19 AM
1

And I stand by mine. Your arguments are lukewarm at best. Not sure if you are a man or woman, but just find it odd that women and their feminists supporters will play the victim card easily and scream for their rights, but then kind of ignore the issues men face, like they pretend every man is a king and shouldn't complain about anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 08:13 AM
1

They are possilby 20 years behind us though. The marriage rate, which is one sign of a traditional society is really falling there. Things could be changing rapidly, more than people realize. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1007115/ukraine-marriage-rate/
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 08:08 AM
1

Operation Pied Piper. This was also different because men were still allowed to leave the country and this only included children.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 08:00 AM
1

The leadership in Ukraine is installed by western powers so is already more feminist friendly. The country has already had a woman Prime Minister. So this isn't like the US 200 years ago. LGBT rights have also started to gain traction. Men aren't expected to get married or stay married either. The country is only traditional in the sense that men are expected to work the tough jobs, while women can stay at home. I wouldn't by any stretch call it a traditional utopia.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 07:57 AM
1

Do you have a source on that? Never heard that before. I don't doubt some fled (like is portrayed in Sound of Music, but the man fled as well), but doubt whole populations of one gender were fleeing. Don't even think other countries were allowing refugees back during the World Wars. OP's comment wasn't only about the draft, it is that women are allowed to flee on the trains and cross the Polish border, whereas if men try such a thing they will be arrested and detained. That is a different situat…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 07:12 AM
1

Don't think I've heard of a traditional war where all the women flee. The children could be sent to relatives, or in groups. What is the point of having a man stay behind if they don't want to fight? Seems kind of pointless. Are you saying you agree with what they are doing?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:49 AM
1

Doesn't sound traditional to me. Traditional would be having the women stay behind and be nurses at the very least.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:29 AM
1

I don't think you realize there are situations when you are outgunned and outsmarted. if you fight in that situation, you will just be cannon fodder. Better to fight in other ways, or regroup after other groups have their battle.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:25 AM
2

No one is saying we wouldn't do anything. We are saying if women are packing their bags, then men should be able to as well. I would fight given the right circumstances, but those conditions don't exist now. I would probably stay behind and help if people needed help, but shouldn't be forced to if women aren't forced.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:24 AM
2

Okay, then what are men supposed to protect women from? Maybe if they are going to force men to stay behind, they should force some women to stay behind to help the injured or at least deliver supplies.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:22 AM
2

And you made the choice to do that willingly. Possibly you are more patriotic than other men, or trust that your country will have your back if you get injured. I don't have that trust in this country.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:20 AM
2

They are forcing men to stay behind while all the women get to flee? Their is nothing that says as a man you are at risk of dying just for being a man. If that is the case, since men and women are equal according to every feminists out there, then women are at risk for dying.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:19 AM
1

I want less military and less feminism, so this argument doesn't apply.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:18 AM
1

This is a fight of regimes. Most men don't want to fight for high level power positions just so the men and women at the top can keep exploiting every man for resources and shaming them with their feminist propaganda. Let the men at the top fight for their land and power. Also, why are you not addressing women in your comment? Can't they stay behind and at least help the injured? Don't think I've ever seen a war where the women just pack their bags and go to another country to hang out. If women…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 06:16 AM
1

I follow politics pretty diligently, and this is the first I've heard of the LIO. Is this an organization with any power like the UN? I think this war is more that Europe was expanding too much and too close to Ukraine's territory, and Russia didn't like their brand of puppet leaders. I've heard talks that this is to preserve traditional values, which the rest of the Western world has almost abandoned. But I think it is much deeper than that.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/22 03:56 AM
1

Your relatives should flee and avoid this battle. It won't benefit them in the slightest. While I sympathize with both sides, I don't know who is the right here. I've heard very concerning things about both sides, although some on the political spectrum would say they are just conspiracies.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/22 03:33 AM
1

I think it unlikely that either Stalin or Hitler were controlled by anyone other than themselves and their direct circumstances. I disagree. There is evidence that both were into the occult. Also, how did the wealthiest opposition of both escape the horrors of the war? And then you have Rudolph Hess flying into Great Britain and getting the harshest sentence of all the Nazi's, and he wasn't even around for the war. There are some documentaries that explore this more on youtube. Also, if Hitler's…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 04:48 PM
1

One could make the argument that Stalin was not a true communist as you claim. His ideas were very different from Lenin's. From https://www.quora.com/Was-Stalin-a-communist : "That is because 'Socialism from above' (more Stalin's style) either (i) leaves the class structure of society unchanged (as is the case with Social Democracy), or (ii) it introduces a new ruling elite (as was the case with Communism) -- but, in both cases, the mass of the population remains exploited and/or oppressed for t…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 04:13 PM
1

Just seeing if your honest in your intentions. Many people make the claim that women don't want war, but then at the same time suggest men are responsible for fighting.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 02:13 AM
1

You keep avoiding the question when I ask if men should be allowed to flee if they want, and want no part in this war. I just think it is kind of a stretch when you say most women adamantly are against war but never support mens' rights to avoid it, such as abolishing the draft.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 02:09 AM
1

You are the one suggesting men "should" stay behind and fight. Many Ukrainians do not support the current regime. Most redditors are more liberal anyways, so this wouldn't be the best place to ask someone's take on the current situation. I could ask you to ask the men that are required to stay behind (most of which aren't on reddit because of the internet block).
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 02:02 AM
1

Why would they be planning protests against conscription right now Because it could be life or death for some men. The reality is that families overwhelmingly consist of a man, a woman, and a child or children. Huge minority of men are single nowadays. So someone has to go and the people (mostly men) in charge decided this is the way to do it. Women can't use this excuse anymore since they can vote and hold office the same as men. Whenever something wrong happens to women, it always the mens' fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 01:59 AM
1

So do you think men should be able to leave? Why would any man want to stay and protect a piece of land if they don't even own any property? Or protect a society that doesn't give them the same rights? The men that have something to protect can stay and fight. Also, this war doesn't seem like a standard war for fight over a territory. It's just a regime change. There is no reason to make men stay behind and fight if they are just fighting over the current regime.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 01:55 AM
1

They could protest that men don't have the same rights. Or stay behind and help those that need help. Idk, what do you think they should do?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 01:45 AM
2

I said it was both men and women, not women alone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sVnn_Fyx8g. If women don't support this, then why don't they fight against it and let men flee if they want?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 01:34 AM
2

Fleeing does not equal a demand from others to fight. That’s not logical. It does if you are discriminating against men and demanding they stay behind. Who is in charge of these demands on men and the policy for men to stay? Looking at the Ukrainian cabinet, it isn’t even 50/50 male and female. Not sure. Possibly the other men and women that own the railroads, or the government in power. Seems like another case of rich (mostly) men’a war to sacrifice poor (mostly) men but you all stay desperate …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 01:24 AM
3

Ever seen the movie Four Feathers? Women have always considered it the duty for men to defend the homeland. We could use that same reasoning and say most men are against war. It's only the few that are pushing for war. Also, look at the response in Ukraine. Why aren't they letting men on the trains that go west? Is it because both men and women expect men to stay behind and fight?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 01:06 AM
1

I haven't seen this yet. But sure you are right it has happened. I don't think we should be taking in any refugees unless they are racially targeted, or possibly have issues related to a famine. Poland should probably take some in temporarily since they are next door, but I haven't seen videos of Ukrainians being targeted unless they are fighting back. It's one thing to provide temporary accommodations over flying some people across the globe and making a new home.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 11:42 PM
1

Another argument though is that if countries are going to let in refugees they should limit to targeted groups and every country should be taking them in. People should be fixing their countries, not trying to flee them. Could we go to other countries and demand they accept the injured after the Civil War? So in a way, most Ukrainians will probably be only given temporary reprieve and expected to go back once the conflict is over. One reason why America doesn't like this is because it feels like…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 11:07 PM
6

Most women demand the men fight for their country, but then flee at the first chance. Maybe it makes sense why men complain and don't want any responsibility that would make women more entitled.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 10:17 PM
4

Most of those photos are staged. Probably most of the photos on Tinder as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 10:16 PM
1

No, it's getting a lot of attention because it could trigger a world war. Although there are racial injustices involved with many wars, don't believe this is what is driving this. Your example with Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are different because those places were known to harbor terrorists and known enemies of the American government. Ukrainians are friendly towards the West for the most part. Although, I do find it odd that they are refusing entry for Asian refugees if true. They also are tu…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 10:13 PM
3

You know what makes me upset? Is the smart and educated class that is shipping our jobs to other countries and bringing in more immigrants to do the jobs no one else wants and blaming everything wrong on the younger generation. And then also refusing to budge on the minimum wage. If minimum wage gets what they get, then if the economy crashes because of this unfair system, then it gets what it deserves also. I've heard some people that share your same attitude say that only those that own proper…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 09:33 PM
1

SWIFT really isn't that great of a bargaining chip. It's an archaic money system controlled by corrupt interests. If crypto gained traction, it could easily replace SWIFT, and it already is doing that with coins like Ripple. The problem is if they try to regulate crypto. Which one of the key features of crypto is that it is supposed to be decentralized. A coin would see less buyers if they started messing with the network. So all Russia would need is a buyer for their crypto and they can get dol…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 09:23 PM
1

Yes, but doesn't the EU law still remain in effect and Northern Ireland still hasn't left? Also, if you are going to use the UK as example (which has 4 similar cultures, or possibly more- Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and British), then that means Ukraine should be broken into pieces. Because the West is closer to Poland and Europe, while the East is closer to Russian. Then you have pockets of Romanians. So if you want to be fair and impartial, then possibly the country would need to be divided somewh…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 08:11 PM
1

Both countries did this though. Germany took a chunk also. And Germany was the first country to make a move and commit a false flag to start the war.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 04:15 PM
1

Russia and Ukraine used to be one kingdom. They are closer allied to Russia than the European union. Many don't want some corrupt bureaucrats in Brussels making economic decisions for the country. Russia and Ukraine share the same culture and even speak the same language. If the European Union has done such a great job, why does Greece keep having problems, and why has the UK voted to leave (which still hasn't been granted by the way). But this being said, I still think the Ukrainian people shou…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 04:10 PM
1

If those officials have committed crimes though, you just move straight to the coup. That seems to be what is happening. That country was already couped in 2014. This is just the counter-coup. There are some issues that will never be resolved by protests. Look at the protests against the vaccine in Canada. Those protestors are having their bank accounts frozen. That isn't what happens in a democracy.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 04:02 PM
1

The UK is more of a Constitutional Monarchy than a democracy, and the US is more of a republic. There really aren't any true democracies. Most countries that do have true democracies have increased standard of living, so that is a metric for whether democracy is actually working. I don't think democracy is working in the Ukraine. My position on the Ukraine situation is that both sides are most likely bad actors. I don't trust NATO, the European Union, or Putin. And there are times when even coun…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 03:13 PM
2

Part of that theory doesn't make sense though because the invasion of Poland happened in 1939, and operation Barbarossa happened in 1941. So there would have been 2 years for sides to settle and it would have have been clear at that point that Germany was the antagonist. There was also the Gleiwitz incident which was most likely a false flag staged by Germany. It was also Germany that violated the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. But there is also evidence that parts of World War II were staged and was …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 05:12 AM
2

How would it be preemptive though if Hitler made the first move? There is also the historical opinion that Hitler and Stalin were both controlled by the same group trying to profit off the war and sow discord.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 04:04 AM
3

Those are claims that aren't backed up by evidence. Where are the polls that show the majority of Ukrainians want to be with Europe over Russia? There is no free speech in the country and the opposition is intimidated, so any claims about democracy are invalid. Democracy can only happen in open and free elections (that aren't messed with by state actors) and where free speech is allowed to the utmost to allow exchange of ideas, and for opposing ideas to form. Ukraine's economic situation has not…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 02:47 AM
1

He talks about it because that is their only current opposition at this point. NATO in its current state is not as much as a threat, but if it regroups it could be a threat. They wouldn't ask help from the UN because they are just as much compromised as NATO if not more. That would be like suggesting that NATO come and fix Ukraine, when Russia already thinks they can't do the job.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 01:33 AM
2

NATO won't just let countries out of the blue start joining after putting no money in for decades. If you remember when Trump ran, he was trying to point out that the US funds a large part of NATO anyways. Not that there won't be alliances, but NATO is most likely not coming to the rescue here unless with limited resources. But probably no troops on the ground unless this escalates out of control.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 01:30 AM
1

You have this backwards. Look up Operation Barbarossa and the need for Germany to expand. What you are saying makes zero sense when most countries in Western Europe are packed like sardines, and Russia has open country for thousands of miles. You sound like you get your sources from the mainstream media.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 01:17 AM
3

Imagine a world where the US didn't have their hands in the cookie jar for every nation on the globe, and try to promote their brand of capitalism with threats of war.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 01:13 AM
1

That's debatable that Ukraine moved towards NATO. The country was basically couped in 2014 and opposition is silenced. The west part of Ukraine tends to favor European values, while the east part favors Russian values. The fact that there was a coup 7 years ago shows that the country was likely already on a path to civil war. Unlike Russia, NATO doesn't take your sovereignty so it's not hard to imagine why it's a much more attractive proposition. NATO doesn't, but the European Union does. Notice…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 01:12 AM
2

But what does that mean "attracted to a person"? That's the whole package, including the bone structure, bank number, and biceps. I can't tell you how many times a woman has described why she likes a guy and just says something like "I don't know, I just like him". "Attracted to a person" is a vague description that doesn't describe much. Red pill will also say notice what women do with their actions, not with their words. If the men are seeing all the good looking or macho guys getting laid, or…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/21 11:19 PM
1

That's fair enough. Maybe it would tone down some of the vitriol. But another problem is actually proving that hypergamy exists. Even both sides tend to have their scientific "sources", and both genders would lose part of their ground in the gender battle by admitting that the other side has a point.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/21 11:49 PM
2

But OP was just getting people to admit hypergamy might be real. It wasn't attempting to get people to change their behaviors. Also, if you look at most of history, there is usually always an ulterior motive for changing behavior, and it usually isn't always altruistic. Mostly money and the economy seem to be the biggest drivers of behavior. For the example with BLM switching to mandates- that most likely happened because both are good for the economy. You can't have African Americans participat…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/21 11:26 PM
2

But the earth being round is something with tangible proof. Everything with relationships is based off of feelings and abstract emotions. I mean we probably have less than 5% that think the earth is flat, but there are probably 40-50% that think hypergamy is just made up.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/21 11:21 PM
3

But what would drastically change besides women saying "maybe men deserve a bit more sympathy" and men saying "see, I told you so"? I mean, it does cause people to reach a middle ideology, but it probably won't change any dating or relationship dynamics. I don't think women will start dating men out of sympathy. It would be like the wealth divide. If even you got the wealthy to admit that paying the poor more might help society or be better for the economy overall, it wouldn't be enough to convi…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/21 11:19 PM
2

I don't think that is the only issue. Men are okay with average women because partly as you say because they fulfill the needs for most men without the extra baggage of an extremely attractive woman (as you say fending off advances and wondering if she is going to branch swing to the next better guy she sees). But this also extends to careers and money. They've done studies that show men will date women without a career or large bank account, when women are less likely to settle on that issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/21 11:15 PM
2

fact of the matter is that everyone does the exact same thing and it's probably in near equal proportion But this isn't the argument of the red pill. They say it is disproportionately in favor for women. That women use more hypergamy to their advantage and are able to leverage it in their favor more.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/21 11:10 PM
1

Your solution is one where both sides admit that there might be something to the hypergamy argument, but then nothing really happens. Maybe women are more sympathetic to men, but beyond that nothing changes. It might be a step in the right direction, but I don't think it will solve too much of the gender relation issue. Partly because the hypergamy debate is to gain leverage over the other gender. Females deny it to get their preferences, and male argue in favor to get their preferences.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/21 11:07 PM
1

That spending was also passed by Republicans. Also, let's no kid ourselves that Republicans don't care about spending when it comes to bailing out businesses and protecting the interests of big business and wealthy tax payers.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/21 10:07 PM
1

Most of those things you listed the Democrats don't take seriously anyways and just use them as campaign slogans. Like take climate change for instance. The only plan the democrats have put forth is moving to electric or carbon taxes. Both would hurt the poor and middle class. Electric could be a zero sum proposition from a carbon perspective (people don't realize electricity can come from coal burning plants and electric cars require more raw materials that go to landfills), and carbon tax is j…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/21 09:51 PM
1

I'm not from Europe. From the US. But just pointing out one sector with a shortage doesn't mean a whole labor market shortage. They've been saying there is a shortage of truck drivers here in America for years (been seeing articles from back in 2015 or so), but everything seems to get to places on time still. So not sure what to make of it. Also, is this a labor shortage in your opinion or just can't find enough willing to accept low wages? The media is probably not telling you the whole story, …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/21 12:31 PM
1

How do you know there is actually a shortage? First hand experience? Sometimes I suspect there isn't really a shortage but companies are looking for excuses to import more foreign labor without the political problems. So they just say "well, we tried to find workers but no wanted work so we had to open up more immigration"
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/21 11:04 AM
2

Then if there is no crisis how come society feels the need to shame men into filling certain roles? If those roles are filled as you claim, then it is not a problem and people can go about their normal lives. Also, will the labor shortage turn into a gendered issue? Because all those articles you see in the media about labor shortages seems to be code for "we need more men to go out and work or work more hours". They haven't said this yet, but wouldn't be surprised to start seeing articles like …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/21 11:02 AM
2

Sounds like maybe you can't prove it or back it up with scholarly articles. This is already within the realm of current psychology and biology. Related to survival of the fittest and putting self first for mental and physical health. If you are suggesting women don't screen men and want the best, I'd like to see some articles that back that up.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/21 10:43 AM
1

It's not about about that only. Women don't necessarily want a pushover, but want a guy that checks all the boxes. It is literally harder to date a women that will accept you for who you are than to find a job at a place like Amazon, which is like the queen or king of the retail space. Women are acting like they are the queens of the dating market and upping the expectations because they know they can move onto the next simp. Just like companies like Amazon can move onto the next simp that works…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/21 02:18 AM
0

Why is it then that many women subscribe to the FDS strategy that men have to respect and work hard for a woman, and almost grovel at her requests? If a man says something even slightly controversial, or doesn't put the lady first, then they say to dump him and move on to the next guy. Many guys say the way women weed out guys with dating is even more strict and harsher than the job market. And the stats back this up. The unemployment rate for men is usually less than 10% at all times. The undat…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/21 02:08 AM
1

Don't agree with some of original posters sentiments- like I don't think rights should be tied to responsibility. Rights can also be about respect for human dignity at the least. But they are right about the patriarchy being mostly a myth. It did exist, but was more supplanted by a meritocracy system and didn't happen exactly how feminists think it happened. Meritocracy might be the wrong word, but most of history has been people taking wealth, land, and money by might or intellect. We still hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 04:50 PM
1

men who stay and continue to be productive will be borderline worshipped. Not sure if we are living in different realities, but this isn't accurate. I've found most women that are college educated look down on men without a degree, or those that are in the trades or factories. And if they aren't college educated, then they want you be working 60 hour weeks and better looking than them. I'm guessing by productive you mean the chad in a suit that has millions and works as the CEO. When those guys …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 02:16 PM
2

I feel like a big part of all of it is needing to get men more confident and positive. Yes, short of state issued girlfriends (which would never be realistic or accepted), this is probably the only way to fix this. If you improve mens' confidence, then other aspects will naturally follow (which is difficult because some men have too much confidence, and others too little). Also, I think many men fall into traps that are hard to get out of (addiction, mental health, etc). Some men may have decide…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 09:05 AM
2

Can I ask one more thing? Do you think these “lonely men” can be satisfied and feel purposeful with sex only? Like the idea of sex bots or easy access to prostitutes - is that enough to give men enough of a female-centric purpose to live and be part of society? It seems to me that it isn’t. Depends on the man probably. Some men don't like prostitutes or sex bots because they seem kind of an act of desperation, or have moral issues. Other men like it and seem to turn it into a hobby sort of and i…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 07:40 AM
1

how are women loved unconditionally? I’d just like a clear explanation of what it means because, by my definition, women are not loved “unconditionally”. Most men think women need to be protected, and many will fight to protect them- like wars if necessary. You may say that is being patronizing and isn't necessary, but I can't imagine a man going and fighting a war if he was protecting some random guy he doesn't even know (maybe his property or land). This also extends into romance- because men …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 06:35 AM
1

Why does providing women more opportunity cause men to become weak and lazy? Because it has to do this at the expense of LVM. Women serving men? How do they do this? Don't blame society for raising the bar, blame men who fail to reach it. We don't blame society for raising the bar, just complain about it here and there. But at the same time don't blame men for leaving the plantation or expecting better appreciation.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 03:24 AM
3

Well men aren't budging either. Guess it's a stalemate and men and women should just go about their lives. What does subjugation mean to you? So you are going to turn the men into your cattle because you feel like men did the same to you generations ago? Isn't that a paying for the sins of your fathers mentality?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 03:16 AM
5

No one at this point. Both political parties are white knights for women and will tell men to man up
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 03:13 AM
2

It's not that men don't have a road map. It's that they don't have positive goals. That's not mens' job to create positive goals, but society's job. If you think men are lazy for this reason, it is likely women would act the same if given the same goals. Try taking away welfare for women and flip the 80/20 rule in favor for men. Women would say too it's not worth it and abandon the plantation.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 03:07 AM
6

This is why more men need to go MGTOW. Some of the women are more mad at the men in their own country not stocking an item than the other country taking the job away that makes the product and not shipping the product on time. Not sure if this is really going on, but fits the description of a Karen.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 03:01 AM
1

You've got it backwards. Men are directionless because of their lack of involvement with community. But as the other poster is saying, men don't want to participate in a community that isn't giving them positive direction. You may reply back that it isn't the community's job to give them a direction. Which you are right, but then it also isn't the job of men to prop your idea of a community. if you refer to Maslow's heirarchy of needs, one could argue that many men are in the deficiency area, wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 02:31 AM
1

It says women in general, not every single women. But yes, women are just sharing men in a soft version of polygamy.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/21 12:22 AM
1

It is exactly like saying that because they are French nationals that do not speak French, then it must mean that there is such thing as being French. That's not close to what I'm saying. I'm saying because there are French nationals that don't speak French, then maybe it is possible you can't say all French nationals speak French. Sorry but the existing issues about secondary characteristics of sex does not allow to infer that sex is a spectrum or non binary.Se It is biological sex, not gender.…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 10:29 AM
1

It is either male or female, just like there is just France and Italy. Lookup intersex : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex. It is a real thing and says "In 1917, Richard Goldschmidt created the term 'intersexuality' to refer to a variety of physical sex ambiguities. However, according to The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies, it wasn't until Anne Fausto Sterling published her article 'The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough' in 1993 that the term reached popularity. According to…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 09:39 AM
1

Issues with the limit of something does not invalidate the existence of it. It means that it is likely a spectrum, not that it invalidates the existence. That all the secondary sexual characters (called secondary for a reason) may not be expressed because of biological issue does NOT in any way shape or form invalidate the very existence of the immutable reality of sex. Replace biological sex with gender in your statement, and you will realize the conundrum you just stated. We don't even know wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 09:01 AM
1

If gender is fluid, then it is likely biological sex is fluid as well. Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome. These are people that have chromosomes that match male, but feel or probably think they are closer to biological female. I discuss this else where in this thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 05:48 AM
1

It's not off topic. It was suggesting how the definition of biological sex is more fluid than you suggested. My point, and I still stand by this, is that gender is a reflection of biological sex, and they are correlated. So if we call gender fluid, then most likely biological sex is also fluid. I just find it ironic that you mentioned social whims, when people could interpret what you guys are trying to do with forcing people to use pronouns.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 02:48 AM
1

Doesn't matter if that part is a guess, because you claimed the whole thing was a hypothetical. There is huge pressure to solve this problem, and huge money interests involved. So it is obviously something that shouldn't be brushed aside. And it was to illustrate that we may get to a point that biological sex isn't as static as you claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 02:27 AM
1

The research isn't hypothetical. https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-slow-march-toward-the-first-same-sex-couple-to-have-a-baby. The science is more hypothetical although they have done embryos to term on test animals- but my guess is they have already succeeded, but just have not told it through the media. The media has proven to withhold information many times in the past. This would be a huge money maker though, because they think the same hurdles could be used for fertility treatment…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 01:41 AM
1

It is for sure happening (is it common- probably not). Other countries don't have laws that protect against this research. If money can made of it, then it is almost guaranteed to happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 01:21 AM
1

It’s not nice to smile at random people it’s kinda creepy Probably in the current age of stalkers. But in old times, it was very common. People were more hospitable back then and didn't think of every one as a creep. Plus our current society is too sexualized, so everyone thinks being nice to a guy is giving signals or that a guy is getting signals. I'm not saying you should smile to random people. I'm saying that me expecting it, is like you expecting me to conform to your standards of social n…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 01:20 AM
1

It's not a hypothetical if it is happening or there is pressure for it to happen. Not sure what conspiracy has to do with it. That seems to be code word for anything that upsets the liberal agenda. Maybe you guys are the conspiracy people?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 01:03 AM
1

​ So you don't smile at someone to be nice? Some people do this a lot. I didn't say people should do it- same as people shouldn't be forced to ask someone their pronoun. I don't care that people know my own gender, why would I care as much to know someone else's? I will care at the point they tell me and remember to call them such. But I'm not going to play a guessing game nor feel it is my obligation to ask. I’m not sure where in the constitution says you have the credentials to disagree with s…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 01:00 AM
1

You think the news is going to advertise this. This is another thing liberals think. That because the media didn't report on it or say anything, then it didn't happen or isn't important.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 12:53 AM
1

Whelp then you’re more than likely to fall into the rude cunt category. It’s not a hard question to ask and it shows you respect the person. So does women smiling when they greet a man. But women think that is beyond them now and they should only smile for men they like. People don't follow social conventions all the time. I don't like divulging my gender, so that is rude for these companies to even consider asking for it. You can’t disagree with something you don’t have the credentials to provi…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 12:47 AM
1

Well, sorry, I don't plan on doing that anytime soon. If they tell me in advance, I will call them by that. Call me rude or whatever, but liberals and their ideologies are starting to be forced. Just like with the vaccine mandate. It's like you are the final say on science, and no can disagree or else they get their toys taken away.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 12:34 AM
1

It's not a stupid hypothetical when scientist have probably already done this (and not told you), and there is pressure to do this. It is interesting that you mention cultural whims, when that is exactly how the conservatives feel on this issue. So apparently they are bigots, but you get to decide on who is a bigot. And you get to decide on what determines science. It's not up for debate.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 12:31 AM
1

You should be asking people their pronouns upon meeting them if they don’t say. I'm not going to ask every person their pronoun before getting to know them. If it is important, they should tell me out of courtesy. Do you ask every person this upon meeting them? If this is the case you would see this in introductions. They would say something like "This is (someone's name here) and they identify as female". I've never seen this done in practice. Sex is based on chromosomes Where is there a source…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 12:29 AM
1

Let me ask a hypothetical. What if in the future they are able to produce a human with two male chromosomes (which is possible because males have an X and Y chromosome)? Does that mean that human had two male progenitors? Well yes, but that seems to violate the rules of biology, or the definitions of biology. So maybe it isn't as delineated as you think. Not arguing we should be doing this, but pointing out even the definition of biological sex can be changed by certain assumptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 12:21 AM
1

They won't let you sign up unless you do pick a gender. Most places still have a required field. My opinion on the matter of gender is that it should be fluid. But if we are going to make it fluid, then it shouldn't be asked of people anymore or required to divulge. Also, I agree with Jordan Peterson that people shouldn't be forced to use gender pronouns. I will call someone by what they request out of courtesy. But someone doesn't always know up front how someone identifies, and it can't be con…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/21 12:08 AM
1

Your wrong that biology is determined by chromosomes. Look up androgen insensitivity. These are men or women (however they identify) that have male chromosomes but female characteristics usually (and they could pass as females). The issue isn't as delineated as you make it seem. Trans also artificially limit their hormones in the same way with hormone therapy. Also, 50 years ago the only plausible definition of gender was male or female, and that has now changed because of political expediency. …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 11:48 PM
1

On facebook it is required, and they are one of the most woke companies out there. You may think it isn't required, but it also isn't required for them to consider your application unless you fill it out. The person who is the primary and best informed caretaker gets preferential treatment as that’s what is best for the child. That's what they say, but we know that isn't what is happening. The both need to be fluid because one is an extension of the other. Biology determines characterstics.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 11:38 PM
1

If you go sign up for facebook they will ask for your gender. It is one of the questions on the first page. Also, many employers link to your facebook nowadays. It is very much a question that is still asked, and your employer doesn't have to consider you for employment if you don't fill it out. There is no law that says every application is going to be considered. Also, how are the companies going to "target quotas" unless they know your gender? You still haven't answered this. I'm not saying g…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 11:21 PM
1

Every place asks for your gender. How are they going to 'target quotas' unless they know your gender? Okay, what you are saying no longer makes sense. Because there are biological conditions that allow for a spectrum of sex. Like Androgen insentive syndrome. You can't just pick one because it suits your political agenda. Either gender and sex both have a spectrum, or neither does.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 11:10 PM
1

You may not be required to answer it, but the employer can throw away your application for not answering it, unless you prove they did this is in a discriminatory way. The burden of proof for discrimination is very high and almost impossible to prove. What is the definition of biological sex? If gender is a spectrum, can't that be too?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 10:56 PM
1

Happens a lot. On ID's like driver licenses, job applications, medical records, prison system, military, membership clubs, etc. If none of this matters, then why is the system so demanding that you specify a gender? Probably because it still uses it to discriminate, and men can be discriminated as well. It is interesting the 60% of people in college now are women, but if you look at the media articles, it says that is because men are just not putting in the effort. How do we know it isn't from w…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 10:53 PM
2

The ones that have affirmative action policies, and where the supreme court has allowed this. https://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Affirmative\_action\_in\_the\_United\_States "In the United States, affirmative action included the use of racial quotas until the Supreme Court ruled that quotas were unconstitutional. Affirmative action currently tends to emphasize not specific quotas but rather 'targeted goals' to address past discrimination in a particular institution or in broader society through 'good-…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 10:45 PM
2

If it doesn't matter, then it should be illegal to ask for it on any kind of application then. Because many men feel like they are being discriminated with affirmative action giving job and college slots to women. Maybe it should be illegal to do affirmative action on the basis of gender at this point, or for that matter it should be illegal to even ask someone their gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 10:42 PM
2

If it doesn't matter, then why would gender be listed on things like your job application, your health file, scholarship application, or other things that demand you pick a gender? It's almost like people are saying you be whatever gender you want, but you have to pick and you can't change back. Or you have to fit our basis for what gender means (and we'll tell you if we agree with what you pick).
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 10:40 PM
1

The answer is to go MGTOW and protect your own interest over the interests of society. Let women pay for their own escapades and decisions, and stop letting feminism tell men that they are the problem. Prostitution isn't the answer because it will just create more embittered men in the long run.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 09:30 PM
5

Women already have their careers, so no need to be impressed anymore. If they want to be impressed, they can look at their own bank statements.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 09:25 PM
2

According to this, it is probably more often than you think https://www.mamamia.com.au/how-often-should-you-have-sex/. Most respondents say they are having sex once a month. And something like 30-40% of women supposedly aren't in relationships or seeking dating. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/. So they must be getting hookups from somewhere. It's probably on sites like tinder, where 10-20% of the men are getting selected.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 09:23 PM
1

