TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

NoDanaOnlyZuuI Archive

View 1 post and 7,095 comments by NoDanaOnlyZuuI 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)
53

DiscussionNoDanaOnlyZuuI/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 01:02 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 7,095 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
–

What a spectacular pile of assumptions. You know absolutely nothing about why they didn’t marry or have children, but naturally you’ve decided it must be because she failed to keep a man and feminism left her directionless. Feminism gave women the ability to support themselves, leave relationships that aren’t working and make their own choices about motherhood. Freezing her eggs is one of those choices. Wanting a partner someday doesn’t mean she needs a man to survive, and independence was never…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/26 04:48 PM
2

You completely made up that 53/47 ratio and then used it to prove there’s a massive double standard. Based on what? Women aren’t denying they get more matches or attention. They’re saying more access to men doesn’t automatically mean better dating experiences. Those aren’t the same thing. And some of you always jump straight to rape and murder while ignoring everything short of that, like harassment, following, stalking, intimidation and coercion. The fact that you think most women haven’t been …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/26 02:54 PM
1

Mate, we started with women supposedly holding men to masculine standards and now you’re rambling about rappers, strippers, and who can turn objectification into money and attention. You’re not making an argument. You’re just throwing increasingly unrelated thoughts at me. I’m done with this.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 06:48 PM
–

Connect the dots for me. How does a woman not needing a man to survive mean she can’t want attention from someone she’s attracted to? Not needing a relationship isn’t the same as not wanting one. What does any of that have to do with financial exploitation?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 06:47 PM
1

You mean Gen Z, not Gen X. And 87% of partnered bisexual women having male partners still doesn’t prove they objectify women or see the sexes as unequal. You’ve gone from rappers and strippers to threesomes, marriage rates and now an entire generation you couldn’t even identify correctly. At some point, you need an argument, not just a pile of unrelated facts.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 06:44 PM
–

Where did I say every man? You added that all by yourself. Saying men controlled the institutions that wrote and enforced those laws isn’t saying every man supported them. Argue with what I actually said. And where’s the source for that quote?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 06:18 PM
1

Okay, now you’ve jumped from female rappers and threesomes to claiming most women who like women don’t see the sexes as equal. Based on what? Being attracted to women isn’t the same as objectifying them, and you haven’t shown that most bisexual or lesbian women do either.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 06:02 PM
–

Yes, single women generally could own property. That’s why I specifically said married women and coverture. That’s not adjusting things at will. It’s being accurate. And yes, some conservative women supported coverture. I never said women were unanimously against it. Women can support a system that restricts women. But who actually wrote, passed and enforced those laws? Women who couldn’t vote or hold office, or the men who controlled those institutions? If your point is that I shouldn’t have sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 06:01 PM
–

Let’s not rewrite history. The Fifteenth Amendment said the vote couldn’t be denied based on race. It didn’t give men the right to vote for the first time in 1870. White men had been voting for generations, and Black men were still prevented from voting for decades afterwards. And yes, the property and financial restrictions were specific to women. Under coverture, married women lost their separate legal identity and their husbands controlled much of their property and earnings. Saying other peo…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 05:25 PM
1

Mate, you’re going to have to walk me through the steps you took to get there because I still don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Are you saying female rappers are representative of women generally? How do strippers and threesomes prove what standards women hold their partners to?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 05:21 PM
–

Yes, today women generally aren’t legally barred. I said were. As in, historically, when a lot of the roads, buildings and infrastructure you guys love taking collective credit for were built, women’s access to those jobs, unions, apprenticeships and education was deliberately restricted. You’re applying today’s access to yesterday’s workforce and pretending women just chose not to participate. Also, a lot of men do make serious money on OF. You’re not barred because the customers you want aren’…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 04:05 PM
–

You said I don’t understand the terms, but never explained what I got wrong or gave your definitions. Pointing out that women were legally excluded from many positions of power isn’t trivializing their agency. It’s historical reality. Women can have agency and still support traditional gender roles, so your Trump example doesn’t disprove anything I said. Use your words and explain what I got wrong, or stop wasting my time.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 03:39 PM
–

You asked me to explain it, then called me defensive when I did. Is there an argument coming, or is this it?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 03:28 PM
–

Do you think patriarchy just popped into existence in America in 2016? Women voting for Trump doesn’t erase centuries of laws that gave men power over women. It just proves women can support conservative gender roles too. And no, men didn’t all get together one day and invent patriarchy. It developed over centuries, but it was built and enforced almost entirely by men because women were shut out of the positions with the power to build and enforce it. Women couldn’t even vote nationally in Ameri…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 03:08 PM
–

Some of you use male-dominated industries like some sort of gotcha against women while ignoring that women were deliberately excluded from those jobs, unions and education for generations. You don’t get to bar women from participating and then use their lack of participation as proof that they contributed nothing. Some of you are always desperate to take collective credit for roads you personally didn’t build, but somehow collective responsibility disappears when we mention who excluded women fr…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 02:18 PM
–

This is such a good comment. You should save it because this topic comes up almost every week.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 02:16 PM
–

Yes, women still want “attention and other stuff” from men they’re attracted to. Men want those things from women too. That’s generally how dating works. Thank you for popping in with that completely irrelevant observation, though. Very helpful.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 02:07 PM
–

They don’t need to be alive today for the system they created to still affect us today. And some of them absolutely are still alive. It was only in 1974 that lenders were legally stopped from discriminating against women based on sex or marital status. Women could be denied credit or told they needed their husband’s signature. This wasn’t ancient history. And you weren’t just pointing out that some women expect men to pay. You said women exploit men endlessly, mainly date men for money and are b…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 12:52 PM
17

It’s pretty amazing that men created a system where women had to depend on them financially, tied providing to masculinity, and are now shocked that some people still follow those roles generations later. That’s patriarchy, not proof that women are naturally exploitative. Women make up nearly half the US workforce. We earn our own money, contribute to our households, some outearn our partners and stay with men through job losses. So where’s the evidence that money is one of the main reasons wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 11:42 AM
3

So we’re just saying random shit now? What do either of those things have to do with what we’re talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 11:04 AM
5

Okay, but you still haven’t shown that women don’t expect those things from women too. Do you honestly think women don’t want their female friends to be confident, competent and emotionally stable? You’ve listed a bunch of good qualities, said society considers them masculine, and decided women wanting them in a partner means they’re secretly enforcing masculinity. You haven’t actually made the case for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 10:05 PM
3

You’re doing exactly what you’re accusing women of doing. You’ve decided confidence, independence, emotional stability and competence are masculine traits, which says a hell of a lot more about how you view women than how women view men. Yes, some women have rigid gender expectations and some are biphobic. That doesn’t prove women as a group secretly demand masculinity and call it basic humanity. It just proves women aren’t a hive mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 07:40 PM
1

That’s not my issue. My issue is the message being pushed in this thread that women are somehow responsible for men paying on dates when those men are perfectly capable of saying they want to split the bill. If this were just people whining online about nothing, I wouldn’t care. The point is that OP is taking a choice men can control and blaming women for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 03:27 PM
0

What difference does that make? We’re on Reddit, having a conversation about what men on Reddit are constantly complaining about. The men I know IRL seem perfectly capable of setting expectations and not dating women they’re incompatible with.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 01:04 PM
0

Make no mistake, men constantly blaming women because they can’t use their grown-up words makes it our issue. It wouldn’t be anyone’s issue if they just said upfront that they wanted to split the bill. It's really not that hard.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 12:53 PM
2

No. I wouldn’t date someone I felt that way about, and I wouldn’t want him dating me if that’s how he felt about me. He’s free to go find someone who makes him happier, and so am I. Just like I’d rather be single than settle, I’d rather be single than be settled for.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 06:17 PM
1

He does. Good for him. I’ve got my toys. He’s got his. We’ve got ours.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 03:34 PM
–

You went from I’m not talking about all women to might as well be all of them and calling them bitches in two comments. So thanks for proving my point. This was never really about childcare or stay at home dads. You’re just looking for an excuse to hate women, and it’s fucking embarrassing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 01:00 PM
–

It’s not all of them either.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 11:29 AM
–

Ok and? She’s speaking for herself. Not all of us.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 11:06 AM
1

This is going to be a waste of my time. I recognize your username, so I know how this goes. You’re not here to reconsider your position. You’re here to defend it indefinitely, regardless of the evidence. I’ll leave you to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 09:46 PM
1

You’re not describing dating. You’re describing maximizing your access to women in clubs so you can hook up with them. And being an alcoholic who hangs around clubs constantly sounds like a pretty fucking terrible way to build a life, even if it gets you laid.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 09:37 PM
1

“The evidence is overwhelming”
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 09:25 PM
0

If you’re not gonna believe people when they tell you shit, why bother asking? And I’m not adamant about anything, I don’t care enough to make up stories or lie on Reddit. You can believe whatever you want. Although I’m pretty sure had I confirmed your suspicions, you would’ve believed that without question, amirite? Don’t bother answering. Of course I am.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 09:24 PM
-1

I married my first and only boyfriend and I approached him. We always split when we dated and I’ve always made more money than him. Our bills are split proportionate to our income - meaning I’ve always contributed more.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 09:01 PM
-1

Incorrect on all fronts, but nice try
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 07:17 PM
6

Even if those women said exactly that, you’re still making a massive leap from these women don’t want a stay at home husband to women find non-working men shameful and humiliating.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 05:24 PM
1

Yeah, we’re never going to agree on this. If buying someone dinner feels like a grand sacrifice, I genuinely hope things get better for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 05:21 PM
1

Scale is literally what makes financial hit dramatic. Spending money on dinner is an expense. Calling it a financial hit makes it sound like some grand sacrifice.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 04:30 PM
1

It’s an expense. If buying someone dinner is genuinely a financial hit, choose cheaper dates. Nobody’s asking you to liquidate your retirement account.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 04:15 PM
1

I criticized two words because they exaggerate what paying for a date actually is. Where exactly did I refuse to engage with your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 04:09 PM
10

You’ve invented an entire argument here. Having family provide childcare isn’t the same as expecting them to raise your kids, and it doesn’t mean anyone thinks a stay-at-home parent contributes nothing. A stay at home dad can pull his weight and still not be something every family wants or can afford. You’ve decided these women are ashamed of men who don’t work, then written several paragraphs arguing against a motive you made up.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 04:03 PM
0

So your response to me saying engage with the point actually being made was to bring up yet another point nobody raised? When did I say anything about your tone?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 03:57 PM
1

Good chat
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 03:46 PM
3

Bro, we’re talking about who pays on a first date. You’ve dragged race, class, the economy and bioessentialism into it without explaining how any of that makes women gross or evil. You’ve taken one dating preference, turned it into a sweeping indictment of women, and somehow still made yourself the victim. If you don’t want to pay, don’t. Date women who agree. It really is that simple.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:59 PM
1

So more hyperbole? Great.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:20 PM
5

Whether the norm is fair or not doesn’t really matter. If you don’t want to pay for dates, then don’t. It might shrink your dating pool, but the women left are the ones you’re actually compatible with.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:19 PM
1

You should probably learn what “evil” means then
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:13 PM
1

Was that sarcasm?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:00 PM
1

On purpose.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:58 PM
4

You weren’t replying to me, though. I asked you what about the comment you replied to was evil. Then you went on a rant about women based on apparently every woman everywhere, so yes, my hostility was deliberate. You don’t get to speak about women like that and then complain that women aren’t nice enough to men. You still haven’t answered my question.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:55 PM
18

Men have icks too Hope that helps.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:30 PM
1

Subsidized daycare helps people work. Paying people not to work doesn’t. I think one is a reasonable use of public money and the other isn’t. That’s really all there is to it. I’m gonna wrap this up because there’s absolutely no argument you’re going to make that’ll change my mind, and I’m not going to keep saying the same thing over and over again.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:29 PM
1

I’m not arguing that because it’s an embarrassingly terrible comparison. Roads are public infrastructure that everyone can use and society depends on. Paying someone a full salary to stay home is a private lifestyle subsidy that only benefits the person choosing it. Taxes funding anything at all doesn’t mean they should fund every personal choice you make.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:23 PM
1

Money existing somewhere doesn’t mean the government has it sitting around waiting to be spent. It would have to raise taxes or take money from something else. And no, taxpayers aren’t all parents, and working parents wouldn’t benefit from paying higher taxes so someone else can choose not to work. Choices have consequences. If you can’t afford to stay home, you don’t stay home. You don’t get to make a choice you can’t afford and expect taxpayers to subsidize it.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:17 PM
4

Your hyperbolic and misogynistic whining is noted. Now, answer my question.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:15 PM
1

“There is more than enough wealth…” According to whom? Schools can’t even get proper classroom supplies and basic public services are underfunded, but you think there’s enough money to pay people full salaries to stay home? Where exactly is that money coming from? If you choose to stay home, you’re choosing to rely financially on your spouse. You don’t get to make that choice and then insist taxpayers should replace the income you chose to give up.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 12:31 PM
0

Who TF is talking about that? How about focusing on the conversation actually being had and not the one in your head.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 11:23 AM
1

Okay, but none of that means the homemaker should be paid the salary they could’ve earned. If all the household income is already jointly owned, who exactly is supposed to compensate them? And government support for families doesn’t mean funding someone’s choice not to work indefinitely. If your household can’t afford a stay at home parent, then both parents work. Wanting that lifestyle doesn’t mean someone else owes it to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 11:22 AM
1

If you always pay and never even bring up splitting it, how the fuck do you know women would get upset? You’re literally just assuming they will and then calling women materialistic over a reaction you made up. This might be the dumbest comment I’ve read today.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 10:55 AM
0

“Financial hit” is a bit dramatic.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 10:51 AM
7

So dramatic. What was “evil” or “wrong” about that?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 10:49 AM
0

Don’t pay if you don’t want to. Use your words. If she doesn’t like it, you weren’t compatible anyway. This is such a non-fucking issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 10:47 AM
1

