There is a vast body of evidence attesting to some negative traits being on average higher in men, such as physical aggression, cheating (particularly those with allele 334), pedophilia, 'thinking with your dick', low EQ, etc. How would you of /r/theredpill react if women created a sub dedicated to discussing sexual and life strategy based upon scientific evidence (well, more like blog posts, pop-sci, and personal evo-psych theories, if we're going for a one-to-one comparison) regarding how males think and behave, peppered with personal anecdotes that validate the research? How would you react if the means found in the research were generalized to all men, and manipulation/'game' tactics were encouraged to get the most out of the perceived male behaviour? For example, imagine if a poster used evidence that sexual arousal in men overrides their higher cognitive functions to suggest that women act in ways (guided by research, of course) that subtly elicit male arousal in order to get what they want out of men? Or, to provide another example, a poster suggests that women secretly gather DNA samples from their SOs in order to test for the 334 allele in order to determine if their partners are predisposed to cheating and failed relationships? Or if it was suggested that women avoid men who use manipulation tactics and 'game' in their relationships, and that they avoid using them, because the research overwhelmingly suggests that relationships where a partner employs game-playing are less satisfactory and more subject to failure? Or if a poster suggests that everyone avoid adult male virgins, because research suggests that they have higher rates of mental illness and poor outcomes? It would all be amoral, of course, because it would be grounded in a strong body of evidence. So, would you redpillers be okay with this? If not, why? What would make it different from your own ideology, given that the women in this sub would just be using evidence to guide their behaviours?