It is if the majority of women participate in the toxic culture. Like you see even women that act trad, but would wager most have at one point been on tinder.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 09:17 PM
5

It's not only about hookups, but finding a stable partner or even potential romantic interest. Women seem to be having an easier time (even though many still don't seem to be satisfied), while men are being cast aside. It's almost like men didn't leave women, but women have decided to leave men.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 09:15 PM
6

Yes, if you look at the stats from dating and relationships. Only a certain percentage of men carry on the genes for the next generation, and women are likely just passing around partners in romantic relationships. The 80/20 isn't as real as red pill says, but there is moderate hypergamy in all aspects of relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 09:11 PM
1

Some at top of list, but not sure favorite: Lawrence of Arabia (excellent cinematography but is a bit long and gets kind of boring towards end), Bridge Over River Kwai, and Last of Mohicans. Movies that I found interesting, but maybe aren't critically acclaimed: Land of Mine, 13 Hours, and Enemy at the Gates.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/21 02:26 AM
1

Online dating doesn't seem to cater to men as much as women. How can men have game when they've done studies that show women swipe right on only about 1 in 20 men?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/21 10:38 PM
2

​ There are already soft versions of polygamy and harems. That is what online dating is doing, combined with men having multiple relationships, while other men have none at all. Historically, it has been higher than 20% of men not reproducing. It's closer to 50% or more at times. That wouldn't account for all the men lost in wars or battles.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/21 09:53 PM
3

I don't suspect that is the reason. If that was happening, then the women would simply go to the men that didn't die, and we would see some kind of polygamy or harems. They've also done studies that show when there are fewer of one gender, and more of the other, that the circumstances become more favorable to the gender with the lower numbers. But no such favorability has ever existed with men in the history books- at least the average guy. Also, historically, only 1 in 2 men have passed on thei…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/21 04:07 PM
1

They both look like 6, maybe 7 if wearing the right outfit. So I'd say slightly above average. One thing that people don't take into account with attractiveness is that the right outfit and hair style could probably add up to 1 to 2 points. Also, the face isn't everything.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/21 03:54 PM
1

Why do the online dating site feature profiles with mostly pictures and 2 or 3 sentences if womens' attraction to men is activated and not inherent?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/21 03:51 PM
2

yes-more of them. Women pay taxes too, but I think it is something like 60-40% men to women in the workforce (and possibly higher if you consider full time work). And men use welfare less, so women are still reliant on men to a degree even though they have more independence.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/21 02:02 PM
1

They have to rely on beta males for resources, but they can be free through the state
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/21 01:33 PM
1

Yes, but you are confirming my point that some people don't have to work hard, if they were born wealthy or inherited wealth already. Also, you are missing the connections people have that give people an unfair bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/21 10:20 PM
1

almost all women relax their looks standards. Not from my perspective, but this could be why men and women see things differently on this issue. But you should expect those things you listed from your partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/21 04:35 AM
1

I'm saying women were choosing to get married just as much as men. I've never said women have crazy high standards? I think standards are necessary, just that women need to relax them more unless they all want to marry chad. Seems like that might be the direction we are heading towards- kind of like a soft polygamy.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/21 03:16 AM
1

I did not see that at all. It says it right here: "If they remained unmarried they could have a prestigious, poorly paying lifetime career." because they needed to survive and their other option was being a prostitute or dying. Again, that's not what it said: "Widows and deserted wives often operated boarding houses." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_house: "Boarding houses were common in most US cities throughout the 19th century and until the 1950s. In Boston in the 1830s, when the …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/21 02:50 AM
1

That's not that way I interpreted it. Women definitely did not have as many opportunities as men back then. But they were still able to work and support themselves, although on meager incomes. They could choose to get married, although the family probably pressured her to marry. But they did the same to the men in the family. Women could also work and own their own businesses as was pointed out. Could they own as many businesses as the men? No, but the majority of men didn't own a business as we…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/21 02:29 AM
1

It's further down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women_in_the_United_States#Jobs_and_professions : "Many young women worked as servants or in shops and factories until marriage, then typically became full-time housewives." "Typically, most young women quit their jobs when they married" "If they remained unmarried they could have a prestigious, poorly paying lifetime career." "Business opportunities were very rare, unless it was a matter of a widow taking over her late husband's small b…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/21 02:01 AM
1

That was common even 200 years ago or more
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/21 12:44 AM
1

No, these aren't made up. That was how most women lived throughout history. Marriage was never forced, at least in most western countries. The options were to find a man to marry, or possible have the father take care of the woman if he was wealthy enough. But if that wasn't the case, then women went to the factories or farms and lived alone. Not saying it was ideal, but a lot of men have lived alone and in poverty too. That's a feminist myth that men were always living it large.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 10:42 PM
1

The could become a spinster or work a low paying job. Not great options, that is why I said "somewhat" willingly
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 10:12 PM
1

Yes, but society could try to maintain resource control and use less manipulation to make it happen. I think the notion that some believe that markets are fair and balanced is false.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 10:11 PM
3

Do you really think that all of us women are being promiscuous and having sex just because we could get it if we wanted to? Not all women are promiscuous, but almost all women don't like being told who they can have a relationship with or when they can have sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 10:07 PM
1

How do you know men aren't using reverse psychology to get you to do what they actually want?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 10:00 PM
1

It's also what has happened with working. I wonder sometimes if women actually enjoy the 9-5, spent most of the time in an office. I'm not saying dealing with a family is better, but seems like they would be about equal all things considered.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 09:59 PM
1

Yes, but at least they entered the contract of marriages somewhat willingly with that expectation. Also, the manipulation you see with capitalism is a whole other degree than family.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 09:56 PM
1

Resource control and manipulation are two separate issues though which happen to overlap in our capitalist system (but would likely occur in more Marxist economies anyways).
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 09:53 PM
6

Something in the middle would also be lowering your standards a bit, which women hate to hear as well. It's possible your average man isn't going to fare to well at a bar or social event as well. Not to mention, social events are becoming rarer, especially as adults age.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 07:38 PM
2

Yes, we need to look after each other, but men that have trouble with a relationship- they can fend for themselves? If that is the case, then why can't everyone fend for themselves in every aspect?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 07:35 PM
1

There are so many hidden taxes in the system that there is no real way for a man to leave the plantation- even a man that is unhitched and plans on going MGTOW. If women truly want their freedom from men they don't like, why don't they just let men be and detach from the system?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 01:20 AM
1

Then why don't you pick the good men that are willing to put the extra work into being a husband?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 01:17 AM
3

The is addressed in the OP. Now you have to fight over the few Chads and keep the betas appeased at the same time. Doesn't really seem as fun as you wanted- as OP said it's becoming a jungle out there.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 01:10 AM
2

Why don't the girls talk to the guys if they are really interested? I don't think these girls are as interested in the possibility as you make it seem. Combine this with autism that already makes guys socially awkward, and this is a real uphill battle.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 01:09 AM
3

as if the same girl is deciding on Tuesday to be a church-going committed monogamist and Wednesday to be the super-slutty orgy queen. That's a bit of an extreme example. The examples that would be more along the lines about what I was saying would be "sleeping with chad on the first date, but demanding another guy wait and commit" or "making some guys pay for the date, but then offering to pay for guys they like (several women have admitted this to me)", or "making it seem like you are trad and …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 09:41 PM
3

They are related though. What has started with capitalism has moved to relationships. Yes, people are trying to engineer their own happiness. Maybe people could put up with a little more suffering. But usually these ideas devolve into "you should suffer more for your own benefit (and my benefit)". Look at what has happened to the capitalism debate. You usually have a lot of wealthy people telling poor people that hard work is good for them, and teaches them morale. But they aren't applying the s…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 09:18 PM
7

OLD is like having a rule for the bar that only the chads can gain entrance. It's an artificial construct made to look real. Your example is going from one extreme to the other. Forcing marriage to letting women have unadulterated freedom. Can't there be something in the middle?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 09:12 PM
3

Not sure what you are getting at? They do like different things, but when it comes to chad, most women are in agreement.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 08:29 PM
5

Not necessarily. It could have to do with looks only. There are men that have ambitions and can communicate effectively, but still can't get a woman. But beyond relationship wants, there are societal expectations. Those are less agreed upon, and have to receive input from both genders.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 07:04 AM
5

Roles reversing “again?” I'm suggesting if we go back to society where women don't have rights. That won't likely happen, I'm just using it to illustrate a point. have a clean house wit clean laundry handed to you meals cooked A lot of men don't have this luxury. You only have that luxury if you are married or have a woman that cares about you. Are you suggesting that women should take on that responsibility? Also, a lot of men live on their own and don't have women to take care of them. I sugge…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 07:01 AM
1

I'm not so sure that "living the life you want" has much meaning when more than half the population is working paycheck to paycheck, and many things people want to do require money.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 05:12 AM
5

Social norms are determined by society- which includes both men and women. Women don't get to make all the rules and just say "deal with it- this is fair because I said so".
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 05:10 AM
3

That wasn't really the premise of the argument. It was that women are playing both sides of the spectrum- the trad and living it up lifestyle. And are likely using a double standard in the process- because OP mentioned advancing feminism in the name of egalitarianism, when the current status is far from egalitarian in both economic and dating prospects. It is basically a free market on steroids.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 05:04 AM
8

Dystopian may be a stretch. But it is kind of reminiscent of Brave New World, where it is likely that only the alpha men are participating to any kind of degree. Yeah, it is just a simple computer program, but when you hear stats like women swipe right on only 1 in 20 guys, and rate 80% of them unattractive- you realize that as an average guy you would be better deleting the app and meeting ladies at work (which you are risking a sexual harassment claim from HR if you push it too far), or wherev…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 04:55 AM
8

They don't want to acknowledge it because they they either consciously or subconsciously know that men wouldn't work as hard if you told them their chances of being in a happy relationship are slim. So they want to dangle the carrot in front of the horse.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 04:49 AM
1

There has not been easier time in history This implies that people have it too easy, as opposed to too difficult or just fair, so that would mean you may be hinting that things are where they should be- and the merit is earned. You didn't say meritocracy outright though.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 04:47 AM
3

granted and being worked to death Not sure what you mean by this when throughout history men have done the dangerous and intensive labor jobs. Women have traditionally done the housecare. What the other person seems to be getting at though, is that two wrongs don't make a right. Women have the right to be independent from men- but if you treat men with contempt when roles are reversed, don't see how you could complain if the roles reverse again.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 04:39 AM
1

That's not really how men view it. It's not that they want women out of the workforce- more that they don't want to compete with them- while they get to enjoy all the luxuries of the welfare state, while men are left to fend for themselves. Men either want to work together with women, and if women don't want that, they would prefer to have them completely independent from them.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/21 04:33 AM
1

It's either/or. If you don't want to wait or pay for the test, then you have to be vaccinated. Doesn't sound like free or liberal society to me. Also, you have probably seen the beginning of this. You will see this get worse before it gets better.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 11:35 PM
1

That is half true: https://www.goodrx.com/covid-19/vaccine-verification: "For domestic travel within the US, airlines are not currently requiring proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test result to fly. This may change as new standards are developed. International travel will be a different story. You will need to show proof of vaccination, or a negative test result, to enter most other countries that are accepting travelers from the US."
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 11:27 PM
1

I’m saying poor in many parts of the west isn’t poor in Mumbai. That doesn't seem like a fair argument though. Maybe the poor in the west and Mumbai both deserve better. 100 years ago via some sort of “she needs him for providership” deal. A man like that was never going inspire lust and want in women. Women 100 years ago weren't really chasing around chads like they do now. So lust or want weren't really in the equation. I'm sure women had flings, but they were probably a lot more rare than now…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 11:24 PM
1

As far as I'm aware, all airline are requiring this. This is only possible if you have your own personal jet. This era in history is freer and cushier in the west than any time Get back to me in 5 years and let's see if you agree with this. Must be a different perspective, but I'm seeing alarming precedents that are happening. I think it is possible people will wake up one day and wonder what happened.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 11:16 PM
2

Not all men have Jordans. I know plenty of men that wear walmart or payless shoes. Also, I wouldn't consider having a nice pair of shoes, running water, or a cellphone the epitome of success. This sounds like an argument that conservatives make more often. I don't think it is a fair argument. Let's say you were working a minimum wage job, and thought with your skills you deserved more. Your employer could just come back and say "well at least you aren't living in hut like those other cultures". …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 11:13 PM
0

And my point to OP is at some point in time throughout all of human history someone’s life probably felt “dystopian. This is true, but times were also different back then. Times were harder, and almost everyone was poor to a degree. People had to rely on each more back then. Now we have this plethora of resources and technology available (which is probably the likely cause that liberated women, and not pushing for more rights), but you still have people hoarding and taking all they can (and even…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 11:00 PM
1

I was more talking about western countries- since we were discussing 6 figure salaries. Many of those people at least have access to food stamps, or government help.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 10:50 PM
1

You are saying though that there is agency-but at the same time saying you don't believe in rights. How can you have one without the other? I'm not sure OP was laying out his/her vision of a utopia. I believe he/she is saying that there were unintended consequences from the sexual revolution. All it seemed to do is reverse roles for the genders. Now instead of men having their cake and eating it too, it's womens' turn. I don't think utopia is achievable. The best people can ask for is more fairn…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 10:48 PM
2

6 figure salaries? That is less than 10% of the population (and those people got a boost to their salary with the stimulus PPP loans, while everyone else got the leftovers)- it might be about 20% on here since this crowd bring more educated people. I don't know that one can look at all the chaos going on in the world and think this is how society is supposed to function. But there are people that are more shielded from this chaos- so they are probably not aware of it. Granted, at least people ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 10:41 PM
2

This is not really accurate though. I think the media and society is telling everyone they have more freedom, while freedoms are actually being taken away at an alarming rate. Look at what covid has done to society. It seems like everything is on the verge of authoritarianism. Not to mention the chaos and distrust in institutions.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 10:35 PM
9

Women thought they were going to revolutionize society by being in charge. I think it is apparent a lot of problems now aren't from the mythical patriarchy, but it is just a people problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 10:33 PM
2

I wouldn't confuse wealth or other features of our society as agency. What is usually one person's agency is another person's limitation.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 10:31 PM
3

There are consequences, but these only apply to men now.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 10:30 PM
1

It seemed like a blue pill argument- blue pillers have the same idea of men stepping up or losing in the dating market as some red pillers. Red pillers usually tell men to have more game- your argument was saying they should check out. So it seemed more blue pill than red pill. Blue pillers also put women on a pedestal over men.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 03:42 PM
1

Betas don't get a say in the matter Betas won't care if you go live in an enclave and leave the rest of society alone. But if you start mandating that all the resources go to your family, betas aren't going to like that. They will either just opt out or steal the land. All it would take is a majority of the men to do this. NSA sex is "looked down on in society" and women still engage in it.Having children out of wedlock is "looked down on in society", and womenstill engage in it. Sex work is "lo…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 07:57 AM
1

Why doesn't he just limit his harem to employed women, always use a condom, and get a vasectomy? Because polygamy is looked down on in society now. This is actually what happens in polygamist societies. The women are effectively employed in most of the chores, while the men lounge about and only do the heavy lifting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo "According to some, men have no responsibility in Mosuo society—they have no jobs, rest all day, and conserve their strength for nighttime visits…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 07:39 AM
1

Are you telling me they all want to, and the Chads just aren't letting them? Yes, because Chad has to provide for her and the children. Chad has to appease all the women and make them happy. So not all men want a part of this contract. Also, you will have betas to fight with over resources. Betas aren't going to gladly give up their own resources so Chad can have a harem. much stronger evidence rebutting this claim than supporting it. I don't agree with this statement, but we will have to agree …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 07:13 AM
6

Actually I agree with most of it except that last part. That was a odd conclusion to be honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 06:36 AM
10

so i don't see a problem with it -- they can self anesthetize with video games, porn, and drugs. So hypergamy is justified so humans can maintain fitness- and men have to be put on drugs. This is why red pill doesn't take the blue pill seriously. Blue pill would consider this misogyny if red pill dared offer this.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 06:11 AM
1

Women can do whatever they want. Women don't need your approval to share a Chad. This is a stupid argument. Then men can do whatever they want. Doesn't mean every man gets to pick whatever woman they want. Doesn't mean men get to ask women to fund their lifestyle. Everything has balance. Wants and actualizations are not even remotely the same. Not sure why you are trying to make this argument. I'm asking for evidence that women are actually doing this Not exactly. You phrased your question "woul…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 06:03 AM
1

The red pill hypothesis is that "most" women would prefer to share a Chad. When red pill says this, they mean if women could do whatever they want. Hypergamy is kept in check by society and mens' goals as well. Also, it's not really a strongly agreed hypothesis among red pill. Red pill just says hypergamy exists, not the level of hypergamy. I've heard some guys talking about sharing chad, but it isn't discussed as much as 80/20. And 80/20 more refers to casual dating and not relationships in gen…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 04:42 AM
1

Yes, I have. I provided three separate studies. And I provided studies also that show there is slight evidence it is occurring. It probably isn't occurring as much red pill portrays the issue, but it is occurring. I'm not sure how this is relevant, unless you're seriously trying to argue that most women are engaging in polygamy. I'm suggesting it is similar to polygamy. That many men have a harder time finding a partner, and that women are just taking their turn with the same men. The fact that …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 04:01 AM
2

I was looking at the research holistically, and analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each study to infer the general truth. Yes, you did this, but you only used a few studies. I wouldn't say that is holistic or conclusive. I did the same and pointed out a few studies that seem to disagree slightly. I wouldn't say my studies are conclusive either.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 03:47 AM
1

Is there any evidence of this? Yes- I just pointed it out. Consider for a moment you haven't provided any evidence to support your view that red pill is wrong. Another stat has to do with marriage. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db19.htm. This claims that there is about a 14 point gap in non married men and women by the age of 35. Also consider that women marry men older than them and this survey was done in 2002. These numbers could be even more dramatic now, since red pill starte…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 03:43 AM
1

10% or more is not a small percent of women (at least not small enough to be statistically irrelevant). Those stats also include men that are paying for sex. Let's assume that is 15% of men, although those numbers may not be accurate as well. So if you consider that and other factors, it could mean that much more than 10% of women are sharing men, at least for relationships. It could be possible that 25-40% of men have a hard time finding a girlfriend because all the other women are just rotatin…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 03:20 AM
2

I've noticed this is something red pillers do a lot. They think they can point to a single study and say "this is the final word on human sexuality". Most of what you said makes sense, but I was saying this is what you are doing. I was disagreeing that your studies are conclusive. I don't think most women want to share chad. But if speaking in the sense of only the sexual aspect of relationships, it may be somewhat accurate. For relationships in general, most women seem to prefer a relationship …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 03:12 AM
1

The most conclusive study that I found that gives a picture of hypergamy is this one: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066. It does say that 30% of younger men reported no sexually activity in the last year, while only 19% of women reported the same. You see similar numbers for later age groups, but the gap narrows. Assuming this study is the most accurate we could find (and this study may not even be accurate because men are known to over report stats like this, …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 02:59 AM
2

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about here. Most couples that open up their relationships to polyamory (that is strict polyamory where it is consensual and both participants are aware before) do so with like minded couples. I.E. Other participants that are already in a relationship, or with another guy or lady that has been vetted. It's not like normal dating dynamics. Okay. Can you give me any evidence from any of these places that the "shared Chad" effect is the dominant form o…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 02:31 AM
5

This is not a methodological flaw. It may not be a methodological flaw, but it wouldn't be conclusive enough to say the red pill is false on hypergamy. The OKcupid study would seem to be more conclusive because it is testing theories in the real world and not on hypotheticals. It would also be more likely to inhibit dishonesty because most women are honest about their intentions to date men in online dating, at least more so than when put in front of intimidating research scientists. Most women …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 02:18 AM
7

The other problem is that the entire concept of a "Chad" seems not to be supported by the evidence. Science suggests that, at least on a physical level, women actually disagree on who the most attractive men are. This study is flawed, because it only mentions that women disagree with what men are attractive. A more accurate study would evaluate what percent of men as a whole are deemed somewhat attractive or better. In other words, the first study is gauging quality, the other study would gauge …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 01:46 AM
1

It's not your job to change other women, but if other women are enabling this behavior, wouldn't they need to blame themselves?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 01:20 AM
1

You should be asking for equal power- But you did say that almost all the men you've dated tried to use their power over you. How many of them would you say have other girlfriends now? Men will keep doing this while it is allowed.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 11:44 PM
1

Good looking men don’t get a pass for me for not pulling their weight. They may not from you, but there are several women out there that put up with this. This is what the red pill is emphasizing as part of the whole hypergamy problem. And these men will move onto other women that allow it. What percent of men have you dated in the past and moved on from the relationship because of this reason?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 10:55 PM
1

society not noticing men who are doing nothing to be noticed in the first place with society actively penalizing them This isn't the case though. Society does care about men having a stake in society beyond the family. They've actually done studies that show men that are single earn less than married men. Younger women that are single are earning more than younger men. Women are getting protected class status and affirmative action. If society doesn't care about this and just wants to let men be…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 10:42 PM
1

The problem why men don't like this argument has to do with the women picking only the chads. The men are bringing their superior good looks since women don't want to settle. Most chads don't want to do housework. And who can blame them. They can be choosy. They've actually done studies that show the more a man does housework, the less likely he can get sex. And then the women come onto forums like this and say "we are doing the housework and working full time also, and this isn't fair". Well it…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 10:29 PM
1

Not necessarily- because it could be agreed that the women does more housework, while the man does more maintenance. They both contribute to the upkeep of the house, but the domain of power would be different for each spouse, but could be equal at the same time.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 10:06 PM
1

There is always power dynamics in every relationship. Unless you mean an "unequal" power dynamic.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 09:28 PM
1

The above comment mentioned "none of the power". So if a woman doesn't share equal power, the man should leave?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 09:27 PM
-2

If they are financially independent, then do they need help from other men in the form of taxes? If they are claiming the men don't help out with housework anyways, then what would going out in the work force help to solve that?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 09:10 PM
1

If they are working, who is taking care of the kids? Do you mean when both spouses are at home, that the mom is doing the majority of the housecare and watching the kids? What percent of women do you think make all the meals, or do they just go out and eat?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 09:07 PM
1

I don't see this going on. Maybe in your circles there are more traditional values. What percent of the women would you say both work at least part time and take over house duties? Who is watching the kids while they work?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 09:04 PM
1

I didn't see anywhere in their comment where they said they needed more power than the female. They said they feel like they have none of the power. If that isn't something to worry about as you claim, why don't the females just give up their power?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 09:02 PM
1

Why do women need to have power over their male partners? This is double sided question that doesn't have an easy answer. The house work problem isn't the only issue affecting men. There's issues with their tax money going to fund womens' issues over men. And what about maintenance on the house? Are women helping out with that equally? Another thing to consider is how stressful each spouse's job has been over the day. Women don't work equal hours in the economy for starters, so they should alrea…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/21 08:59 PM
–

The idea of races is scientifically outdated, yet people use it nonetheless This really isn't accurate. Race isn't some complex meaning that needs proof, but it has a simple definition: "grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities". And even scientifically, if race doesn't exist, why can gene tests determine your descended ethnic group? Even if you admit race doesn't exist, you would have to admit that culture exists. Because that is linked to race. I'm not sure how this is p…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/21 05:11 PM
2

So then you don't have a problem with western culture wanting to survive and also thrive?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/21 01:37 AM
3

Women are free to pick who they want, but not so sure who this kevin samuels guy is? If he is the beta, don't expect him to fund your escapades or have sympathy if you end up making the wrong decision.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/21 01:36 AM
6

I don't like a lot of regular red pill ideas. That is one reason I'm not a big fan. There is some hypocrisy in the movement. Part of the reason may be that it is easier to go along with the system than change the system.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 11:31 PM
7

Not all red pill. MGTOW and Mens' rights are red pill, and they don't want it enabled. Also, regular red pill (like PUA) don't want it enabled, they just just realize they can't change it. So instead of hating the rules, they just become better players.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 11:03 PM
1

They are oppressed. It's not "quiet" though. And you aren't giving reasons especially when the men are required to wear certain clothing as well. Yeah, because they don't want women to work so they can be domestic servants- I mean housewives instead. This is what I mean by twisting an argument. Before it was that they are oppressed because they are wage slaves. But now they are oppressed because they have to be married. Men can play that game to: If you want a man to work, marry, or do anything,…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 10:09 PM
1

And the burka one still hasn't. That's because it is part of their culture. Even ask the women there and most support it, unless they are being quietly oppressed. They let western women not wear it- which shows they do care about women. They are only willing to pay so that they can create more useful wageslaves and taxpayers, not out of some sense of altruism. That's not even accurate. If you read they article "Yet, three out of four Arab women remain outside of the labor force." So they are tur…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 09:43 PM
4

You are missing the point though. Men's counter offer is what they think will balance out the situation. It's not intended to be better for women- or make women think that. Unless you consider a stable marriage with a family a decent counter offer. Feminism is not going to enable those things. It has too much negative baggage that men don't want to deal with. People are still getting married, but seems like it is fewer each year. People are getting less sure they need the other gender in their l…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 09:33 PM
17

They are related. Red pill men emphasize female hypergamy. The fact that women are more selective than ever, and that society is enabling this behaviour, has to do with the issue. Most red pill men view hypergamy as a natural behaviour of women, but they think society is going overboard and enabling this behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 09:29 PM
1

They don't send women because they believe them to be unfit for war. It has nothing to do with caring about their well-being. This isn't accurate- because they could have them required to be nurses or some secondary role if this is the reason you claim. nice way of putting can't vote, can't drive, can't live alone Those changes already happened. What do you have to say about the fact that women have often gone to college more than men in Arab countries,even 50 years ago. https://www.brookings.ed…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 09:15 PM
3

But if you want some of the ideas that would be better than feminism- move to accountable gender equality- get rid of gender quotas unless they plan on having them in every job- remove the male bias in media that men are the problem- make sure everyone is treated equally under the law, and put it in the constitution- remove any kind of marriage laws that take into account gender. I would go as far as to say trad values are better for society- but don't think that is likely to revert any time soo…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 09:04 PM
1

If men in Saudi Arabia didn't care about their women, they would be sending them off to fight their wars. The fact that they have to wear extra clothing doesn't mean anything about not caring about well being. Also, if you think men don't care about womens' well being, how would retaliating fix the issue? That will make the situation worse. What you are saying doesn't make much sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 08:43 PM
1

I stopped here. I do not expect anything from men. It doesn't matter what you think, because women as a whole still expect things from men. What about all the men doing the dangerous jobs and fighting wars? What about the fact that finding a decent job where a man can own property is becoming dimmer. Women may not be completely at fault for that issue, but they sure don't have any plans to change the system, and are continuing to prop up a faulty system. It is me asking you if you're a man with …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 08:25 PM
-1

Yes, because the women often get the high value and low value men mixed up.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 08:13 PM
-1

If race doesn't exist as you claim, then racism can't exist? Also, your comment about neanderthals is kind of interesting. You seem to be associating them with western white genes when that isn't backed up by science. Isn't that wrong for pointing that out according to your definition that race doesn't exist, or that people shouldn't be defined by races?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 07:48 PM
4

How is someone that wants to retain their culture or way of life rascism? What's interesting about you feminists, is that when another culture has their culture or way of life questioned, you are very quick to defend it. But then the other side gets attacked. Almost like you are just trying to score political points and don't really care that much about the issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 07:46 PM
6

Why should the modern woman shun feminism? What is in it for her? Women shouldn't shun it if they don't want to . But don't expect men to be your friends, or friendly to your causes if you are making out men to be the enemies. Third wave feminism has devolved to this. There is also a trend that women tend to go after low value men, but their high value men get a pass. When oftentimes women have the high value and low value men mixed up. See if you can offer solutions that do not require the dehu…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 07:29 PM
1

That may not be a gender issue. I've seen this a lot for many companies. Seems like they want the publicity to say they are really trying to hire people. But they really aren't, or if they are trying to hire people, they don't care if it is right away. I've seen men that run into the same issue- apply for a job that says they are hiring, but say you don't meet the qualifications (when in reality they do), or they don't even return your call or resume. But I will admit that there are situations w…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/21 06:33 PM
1

Feminism isn't some club or group that has tenets. It's just an idea that people subscribe to that women need to level the playing field. Her comments justify that she is a feminist, even if she doesn't admit to being one. Even if a man says ideas that tie in with feminist beliefs, they could believe in aspects of feminism. Feminism isn't an all or nothing proposition either. You could be a partial feminist, and even subscribe to another idea that is at odds with feminism.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 05:37 PM
1

She is a feminist by what she said. "I can understand why people want to believe that women look out for each other - because with men in power at work and in politics, it makes sense for us to stick together." The most defining characteristic of a feminist is that there is a patriarchal power structure, and it needs to be abolished or evened out. Their are also several subgroups within feminism. This is even pointed out on the wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism article: "Since the…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 05:25 PM
3

But a young person wouldn't even have memories of that oppression, until it is taught in history class. Even then, that might inspire them to fight more in the system. Also, I don't subsribe to the narrative that only women were oppressed in the past.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 04:58 PM
1

feminism as a concept isn't "men are bad to work around" so maybe you should also educate yourself on that. Someone saying men are bad to workaround is not related to feminism in any way Yes, not all feminists think like that. But there are several that do. She literally wrote an article saying "women hate me because I'm too pretty" This doesn't mean she isn't a feminist. This is the no true scotsman fallacy as the other poster said. You are attributing attributes that you think meet the ideal o…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 04:51 PM
2

Except she says this in the article: "I can understand why people want to believe that women look out for each other - because with men in power at work and in politics, it makes sense for us to stick together." and...."Gradually, what had started out as a daydream - wouldn't it be great if there were no men where I worked? - turned into an exciting concept. I decided to create the first all-female production company where smart, intelligent, career-orientated women could work harmoniously, free…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 04:13 PM
5

How do you know you aren't mixing cause and effect? That the industry is promoted because women buy the magazines and their products. These industries are perpetuated by women just as much as men. Women that pose in the magazines and do the glamour shots, and make money off them. If they realize they are aren't great for womens' images, why don't they change things?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 03:50 PM
5

Why don't men get the same cheerleading? Seems if we don't want to give everyone cheerleading, the better solution is just to have less social media.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 03:41 PM
2

It's that in reality women's self esteem is frightening low due to constant exposure to filtered social media post and other pressures of modern society. These poor girls are desperately trying to live up to unrealistic expectations placed upon them by movies, Instagram influencers and advertisements. Women will do this though for only a certain subgroup of men. It's for the men they want more attention from. If they don't like the guy, they will not put themselves out on a limb like this. If th…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 03:30 PM
3

A lot of MGTOW are black pill. They are usually more black pill than red pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 03:17 PM
8

I thought FDS wants relationships, they just don't want them with LVM?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 12:36 AM
9

That is mostly it, but a bit more subtle. There seems to be an idea that if women just raise the bar, men will respond in kind. With MGTOW, men think that if they try to raise the bar, it won't get them anywhere, so many don't attempt to negotiate.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 12:33 AM
1

If most of them are in relationships, why do they need to be vocal about their messenging? They are probably just as vocal as MGTOW's. Are they just trying to help out other women? If that is the case, wouldn't the other women already have HVM's and not really need the help?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 12:31 AM
1