If you choose to help with homework instead of doing laundry, nobody owes you compensation for the laundry you didn’t do. Opportunity cost exists, but it isn’t something another person has to reimburse you for.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 10:29 AM
1

The household income is shared money. That doesn’t mean the homemaker is also owed a separate salary equal to what they might’ve earned at a job they chose to leave. Those are two completely different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 10:23 AM
0

If they’re choosing to stay home, it’s because they want to stay home, so they haven’t given up anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:13 AM
0

Your spouse is already financially supporting you while you stay home. They don’t also owe you the salary you might have earned in a completely different job. If you want to earn that income, keep working. Choosing to be a homemaker comes with trade offs, just like every other life choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:10 AM
–

If her personality determines whether you enjoy being around her and want to keep being around her, then congratulations, her personality matters. I don’t know why you’re working this hard to argue otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 11:52 PM
3

I know plenty of well above average men who are childfree, including the one I married. But more importantly, what exactly are childfree women supposed to do with this information? We’re childfree because we don’t want children, not because we thought it would attract the widest possible selection of men. We don’t need to reconsider a life altering decision just to appeal to your made up category of high value men. Some men would be genuinely stunned to learn that women don’t make life decisions…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/26 09:41 PM
–

Local man discovers that fashion trends and beauty standards are cyclical. Some decades focus on breasts, others on tiny waists, long legs, hips or butts. The Victorian bustle was literally designed to exaggerate women’s asses, so none of this is new. Of course looking attractive plays a role in fashion. Where you lose me is assuming that looking attractive automatically means wanting attention from heterosexual men, as though women aren’t also influenced by trends, celebrities, social media, ot…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/26 07:51 PM
1

Calling something a known thing doesn’t make it evidence, and telling me how I would react is especially ridiculous. I wouldn’t be angry if my husband didn’t notice my hair, and you don’t get to invent my reaction because it helps your argument. You said there are opposite videos, so show them. Then show that men’s negative reactions are treated differently from women’s. A man freezing because he doesn’t know what to say isn’t proof of a double standard. It’s just another reaction video. You’re …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/26 02:32 PM
1

Where’s the equivalent compilation of men reacting to women drastically changing their hair? You can’t claim a double standard when you’ve only shown one side of the comparison. You and most of the men in the comments are just inventing a double standard without ever showing one exists. Until you show both sides, you’re just assuming the answer you want. Do you know how many men tell their girlfriends, I love your long hair. Never cut it? Do you honestly think some of those men wouldn’t have a n…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/26 01:27 PM
–

Jesus, some of you really will read whatever you want into a comment. Point me to where I said that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/26 11:05 AM
2

This is such a false dichotomy. The options aren’t “ask me out within five minutes” or “be my best friend for 10 years before confessing your feelings.” There’s a whole middle ground where you get to know someone for a bit, see if there’s mutual interest, then ask them out. It’s like you guys have forgotten acquaintances exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/26 11:18 PM
1

Are you shadowboxing? I’ve never seen anyone argue that men should pay for dates because they’ll eventually do less housework. That doesn’t even make sense. When you’re dating, there’s no shared housework because you’re not living together. If you don’t want to pay, don’t. Will it shrink your dating pool? Probably. But the people left will be compatible with you. This is such a non-issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/26 10:36 PM
1

I’m not following your logic. Why would I owe gratitude to random men today because some men generations ago supported women’s rights? By that same logic, do today’s men owe me an apology for the things men did 100 years ago? Or do you only want collective credit but not collective blame? You can’t have both, so pick one. Also, if you’re going to reference history, at least be accurate. Poor men were excluded because of class. Women were excluded because of sex. A wealthy woman could still be de…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/26 04:55 PM
2

You’re grasping at straws. Either people are expected to call out their own, or they aren’t. You can’t say conservatives get a pass because they’re supporting “their own,” while expecting women to condemn women on The Talk. That’s literally the double standard I’m talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/26 04:50 PM
1

You’re comparing men paying for sex to choosing someone to build a life with. I don’t see how those are remotely equivalent.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/26 04:45 PM
1

Whether one was worse isn’t really relevant to my point. The question is why the expectation changes depending on whether you’re asking women to condemn women or men to condemn men. The same kinds of men saying, what are we supposed to do about Watters? were telling women they should be condemning The Talk over something that happened more than a decade ago, even if they’d never watched the show
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/26 11:08 AM
2

So your argument is history only starts when you were born? Can you think of literally any other topic where that would make sense? Every reply is another goalpost move. You might want to rethink the premise instead of rewriting it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/26 11:03 AM
1

I swear some of you read a completely different comment than the one I wrote. I was pretty clearly criticizing the men saying personality doesn’t matter.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/26 10:56 AM
2

Weird flex. You’re acting like women should be grateful for finally getting rights that never should’ve been denied in the first place. If you steal someone’s car, you’re not a hero for giving it back years later after they spent years fighting for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/26 10:52 AM
-1

I’m done arguing this, so this will be my last comment. Exercising caution around strangers isn’t hatred, bigotry, or comparable to racism. It’s the same “stranger danger” we teach children. It’s the same reason you lock your car, look both ways before crossing the street, don’t leave your laptop unattended, and don’t flash a wad of cash in a rough neighbourhood. Every single person exercises caution every day because risk exists. Nobody thinks locking your car means you believe everyone is a th…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 10:29 PM
1

You literally just disproved your own argument. You started this by saying there were no downsides. Now you’re saying the risks can be reduced. If there’s risk to reduce, then by definition there’s a downside. Thanks for conceding the point. And no, I never said women would only encounter men looking for sex. I said a yes from a man is a less reliable indicator of genuine interest because men are more likely to say yes to casual sex. Read my comment again. You keep arguing against things I never…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 07:20 PM
–

You’ve got to give empathy to get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 07:18 PM
0

If you didn’t, why should I? Don’t bother answering, I don’t care.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 07:17 PM
3

That wasn’t my point at all. My point is that if men are significantly more likely to say yes regardless of genuine interest, then a yes tells a woman a lot less than it tells a man. She now has to spend more time figuring out whether he’s actually interested in her or just interested in the opportunity. That’s a downside. And saying women should just approach men in public doesn’t eliminate the safety issue. It reduces one risk. It doesn’t address stalking, harassment after rejection, or the fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 06:16 PM
–

Boo hoo
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 06:14 PM
–

Here, let me quote you: boo hoo
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 06:13 PM
1

Women’s standards aren’t relevant to whether men should care about personality. Just because women have to think more about safety doesn’t mean men don’t have to think about compatibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 05:30 PM
2

Healthy, emotionally mature adults usually try to work through problems in a relationship. Thankfully, we’re not in one, so I’ll just follow your advice and leave.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 05:28 PM
1

LOL ok
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 05:22 PM
2

That’s not how that works. Something being optional doesn’t mean the issues that come with it stop existing.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:59 PM
1

Fair enough. If I see your username in one of those threads, I’ll expect to see you making the exact same objection. Consistency matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:56 PM
2

I didn’t realize this was a competition. Congrats, I guess.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:53 PM
2

That’s rich. Men compare misandry to racism all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:52 PM
2

So women spending generations fighting for the right to own property, open bank accounts, vote, be protected from sexual harassment, have marital rape recognized as a crime, and facing opposition from men every step of the way somehow counts as unprovoked?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:50 PM
7

So we’ve gone from “women started it” to “ignore all of history.” Even within the last 50 years, women have been judged as a class in ways that affected hiring, promotions, pay, politics, and credibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:45 PM
2

It’s still a choice, which was my entire point.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:43 PM
7

So you’re just going to completely ignore the safety aspect of it? Some of you think a woman owes you sex because you bought her a $15 martini. You don’t think that sense of entitlement would ramp up if she was the one who approached? And you’re ignoring another downside. In a Florida State University study, 75% of men agreed to have sex with a female stranger who asked, while no women agreed to a male stranger. That suggests plenty of men will say yes to a woman even when they have little or no…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:28 PM
1

Women’s concern for safety explains why some traits might matter more to them. It doesn’t explain why personality wouldn’t matter to men. You just listed two personality traits men care about.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:18 PM
3

Also a different argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:13 PM
1

I disagree because you’re defining “double standard” so broadly that it includes ordinary human judgment. If I trust one friend more than another, I’m not applying different standards. I’m applying the same standard, trust, and they’ve earned different levels of it. Your employee example isn’t comparable because race and sex are irrelevant to doing the job. Trust, attraction, compatibility, and the quality of the relationship are directly relevant to friendship and dating. Those aren’t arbitrary…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:13 PM
0

Words have meanings. Exercising caution isn’t the same thing as hating someone. We teach children stranger danger for a reason. We tell people not to get into strangers’ cars, not to accept rides from strangers, and to trust their instincts when something feels off. Nobody calls that hatred. If you’re going to call all of that “bigotry,” then you’ve stretched the word so far it’s lost its meaning.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:09 PM
-1

Being immutable doesn’t make them interchangeable. Age is immutable too. So is disability. That doesn’t mean every statement about one group can be swapped with another and keep the same meaning.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:07 PM
6

That’s just historically inaccurate. Women have been judged collectively for centuries. Women were denied voting, property rights, education, and careers based on assumptions about women as a group, not as individuals.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:06 PM
2

Different argument. I was replying to the part where they acted like people just accidentally end up in common law relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 04:04 PM
1

Then your real argument isn’t that women are uniquely the problem. It’s that men need to stop reinforcing behaviour they don’t like.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 03:07 PM
-1

Actually, my original comment in this thread was that race and gender aren’t interchangeable. I didn’t switch my argument. I replied to the comments people made to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 03:05 PM
1

Let’s be specific. When you say “pathetic excuses,” are you talking about women saying they were assaulted, stalked, followed, or harassed? Those are the excuses you’re mocking?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 03:00 PM
1

It matters because you claimed most of the post was criticizing men. When I pointed out what you actually wrote, you switched to “it doesn’t matter.” So which is it?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 02:41 PM
0

You do realise you’re reinforcing my point, right? Telling women they should be cautious because of how some men respond isn’t the rebuttal you think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 02:34 PM
3

You’re just restating your premise. That doesn’t answer the question. Which list is more critical: the one saying men open doors and pay for dates, or the one calling women entitled, narcissistic, transactional, and poor partners?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 02:33 PM
-2

Being black still doesn’t make race and gender interchangeable. Would you tell your kids to hitchhike home after school? Or take candy from strangers? Would you tell your girlfriend to walk through a dark alley alone late at night? Would you leave your laptop unattended in a busy coffee shop? Those are all examples of exercising caution. Nobody assumes every stranger is dangerous. They also don’t assume every stranger is safe.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 02:32 PM
2

Really? Your criticism of men is: they open doors, give up seats, compliment women, chase women, and pay for dates. Your criticism of women is: they’re entitled, narcissistic, transactional, poor partners, expect men to pay, don’t like paying for themselves, and call men cheap or broke if they split the bill. Which of those two lists sounds more like criticism?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 02:13 PM
3

Is it? Because most of it is criticizing women, not the men who create the behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 02:05 PM
2

What?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 02:01 PM
6

So now we’re debating which kind of joke about violence is more acceptable instead of the double standard I pointed out?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:58 PM
3

And? Were women not constantly told to call it out anyway? That’s literally my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:56 PM
7

Then your issue is with men’s behaviour, not women. If men are voluntarily creating the dynamic, they can voluntarily stop.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:55 PM
8

That’s not how evidence works. “Most men are internally overwhelmed by sexual desire” is an empirical claim, not something you get to assert because it feels true to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:47 PM
11

The same way a lot of men expected women to call out the women on The Talk when they laughed at a man having his penis cut off.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:34 PM
8

Men choose to open doors, compliment women, chase women, and pay for dates, then somehow it’s still women’s fault. If you don’t like doing those things, don’t do them. Personal responsibility shouldn’t disappear the second a woman is involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:24 PM
11

If you’re genuinely overwhelmed by sexual desire every time you’re around an attractive woman, maybe you shouldn’t be in mixed company until you’ve got that under control.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:16 PM
14

So your argument is that men are basically mindless animals who can’t control themselves? You’re not exactly making your own brethren look good here.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:03 PM
1

So by that logic, men saw women as sex partners, baby makers, and domestic help, while women saw men as wallets and sperm. Why would personality matter for women but not for men? Are you saying women evolved but men didn’t?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 12:46 PM
1

I’m not seeing the connection. My point was that a partner is a person, not a product you’re picking off a shelf.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 12:32 PM
1

You didn’t address a single thing I said. You just replaced an argument with a political label.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 11:02 AM
1

That’s not what you originally said though. You didn’t say looks come first. You said you’d choose the best looking option…like you’re picking a steak, not talking about a person.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 10:41 AM
7

Most people are decent. That doesn’t mean you share the same values, goals, sense of humour, communication style, or outlook on life. That’s the shit that actually determines whether a relationship works.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:24 AM
10

Yeah…that’s also a red flag. You’re talking about a person with their own hopes, dreams, ambitions, beliefs, and personality, and you’ve reduced them to the best looking option. If that’s all you’re looking for, just buy a RealDoll.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:15 AM
13

There are men in these comments saying they don’t care or they’ve never thought about it much and I am absolutely floored. How can you not care about the personality of somebody you’re going to spend a significant amount of time with? That is such a huge red flag. Edit: To the men saying personality doesn’t matter, I just hope you’re consistent. If you complain about women being entitled, arrogant, selfish, or disrespectful, then congratulations, personality matters to you too.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 01:02 AM
2

What are my values?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 12:34 AM
1

That’d probably land a lot better if you hadn’t just spent the last several hours arguing with me ITT.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 12:34 AM
2

The nice thing is you don’t have to pretend to decipher my beliefs because I laid them out pretty clearly. You don’t need to read between the lines or figure out what I was implying. My comment wasn’t the Da Vinci Code. It was pretty clear.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/26 12:31 AM
2

