This is quite a complicated post which ties up several RP ideas using the lingo., so it's best we understand what I'm referring to, it'll make it much short for your convenience.

See also

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/35goh9/do_women_lack_empathy/

See also

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/35goh9/do_women_lack_empathy/cr51hmk

before someone suggests I'm saying women are less emotionally intelligent. However, I do not think self-reported empathy counts; an oxymoron, don't you think?

edit: Adding ArchitectofThought's thoughts

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/35goh9/do_women_lack_empathy/cr499jo

Edit2: Someone took offence to the notion that women can show apathy towards children. I should revise this; the Hierarchies of Love.and Pity ensure that children always receive the most compassion and sympathy from both genders, rightly so, they are most vulnerable. However, it is much more socially acceptable in the present environment for women to be anything from critical to bitter and apathetic towards children, than it has ever been in the past

Initial tl;dr: With exceptions of a few Unicorns, I wonder to what extent debate on PPD is any use, because bluepillers have already decided that red pill theory deserves no sympathy/empathy, they are mostly here to mock anger phasers and the social ineptitude of what they as the 'average terper'. Far too many posts are haughty apathetic quips

  • Male disposability https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

  • Hypergamy-We should all know this one by now, but explicitly the Schedules of Mating (Good Genes/Good Dad-what is comrpomsied as AF/BB) http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/23/schedules-of-mating/

  • Solipsism -bad news blue pill, although I can't debunk the psuedoscience used by TRP, in practice it seems women have the privilege of being solipsistic. I see it time and time again on here, the constant defences to the RP claims, the failure to attempt empathising, the frank mocking, the NAWALT default response

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3uarah/q4rp_what_sources_do_we_have_to_identify_that/

NAWALT

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3ueax9/what_are_your_thoughts_on_men_who_dont_wish_to/cxevfhh?context=3

  • Feminine imperative-Flip-side of the disposable male, see above

  • Hierarchies of Love

http://therationalmale.com/2014/05/06/intersexual-hierarchies-part-i/

http://therationalmale.com/2014/05/13/intersexual-hierarchies-part-ii/

As I understand it there are 2 relevant hierarchies here

  1. The Hierarchy of Love

Children-> Women-> Alpha-> Beta-> Omega

  1. Hierarchy of Pity

Children-> Women-> Omega-> Beta -> Alpha

With great power comes great apathy.

edit: And I'm not saying let's start shitting on children, don't straw man me

  • Burden of performance AKA male Hyperagency (contrast to female hypo agency)

http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/23/the-burden-of-performance/

The concept of 'male privilege' from Patriarchy Theory is nefarious and exploitative. Thanks to it, women have a monopoly on the victim complex and the emotional realm. Men of today are expected to pay physically, spiritually, psychologically and financially for the actions of their forefathers. Egalitarianism is not enough, women must be able to have their cake and eat it. As IllimitableMan put it

http://illimitablemen.com/understanding-the-red-pill/red-pill-constitution/

Feminists crave privileges which consolidate the realm of male power with that of the female. Typically they are traditionalist in ways which benefit women (men pay for dates, pressure to perform is squarely on men) but “progressive” where traditionalism would limit their power (intolerance for female promiscuity, a reluctance to trust women with leadership.)

This is achieved by glossing over the influence of feminine soft power in society (influence and charm), and comparing men and women solely in hard power (economic and political). In taking this highly one-sided approach to power, feminists play upon humanity’s propensity to take pity on women, and where the myth of female powerlessness is bought into, more power is redistributed to them.

Feminism is nothing more than a female supremacy movement posing as one of humanist egalitarianism. Feminism highlights female incompetence in areas where men excel, redefines them as injustices by blaming men for female ineptitude and then legally mandates the promotion of women within said areas. As such, women consistently make social gains in areas where men have traditionally dominated.

All the while women continue to quietly monopolise soft power. Because social influence (the female monopoly on pity as well as beauty) is difficult to quantify, its prominence is neither stated nor factored into measures of equality. And in case you think that ridiculous, feminists factor in things as benign as the economic value of housework, so not to do the same with female beauty or vulnerability is highly disingenuous if your goal is to economically quantify elements relevant to social equality.