Curious why you called out the above poster, but are okay with the sentiment of the top level poster.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 12:01 AM
1

I know a lot more men that are willing to marry a wider range of women than vice versa. So the argument that only women want to be trad, if only the men wouldn't hold them back is more complicated.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 11:55 PM
1

Except no society has proved this in the history of civilization. Can a society be content and livable with sexual freedom? Sure, but can't think of a society that has advanced technology with such, or huge amounts of wealth. You may say that our current society does. But we still try to enforce monogamy, at least on paper. I wouldn't be surprised if technology regresses if there is no longer enforced monogamy.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 11:38 PM
1

The main reason was corruption, not that it grew too big. Unless you consider it growing beyond its capabilities a part of the corruption. If you look at this source https://www.history.com/news/8-reasons-why-rome-fell, almost all the reasons tie into corruption: political infighting, extravagant budgets, reliance on slave labor, no common purpose.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 11:25 PM
1

If you read about Roman history, part of the what brought it down was corruption by those royal families. Economies just aren't about technological prowess, but ability for individuals to have a purpose or stake in the economy. If you look at this source https://www.history.com/news/8-reasons-why-rome-fell, one reason it lists is loss of traditional values. There could be something to the monogamy argument. Economic reasons is a vague and general reason for the failure. What caused the economic …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 11:20 PM
0

Scientific studies from 100 years ago can still have validity. The problem is that this topic isn't studied extensively. I would consider a concubine system primitive. Most societies that practice polygamy don't have advanced scientific acheivements.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 11:11 PM
2

That doesn't discredit OP's theory though. Afghanistan doesn't enforce monogamy, and allows polygamy. Also, read a stat that the majority of marriages there are done unwillingly, or through pressure from family and society. Regardless, don't know that I agree with all of OP's claims. But I do think there is something to the monogamy argument. Not so much the prenuptial chastity argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 11:08 PM
0

Women are the more conservative of the two sexes. Women have always been the more conservative, they are the ones who push for monogamy by vilifying slut culture, prostitution, and anything that detracts from monogamy. It is, and always has been, MEN who are rebellious against monogamy. This doesn't seem like a accurate portrayal. If women are the guardians of monogamy, and cared about it, the current culture dynamics of the genders would not be going on now. Your comments should be clarified by…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 10:49 PM
1

Most anthropologists don't study such questions seriously. Most of them care about the "what" of anthropology, not the "why". I don't think I've seen any serious studies about why civilizations come and go, or fade. I would throw out a theory though that this topic might be related to roles, which anthropologists don't really study. This topic seems to be hinting that societies where you don't maximize roles for individuals, they are less likely to succeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 10:42 PM
1

They seem somewhat synonymous. If you are going by strict definitions, then they a different. Ethics has a more of a society rules type of connotation, while morals a more religious type connotation. The google definition uses the word moral in its definition of ethics: "moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity."
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 10:37 PM
–

It's been propped up by both sides. When and if it bursts, both sides will be affected.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 10:08 PM
–

It is mostly perpetuated by women though. Most of the media nowadays is geared to appealing to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 10:05 PM
–

This likely wouldn't happen. Women are the ones that enforce a lot of societies standards. So something like that would need to come from the women themselves. If that was how they truly felt about men, they would have done it ages ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 10:04 PM
1

It is 100% the case that great men don't even think about not paying But you admitted that you offered to pay even for men you like. Men think there is a double standard going on here. In other words, women just pick and choose at their whims whether to pay or not, and it really has nothing to do with whether the guy is great or not. Seems simpler rather than having this guessing game and placing high esteem on whether the guy pays or not, to just have each pay their own way, especially on the f…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 06:02 PM
1

I don't know that comparing humans to lions is apt. Most animals have the alpha male with a harem, while the males roam in groups or are solitary with fewer females. If this was the way natural human society would be structured- you would have polygamy times 10 here in most countries. You would also have roams of outcast males that fend for themselves and are separate from society. Humans tend to be more social creatures, and the fact that socialism has been tried several times among a significa…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 05:52 PM
1

These programs were not in place 20 years ago. It's becoming more obvious and widespread. It will probably move more to a real bachelor tax in the future.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 05:38 PM
1

You could argue that capitalism is the antithesis of human nature. Every man for himself, when humans are known to be tribal creatures. It is interesting that you never see a true capitalist go at it alone. They always depend on their workers or society when things go bad. It is interesting that you brought up happiness, because that is another central human trait. Humans will try to engineer their own happiness. So if capitalism doesn't guarantee happiness, maybe it's not the best system out th…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 04:33 PM
2

I have a hard time believing there are 10 great men for every woman out there, when the math just doesn't make sense. There is only 1 man for every woman. Also, only 50% of men make above $50,000 per year. Most women would consider a man that makes below that poor, or at least beneath prospects for marriage. How many of these men did you go on dates or dinners, and actually went steady with them? For men, this is a numbers game. If the average man has to pay for 20 dinners before they find someo…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 04:14 PM
1

Most of that analysis makes sense. But take yourself as a poor or middle class man in this scenario. Would your rather have a scenario where you are being blamed for all the world's problems and women are going off the plantation and expecting you to stay on the plantation, or have the scenario 50 years ago where you weren't blamed, and you worked on the plantation along with women? Maybe you can see why men would rather have the former, even if they have to go back to the plantation.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 04:01 PM
1

If the bulk of the benefits you are describing are only transferred to the woman, it would exclude men from the program. Men would still be required to pay the taxes for the program, but wouldn't be eligible to receive the benefits. Even if this is not the case, and it was transferred to men and women equally, the tax would still be considered a bachelor or bachelorette tax.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 03:52 PM
1

I don't know that Uber is considered a great job. I would rather work at a car factory in Michigan than Uber. But that aside- we were talking about having the upper hand. If google represents that alpha male, and women swiping 1 out of 20 men on tinder represent the software engineers applying there, not everyone is going to get their dream job. That's what I mean that there is a supply problem,and women don't actually have the upper hand as you think.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 05:26 AM
3

There is partial truth to the claim. I did find a source that says the percent of white men that never got married is about the same as in 1910 https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2012/demo/sehsd-wp2012-12_presentation.pdf, but also found a conflicting source that says a different story. https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-share-of-never-married-americans-has-reached-a-new-high Could be that one source focuses on never married by 35, while the other source focuses on neve…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 05:19 AM
2

I don't know that is a real source. The numbers don't make sense. It lists 110,000 men in 2010, when that isn't close to accurate. The best source I could find shows that for white men the percent never married by 35 is about the same as 1910 (around 11-12%), but for black men it is about 3-4 times higher than in 1910. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2012/demo/sehsd-wp2012-12_presentation.pdf. Also, there is data that shows that 35 percent of adults are not marri…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 05:04 AM
0

Economic leverage is ingrained into capitalism. So women relied on men back then for financial help. Nowadays that is replaced with the state and automation through technology. Men fund the state with taxes. Also, I never suggested economic leverage, but women seem to be okay using the state as leverage to get what they want- such as gender quotas and having men pay for all the social programs. The economic leverage needs to be balanced. If it was more balanced, then you wouldn't see either gend…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 03:29 AM
0

This is complex topic, and I can't show my work all in a few paragraphs. They blame their height, they blame their jaws, they blame their wrists, they blame their races. They love to blame hypergamy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen them blame capitalism. Hypergamy is an issue, but was kept in check with previous generations. There are some that talk about economic problems men face-particularly when it comes to the disadvantage men face when it comes to competing with resources from the state. Ther…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 03:21 AM
3

If what you are saying is accurate, it would probably be sooner than that. In 4-5 decades, most people your age or younger would be in their 50's. Don't know they will have the energy at that point to change anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 03:07 AM
2

Isn't all this you proposed really just a bachelor tax?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 03:01 AM
1

What about a bachelor tax on the immigrants and citizens alike? It is very likely we will something similar in the next decade.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 02:55 AM
1

What is your explanation then that 90% of men 50 years ago were able to find a mate relatively easy, but now 50% of men are struggling. You don't think economic factors go into this at all?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 02:53 AM
3

It likely would- because social insecurities are often linked to economic insecurities.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 02:51 AM
1

You don't realize how much capitalism has an affect on the dating market. It would be a game changer if the structure of capitalism was changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 02:50 AM
3

Then it should allow men to set their own standards. They could literally do the opposite of you- hold women to traditional standards, but still ask them to pay for their own dates and not follow traditional standards for men. You realize these standards are arbitary?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 02:12 AM
2

We are saying that it is an illusion that you are being chased. Yes, women are chased more for dates, but men do the chasing when it comes to committed relationships or marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 02:10 AM
2

Yes, but you forget we are still stuck with the elites ruling over men. And women don't seem to mind it as much as blaming other men for all their problems. If that is going to be the case, might as take the better of two unfavorable scenarios.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 01:34 AM
1

You are presenting an argument you wouldn't be on board with to begin with, and your other point isn't even a comparison.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 01:32 AM
1

How else are they supposed to find out which ones are actually traditional?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 01:27 AM
2

Sounds like if you didn't ask for the date or want it, you probably shouldn't be going out with that guy in the first place. So it is actually better for women to pay at least their own way on first dates. That way the guy knows you are serious and aren't just interested in a free dinner.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 01:25 AM
3

You said that a man would need to consider going on 3 or 4 dates with you before you would even consider paying. If it takes a woman 20 men to date before she meets the one, that is over about 60 to 80 possible dates. I don't think a man wants to pay for all those dates, if he has no clue that a woman might be interested. And I don't consider that having the upper hand. What's interesting about all the female responses here is that they say a high value man would never consider not paying, and s…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 01:01 AM
1

You said "It's quite plausible that tall people grow up with more confidence than short people and take more risks, or are just more comfortable in their skin." And then accused me of reducing people to a handful of traits. Where did I do that?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 12:42 AM
1

Your are the one doing that: you just said tall people are more confident and therefore should get paid more. That is reducing people to their traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 12:34 AM
1

Yes, we should default unless you have a good reason. I don't think you would accept a short person getting paid more than you for a reason such as "well maybe this short person is just more confident".
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 12:29 AM
1

Do you have a good reason why tall people should be paid more than short people? I've heard the theory that they are smarter. But I don't think that is accurate, because all the world geniuses that have solved huge problems were shorter or average. And many started out their lives not wealthy.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 12:15 AM
1

It is if that is happening. That isn't up for debate.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 12:12 AM
0

You're very quick to assume that pay gaps are discriminatory. I was going off what you said. I said if that is happening, then it is discriminatory. Would you like it if people started paying short people more than tall people? I also said some tall people do date based on height, but it is not exclusive like gender. This is kind of a side topic about what meets the definition of discrimination. I'm just pointing out that there is a gender pay gap- but it may actually be that younger women get p…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 12:05 AM
11

It does sound like the same as red pill calling out guys for being simps. You sound like someone from FDS. If that is the case, and you call out women for being pickme's, then men can call out other men for being simps and offering to pay for a date. Why in the age of equality should men be expected to pay for every first date (and because he has to prove to the lady that he likes her doesn't sound like a good position)? If this is the case, then women need to prove to the man that she likes him…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 12:00 AM
-1

Tall people don't date other people based on their height (they do sometimes, but it isn't exclusive to all tall people). But genders date exclusively based on their gender. Also, if tall people are getting payed more than short people, that is a form of discrimination. If it is happening, it doesn't mean that it isn't discrimination.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 11:57 PM
2

Wouldn't this just be the situation reversed? Instead of one woman sharing men, you have one man sharing women?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 11:52 PM
4

Not really. Because OP's claim was that the reason men need to pay for dates is because there is a gender pay gap. There is also evidence that the tide has turned too much and now women make more than men (the younger generation more). But surprisingly you don't hear any women complaining about this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/young-women-are-getting-richer-as-young-men-get-poorer-2017-04-20-16881139 Also, an intragender pay gap would be meaningless, because it no longer involves gender. …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 11:43 PM
4

But you just said in another spot you don't want those jobs? Also your reply above is replying to someone speaking about the wage gap.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 11:38 PM
10

Is pickme the female version of a simp?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 11:31 PM
7

There is a gender pay gap across age groups and overall, but not within careers. It is perfectly legal to pay a construction worker more than a nurse, or vice versa. And those jobs tend to be dominated by one gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 11:29 PM
5

If someone gets asked out periodically but is not finding long term matches- that isn't winning. That is just going out to dinner and chatting with a friend. There would be no incentive for a guy or for you to pay for the other person unless there was the prospect of long term commitment. You just said above " I've never seen a successful man get his dates paid for", but then just said you offer to pay for those dates. So are those men not successful in your view, and you still date them? Do you…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 11:17 PM
1

All markets don't have similar characteristics. It's a supply issue. How many good companies are there around that offer a decent job? Those are abundant. How many men are there that women will swipe yes for out there? Less than 1 in 20. Supply is the main issue that makes a market.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 11:12 PM
2

But have you ever offered to pay or complied with paying when asked if you could? Or your friends. This is kind of a separate issue- you are speaking about each paying their own way. I was referring more to the women offering or paying for both when requested. In the situation you described though, it didn't sound like women had the upper hand. Because he still got what he wanted- a date. At the very least if you want to be fair in the dating world- both should pay their own way. I wouldn't assu…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 10:43 PM
3

Guess don't understand then, because you seemed to make that point in the initial reply.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 10:35 PM
0

The job market doesn't compare though. Because there are numerous potentials for having a job for anyone. The dating market doesn't care if everyone is in a relationship, and women make it clear they don't think men are owed anything. So it would be comparable to the job market if you consider the unlimited potential that any woman can date as long they share the man.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 10:30 PM
2

What's your position though? Why would women complain about being discriminated against for blue collar jobs but not want those jobs anyways? Women have a right to complain about being discriminated in any sense- but it wouldn't make sense unless they actually want what isn't being offered.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 10:26 PM
2

Being an alpha is already pretty rare to start with. There are people on here that are alphas though. I don't claim to be one, but just would like clarification on how women have the upper hand on dating? https://thebolditalic.com/the-two-worlds-of-tinder-f1c34e800db4 "Women swipe yes to just one in 20 people while the majority of men swipe yes more often than no." Women do have the upper hand on being more selective. But that creates unequal scenarios, because then you are just having most wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 10:21 PM
1

You have never paid for a date then? Go ask your friends if they have ever paid for a date. It does happen often, more often that you are leading to believe.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 10:15 PM
3

"pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position" If their position is that blue collar discriminates against women, but then claim they don't won't those jobs anyways, I would say that fits the above definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 10:13 PM
8

Because it's cherry picking.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 09:40 PM
5

That doesn't refute the claim that men get paid more than woman. Did you get paid less than the other line managers that were male?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 09:39 PM
0

Upper hand? I don't think being plates and dating only alphas is being the upper hand? It is very common for alphas to get away with paying for dates, and even have the woman pay. Seems like you would want more fairness if the same offer is being offered to an alpha.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 09:37 PM
7

You didn't show anything though. You just said men are falsely claiming they are oppressed without showing any evidence. Couldn't someone counter your claim by saying women are falsely claiming they are oppressed?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 09:35 PM
6

You seem to be okay with putting all these demands on men, but don't like it when men put their demands on you? Do you want a super competitive dating market? Competition forces the scoundrels and cheats to come out.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 09:33 PM
1

I don't find anything wrong with that as long as expectations are laid out before someone gets married. There are several women that would likely not meet your expectations- because probably less than 50% of women have professional careers. Also, if a woman wants a beta provider- she should lay the terms out clearly. State something like that if their husband falls below some salary, he should expect a divorce. If you don't see a problem with women forcing expectations, then there shouldn't be a…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 05:31 PM
1

That's not equalizing though. What are womens' expectations? What if a woman doesn't meet professional expectations- should she be kicked to the curb as well? You sound like you might have some white knight ideas. That men are supposed to be there and protect women, but women or society don't owe anything to men.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 04:53 PM
1

But if you do a comparison to covid, the only people whose wealth has increased are the wealthy. Not sure how this will pan out in the future, but this pandemic hasn't changed any kind of systemic issues yet. If anything, it has just entrenched them and made them worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 03:23 PM
1

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200121-why-promoted-women-are-more-likely-to-divorce Not too sure about that. If a man marries a woman with the same professional standing, then that would make sense that they are less likely to divorce. But if a blue collar guy marries an educated woman, that may not be a recipe for success.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 03:20 PM
–

"By 1400, the population had bottomed out at maybe half of its pre-plague peak. With far fewer people living, working, and consuming, economic activity was drastically lower than it had been a century beforehand. The post-plague recession was in full swing. In this downturn, however, the ground for the next economic explosion after 1500 was being laid. Wages rose and huge swathes of society had more money to spend on consumer goods, from beer to clothing to furniture. " It took 100 years for thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 02:59 PM
1

It's not about risks. It's about dealing with an unfair system. More adept analogy is that if the game isn't designed to your liking, don't play ball.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 02:49 PM
–

I don't think that is accurate. Do you have a source for that? Things probably only improved be because people weren't spending all their energy on issues related to the plague. So it was a return to normal that looked like a bounce back to better times. People didn't get new houses or start earning more money.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 02:48 PM
1

People who didn't want to help were ousted from the group (which for much of human history was a death sentence in itself) or killed otherwise This isn't really accurate. This only happened if people stole. There were plenty of men and women that have loafed around throughout history. The alphas only care that you don't breed with their women or harems. Beyond that, they don't care what other men do.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 02:09 PM
–

The also have the most expensive divorces. 30% of educated professionals still have their marriage end in divorce.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 02:00 PM
–

They probably never will be. My point was that there would be a demographic crisis which leads to an economic crisis.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 01:57 PM
–

But finding stable relationships. How many in that profession are on their 2nd or 3rd marriages? I don't think the economy is as sound as you guys think it is and that all the alphas will pick up the slack if things start failing. If anything, when that happens, the alphas will opt for war and the situation will become worse. As much as you like to think of it, the alphas are not the most productive members of societies. The betas usually are because they keep the cogs turning by doing the monot…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 03:15 AM
–

It could turn into a crisis if the replacement level goes below 2. In many western european countries that is already the case. But they are just importing immigrants to disquise the fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 03:11 AM
–

Feminists are not anti capitalist. A lot of women that are feminists seem to cringe when they hear about things like socialism. I don't think I've seen too many women that are feminists that love talking about the topic. Seems more so that feminists don't like the patriarchy pulling the strings with capitalism. As long as there are women pulling the strings with men, they seem to actually like it. There are feminists that will seem to support something like raising the minimum wage. But it is ra…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 02:02 AM
–

Yes, there is probably some truth to it. It's probably why MGTOW does this to a degree. They want to deprogram men from having the women are wonderful feelings. But not everyone on MGTOW is misogynist.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 01:56 AM
–

I don't understand your argument. One moment you are saying the beta's are unnecessary and only living at the mercy of the chad's. The next moment you say they are necessary because society is collective?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 01:47 AM
–

This isn't accurate. Alpha's rarely go to war with betas. They try to encourage the beta's to fight amongst themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 01:45 AM
–

A society without a concept of private property, or one in which youcannot accrue wealth because the government will "redistribute it" is asdystopian as it gets. I don't think talking about such a fictionalsociety is worthwhile. Just like in most capitalist systems 90% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the population (all wealth including the stock market, land, buildings, and farms). Most people that think they own their house indeed do not. There is a paper that gives title to the bank in the e…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 01:28 AM
–

so if you are a farmer who has to give up most of his produce to the government for free, you are being taxed very heavily. That's not a tax, but just redistribution. A tax would be from your own wealth or income. Since the farmer in a socialist system doesn't own the land the produce was grown on, it isn't possible to "tax" this farmer. This would be like saying in a capitalist system that since a worker gave more produce to the public than they were paid for, it was a "tax". I would bet a toma…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 01:04 AM
1

I do commend you for being on those programs. Our society does seem to do decent for people that fall through the cracks. Just seems like more could be done to prevent them from falling through the cracks. Like take homelessness for example. There are programs that will buy you a home if you've been homeless for say 2 years. But what kind of a programs are there to prevent that from actually happening? Seems like there is an attitude that you can't get help unless you prove you really need it. N…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 12:46 AM
1

I’m all for helping people who are struggling get on their feet. ....I’m not for helping a bunch of privileged men whose “problem” is their own sense of entitlement. The problem with your argument is that you don't define the men that are struggling. You may believe that all men are privileged, which is what many women believe on this subreddit. So according to your own words, there would never be a circumstance where men could get help. You also seemed to hint dating struggles don't matter. And…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 12:30 AM
–

In this instance they were talking about co-ops and not necessarily socialist economies. You could have a capitalist economy with co-ops. Also, there is no proof that socialist economies are more tax burdened. One could argue that capitalist economies are more tax burdened because of debt. Capitalists systems revolve around the concept of money, so tend to become more debt burdened. Look at every country that is heavily capitalist. Many are more than 100% of Debt to GDP. That money will be payed…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 12:14 AM
1

You said welfare should be freely available to women, with no questions asked. You then went on to say that men shouldn't get any kind of help and should use their own two feet, and are just complaining because they expect everything to be handed to them. What would make more sense on this issue, if you really care about people having enough money to raise their family- is to raise the minimum wage. And try to minimize welfare help.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 12:00 AM
1

Okay, then you should acknowledge then that not every man has those opportunities.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:46 PM
2

No that's not what most men think. You are straw manning the argument. I've been around a lot of men, and don't think I've ever heard them complain about not having a gf. They may feel like they are missing out, but men don't complain about those issues too often. They complain about not be treated fairly by society. And your argument exemplifies this. You literally said women should be coddled and looked after because of reasons, but then in the next sentence said men should not be given help b…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:41 PM
–

So you won't ever need help according to your argument? Your argument was that men can pull themselves up their bootstraps if they have two feet. Same can go for women.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:38 PM
–

Ask those men if they would work as hard in their profession if there were no women around (like imagine gender no longer existed and everyone was only one gender-not going to happen, just a hypothetical). I guarantee if they answered it honestly, they would say no.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:35 PM
–

Are you speaking about yourself, or both of us? I thought privilege had more to do with monetary rewards? In that case, women are just as privileged as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:30 PM
–

I read a study that showed that women that marry engineers are the happiest housewives. So could be something there. https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/job-divorce-rate-1017
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:23 PM
–

Why are men privileged when women are not (as you seem to be implying)? If women are just as privileged as men, there should be no need for help since they can use their own feet just as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:21 PM
–

That's an argument of convenience because women probably make up less than 5% of genders that pay child support. Also, I've never heard of a woman going to jail for failure to meet child support. It just doesn't happen. Unless you have some experiences or examples. And also, one example does not make a trend. Look at court records over the past 50 years. You will probably be surprised.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:12 PM
–

Nothing wrong with filling in the blanks. Just would like to see it applied fairly to both genders. Women tend to get the "it's okay, we got you covered". Men tend to get the "do this, or else".
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:08 PM
–

No one seems to mind that aspect of the argument, but then why doesn't the system go after women that can't afford kids like fathers that can't afford them? The system's solution for such men is to put them in a low wage job and throw them in jail if they can't meet the bar.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:04 PM
1

Why would you say this. All people choose careers for the ability to procreate. Are you saying that working minimum wage would inspire someone to procreate more than becoming a higher paid specialist? People base career choices off of lifestyle choices all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 11:02 PM
1

They seem to be more saying if there is a collective effort to help society and not punish the adults for decisions they couldn't afford, then there should be a collective effort to help men and not punish them for decisions they couldn't afford (like measuring up to womens' standards)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 10:57 PM
1

PRC and USSR are old style socialism which I believe use committees to determine funding. Also, the concept of debt doesn't really exist in such scenarios. Correct this idea if you believe it incorrect, but the state would fund the business. So if it lost money on the venture, there was really no one to pay the money back to. The state could demand repayment, but that would just be by selling off all the capital assets. Beyond that, there was nothing else to recoup the money. The above question …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 10:52 PM
1

That would be one model of socialism. Another model suggest only the workers own the business. This would make more sense as workers have more of an interest in making the business succeed. If the public owned the business, there would be no financial interest to make the business succeed. You would need some kind of committee to rule if the business gets more or less funding. I don't think people would feel comfortable having a small committee decide the outlook for their company. Worker co-ops…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 10:24 PM
1

Yes, because if that business fails with a new idea under capitalism, they would still be out of a job either way. So if the workers owned the means of production, they would own the debt. But if debt exists, there would also be bankruptcy. Although there are two different forms of socialism. One would owned only by the public, the one you mention seems more like a co-op. But that is more a hybrid between capitalism and socialism.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/21 10:18 PM
1

I'm just saying I don't think autism correlates with socialization or even having friends. Autism more correlates with understanding social or emotional cues. I know people with autism that have a lot of friends. I don't know that I agree with the correlation with the other aspects. What are your ideas to help men to integrate into society? Or do you think it isn't that big of deal?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/21 04:43 AM
1

People need community of some kind no matter how much they hate society and will usually try to belong somewhere even if that’s in a fringe group or even other criminals. Can't say I disagree, but society makes it sure look they don't need some type of people. I say let people decide how they want to live if it isn't putting a huge burden on others. If society needs or wants these men to participate, I think raising wages would help to a degree. But when you ask what people can do to help the si…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/21 04:18 AM
1

Autism is definitely associated with meltdowns due to routine changes or sensory issues at least in childhood This is more classic autism, but I understand Asperger's doesn't necessarily have these traits. wouldn’t see as many profound autistic females I asked a lady that worked with people with autism that was enough to cause disability or separate schooling, and she told me by far most of the people in the program were men. I was kind of just going by what she said. There could be more women w…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/21 03:12 AM
1

Men are not more likely to be autistic than women We don't know for sure. I don't think there is any science that says one way or the other, except that men get diagnosed more often. I think men are more likely to be autistic because of the differences in brain structures of men and women. Also, autism isn't always associated with meltdowns (but can be). That sounds more like ADD, which somewhat overlaps with autism. Isn't ADD proven to happen more in young boys than girls? I'm not sure what you…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/21 02:38 AM
1

People like Dr. House? I would say that isn't accurate. A sociopath is someone that doesn't care for human feelings. But it is usually beyond apathy. I would say Dr House is more just apathetic, but also narcissistic. Would a sociopath have a strong desire to save peoples' lives? House goes to extreme lengths to save other peoples' lives. It's almost like an obsession with him, or a challenge. Men are more likely to have autism than women. But just calling all men that don't socialize well autis…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/21 12:35 AM
2

The men, or boys you are describing, aren't necessarily feminine men. They are just men that have more of a boyish appearance. You can still have a masculine personality and a boyish appearance. Also, I wouldn't consider pop idols the epitome of what defines what women like. A lot of women like these men, or boys, because women are fascinated by pop culture. What comes to mind is women going crazy over seeing the beetles in action. A lot of these women know they couldn't date these guys, they ju…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/21 08:35 AM
3

This might be partially right, but I think only explains a minority of the cause. Red pill is also about men being anxious themselves (like MGTOW hesistant to form relationships themselves, or MRA's feeling like society doesn't treat them equal). Also, if communication is terrible in the relationship, why would you blame the men for this problem, even if they do turn to red pill?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/21 08:29 AM
2

The only ones I'm interested in regarding the topic of "are these people financially literate" are the ones who are capable of making those choices But I think this side steps the issue- because there are people that know how to make a ton of money, but make unwise decisions with their money. And these people aren't being criticized to the same degree. And on the flip side, there are people that can't make much money, but spend their money very wisely. I think both components are necessary to a …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/21 10:14 PM
2

I cannot see your argument as anything else but indirect advocacy of the government basically babysitting individuals. it is an inadequacy to fall for mindless consumerism and psychological tricks This is the broken system I'm describing- I just believe you and I disagree with the causes. You view this as people that are incapable of taking care of themselves and being responsible for their decisions. I view this as a broken system where people are picking between bad and worse. When those are t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/21 09:55 PM
6

Yes, but the vast majority of women don't put up with it or allow it. With women, the vast majority of men and women do allow it, even if you see these occasional HVM that won't put up with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/21 09:44 PM
1

Income inequality being at an all time high says nothing about financial literacy. Yes it does, because as I described below, "making money" is actually the first and most important part of financial literacy. in an attempt to cover one's perceived inadequacies or try and mimic those above them It's not an inadequacy if they are just following those above them that are successful and making it work. Maybe what you are describing is a broken system if examples for success aren't working, and the …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/21 09:18 PM
1

Maybe we are thinking of different terms, but I would consider what you are describing as a form of financial literacy. Have you ever heard of the Dave Ramsey show? That show bugs me for some reason, partly because you have people calling in all the time saying they make 100,000 plus per year, but somehow are still in debt and having money problems. Then you have the rare person calling in that makes 20,000 delivering pizzas, and his only advice is to "try harder". Trying harder isn't financial …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/21 09:13 PM
1

It's actually not. Income inequality is at all time highs. It's not that people aren't being smart with money, it's that there isn't as much opportunity to be had. The men that do have opportunity are still very successful. And women are like a magnet to these men, and can spot these type of men with very good instinct.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/21 09:03 PM
1

I thought the original point was that these people that say they don't want to date aren't being honest about their intentions. They say they don't want to date, but they just don't want to date those type of men. They are happy to parade around with these courses and dating coaches, but are elevating their standards even more in the process.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/21 09:01 PM
2

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-women-earn-more-than-their-husbands/ " But these numbers, which come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are sort of confusing — a lot of those women are earning more because they’re the only member of the marriage who is earning anything at all. When the BLS looked instead at marriages where both partners are in paid work, it found that only 29 percent of women earn more than their husbands."
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/21 09:05 PM
6

This article gives a more accurate view: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/chapter-3-married-mothers-who-out-earn-their-husbands/ This says the figure is closer to 22% for mothers, and 30% for newlyweds. The 30% figure would be more in line with hypergamy, and that women still expect men to out earn them, but it is relaxing. I don't see why it shouldn't be 50% though since women have been making their own money for a long time, and the gender pay gap is much smaller for younger couples.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/21 03:31 AM
3

It's just married women, not accounting for being a mother. " When the BLS looked instead at marriages where both partners are in paid work, it found that only 29 percent of women earn more than their husbands." I would think this might be a more accurate stat since most couples work today. Also, this 38% stat you cited doesn't include situations where the man is the only one earning. So I'm not sure this would be an indication that women are marrying down in huge numbers. Men do the same thing,…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/21 03:20 AM
1

advantages to being a western woman Western women have the most advantages out of any culture. And some blame men for their problems. Manosphere is just doing the same I suppose. There is no enormous male privilege. If this exist, where do men sign up to get these cool benefits?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/21 11:04 PM
1

You did avoid addressing all my other stuff- but let's discuss equality. What do you think men are proposing in the manosphere that women don't get too?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/21 08:46 PM
1

YOU drew a distinction between PUA stuff and manosphere stuff presuming people might somehow be against PUA and not manosphere. Can you point to where I drew this distinction? I don't recall doing this. If anything I was more doing the opposite of what you claim. Why would someone be "for" PUA and "against" manosphere. Not "against" and "for" as you have in your quote above. You might be mixing me up with someone else on here. I also was questioning this because you did say this. I quoted it abo…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/21 05:15 PM
1

I understand that your situation is more unique. I did address that some men won't see reason. At that point, I would try to get out of the relationship. Maybe you need help to do it, or maybe you feel like you invested so much into the relationship you want to try and save it. I'm not sure of your circumstances, and possibly it might help to talk to a counselor or close friend about this situation. I do feel bad about women in your situation.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/21 12:28 AM
-1