That’s not what I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 11:47 PM
1

Where did I say it wasn’t? You’re still arguing shit I never said. My criticism was of the comparison. Criticism isn’t misandry. And I wouldn’t get too comfortable on that high horse. You admitted you don’t call out misogyny unless someone’s “overly defensive.” So what does that make you?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 10:28 PM
1

Don’t rewrite my argument. I was specifically criticizing the comparison between misandry and bigotry against ethnic groups. That’s what I was responding to and you know it.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 08:23 PM
1

Quote me. Disagreement and criticism aren’t misandry. It’s high time some of you learn the difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 07:59 PM
10

Your evidence is a subreddit. Not a study. Not data. Not a meta-analysis. A fucking subreddit. And you think that outweighs peer-reviewed research. Gadzooks.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 07:14 PM
6

You probably forgot Google exists, because you didn’t cite a single source for any of that fan fiction. I did use Google. I couldn’t find a single study saying trans women transition because they think they’ll be treated better. I couldn’t find one saying trans men have higher suicide rates because they’re treated worse. And your detransition claim is actually contradicted by one of the largest studies on the subject. It found higher detransition rates among trans women (11%) than trans men (4%)…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 06:56 PM
1

What did I say that was misandrist?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 06:50 PM
1

Do you call them bigots? Yes or no. What women want is completely irrelevant. That’s a deflection.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 05:36 PM
1

I understand you. I just don’t agree with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 05:28 PM
1

Yes, the comic is about the reaction to a compliment. But the reason the compliment is happening in the first place is because the attractive guy chose to approach someone he was attracted to. He isn’t complimenting every woman in the office either. You’re using the comic to argue women uniquely treat attractive people differently, when the comic also shows the attractive guy treating women differently based on who he’s attracted to.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 05:26 PM
4

The whole point of recognizing common law relationships isn’t to “give women rights without effort.” It’s to protect people who functioned as a family for years but never signed a marriage certificate. That protection can apply to either partner. If the woman earned more or owned more assets, she could be the one paying. Also, simply dating someone or leaving a toothbrush at their place isn’t enough in most places. Courts look at a range of factors to determine whether the couple actually lived …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 05:25 PM
0

You’re not helping your argument. You’re just reminding women why they exercise caution around some men in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 04:44 PM
0

Okay, let’s do a little experiment. Go ask a male-dominated subreddit if they open up emotionally to women. When a lot of them tell you they don’t because of bad experiences, are you going to call them bigots too? Or is that different somehow?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 04:43 PM
-1

I don’t know what point you think you’re making. Women have been compared to ham sandwiches, half-eaten pizza, chewed gum, used toothbrushes, expired milk, and now apparently we’re bigots too. Do you honestly think that’s going to change anything? Of course it isn’t. The kind of man who jumps straight to calling women bigots for exercising normal caution is exactly the kind of guy women are exercising caution around in the first place. Let me ask you something. If your girlfriend’s car broke dow…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 04:40 PM
1

You’re treating sex as the end goal. If someone wants a relationship, then comparing it to a stranger hooking up with an attractive guy isn’t comparing the same thing. They’re different goals, so of course people behave differently.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 04:32 PM
1

The guys who do well tend to be confident, assertive, funny, socially skilled, and actually make a move. Some of them are great people. Some of them are complete assholes. You’re crediting the asshole part when the common denominator is much more likely everything else.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 04:30 PM
1

We were talking about attractive people being treated differently. I agreed with that. Pretty privilege exists. Now you’ve switched to workplace harassment complaints. Those aren’t the same discussion. So let’s get back on track. Is the hot guy complimenting every woman in the office, or just the ones he finds attractive? We both know the answer. The invisibility goes both ways. You’re just pretending it’s only a women’s behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 04:28 PM
1

You’ve just redefined “standards” so broadly that the word doesn’t mean anything anymore. You’re acting like if I wanted pizza on Tuesday, I have to eat pizza every Tuesday for the rest of my life. That’s not how people work. One decision doesn’t lock you into making that same decision forever. People change, circumstances change, relationships change. I’m tired of repeating myself, so I’ll say it one last time. A standard is something like, “I don’t sleep with married men,” or “I don’t date peo…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 01:58 PM
-2

You’re skipping the part where you show they’re actually comparable. Just saying it’s the same mechanism doesn’t make it true. History, context, and power dynamics matter. Race and gender aren’t interchangeable variables you can swap in and out to prove a point.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 01:49 PM
2

This sounds less like an argument and more like a story you’re telling yourself to explain something you already believe.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 01:21 PM
-5

NoW rEpLaCe….. If you need a completely different demographic to create outrage, then the outrage isn’t coming from the original statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 01:16 PM
13

A lot of trans people who’ve lived as both men and women have talked about the differences they’ve experienced firsthand. Trans men often describe being interrupted less, taken more seriously at work, having their competence assumed instead of questioned, and generally receiving more baseline respect once they’re perceived as male. Trans women frequently describe the opposite. More harassment. Less credibility. More dismissive treatment, especially in healthcare where symptoms are more likely to…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 01:08 PM
-1

Your question was whether I would. The answer is yes. I would, and I have.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 12:25 PM
0

You’re comparing two completely different situations and acting like they should produce the same behaviour. A woman deciding to have a casual hookup with one person tells you absolutely nothing about what she wants from a long-term relationship with someone else. People have different standards for different situations all the time. And your second paragraph is just another unsupported assumption. You’re claiming women only care about safety, emotional connection, and household labour when the …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 12:23 PM
2

First of all, no they don’t. I don’t know why some of you act like attractive men walk outside and women just start throwing themselves at them. They still have to meet people, flirt, date, and put themselves out there. Second, why are you so focused on this tiny percentage of men who supposedly have unlimited options? It’s weird how often these conversations stop being about average men and women trying to build relationships and become obsessed with what a handful of highly attractive men are …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 11:29 AM
3

You can think whatever you want. That doesn’t make it true. You don’t know anything about me, yet you’ve decided what I believe about prostitution, what value judgements I hold, and what kind of sex life I must have. That’s a lot of assumptions for someone you’ve never met. Now, should I start telling you what I think “men like you” are like, or can we agree that making up stereotypes about strangers isn’t an argument?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 11:19 AM
6

No, I don’t. It’s a physical act. The person you’re sharing it with is what gives it meaning, not the act itself. The vast majority of species have sex for pleasure or procreation. Humans are the ones who tend to load it with all kinds of extra meaning. Sometimes it is deeply meaningful. Sometimes it isn’t. It’s like having dinner. Having dinner with an old friend you’ve known for 20 years feels completely different than grabbing lunch with a coworker you barely know. The act is the same. What m…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 01:47 AM
1

No, I don’t. It’s a physical act. The person you’re sharing it with is what gives it meaning, not the act itself. The vast majority of species have sex for pleasure or procreation. Humans are the ones who tend to load it with all kinds of extra meaning. Sometimes it is deeply meaningful. Sometimes it isn’t. It’s like having dinner. Having dinner with an old friend you’ve known for 20 years feels completely different than grabbing lunch with a coworker you barely know. The act is the same. What m…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 01:46 AM
1

I was evaluating the claim, not psychoanalyzing the person making it. You can keep analysing it if you want. I’m done explaining it.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/26 01:40 AM
1

You’re arguing with what you inferred, not what I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 11:37 PM
1

“Can I think of another explanation?” Yeah. Lots. Maybe she was in a different place in her life. Maybe she felt more comfortable with him. Maybe the chemistry was different. Maybe she wanted something casual then and something serious now. Maybe she had a stomach bug that day. Maybe she was on her period. Maybe she just wasn’t in the mood. There are literally hundreds of reasons why someone might have sex with one person on the first date and not another. The fact that you think there’s only on…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 11:34 PM
1

That it goes both ways, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 11:26 PM
1

I don’t think that’s some hidden truth women don’t know. Confidence, humour, charisma, assertiveness, and flirting have always been attractive. So has the fact that those traits can overlap with manipulative people. That’s why women constantly tell each other to watch for love bombing, narcissists, controlling behaviour, and other red flags. We already know confidence isn’t the same thing as character.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 11:26 PM
1

You’re replacing friendship with attraction. Those aren’t the same thing. The surprise isn’t that he wanted sex. It’s that someone she trusted as a friend apparently saw the relationship differently the whole time.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 11:23 PM
1

Yeah, and I have. Someone’s job isn’t important. That’s what they do, not who they are
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 11:20 PM
2

“Hill I’m willing to die on” So you’re not here for a debate then?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 11:19 PM
2

Correct. Do I need to explain the difference between “this” and “you”?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 11:17 PM
1

Right. A partner. Someone she actually wants to be with. That’s kind of the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 07:12 PM
4

Because you’re treating 45 minutes of validation from a stranger as a bigger achievement than decades of love, trust, and commitment.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 07:10 PM
2

So the only two options you can come up with are living in a tiny apartment or marrying someone you don’t love? Roommates never crossed your mind?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 07:02 PM
3

Where did I say “you’re”?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 06:52 PM
3

I didn’t call OP pitiful. I said I think their mindset is sad. There’s a difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 06:10 PM
0

It’s not rude. It’s pity
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 05:53 PM
5

So if she went on vacation with someone else, she’s not allowed to think going on vacation with you is special? Different experiences can have different meaning depending on the person and the relationship. Sometimes sex is just fun. Sometimes it’s meaningful. Sometimes it’s both. You’re the one putting sex on a pedestal and acting like everyone has to assign it the same meaning you do.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 05:50 PM
9

By thinking for yourself?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 05:48 PM
2

Is this a real question? Different people want different things. Are you friends with every person you’ve ever met? Compatibility really isn’t that hard to understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 05:47 PM
-3

Where do some of you get this shit from? Stability and investment? It’s 2026. Women don’t need men for that shit. Women want men they actually like. Men they’re attracted to. Men they like fucking. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. This idea that women only lust after one guy but date another for his wallet is just manosphere fan fiction.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 05:40 PM
0

Source
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 04:51 PM
5

This is actually kind of sad. You think it’s more of an achievement to get someone to sleep with you once than to have someone choose you for years or decades? I know people who’ve had one night stands with people they wouldn’t even want to have a conversation with the next morning. That doesn’t really strike me as some huge achievement. To me, having someone actually want to build a life with you is a much bigger flex than being attractive enough for one night.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 04:50 PM
1

Being able to understand your own emotions, communicate them without blowing up or shutting down, and have some awareness of how your words and actions affect other people. It also means being able to listen, handle conflict like an adult, take accountability when you’re wrong, and show empathy instead of getting defensive.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 04:42 PM
3

Correct. So if you want to date a woman who split the bill or pay for the bill, use your words.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 04:40 PM
4

Sure, anyone can make observations. Robert Glover wrote, “Nice Guys are dishonest. Secretive. Manipulative. Controlling. Self-centered and narcissistic. Passive-aggressive.” Should I start citing that as definitive proof of how men behave just because it’s in a book? Or is it just one author’s opinion? Esther Vilar’s book is one person’s observations, not evidence. If you’re going to use it as proof of how women behave, it matters whether it’s backed by research or just the author’s personal vie…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 02:24 PM
1

This is a lot of energy to spend on people you insist are so boring. People who put women on a pedestal and people who hate women do have something in common. They’re both projecting instead of seeing women as actual people. But then you do the exact same thing by saying women are all “basic and boring.” That’s just another projection. Women aren’t all one thing. Some are interesting, some are boring, some are kind, some are assholes. Same with men. People are individuals, not stereotypes. And E…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 01:18 PM
2

Esther Vilar wasn’t a researcher, psychologist, or academic. She was a physician who wrote a provocative, opinion-based book in 1971. It’s one person’s views, not evidence, so stop pretending it represents women or proves anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 01:09 PM
2

That’s just weird. The only time I’ve judged a man for wearing shorts is when it’s -20 degrees outside. But a big guy in jorts is how you know winter has officially begun so I guess it’s ok.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 12:08 PM
1

How much effort does it take to tap your phone at Applebee’s? Tone it down a notch, you’re not doing dishes to pay for the meal
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 12:01 PM
3

The guys you call simps are usually just guys in relationships. Most men and women do nice things for each other because they care about each other, not because they’re simps. Women aren’t lining up to date guys who think treating their partner well is oppression.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 11:59 AM
5

That’s a different argument than the one you made. Your post wasn’t that some women don’t fully understand their own motivations. It was that women are lying and the real reason is laziness and convenience. But you never actually show that. You just dismiss what women say about their own motivations and replace it with your own explanation. Some women probably do like traditional gender roles because it’s convenient. Some genuinely find confidence and initiative attractive. Some are both. You do…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 01:29 AM
5

The answer to the first set of questions is: some women do. The answer to the second set is: they’re not the same women. By your logic, if one guy says he’s a Yankees fan and another says he’s a Mets fan, men must be lying about baseball because they’re giving different answers. See how ridiculous that sounds? You’re taking behaviours from different people and pretending they’re coming from the same person.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 08:42 PM
–

I don’t know how “feminists” react because they’re not a hive mind. I only know how I’d react. Some people get defensive. Some don’t. That’s not exclusive to feminists, that’s just people. And I don’t agree that feminism wasn’t created to fight gender roles. Challenging restrictive gender roles has always been part of feminism because those roles have historically been used to justify unequal expectations and limit women’s opportunities. Women’s empowerment and challenging gender roles aren’t se…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 01:02 PM
–

Yes, it is. Being an older married woman isn’t what predicts those views. Age does. Older people, regardless of sex, tend to be more socially conservative than younger people. And women who are already more conservative are also more likely to be religious and to marry. You’re assuming marriage caused it, when it’s just as plausible that people with those beliefs were more likely to marry in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 12:52 PM
–

