The topic of the bluepill double standards when it comes to misogyny vs. misandry is often brought up here and with the same regularity denied by bluepillers, and occurences of mainstream misandry are dismissed as regrettable outliers. The same applies to pretty mundane differences between the genders. They're dismissed and anything that points towards them is labeled as outliers.

The thing is: bluepillers are practically in love with the idea that they're oh-so-super egalitarian. That both genders are fundamentally equal in potential and should also enjoy equal treatment and representation. However, my position is that they not only tolerate or willfully blind out misandry while being overly sensitive when it comes to misogyny, no, they actually demonstrate susceptibility the same double standard in here, at PPD, often while simultaneously ^^figuratively masturbating over how enlightened they are (regardless of the fact that their positions are neither logical nor egalitarian). It usually looks like these examples:

1) People skills

It's no big secret that women are better in social settings than men. They're more intuitive, they have an easier time connecting with other people, better at reading social cues, better at subtly influencing another person's opinion instead of using a brute force-approach (with "brute force"-approach I don't mean using threats, but overwhelming someone with arguments) etc. Stating this certainly is anything but controversial. It also wouldn't be controversial if I said that men are more susceptible to feminine wiles than vice versa. And finally, it also is very obvious that men are stronger than women and more prone to use physical force to solve their problems than women. Now what we have here is a list of traits that praise women on the one hand and deride men on the other (yup, even "physical strength" is ultimately a net negative if you tie it to violence - besides, no one will deny that women got the short end of the stick biologically in that regard). Most people wouldn't object that these statements generally apply.

But the logical consequence of all this - that women are better at manipulation and also more likely to employ manipulative tactics in their relationships and in everyday life? That they use displays of vulnerability, sexual signals etc. to goad men into doing their bidding (all stuff men generally don't do simply because they can't)? That they're doing it because they're able to and because it's the easiest way for them to get what they want (certainly easier than threats or physical force)? That they are, in short, more manipulative than men? Unless you really want shit to hit the fan, you shouldn't say that. Why the different reactions? Simple: saying that women are more intuitive, have more fine-tuned social sensors etc. is a positive description. Casting them as better manipulators is a negative description, therefore misogyny, therefore it has to be wrong.

2) Being on the spectrum

This is tangentially related to the prior point: their higher propensity for social ineptitude which also materalizes in a higher propensity for being on the spectrum. Saying this - "men are more likely to be on the spectrum" won't be perceived as offensive, let alone factually incorrect. Saying that "autism is the extreme male brain" didn't summon shitstorms or cost Simon Cohen his job. While female autists or aspies exist, stating that men on average score higher on the autism quotient spectrum won't be met with opposition. Why? Well, it isn't a net positive that differentiates men from women, it's actually the opposite. Therefore bluepillers can live with that (honest redpillers can also live with it because it's true).

However, the other side of that particular coin is that ranking higher on the the AQS correlates with better performances in STEM-related fields.. This means that even if we assume that otherwise the capacity for math is evenly distributed regardless of gender (I don't, but let's simply assume for the sake of the argument that it's the case), the fact alone that you have more men who rank higher on the ASQ should already raise some questions regarding the veracity of the statement that women and men perform equally here. But good luck trying to get a fervent bluepiller to admit (if only to himself) that the genders aren't perfectly equal and that women don't have exactly the same potential as men on average. Why? Because it is a net positive that differentiates men from women (a net positive that's actually the flip side of a net negative), and as a consequence bluepillers can't live with it.

3) Work

Or let's bring up something else: women and their relation to their work. On average, they prefer jobs with a communal/social focus, and value a healthy work/life-balance more than men. This is usually framed as women being more down-to-earth, having more reasonable preferences in life, being more social and giving than men etc. (that men choosing to pick better-paying fields and working overtime may not be due to exclusively intrinsic reasons is a whole new can of worms I won't open right now).

However, not only the 77c/$-gap can be largely attributed to these priorities, there's also another imbalance that's affected by this: high status positions. For some reason, the bluepill idea of a just and egalitarian society is that women should have a roughly 50% representation when it comes to CEOs, politicians etc. Mind you, I am not questioning that the glass ceiling exists (or has existed), but that the epitome of fairness, the much-praised parity, actually is fair. These high-status jobs usually have the unfortunate condition that you have to spend an awful fucking lot of time working. Like 80 hrs/week or even more - which means that ambitious people of both genders can kiss their work/life-balance goodbye, and since women are less likely to be willing to do this, the natural consequence is that you end up with more male applicants than female ones for these positions, plain and simple. This means that even if the potential is perfectly evenly distributed among said applicants and the selection process is absolutely fair and gender-blind, you'd automatically end up with more men in power than women, which is something the advocates of gender parity (who I assume are overrepresented by a huge margin in the TBP community) simply ignore. Fairness is 50:50 and anything else must be the patriachy at work. I don't know whether they do it because reality is too inconvenient for their narrative, or because they suck at basic logic, or both, but that's how it is.^^1

And so on. I could have made a similar case about other areas, regardless of whether they pointed out gender-specific differences or not and how bluepillers completely reject any alternative approach whenever something is brought up that doesn't sit well with them (like f.ex. the correlation between body mods and promiscuity, or between promiscuity and relationship instability... it's like talking to a wall in here).

The thing is: in BP-land, some positions are ok to have, while others aren't. So it's totally PC to comment on male shortcomings. But the corresponding perks that come with it, which women don't have (since they also lack the shortcomings)? Can't exist, everything has to be a perfect 50:50 symmetry (unless the actual numbers would make women look good), and don't you dare even thinking anything else. In the same vein, it's equally PC to mention traits that illustrate how great women are, yet the same bloops who wouldn't hesitate a second to endorse statements like that go in full denial mode when the downsides of these traits are brought up. These of course can't be right.

The reason for women performing worse, for women being underrepresented in some fields or position are as a rule extrinsic and never intrinsic. Bluepillers externalize the responsibility for female shortcomings but internalize the responsibility for their successes - even when both are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter whether something is true or false, whether it's logic and reasonable or outlandish and an asspull. What matters is whether it conforms to axiomatic bluepill beliefs or not. They extensively pay lip-service to the idea of the genders being equal, but in reality they adhere to a very Orwellian interpretation of the term.

^^1 ^^I ^^am ^^taking ^^bets ^^that ^^at ^^least ^^one ^^bluepiller ^^will ^^blame ^^rigid ^^gender ^^roles ^^for ^^women ^^working ^^less.