Welcome to ethics. How far would you take this to though? And this doesn't even address that this isn't even happening now? Where is the equal representation for homemakers? Or the elderly? Even the disabled are hardly represented with proportion? Would you support compensating for men's votes since they vote less? Adding some in to balance out the power? How do you plan to support that completely unfounded claim? Are you even a woman? Have you or any of your friends willingly married a man that…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/21 12:04 AM
1

It's the most bizarre, poorly thought through, irrational idea Why should we then have exactly 50% of women in power? You mentioned other disadvantaged groups like the disabled, ethnic minorities, and caretakers. Does this mean we have to now have an exact proportionate system where everyone gets the exact same representation based on their numbers in society. What about the fact that more women are able to vote? Does this mean we should now give men "extra" votes to compensate for this? If wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 11:06 PM
1

Yes, you have a point. Criticism is fine, but I meant more in a way that is saying "you need to be better", rather than "you made an error". Also, don't make a point to do it all the time. I'm not saying this is the way you have done it, just trying to give some ideas so that a relationship isn't always a fighting battle. Some men won't change even with criticism- at that point I would just recommend dumping them- especially if it is an issue that is important to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 10:28 PM
1

it was you who drew a line between pick up types and manosphere types This is what you wrote in a comment above: Not the pick up stuff.... I mean the MRA, manosphere side of it You drew the line. I was just asking about it- why you would be okay being a plate? It actually sounds like you want equality which does make you a feminist, congrats! Feminist don't want equality, they want special privileges. Would you support conscription of both men and women, for example? women to pay on dates (we do…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 10:09 PM
0

Men could decide but are they supposed to force women to go along with it?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 09:57 PM
1

general agreement we're supposed to have today I would proposed that life can be better for both men and women actively hostile to any political pushes to take away negative libierties For men as well? For example you mentioned female war drone pilots. A negative right would be telling the government they can't conscript men or women for their wars. Would you add this right, or take it away from women if men can't get the same right?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 07:48 PM
0

I should paraphrase that. I do have several ideas, but none that have wide acceptance, and none that I was trying to use in this particular thread. I was more just trying to counter your argument to see what you are proposing. Possibly we don't disagree too much on the problem, but more on the solution of how to solve it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 07:23 PM
1

Sorry, I'm not really proposing an idea. I'm asking how feminists would like to fix neoliberalism, because I think it is clear whatever has been proposed has failed. I think also there is some disagreement on whether pay equality and neoliberalism were possibly engineered together. But that isn't the main focus of my argument anyways.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 07:11 PM
3

I think that is a bad idea too, but guess you can't really stop people if they do it anyways. Only the people that could afford it will be able to do it. Plus there is research that crispr has the potential to turn into cancer, and we don't have enough information on how this affects genes further generations down.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 07:08 PM
1

This was a good explanation. By cases getting “thrown out” I assume you mean people getting exonerated down the road after being wrongly incarcerated? Or what do you mean by “eyewitness cases get thrown out sometimes”? I was referring to "eyewitness cases getting thrown out sometimes". I was curious if this happens in cases where more high power lawyers are involved. The way you phrased technicality, you made it sound like these cases can't get thrown out? “Technicalities in the law” generally r…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 07:06 PM
0

Signed on to the scheming or the gaining power? They are two different things. Feminism signed onto gaining power.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 07:01 PM
2

Nor is that relevant It's proved because despite holding equal wealth, women don't hold equal power. Why does it matter who holds power if you can't benefit from it? I don't think people would mind who held power as long as they benefit from it. Wealth is a much greater indicator of who benefits. So that metric should be elevated above number of positions in power. Do you agree that women should only hold 40% of the wealth because they only work 40% of the full time jobs?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 06:30 PM
2

gender completely disproves the case that wealth automatically begets social power How is this proved? this is disproportionate to their net wealth. If you want a more accurate prorportion, then amount of full time jobs worked should be use. Women work 40% of full time jobs, so should hold about 40% of the power and wealth. Why are you ignoring wealth, and using power as a metric? As others have pointed out, this is an apex fallacy. Because all men as a group don't benefit even if all men are in…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 06:23 PM
2

I think you have most info here correct. And I think prohibition was more of economic problem as you say that the government felt had to be addressed. But there were people involved that had their lives impacted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler "A childhood accident caused by an intoxicated hired hand gave Wheeler a lifelong aversion to alcohol. He used the story later to recruit converts to the prohibition movement and to promote a prohibition amendment to the U.S. Constitution." ht…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 06:18 PM
-1

Wealth is reflective of social power. Men's wealth tends to be more stratified, while womens' more balanced.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 05:38 PM
4

https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/women-now-control-more-than-half-of-us-personal-wealth-2015-4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3686840/ " Some have found that single-headed households accumulate less wealth than married households " " These studies clearly demonstrate the difficulty of distinguishing between gender, marital status, and family status. There is no tidy gender wealth gap story. " " Yet, among the easiest group from which to ascertain the gender wealth g…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 05:37 PM
1

Sorry, I mean women complain about men wanting to incentivize sex by being nice, but incentivize it in other areas like above. So I'm wondering why this would bother women?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 04:49 PM
7

I could see this argument from the perspective that women can choose their mates. But at the same time, I think if women want complete freedom from the betas, they should fund their own choices. Because I don't think chad will fund all this evolution. Another thing to consider is that if people want superior genetics (which I think is too vain a goal and somewhat of a mistake for humans), then why wouldn't they propose that only the top specimens of each gender pass on their genes? This way we a…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 04:26 PM
1

“Technicalities in the law” generally refer to things like dispositive evidence being held inadmissible or procedural rules dictating the outcome of the case, not the credibility of evidence supported. This is why most people don't understand the law though. Sometimes I think people have distrust in the law because it feels like rules are being made up on the spot, or the same rule will be applied unequal. How would you explain then that eyewitness cases get thrown out some times, but other time…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 05:48 AM
1

it has nothing to do with gender yet you said it’s just hidden to men purposefully. Come on man, really? Sorry, I should clarify this. It's not that it's being hidden from men specifically, but to more to poor men and women. It just happens that most people in prison are poor men. not because of “eyewitness testimony technicalities”. I was referring to technicalities in the law, not in the testimony themselves. But I see your point, and that does seem like a good step- to have eyewitness experts…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 05:15 AM
1

Nobody is specifically hiding appellate or evidentiary law from men Nobody is hiding it, but it is clouded in stacks and piles of legalese. Most men can't figure out how to file an appeal by themselves- how would you expect them to become on expert on the options available to them? Evidentiary technicalities favor defendants, not the state, in criminal cases. Not in all cases, else why would there be tons of men that are convicted wrongfully. As far as I'm aware, this happens more to men than wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 04:58 AM
1

It was originally proposed by marx. It's not communist, but socialist. Communism means state ownership of capital. Socialism means sharing of state resources. Society can't evaluate fairness in capitalist economies anyways, and these economies have already proven to be corrupt. So I don't see why it would matter if the state evaluated this to a degree. This is what social policy already does to a huge degree.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 04:42 AM
1

Evidentiary orders are subject to an abuse of discretion standard in most instances Who is going to be the referee of the judge if they are already biased? Lot's of men aren't made aware of these legal avenues on purpose. The states have no motivation for being fair/unbiased and it would actually cost the state more to referee this. While I really don't have any alternatives on how to fix this issue, I think a start would address why men are more likely to end up in prison. And possibly be more …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 04:37 AM
1

What is “surplus labor”? It means a person isn't being payed what their labor value brings to society. An argument to explain this might be why are engineers not payed what a top instagram model brings in? The engineer might actually bring more value to society by building sophisticated roads, or machines. The model brings her looks- but many women already have this, so it shouldn't be in scarce supply and demand millions of dollars. Free market systems pay you on what society "deems" your labor…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 04:29 AM
1

I've seen where judges/juries ignore evidence, and claim it was circumstantial, and then they claim the statute was followed but they couldn't convict. This is one problem I have with the law. It seems obvious the law can be contorted or twisted in any fashion to get the outcome someone wants (not to mention this seems more likely by who has the larger cash pile). I think there is also evidence supporting women getting lighter prison sentences than men. If a judge/jury wants to do this, this is …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 04:07 AM
1

If those women truly have “ridiculously high earning power” they too are paying taxes? Probably at higher rates than lesser earning working class men? I think the argument though is that if women (or men) earned the money of off working class people then it was never really their money to tax. This ties into the economic idea of surplus labor, which I don't know if it is too productive to talk about on a sub relating to gender issues, but I'm willing to debate the idea. I have herd arguments her…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 03:56 AM
1

Or that it's understandable if employees are extremely unethical and committing fraud that it's their bosses fault for not giving enough perks. Adults are still responsible to conduct themselves like adults. What if the boss is acting unethical? A lot of relationships, including business are give and take. I'm not saying you should put up with this behaviour. But at least give a man a chance to fix/improve before he is criticized. Also criticism is less likely to fix anything. A lot of people ju…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 02:27 AM
1

A lot of what you describe kind of sounds similar to states like california, arizona, florida, and maybe some other western states. There are all kinds of sub cultures in America though. I think that is what makes it different from other cultures. In rural areas, people are the opposite of this with more traditional culture. I'm not a person that thinks america is the best, but I think our constitution (like the founding legal document) is one of the best.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 01:51 AM
1

Boring hard working men can become nasty half assed working men over time. I think this is more likely to happen when a man doesn't receive encouragment, or expected to have more work for fewer rewards. Most men IMO will work decently hard if given proper motivation. I feel bad for women that end up in abusive relationships, particularly physical ones. I don't really have answers on how to fix that, because it's a complicated issue with no simple solutions. But I think men and women both need to…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 01:32 AM
1

she was earning anywhere near what he does We added everything up and she's paying more than him per month. This must mean he is stacking money behind the scenes. If a woman doesn't like the scenario, did she discuss this before they dated or married, or has she confronted the man and said this unfair? Maybe a suggestion would be to make sure the account is a joint savings account. I'm not saying some women don't have it hard out there and aren't dealing with manipulative bf's or husbands. What …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 01:14 AM
1

second wave feminist didn't really conclude in the sixties in the US, did it? I would say it concluded by the start of the 80's, if going by the metric that 50% of women entered the labor force. This is about the same time neoliberalism took off. Maybe women were sold on dreams of independence from men and actually got dependence on the capitalist machine. You even seem to admit this when you say workers had to start working two wages about this time. See the logic of tipping; originally simple …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 01:07 AM
2

I believe your culture might be slightly different from ours. Beauty is emphasized a lot here for status. I'm not too familiar with Australian culture (my frame of reference is crocodile dundee), but they seem to not have as stringent requirements on a man to have a relationship. Also, the US isn't really as community oriented. Everything seems to be about the latest social media trend, or political tabloid.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 12:59 AM
2

Is this woman a 7+? I can't picture anyone higher than a 5,6 being with this kind of man. Possibly he relates to her on some level with humor, empathy, or personality. I'm not saying you can't find mismatched couples, but they are extremely rare where I'm from in the US. Maybe you are from Europe, and the standards are more relaxed there and women have picked up the role of being the instigator in a relationship. In my opinion, for long term relationships, men and women are matched pretty evenly…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 12:43 AM
2

neoliberalism is how extremely good it was adapting in a crackling post-war economy. Neoliberalism didn't enter on the scene until the late 70's. The economy was already booming and fixed before this entered on the scene. was really 'envisioned' by a secret cabal consisting of both Thatcher and Dworkin, which I know wasn't your intention to imply, either. I don't know what caused it, but you would have to admit that people scheme behind the scenes (it's built into human nature). I don't really c…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/21 12:16 AM
-1

I think this is a bit of a strawman. Some men view the power structure as a combination patriarchy/matriarchy where the balance shifts slightly to benefit one gender over the other. Were women disadvantaged 200 years ago? Yes, but so were men to a great degree. The reason men complain more now than more before isn't because they only benefited before. It's because men never took the mantle of victimhood when they were in supposed power (which I've argued was more of a tilt rather than being able…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 11:47 PM
3

Some would blame Second Wave feminism, I prefer taking the neoliberal paradigm shift that happened to co-incide at the same time. Do you think this occurrence was coincidental? Because I think they could have been engineered together. More workers would mean less rights for said workers. Whether the engineering was intentional or just a natural course, could be up for debate. My concern is how do people plan to fix it rather than just blaming a new group. Also, why do you think it would be wrong…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 11:31 PM
0

Dr. Bancroft observed among the abusers (male) that he encountered through his work What kind of abusers are these? I think it matters because emotional abuse is on a different level than physical, and some women like to make it seem like they would never be emotionally abusive. In fact, I think they can be just as bad as men in this arena.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 11:23 PM
1

So by feminism isn't 'true' do you mean you think women shouldn't have equal rights? I think men and women need to be more equal. Everything that is expected of a man, is expected of a woman. For example, if men are expected to pay on a date and ask out a woman, a woman is expected the same. Also, I don't like 3rd wave feminism which seems to be trying to make every man into the enemy. Also, not a big fan of 2nd wave feminism which is trying to make gender quotas for everything, which isn't true…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 10:43 PM
1

I disagree; I think it is healthy to have a diverse group of friends including some who are opposite-gender. I think it is only healthy if intentions are not mixed and expressed directly. Also, I think many men navigate life fine without friendships from women. Most people don't seem to want to address this, if it is a problem. I agree women should be more direct, but particularly with non-chad men I'm saying women need to do the opposite of this. My point was that women let their guards down ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 10:34 PM
1

That's odd to me. If you go read the red pill subreddit, they use women more in my opinion. Dissing feminism isn't hating on women, it just dissing on notions that aren't true. Are you saying a woman would rather be a plate than have a man criticize feminism?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 09:14 PM
1

Which is why many women have very few male friends who are not FWBs, or the women are only friends with gay men. This is probably the way it should be. Some men I know have no female friends. If a woman wants a male friend, but isn't interested even slightly in a relationship, then I think the women needs to make that known up front in direct words. Men will too easily take being nice and friendly as romantic interest. Also, it's harder for men to turn off any sexual attraction to most females a…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 08:51 PM
1

You're blaming the victim. Not necessarily, I'm asking why women aren't more cautious to end up being the victim. There is a difference. Compare this to a man being taken to the cleaners from a bad divorce. Women might say back that the man should have married a better women, or tried to save the marriage better. Men wouldn't come back and say women are blaming the victim for this? I don't think I've ever heard a man use that argument when talking about the unfairness of divorce. Maybe like you …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 08:33 PM
1

You mean the pick up version of red pill, like the main sub? I wouldn't say it is a hate group, but a group where many don't have much respect for women. If they were a hate group, how come they spend most of their time figuring out how to be around women? There is also the red pill which just tries to emphasize the truth of gender relations. This includes more men in the manosphere, like mgtow's, mra's, and trads. I'm more of this latter type of red pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 08:16 PM
1

I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Some examples would be marrying someone with more money. Using sex to work your way into a job. Asking for better treatment because of your gender (better welfare than men, more media attention to womens' issues, etc). Using your gender to expect men to ask you out and pay for dates.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 07:33 PM
1

Plus the established relationship creates confusion and conflicting feelings. I think this is where men see the disconnect. They feel it's mixed messages. It feels like women are saying they want to make the relationship work, but feel used because the man just wants sex. And men feel like bob gets all the vitriol directed at him in the process, when he wasn't even party to this problem. I understand women might feel this way, but women should be more direct with intentions with men if they don'…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 07:27 PM
1

But saying “I like when people are nice when they interact with me” or even “I wish/want people to be nice to me” isn’t the same thing as asking or commanding anyone to actually be nice This is where I think you might be a bit wrong. Because the feminist narrative does command people to be nice. It sets up gender quotas, and can possibly make every man into a imagined criminal by comparing them to other men (which I've seen before, because I've seen countless messages in media that hint that "me…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 07:19 PM
1

I'm not sure what specific type of complaining bugs you? Being bothered isn't really accurate. I think women should complain about things that make them upset/mad, but I'm just wondering the effectiveness about complaining about incentive structures, when that is really what a lot of sex is about. I also doubt the reasoning in appealing to all men as if all men are like this. But if women think it works, I think they should complain how they want. Also, I think if women want their complaints to …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 07:10 PM
1

“I haven’t found a relationship with a person who has been nice to me (and I would like to.)” Not “all men/women should go out of their way to be nice to me.” But it feels like women are asking all men to be nice to them, unless I'm getting the wrong impression. I've found that women will up their expectations of all men if this happens (when their partner isn't nice to them), and I believe that might be the wrong solution. Women should try expanding their options instead of narrowing them. Beca…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 06:41 PM
1

But then I feel like asking men to be nice is the wrong expectation. Maybe women just want men to be apathetic? Would you call someone nice that ignored you and treated you like a stranger? The word "stranger" by itself already has negative connotations. It can mean someone dangerous or distant, or someone that you have no connection, nor want any connection with.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 06:31 PM
1

men will turn into raging psychopaths that harm women indiscriminately unless we dole out pussy selectively to only the nicest ones regardless of their other qualities That's wasn't my argument. My argument was that women already go on dates with men with this behaviour anyways, so what do women expect from men they have no interest in, or why would women direct their complaints at these men? I'm not arguing that women should in anyway feel pressured to give into a man just for being nice. But i…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 06:28 PM
1

How old is this man? Is he tall of does he have a full head of hair? Like I said, I believe womens' perspective of average is skewed.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 06:24 PM
1

Society also doesn't do anything about it for women. Society gives zero shits. At least it is equality, even if it isn't ideal. Some of it is fear of the unknown (his behavior) and some of it is being socialized not to hurt others. I think this is only half true. On OLD, women hand out rejections in abundance and it doesn't seem to bother them. So I don't think they have an issue with hurting men they don't know or care about. Maybe in person and after the women has known the man for a while, sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 06:21 PM
1

It's not all men, but there's no guaranteed way to avoid these men without closing off entirely. My suggestion would be not to go home with these men until you are sure you want to date them. This would probably solve 90% of the problem. hopes of making a romantic OR PLATONIC connection what they actually mean is “I want to have less sex with assholes, and less sex overall. This seems like a bit of mixed messages. Men can't tell if a lady wants romance, or just to be friends. And women have sex …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 06:16 PM
1

Yeah, it was a bit of a snowball. But in reality, I am curious what women want from men, that they would already expect from women? I get the feeling women just want to be apathetic towards men that they are disinterested in. Can't men be the same? I realize apathy doesn't equal misogyny.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 06:05 PM
2

don't hurt someone else's feelings If I had a nickel for everytime I've heard about a women rejecting a man. I don't think women have an issue with hurting a man's feelings to be frank. encourage them to do the work to have better boundaries I would encourage the same. But I think if this happened to a man, society would be glad to not bother doing anything about it. They would view it as the man's job to do something about it. Women may be conditioned to be nicer and more genial, but men are co…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 05:58 PM
2

Dating and relationships are an emotion based based movement too. I don't see how you counter one without the other. I don't view women as horrible or mean people, just people looking out for their best interests. I think women are mad at red pill more so because it tells men to look out for their best interests.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 05:55 PM
3

Why do men need to be better people? The bar for most acceptance is already pretty low in society. I would just expect a men to treat other people (this includes both men and women) the same that a women is expected to treat other people. What expectations do you think women have to be nice that aren't expected of men?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 05:51 PM
1

I could understand if this happened one time. Women might have a right to make an issue. But if it keeps happening, I don't see how women can make an issue. Would you have sympathy for a guy that entered this same situation? The person that told this story said it bothered them enough complain about it, but not enough to cut the guy out out of his/her life. Most men don't do this.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 05:42 PM
2

Elliot Rogers was an anomaly. Most men that are incels don't resort to violent behavior. If they do, it isn't any more pronounced than Chads committing violence against women. If anything, I think the incel types are less likely to commit violence. My understanding was that most of his victims were actually men. Men do complain also, but they seem to complain about all the women they date. And men date all types of women. Women complain more about the high status men they date, which is only a s…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 04:33 AM
3

It's the niceness socialization Plus if they couldn't hold boundaries around sex I do believe women are socialized to be nice and put up with more, but women that are nice and women as a whole still have very strong boundaries for sex (the whole 80/20 from red pill). If they didn't have these boundaries, why wouldn't they invite Bob from accounting to hang out with them?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 04:27 AM
2

Yes, that is true. But men don't tend to put blame on women as a whole like women do. I assume since you didn't answer, this means you do pretty well in other arenas besides emotional? But I do agree, men do need to treat women with more respect, at least as much as they would expect from other people.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 04:17 AM
8

Men IMO are more likely to consider being nice as a desirable trait for both sex and marriage. Why don't women want to incentivize being nice if it is something they want from other men? You say it isn't fair to incentivize this, but women are willing to incentivize sex to get what you want (an attractive and high status man).
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 04:13 AM
1

Anti bullying campaigns are only for young men and aren't that effective IMO. Anti gay campaigns are only a very small subset of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:54 AM
2

I was more so asking about money abundance, not emotional. But I'm sorry those things happened to you. Yes, I do agree that people need to be nicer in general. I'm just more so confused what women want from men that they aren't already offering? The men that women direct their complaints towards seem to be the men they actually want from romantic relationships and not other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:51 AM
1

But are there any that target and help low value men?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:37 AM
0

I know I’m not doing it for virtue signaling because I don’t tell people about it Maybe you feel the compulsion to do it because you feel like society has been gracious to you? You don't have to answer this with specifics, but do you do relatively well? A lot of men don't do relatively well so to speak.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:37 AM
1

You’re no better than the game, you’re just on the desperate end of it. Is this an admission of the correctness of red pill theory?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:34 AM
1

It's both A and B. Women want the beta bucks if government isn't helping. But government is helping more than ever. Women are finding that the beta bucks aren't as necessary as say 50 years ago, and simultaneously men are being priced out of the market and don't even want the deal anymore (both parties don't want the deal as much) . I don't think this issue is really against red pill theory though. Red pill men say often that the new beta bucks is the government. I've heard it mentioned often.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:30 AM
5

I don’t care for foster kittens or volunteer at a soup kitchen because I get some reward out of it How do you know that person isn't virtue signalling? That by itself is a reward and boosts one's social standing. What specifically do you want out of men that they aren't already offering? Do you want them not to complain about women at all? Do you want money or help? Most men already offer basic decency in my opinion. Anything above this would just be putting women on a pedestal above other low v…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:24 AM
3

People won't embrace "just world fallacy" when there are certain groups that promote this among themselves, and get away with it. Everyone can be a victim, even a rich person that has more money than they will ever need. And they sell this idea for why they don't need any more taxes. And people buy into it. You can't expect people to disavow the "just world ideal", when people see all kinds of victimhood perpetuation being sold and bought throughout society.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:19 AM
1

People can't find out things for themselves when any kind of fact movement is shamed into oblivion- like the red pill for example. Society feeds off of dangling carrots in front of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:16 AM
1

But my question if it has nothing to do with gender, why don't people have a campaign for men to be nice to other men, or for women to be nice to other women. I suspect that women know they can demand more because of their beauty, but don't feel like they are getting what they deserve. Rather, they just want to make it seem like women are the only ones getting disrespected, when it is also low value men and people in general. So if this wasn't about gender, women would be asking for men to be bo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:10 AM
3

So if a woman complains about misogyny from one of these types of men, are you saying it doesn't matter? What if a man complains about being taxed more and it is paying for these women that want nothing from him?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 03:00 AM
8

He took advantage of you while your judgment was impaired and emotionally manipulated you. In the morning, you feel hungover and regret spending money on him, but it doesn’t happen often enough that you feel like cutting him out of your life, and you figure it was your fault for being weak on your boundaries anyway. they’re listening narcissistically assuming that when a woman complains she is giving some kind of advice that’s relevant to his love life rather than just complaining. This made sen…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 02:55 AM
2

Heard of a hookup? I'm asking about what women want from men that they wouldn't even consider for a hookup?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 02:47 AM
17

Women have sex with those men because those men are attractive or benefit the woman in some way. Do men get turned on by nice girls? Men don't get turned on, but they find nice ladies nice to be around. Women that are the opposite of this are just headaches for most guys. But if you are admitting that women have sex with those men because they are only attractive, or benefit the women in some way, why would a guy be nice if it doesn't benefit them in some way also? Women complain about the incen…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 02:40 AM
1

Do you have an example though of a 7+ woman dating a man of average income? Certainly no celebrities do this? Or any of your own friends? Can you give specifics of their incomes without giving any names?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 02:29 AM
2

Want as in BOYFRIENDS AND HUSBANDS. But what do women want from men that they don't date? The men that are already making bank on the dating scene don't really care what women want because the women are already offering it. If you’re talking about bimbos like Belle Delphine, that’s men’s fault. If you wanted a feminist, you should have chased after them. Instead you chased after the submissive sex kittens and femme fatales. Belle Delphine only does what she does for money. Men are also playing t…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 02:27 AM
2

Why would women want this so much though? I think women just want men to go along with the program and not make an issue about anything (even if they don't get to date these women). I don't think they mean nice in the sense of giving money or gifts, or even help. Or do they? If they want those things, do they expect women to give those things back to men?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 02:22 AM
4

Labeling yourself with "nice" is like bragging about getting into one of those fake academic organizations that hold no events yet expect you to pay dues But on the flip side, women are the ones evaluating niceness as something meaningless, not men. Women say they want "nice" men, but they won't say exactly what that means. I suspect women want to be treated on a pedestal above other low value men, but won't come out and say this because it ruins their whole feminist oppression narrative.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 01:49 AM
3

want different partners based on her looks and assuming average women will have lower standards I agree it's wrong to assume. But men are just saying that women are more likely to behave certain ways based on how they look. Men have to be in this position more because they are the ones expected to ask women out. If women would ask men out more or at the very least show some interest, then men wouldn't have to assume as much. Most average men I've spoken to have probably been asked out maybe 1-2 …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/21 12:48 AM
1

women typically choose very average looking men. I know average and very good looking women and all their partners look very average like no male models or body builder types Average is relative. There is an oft repeated study on this sub about the okcupid study which points to women finding about 20% of men average or above, and 80% of men below average. Average would be following a bell curve. I've seen men that aren't super fit, but maybe about 6 feet, and played baseball in high school, but …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/21 11:49 PM
1

This is the point I'm trying to make. If is there is no reward for kindness, why should men be expected to do it? Should women be expected to be kind if there is no reward for it?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/21 11:36 PM
3

have less options to hopefully end up with the right person otherwise stay single. Easy dating is what will lead to more abuse and wasted time This only works though if women are willing to explore other options. But they often don't explore other options, but just simply narrow them down. It would be like if you are looking for a good hairspray (or any kind of product). Women might consider only hairsprays that are above 10$ (and more likely to be high quality in their mind). But all hair spray…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/21 11:30 PM
1

I'm asking what entails a decent person. Because I've often seen women that reward men that are not nice to other men. This is how men often treat other men- with disdain and extreme competition. And it seems like you either want to be treated above other men, or on the same level. Men can act the way you describe to other men, so not sure how this problem is just unique to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/21 11:18 PM
3

Men can be competitive with each other but you wouldn’t be competitive with a small gay guy or a frail old man. What about men that are weaker? Possibly not as strong, tall, or good looking? This is where I think your equality argument might fall apart. Because women have no problem dating and rewarding men that are the winners, no matter usually how they won. But they expect men that are not on the winning side to play nice and not compete, when even men and women are very competitive against e…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/21 11:05 PM
2

That's fair, but what exactly would you consider basic respect? Are you saying you want to be treated the same as every other man? Because men can still be very competitive between each other? Also, would this be reciprocal? Would everything you propose as basic respect be offered to men as well?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/21 10:21 PM
3

But if you are taking out the sexual part of it, then we would be asking men to be nice with no prospect of a relationship. What would women expect besides basic human decency at this point, because women aren't really nice to men in any extravagant sense?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/21 10:09 PM
9

They want nicer and commitment. If you go on many of the female dominant subs, they speak a lot of abusive men, either emotionally or physically. What happens when they encounter a relationship like that- they usually up their game and become more demanding rather than settle. What I think many of them may not realize is that they are probably making dating harder for themselves rather than easier, because higher value men usually won't budge, because their options are already limitless.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/21 10:06 PM
3

When women speak of the pay gap. They make it seem like if only we pay women more, then dating will be fixed, and there will be no more incels. It is actually likely to further exacerbate the problem. My solution to this would be to either pay men more and embrace chivalry like old times, or go full equality and demand equal treatment in all aspects of gender relations. What people that promote the pay gap don't realize is that men dominate the high money making positions, but women are moving a…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/21 10:03 PM
5

Some men that say this know it likely won't fix the problem. But if women are finding lack of commitment from men, then at least it would put a stop to the complaints. Kind of like saying "if men won't commit, find one that will". At the very least it might open their view to hypergamy, and they can see the reality of what men face.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/21 10:00 PM
2

FHA loans have huge amounts for homeowners insurance. I believe conventional loans require proof of income as well, which 25% of population lacks too. They let you off the hook for any debt by making a simple dispute? Seems like it would only work for small amounts.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/21 01:55 AM
1

Yes, I agree. We got another 600, so 1800 total. I believe unemployment was capped around 600 per week, but depended on the state. Which for some people was a pay raise, but for others was a pay cut. I believe there was rent moratoriums, but they may have expired already, but not sure on that.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 11:22 PM
1

Just out of curiosity, how does rent assistance work there? Do you guys get help to pay for mortgages?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 11:10 PM
2

I thought the UK had rent assistance programs? The opportunities may look great compared to yours, but I think they might be close to par. UK gets free healthcare, so more than 10% of that paycheck might be going to health insurance. It is almost impossible for men (or single women) to get rent assistance here. Some large cities can easily charge $2000 plus per month. On top of this, a car is necessary in most areas, because public transportation is lacking. All these costs can evaporate that sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 11:00 PM
3

What are one of those fields? Because most professions like this are out of the reach of your average guy, or the position will be given to someone else because of affirmative action.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 10:28 PM
1

I think that is only half the problem. Society seems to view men that have families as more competent, so you might be mixing up the cause and effect. I've read studies that point to single women in large cities making more than their male counterparts. Also, are you considering that the economy might be forcing women into single motherhood, either in a direct or indirect way?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 10:25 PM
1

They outperform because of what you stated- they are going for the path of least resistance I thought this was your argument- that people leave their countries for better jobs, so they are taking a path of least resistance by finding better options here.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 10:10 PM
2

When you have to compete with immigrants it causes lower wages. Not sure what your career is, but most women I've seen don't have that level of competition. I'm sure if we invited all these teachers, say from Asia or Africa, women would make a fuss. I don't have a problem with immigration, but think we should only be letting in people through legal pathways and it should be limited. If we want unlimited immigration and these people are such hard workers, wouldn't women rather marry and live in t…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 10:06 PM
3

Immigrants don't outperform natives in all aspects of work. When there was less immigration, jobs payed higher for the work. They out perform like in efficiency (work per money) because of what you stated- they are going for the path of least resistance. Immigration is likely increasing income inequality.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 09:52 PM
2

Home ownership means a 20% down payment and decent credit score. 25% of people out there most likely don't have either. Home ownership has never gone above 70% if I recall.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 09:48 PM
2

I think he means a brain in the the sense of being able to act and think like a man. Not the book smart brain. But I agree, a lot of the men succeeding are in the tech or science industries. And I believe that is actually feeding inequality (although inadvertently), because things can be produced so much quicker and with less labor.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 09:43 PM
3