Progressive women aren’t immune to the same social conditioning as everyone else. Feminism doesn’t magically undo decades of messages about gender roles. The same way plenty of progressive men still expect women to do more emotional labour or take their husband’s last name. Wanting a financially stable partner isn’t the same as expecting a man to fund your lifestyle. It’s about not wanting a dependent. Some women expect men to be providers. Some don’t. Same with coffee dates. Some women see them…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 12:13 PM
–

This is nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 12:08 PM
1

In the exact same way unattractive women are invisible to a lot of men. Welcome to human nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 11:21 AM
1

Genuine question: how do you know it was the asshole part? If a guy goes from shy, insecure, and afraid of rejection to confident, assertive, and willing to flirt, why are you crediting the asshole behaviour instead of the confidence?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 11:19 AM
1

Pretty privilege has existed forever. Attractive people get treated differently. Men do it. Women do it. Employers do it. Society does it. The fact that people treat someone they’re more attracted to differently isn’t some profound insight about women. It’s human nature. Like I said, attraction isn’t a meritocracy.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 11:18 AM
1

I’m so tired of this weak argument. It doesn’t even make sense. You’re acting like it’s a different standard when it’s just a different person. If you bought one woman flowers on the second date, does that mean you have to buy every woman flowers on the second date? If you took one woman to a steakhouse on the first date, does every other woman have to go there too? If she slept with one guy on the first date, it’s because of how she felt about him, how he made her feel, where she was in her lif…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 11:11 AM
1

Women have agency. If they don’t enjoy sex, they can choose not to have it. Complaining about certain behaviours doesn’t tell you whether they like sex. It tells you they don’t like those behaviours.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/26 06:43 PM
0

You’re the one grasping at straws. “I’m not attracted” and “I’m not sure yet” are completely different states. If you can’t tell the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/26 06:40 PM
2

You asked some women, they gave you their reasons, and then you filled in the gaps with your own conclusions. "He wants sex too early" doesn't logically become "she doesn't like sex," and "she doesn't like sex" doesn't become "she's a low-value sexual partner."
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/26 04:17 PM
2

It’s not a strawman. You took women who struggle dating and declared they don’t like sex, don’t like men, and are low-value sexual partners. That’s your claim. You asserted it. You didn’t demonstrate it.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/26 01:50 PM
–

r/MenAndFemales I don't think most women on Reddit dislike sex with men. They dislike feeling like sex is the goal before you've even figured out whether you like each other. Why do you act like the only two options are pushing for sex right away or sitting down with a spreadsheet? Most people just. get to know each other. Talk. Hang out. See if there's chemistry. It's not that complicated.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/26 01:00 PM
2

Another day, another guy confusing his assumptions with evidence. Women having boundaries doesn’t mean they dislike sex. It means they have boundaries. This is just another attempt to pathologize women who don’t behave the way you think they should.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/26 11:48 AM
0

You’re moving the goalposts. We were talking about women feeling differently about different men. Now you’re talking about women who already know they’re not attracted. Those aren’t the same scenario. If she knows she’s not interested, she should end it. If she doesn’t know yet, that’s literally what dating is for.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/26 11:36 AM
0

I don’t see how my wording said that at all. I said some women don’t mind being approached and some find it flattering. Neither of those means they want to be approached. The idea that I was saying women want unattractive men to approach them came from the next person’s question, not from anything I wrote. They changed the discussion from how women react when approached to whether women want unattractive men to approach them. Those are different questions.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/26 04:38 PM
0

Yes, I disagree. I thought I was clear about that. The standards I have for different people depend on the relationship I have with that person, not just the category they belong to. If two people are both my friends, I might happily go on vacation with one but not the other because our personalities are different or we travel differently. If I trust one friend with a house key but not another, that’s not a double standard. It’s the same standard, trust, applied to two different people who have …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:28 PM
–

You’re acting like men have no choice in the matter. If someone gives you an ultimatum, you can say no and end the relationship. That’s called having agency. You’re in charge of you.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 01:51 PM
–

It’s 2026, not 1956. If you call each other husband and wife, people generally just accept it and move on. Unless you live in a culture where marriage has much stronger social or religious significance, there’s very little prestige attached to it, and most people don’t give a shit about your personal life.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 01:48 PM
–

A $500 courthouse ceremony and a $50,000 wedding still create the same legal marriage. You’re arguing about weddings, not marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 01:42 PM
–

You can call anyone your wife/husband. No one’s going to ask to see your marriage license.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 12:54 PM
–

So don’t get married. I don’t know why some of you are acting like it’s mandatory.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 12:53 PM
–

“$100k and 100+ hours of planning” You can choose to spend less.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 12:44 PM
–

Alternatives already exist. Stay single. Date. Cohabitate. Why are so many people overthinking this?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 12:42 PM
–

Um, stay single. Date. Cohabitate. You already have options.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 12:41 PM
–

You’re conflating personal preferences with political beliefs. You’re taking “I want a financially stable partner” and turning it into “men with less money are losers.” Those aren’t the same thing. Believing wealth is influenced by structural factors doesn’t mean people have to date people they’re not compatible with. You’re inventing a contradiction and then arguing against it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 11:32 AM
0

Fair enough. If you’re not claiming it’s unique to women, then we don’t disagree on that point. My point is still that treating different people differently isn’t, by itself, a double standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 12:04 AM
0

You’re calling it a double standard as though that’s automatically a criticism. It’s not. People have different standards for different people based on trust, attraction, compatibility, history, and a hundred other factors. That’s not hypocrisy, it’s discernment. You’re trying to turn a completely ordinary feature of human relationships into something uniquely about women, and you still haven’t explained why it should be considered wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 11:07 PM
1

You’re going to need to back that up.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 03:57 PM
1

You’re still making the same unsupported leap. I never said those comments don’t exist. I said you haven’t shown they’re representative of society. Reddit, Instagram, and TikTok aren’t random samples of the population. People choose to use those platforms, choose what to engage with, and algorithms decide what gets pushed. A post getting thousands of upvotes or 100k likes tells you it resonated with that audience. It doesn’t tell you what society as a whole believes. And you’re doing the same th…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:42 AM
3

Both things can be true.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:20 PM
2

Ok, and? I have friends I’d lend money to and friends I wouldn’t. I have friends I’d invite to trivia night and friends I wouldn’t. We all apply different standards to different people. That’s a normal part of life. Stop pretending it’s unique to women or that it’s inherently wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 10:20 PM
1

We’re talking about anonymous internet banter, are we not?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 01:19 AM
0

Can you point to the part where I said women want unattractive men to approach them? Because I didn’t. I said women don’t all react the same way.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 12:16 AM
-1

You keep substituting “this opinion gets a lot of engagement online” for “this is what everyone believes.” Those aren’t the same claim. I never denied those comments exist. I denied that they’re representative of society.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 05:41 PM
–

I never said this was justice for history. I said OP is taking problems that exist today and attributing them to women or feminism without demonstrating the connection.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:59 PM
1

I’m not the one who’s confused. My first comment was pretty clear. What OP is describing isn’t uniquely male behaviour. It’s normal human behaviour. Women lose things, forget passwords, have payment issues, and ask customer service for help too. If OP wants to argue younger adults in general have fewer life skills, that’s a discussion worth having. The problem is claiming young men are “objectively worth less to date” and then using routine customer service interactions as the evidence. Hope tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:56 PM
–

Saying that men historically held political, legal, and institutional power isn’t blaming every man alive today. It’s just acknowledging history. Funny how collective history is fair game when some men want credit for “building civilization,” but the second that same history involves power instead of praise, suddenly it’s “don’t blame me.”
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:45 PM
1

Yeah, but that wasn’t my claim. It was yours. I quite literally said “That doesn’t mean most incels are violent or that every sexually unsuccessful man is a threat.”
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:39 PM
1

I’ve said repeatedly nothing was exclusive or specific to men. I didn’t think that was a difficult concept to grasp.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:31 PM
0

Whether you like it or not, incel hasn’t been used exclusively to mean “involuntarily celibate” for years. It’s commonly used to describe a specific mindset and behaviour. That’s language evolving, not people being “too stupid” to use a word. Also, if you’re going to call people stupid, it’s probably a good idea to check your spelling first. It hits harder that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:30 PM
–

Isn’t that something? Almost every solution you listed is about taking something away from women. Your solutions seem less about helping men and more about hurting women. How predictable. Why not put that energy into improving men’s mental health, helping boys who are falling behind in school, funding addiction treatment, homelessness programs, job training, or fatherhood initiatives? You know…things that would actually improve men’s lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:26 PM
–

I’m not even going to guess what women would’ve done because it doesn’t matter. That’s not the world we live in. We can deal with the history we actually have instead of inventing one we don’t. We know who held political, legal, and institutional power for centuries. And if you’re claiming women are broadly being hired without merit, that’s something you need to support with evidence. As for what feminism has done: - The right to vote - The right to own and inherit property independently - The r…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:15 PM
–

Did you think that one through at all? Giving birth to someone isn’t the same as holding political, legal, and institutional power for generations. Saying women are responsible for men’s actions because they gave birth to them is a pretty convenient way to erase men’s agency.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:11 PM
–

Instead of trying to pressure people into having more kids, I’d rather see us fix the systems that depend on endless population growth. We should be investing in automation, innovation, and adapting to demographic change instead of expecting every generation to produce more people. Infinite growth isn’t a sustainable model anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 10:31 AM
–

That’s not what the paper says. It argues that women’s increasing independence may change partner selection. That’s very different from claiming average men are inherently undesirable or that the paper proves systemic misandry.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 10:12 AM
–

If this were happening to any other group, people wouldn’t be spending all their time trying to figure out who to blame. They’d be talking about solutions. So what are yours, other than blaming women?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 10:10 AM
–

It’s always interesting watching men point to systems men built, maintained, and enforced for generations, then call the consequences “misandry.” Women didn’t exclude themselves from dangerous jobs. They were excluded. Icelandic women working in the public sector still pay taxes like everyone else, so pretending men are solely funding their jobs is misleading. Men are less likely to seek mental health support, which contributes to worse outcomes, but that isn’t evidence that women hate men. Most…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 10:04 AM
1

Definitions evolve. All incels are involuntarily celibate. Not all involuntarily celibates are incels. Hope that helps.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 09:54 AM
1

You can popularize it if you want. I don’t think women are going to care nearly as much as you think they will. We already get called worse by men on a daily basis.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 09:53 AM
-2

Cool. And? One statistic doesn’t magically make the other disappear.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 09:46 AM
0

We’re talking about your claim that the stereotype of incels being dangerous has “no basis in reality.” If you want to defend that claim, defend it. Stop changing the subject.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 09:43 AM
1

So you’re quoting the exact thing I’m disagreeing with? That’s your evidence?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 09:39 AM
1

Nothing said was specific to men.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:46 AM
0

That’s a strawman. I never argued the stereotype is fair. I argued it didn’t appear out of thin air. Those are completely different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 01:42 AM
0

Pick one. Either it has “no basis in reality,” or it’s “extremely rare.” Those are two different arguments. Multiple attacks have been explicitly linked to incel ideology, to the point that violent incel ideology is recognized as a form of extremist terrorism in several jurisdictions. So no, the association didn’t just appear out of thin air.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 12:21 AM
2

Women’s freedom isn’t the problem. If women are free to choose and they aren’t choosing you, blaming their freedom seems like the wrong conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 12:09 AM
0

Sure sounds like it.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 12:06 AM
1

What is the point? Spell it out.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 12:06 AM
2

“There absolutely are women who do have different standards depending on how they’re perceiving their date.” Yeah, no shit. If I have instant chemistry with one guy and I’m unsure about another, of course I’m going to behave differently. That’s called being human. Men do the exact same thing. I don’t know why you think you’ve uncovered some uniquely female behaviour. “And that is a problem that should be fixed.” Fixed how? You can’t force attraction to be distributed equally. People don’t feel t…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 12:05 AM
-3

“No basis in reality” isn’t true, though. There have been multiple, and recent, attacks explicitly tied to incel ideology. That doesn’t mean most incels are violent or that every sexually unsuccessful man is a threat. But it does mean the association didn’t come out of nowhere. As for violent criminals being sexually successful, I don’t disagree that some are. But I don’t see how that proves your point. Plenty of abusive men are charismatic, manipulative, persistent, or simply approach more wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/26 12:01 AM
-1

Even if I accepted everything you said about those studies, it still wouldn’t support your conclusion. “Not all sexually unsuccessful men are dangerous” and “society unfairly stereotypes them” are different claims. One doesn’t automatically prove the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 10:39 PM
0

You’re confusing “a lot of Redditors agree” with “this is what society believes.” Reddit is a self selected group with its own culture, biases, and echo chambers. It’s not a representative sample of the population. Also, you’re oversimplifying the comments. Saying someone should work on their personality isn’t the same as saying all sexually unsuccessful men have bad personalities. Most people are responding to the men who are blaming women, not quietly existing as virgins.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 10:33 PM
3

You can’t seriously believe that. It’s absurd. Women’s freedom isn’t being “paid for” by men’s sexlessness. It’s women having the same freedom to choose that men have always expected for themselves. You’re treating “women can say no” as though it’s a social cost someone else is unfairly bearing. It isn’t. It’s just agency.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 10:29 PM
1

I’m not saying every rejection is caused by bad behaviour. I’m saying most people handle rejection by moving on or working on themselves. The men being criticized are the ones who turn that rejection into resentment and blame women for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 09:52 PM
2

Reddit is part of society. It isn’t a stand in for society. “I found people on Reddit saying this” isn’t evidence that society believes it. It’s evidence that some people on Reddit said it. If your claim is that this is a widespread social belief, you need more than anecdotes and toxic Reddit threads to support it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 09:32 PM
3

No. Women aren’t allergic to hearing men are dissatisfied. They’re tired of hearing that their agency is the reason men are dissatisfied, as if women are supposed to lower their standards to fix it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 09:31 PM
1