Where the reverse occurred, where men monopolised hard power, we experienced 50~ years of social engineering to correct for the fact. The ability to be respected in spite of glaring vulnerability is a staggering albeit scarcely spoken of social advantage women enjoy, yet it is the pivotal psychological fulcrum on which feminism owes its modern ideological dominance.

Where the pendulum has swung too far in favour of women, a successful male counter movement has failed to materialise. Not solely because, but chiefly because pity is in short supply for men. A man seeking pity is despised for his weakness rather than helped because of it, and so the very psychological mechanism that gave birth to female economic and political power is nought but a dead-end for men.

  • The burden of proof is on men to justify why men are worthy of empathy/sympathy. Until then they are owed nothing, and there are consequences to those who give them more than it is deemed they deserve.

  • The burden of proof is on…men to justify why women and children are NOT worthy of empathy/sympathy. Until then they are entitled to it.

Just today, the post about 'male feminists' becoming depressed etc. exposed the solipsism of bluepillers. "I've got a feminist ex he was super hot and successful, ergo you are wrong". Or straight up "lol@this post". The complaint was that you would suppose low status men supporting women's rights would be given empathy-not a free lay, no, just basic empathy-and yet no, they are getting mocked.

Yet, we are demanded to sympathise with the downtrodden women of the world, in whatever form. Christ how many times have we heard some variation of 'start looking at the shy homely women?' They too have entitlement to our affections, our protection, and entitlement to judge us, harass us, intimidate us. It is not a choice that we sympathise-it is an obligation. Those who fail to sympathise with women will be hunted down like George Lawlor

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/george-lawlors-story-shows-how-universities-have-become-hostile/

Of particular interest to me is the feminist monopoly on emotional manipulation. An entire branch of the social sciences dedicated to finding ways to attack, manipulate and exploit the Fragile Male Ego. Toxic hegemonic masculinity. We as men have no socially acceptable equivalent to these standard operative social conventions of gynocentrism

https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

http://www.raewynconnell.net/p/masculinities_20.html

It becomes increasingly difficult to forgive women for their callousness and total indifference to these issues, or rather, to bother to debate with them about these affairs. They are quite literally conditioned, judging by the state of the white knight army of Quora and TBP, to feel entitled to more sympathy than men, more protection than men, and reparations from men for crimes they didn't even commit. When you are indoctrinated from a young age that you are a victim and he is an oppressive tyrant in the making, what do you expect? I see the way they can only tiptoe around women's feelings, sandwiching their criticism, while demanding men to basically man the fuck up up-yet in the same breath, both parties claim people are people on the next answer!

http://therationalmale.com/2012/11/06/people-are-people/

Consider it took this book for men's rights to start being seriously considered, and it's still contested

http://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-Womans-Year-Disguised/dp/0143038702

It's tiring. It really is. To put the nails in the coffin of this notion of the monopoly on emotions, consider the fact that you as a bluepiller come to PPD with a confirmation bias, additional to your entitlement to protection by white knights, that presupposes you to see this as nothing but a whiney rant. Hell, look at the NAWALT comment chain above-u/FletcherReedAMA is facing prison for his ex raising false charges of criminal harassment against him, and because he makes the mistake of saying 'AWALT, I hate women', people stop sympathising. That is all it took for him to be left alone, to rot in his cell perhaps.

tl;dr When women have the option to ruthlessly mock any man who fails to live up to the masculine ideal, and even feminists participate in this demonisation, yet men are given social obligations to be protective of women and children-> how can we possibly say that women have more empathy/sympathy? If women have more sympathy and empathise more, why is it practically a past-time to shit on low status men or those who fail to fulfil hypergamous imperatives? Multiple websites are dedicated to this purpose, not just TBP. And if men truly struggle to sympathise because of their fragile male egos, why are men hounded so much more for appearing to be indifferent to women and children first?

Inb4 someone misses the point/strawmans and thinks I'm just referring to feminists giving Nice Guys pity fucks.

CMV.