I don't know if this argument sells a lot of men. Would you appreciate the argument for paying taxes that at least you are not paying as much as people in that other country? I don't think that motivates men, or people in general. People live in social systems. They want to be doing comparatively well compared to other people in their system. Women don't want men that are barely making ends meet, or constantly working to make someone else wealthy. Also, moving to another a country seems like a c…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 09:38 PM
2

There are men that like those kind of women too, but sometimes you see women that seem to be more asexual (not sure if that's the best way to put it), and still have high expectations. Not saying it's the woman's fault if she feels that way. Some men are more asexual, but it seems like it could limit a ladies opportunities with men. Sorry, I wasn't trying to propose you marry a woman specifically (was trying to ask in a general sense)- I was just curious if some women have a slight aversion to m…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 06:57 PM
1

I see your point, but seems like many women are uninterested in that part of the relationship. Maybe they are interested, but just don't want to be treated as objects as you say.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 06:39 PM
1

I've heard women that have this attitude before, but if all they want is a friendly companion, can't they just marry another woman or live with another woman? Most men might look at this proposal and wonder why they can't just have a lady roommate or live in gf?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 06:32 PM
1

But that will just entrench hypergamy more. If all we do as a society is pay women more and give them more plastic surgery, this wouldn't help women and men date. Women will just elevate their standards. Also, doesn't help when men actively will pay and encourage for women to get plastic surgery. We could have women offer to pay for more men to get plastic surgery.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 06:29 PM
1

I'm confused. You are attracted to more feminine men, or you want a man that provides but acts more like a woman?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 06:26 PM
1

I bet 60-80% of the people getting plastic surgery are women.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 06:23 PM
1

I read the intro to the link you sent. But I gather that is saying something completely different. Probably what is happening is that women who go against active gender roles are being charged on the same level as a man, but relatively harsher than the standard sentence a woman would get.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 06:22 PM
1

But if it is a problem with men, how come all your causes are ways to help women more? I don't think men can be incentivized to help themselves if everything is about someone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 06:04 PM
3

That is true, but men in poor countries can have a scarcity of resources, but abundance of purpose (not to just themselves, but to society). In western countries, It seems it can go the other way around- and abundance of resources, but scarcity of purpose.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 05:39 PM
1

I would just point out that someone can be a man-child and still do all those things. Women complain about this issue, but I don't think they want a man that just goes to gym and plays guitar. Not arguing that this won't fulfill men, but I where can men and women meet halfway on this issue?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 05:37 PM
3

Where is this overflowing opportunity you speak of? That may work for some men, but some men will be fighting the system to move up.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 05:31 PM
4

What other goal are you proposing then? Because some men are unlikely to move up the career ladder. It's a monotonous job with no reward. You can propose hobbies, but some hobbies require money. I don't think you can equate a country's abundance of wealth with abundance of opportunities.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 05:29 PM
1

But possibly not as much as women make men think. Would you rather date someone that works 60 hours a week to barely make ends meet or someone that is retired with a fortune and doesn't work at all? I think most women would pick the latter with all things being equal.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 04:13 PM
2

I agree some on are in bad taste. But I've seen it go both ways. Neurotypicals are sometimes referred to as the NPC's. Plus some people with autism can see things others can't.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 04:07 PM
1

Have a job. Be clean. Don't be abusive. We already do this. This really isn't the bare standard, because I know plenty men do have this and still have no gf. THERE IS AND NEVER WILL BE SEXUAL SOCIALISM. If this is what you want, would you support no economic socialism for women?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 03:40 PM
1

That's interesting. But seems like there are conflicting stats on this issue. From your link: "In 2013, some 64% of eligible men had remarried, compared with 52% of women" From this other link https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-42.html: "About 13 percent of men age 15 and over have been married twice, compared with 14 percent of women." Maybe it's not as pronounced as I think it is. Also possible one source is mentioning all age groups, where your source is focusing on olde…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 01:25 PM
2

Although I guess narcissism and NPD are slightly different. One of the defining traits of NPD is lack of empathy, but I guess I'm not sure how much that is a component. I'm not a studied psychologist, so my knowledge is somewhat lacking.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 11:23 PM
4

If it's boring guys, then women should at least admit that. Because I think they hype up this claim they are available for all the boring, regular guys and that there aren't any that are putting in the effort. But then they go after these other guys that are putting in low effort and fail with them, and start to blame all men. On top of this they hype up claims that they are content being single rather than having any kind of man pursue them.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 11:17 PM
1

I'm not even sure of that. You could be right, but I know a lot of people that are very narcissistic, but they seem to have normal levels of empathy. Maybe they aren't donating every extra penny to charity.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 11:13 PM
2

This is what this study says: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-share-of-never-married-americans-has-reached-a-new-high : In 2018, a record 35% of Americans ages 25 to 50, or 39 million, had never been married, according to a new institute for family studies analysis of U.S. Census data. The share was only 9% in 1970. Most women find engaging multiple long term partners for life, but are probably sharing the same men. A version of soft polygamy. Most men do end up getting married, but I believe the…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 11:08 PM
1

I just assumed you were blue pill, because of your argument. Maybe you are another type of pill. I think your point is a bit of misinterpretation of how men feel about this though. I don't think that men think women purposely pick bad men. But that men can be bad because they can get away with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 10:44 PM
1

NPD is not the same as dark triad. Many people that are NPD can be empathetic people and have high standards for relationships. Dark triad is when you have all those traits combined, and combined with machiavelianism. Also people with ASPD can be social and at the top of hierarchies, so not sure why psychologists picked that way to name it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 10:41 PM
1

Not necessarily, why couldn't a smart woman like a dark triad personality? Dark triads can be successful men, and women seem to like success more than personality in a lot of instances.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 10:35 PM
7

they had as much attention from women. So are you confirming 80/20? This is the reason women get all this attention. 80% of the men are lacking in attention, so have to outwardly direct it to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 10:32 PM
2

This study said for "short term". It says nothing of long term, or their ability to get long term mates.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 10:30 PM
1

But again this was only practiced among royalty. Do you have proof this was practiced among the plebs? People forget that the plebs in societies (which include both men and women) make up 80-90% of the population.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 10:26 PM
1

But isn't this is an idea more associated with elite families rather than a patriarchal system that is enforcing monogamy? Not all societies have practiced patrilineal inheritance. When you spoke of the Greek and Roman elite, didn't the property go to the respective spouses?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/21 01:46 AM
1

That's what I'm proposing- is that property was an economic arranangement for the spouses and their family. This would seem to confirm my idea that property ownership by men was used as an economic arrangement to benefit the whole family, since the property was passed down to every family group separately with your theory. If property was used to force monogamy on women, how was this achieved? Women could own property in monogamous societies, so that would seem to exclude that idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/21 01:38 AM
1

Can't be swayed on what issue? On DV. I was referring to this comment from you: I think many people are enablers (yes, women too). I think a lot of times people shrug off stories of the violence of their friends or family members. Even with they witness something they want to pretend it's "not a big deal" or "he's a really nice guy." But yes, I think both men and women can be better. I just think that to get more men to engage on this, women have to at least show they care about the issue enough…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/21 12:39 AM
1

So the community works are a part of the evil game. Tell your friends and ecourage them then not to date these types. That would send a message real quick. But you already admitted though that people can't be swayed on this issue, both men and women included. I think men AND women need to hold people accountable I agree. But when men tell women they need help or how they can help, they say back that's not their job. So it gives some men no incentive to try to fix the problem. You just mentioned …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/21 12:14 AM
1

why? i’m not an activist, i’m not a social worker, i’m not a public speaker, i’m not a politician, i hold no particularly large platform, nor do i hold any position powerful enough to spread awareness to something like this and for people to take me seriously. Cancel culture doesn't have a platform and is made up of people with no voice. At the very least, you are on a public forum and can admit that a change needs to happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/21 12:11 AM
1

that’s exactly why people don’t take cancel culture seriously. Except for the people that actually lose careers. although that’s not necessarily true. look at the karen’s who have been fired from their jobs or forced to resign because they were caught saying or doing things that are considered racist in public. That's not what happens. The woman only gets fired if the media attention gets turned up. And they have a new spot available a week later with no pay cut. Doesn't happen the same if a guy…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 11:53 PM
1

women are closer to 50/50 in leadership positions. 50/50 is never achievable, unless you actually have 50% of women in the workforce, doing 50% of the work hours. If you wanted to be fair, it would need to be something closer to 60/40. Because there are about 40% more men in the workforce doing full time jobs. Also, women are over represented in middle management jobs. women can finally date men they actually want This isn't proven to happen though. When women earn more, they raise their expecta…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 11:38 PM
1

What is the purpose of cancelling if it doesn't actually cancel? I'm not a fan of cancel culture, because it is just using intimidation tactics to favor whatever the political winds of the day happen to be. Rowling wasn't cancelled in any way. Refer to this article: https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-book-sales-harry-potter-1234708777/ "in 2019, her print book sales in June rose right alongside sales for the rest of the industry: 35.2% for the author compared with 33.3% for fiction ov…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 11:17 PM
1

jk rowling is an the first person that comes to mind That's not cancelled. I'm sure her book sales are stronger than ever. affirmative action hasn’t done much considering men still predominately hold positions of power, so that’s not a good excuse. That's a misrepresentation. Women move into middle management better than men. trad marriages aren’t considered taboo so i don’t see why men would wait until they’re “accepted?” they’ve always been “accepted.” They aren't when women get better benefit…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 10:10 PM
1

Some men look at all those options and pick one completely different: hope for a better culture where trad marriages are accepted, but until then go MGTOW and just date casually. I gave some examples for cancel culture- how a man can lose his jobs if he missteps and says the wrong thing. Interesting that cancel culture seems to be aimed only at men. Not many examples of women getting cancelled. And I also mentioned how the culture is cancelling trad relationships: by giving state incentives to w…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 09:42 PM
1

I don't have a problem with that (calling a spade a spade). I think men need to step up if they want certain things out of women. Just pointing out that the culture doesn't try to promote trad beliefs, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to criticize men for something where they are fighting against the grain. I'm also not advocating people do whatever they want. In my comment, I was hinting that when you promote complete freedom and individuality, you get people that will try to get away with wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 09:31 PM
1

My assumption was that they didn't want a man that had trad ideals to expect women to split half on dates or to expect the women to have a job to provide for marriage. They were pointing out that this is hypocritical. Which I agree, it kind of is. I was trying to clarify that I think a man can be a bit hypocritical in this culture because women are given a pass. Also, I don't think it is hypocritical to date casually at first and expect women to pay half, until later when you both want a serious…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 09:22 PM
1

it’s not fair on the tradwife’s end to be expected to fulfill the feminine role and take on some of the masculine role too by contributing financially. a man who expects this is expecting too much. you want a tradwife? you need to be able to pay for one. I agree with this, but just pointing out that it is harder for men to pay for a trad wife when they have to deal with cancel culture. Wouldn't be surprised if we start cancelling trad relationships next. It is already happening to a degree. Wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 08:56 PM
1

I'm more arguing for the flexibility to act modern, because women are given that flexibility. If a man wants to settle down and get serious about finding a trad girl, then obviously he needs to start acting trad.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 08:27 PM
1

what isn’t acting hypocritical? You said this: there isn’t much of a reason to pretend not to be a feminist in this society, so i really don’t see why women would do that. there aren’t many incentives, if any at all; and there’s a great chance you will be ostracized depending on what is mainstream in your community. And you mentioned it's in the best interest for people not to go against the grain of the culture. So if women are allowed be dispassionate about feminism, can men be dispassionate a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 08:22 PM
2

i don’t do old, and even if i did i wouldn’t meet the man until i got to know him for a bit so i can’t relate Ask your friends if they do this? If they say yes, then they are probably being disingenuous. nobody has ever outright opposed me or my culture just because they disagreed or live a different lifestyle. Have you ever felt discriminated possibly because you wanted to pursue the house-wife route? I hear women say this is an issue all the time. yes i would, i don’t see what incentive there …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 07:44 PM
3

more likely than not, i’ve known him for at least a bit of time and have spoken to him enough for us to know whether or not we have similar values before we go on the date The fact you say more likely than not means that most women have probably gone on a date without getting to know the man well. That is exactly what tinder and other dating websites promotes, and the 80/20 that men complain about. that man were getting to know the woman, he’d know whether or not she was traditional by the time …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 07:18 PM
3

Nice try there, but that's not what I said
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 06:49 PM
2

a man who was forthcoming about having traditional values or wanting a traditional woman/relationship , i would expect him to be chivalrous. You can only expect this if you are reciprocal. Men can't tell on a first date if a woman is an ardent trad loyalist. This is why the date should be split until you can further know this. that doesn’t make much sense. a person who is traditional values tradition, so they’d value a traditional relationship/lifestyle where the roles are more rigid. It makes p…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 06:39 PM
1

You have to give it a few years first. Maybe 25?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 05:45 PM
1

Are you asking what women should so to stop male violence? I'm not so sure we have that power. How would you propose men have the power to do that? Like just the average man that doesn't do this stuff? times people shrug off stories of the violence of their friends or family members. Even with they witness something they want to pretend it's "not a big deal" or "he's a really nice guy." To me depends on the level of violence. Like I said before, my view is that women commit DV just as much, just…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 04:38 PM
6

traditional men were chivalrous, so i see that as part of the package They were chivalrous under different norms. It's like asking a person to wear a coat while on vacation in a warm tropical climate if they came from a colder climate. People adjust behaviours and expectations depending on the circumstance. It's not being hypocritical if you prefer a certain climate, but adjust your outfit how you see fit. a man who wants a traditional woman, you look silly complaining that she won’t pay for dat…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 04:18 PM
8

Just to address your first point. I don't see that wanting trad wives, but not willing to be chivalrous as necessarily being hypocritical. My reason being that the default system is to expect women not to be trad, and at the same time to expect equality between the genders. So my feeling is the system, or default, needs to change before women expect men to act differently without hypocrisy. This also ties into your argument that women that want to be trad should not pay for the date. But this is…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 03:21 PM
1

If men can be victims of other men, do you think women should do anything for this situation? How would you say this is different than men being responsible for other men? In regards to you experience at work, I can understand why that would make you frightened. It wouldn't be something you would forget about easily. I'm not sure what would make a man do something like that. A lot of men use violence in my opinion as a form of control. They want something out of the other person. But usually ang…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 02:38 PM
1

I didn't take his comment as implying this was incentive based. I interpreted as saying it's the opposite of incentive. That the men women want have no incentive to be respectful. Whether that is true or not could be a separate debate.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/21 01:03 AM
1

I see what you are saying, but if there is no purpose to discovering these theorems, or by proving them, why are they doing it? Maybe to advance human knowledge, or discovery of universal properties. That may be the practical knowledge, and then the engineers can use that knowledge to provide something useful. So I would paraphrase this claim by saying that mathematics does not have the inherent goal of practicality, but can be a possible side effect. Maybe Liebniz or Newton didn't have the idea…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 11:58 PM
2

It would be like saying that this comment is a practical application of English. Does that make sense? I am merely using English to write this comment. English is not essential at all to what exactly I am saying. But it is a practical application of English. Are you using English to write a comment that conveys an idea? Or are you just writing random words on a computer. That is the difference. Are mathematicians writing numbers in a book, or are they trying to solve a problem? I guess call me c…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 07:26 PM
1

Not sure what you mean. Men could still divorce in the 50's, unless you are implying something else.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 05:00 PM
1

People don't care about government action, they just want a government that cares about them or cares about them enough to leave them alone. Which even capitalist countries don't embody. They are are so busy worrying about the wealthy they discard the rights of their other citizens.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 04:54 PM
1

Both parties are socialist. Just a different brand. One party helps out the wealthy more, the other helps out the poor and disadvantaged more. Although I agree that Japan really isn't conservative, I wouldn't consider free markets the definition of conservatism. Conservatism can also be tied to nationalism or traditionalism. Free markets are a neoliberal idea, and both the parties in America are very neoliberal, even though there is socialism from both sides.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 04:49 PM
5

I agree with the top 20%. He is just pointing out how fast a simple list can exclude almost every guy. It's just a thought experiment. The math is valid. The idea behind the math is supposed to be a thought experiment and isn't valid for every scenario. Have you ever noticed that when you ask women what they want in a guy they spout off 4 simple things? The math is showing how easy it can be for women to narrow down in their mind to less than the top 1-2% of men. It's just saying that women's ex…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 08:04 AM
1

I will admit though that your intelligence associated with height argument is intriguing, and there could be some truth to it. It does seem like all the geniuses (like think mozart, newton, and einstein) though have been around average height, or maybe a bit taller. But it could be that men that are generally taller are smarter, possibly due to better mating prospects and better diet. But I would say this applies to more slight taller men. Men that are very tall seem to fit into the spectrum the…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 07:51 AM
5

Your argument is a bit of a strawman too. OP was just noting what an average female's prospects are like. He wasn't considering women already at the top of their league. I agree the analysis is flawed. I wasn't taking the math seriously, but was just pointing out that assuming equal randomness across all traits and equal prospects, the math should work.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 07:44 AM
1

Yes, I believe it was. But now everyone pays extra taxes and child support. Also, I believe alimony was only used if the woman didn't plan on marrying again (or soon), otherwise why would she need full living expenses if she is marrying another man. Since marriage rates were higher back then, it could have been that alimony was less likely to be used.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 07:02 AM
7

I believe you can as long as the randomness is spread equally among all traits. So say 1/2 of 1000 random people have black hair. And 1/4 of random people are tall. You should be able to use that 1/4 stat on people with black hair (which is 500 in this case) as long as the randomness is spread the same among all people vs only people with black hair. So couldn't you assume 125 people have both black hair and are tall?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 06:57 AM
1

Yes, but I would argue though that men are the bulk of the economy. Men still make up more of the workforce. If women disengage from men too much and ask for more independence, you will have fewer slots for high paying jobs for those less feminine women. So even they can lose in the end.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 06:37 AM
14

That is not true. It may be higher income for taller people, but not higher IQ. If that was the case, you would see statuesque NBA like figures dominating the halls of universities and tech industries. I do believe height is correlated to income, but that is because of dominance hierarchies. Most women, and even men, will assign more social status to taller men (I guess they think these men are more competent or more likely have more strength because of their stature)
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 06:34 AM
0

My theory is men are pretty much the same. Yes they are more aware of womens' independence and courteous of womens' rights, but I think that has also hurt women too. Now men seem almost afraid to offer help to women, or figure another woman can do it since we are all the same anyways. There's nothing a man can do that a woman can't. Also, even if women implemented changes to get more independence from men, they still wanted romantic relationships. My other theory is that women didn't realize the…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 06:22 AM
1

If a person donates some part of them, they aren't legally bound to take responsibility for any outcomes of their tissues usage. You could use this argument though for any conceived child, and therefore say no men should be responsible for child support at all. But someone has to be responsible for that child. If you don't want the man that offered the DNA, then the responsibility could fall on society.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 06:14 AM
1

I'm not familiar with Russian law, but what about search and seizure, Miranda rights, Equal protection under law, state's rights, freedom of speech, trial by jury, right to face accuser, right for every citizen to vote, right to petition government? Those are few I could think of. They might be similar as you say. But also is there a supreme court that upholds these laws?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 06:01 AM
1

I think I've seen your handle on here before, and remember you mentioning that you were from Russia. Although I'll point out the legal system for the US and Russia are somewhat different. For starters, we have a constitution that guarantees more basic rights as my understanding. In the US, laws are not supposed to be forced differently according to race, gender, or class. But also, in the US women usually get precedence in legal proceeding involving custody and divorce. My understanding is that …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 05:52 AM
2

Some men feel it was easier to support a wife and family on one income than themselves nowadays on one income. Also, at least you got to set more of terms for the exit if the marriage failed. Nowadays, you are at the whims of the state.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 05:40 AM
1

I've noticed though that women love the benefits of feminism in their 20's and 30's, but by 40 they seem to become a bit jaded- maybe not from feminism, but from the dating market that feminism created. I know women will reply back that they're one of the ladies that ended up married to a good guy. But didn't these good guys exist back in the 50's?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 05:36 AM
1

Where are you from? You sound like you might be from another country
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 05:20 AM
1

I'm not really proposing paper abortions for men, but just want the same that is offered to a man, offered to all other men. I would actually prefer all men to pay the same child support, and would also prefer paternity tests. Would you think it is eugenics if men were given low cost options to have a surrogate mother with the top 20% of women?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 05:19 AM
2

female coworker grab me by the neck I've never had a male coworker do this also. I think some of these personal experiences depend on the person (not everyone experiences these same things, but I believe you that those things happened). I'm not saying there aren't bad men out there. And I agree women by far experience more sexual assault. But I've also read that men experience more violence than women at the hands of other men (if you include war). So men can end up the victims as well. What per…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 04:59 AM
1

Yes there are. Because if a man can prove he isn't the biological father, he can legally get out of child support. That is biological reasons.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 04:47 AM
1

I don't have a problem with women using sperm donors. I'm not trying to control peoples' reproductive rights. I just want them the same for all men, and women. You sound like you want to control mens' reproductive rights, because you want to force men to pay child support unless they use a sperm donor. That is giving special privileges to men you like, and taking away rights from men you don't like.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 04:45 AM
3

Are you going for the nerdy, less attractive women in the library yourself Yes, I do. Women that have more dark triad, even though they may appear more attractive or wear more makeup, aren't all that in my opinion. Some guys just wouldn't mesh well with these types of women, so doesn't matter if they are attractive. Plus a lot of men have things for women that are more polished and refined. but that still leaves room for lesser evils. That's why I say 50%. Like what kind of lesser evils? Because…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 04:38 AM
1

biological fathers aren't forced to provide for their kids anyway This isn't true. If you father a child and decide to leave, the mother can name you as the father, you will be obligated to pay. Doesn't matter if you want to be the father or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 04:28 AM
2

I think it is the type of men you are around. I've lived with several men before, and was around them 24/7. And was even around their gf's. I think I would have noticed this type of behaviour going on (unless the woman was putting on a happy face for appearances). Sexual assault is an issue almost every woman deals with (to varying degrees), but I don't think that 50% of men are doing domestic violence type stuff. If I had to guess, I would think it is around 10-20% (and that is the percent of m…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 04:21 AM
1

Are you a lawyer? The definition of parentage is biology. The legal definition may be different, but that is only because society made it that way. Laws are relative. Just because a law says a donor shouldn't be the legal parent, it doesn't magically make them not the biological parent. My argument is that child support should be decided on biological parentage, not legal parentage. If a man wants to take over financial responsibility for a child and isn't the biological father, then he can clai…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 04:04 AM
1

most of these women are lesbians. I don't agree with this. There is no proof of this. This was the stat for sperm banks only. The article says sperm banks are obsolete. I would guess lesbians make up less than 10% of people using donors outside of banks. That means it isn't eugenics. It is. It is promoting women to go around normal means for conceiving a child. If enough women did this, or if all women did this, 95% of men would miss out on passing their genes. That is the definition of eugenics…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 03:59 AM
1

That's not how the law is supposed to work. What if a man is in a relationship for 2 years, has a child, then backs out and doesn't want to be the legal parent. Isn't he supposed to still be obligated under the law. Also, society can decide who it wants to be the parents. Parentage is decided by biology, not legal decisions.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 03:53 AM
1

It's not about legally being parents, it's about obligations to the child. There are men that leave regular relationships that aren't considered legal parents- it doesn't absolve them from child support.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 03:30 AM
2

official definition is to marry above your station/social class That might be the webster definition, but red pill talks about hypergamy in the sense of casual dating (who is having the most sex) and picking genes from alphas (like sperm donors or how women subconsciously evaluate genes). When red pill talks hypergamy, they aren't usually referring to the marriage market, because most women "and" men eventually get married at least once. That's not 80/20. 80/20 refers to more of the tinder datin…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 03:25 AM
1

I just think that the laws should be applied equally. We seem to have a notion in society that allows privileges for women, but doesn't allow the same for men. I think the reason women want men off the hook for being a donor is because they know the men they want wouldn't donate. It's a argument of convenience.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 03:12 AM
2

It's a different social and legal contract It's only that way because we made it that way. Laws don't write themselves, but are written from input from people. If we wanted to, we could make a law that said because of the social and legal contracts, no one is under the obligation of child support. You are mixing cause and effect. The laws aren't the way they are because of different social and legal contracts. The social and legal contracts are that way because of the way "society" chose to writ…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 03:03 AM
2

How the hell is it hypergamy? 60% of buyers are lesbian couples, 20% have fertility issues and 20% just want to have a child on their own. That's the figure for banks only. If you notice in the article, it mentions that these numbers are possibly severely underestimated. "... the number of children born by donor sperm in the United States at anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 a year, though advocates push back even on that range, saying there are no dependable figures because there is no regulation.…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 02:53 AM
0

I can understand that point of view, but a lot of men view the opposite of your view on hypergamy. Not that they see it as trashy, but it seems like it makes the relationship cheap. Like the women is only there for your prowess or resources you bring to the table. Seems rather like how cavemen would act. Maybe that's just the way it is, but do men genuinely like to keep on looking over their backs for the next competition? Maybe you don't worry too much, because you have a flock of women lining …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 02:35 AM
2

The proof is in the laws. Why else would we have such strict child support laws for men? Not sure what country you are from, but I'm speaking of the US. Either the government or the single mothers must need that for some kind of help. If they could do it alone, I'm sure the men would rather spend that money elsewhere. In regards to your idea that donors are not supposed to be considered parents by law. That may be how the law justifies this, but it doesn't make any sense. Every man is a donor, w…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 02:32 AM
2

That's only you. Many other men want a harem. I think if want to let women go full hypergamy, then men should get the option to do their version of hypergamy- which is probably a harem.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 02:28 AM
3

Not men, at least not as a whole. It's a democracy and women voters actually outnumber men. And I don't buy into the argument that it's men that are the leaders. If women don't like that, they can elect more females. Also, many men are more sympathetic to womens' issues over mens'.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 02:25 AM
5

Do they get it without financial obligations, or at least equal with the spouse? Do you work in the court systems?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 02:23 AM
3

Does she have to pay child support?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 02:22 AM
7

What do you think the numbers are?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 02:21 AM
3

Would you be upset if a woman left you for a better man? I don't doubt you are high value, but there is always better. Or do you just have women in your orbit that you know wouldn't stray far off? I don't doubt that isn't a good strategy for women, but just think there needs to be checks and balances. A man wants to attract as many women as possible, and wouldn't mind having a harem of women. But society doesn't allow this is excess.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 02:15 AM
1

I'm confused- you just seemed to advocate eugenics. You just mentioned cruelty if the child doesn't have top tier genetics. If we are going that route, why not go all the way for both genders?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 01:42 AM
1

Autonomy for women, or for men also?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 12:47 AM
1

I am serious. Are you going to tell a man that doesn't pay child support that he has to go to jail, and then a sperm king gets off the hook because of his special genetics? Sorry, we are a society where laws apply to everyone the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 12:46 AM
2

I would just point out that some do try to keep to more formal debating, but I get the impression people don't want to turn this into debate club. I've seen some good debating though, but also it's fun to read some of the jesting and wit, or stories. It's also almost impossible to prove one's point when it comes to gender dynamics. Partly because a lot of sociology is subjective. Compound this with the fact that research in this area is already heavily biased. I mean I've seen debates where some…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 12:44 AM
1

Sorry, I wasn't acquainted. Core material for PPD? "This" was referring to sperm donations. The OP seemed to be of the notion that this was promoting decadence. I thought your reply was a critique of that. You can correct me if I'm wrong, just assumed you were red pill. But I'm more new to this sub, and kind of a lurker, so not familiar with the core material.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 12:26 AM
1

Just out of curiosity, are you red pill and support this? Just noticing your flair.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 12:17 AM
1

They might be using sarcasm. Pointing out the irony of someone complaining about the natural instinct to have kids. Although I'll point out that is a bit of a strawman argument. People that complain about this don't complain about the desire to have kids, but the methods that are used.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 12:14 AM
1

What do you mean by literary theme? I guess to me it has a simpler meaning implying excess, in the boundaries relating to morals or values. I also can't see why people are trying to hide this when it seems obvious as a form of eugenics. The article linked on NY times pointed out that the king donors are bypassing those caps. We have no data on how many women are pursuing these donors outside of banks. Many are avoiding banks because as the article points out, technology for testing and procedure…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/21 11:07 PM
1

How can you have a stance that it's not decadent when you don't know much about it? I don't have a problem with it as long as the rules apply the same for everyone. I think the current system is decadent. It seems like it almost is trying to encourage women to go this route, and abandon relationships (or at least giving women an excuse for not putting too much effort into relationships). So I think there is a type of inversion happening.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/21 10:51 PM
1

Then if you support this, the scales would need to be balanced out. Men that donate should be on the hook for child support. Men can't get donations easily, but the state makes it super easy for women.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/21 10:32 PM
1

Why would red pill men like sperm donation and cheer it on when it's just a worse version of hypergamy. IMO, men that donate should be on the hook for child support. Also, technically can't sell human tissue legally. These companies are only supposed to reimburse the men for travel expenses. This is not a money maker for men, unless you have top of the top tier genetics.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/21 10:30 PM
1

That is the way it is supposed to be. Why should some men be able to skirt the child support laws?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/21 10:23 PM
0

So why can't we flip the tables around and just not have any beta billies (or the lady version of that) have any kids?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/21 10:21 PM
1

​ Most of the time they can't afford it, or why would we need men to pay child support? Men that donate should be on the hook for child support like other men. If they made this rule, it would be just as hard to find a male donor as a female donor.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/21 10:13 PM
3

Decadence may be too broad a term, but seems somewhat appropriate. Would women object if men starting using fertility methods that go after the best genetically advantaged women? If you can honestly say that you wouldn't have an objection, then I will believe you to be fair in your position.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/21 10:06 PM
1

Couldn't it be both? Not sure how the biological process works exactly, but seems like quantity could affect this outcome.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/21 10:04 PM
2

I don't see how blue pill doesn't see this is hypergamy on steroids. If red pill men already see hypergamy as decadent, why wouldn't they see the same with this banks. I can kind of see the side of a woman that didn't have a chance to have kids, but lets not kid ourselves that this isn't a form of eugenics or women fighting over the top tier genetics. The banks in my opinion aren't any better than individuals working the system. Read an article recently that these banks are very territorial, and…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/21 09:53 PM
1

But couldn't you say the same thing about men and patriarchy. There are men that do support the patriarchy (or did), but most men just went along with it? So therefore you can't blame men for the patriarchy?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/21 09:40 PM
1

I would argue there are a lot of group forces that work together in tandem to influence society. Just because there are still individual rights, doesn't mean that you won't get shame for your decisions.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/21 09:30 PM
1

these things are one big organized conglomerate... this is quite a dubious claim patriarchy as a factual term does exist historically These are the two statements that I'm trying to resolve. I'm more asking out of curiosity. On one hand you say it can't be possible to have this organized conglomerate, but then say later patriarchy is by fact a conglomerate that did exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/21 09:23 PM
1

But you said it was true fact in the past? I guess I don't understand your argument when you say that patriarchy existed (although different from the definition now), but then say there are practically no group forces in society that influence gender outcomes.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/21 09:20 PM
1

Just curious- how can you claim that everyone acts independently, but that a systemic problem like patriarchy existed in the past? My personal view is that there is and has been a patriarchy, but it is not a plot of men to subjugate women. If anything women actively support the patriarchy just as much or more so than other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/21 09:14 PM
0