Cool, and there are tons of places on Reddit where women get called cat ladies, whores, gold diggers, or told they’ll die alone because they rejected a guy. What’s your point? Reddit doesn’t prove what society believes. And you’ve changed your argument. First it was “society.” Now it’s “there are places on Reddit.” Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 09:22 PM
3

Of course women’s standards are a factor. So are men’s. Women decide who they date. So do men. That’s called agency. That doesn’t mean women are the problem. It just means you don’t get to decide who says yes to you. None of us do.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 09:17 PM
3

I don’t think it’s the mere expression of dissatisfaction that’s the problem. I think it’s what often comes with it. “Dating has been really hard for me” is very different from “women only want assholes,” “women are shallow,” or “women are the reason I’m alone.” One is expressing frustration. The other is assigning blame. Those don’t get the same reaction, and they shouldn’t.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 09:03 PM
4

You’re still making the same unsupported claim. You keep saying men are labeled creepy, evil, and moral failures simply for being sexually unsuccessful, but you haven’t shown that’s actually what’s happening. And no, I don’t believe in a “just world.” I’ve already said attraction isn’t fair and dating success isn’t entirely within someone’s control. What I disagree with is your claim that being sexually unsuccessful is what gets men labeled creepy. Being sexually unsuccessful and behaving in a c…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 09:02 PM
2

I wasn’t just talking about bitterness after rejection. I was talking about the behaviours that lead to repeated rejection in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:56 PM
8

So you’re just trolling?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:47 PM
5

How is this even a question? Of course we’d pick the person who’s actually present. Why wouldn’t we? That doesn’t mean women just fall for whoever hangs around. There still has to be attraction. But if you’re interested in two people, the one who’s consistently there, spending time with you, talking to you, and actually building a relationship is obviously going to have the advantage. Relationships don’t just appear out of thin air. They grow because people are present in each other’s lives. I’m…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:47 PM
2

You can have an opinion about anything. But an opinion isn’t evidence, and it doesn’t become a fact just because you believe it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:36 PM
5

Of course it’s beyond their control. They don’t control who finds them attractive any more than women do. You don’t get to control who rejects you or who chooses you. That’s literally what agency is.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:34 PM
2

Exactly. You can’t prove it. Yet you’ve been stating it as though it’s a fact this entire time. “I think this is what’s happening” is very different from “this is what’s happening.” Those aren’t the same claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:28 PM
6

Most people know that if they take their shot, they might get rejected. They don’t complain because they never thought they were entitled to a yes. The criticism isn’t about being rejected. It’s about acting like someone did something wrong by rejecting you.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:27 PM
9

And there it is again. Instead of accepting that attraction is individual, you jump to “women secretly don’t want unattractive men to approach them.” No. Women don’t all want the same thing. Some are flattered by being approached. Some aren’t. Some will reject you politely. Some won’t. That’s people, not some hidden ideology.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:24 PM
3

You’re doing it again. You keep telling everyone what they secretly believe without ever showing that’s what they actually believe. Most people don’t think lonely men deserve to be lonely. They just don’t think women are obligated to solve that loneliness. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:11 PM
6

Or their virginity is a direct result of their behaviour
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:11 PM
4

So now “society” has a subconscious urge? You’re still assigning motives to millions of people you can’t possibly know. “People disagree with me” is one thing. “People subconsciously do it to protect the peace of mind of the sex havers” is an extraordinary claim, and you’ve given no reason to believe that’s what’s actually happening.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:48 PM
3

I understand it just fine. You’re the one arguing against something I never said. I never claimed consent was based on morality. I said it’s based on whether that person wants you. A woman can consent to one man and not another for any reason she chooses. That’s literally what consent means.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:43 PM
3

“No, you” isn’t an argument. If you think I’ve got the cause and effect backwards, explain why instead of just declaring it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:41 PM
9

You say “looks like we’re posting this shit again” like you just dropped a peer reviewed study. It’s a fucking comic strip. Some genuinely good men struggle with dating. Some genuinely awful men don’t. The exact same thing is true for women. Some amazing women struggle to find a partner, while some objectively shitty women always seem to have men lining up for them. That’s life. It doesn’t prove women are applying some secret set of rules. It just proves attraction isn’t a meritocracy.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:40 PM
4

How exactly would I know a man is a virgin unless he tells me? The criticism isn’t about being a virgin. It’s about the attitude that sometimes comes with it, like blaming women, acting resentful, or expecting women to fix it for you. Those are two completely different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:34 PM
14

That’s not gaslighting. Treating different people differently is just normal human behaviour. You probably don’t joke with your boss the same way you joke with your best friend. You don’t trust every stranger the same way you trust your family. Why would attraction be any different? How about you stop trying to gaslight women into believing this is something only women do. Men do it all the time. Men don’t treat every woman the same either. They make exceptions for women they’re attracted to, wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:32 PM
5

I don’t know. Ask an American. What you’re calling “selective behaviour” is just consent. A woman can enthusiastically sleep with one man and not want to kiss another. She doesn’t owe every man the same level of access because she gave it to someone else. And calling these men “bitter rejects” is an interesting choice when you’re arguing women are unfair to them. If that’s genuinely how you see them, don’t be surprised when women pick up on the bitterness.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:29 PM
2

Most people have no idea who’s a virgin. The ones who get called out are the ones who loudly advertise it by making their lack of sex everyone else’s problem and directing their anger at women. The virginity isn’t what people are reacting to. The behaviour is.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:25 PM
6

Yeah, and plenty of people on Reddit think the earth is flat and birds aren’t real. It’s social media. Random people saying something doesn’t mean it represents everybody.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:24 PM
8

Unless you were there, you don’t know whether he was creepy or not. Wanting a kiss and acting in a creepy way aren’t mutually exclusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:23 PM
4

“Society is afraid of acknowledging that most of these men are unsuccessful because women are free to not need men.” No, it isn’t. I see women acknowledge that all the time. Women have been saying for years that they don’t need men financially, and that’s hardly some taboo topic society is afraid to talk about. “They want peaceful, good boy workers and tax payers so that the sex havers can live without worry.” Who is “they”? Women didn’t create the tax system. Women didn’t build the economic sys…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:21 PM
12

I think you’ve got the cause and effect backwards. Men aren’t criticized because they’re sexually unsuccessful. They’re criticized when they turn that frustration into resentment and start treating women like they owe them something. Being involuntarily celibate isn’t a moral failing. Believing women are responsible for fixing it is. All incels are involuntarily celibate, but not all involuntarily celibate men are incels. Those aren’t interchangeable terms.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 05:23 PM
7

Congratulations. You’ve learned about consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 05:13 PM
5

So now the bar is “unless it started before puberty, it doesn’t count”? That’s a convenient way to dismiss anyone whose experiences don’t fit your preferred narrative. Trauma isn’t only valid if it began in childhood.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 03:33 PM
1

You mean the way men call women lonely cat ladies without knowing anything about their lives? It’s almost like insulting people isn’t a gendered trait.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 03:27 PM
47

You’re comparing different women as if they’re the same person. - Some women will sleep with a guy on the first date. Others won’t sleep with anyone on the first date. A woman deciding not to sleep with you doesn’t mean she’s applying a different standard. It means she’s making her own choice. - Wanting sex doesn’t make someone entitled. Thinking someone should want to have sex with you because you want it does. - Attraction isn’t distributed fairly. Some people click instantly, some don’t, and …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 03:25 PM
1

Oh, well TIL forgetting your password is something only irresponsible young men do. Women have obviously never lost anything, forgotten a password, or had a payment issue. OP’s best examples are just everyday customer service interactions. The only point I’m missing is how OP managed to take those completely ordinary situations and turn them into a flaw that’s supposedly unique to men.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 02:12 PM
1

You’re only looking at this from the man’s perspective. A woman approaching first doesn’t magically make things safer or easier for women. It creates a different problem: is he interested in me, or is he just saying yes because he thinks sex is on the table? There was literally a study where attractive students asked strangers if they’d have sex. Around 75% of the men said yes. Women were essentially at zero. That tells you women can’t assume a man saying yes is actually interested in them. That…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 05:40 PM
1

Did you stretch before those leaps?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 05:34 PM
4

It's such a nonsense question. It doesn't matter what someone brings to the table. It matters what you value in a partner. If you asked my brother what he brings to the table, he'd probably say he's a great, experimental cook. If you asked his wife, that wouldn't even make her top 10 because she couldn't care less about food. She'd happily eat the Matrix gruel every day without complaint. What matters to one person can be completely irrelevant to someone else. I don't know what you value, so ask…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 04:43 PM
5

Good thing he's in an opinion sub then.....oh., wait
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 04:28 PM
10

"Women are so narcissistic they don't want to talk to meeeee." It's pretty self-centred to assume that if women don't want to have deep conversations with you, they must not like deep conversations at all. Women have those conversations with other women, their partners, friends, family, and peers every day. They also make up huge portions of academia, journalism, law, medicine, politics, science, and countless other fields built around discussing complex ideas, so they're clearly having those co…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 04:27 PM
1

This reads like you started with the conclusion that feminists think women are morally perfect, then worked backwards looking for examples that support it. A few Reddit comments aren’t evidence of what millions of feminists believe. They’re just a few Reddit comments. Do some people make excuses for women who commit crimes? Sure. Just like some people bend over backwards to excuse men. Neither proves an entire movement believes women are morally perfect. Then you make a huge leap from “some femi…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 11:35 AM
1

It simply should not be treated as the universal standard or the ultimate measure of confidence and romance. I don't think it is. It's just one common way relationships start. Plenty begin through friends, work, hobbies, school, social circles, or family introductions.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 03:58 PM
1

Nobody dies from not getting dates. And unwanted attention isn’t neutral. If your “food” regularly came with a risk of being poisoned, assaulted, stalked, or manipulated, having more of it wouldn’t automatically be an advantage. Quantity and quality aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 11:43 AM
1

Such as? Quote the assumptions you’re talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 11:41 AM
–

Are you telling me you've never dropped or lost something? Your arguments are so unserious I feel like I'm the one talking to a child.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 04:15 PM
5

Because you're acting like being broke, clumsy, or forgetful are not only male only behaviours but somehow make someone undateable,
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 04:08 PM
–

JFC it’s not too late to delete this.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 03:47 PM
7

Why would a gym going crowd be more competent? That makes absolutely no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 03:45 PM
86

People go to the front desk because that’s literally what the front desk is for. If someone’s membership defaulted or they can’t access their account, what exactly are they supposed to do? You’re taking interactions that require employee assistance and using them as proof an entire generation of men is helpless. That’s confirmation bias. And none of your examples are male-specific. Women lose things, forget passwords, have payment issues, and ask customer service for help too. That’s called bein…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 03:14 PM
–

I’m glad it worked for you. I have no issue with sharing advice that people have found helpful. What I disagree with is the conclusion you’re drawing from it. If a particular approach improves someone’s relationship, that doesn’t prove that most women don’t know what they want. That’s the claim I’ve been challenging this whole time, and you still haven’t provided evidence for it. You’ve offered personal experience and anecdotes, which are useful for generating hypotheses, but they don’t establis…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 11:43 PM
–

I’m not pissed, I just disagree with you. You spent a lot of time explaining why you hold that opinion, but not providing evidence that it’s true. “I used to think like other women,” “I found a course,” and “I’ve observed people online” are all anecdotes. They don’t establish that most women don’t know what they want. Now you’ve shifted to “women don’t tell men what they want,” which is a completely different claim. Not communicating what you want isn’t the same as not knowing what you want. You…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 10:06 PM
1

Your evidence for “most women don’t know what they want” is that some women are single, divorced, ask for validation online, or change their minds. That makes zero sense. Being single doesn’t mean you don’t know what you want. Neither does getting divorced. If anything, those can both be evidence that someone knows what they don’t want. Seeking validation online is a bonkers example. And changing your mind is completely normal human behaviour, not uniquely female. So does that mean that the coun…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 08:12 PM
1

I still don’t understand why you’re so hung up on orgasms. An orgasm isn’t proof of attraction. When a man masturbates, is he sexually attracted to his hand? Of course not. Likewise, the absence of an orgasm doesn’t prove the absence of desire. You’re treating orgasm as a proxy for attraction, and it simply isn’t. And you’ve already conceded there’s no empirical evidence for your central claim. At that point, it’s just speculation. You’re free to have a theory, but I’m not obligated to treat it …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 04:43 PM
–

I did read it. Twice. You said men “insist,” “make,” and “fail.” Not having a stable income doesn’t change anything. You’re still describing a series of joint decisions as though only one adult is making them. A man can make anything his goal, but he still needs a woman to agree to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 02:36 PM
0

Congratulations, you’ve discovered that women are human. Some women are shitty. Some men are shitty. This didn’t need a dissertation.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 02:31 PM
–

Why are you talking like women have no say in any of this? Marriage, kids, and whether one parent stays home are decisions that involve two adults. Women aren’t passive bystanders in their own lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 02:13 PM
37

This falls apart the moment you realize “I don’t want to raise my partner” and “I won’t support my partner when he needs me” are completely different statements.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 12:46 PM
1

Never. I can recognize an attractive man without reducing him to a sex object.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 12:41 PM
1

Simply repeating “Just World Fallacy” doesn’t make it applicable. I recognize your username. You never engage with what’s actually said, so I’m not wasting my time.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 12:31 AM
0

Am I? This is my first reply to you
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 12:08 AM
-1

So men deserve the benefit of the doubt, but women who disagree with you are just “indoctrinated.” Convenient.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 10:04 PM
1

Anecdotes aren’t evidence
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 07:07 PM
7

Another day, another “it couldn’t possibly be me” post. You’re taking “I got rejected by liberal women” and turning it into “liberal women don’t like liberal men.” Those aren’t the same thing. Plenty of liberal men date and marry liberal women, so your theory falls apart pretty quickly. “Higher testosterone = conservative = more attractive” is a pretty big leap. The evidence doesn’t support that chain of reasoning. Attraction is influenced by a lot of factors, and political ideology isn’t determ…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 06:08 PM
10

You’re confusing a generalization with a universal statement. Saying women know what they want doesn’t mean every woman is perfectly self aware 100% of the time. Just like saying men know what they want doesn’t mean no man has ever been indecisive. I never said no one should give advice. I said strangers can’t diagnose why a specific person isn’t getting dates because they don’t know that person. Generic advice has limits. Some of it can be helpful, but it isn’t tailored to the individual, so it…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 11:31 PM
2

Yes, she genuinely desires that you support her family
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 10:40 PM
43

Dating advice for men doesn’t work because you’re asking internet strangers. How the fuck are we supposed to know why you’re not getting dates? We don’t know if your profile sucks, if the way you come across is off putting, if you dress like a hobbit, or if you smell like a bag of hot garbage. Ask people who know you for advice, not strangers. Women do know what they want. The problem is that you’re treating millions of women like they’re supposed to all want the same thing. One woman wants ABC,…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 09:21 PM
1

They do exist. They just don’t need to make their dating problems everyone else’s problem
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 08:14 PM
3

Maybe femcels just aren’t flooding this sub with bitter rants
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 07:26 PM
4

How do you tell the difference between AI and someone who just knows how to write properly?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 07:22 PM
12

Again, what evidence do you have that feminists were behind the outrage or got her banned?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 06:50 PM
15

You’re still conflating rights with approval. Supporting someone’s autonomy doesn’t mean you have to approve of every choice someone makes. And what evidence do you have that feminists got them banned? Plenty of people who aren’t feminists think what they’re doing is ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 06:20 PM
15

Believing someone has the right to do something doesn’t mean you have to approve of what they do. Supporting someone’s autonomy isn’t the same as endorsing every choice they make. It’s like saying that if you support free speech, you have to agree with everything people say.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 06:08 PM
1

“Just don’t decry failing marriage and birth rates” Um…ok.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:49 PM
2

Did you get this idea from Ted Lasso?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:46 PM
2

“Your lack of imagination” wasn’t a personal attack. It was a criticism of your reasoning. Not considering alternative explanations isn’t evidence. More importantly, you’ve shifted your claim. You started with “had to be true for all fathers throughout history.” We’ve already established that isn’t true. Now you’re asking what was more common. Those are different claims. I don’t know which was more common, and neither do you. That’s an empirical question, not one you can answer by intuition. If …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:04 PM
3

“Had to be true for all fathers throughout history” Why? Gay men have fathered children through heterosexual intercourse too, so that assumption clearly doesn’t hold. You’re treating intercourse as proof of attraction for men, but not for women. Where’s the evidence for that asymmetry? Men can have erections and father children without being sexually attracted to the woman they’re with. Your lack of imagination isn’t proof of your conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:35 AM
3

Which conclusion do you think these papers don’t support? My claim was that stress, relationship quality, health, communication, and mismatched desire are common contributors to dead bedrooms. Every one of these papers discusses one or more of those factors.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:03 AM
1

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-022-00026-2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20545400/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24677217/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32773572/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40208220/
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 11:42 PM
2

You’re starting with your conclusion and then working backwards. Men can and do marry for security, companionship, children, religion, social expectations, and status too. The fact that an erection is required for conception doesn’t suddenly make every husband deeply sexually attracted to his wife. You’re confusing physiology with motivation. Men can get erections for all kinds of reasons, so an erection isn’t proof of desire any more than the absence of a female orgasm is proof there was none.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 11:36 PM
4

You just described reasons people get married, not reasons women get married. Men also marry for security, companionship, kids, social expectations, religion, and status. None of that demonstrates women are uniquely likely to marry someone they don’t desire. And the orgasm argument is especially bizarre. Women don’t need to orgasm to conceive, but orgasm and desire aren’t the same thing. A woman can desire sex and not orgasm, just as a man can orgasm without desiring a long-term relationship. Yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 10:16 PM
1

Different standards can explain some disagreements, but they don’t explain the overall pattern. Research consistently finds women do more housework even when both partners work similar hours and report similar standards of cleanliness. And a lot of household tasks aren’t arbitrary. Dishes, laundry, bathrooms, and garbage all need to be dealt with. If one person keeps waiting until the other finally does it, that’s not just a difference in standards. It’s one person carrying more of the responsib…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 09:11 PM
2

How is that bad faith? I’m all ears.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 08:47 PM
2

Something more than “trust me, bro” would be nice
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 08:25 PM
3

Research points to stress, resentment, health issues, mismatched libido, parenting, relationship quality, and communication far more often than “she never desired him.”
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 08:04 PM
8

Great, so we’ve gone from “dead bedrooms are because women settle for men they don’t desire” to “there are multiple causes, including relationships changing over time.” That’s been my point the whole time.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 07:14 PM
0

It’s not 1955. Women don’t have to settle
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 07:13 PM
5

And you’re assuming the woman’s wants changed instead of her circumstances. Maybe she wanted a relationship all along but had some casual encounters that didn’t turn into one. You’re giving men the benefit of the doubt while denying women the exact same grace.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 07:07 PM
4

That’s quite the leap. “It couldn’t possibly be anything I did. She just never desired me.” That’s a remarkably convenient story to tell yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 07:06 PM
6

You’ve abandoned your own argument. First it was “if someone changes what they want, be suspicious.” Now it’s “well, men’s circumstances are different.” You’re making exceptions for men while insisting the worst interpretation for women. That’s not a consistent principle.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 06:38 PM
5

“Single mothers exist” isn’t evidence that women lie about what they want. It’s evidence that relationships sometimes end. You’re skipping about ten logical steps to get to the conclusion you already wanted.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:33 PM
7

That’s called unfalsifiable reasoning. You’ve built a theory that can’t be wrong because you redefine every alternative explanation as proof of it. That’s not how evidence works.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:30 PM
6

By your own logic, she should be suspicious of you. You’ve never had casual sex before, so why do you suddenly want it with her? If people aren’t allowed to want different things at different stages of life, that standard applies to you too.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:29 PM
5

So women aren’t allowed to grow or change? Are you the same person you were 5 or 10 years ago? Nobody is. People evolve. Maybe someone wanted casual sex at one point and doesn’t anymore. If you’re exactly the same person you were 10 years ago, that’s probably not something to brag about. Are you just as doting and romantic five years into a relationship as you were on the first date? Probably not. Novelty fades, comfort grows, and relationships evolve. That’s not inconsistency. That’s life.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 04:15 PM
20

Most women would rather be single than settle. Research consistently points to the following as causes of dead bedrooms: • Mismatched libido. This is by far the most common issue. One partner naturally has a higher libido than the other, and the gap becomes harder to manage over time. • Relationship dissatisfaction. Couples who experience unresolved conflict, resentment, poor communication, criticism, or emotional distance are significantly more likely to report little or no sexual activity. Sex…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 04:05 PM
61

How do so many of you simultaneously believe women’s standards are impossibly high and that they’re all dating men they aren’t attracted to? The cognitive dissonance is wild. If she doesn’t date you, her standards are too high. If she does, she’s settling. Either way, you’ve created a worldview where women can’t win and your assumptions can never be wrong. It’s a self-serving narrative that lets you stay the victim no matter what happens.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 02:53 PM
2

So your argument is that the study doesn’t count because you assume the peer reviewers were feminists? That’s not a critique of the methodology, it’s an excuse to ignore evidence. And who are “you people”? I haven’t dismissed men’s self-reports. Pick a standard and apply it consistently. I’d bet good money that if this study had reached the opposite conclusion, we wouldn’t be having this conversation about self-reports or peer review.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 12:54 PM
1

Most of those examples aren’t women telling men to date people they aren’t attracted to. If a man says he prefers younger women, people might question why. If someone says they won’t date overweight people, others might think it’s shallow. That’s criticism, not “you have to date them.” The equivalent of what you’re describing would be women saying, “You should lower your standards and date women you don’t want.” I don’t see that nearly as often as men telling women they’re going to die alone unl…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 02:29 AM
0

Do you think maybe your friends have a “type”?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 02:26 AM
1

That’s a terrible analogy. A Ferrari costs what it costs. Relationships don’t work like that. Attraction is subjective. There are people who find partners others would swear were “out of their league,” and there are objectively attractive people who stay single. You’re also ignoring the distinction between unlikely and unrealistic. If I only want to date someone who’s kind, emotionally mature, financially responsible, and we’re genuinely compatible, that might narrow my dating pool. It doesn’t m…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 09:50 PM
-1

“A significant % of women if not a majority.” Men confidently telling women what “most women” think will never stop being maddening. There’s literally a whole movie trope of a guy asking, “Can I kiss you?” and it’s portrayed as sweet, sexy, or respectful, not a turnoff. Yet you’ve decided that “most women” secretly hate it, based on… what exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 02:01 PM
2

Peer review isn’t “we investigated ourselves.” If you think the study is flawed, point to the flaw. Otherwise you’re just rejecting evidence that doesn’t fit your conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 12:40 PM
2

If someone posts their dating preferences online, people are going to have opinions. That’s true whether it’s a woman saying men are trash or a guy saying he wants a 22-year-old virgin who cooks and never argues. Welcome to the internet My point hasn’t changed. If your standards mean you stay single, so what? You’re acting like not getting a relationship automatically means those standards are unrealistic. It doesn’t. If someone would rather stay single than settle, and they’re perfectly fine wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 02:32 AM
4

You’re describing loud people on social media, not women. There are just as many men online posting laundry lists of what women should be. I don’t care if either sex has high standards. If you can’t find someone who meets them, stay single.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 01:42 AM
3

“He literally did everything in his power.” Except he didn’t. He was using the free tier, which limits how many people you can even swipe on. That’s like saying you read the whole book after only reading the back cover blurb. And from one guy’s experience you’ve concluded that only four types of men ever get laid? Come on. Most men in relationships aren’t famous, aren’t massive steroid bodybuilders, and aren’t players. If your theory reflected reality, the majority of couples wouldn’t exist. Thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 12:24 AM
4

Some people blame the opposite sex. Some don’t. Men do the same. Plenty of women simply decide they’d rather be single than be in a relationship they don’t want. That’s not entitlement. That’s making a choice. Funny enough, women aren’t the ones all over the internet telling men to lower their standards. Men are the ones constantly telling women to lower theirs.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 11:55 PM
8

You call them unrealistic. They call them standards. Nobody is obligated to date someone they don’t want to. Being single is a far better outcome than settling for a relationship that isn’t right for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 05:02 PM
5

That’s a bit rich coming from someone whose entire argument has been “women do it too.” Every time I point out a contradiction, you respond by accusing women of the same thing instead of addressing it. At this point, I’m struggling to believe you’re not a troll.** **I’m done entertaining this.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 02:29 PM
5

So when you don’t address “not all men,” should I assume you think it is all men? Or is it only important to avoid generalizations when they’re about men? I’m not going to respond to every point because you’ve repeatedly ignored mine, moved the goalposts, and changed the subject. That’s not good-faith discussion. The irony is you’ve spent this entire conversation accusing women of behaviours you’ve repeatedly demonstrated yourself. The empathy you’re asking for is the empathy you’re refusing to …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 12:32 PM
5

You want women to extend empathy and grace to men while writing several paragraphs explaining why women are manipulative, delusional, emotionally reactive, and incapable of good faith. Every sentence starts with “women…” as though 4 billion people all think and behave the same way. Then you complain about being treated like a monolith, while conveniently forgetting how often we hear “not all men”. Do you see the contradiction?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 12:16 PM
6

“Every gendered discussion ever” isn’t evidence. It’s confirmation bias. If I judged men by every gendered discussion on Reddit, I’d think they hate women too.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 11:34 AM
11

I do. Criticism isn’t hate. Disagreement isn’t hate. And a few women using the word “hate” doesn’t mean most women hate men. If I judged men’s attitudes toward women based on what I read on Reddit, I’d conclude men hate women too.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 11:33 AM
4

A peer-reviewed paper can absolutely analyze survey data. That’s how a lot of psychology and social science research is conducted. This is a lot of deflection for someone who was asked for one thing: evidence that most Western women hate men. Where’s the evidence that most Western women hate men? I’m still waiting.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 11:26 AM
12

By that logic, anyone who disagrees with someone else hates them. I’m an atheist. I don’t hate Christians. I’m an omnivore. I don’t hate vegans. I’m childfree. I don’t hate parents. Disagreement isn’t hatred. Are you just going to ignore the peer-reviewed study I provided because it contradicts your claim?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 08:45 PM
26

I asked for evidence that most Western women hate men. Instead, you switched to talking about: - how many women identify as feminists - political affiliation - different branches of feminism - progressive vs conservative views - patriarchy theory. None of those establish that most women hate men. The Misandry Myth analyzed nearly 10,000 participants across six studies and found that feminists’ attitudes toward men were positive overall and did not differ significantly from non-feminists’. It als…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 06:51 PM
2

No. I was challenging their generalisation. If millions of people don’t fit the claim, it’s too broad, not an appeal to exceptions. I’m not going to keep defending an argument I wasn’t making to someone I wasn’t even talking to. If you want to debate the OP or the other commenter, go ahead. My reply was about a specific claim they made, and I’ve already explained that.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 06:40 PM
1

You’re not even going to pretend to be asking in good faith? Interesting.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 04:38 PM
1

If someone makes a broad claim in a reply, I’m free to challenge that claim without debating the entire original post.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 04:27 PM
1

That’s correct. Their comment was in response to the OP. Mine wasn’t. I was responding to what they said, not the OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 03:13 PM
3

None of that answers what I said. You went from “some women did X” to “women.” That’s collective blame. If you’re okay with that, then you don’t get to complain when people generalize about men.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 03:11 PM
4

But that’s a different claim. Having more resources available on paper doesn’t mean someone is privileged or able to access them. Cost, wait lists, location, family pressure, fear, and abusive partners all stop people from getting help. I’m not arguing that women in some countries don’t face far greater barriers. My point was simply that “grew up in the West” isn’t the same thing as “grew up privileged.”
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 03:09 PM
5