If you agree that the everyone is seeking their individual interests, will you admit that the patriarchy is not factual as well?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/21 07:41 PM
3

It is a response to what you wrote. The issue of pay gap could be another discussion, but you posited that women are okay to judge off income, because men do it for looks. I was just pointing out that I think women do it in a way that isn't productive.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 01:53 AM
2

I don't agree that men are respected more. The men at the top are respected more, but not your average man. If you want proof of this, here is an article pointing out why women are earning more: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/apr/09/genevieve-wood/what-pay-gap-young-women-out-earn-men-cities-gop-p/
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 01:47 AM
5

That may be you, but society will probably blame men, or the poor. Look at the last financial crisis in 2007. They blamed the poor, and not the fat cats on wall street. I don't think this will do down how you think it will.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 01:01 AM
1

95% of people don't make an impact on society. I mean they work jobs that are important and are needed by society in that sense, but the innovators and geniuses that contribute to all this cool technology are probably less than 5% of the population.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 12:50 AM
2

All those profits are going to the men on the top. Which will further your patriarchy and more red pilled men because of hypergamy.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 12:39 AM
3

So if the world stops, who would be the first group you would blame?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 12:23 AM
2

Why would we hold the east accountable for emissions when our consumer base is what is feeding those emissions? Conservatives wanted cheap labor at all costs, and this is a side effect of that. I don't think that the situation is as dire as some people paint, but if you don't see the current economic predicament we are in, I don't know what proof can help you see that. Just for starters, we have massive debt obligations that can't be fulfilled, and the politicians are just doubling down on more …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 12:17 AM
1

We can't have growth at all costs. I think you are misdiagnosing the problem. It's not lack of people that is causing the problem, but too many. We could support more people if the world was willing to share resources. But we have the worst income inequality in a long time. At this rate, I think the best solution would be slow tapering to a population about half the current level. We seem adamant that income inequality can't be fixed, so I see this as the only other way out of the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 12:09 AM
1

I think the climate is important, but you won't see our current crop of politicians fix climate. How can climate even begin to be addressed when people care more about cheap labor and more immigrants?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 11:59 PM
1

China is just a cog in the global machine like most other countries. This planet can probably only support about half of the current population. It could support more if people were willing to share the resources, but if you have been paying attention we have the worst income inequality in a long time.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 11:55 PM
0

Not saying incels are a pressing issue, but what are the more pressing issues? Because when you ask a blue piller they will say something along the lines of cleaner climate, more immigrants, and more womens' rights. Nothing in there about things that benefit men. I think you are guys are just finding reasons for men to opt out.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 11:48 PM
1

If that is the case, then in 50 years you guys should have your utopia. Although I doubt the world will be in a better place by then. Not trying to have an agenda, but just being realistic. Even if you guys get your master humans, you are going to have deal with overpopulation and climate change.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 11:38 PM
3

You are putting ex-cons and current cons above incels? I think I can see why these guys opt out.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 11:32 PM
1

I know a lot of blue pillers would think that is rude to say "he's not yours, it's only your turn". Maybe not you specifically. If you don't believe me, go and post that same idea on FDS, and you will probably get insta-banned.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 11:11 PM
1

Money is a social construct, but when society wants to elevate women above men in their careers because of feminism, and women will only date above their economic status, then you will run into problems. Yes it is true that most people date within their status level, but men are proven to be more flexible in that arena. And women tend to always aim above. Imagine you are trying to form a sports team based on players in the same level. But one group of players demands to be in the top spots, and …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 11:06 PM
1

Frame it the other way around and see if it still sounds good to you. "He's not yours, it's just your turn". If you can honestly say that you think that is good advice still, then I'll believe you think that is a legit good argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 10:54 PM
1

hypergamy did not benefit the species as much as it does now when women were more economically dependent upon men. I'm not sure I understand this. When women were more economically dependent on men, there was less hypergamy. Now there is more. My understanding why people want or allow hypergamy (you said in your opinion men need to prove themselves, where you said nothing like the same about women), is to further the advancement of the species. A type of social Darwinism on the species.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 04:26 AM
2

Not saying women make the best of choices, but they don't seem willing to date men they view out of their league. I think we need to balance womens' hypergamy instinct with incentives for men. But I doubt that will happen anytime soon in our culture which favors feminism over men.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 04:08 AM
3

It is both. Incentive isn't only a female problem. In your scenario, does the women still want to date seriously, or just casually? If a woman is at the top of the career ladder and will still only date men above her, I would say that is her fault if she is limiting her options like that. This is how hypergamy can hurt women. They hold out for the best option, but there just isn't enough of the best men to go around.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 04:04 AM
0

Women are good at determing the value of a man. It just doesn't fit the rational ideas that benefit society always. It only fits the rational ideas that man brings to her life- i.e. family, love, happiness, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 03:56 AM
2

Being used wouldn't fit the definition of hypergamy. Because hypergamy would allow a woman to freely select the men she associates with. If you feel like you are being used, then you can choose not to associate with that man.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 03:54 AM
5

Rational or fair? They can mean two completely different things. Probably the most fair way is enforced monogamy. Probably the most rational way if you want the top genetics is to have only the top of both genders.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 03:41 AM
1

There is no incentive if they can get away with it, which they often do. The incentives would lie in more loyalty from men. It would expand your dating market. The leagues aren't strictly defined, but the general 80/20 rule applies. Men on the whole probably agree that hypergamy benefits the human species by furthering better genes, but some men think this could accomplished in other ways, or ways that are not so detrimental to the interests of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 03:28 AM
1

I believe that. But just saying that's not really a merit based system. And people wonder why other people say our economic system isn't merit based. Just pointing out the debate of this thread was about how to further enfranchise men that are disenfranchised, and I was just pointing out that frats don't accomplish that purpose, which you seem to be somewhat in agreement with.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 12:36 AM
1

That may be true. But not all colleges have frats, and not all frats are alike. Some are probably more respectable than others. From: https://www.studentassembly.org/fraternity-initiation-what-it-is-why-its-important-and-why-people-have-a-problem-with-it/ "Of course, sometimes these initiation and hazing rituals done by bad students cross the line, and people get hurt. Many schools and universities around the country have started restricting fraternity activities, and in extreme cases, even shut…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 12:27 AM
1

Here is an interesting article behind a paywall. But it has an interesting theory- that dowries are a result of class inequality, and not patriarchy as you claim. This is what I keep trying to tell you- it's not men, but the class system that forces men and women into this. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/367679?seq=1
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 09:06 PM
1

I wish you guys would stop trying to rewrite history History is whitewashed to make it look like women were oppressed, when men were probably oppressed just as much. Most men throughout history have lived a life of poverty and were forced into things they didn't like. War is one example, which you gloss over by making it seem like all women were forced into marriage. Which the evidence doesn't bear out. European is European We are probably talking about less than 1% of the population of Europe. …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 08:58 PM
1

Fraternities don't exactly promote male cohesion. If anything, it's more a game of one upmanship. Seeing what man can act the coolest, or pull the coolest prank. Also, the courts have proven time and again they have a bias for women. Why would men want to start a club when they know society will tell them to shut it down?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 03:47 AM
1

working a minimum wage job it's not minimum wage if you get welfare
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 02:32 AM
1

your own quotes prove my point. You missed this: "Often the young couple did not have a great deal of say". This includes men. the choice of being a laughed at spinster, or marrying to depend on a man. You missed the choice of working out in the fields or building with the men. Choices weren't great for men either. the Balkans are still European and it also said Europe practiced it until the early modern era, so my point still stand. The balkans are a tiny sliver of europe. And a lot of cultures…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 02:28 AM
1

No, the claim that raising a child is harder than paying child support. Not saying that raising a child doesn't have its challenges, but it is usually more rewarding than working a minimum wage job you don't like.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 02:18 AM
1

not necessarily. where you are getting these claims from?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 02:14 AM
1

The agreement was between the husband and the father. And the daughter. You need to back up these claims by sources. Dowries were uncommon for the most of history. And they hurt men as much as women. Men were forced into these contracts too. https://www.tudorsociety.com/marriage-in-tudor-times-by-sarah-bryson/ "Often the young couple did not have a great deal of say in their future marriage. This was especially so for women who were brought up to respect their fathers, brothers and the other men…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 02:03 AM
1

Also, this points a different picture:https://erlichlegal.com/blog/single-fathers-single-mothers-child-custody-statistics/ It may be true that the court only decides in 10% of cases, but this doesn't exclude pressure from the court (by introducing a mediator or deciding financial decisions ahead of time by locking the father into child support and giving the home to mother)
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 01:45 AM
1

Non-sequitur. Has NOTHING to do with our talks of oppression or affirmative action. It has everything to do with it. You are claiming that men are only the ones participating in discrimination, and they are doing it as a whole group. If women find this so offensive, how come they choose to discriminate against poor men, but not wealthy men. Their fathers weren't selling them to the highest bidder Are you talking about dowries? I don't think those are as common as you think. And from my understan…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 01:29 AM
1

Most high paying jobs are still dominated by men, so what the fuck are you talking about? Most CEOs are men, most rulers are men, most judges are men, and most lawyers are men. Where's the oppression? Yes, most are wealthy men just like I said. Go to another country, and you will see wealthy men running show (and not white men). If women don't like wealthy men that much and think they are doing the oppression, how come women overwhelming try to marry these guys? The Washington Post did a study o…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 01:13 AM
2

That's not the point. The fact that you're implying that affirimative action is "punishing" straight white men is giving you a very terrible image and it sounds like bigotry. If you are saying it isn't punishing anyone, then give the spots to men (whichever race you want). You have this idea that this isn't such a big deal, but I know you would complain if it went to a group that you didn't feel deserved it. Child support is the result of unequal time spent with the child, 90% of family decision…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 12:59 AM
2

I'm telling you, it wasn't men that got a leg up. It was rich people. Men didn't even get to vote until about the 1850's. (and that is white men also, not african american men only). That is only 60 years before women got to vote. Men never had special rights that women only got- if you believe so, can you name rights men got that women didn't?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 12:55 AM
1

Just out of curiosity, are you a white woman? You seem to target most of your arguments against white men. Not trying to make this discussion about race, but we've already gone down that road.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 12:47 AM
1

Such as what? Money? Men still make more. Age? Men taken on more dangerous jobs. Welfare? Women are the main ones taking care of children. That's not a "better metric" children are expensive and time consuming. Women in millenial age group make more than their male counterparts. Women have more of a chance of moving up the career ladder than their male counterparts. I'm not saying children shouldn't get welfare. But then men should too because they have to take care of children too (child suppor…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 12:33 AM
1

I just explained why you can't use that argument. It's like having someone with black hair hurt you and now you hold it against all people with black hair. Is this really what you are arguing for?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 12:26 AM
1

You can be gynocentric and still have some forms of patriarchy. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive. Men are making the argument that women have it better by several metrics, and you come back and say they should deal with it because women had it worse 200 years ago. That's not a good argument- if someone hurt you that had black hair, would you start treating all black haired people with contempt?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 12:12 AM
1

See this where we disagree. You define oppression in a completely different way than I do. And you seem to misunderstand that those above you in class can hurt your chance for upward mobility. All those issues I brought up are relevant to the discussion. And it sounds like you want a system based on merit. Affirmative action is against merit. So I would propose you adopt a more merit based system, rather than one based on gender or race.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 12:09 AM
2

If white men control america, how come there are poor white men? You need to understand class issues from history. It was never white men, but rich white men (or for that matter just rich men in general). You need to understand that distinction. This is why you will never agree with someone from the manosphere.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 12:02 AM
1

How do you define oppression? Do all Americans have health care? Do all have enough money for retirement? Do all work easy and safe jobs? Do all have enough to buy whatever food they want?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 11:57 PM
2

I don't understand what you are saying. You said before that no one is oppressed in your country of America. Then you backtracked and said women and minorities are oppressed and deserve affirmative action. Men don't qualify for affirmative action. So it is easy for someone to take your job if they have a slot that could have gone to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 11:55 PM
1

Spoiled Americans? How do you think they are spoiled? Are you from America?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 11:49 PM
2

I thought you just admitted that affirmative action is necessary. If that isn't oppression, then why can't we give all these spots to men?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 11:46 PM
1

I don't think men complain about the civil rights act. That is old news that happened 60 years ago. But if you want to give preferential treatment to one group over another now, I don't understand how that fixes the problem?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 11:43 PM
2

So your solution to oppression is to turn it around? Why would you have any right to complain about oppression if you want to do the same to others?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 11:40 PM
1

I'll have to admit that is an interesting theory, and there probably is some factual basis to it. Dancing and singing would be an easy way to intimidate a predator or competitor. But hard to know for sure. Chimps (who are supposedly closely related by DNA) are known to do displays that mimic dancing and sounds. And I found this video interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxAjXtJf5AE. You can notice the male chimp seems to first interpret the music as aggressive, and even seems to display …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 04:21 AM
1

Yes, but that was one reason the Nicaraguan regime was condemned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Revolution "The Somoza Regime declared a state of siege, and proceeded to use torture, extra-judicial killings, intimidation and censorship of the press in order to combat the FSLN attacks" Sounds like this could be close to martial law. Also this: https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/diem-coup "After government forces cracked down on Buddhist monks that spring, Ken…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 03:07 AM
1

In Nicaragua and Vietnam. May not be martial law, but the military was trying to impose their version of laws on the civilians. There is nothing fancy about martial law. It is just the same as any war- the military trying to force their will on the people (and is used in scenarios where government is no longer functioning). In your previous post you said the people would bow to the political leaders- I don't see how that is removing political affiliation as you claim?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 02:26 AM
1

The military is very powerful, but even martial law doesn't always work. It does most of the time, and depends what political group they ally themselves with. There is such a thing as guerilla warfare, and martial law doesn't work in those cases because there already isn't a law. Martial law usually only works where the military has support and a system of laws is already in place.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 01:59 AM
1

Mad max is a film, men don't stick around when their leaders don't care for or about them. This has played out in numerous militaries around the world and throughout time. Depends how abundant resources are. If resources are abundant, then men won't stick around. In mad max, all they have left are gas and limited supplies of water and plants. In that case, men will stick around under bad men because there is no other option. Wrong, as demonstrated by the various conflicts, it's extremely rare fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 01:37 AM
1

I think we may be both right to a degree. I will just say that groups can bind together, and split apart based on group dynamics. It's not always fortitude and determined that wins. There is a trade off between bad or selfish motivations and good or group motivations. Probably also depends on your political preferences. Right politics tends to focus more on the individual as opposed to the group. In mad max, it wasn't always only the most determined that won. The men that won were the most deter…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 01:13 AM
1

Numbers only matter, to keep the herd from scattering. Did you watch all the videos (they're only like 4 mins each)? The one with the bison show that they do scatter, and initially have more success in fending off attack. Once the herd scatters, then all bets are off, and that food bank can be picked off one by one. If your numbers are just numbers, then you have no strength. I agree with this- which is why I clarified with the phrase 'initially'. In a post apocalyptic scenario, things would pro…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 12:47 AM
1

Herds have strength initially, but once a predator makes an attack, it's every animal for themselves. But you do admit that there is strength in numbers then? I thought your original premise was that herds don't matter much, and this is the reason predators go after herds. I was trying to propose that predators gauge an attack on several factors. One could be how hungry they are- but they do have an awareness of how dangerous their challenger is. And numbers do matter. Watch these two videos to …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 12:20 AM
2

Seems like you do agree somewhat with what the other person is saying, because you mention that tools are the most important. This is why a 150 lb man can take down a woolly mammoth. But I don't see why women can't invent or use tools too despite their strength disadvantage. Also, I disagree that predators select their prey from herds. They go after animals in herds because animals that are the weakest need herds for protection. Predators are making a calculation based on strength and numbers. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/20 11:39 PM
1

Depends which ancestors. Some tribes probably resorted to being scavengers, but I remember reading one time that neanderthals had injuries on their bones that are similar to modern day rodeo riders. And if I recall it was only the men. That's got to be some brutal hunting if the case. Scavenging is not always optimal. It is safer, but you get rotten left overs. Even lions sometimes scavenge when no other option is available. So probably depends on the circumstances.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/20 11:27 PM
1

This is an acceptable theory. But then you have to understand why some men don't like this approach. They feel like society is still selling them the idea that they have to be the tanks (and men still overwhelmingly fill the tank roles), while women can pursue whatever role they want in favor of feminism. Where do we fix this dichotomy?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/20 11:19 PM
1

You can claim those, but the pareto principle is referring to things that might be related, or correlated. There are stats that easily back up the pareto principle. You can keep blaming all men as if they are the problem, but you won't fix the issue unless you go after the target. Or possibly you don't care if the problem is fixed and want to shift all blame to men. Let me give an example that might explain this in feminist terms. It would be like a feminist complaining to a poor person that has…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/20 11:01 PM
3

Why do you think the red pill tries to social engineer men, but doesn't do the same with women?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/20 02:39 AM
1

I think women tend to be better listeners, but they seem to be worse at solving things or coming up with solutions. Or they divert the responsibility to the men, which are probably still in charge of things.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/20 02:35 AM
1

When you say that you've caught injury from the manosphere, in which way do you mean? Because I would say men have caught injury from the female sphere. I think people have the right to speak freely, but if men are saying mean things on here, I would suggest not taking them seriously half the time. A lot of the men are upset, but they are in the anger phase which will likely pass. I think most women want to ignore these men anyways.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/20 02:33 AM
1

I'm not saying it isn't doable. I'm just saying that "some" people might run into problems in this scenario. I imagine if this is a side hustle, you have a decent income to cover rent and food and other bills. Because I don't think this is a guaranteed income flow from what you've described. Some people lack even the ability to get a credit card. Something like 25% of the population has bad credit. You may say back that isn't your fault, which is true, but it is a limiting factor. On top of this…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 11:31 PM
1

I'm not saying starting a business isn't easy for some people. I'm just saying that it's harder than people think for all people. You don't have to answer if you don't want, but just a few questions out of curiosity. Do you make the masks yourself? Do you have a warehouse to store them, or any employees? What do you expect to do when this pandemic passes? I guess I'm wondering how easy this actually is, and if you have someone that doesn't own a home and is barely making ends meet, how would you…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 05:13 AM
2

But in regards to enslaving men. It might happen in dire circumstances, but most men would resist strongly. Also depends on the country. Most of the countries in the western world have already decided the issue of slavery. Also, would seem a bit hypocritical to have these debates about equality that happen now and then turning around and enslaving men. That would be the exact opposite of equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 07:01 AM
2

I'm just curious though- if there is no rule of law, then what would stop men from forming their own rule of law? I'm not saying this wouldn't be nice for men, but it also wouldn't be nice for all people involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 06:31 AM
0

It can be for a lot of men. There is self improvement and self improvement that women care about. I would say most women don't care about what you've read, or your hobbies for that matter. Most women care about your business success and the way you groom. Starting a business in today's culture is a herculean effort. Try starting one now when half are going under due to covid. Also pre covid, something like half of businesses go under in 3-5 years. Can't remember the exact stat, but starting a bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 06:14 AM
1

I was pointing out that bad boys aren't always abusive or even bad bf's. But some of these people have extremely narcissistic tendencies and are selfish. Women may think that is hot and these men get a pass. In some ways I think some of these men can be worse than incels. And if women don't want any sympathy, then why do feminists always try to label men as the abusers in relationships (even when there is no abuse going on), and as women as the victims?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 05:41 AM
1

There is a figure in military combats. I can't recall the exact figure, but it's casualties/1000 troops, or something like that. Whether they killed the most nazis is irrelevant. At what cost to do that though? Take the battle of Kursk for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk. If you look closely you see about 800,000 (german side) men fighting 2.2 million men (soviet side). The casualties are listed about 164,000 for germany and 800,000 or 900,000 for Russia (the stats are lit…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 05:35 AM
1

But if you are going to say that who ends up being the winner or what ends up being the determining factor in this genetic game of selection is irrelevant, then can't one conclude that which gender is the selector is also irrelevant. We can have men be selectors, or women be selectors. The question your are ignoring is why does society allow women to be the selectors? You partially answer this later by assuming that women offer more value to society by simply existing. But is this really true? E…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 05:15 AM
2

That happened during a time when Russia didn't have a constitution. You would have to throw out the whole rule of law to do this. Not saying it wouldn't happen, but if you are going to throw all laws off the table, I think your society has more problems than a labor shortage.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 04:54 AM
1

I think you assume too easily that men would fight. Also, I'll point out that most wars are not won by who can fight the best, but who has the best economic advantages. A lot of countries just don't have the same economic advantages. And if you take a man that is economically disadvantaged and put him in a war, it may not go as well. Just to give perspective, men in Russia during the world war died at 2-4 times the normal as other western countries. Probably because they weren't as prepared and …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 04:38 AM
1

purposes of self fulfilment? That sounds like capitalism to me. Also we are practically already moneyless at this point. Why else would there be all this money printing going on? And it's not even being distributed equitably, just going to the most politically advantaged groups. Also communism is not stateless. It usually has more state like laws than capitalism.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 04:24 AM
1

Just saying we will probably need major economic changes if this is going to be pushed on people. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better if we just lived in the horse and buggy days. I don't think technology is going to match well with a lot of people. Kind of like introducing a car to a horse. A horse wouldn't know what to do with it or care what to do with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 04:08 AM
1

Okay that makes more sense. I thought you might be equating capability and intelligence with awareness. I'm not arguing that better and more capable machines won't exist, I guess I'm just curious what people would define as the threshold for true AI. But I guess my main point was that if we are going off situational awareness only, those machines already exist. There are already machines that know their place in 3D and can make the next move, or predict the move which will have the best outcome.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 04:03 AM
1

But the point I'm trying to make is that "awareness" is abstract. The best you can do is try to make a robot "think" it is aware. How do you make a bunch of electrons moving over metal know they are aware. The best that can happen is pretending or faking awareness. This is why I think there is a possibility that "true" AI doesn't exist. It's not only a philosophical question, but could be a reality to. How do you know that HAL in space odyssey really recognized himself, or was just pretending?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 03:48 AM
2

Think in which way? Thinking is an abstract concept. It could mean being able to follow a set of tasks (which is what computers can already do with algorithms), or it could mean being able to create. But create what? Is imitation creating? There are programs that can create music, but it is just following a program that humans told for how to piece together music and beats. Then there is the concept of AI that is being followed by networks, that try to pin future outcomes based on current trends…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 03:39 AM
1

Not sure what you mean by true AI? It could be argued that humans aren't true AI. From what I've read, AI is more sophisticated than people think it is now, it just hasn't hit the market yet. And people don't want it to hit the market, because it might cause societal unrest. Yes, I agree people don't know how it will play out, but if now is any indication, I don't think it will go over that well.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 03:17 AM
2

It's not exponential, just unbalanced. It's the Pareto principle in action- "That for many outcomes roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of the causes (the “vital few”) " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle Put another way, all men and women aren't causing the outcomes you pin on them. But a "vital few".
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 03:06 AM
1

Actually it's not so laughable. These things are already filling the gap. If you took those away now, you would see society collapse real soon. Now granted, you still need men to do certain jobs, so the gap can never be filled. I don't know if you realize this, but the food from farms is grown with just 2% of the labor force. That used to be 50% a hundred years ago. Are you saying a 48% reduction in labor force isn't filling the gap in some way (and that is the whole percent, not the actual perc…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 02:52 AM
0

Men already seem to think there is differences in the genders- so don't know how much education will do to help them. Most of the men that go along with the equality thing do it because it's the trendy thing now, and will be for a while. I don't see why you don't give the women a chance to prove themselves. Treat them exactly how you would other men- maybe with the exception of your wives. It might mess things up, but maybe you will be pleasantly surprised- at the very least women will realize t…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 02:39 AM
4

This is an example IMO of how the trads and feminists will never see each other's point of view. The trads want to protect women, even the adamant feminists, but the feminists come back and say they don't want your help. This is why I think trads should embrace feminism and just start treating men and women equal. We either need to shame women into traditional genders roles (which most trads won't do because they like women more than men), or go full equality and treat every man with the same re…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 02:18 AM
5

No it doesn't balance out if you believe in 80/20. That's the whole unbalanced sitation that creates this scenario.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 02:15 AM
3

Because you are making it sound like every man signed up for this deal. You forget with gender dynamics that the opinions of the alpha males matter a whole heap more.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 02:14 AM
6

All of those ideas are outlawed by the constitution. I don't think anything will happen to be honest. I think countries will continue to go into debts until a recession happens, and then things might start swinging the other direction- like higher wages, more sympathy towards mens' goals, etc. If the government does try to force anything, you might see pockets of resistance here and there, but not sure how much.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 01:49 AM
1

I'm sorry, I will have to disagree with most of this premise. You could make the same argument that abuse isn't hot. And if you are saying that abuse is being learned to be conditioned, what do you expect other people to do about it? I think that's not a good mindset. If you expect other people to be sympathetic or get help for something like that, you need to fix the cause first.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/20 12:12 AM
1

I'm not really saying they are bad humans. Regarding your last paragraph, I don't think anyone is conditioning people to think pain=love. I can see how women might fall into traps like that, and people can fall into traps all the time. But you said more along the lines that these women were seeking these types for a thrill. I'm just saying I'm not sure I sympathize as much in those circumstances. Let me rephrase that a bit- I sympathize with all people that feel pain regardless if they might hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/20 12:26 AM
1

You want a system that isn't based off caring about what people think, but don't like capitalism? Can't tell what you are proposing. Because Peterson tells people to pick up their bootstraps just like you. Regardings drug dependency, you need to research benzos, because they happen to have severe reactions even if used appropriately. Just like alcohol. Don't know if you are aware, but drugs like that can cause more problems than cocaine, which isn't known to cause physical addictions.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/20 12:20 AM
1

So the capitalism is wonderful argument? And yet you criticize Peterson for doing the same. Sounds a bit hypocritical. I don't think you know enough about the situation. Do you have friends that are drug addicts?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 07:46 AM
1

I'm confused. I thought your original claim was it would be impossible for women to be more globalism oriented because there is nothing to the argument of women being more risk averse or anxious. But now you claim that could be a possibility? Regardless, that wasn't what my argument hinged on anyways. I did say that things were this way because of characteristics of the respective sexes, but I also believe circumstances are somewhat the way they are because of those characteristics. It's all int…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 03:17 AM
1

A few things I would disagree with though. Nationalism doesn't equal jingoism always. Nationalism to me means a sense of identity to one's nation that precedes one's identity to other global countries. And I would disagree that globalism was the start of both the wars. Nationalism was by far the driving force for the wars because nations were seeking to expand and find ways to gain power over neighboring countries. This might seem like it doesn't have a distinction from globalism, but the distin…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/20 10:38 PM
2

I agree that there have been nationalistic tendencies that have been motivated by the support of women. For example, I've read that during the French Revolution, it was actually the women that stormed the palace of Marie Antoinette, and encouraged the men to do likewise to the Bastille. But I believe these tendencies more so manifest when women are dependent on men to a degree. Not saying women can't be independent, but when certain regimes or political systems are vastly controlled by men via t…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/20 04:42 AM
1

Nope, sorry, that's inaccurate. He got a drug dependence, and was prescribed under a doctor. If you throw out that accusation, then you are saying doctors are drug dealers. Do you support capitalism? Because I hear a lot of men criticizing people like Peterson, but then offering no solutions. Same with the people on the left. What's your solution for the angst of white men, or men in general?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/20 04:07 AM
1

You do seem to be more sympathetic to womens' issues, so I would suspect you might be a woman. But there are a lot of men on here that are very sympathetic to womens' issues. I'm familiar with slavic cultures. They do seem to more gender role oriented as opposed to the west. I also do know that drinking is a huge issue there and I think women tend to resent it. But they probably find their men just as masculine or more than western cultures. I mean if everyone in western cultures is gender neutr…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 04:12 AM
1

Guess just don't marry a woman that asks so much for a ring? I don't think you've met American women. Almost every one demands a ring. I'm kind of curious- there seems to be a lot of European people on this sub reddit. Do you think Europeans take gender relationships seriously there? Would Southeastern Europe be around Turkey or Greece? or you mean more like Bulgaria, Ukraine, or Georgia? You don't need to say what country you are from, just curious the general area. When someone says southeaste…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 02:17 AM
1

But a lot of men feel like divorce is sometimes used to the point where the man is treated like a commodity (like a wallet so to speak), or what about spending tens of thousands of dollars for a ring? I think such agencies don't exist in the states, either for legal reasons or political pressure. Most that I'm aware of exist in Eastern Europe.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 01:21 AM
3

I think men in MGTOW view it differently. But I have seen a common theme on posts from their sub reddit that poke fun at all the privileges that women enjoy that men can't. Think quota hires, violence at each other (like it's okay to hit a man, but not a woman), and privileges with divorce. I think what they are saying is they believe society allows more compassion for women due to a victim mentality- so it gives women a pass so to speak. But if men raise any victim issues, they feel like their …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 01:01 AM
2

Well yes, it is veering off topic a bit. But I do still think it is somewhat relevant to the discussion, which is where is the best place to live according to men and women. In my opinion, women in the majority tend to like global countries, where as men like national countries.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 12:56 AM
2

I see what you are saying, but the way I view this is that the age of empires has ended. I guess you still have countries vying for power by using satellite states, which is a form of empire. But it's more of a soft power. Vying for power using political means and propaganda through media outlets. Globalism is really about which countries can get the best deals. But I will point out that I don't think globalism ends well especially with unbalanced trade, which often occurs because of unbalanced …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 12:31 AM
1

Don't have a problem with that really. I think people should be accepting of other peoples' differences. Where I think we run into problems is if we are aligning ourselves with people from different countries that have a different view on how things should be run, or things that might affect our culture and long term well being. Like let me give an example. What if the government allowed agencies where men can meet foreign ladies to their liking, and offer money for the chance to marry them? You…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 12:20 AM
6

This is a blue pill perspective that is lacking. Many men don't have any options, or lack the option to choose better. Not faulting women for that, but men can't be faulted for making a choice to pick nothing at all, especially when that is practically what seems available. Most blue pill that can't see the perspective of men are this way because they've been treated better in relationships and by society.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 11:54 PM
4

I don't agree with victim mentality also, just because often times it is unproductive. But MGTOW men are right when they see that feminism gets away with victim mentality, but men aren't allowed to go down that route.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 11:46 PM
8

Feminism is unwilling to change the paradigm too. Any changes that have happened with feminism have already happened for the most part. If anything, gender relations have deteriorated as a result and will likely become worse before they get better. I don't like Jordan Peterson that much either (like I wouldn't pay to see his lecture, but find him fascinating as a person), but there are a few things I love about him. I think he genuinely cares about the plight of young men and is trying to offer …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 11:42 PM
3

Women in Russia would probably like western men just as much as their own men. I've noticed women don't care what culture a man comes from as long as they are good providers. Western women would probably marry a Russian man as long as they were good providers. To your comment about Russia-US relations, that is more due to the aftermath of the cold war, and the whole communism debate. They continue to deteriorate due to differences in feelings about globalism vs nationalism. That is what is reall…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 11:18 PM
2

Those issues are most likely more closely related socioeconomic reasons, and have little to do with Patriarchy. If patriarchy is not successful, how come there are examples that prove otherwise? Also, if you claim that men are not oppressed, would you admit that women aren't also?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 10:42 PM
1