There isn’t a single non Western group that’s objectively “better.” Every culture has its strengths and weaknesses. Men aren’t products you can rank from best to worst. And when women complain about “western” men, it’s usually because those are the men they’re actually dating and interacting with. I can’t complain about men on the other side of the world because I have no experience with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 03:07 PM
5

I wasn’t replying to OP. I was replying to the claim that growing up in a Western country means someone’s life has been privileged.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 03:02 PM
3

That’s a country-level trend, not an individual one. You don’t get to tell someone they’ve lived a privileged life just because of where they were born.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 02:48 PM
4

A few people do something, and suddenly all women own it. Are we doing collective guilt now? Because I’ve got plenty of examples too. “Manspreading” being a commonly used term doesn’t mean women think men sitting is misogyny. And “powerful women have stopped men getting help by claiming misogyny” is a pretty big claim. You’re going to need to provide sources for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 02:45 PM
1

You’re doing exactly what OP did. OP turned “negative views” into “hate.” You’re turning “positive stereotypes” into “men don’t hate women.” Neither source actually measured what you’re claiming.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 02:35 PM
2

“Women” don’t call those things misogynistic. Some women do. You’re taking a handful of fringe examples and treating them as representative of women as a whole. And OP is taking a survey about “negative views” and turning it into “hate.” It’s the same kind of exaggeration.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:33 PM
2

You’re conflating different things. The “women are wonderful effect” measures positive stereotypes, not whether men hate women. You can believe women are kinder or more nurturing and still hold misogynistic views. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:31 PM
7

Aren’t they? If a survey of 2,000 people is enough for you to conclude “most Western women hate men,” then surely the existence of large misogynistic communities online would be enough to conclude “most Western men hate women.” Or maybe neither conclusion is justified.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:20 PM
17

Ironically, you’re doing the same thing as the OP by painting millions of people with one brush. Plenty of Western women have experienced abuse, discrimination, poverty, or other hardships. Growing up in a Western country doesn’t mean someone’s life has been privileged.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:16 PM
58

Can you cite a survey that actually concludes most Western women hate men? Not “less positive,” “more critical,” or “more likely to view men negatively.” I’m asking for one that measures or explicitly concludes women hate men. I swear some of you forget words have meanings. It’s a bit ironic to accuse women of claiming everything is misogyny while claiming surveys show women hate men. Your own source doesn’t support that claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:15 PM
0

That isn’t what the survey says. It surveyed about 2,000 British adults aged 18 to 30, which isn’t representative of “most women.” It found that 35% of British women under 25 had a positive view of men. It doesn’t say most women hate men, and “not positive” isn’t the same as “hate.” Those are different claims. Words have meanings.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 01:09 PM
1

Being attracted to competence and ambition doesn’t mean women don’t love men deeply. And men being more likely to physically protect women isn’t evidence they love more. People are generally more willing to protect someone they see as more physically vulnerable. I also don’t think either sex has a monopoly on “better” love. Both men and women can love selflessly, conditionally, possessively, or generously. That’s a human trait, not a male or female one.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 04:17 AM
0

Work on your personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/26 08:29 PM
14

A lot of unmarried men are respected for what they contribute. Scientists, artists, entrepreneurs, athletes, teachers, firefighters, soldiers, mentors. Their value isn’t dependent on having a wife. Society values people, men and women, who contribute something meaningful. You’re also making a huge leap from “society encourages stable jobs and families” to “society manipulates men for women’s benefit.” If that’s true, why are women now nearly half the workforce and increasingly the primary earner…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 05:02 PM
–

We’d need to see the rest of the conversation, not one sentence in isolation
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 03:29 PM
–

The research doesn’t really support your premise. Men are generally more likely to overestimate their intelligence, competence and even their own attractiveness, while women tend to rate themselves more modestly or more accurately. So where’s the evidence that women, specifically, don’t consider themselves average? And even if some women have high dating standards, that still doesn’t mean they think they’re above average. Those are two completely different claims. You’re assuming one proves the …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 03:28 PM
1

"Chris Brown has female fans" is evidence that celebrity makes some people overlook awful behaviour. It's not evidence that women are sexually attracted to domestic violence. Those are completely different claims. This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. And a few Chris Brown fans don't represent all women. Or are we doing collective guilt now? Because by your logic, if Chris Brown is an abuser, then all men are abusers, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 12:55 PM
1

You're comparing two different things. "Some violent men have partners" and "women prefer violent men to shy men" are not equivalent. The second claim doesn't follow from the first. Most abusive men don't advertise that they're abusive when they start dating. That's the whole point. It's painfully obvious you know nothing about the cycle of abuse, yet you keep making confident claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 12:44 PM
1

You’re confusing “people excuse bad behaviour from celebrities” with “people are attracted to bad behaviour.” Those aren’t remotely the same thing. By your logic, men must be attracted to murder because Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias, and Aileen Wuornos all received love letters and marriage proposals. Or maybe celebrity, notoriety, and obsessive fans aren’t representative of either sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 12:11 PM
0

53% saying they’re worried about being seen as creepy doesn’t prove women told them never to approach. It proves they’re worried about how they’ll be perceived. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 10:51 PM
-1

Give me a break. Very few women tell men they can’t respectfully talk to women in normal social settings. They’ve been told not to harass women, ignore boundaries, or keep pushing after someone’s clearly not interested. Those aren’t the same thing. They also tell men to read the room. Acting like saying hi at a bar, club, or hobby group is somehow “a hair’s breadth away from violence” is a massive leap. That’s not what most women have been saying. If some men have decided the only safe option is…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 02:54 PM
1

You’re also a virgin I presume?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 02:39 PM
1

If it gets to the point where it negatively affects someone’s real life, then yes. That’s why I meant by “like any other addiction”.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 01:47 PM
0

The ones who are actually addicted to porn and let it affect their day to day lives. Like any other addiction.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 01:33 PM
1

You did. You said her past with another man “inside” makes intimacy “nothing special.” That’s you defining intimacy almost entirely by sexual exclusivity. Calling everyone else hedonistic doesn’t change that. It just means you care more about being first than building a meaningful relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 01:31 PM
7

Pathetic. If all she is to you is a vagina, just buy a Fleshlight. Sex is only one small part of intimacy and a relationship. If another person’s past means you’ll never feel close to them, that’s a you problem, not a her problem. She’s better off without you.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 12:01 PM
0

My gender doesn’t do anything collectively. Just like your gender isn’t collectively porn sick.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 11:59 AM
0

Go outside and look around
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 10:45 AM
-2

That’s dumb. You’re confusing fantasy with standards. Men consume porn featuring women who look nothing like their partners all the time. The existence of a fantasy doesn’t prove that’s the only type of person people actually want to build a life with.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 10:44 AM
3

Doesn't this contradict your whole post? Here, nobody's deciding based on who has a spouse or kids. They're deciding based on who's able to help. That's not the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 05:22 PM
1

Are we debating whether childfree people are more expendable, whether you'd sacrifice yourself, or whether you'd survive fictional disasters? Because those are three different conversations. If your point is that people without children are expected to make more sacrifices, sure, that's debateable. But that's hardly exclusive to men. Welcome to being childfree. Women hear, "Can you work this weekend? You don't have kids," and "Can you switch days off? You don't have kids," all the time. People w…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 05:19 PM
1

If your hypothesis is that women evolved not to empathize with men because it served no evolutionary purpose, why are you treating that as a moral failing? You're criticizing women for behaving exactly as your own hypothesis predicts. I'm exhausted by this revisionist history where men are cast as humanity's selfless protectors. There was a time when people believed women reading novels would make them infertile. These weren't societies that viewed women as equals. You really think those same so…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 12:42 PM
5

Media has been selling unrealistic ideas about relationships for decades. If porn lied to men, Disney and rom-coms lied to women. Unrealistic expectations aren't gender exclusive. We all grew up consuming fantasy. Eventually, everyone has to adjust to reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 12:25 PM
1

But I have standards
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 12:17 AM
3

There’s a difference between not expressing emotions in your personal relationships and spending hours online complaining about women. This post seems to be an example of the latter.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 12:11 AM
1

That’s easy to say when you’re not the one being presented with 400 pieces of candy coated shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 11:54 PM
1

Maybe, but given the option, I’d rather be lonely than assaulted.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 11:26 PM
1

If someone handed you a bowl of 500 M&M’s and told you 400 of them were candy coated shit, would you feel lucky because you had 500 options, or would you be focused on avoiding the 400 bad ones?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 11:26 PM
–

But she’s still wearing makeup.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 04:35 PM
1

I don’t think those are mutually exclusive. Some people really are emotionally immature and don’t connect repeated conversations with long term consequences. That’s why they act shocked when a breakup “comes out of nowhere.” But weaponized incompetence is absolutely a thing too. Plenty of people learn that if they do something badly enough, someone else will do it instead. They might not think of it as manipulation, but they’re still making a choice because it gets them what they want. Being sho…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 03:56 PM
1

I’m married, but when I was single, and if I were single again, I wouldn’t spend any time trying to figure out what “men like” because there isn’t one universal standard. Men aren’t a monolith any more than women are. If I met a man I liked, I’d get to know him and what he values. If we’re naturally compatible, great. If I’m not what he’s looking for, I’m not going to change who I am just to fit his preferences. I wouldn’t expect him to change for me. The whole point of dating is to figure out i…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 12:13 PM
2

It’s quite literally the first sentence of his post
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 09:35 AM
3

That’s a leap. Men having different dating outcomes doesn’t prove women all have similar preferences. Those are two completely different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 09:26 AM
4

So we agree women aren’t a monolith. Men being more variable doesn’t suddenly make all women think alike or support OP’s conclusions about dating, “high value” vs. “low value” men, or feminism. Women still vary a lot in personality, income, values, goals, and who they’re attracted to. The overlap between men and women is still much bigger than the differences.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 09:25 AM
5

I’m not disputing that men can be more variable on some traits. The leap is going from “more men are at the extremes” to “women are a monolith.” Those aren’t the same claim, and one doesn’t prove the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 01:48 AM
4

Even if men show greater variability on some traits, that doesn’t make women a monolith. Women vary just as much in personality, values, politics, income, relationship preferences, and pretty much everything else. And “high value” and “low value” men aren’t scientific categories. They’re internet labels. You’re taking a population-level observation and using it to justify a worldview that the hypothesis itself doesn’t support.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 11:30 PM
1

You’re reducing my argument to one point. I’ve said from the beginning that I don’t think jail is the most proportionate response. The child being affected is an additional consideration, not the entire basis for my position.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 08:22 PM
1

The maximum legal penalty isn’t the same thing as the most appropriate sentence. Sentencing is supposed to be proportionate and based on the facts of the case, not just the maximum allowed by statute.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 07:34 PM
1

You keep making this about single moms. I’m talking about the offence, not the offender. My point has been that this is a non-violent fraud against another individual. Jail time is not the most proportionate response, and if there are children involved, that’s another reason to consider alternatives. That has nothing to do with whether it’s the mother or the father.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 07:17 PM
1

But the debate was never about which betrayal feels worse. It was about what punishment is proportionate.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 05:43 PM
1

What part of one adult lying to another adult is so difficult for some of you to grasp? Every time someone responds, they swap in a completely different crime with different victims, different risks, and different legal considerations. If your argument only works after changing the offence, maybe it isn’t that strong to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 03:41 PM
8

I know. You told us custody laws were one of the reasons you wanted to move. That’s why people concluded custody mattered to you. That’s not exactly a leap.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 01:59 AM
9

Right. You assumed the death penalty mattered to them because they brought it up. That’s exactly what people did with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 01:26 AM
1

Bro, you just made my point. You heard “I want to move to a state without the death penalty” and immediately inferred a reason that wasn’t “they want to murder people.” That’s exactly what everyone did with you. You said custody laws were one of your reasons for moving, so people inferred that issue mattered to you. That’s not the same as accusing you of planning paternity fraud.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 01:20 AM
6

It’s like someone saying they want to go to a restaurant because they have amazing crème brûlée. You’d naturally assume they’re planning to order the crème brûlée. That doesn’t mean you’re accusing them of anything. You’re drawing an inference from the reason they chose to emphasize.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 12:59 AM
1

Paternity fraud is one person lying to and defrauding another person. One on one. That isn’t remotely comparable to robbing a bank or embezzlement, which can affect dozens or even hundreds of people. It’s much closer to finding out your spouse drained your bank account or forged your signature. That’s the scale we’re talking about. Let’s at least pretend we’re comparing like with like.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 11:30 PM
9

You literally volunteered that divorce custody law was one of the reasons you wanted to move. Of course people asked about it. If someone told me they were moving to a state because it doesn’t have the death penalty, I’d probably wonder why too. That isn’t hypocrisy. It’s a pretty normal follow up to the reason you chose to emphasize. You’re also taking a handful of Reddit replies and turning them into a claim about how society treats men and women. That’s a huge leap. If someone accused a woman…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 09:35 PM
–

Men have problems. Women have problems. They’re not the same problems, but pretending one sex is playing life on easy mode because you’ve made a list of the other sex’s struggles isn’t a serious analysis.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 09:26 PM
6

They don’t have to be. /thread
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:55 PM
2

I’m not diluting the topic. I said taking a child away from a loving parent is an extraordinarily severe consequence. You responded by bringing up rape and adoption. If anyone’s diluting the topic, it’s you. We’re talking about paternity fraud, a non-violent financial fraud against another adult. That’s the topic. Not rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:54 PM
2

This is a non-violent financial fraud against another adult, not a violent offence or abuse directed at the child. Punishment should fit the crime
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:20 PM
3