Are you speaking of Princess Bride? I thought in that movie Buttercup finds out that the man she is against is actually the man she actually loved? And I assumed she was more portrayed as a damsel in distress rather than a bad partner. But I agree there are stories or real life scenarios where the man goes after an lady that has no interest and gets burned in the end. It seems that better looking people in general are able to get away with more, and can more easily be not nice. I would just argu…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 09:42 PM
1

I don't know that I agree that bad boys are victims of circumstance. Some are I would agree, but then you see the best people sometimes being victims of bad circumstances. Like a trial by fire. Another reason I think this misses the mark, is because if women really felt empathic about men acting selfish or bad, why don't they pursue the typical incel? Those guys act like spoiled men according to a lot of women. They might be the victim of circumstance you speak of. I do sympathize with women tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 05:27 AM
2

You might be misinterpreting what men mean by a "bad boy". It doesn't mean that these men don't treat the women they want right. Also, they aren't only speaking about "calling names". That is more what a guy would do in high school. They are talking about men that are manipulative, abusive, or cheat, and the women still go back to them. Women are free to go to whatever men they like, but men can see through these men. They may be nice to you, but aren't that nice to others often times.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 05:16 AM
1

Westley pursued Buttercup against odds, but that was more of a comedy romance. Maybe your point is that men shouldn't pursue women unless they show a bit of interest, otherwise they deserve their fate. But that is I think a problem with gender relations. Women want to be pursued. I think I recall a women mentioning on here that she won't even consider finding another man attractive (even if he is attractive) unless he first shows interest in her and an effort to pursue. Even in your last paragra…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 04:54 AM
0

I think some guys (especially incels) feel if they cut off every girl like that where they showed friendship, they probably won't have any relationship prospects left.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 04:41 AM
2

Saying women over 30 are worthless is not nice in my opinion. But saying that relationships are transactional? I guess I don't see how saying that means you are a mean person. It just might be someone's experience, and they feel like they are pointing out the obvious. Isn't there a give and take to every relationship?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 04:31 AM
1

Red pill complains a lot, but that doesn't mean they aren't nice. Feminists complain a lot too, that doesn't mean there aren't nice feminists. Nice to me is someone that has reasonable expectations for another person, and is willing to look beyond the view of their own selfish interests. Just because guys are saying some of that doesn't mean that they don't show empathy. Look at your first example of "don't marry". Maybe these men had a bad experience with their first marriage, and want to warn …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 04:21 AM
1

Not sure what you mean by environment? Men and women are raised in similar environments. If you are saying it is the way women are treated, then doesn't that come down to biology to a degree? Also, I don't think the article disproved his claim. It just says women "show" empathy better. That aligns with his main point. Virtue signaling is when you go out of your way to show you are empathetic, but don't do anything beyond that.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 04:10 AM
2

But then neither side can prove a point. Social sciences are not a precise science, and even if they were, they are highly motivated by political correctness. What other approach would you recommend for a consensus on truth?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 03:58 AM
2

Idealization is the only thing to go off when presented with data that doesn't comport to reality. Let me give you an example: see if you can prove to me whether or not people like to date attractive people. There is no reality to prove this one way or they other. You may say you see attractive people dating not so attractive people. But that doesn't mean that give the "option", they would have picked a more attractive mate. This is why idealization is often needed. And social sciences are not p…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 03:53 AM
1

I think when most men speak of bad boys, they aren't talking only about ex-cons or drug dealers. In fact, I think some people (including men) can ironically feel safer around an ex-con or drug dealer. Like think Jesse from Breaking Bad. This is not your stereotypical jerk. When men think of bad boys that make them upset, they are also speaking of men that cheat and get away with it, men that make a ton of money and have little sympathy for the poor and have a flock of women lining up to date the…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 03:41 AM
1

CEO's are often not looked as cool. Maybe charismatic and liked among people that like power. Bikers are looked at as cool among the majority plebians.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 03:31 AM
1

People that navigate the top know how to please their employees directly below them (But this is like 5% of the people they deal with). But they are also known for making a lot of other people upset. Why do you think there are so many white crime scandals and their is such an antagonistic view against the elite nowadays?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 03:29 AM
1

I think you do have a point about standards being relaxed (especially from times before), but I think it might be men and women together that are enforcing those standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 08:40 PM
1

You said in your original comment "should be able to support himself". I assumed that to mean employed.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 04:00 AM
1

What I'm trying to say is that the percent of men that are in these relaxed expectation are most likely a small minority. According this https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/, 69% of respondents are partnered. Since the unemployment rate for men is about 15% for various reasons, this would put at most the % of men dating women while unemployed at about 10%. Not sure what that number would be like if you included men that skip parenting. But I would still argue…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 03:53 AM
1

Like hookup culture? I don't think it is happening as much as people say: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201811/7-reasons-why-young-people-are-having-less-sex. The men that are participating are men at the top.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 03:26 AM
0

I think you are referring to frat culture and 80/20. A lot of men are not participants in that. Refer to the study that mentions around 30% of men haven't had sex in a year. Also, how do we not know the younger women are having sex with older men? I think you might be extrapolating experiences from some men and claiming every man is invited to be the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 02:56 AM
1

Those relaxed standards only apply to a certain subset of men though. The men that are attractive enough that women would abandon any idea of having a provider. The men without jobs that are again attractive enough that a woman doesn't care. I think the dynamics at play are a bit more nuanced.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/20 10:28 PM
1

Hypergamy was a model back then. But enforced monogamy made it harder to branch swing. Once you picked someone, you were stuck with them for a while. I support more egalitarian societies, but we've never really had them before.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/20 10:10 PM
1

I've been red pill for at least 10 years, but not red pill on women until 8 years ago. I think red pill picked up around 2014 if I remember correctly. But if history is any guide, usually resentment ends up with change. I don't know that anyone has to accept their fate.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 11:47 PM
2

The manosphere includes men from MRA, traditionalists, and MGTOW. These men don't want to accept your terms for who is a winner or loser. Society has backwards priorities half the time anyways. Who is it to say who is the winner or loser? If you think money is proving a winner, then you are playing the same game as red pill (like 80/20) and giving them an excuse to act the way they do, by being as alpha as possible, even if it fools people.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 08:52 PM
2

I don't think it was out of choice though
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 06:59 PM
1

That's fine and all for people to believe, but it will create a lot resentment in people in the long run.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 06:58 PM
1

So your argument is that female and male hypergamy are both the mark of excellence?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 03:40 PM
1

The question to ask is, why would men want to work in coal mines?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 01:59 AM
1

Serial monogamy and hypergamy are not the same. One almost every women practices, but the other not every man practices.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 01:29 AM
5

Dating websites favor women by a huge margin. If women want to fix this, I think men need other venues to meet women. Dating websites can outnumber women to men by 2:1. Combine this with womens' natural hypergamy, it's game over for most men. Men have two options: act callously aloft which doesn't get them anywhere, or act desperate which has the same result.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 12:00 AM
2

That's confirmation of 80/20. Quality guys know they have options, so they don't even need to lift a finger. Low qualilty (or the majority 80) are as thirsty as a camel in the desert.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 11:50 PM
6

The more women out value themselves, the deeper this problem will become though. I don't think it is all womens' fault. Our society is obsessed with status and one upping people. A lot of men don't want to play that game. They will probably just go MGTOW and try to live a minimalist lifestyle.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 11:32 PM
1

That's interesting. I'm American, but do have ancestry, or roots to that part of Europe.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 03:35 AM
1

You sound like you might be from Germany, or maybe Scandinavia (romaskinen sounds germanic or nordish to me). Maybe you know more about this than I do. Doesn't your argument hinge on "cultural marxism" and "cultural bolshevism" being the same thing though? Because bolshevik comes from the Russian language. Also, the whole idea of the "fake" cultural marxism being propagated by the right was the idea of the 1960's counterculture. I understood this to mean something like the hippie movement. This …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 02:49 AM
1

I guess my opinion on this issue, and we can disagree, is that where the term "cultural marxism" originated from is irrelevant, since it didn't become popularized until the 90's. It may have originated in Germany after the war, but it was certainly not popularized. I do believe there are anti-nationalist sentiments from the left though. Some leftists when you talk to them would love a borderless world. I would too, but I don't think people can set aside their politics to achieve that. The US is …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 02:05 AM
1

Didn't know that. I'm a bit of a marxist myself (or socialist), but don't really like communism. Was researching a bit cause didn't know the origin of the word. According to wikipedia, you are half right. Sounds like the term picked up in the 90', but another guy claims the origin of movement started with the term cultural bolshevism. I would say they sound a bit different though, because bolshevism had much different motives than marxism.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 12:50 AM
0

Testosterone is proven to increase stamina and ability to stay focused. Not saying that doesn't mean women can't work hard. But how many women have you known that work coal mines, as an example?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 12:44 AM
3

Not a specific person, I was kind of exagerrating a bit. But that is a general rote reply I seem to hear from blue pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 12:34 AM
1

Not sure what you mean? They coexist is what I meant. Not only that, but being a tough guy (offering protection), being masculine, working hard, looking gruff. That stuff is sexual dimorphism. Just find it odd that most blue pillers want to get rid of gender roles completely, but force them on men in the most strict way.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 12:33 AM
2

Being a denialist doesn't absolve someone from proof though.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 12:17 AM
5

Because you pin them down, and they say stuff like "I don't know, just be yourself. It's not that hard. Everyone can do it."
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 12:16 AM
1

Just cultural marxism, and not real marxism? I don't think Marx ever intended for you guys to co-opt his movement.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 12:14 AM
4

"you guys" is referring to blue pill people. Don't know if you are actually blue pill, just assumed. Criticizing is fair. I criticize a lot. But if you complain about a problem, wouldn't you want to offer solutions to fix it?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 12:08 AM
6

You've pointed out what you are against, but not what you are for though. This is the problem a lot of men have with the blue pill. We throw out ideas to fix the problem or take initiative ourselves, and some of you guys just sit back and criticize. Not saying that is you, but I've seen it happen a lot.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 11:55 PM
1

If we are going to accept free will and get rid of rigidity, then we need to get rid of the expectations of male roles. Because by the types of men women date- it is very clear that women are putting pressure on male gender roles.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 11:50 PM
7

I think the opposite will happen. Red pill will force dating options to dry out because women eventually catch on. But people will just double down. Women will do 80/20 more strictly. Men will up their game. I don't think red pill is going away any time soon.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 11:46 PM
2

But all those solutions are just more things women want. This is why I don't think there is a solution to this problem. Because all these decisions hinge on making women happy. And that just alienates more men in the process. Immigration is probably the only way out of this.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 11:42 PM
1

I'm not complaining about that. That is understandable and expected as part of esteem. But society has both men and women. I'm more speaking in terms of attracting the opposite sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 10:34 PM
1

Well, according to most science types, a flower is a living, breathing thing just like a human. But follow up your definition with the definition of "object": 'a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed'. Women don't want to be treated as sex or housewife "objects". In other words, they don't want men desiring them only sexually because they have other good qualities to offer. Taking care of appearances isn't objectifying. Because taking care of appearances is related t…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 10:25 PM
2

The comment wasn't only about cheating. She said "no amount of great sex, great personality, great food, great looks, or anything else will keep a man faithful". Do you see why this sounds a bit hypocritical. Women says: "Treat women with respect. We aren't only available for sex or being your maid or cook". Okay, makes sense. But then says: "no matter how much effort we put in to please these men, they cheat anyways". This is 80/20 in action. These women are willing to objectify themselves for …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 08:43 PM
1

I see what you are saying. I don't have a problem with RP trying to appeal to every guy out there. I think men need more direction than they currently get. But I probably have a slight disagreement that these expectations won't last forever. Maybe not forever, but quite a long time. Women seem to be happy being single and not worrying about settling. At least that's what all the women say on social media. Plus feminism has been growing strong for at least the last 100 years. It does seem to bein…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 07:32 PM
-1

Because it is appealing to your beauty. If you admired some flowers for their beauty, aren't you objectifying them in some way?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 07:26 PM
1

But most women won't let you interact with them, unless you do simp in some way. I'm for whatever makes people more empowered though, and can see the red pill helps with that. I'm red pill myself, but more of the mgtow or mra persuasion.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 07:20 PM
2

Red pill assumes every man can be the alpha. What will happen though if every man strives to be better, is the notch of date-ability will just move up. Another thing red pill gets wrong is they are asking men to go run a marathon, while women don't get questioned at all and get to continue to walk at a leisurely pace. The last thing I think red pill gets wrong is trying to plate, but then being very sensitive about n counts.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 07:17 PM
2

Actually I think that might be the best solution. It's better to be internally focused than be a continual simp for women. The only other solution is to give more advantages to men in our society, but I don't think that will be happening anytime soon.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 07:09 PM
1

Because it's hinting about being upset being treated like an object, but then admitting to acting like one anyways.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 06:56 PM
3

But she admits to giving into those pressures. I don't think men mind women complaining about cheating. But FDS women seem to to get upset they are treated like objects, but admit to playing everything in their favor to act like an object.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 06:47 PM
1

Here is a pretty accurate list of when women got property rights:https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/11/women-rights-money-timeline-history . After reading this, my understanding is that men had more rights (especially as marriage is concerned), but women were not neglected from owning property. You have to understand that before a lot of these time frames, everyone was serfs. So it didn't matter much if women could have owned property. Who would have defended it? People wer…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 05:03 AM
1

Studied literature or feminism? But you can't present sources. I never said they were physically related, but Collins is the patroness of de Bourgh and lives on her estate (and owns property on her estate, which is probably taxed). The book doesn't mention who owns the Longbourn property (it could have been owned by the de Bourgh family, or even a cousin or uncle before Mr Bennett got ahold of it). Just that it was entailed to Mr Bennett, then to the next male heir in the family. There is no law…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 04:35 AM
1

I did the research. I'm giving you the opportunity to do more research and prove me wrong. I'm not asking you be my research machine. I honestly think you don't want to argue in good faith. Have a good day
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 11:35 PM
1

Read it again carefully. It does not specify who the landowner was. It just says Mr. Collins was next in line on the entail. You are assuming that all estates were owned by males, and passed only to males. This is a false picture of history. Mrs. de Bourgh could have been the landowner. It doesn't specify in the book. If it does, then prove me wrong. The book already says that Mrs. de Bourgh owned Rosings, so I've already proved you wrong that women could own estates.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 11:20 PM
1

Prove me wrong. I think you're just imaging what the laws were back then based on your feelings that everything was controlled by a patriarchy. Here is a detailed analysis that backs me up more: https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/9132/why-dont-mr-bennets-daughters-get-to-inherit-the-longbourn-estate TL;DR: The Longbourn estate is ‘entailed’ to male heirs only, whereas Rosings is not. "Austen sets out the financial situation of the Bennets in detail: 'Mr. Bennet’s property consisted a…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 11:12 PM
1

I don't think that is accurate. Servants were usually employed by the estate. And a woman had a right to employ a servant just as much as a man. I will admit that David Copperfield wasn't the average man's life, if you admit that Elizabeth isn't the average woman's life. Also, Mr. Bennet didn't have a male heir. The estate as far as I remember was owned by Lady Catherine De Bourgh, and was to be inherited through Mr Collins. If you think my representation is inaccurate, how do you think the aver…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 09:36 PM
1

I'm not saying manipulation is good. But I just think a lot of people engage in it to some degree, some more harmful than others. I'm sorry that happened to you with your last relationship. I wouldn't be surprised that most people have at least one manipulative relationship in their life. I'm not saying to forget about or get over it. It might take a while to heal from it. I'm just saying if you want to combat red pill, I think the best strategy is to learn their tactics and avoid them. It's kin…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 06:41 AM
1

I'm saying don't have sex with those types of men if a relationship is your goal. It's another story if you just want a fling. Yes, they are trying to manipulate you. I wouldn't call it toxic. That's too strong a word. I would call it manipulation plain and simple. But again, I know you're going to say this is whataboutism- but women manipulate men too. The point I'm trying to make, is that you can't expect other men to police these mens' behaviour. You have to grow the confidence to stand up fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 05:44 AM
1

I don't follow red pill that much. I consider myself red pill, but more of the MRA type. But that example you gave doesn't sound that toxic to me. I think it's just how men/women view things differently. I don't think all men are out to get women, and not all women are out to get men, or hurt them so to speak. Like that example with the friendships. You have to look at this from a male perspective. Some men don't like platonic friendships with women- not because they don't like being around them…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 05:20 AM
1

I would say that pressure comes more from women though- to be a provider and leader. You are speaking of men as a whole though. Not every man in red pill is the same. There are some that want trad wives. Some want plates. Others want the easy lifestyle and just go MGTOW. That's why it seems hypocritical. The most hypocritical thing I've seen in red pill is wanting plates, but then only seriously dating low-n count women. That I think is the most harmful philosophy of red pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 05:05 AM
1

If the porn industry is going to be legal, I would prefer women make their own content. The porn industry by itself is very exploitative. But you are trying to make a point that men only don't care. I think a lot of women don't care that much either. See, this is why whataboutism is important. I'm trying to make a point that you can't put the blame only on men for this. This is kind of beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think the porn industry needs major limits than what is allowed now.…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 04:47 AM
1

But if you don't want to be a housewife, some men don't want to work 40 years in a low paying job to support a system or society that doesn't value them. It's the same reason probably why you don't want to be a housewife. You feel like you aren't valued.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 04:39 AM
1

Every decision has consequences. It may not hurt people directly, but probably does indirectly. If a woman is selling photos on the internet- she is hurting her chances for forming a relationship. You may say no, but would you date a man that sold photos? Also, why is it fair that someone that worked hard for a degree for years and only gets paid 50,000 per year, while a woman is getting paid 300,000 for just taking a photo? This kind of activity isn't probably harmful as others, but it distorts…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 04:30 AM
1

No, I don't mind the whataboutism. I'll just say in return that there are women than treat men like sexual objects. But it happens in a much smaller minority, similar to how male gold diggers exist. The problem is you can't make an argument and claim victory without letting the opposing side make their rebuttal. If you argument is that women should be able to whatever they want in society and not get called out for it, then you should expect the same for men. Whataboutism just means equality to …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 04:19 AM
1

Also, I'll point out that those that date whoever they want with no restrictions, are already making a moral judgement like you claim, and saying that morals don't matter. Should a woman be able to cheat in a marriage with no consequences? Should a woman be able to have 10 different kids from 10 different men? Should a woman be given special treatment for jobs because she looks better (which happens by the way). You say we have no right to question other people's morals. But then shouldn't women…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 03:47 AM
1

Yes, women are treated as objects which is wrong. But there are women that are gold diggers. Most red pills guys are just warning other guys or telling the reality of the situation. This is the same situation as the 80/20. You say let women do what they want. But shouldn't men be able to say what they want then? The huge majority of men aren't calling for discriminating against women. They just want the same level playing field. For example, if women want to sleep whoever they want with, then me…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 03:39 AM
1

You're playing the same game you are complaining about. You say you can't voice your concerns or have a voice for that matter because you might speak over someone. That is the whole point of free speech. You say that men can't use whataboutism because it's a form of silencing- the same silencing you complain about. What you are doing is putting issues on a pedestal for what are important to you, and say other issues can't be discussed. But not everyone agrees with what you think is important. No…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 02:35 AM
1

There are a lot of mens' issues with social media, but not the main media companies. Can you point to an article or give an example? What's wrong with using whataboutism? It holds people to the same standards for everyone. That is the definition of equality, unless feminists secretly don't want equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 01:40 AM
1

At least women had a chance to use their beauty to marry up. Men were out on their a**** too. The link I just showed you mentioned property was only passed on in 15% of cases, and was usually divided equally. Read David Copperfield for an example for how life was for most men. You can't say that men only owned the servants and women only managed them. It was a mutual enterprise and were owned by both. When the man died and there was no one to pass the property onto, the women got the property an…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 01:27 AM
1

Also, I'll just point out that only "propertied" males got to vote first. That was only 25% of men or less during the formation of the country. And elite women got the benefit of voting, because they were married to these elite men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 12:41 AM
1

Yes, it is elite people. Because I can pull up an article that I referenced a while ago that showed something like 90% of the land was owned by the top 10% of people in Great Britain during the 1900's. Yes, land was passed through men, but women got access to allowances, and practically owned all the servants. There has always been an upper middle class throughout history. Possibly not a middle class as you claim. But that is because people didn't have rights or constitutions for most of history…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 12:21 AM
0

The system was not set up for men. That is where we disagree. It was set up for an elite cadre of people at the top. I've mentioned this several times to feminists- did you know that women only got the vote about 40-50 years after men? But feminists like to conveniently gloss over that fact and make it seem like men were running the show all along. Even with your example with Greece- I'm pretty sure your commoner artisans and workmen weren't having sex with boys. Again, you're painting something…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/20 11:42 PM
0

I don't read or follow any of that rhetoric. But just look at the regular media. They publish articles regulary about womens' issues, but pretty rarely about mens' issues. The feminist movement wants to enfranchise women more and disenfranchise men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/20 07:13 PM
5

Scholarly feminists are saying there is a wage gap, and blaming it on men as a whole, as if every man is a wealthy capitalist. A lot of men are cogs in the machine just like women. They are also saying that violence against women is more dangerous, when studies I read say that men are more likely to experience violence from other men. Also, scholarly feminists are trying to blame all of societies ills on white men, with racism and such. I consider a lot of this gaslighting, and all it does is fu…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/20 06:49 PM
1

The only men that have this strategy are the alphas or betas that improve their options as their career advances. Men are just responding to the female dual mating strategy in my opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 11:26 PM
1

Maximum age is reflected from genetics. Average age is reflectled from medicine and technology. I would say having a shorter average age does affect dating/marriage. Most people want to try for a family some day. It starts the race earlier so to speak.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 11:25 PM
7

It's not that biology has changed. But there are less pressures to grow up and medicine and technology makes it so people can look younger longer.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 11:22 PM
4

The dating and relationship market is skewed. I believe more people are having fewer or less desirable options presented as they get older. Instead of trying harder, most actually put in less effort. This a feedback cycle that can make things worse over time. Plus don't think pandemic is helping at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 11:20 PM
2

All the things you mentioned come down to benevolent sexism, which the other poster alluded to. These things are probably not going to change and come down to biology. But if you want them to change, that is the way to do it. Women act entitled because men allow it. If you either take away the entitlement or make men more entitled, it will change womens' behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 10:42 PM
1

I'm not sure. I still don't like the idea. I don't think men will care if only a small minority of women do this. But if a lot start doing it (say 20%), men will start noticing. And I don't think they will like it. Do you want to donate money to charities that support this? Because I think that's the best way to start this if you like the idea. That's just my analysis.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 02:10 AM
1

https://www.seattlespermbank.com/who-pays-for-infertility-treatment/. Read this carefully. It says about 15 states absolutely do. And there is vagueness on purpose. All health plans aren't private. I think you need to read up on this a bit more, because I don't think you are painting an accurate picture. And if the plan is private, some other guy at the same company is helping pay for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 02:01 AM
1

Where's your source on that? IVF and sperm donation can be the same
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 01:37 AM
1

Except in some cases, and possibly the majority. Because states that allow this are likely to be states with large populations, which could be the majority of the population. Why don't they just publish which states allow or don't allow it? What does "many" mean? Is it 3, or 50?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 01:31 AM
1

You missed this: A few states have laws that say health insurance companies must cover some or all of the costs of infertility treatment if you meet certain requirements
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 01:22 AM
1

That's not true: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/fertility-treatments/what-iui. Men are not going to trust you guys on this. You are going to say it's no big deal, or this won't happen. But it will. Sorry, you haven't sold me.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 01:17 AM
1

Proof of income is not enough. I would say they would need at least a sizable amount in savings. Say something like $100,000. If the state is going to pay for this, why doesn't the state also offer artificial wombs? The technology is almost available. Not to mention, there are genetic problems that can arise from sperm donors. I would say if it happened, they need to limit each man to 10 children. No joke- i've read articles that show how a man has fathered 200+ children. That is likely to cause…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 01:08 AM
1

Most men wouldn't object to that I think. But that is not how it will happen. You are already eligible for welfare no matter how the child was fathered. Men complain about the issues you mention because they want them to change. If they don't change, they want to leave the plantation and go MGTOW. They don't want to be on the hook for some other man's children.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 12:57 AM
1

I think you are doing what blue people do a lot. You only imagine how an alpha would look at this and extrapolate that to all men. Not all men think alike. Your proposal doesn't sound any different than polygamy. It's the exact same. If that is such a good idea and you guys like it, I don't think men would mind if you guys formed your own commune and lived how you please or you paid for this with your own money. But men on the whole would not want to participate in a society where all the women …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 12:49 AM
1

Sperm donors are like less that 1% of the population. And the women gets to read a "profile" and pick the best genes. Its hypergamy on steroids. You think if there are a bunch of red pill men complaining about hypergamy now, they will gladly accept this? Not to mention, it could possibly add to the single mother issue that red pill complains about. Maybe these aren't issues to you since you are blue pill, but I don't think you will be able to convince most men to go along with this.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 12:42 AM
1

Are you a woman? I don't think you understand how men think. No, they would not like this. Is the woman paying? Also, you didn't address the fact that sperm donors get off the hook for child support. Why do they get an exception?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 12:29 AM
1

Sperm donation should be illegal unless the fathers are on the hook for child support just like natural fathers. Men probably don't mind sperm donation if it's kept as a small minority, but you will probably see laws passed if it becomes out of control.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 12:21 AM
1

But people need a purpose now. I don't think tinder, Netflix, or wine fulfills those purposes. Those are things women care about to be honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 12:13 AM
1

That isn't cheap either
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 12:10 AM
1

That isn't what Japan is doing. Replacement levels have to be 2 to maintain a population. Besides how does going for sperm donation or adoption help relationship problems? It's just going to make it worse. Women shouldn't be doing that in my opinion unless they are financially sound. We aren't trying to create this eugenic super race society.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 12:09 AM
3

But I think that is what the other guy is saying- that tinder, Netflix, and wine are what is going to lead to people living on a dust farm.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 12:02 AM
2

Yes, it sounds that way to me. But OP's premise sounds the opposite. You can't leave the plantation, we fired you for being autistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 04:48 AM
3

It has a lot to do with OP's topic. Because it is blaming men for the dating problem, and using labels in addition. I personally don't have a problem with labels. But as a society we are obsessed with labels. Maybe this is why red/blue pill fundamentally disagree. Blue is very "woke" when it comes to gender issues or being sexist or homophobic. They don't like red pills terminology, but I see a lot of the same terminology coming from blue pill. I think the whole blue/red pill debate probably com…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 04:32 AM
1

I'm familiar with how it is diagnosed. I personally know people that have autism, as do most people. I guess my point would be- either people need to accept that some people are bit different and just accept that, or maybe consider having protections for people with autism. We have protections for other people that are disadvantaged. Just saying the whole thing I don't like about the autism debate, is it just seems a way to label people. Not that I don't mind that, but why do we get to label aut…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 04:24 AM
1

But I think people were confused how do you tell the difference? I've seen men who are labelled as autistic for being a bit awkward like it's some kind of something to be ashamed of. I guess my point is do people feel like they need to have an explanation for everything, and how would that change the outcome anyways?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 04:19 AM
1

What kind of therapy? The only therapy I'm aware of is cognitive behavior therapy, and it doesn't fix the issue, only ameliorates the symptoms. Also, I agree that untreated mental disorders can affect your life even if mild. But my original point was that mild ones are often ignored by clinicians, and people in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 04:16 AM
2

How do you know that autism is preventing them from living a normal life, and not other people, or society?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 04:10 AM
2

But there is not treatment or recommended changes for dealing with people with mild autism. If there are, can you list them?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 04:09 AM
2

This is true, but I would consider this the same as a lot of self help ideas or books. Just repackaged ideas. Last I heard, he is out of rehab but not 100%. To be fair, he had a physical dependence and not an addiction as many people think
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 04:07 AM
3

We don't know yet if autism is genetic or environmental to answer your question. Also, often times there are several genes that determine an underlying genetic issue. It's often times not a binary on/off switch.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 04:02 AM
2

I guess my question would be then why is that something like autism has to be fixed? Usually mild depression is normal in a lot of people, and most clinicians don't bother fixing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 03:59 AM
2

Rather than figuring out whether they are autistic, why can't we just assume they might be a little different? I wouldn't label autism as a disease though, more as a syndrome. A disease is something that usually gets worse over time and has an explanation for its cause. We still don't know what causes autism.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 03:57 AM
2

I don't think video games or spending time online helps, but don't think that is the cause here. How would you define "spectrum-y" tendencies? If I had to guess the real reason a lot of these men can't hold jobs has more to do with motivation. They don't particularly like being bossed around by people and don't like dealing with the politics of business. Also, jobs are becoming more stratified. You either work in a nice air conditioned building with HR protecting you, or outside in the heat or i…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 03:38 AM
4

Autism is a real syndrome. And it can be linked to genes. As far as I understand though it is linked to several genes. I agree though that emotional intelligence isn't really taught in schools. But it is kind of a subjective subject. How far can schools go besides telling people to say "hi" to each other? Also, I'll just point out that sociopathic people can be very emotionally intelligent. Not saying they are correlated, but not sure how distinguishing the two would help.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 03:30 AM
3

Socializing is subjective though. Autism is beyond socializing. It is also inability to read human emotions. I've seen guys that can read human emotion very well but ignore social cues, and labelled as autistic. A good example would be something like Dr. House. There is actually an episode where his work colleagues think he might be autistic, but then realize he is just a bit of social rebel. Guys can be a bit of a social rebel, or just prefer not to say much. Doesn't mean they're autistic. If t…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 03:24 AM
1

Facts? Not so sure about that. Never seen a valid scientific study on the issue. Autism was only included as a continuous spectrum disorder in 2000. It's really a new syndrome. If it was so prevalent 100 years ago, I don't think people would have missed it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 03:08 AM
3

Don't think it is diagnosis. Men have always had more autistic traits in general than women. But seems like the degree of autism is more apparent. Where as 50 years ago the man might have still had autism, it was more mild form.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 03:02 AM
2

There is no proof for the counter claim though
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 03:01 AM
1

I see a slightly different perspective I guess. In order to gain wealth under capitalism, one needs to out compete their competitors. The only way to do that now is with technology. Technology feeds off capitalism, and capitalism is the preferred way of doing business for at least the last 200 years. UBI will probably be inevitable, not because it is so great, but because it is the end result of all this technology. People can still show off their wealth with UBI. UBI is supposed to allow a base…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 01:26 AM
1

Do you have a plan to bring back the factories, or did you complain when they left? Your argument doesn't make sense unless it's something you supported also.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 01:06 AM
1

The problem why job quotas will never solve the problem is because they only target certain demographics. People will continue to become disenfranchised, unless this is the plan all along.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 01:03 AM
0

What is industrial feudalism? If I'm reading that right, we already have that now. All the major industries are usually dominated by 2-3 companies that control the market.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 01:01 AM
2

According to your argument then everything is artificial. Governments are artificial- your property is artificial. Everything is relative and there are no facts. Everything is a figment of someone's mind. The only fact out there is nature, and who can control it the best. Even if that is the matter, would you want to live your life according to those dictates, or choose your own?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/20 04:53 AM
1

I read about half of the article you linked. The author's argument seems to be that the data was either wrong or factually misrepresented. But the data that was claimed misrepresented was minor details that could technically be disputed based on the inaccuracy of medical records. Medical records are not an exact science. Many times they are doctors' opinions, and have an incomplete view of the picture. Also doctors can inaccurately record what a patient told them. The article is arguing over whe…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 11:55 PM
1

He didn't double down on anything. He just said he didn't think it was a conflict of interest. Doubling down would be lying or trying to cover up the conflict of interest. He admitted the conflict of interest, and people should move on. You didn't address my comment about doctors or vaccine companies though. If you are going to hold him to such a high standard, then the vaccine companies and doctors should not be making public statements about vaccines or even recommending them to the public. Ac…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 09:46 PM
1

Social systems are innate to human nature, so therefore rights have to come from other people. If you deny this, then we are no better than animals, and the law of the jungle rules. Do you want to live in a society where everything is determined by force or strength? Yes, rights are artificial constructs. But so are laws then. If you say no one is entitled to rights, then no one is entitled to laws, or protection of laws. This sounds like a libertarian argument, and I don't buy into it. I'm not …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 08:51 PM
1

That's a straw man argument. Equality is what you want it to mean. It just means that you have the same expectations for yourself as others.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 08:42 PM
2

Some women stick to womens' roles is more accurate. Feminism does not want gender roles. You are one woman of millions out there. Not every women wants the same thing. I think men would accept their roles more willingly if at least the majority of women accepted a woman's role. But most women will say their is no gender role for a woman. If you think there are roles for women, what are they?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 05:44 AM
2

It means if you expect men to be providers for women, then women can be providers for men. If you expect men to treat women with respect, then women should treat men with respect.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 05:30 AM
3

I just explained what it means. It means that expectations and duties are held the same regardless of gender, race, or class.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 05:23 AM
2

But if someone wronged you, wouldn't you want justice? Maybe retribution would be inappropriate, but there needs to be some kind of balance and order to social systems. I think shaming victimhood is the wrong approach. Otherwise you have no claim to fairness yourself, and have no right to complain. Yes, in nature the lion can eat the gazelle without punishment. But humans are on a different level, and the constitution was created to establish justice, and secure liberty to ourselves. I think whe…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 05:20 AM
1

It means if men have duties to women, then women have duties to men. Equality is supposed to be reciprocal. But some women that are feminists claim they are independent and do not have duties to men as whole. Maybe to their boyfriend or significant people in their lives- but that is not men in general. The idea of duties is supposed to balanced and reciprocal.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 05:06 AM
1

You do make some fair points, but I never assumed that you said free speech is dangerous. But you did seem to claim that people that go against the established science- there is a good chance they are frauds or liars and need to be reined in. In regards to Wakefield, you should read his response: https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/mmr-and-conflicts-interest . If what you claim is a conflict of interest for him, then all doctors and vaccine companies have conflicts of interest, and sho…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 11:08 PM
1

Never said such. Not sure how you got that impression.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 03:16 AM
1

You asked specifically in which way? The Doctor mentioned lost his license to practice and his career as a medical researcher. I think he should have been formally rebuked and that should have been enough. That methodology doesn't encourage free thought. You may have the attitude that free thought can be dangerous, but lack of free thought can be more dangerous. Another thing to consider is that the journal was peer reviewed and allowed the article to be published, and wasn't rebuked in any way.…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 02:41 AM
1

I don't think the science is settled on vaccines. But I do think if they do cause potential harm, the benefits outweigh the potential harm. You are assuming that these people are dishonest agents or provocateurs, and not people trying to help. The vaccine doctor you are referring was Dr. Wakefield. I didn't think his claims were that controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield He recanted what he said, and made no claims about an autism link in his paper. He just said it needed…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 02:13 AM
1

Also, out of curiosity, what are your credentials if you say we should only put faith in the experts?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 01:19 AM
1

I think science is supposed to be open source so to speak. That means open to criticism from the public, and not just the scientific community. Yes, the experts do know more than the public, but experts have gotten things wrong in the past. And when there is a strong pull to be politically correct, then some of the scientists with opposing viewpoints get silenced. I think one issue to compare this to is global warming or vaccines. I think global warming is real and vaccines help, but that doesn'…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 12:58 AM
0

It is being beta if the man has to use his fame/money to get the women to commit. But like I said above, you can be both alpha and beta at the same time. And being beta isn't against red pill philosophy. It's just telling men what women expect. In regards to formula one drivers, an alpha isn't always a guy with just muscles. It's the whole package. But it comes down to looks and charisma. Formula one drivers probably have good hair and genes with reflexes and stamina. Women love this. Plus women…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 12:49 AM
1

You can be both an alpha and beta. It's not either/or. An athlete could likely be an alpha without the fame/money. But if they are providing money/resources to get a woman, then they are being a beta provider. So you can be both at the same time. Being a beta isn't a bad thing. In fact, traditional red pill guys want men to take care of women, especially if married. They are just saying you need to maintain frame and appear like the alpha as much as possible. Beta just means you have to bring so…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 12:40 AM
1

Yes, that would mean the counters don't have reliable data as well. But if a study is going to be accepted, it needs to be peer reviewed. And that means criticized for its flaws. I would say any study that asks for volunteers and tells the participants they are doing a study is already flawed from out of the gates. I realize that is how 90% plus of studies are done. But telling people they are going to be "studied" will put them on their best behavior, and already change the results there. I wou…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 12:19 AM
1

I understand it was you saying it and not the study. I'm just replying back that I don't think it is the cheerleader effect. But we can disagree on that point since there doesn't seem enough data at this point to back up either of our points of view. There are two different definitions of vignettes. 1) a vivid description, or 2)in photography when the outer edges are blurred. Your reply above said the word "saw", so I was confused if these were just words on paper or actual pictures. Words on pa…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 12:09 AM
1

Counters? Not sure what that means. Studies can be pulled from dating websites, as long as there is a disclaimer. My point is that a scientific setting is not appropriate for reaching a fair conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 12:05 AM
0

If you can get casual sex from a lady without a relationship, then you are an alpha. Someone can be a beta provider at the same time as being alpha. Alpha simply means the men at the top of the hierarchy in the sexual marketplace. They are the men that most women want. If people deny the concept of the alpha, are they saying that all men are the same value to women in general? A beta is someone that most women aren't interested in, but can interest women by putting in extra work- like bringing r…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/20 11:59 PM
1

It is supposed to be vague, because people are attracted to different traits. As a general rule, it simple means the men at the top of the heirarchy. When red pill speaks of alpha, they are speaking of the sexual heirarchy. But there are men that can view other men as alpha by different criteria- sports is an example.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/20 11:55 PM
2

That women are more likely to pass on their genes: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/20 11:40 PM
2

Your second paragraph is more likely what is going on. There is probably some kind of vetting effect. Women are more likely to trust men that other women have evaluated. Not that it really changes the attractiveness of the man himself, but of his personality. Personality is a huge component of attractiveness for women.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/20 11:31 PM
1

Why would the study use vignettes? Not sure what that means. Also, this study doesn't point out that women were shown pictures of single men, just that they evaluated photos of men and women together, and whether it had an impact on the women evaluating the photos. The study seemed to have mixed results. Instead of cheerleader effect, how do we not know it isn't some kind of bias effect. Such that women know that this man has been vetted by other women, and is more likely to consider that man a …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/20 11:26 PM
1

This study is flawed. It was set up with a volunteered experiment. If people know they are being monitored, they are more likely to be on their best behaviour. To get an accurate reading, the study needs to be done without telling people. But then there are ethical problems with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/20 11:16 PM
1

A lot of science and psychology is dominated by political correctness. The studies may not exist because they aren't simply pursued.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/20 11:11 PM
1

Yes, there are some men that prefer both. Some men aren't into casual sex as much as other men though.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/20 01:17 AM
1

I might be misinterpreting the book, but they also tried to engineer comfort to a degree that pain was absent, and every person had a role. With the soma pills, scent organs, feelies, and synthetic music. Also, I got the idea that the different castes didn't associate with each other (especially sexually), they just had a part to play in society. This website explains more, but not sure how accurate it is, because some parts I don't remember reading: https://peutinger-gymnasium.de/html/lernen/br…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 11:56 PM
1

It can depend on the situation though. Some men prefer casual relationships. Others want to pass on their genetics as much as possible and be around their kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 11:15 PM
2

Not sure what you mean. Both are linked. The sexual market place is similar to how capitalism functions. Both emphasize freedom and motivation. Genders are more likely to date people that are successful.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 11:11 PM
1

The book also mentions that a society with alphas only wouldn't succeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 11:00 PM
1

Not sure what you mean by the US has a political system that wouldn't let democracy outweigh it? Everyone is entitled to vote in the country and the majority usually sets political precedence. If you have a scenario where the polygamists outnumber the non-polygamist, you could have a situation where they gain all the power. All you would need is 40% of men and 60% of women to participate in polygamy. That would push a majority agenda. And in regards to your question of polygamist societies I'm r…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 09:01 PM
1

If men and women like a system like this, why don't they just pack up and form their own state or country, or wall off within their own countries? Both sides will likely be better off without the internal competition. If your answer is that polygamists will need the beta males, then I don't think it is going to go smooth.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 03:52 AM
1

You would have to throw out the constitution if you are serious about this. If men don't see other people following the law, they will likely become law breakers themselves. You will have men acting like bandits everywhere. I don't think this is as easy as you think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 03:47 AM
1

The 20% productive are not the alphas. They are the ingenious minds (who can be alpha or beta) and the people doing dull and monotonous work.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 03:40 AM
1

Yes, but even if they don't tie their worth/value into sex or relationships, most men will opt to live a minimalist lifestyle. In a polygamist society, democracy will tilt towards those that practice polygamy. The men that don't participate in polygamy will be outvoted. I don't think most men will accept being servants to the polygamists. Not saying that will happen, but it historically happens in previous polygamist societies.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 03:33 AM
1

Those are scientific geniuses, so don't fit the description of the average men. Average men need an occupation that gives them satisfaction. Polygamy would likely turn all the average men into servants for the powerful and well connected. Your speaking of 10 votes (from polygamy) against 1.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 03:06 AM
0

Polygamy would probably be defined against the constitution. Not that there couldn't be an amendment to the constitution. I think polygamy could help out with relationships in some ways, but could open up more problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/20 03:03 AM
1

How much of your DNA would your children have of yours? Grandchildren? Does 50% and 25% sound about right? See how it gets diluted after every generation? The only way DNA amplifies is by the number of people that carry it. It does not grow over time in one person. If your logic is correct on this, then your kids will carry 90% (I just made this number up, but a large number) of the DNA of your great-great-great-great grandpa. And only 10% of yours if you say that DNA grows over time.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/20 04:02 AM
1

DNA itself doesn't compete. It's not like a bacteria or yeast thriving to survive against other species. It works in tandem with other DNA. The only way it competes is through natural selection. But natural selection is an external factor, it is not an internal factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/20 04:00 AM
1

There are state programs for children that are uninsured.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 08:22 AM
1

I don't like the idea either, but I could see a point in the current society where men would rather just go that way- what the OP is proposing. A lot of men already support welfare programs virtually through the state- might as well try to get an actual relationship out of the deal. I could see how this might appeal to some incels, but even then there are still complications.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 05:37 AM
1

You sound like the commie. You are proposing everything by force. I never said to force UBI. It would be democratically decided. And within the constitution.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 04:24 AM
2

Self driving cars are already here. And if they aren't going to succeed, then why is silicon valley pouring all this money into it? A train isn't automated because no one ships that way anymore. Trucks took over as the preferred method of transportation in the 70's. Trains are a relic of the past (from the 19 century). They could be automated if they wanted, but they would need an engineer on board in case of an accident or faulty equipment. Trains are very large vehicles. They also have robots …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 04:15 AM
1

So a 10% tax is being taxed to death? I think you have an agenda to push, and aren't promoting honesty in this discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 03:53 AM
2

Telling people that nothing will happen, when it most likely, is pushing an agenda. You don't understand the sophistication of the technology that will be pushed. We aren't talking about the gasoline engine or the wheel. This is sophisticated computers that will approach robot capability- i.e. what humans are to capital owners anyways.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 03:52 AM
3

The math I've figured is about a 10% VAT for $1000 for every adult. I don't mind if people pick to have UBI or not. But the math doesn't work on automation either. So people better have some kind of plan. With automation, you are just going to see more job losses and income inequality. If your answer is more capitalism, then the economic situation will just get worse. Capitalism is what spurs technological advance.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 03:06 AM
2

It would be redistribution of income, not wealth. There is a difference. If anything, UBI would likely preserve wealth. Also, we already redistribute income and have been doing it for hundreds of years.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 02:49 AM
2

I don't think most people that use the word communism know what it means. We already have forms of UBI for certain groups of disadvantaged people. Does this mean we already have communism?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 12:59 AM
4

So someone is a commie now for wanting proper economic incentives in place? You guys are fear mongerers.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 12:43 AM
1

Doesn't sound like a dictate to me. Just sounds like the only available option within the current construct.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 12:32 AM
2

A lot of men feel the same way, so this is a question that can be asked of women too. But to give the short answer- we don't expect you to prioritize relationships. There is really nothing that men can do as a whole. And if there is something that men can do, then the burden falls equally on women too. Just try to find a guy where his priorities match yours.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 12:28 AM
1

Yes, but men need healthcare too. Some men are more likely to be in jobs like construction or service jobs. Women don't only go to payroll jobs because they need healthcare, but probably because these are the jobs that are offered. Men likewise don't go to service jobs because they don't want healthcare, but because these are the jobs offered.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 12:24 AM
1

DNA doesn't compete. It only competes in the sense of natural selection. That is by mates picking who they mate with. But once genes are passed and mating occurs, every gene gets 50%, or equal chance of getting passed on. Doesn't matter if it is a strong gene or a weak gene. Almost everyone has weak genes. You can see people that look very healthy and fit, but have underlying genetic diseases. But after you pass on the genes, they only compete through natural selection. Once the genes are in a h…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 10:07 PM
1

Doesn't matter how many ways your genetics show up. Do the experiment with 100 pieces of paper. You will get similar results. Children do get roughly 50% of the genes from their parents. https://www.geneheritage.com/blog/percent-dna-from-parents.html
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 09:59 PM
1

I'm not in favor of cuckolding. I think men need an incentive to raise their own kids. But also, I think those that tell men not to worry about cuckolding, are the people that want the women to pass on the best genes (or mate with the alphas only). I can see their point to a degree. A healthy society does need good genes. But I really don't want women being the only determing factor in this. I've seen genetic studies that point to 2 women (and higher depending on the time period) passing on thei…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 08:33 AM
1

I support single payer, but I understand your argument. Just pointing out that more men still work than women. Also if you look at the stats, the gender pay gap is lower for jobs that are lower on the ladder. https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-the-gender-pay-gap-and-is-it-real/ "There is much greater parity at the lower end of the wage distribution, likely because minimum wages and other labor market policies create a wage floor. At the 10th percentile, women are paid 92 cents on the male d…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 08:29 AM
2

I read that a year ago or so. It was only mentioning workers on a payroll. More men are self employed, so this doesn't refute my original claim. If anything, this isn't as great for women, because it shows that more women are working for "the man".
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 08:13 AM
1

I can agree somewhat with that. But it is mostly emphasized on looks, smarts and strength. But you will see people of all categories pass on their genes. Someone can be good looking but not too smart, and sometimes they will have more of a chance to pass on their genes than someone not so good looking but smart. In other words, genetic fitness of what genes are passed on is fitness as determed by society and people that choose to breed with you. Its not fitness in the sense of survival of the fi…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 08:08 AM
1

It never reaches 100% exactly, but approaches an asymptote as one other person in this thread explained. It will probably reach close to 100 though within 5 to 6 times of passing on your genes (or each time you have a kid). Do this experiment if you don't believe me. Create 10 small white piece of paper. Shuffle them. Pull out 5(half), and mark them with a marker, so you know these were picked. Shuffle all 10 again and pick 5 at random again. If you see one that was marked, skip over it. Mark an…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 07:57 AM
1

I think you are confusing traits with chromosomes. They aren't necessarily the same. Traits are located on chromosomes, but they are expressed in dominant and recessive fashion. And you have 2 copies of the same chromosome from each parent. And this is complicated by "epigenes" where some genes might be turned on/off. You will still pass on close to 100% of your genes the more kids you have. It's just that not all these genes will be expressed in the same fashions.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 07:39 AM
1

It won't be passed for just one child. But the more children you add that are picking from the parent's pool, the more likely every DNA in that pool will be used.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 07:29 AM
2

Because of statistics. Do this experiment if you don't believe me. Create 10 small white piece of paper. Shuffle them. Pull out 5(half), and mark them with a marker, so you know these were picked. Shuffle all 10 again and pick 5 at random again. If you see one that was marked, skip over it. Mark any that are unmarked. See how many times of repeating this process it takes to roughly mark every piece of paper.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 07:26 AM
1

You do keep their copies though is my understanding. For certain genes, or parts of a chromosome, you would get the exact replica of what was in your parent's genome. My understanding is that you don't get the whole chromosome though, but splices of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 07:19 AM
3

I understood the original commenter that started this thread to mean the bits and pieces of 100% of your genes would be spread out among your kids, the more you have. Not that 100% of all your genes are shared by all your kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 07:10 AM
1

Sorry, when I was mentioning "he", I was referring to the the commenter that started this thread. Because it sounded like she was disagreeing with him as well. But your analysis sounds somewhat right, but I'm still a little confused what you mean by your DNA will grow over time if more of your kids will have posterity. It should still become diluted with every generation, no matter how many bits and pieces are spread out there. Because every child has a parent with DNA that could be completely d…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 07:07 AM
3

It's my understanding of how biology works. You have 46 chromosomes, and your eggs and sperm only carry 23, or half of those. Your body doesn't assign the same chromosomes every time a germ cell produces. So it is somewhat randomized, and the card deck analogy works. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I study biology as an amateur.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 06:57 AM
1

It's in all the movies. The douchebag eventually loses. Take Pride and Prejudice. It is the archetype romance movie. Wickham doesn't get the girl (or he does get several, but eventually has to commit which he doesn't want to do), while Darcy gets the lady by being nice. He helps her out by giving a large sum of money. And he risks getting disowned by his wealthy family by dating down in class.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 06:13 AM
3

Maybe not every single piece of DNA. But is also just statistics. Imagine dealing a deck of 52 cards. You deal half for each child. So that would be 26. But every time you do a new deal, you will hand out cards that haven't been in the deal yet. I'm not sure what the math is, but the numbers he posted sound about right. So you will probably hand out all 52 cards by the 6th deal or so. But instead of a 52 card deck, human DNA has a 46 card deck. But he is making it sound like those numbers will s…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 06:08 AM
2

It's in all the movies and romances. Just give the women flowers or be her hero, or show you care, and eventually you will get the girl. Walter Mitty is a good example from a movie. But in real life, those scenarios never play out. I'm not complaining, because I'm not much of a nice guy anyways. I mean I try to be respectful to people in general, but I try to avoid white knighting. But I feel I was sold that idea, and many other men have been sold that idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 05:46 AM
1

It is also in my opinion. But women will play this game where they are the selectors on issues that matter to them, but then if a man will claim he can be selector on his issues, then women will view this as sexist. I'm just pointing out that if women get to pick and choose, then men get to do their own picking or choosing, or to be fair then, no one gets to be the selector.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 05:34 AM
2

That's a false equivalency. Being nice and looking nice are separate issues. What men like about boobs or whatever- there are men that just like boobs in all sizes. I think what gets men upset is that they think that a man being nice is like in the top 5 of what women like in a man, because this is the impression they get from women. But in reality it is probably in the top 10.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 05:31 AM
3

He is saying that those random bits of chromosome will pull from all your genetics the more kids you have.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 05:25 AM
2

it's probably true. I didn't check the math, but he is speaking only after 1 generation.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 05:24 AM
1

The more children you have, the more of your genes get passed in a single generation. But they still get watered down the same after 10 generations. By your math, even if you had 5 children and 97% of your genes passed on in a single generation, that would half after each generation the same. And the way genetics work is that almost everyone has good and bad genes. Even people that look flawless can have genetic problems. Think of genetics like a stack of cards. You're dealing 50% of a random de…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 05:21 AM
2

I don't view it the same I guess. I think when people bring up the subject, they are saying they don't want to be in that situation. Maybe they are mocking it a bit, but I think blue pill shows a bit of the same mockery towards incels.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 05:11 AM
3

That is fine and all and makes sense, but if genes are just a rounding error, why doesn't the state just have arranged marriage, since it isn't a big deal to either men or women. But I know it is a big deal to many people, otherwise they would just procreate with any walking human. Regardless if genes don't matter, there is also the time and money factor in raising kids that aren't yours. Some people would gladly do this, but you can't fault others if they don't like it. If this is also not a bi…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 05:07 AM
2

Part of the red pill though says that women will say one thing, but then do another. Like how they say they want nice guys, but then they date men that aren't that nice. I think most women leave men because they are unsatisfied in one form or the other. Also, I think financial problems are a top reason. Maybe hypergamy enters into the equation in some cases, but I view that in more forming relationships, especially short term casual relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 04:53 AM
2

One fact has more nuance to it. The simple claim that men get payed more than women has more nuance than another claim of women initiating more divorces, which can be easily looked up by looking at legal filing paperwork.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 04:41 AM
9

You make a fair point, but then this argument should be used in the wage gap as well. That most men are not making more than all women out there, and shouldn't be blamed for the gap.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 04:22 AM
1

Can we use this same argument for sexual relationships? That men are the selectors and get to make all the decisions? If the blue pill is for equality, wouldn't they favor it in all aspects of relationships?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 04:19 AM
1

Details matter in both cases but I would emphasize that causes for divorce probably split equally between both parties since it is a 50/50 arrangement. The work force is not a equal arrangement between the sexes. They types of jobs men and women work are different. Plus there are more men in the workforce, and men pay more of the taxes.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/20 04:17 AM
3

I'm not trained in statistical analysis, but know the basics. Like sample size, confidence intervals, mean, and normal curves with standard deviation. I don't think the OkCupid was either a study or blog post as you claim. It was just some data that was released. The data was sound, as it came from polls. A study would imply they were trying to reach some conclusion. I think they were doing it see more how online dating works.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/20 01:05 AM
1

Dating sites are free to release anonymous data if they like. It could prove the red pill stuff wrong. Where is the study that proves me wrong? The studies are limited, and it's not my fault or yours either. But you can't claim I'm wrong just because the studies are limited. This would be a fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/20 12:12 AM
4

Lol. I think it's more like the teacher won't let us do the homework. Any study that might look sexist is never pursued. I'm not the one that makes the rules. Refer to this https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/: "As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier patter…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/20 09:09 PM
2

These studies don't exist, because people don't want to study this. But there is the OkCupid study which showed women judge men much more on first looks impressions. My opinion is that women judge more harshly on first impressions but will compensate once they see your other traits. Men take a more stubborn and accurate first impression. I did read a study that show men are more likely to rate looks on a bell curve, while women follow closer to the 80/20 rule. A bell curve would show accuracy ac…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/20 08:53 PM
3

Whataboutism is a fair argument if you want things more fair. Because if your argument is playing favorites, then it does have a valid critique. Someone could be ignoring flaws with one group because they support them more, but then critiquing another group. I would probably agree that men on here are more harsh with their words. But part of the problem is that men feel like they are being ignored. So I guess they are being more vocal. Also, I feel like there is more gaslighting going on with me…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/20 08:17 PM
2

You could say the same about feminists, women, and blue pillers that raise issues. Maybe both sides need a bit of empathy.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/20 07:46 PM
3

Most of the time when I see looks matters brought up on this sub, it's because someone is trying to saying "looks don't matter". Another reason I believe it is emphasized, is because even if people struggle with relationships, they want some kind of empathy. How people address that is up to them I guess. I feel like people can be treated better in society outside of relationships just based on looks. That is more egregious to me than someone just disqualifying a relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/20 07:36 PM
1

Most people don't make such extreme claims. If they do, I've seen it happen equally on both sides. Where is this violence that is going on? If it does happen it most likely happens less than the violence then goes on between men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/20 07:27 PM
1

I'm okay with that. I used to visit their subs every once in a while. But you have to admit they are lacking in an end goal. Aren't men supposed to fix things? I also found that most men there are libertarians. I'm not a big fan of their proposals. I think it is partly what got us in the current situation.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/20 07:18 PM
2

That is fine, as long as they are open about it. Some I suspect jump on board because they want to go on strike, but would probably go back to the plantation if things changed. I think more are doing it for striking than opting out of relationships. If men are doing it as a way to opt out, why do they have to be vocal about it? Also, I think it is possible to change, but it probably won't change anytime soon or easily. I mean if you think about, things weren't always this way.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/20 03:23 AM
5

But this is the only venue left. Men don't want to touch dating at work because of harassment claims and hr. Plus you're left going to a job if you have you a messy break up and have to see each other. Hobbies really aren't great, unless you want to go to places where women hang out, which really isn't that fun. Plus the women usually go to those places to meet the same guys they would want from online dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/20 03:15 AM
5

Entertaining is subjective mostly. I've seen guys that are more like chads make simple jokes or small talk and keep a lady hanging around for hours. Then there are guys that make a real effort and get rebuffed in seconds. I think the question to ask is why is it hard for people to find normal people entertaining? What do you think that makes you entertaining? Charisma or maybe humorous?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/20 03:06 AM
1

The thing I've found with politics though is that one's liberty ends up being another's detriment. Which is why I think you see this hostility exposing itself. And the problem is complicated by people's different definitions of freedom and civil society. Or who is more of a victim.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/20 12:51 AM
2

I looked up on google trends for the term "mgtow" worldwide. Not sure how accurate it is though. It started rising in about 2011, or 2012. Really started rising about 2014. Peaked in 2018. And is actually now back down to 2016 levels. This could indicate it might be dying off, or is just showing a lack of interest, and will resurge eventually. I don't have a stake in the issue either way. I think MGTOW does have some good ideas and I like the community support. I'm just hesitant it will fix gend…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 11:59 PM
1

You do have a point. I first found out about MGTOW probably around 2012 or 2013. I think about that time was when it took off. When I was browsing subs, it seemed to me there were a lot of older men and younger men. Maybe about half and half. And when I say younger men, I mean men in their 30's that could be 40 by now. But I did visit the subs off and on in the past year, and it seems like there is a huge influx of younger men, like early 20's. But the men that tell other men not to get married …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 11:41 PM
1

We might both be a little right. Refer to these links https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUUT2TCxU-o and https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-average-age-of-an-MGTOW-man The founder in the youtube video says the mens' movements started in possibly 1990's and 2000's in small groups. One of the guys that claims he is the founder says something along the lines of being an "old guy" and former retired pilot who lives on a boat. And if the group even started among young men in their 20's back in 2000, they w…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 11:13 PM
13

Just went over there and high level post claims all date-able men are either poor or not a good person. If this isn't misandry, I don't know what is. I'm personally not super offended by that post and would prefer in general more free speech, but people need to reevaluate their ideas if they don't speak out against all groups that play the game.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 10:27 PM
20

I don't agree with misogyny, but if we are allowing misandry out in the open and no one is questioning it, then it seems fair that misogyny needs to be allowed as a free form of speech. I've seen several posts on social media, probably just as many that blame men or make accusations in the same number that goes for women. FDS plays a similar game, but they aren't banned or shut down.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 10:11 PM
0

This is actually one reason I think MGTOW will fail long term. The correct way to fix this is MRA's, with a touch of MGTOW. The older men are living the economic dream and wondering why all the younger men are not sharing success. And all the blame that goes with being a man is being pushed onto younger men. Think meToo, race reparations, feminism, gender quotas, and socialist blame. This is why MGTOW will likely fail long term. It was started by disgruntled older men that usually had bad divorc…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 09:56 PM
1

But usually only during wartime. A lot of time wars will be started because of the very reasons you listed- when a neighboring tribe kidnaps, rapes, or hurts the tribe in some way.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 05:15 AM
1

You can have stability without order. Stability is having good economic prospects and opportunity. Dictatorships can have order, but not stability. So can democracy. Order is heirarchy and rules. Rules that may not be for your benefit, but the ruling class. Do you mean how can stability be acheived without order? That I can somewhat agree with. I think a natural heirarchy is kind of built into the human condition. But it's not an absolute necessity that humans have heirarchy.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 04:24 AM
2

There probably won't be college in a completely free system with no laws or protections. Civilization would revert back to tribes and clans. Not saying I advocate this, just pointing out the reality of the situation. This is of course assuming that we are talking about a completely free system. If speaking just about SMP laws, I don't see how such a system would work in a society with law in other areas. The idea would likely quickly be overthrown anyways.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 04:08 AM
1

The reason this happens in wartime is because there is a vacuum of power. With a lack of regulation in writing, people would likely organize into tribes and clans and have their own codes of conduct, or regulations that wouldn't be in writing or legal code. By saying there is no regulation in laws, this wouldn't mean there wouldn't be retribution for ones actions by a tribe or clan.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 04:01 AM
1

Heart of Darkness is more a comparison of civilization vs pre-civilization. Or the wild vs civilization. At least that was my interpretation. I guess everyone is open to their interpretation. And Kurtz represented the madness, but it was only one person. Anarchy is a bit different than no civilization. But it is likely loss of civilization will eventually result in anarchy, at least temporarily. I do think with anarchy there will be chaos, but I would think most people would remain somewhat sane…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 02:45 AM
4

I don't think that is a scathing indictment of men. If anything, it is a scathing indictment of both genders. Why do women always ally themselves with powerful men based on history? Women fail to rise up against injustices just as much as men. Also, if men are so bad and strong, why does the stronger gender allow all these freedoms and protections for women? I'm not saying all men are blameless, but I don't think we can blame one gender as easily.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 02:29 AM
0

Just a thought experiment when you say there is already no regulations. Would women be likely to get married unless there were the protections in place by courts? No probably not as many. So these are regulated markets, because it "affects" behavior, even if it leaves people the freedom to choose to get married. Regulations aren't always in place to say no to certain behaviors, but to affect them. Another thing to consider is preferences given to good looking people. It is commonly accepted that…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/20 12:41 AM
1

Not all laws. Most are though I would agree. Some laws can be different based on the good for society. The draft is one example.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/20 12:41 AM
1

Attorneys cost a ton of money. And the person with the most money usually ends up winning. There are probably laws in place that give financial assistant to mothers and not fathers. I don't know about that for sure, but wouldn't surprise me. It would make more sense to me just to encourage testing so these issues wouldn't have to have a long and bitter resolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/20 12:03 AM
1

This is too antagonistic though. It's making the marriage courts a legal minefield. Why can't we just do the testing and be done with it? It would probably be less headache and simpler. Also, many states give men few options to contest. There are laws that prohibit testing unless the mother gives approval. Some have small windows to discourage testing. Others say only the married father has a right to contest.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 11:45 PM
1

Because then we can get more child support from the actual fathers. Also, don't women want their children or children in general to know who the real father is?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 11:42 PM
1

You are using projections based on current law in your argument. The idea behind mandatory paternity testing is to encourage testing not based on any assumptions of whether the couple is married or the mother's claims. Mandatory testing would fix the problem you describe because it would go around the mother's wishes. This is the idea behind mandatory testing. We do what's in the best interest of all parties involved, including the state and man. It wouldn't only be about what the woman wanted.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 11:28 PM
1

If the child is tested, and entered in a database, then a machine could say that, assuming we wait 20 years until the children grow up, or adults are tested for genetic problems too. I'm not advocating some government database, but I think paternity tests should be encouraged and not just optional.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 06:50 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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