Are you actually serious? Ask any parent if they’d rather spend six months in jail or have their child permanently taken away. I think we both know what the answer would be. The fact that you’re acting like losing your child isn’t an extraordinarily severe consequence is honestly unbelievable. If you think removing a child from a loving parent and putting them into foster care is a proportionate response to fraud against another adult, I honestly hope you never have children.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:10 PM
3

“Definitionally” according to who? There’s no universal definition that says paternity fraud is domestic abuse. It’s fraud. Calling it “domestic abuse” instead doesn’t magically make taking someone’s kids away the appropriate response.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:07 PM
2

You’re acting like every parent with custody is some moral saint. They’re not. Plenty of people have done far worse and still kept their kids because the standard is whether they’re a danger to the child, not whether they’ve ever done something terrible to another adult. Paternity fraud is fraud against an adult, not child abuse. Those aren’t the same thing. This sounds less like concern for the child and more like you’re looking for reasons to punish women as harshly as possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:03 PM
7

Someone can commit fraud and still be a competent parent. We don’t automatically remove kids from parents who’ve committed insurance fraud, tax evasion, or plenty of other non-violent crimes. If they’re abusive or neglectful, that’s different. But paternity fraud alone doesn’t mean it’s in the child’s best interest to lose their primary caregiver.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:48 PM
3

Repayment for any financial losses, a fine, and some form of public registry for people found liable for intentional paternity fraud. Not something equivalent to a sex offender registry, but one tied to fraud or family court findings. Plus probation or community service, not jail time. Putting the mother in jail punishes the child too, and that’s not fair. It could take away their only parent and end up putting them into the foster care system. Accountability should fall on the person who commit…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:29 PM
3

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. I was just adding another angle. I think you’re right. Women’s interests seem to get questioned a lot more. Men are more likely to be taken at face value, while women are more likely to be accused of doing it for attention or have their competence questioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:21 PM
1

You’re treating people like a collection of stats that can be ranked and compared, but that’s not how relationships work. You’re basically asking people to give you a sales pitch. “I’m a good cook. I make good money. I’m adventurous. Is that what you’re looking for?” That’s just a guessing game. People don’t fall in love because someone scored an 87 in charisma and a 92 in education. You get to know someone and decide whether they’re right for you. Dating is supposed to be fun.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:16 PM
10

You’re making a leap from “this is what my ex expected from me” to “this is what women want because they’re women.” Those aren’t necessarily the same thing. A lot of people expect their romantic partner to be more emotionally supportive, more patient, and more reliable than they expect friends or strangers to be. The real question is whether those expectations were reciprocal. If she expected support but wasn’t willing to give it back, that’s a double standard. If you both expected those things …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:01 PM
4

That’s exactly it. I don’t know why so many men act like everything a woman does has to be interesting to them. They’re her hobbies. When a man complains that women’s hobbies aren’t interesting, it just screams bad partner. I don’t give a shit about my husband’s hobbies, but when he wants to talk about them, I listen because it makes me happy to see the person I love happy. He doesn’t give a shit about my hobbies either, but he listens because my happiness makes him happy. “I don’t find your hob…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 11:53 AM
3

Isn’t that the whole point of dating, though? Why are we turning courtship into a job interview where people have to list their qualifications and hope they guessed what the other person values? Ask questions, spend time together, flirt, have conversations, and figure out if you’re compatible. That’s how you discover what someone brings to your life. If you need them to open with a sales pitch, you’re taking all the humanity out of dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 11:46 AM
6

Calling people defensive is just an easy way to avoid the point. The premise is flawed. There isn’t some universal checklist of what everyone should “bring to the table” because people value different things. That’s why compatibility matters more than a list of qualifications.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 02:29 AM
2

What do you bring to the table?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 02:27 AM
1

we all KNOW women don’t have anything to the table If you all KNOW it, why are some of you so desperate to date women?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 02:26 AM
1

JFC you’re still going on about this?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 09:24 PM
3

I don’t think anyone’s saying every single person in a country is the same. The issue is you’re still treating national averages as if they’re useful predictors of individual compatibility. Even if a trend exists, it doesn’t tell you whether the person sitting across from you shares those values. And “social awkwardness is interpreted as a cultural difference” isn’t almost always true. Sometimes people cut foreigners more slack, but awkward is still awkward. Being from another country doesn’t ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 09:23 PM
31

This is such a chronically online way of looking at relationships. What someone brings to the table isn’t universal. It’s whatever their partner values. You’re acting like there’s one objective list when there isn’t. And “women have less interesting hobbies” is such a weird criticism. Interesting according to who? They’re her hobbies. As for nagging, if we’re making sweeping assumptions, maybe she’s nagging because you’re not bringing as much to the table as you think you are. The better questio…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:32 PM
6

The criticism is usually aimed at the guys who talk about women in other countries like they’re inherently more submissive, less demanding, or easier to get. You’re making a lot of sweeping claims about entire countries and cultures. Things like social awkwardness is often interpreted as a cultural difference, that people from Asian cultures are much more likely to plan their whole lives in advance, and that STEM careers are more respected in many other countries. You can’t assume someone’s pers…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:03 PM
0

You’re assuming sex is what stops these relationships from progressing, but how do you know? Maybe they’re incompatible. Maybe they want different things. Maybe her standards are the problem. You’re picking one explanation because it fits your theory. It also reads like you’re treating sex as something women should strategically withhold to make men bond. But if the only thing keeping a guy interested is not having sex yet, then he wasn’t interested in her. He was interested in the chase. Once t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 05:33 PM
4

This isn't an either/or. Being attractive can increase your chances of getting attention. Being kind, respectful and emotionally healthy increases your chances of building and keeping relationships. Reducing men's struggles to looks and money is just as simplistic as reducing them to toxicity. You're also treating all loneliness as if it means "can't get a girlfriend." It doesn't. Loneliness includes friendships, family and community too, and attractiveness has a lot less to do with those.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 12:38 PM
–

My point stands
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 11:32 AM
–

Very mature
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 11:23 AM
–

“Any is better than none” is such a sad way to look at relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 11:21 AM
–

This is such hindsight is 20/20 bullshit. You picked men who were incredibly manipulative. You think Ted Bundy’s girlfriend knew he was a serial killer? You think Paul Bernardo introduced himself as a violent rapist? These men were often charismatic, knew how to build rapport, gain trust, and manipulate people. That’s how many of them found both victims and partners. Most of these women were lied to, manipulated, and in some cases became victims themselves. You’re looking at what we know after t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 11:16 AM
1

Yep. Still no source. Just a lot more words explaining why you won’t provide one. We’re done here.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 07:05 PM
3

Maybe. But if he was masking it by being kind and making her feel special, then those are the qualities she was attracted to, not arrogance or being an asshole.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 07:04 PM
1

That’s quite a shift from “Meta protects women’s groups because of safety” to “AI said it and I wasn’t trying to prove anything.” If you don’t want to defend the claims, that’s fine. Just don’t present them as facts.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 06:04 PM
1

Completely different context
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 05:19 PM
–

By that definition, planning a surprise birthday party is cheating because you wouldn’t do it if your partner were watching. You don’t know their relationship. You don’t know what they’ve agreed is okay. So you have no idea whether what she’s doing is “micro cheating” or whether she’d do the exact same thing with her partner standing beside her. You don’t know their boundaries or agreements. You’re filling in the blanks with your own assumptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 05:19 PM
4

Do we? I never have. I’ve never heard anyone else say it. A few women saying a thing isn’t all women saying a thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 05:11 PM
1

You made specific factual claims about Meta’s moderation practices. I asked for evidence. You don’t have any, and now you’re saying you never came here to prove anything. That’s fine, but if you aren’t willing to support your claims, don’t be surprised when people don’t accept them.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 05:09 PM
5

Yes, but word choice matters. I can say my single friend would be an amazing catch without saying, “If I were a lesbian, I’d be all over her.” “I’d date him if I liked men” is a weird way to compliment another guy when “he’d make a great partner” gets the exact same point across.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 05:02 PM
7

He’s not even a bad boy. She said he was “kind, nice to her, and made her feel special”. What a monster /s
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:50 PM
7

“We're not gay, but if we were, I would do everything to be with him.”
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:48 PM
1

One guy you know got cheated on and somehow you’ve decided that means most young women want “bad boys.” Come on. Be serious. Also, nothing you wrote tells us what he was actually like as a boyfriend. You listed his looks, grades, job, and work ethic. None of that tells us what it’s like to date him. How do you know he “treated her like a princess”? Because he bought her flowers once a month? Did she even want flowers? Was he emotionally available? Controlling? Insecure? Judgmental? Did they comm…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:46 PM
–

Define “micro cheating”
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:39 PM
1

You just explained why one overall success rate isn’t very useful. If you have to sort people into categories to get meaningful information, then it’s the category-specific success rates that matter, not the overall average.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:38 PM
1

You can't prove a negative. You made the positive claim that Meta gives women's groups special protection because of safety and removes men's groups more often for the same violations. The burden of proof is on you. If you don't have evidence, just say so. I'd respect that a lot more than making claims you can't support and then hiding behind "do your own research."
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:08 PM
1

The Pew survey measured relationship status, not whether respondents had "any intimacy with anyone." You're talking about a different dataset. And other surveys on sexual activity don't support your claim either. The National Survey of Family Growth found that about 24% of men ages 22 to 34 hadn't had sex in the past year, and about one-third of both young men and young women hadn't had sex in the past three months. That's a long way from "the majority of men had no intimacy."
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 03:54 PM
1

Allow me to repeat myself: I didn’t make any claims. I copied and pasted the results I got. You’re the one claiming Meta protects women’s groups because of “safety,” that men’s groups are removed more often despite the same violations, and that safety is the reason. Those are your claims. I’m just asking if you have a credible source for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 03:49 PM
2

Every time I read something like this, I wonder why some men are so desperate to be with someone, anyone, that it genuinely doesn't matter who. You talk like any relationship is better than being alone. It isn't. That's like saying you'd rather eat a poisoned steak than a perfectly good chicken dinner just because steak sounds better. Being in a miserable, unhealthy relationship is a hell of a lot worse than being single. Most women aren't afraid of being single. They're avoiding bad relationshi…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 01:33 PM
1

That number was based on just 929 respondents ages 18-29, not women in general. The study also gives several possible explanations for the gap, like women dating older men and differences in how people define relationships. If a 29F is dating a 30M, she's counted in that age group and he isn't. If one person considers something a relationship and the other considers it casual, that affects the numbers too. It still doesn't support the claim that most women always have someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 12:31 PM
1

You still haven’t provided a source for the claims you made, sweetheart
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 02:42 AM
2

I didn’t make any claims. I copied and pasted the results I got. You’re the one claiming Meta protects women’s groups because of “safety,” that men’s groups are removed more often despite the same violations, and that safety is the reason. Those are your claims. I’m just asking if you have a credible source for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 09:42 PM
1

You’re saying “from what I’ve read,” but what you’ve actually described is what AI told you. Those aren’t the same thing. If this is a documented practice by Meta, it should be easy to find a source. Can you provide one?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 08:58 PM
2

Do you have a credible source? Because so far this sounds more like something you’ve heard than something that’s actually been documented.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 08:42 PM
3

“are the are we dating the same girl websites getting taken down” Then I used your prompt “are the male version of AWDTSG usually taken down or allowed to stay up relative to AWDTSG sites” “Male-targeted versions of "Are We Dating The Same Guy" (AWDTSG) are generally allowed to stay up on Facebook with the same frequency as female-targeted sites, provided they adhere to the same platform rules.”
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 08:18 PM
4

Let me try: No, the male versions of these forums—most commonly known as "Are We Dating the Same Girl?"—are not being systematically taken down. Like their female counterparts, they continue to operate across various regions, primarily as private groups on social media platforms like Facebook. Ultimately, if a "Are We Dating the Same Girl" page disappears, it is almost always due to localized community guideline violations, poor moderation, or lack of member activity, rather than a broad legal o…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 07:39 PM
2

What did you search? Because I searched “are we dating the same girl” and was directed to multiple regional Facebook groups and a website.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 05:08 PM
3

Someone mentions death grip, which is a well-known reason some men struggle to orgasm, and your response is But what about vibrators? That’s textbook whataboutism. You didn’t address the point, you changed the subject. And you’re proving exactly why a lot of women aren’t open about their sexual history. Women have been judged for having a past for decades. You brought up vibrators like they’re evidence against women, then act surprised that women don’t hand over intimate details to people who cl…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 05:07 PM
5

They haven’t been though. A quick google search would have shown you that.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 05:00 PM
6

This is a weird point. Men didn’t quietly accept AWDTSG. They lost their minds over it too. You’re literally still complaining about it. So what’s the gotcha? That women would react the same way men already did? Clutches pearls.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 02:11 PM
11

You’re describing your experience, not disproving the research. The orgasm gap is a population-level trend, not a claim that every individual who doesn’t orgasm has the same reason. That’s like saying, “I got lung cancer without ever smoking, so the discussion around smoking is unfair.” Your experience can be completely true without invalidating what the data shows overall.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 01:01 PM
2

What?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 12:53 PM
12

Don’t post on reddit if you want to be left alone The whataboutism is a nice touch
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 12:51 PM
5

I don't think it's my job to stop someone from going down the red pill pipeline. What I do think is that ideas should be challenged. If someone says something sexist, unsupported, or based on a caricature of women, I'm going to call it out. That's not the same as attacking men. I've almost never seen someone get called a woman hater, misogynist, etc., out of nowhere. It's usually after they've said something pretty out of pocket. People don't get those labels for struggling with dating. They get…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 08:02 PM
1

The moment you have to break people down by awkwardness, attractiveness, venue, age, and other variables, you’ve already conceded that one overall success rate isn’t particularly meaningful. At that point you’re talking about dozens of different ones, each applying to a different group.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 06:15 PM
3

You’re assuming every woman agrees on what her interests are. For some women, abortion is the deciding issue. For others it’s the cost of living, immigration, crime, taxes, healthcare, or something else. You can’t just declare that every woman who votes differently is voting against her own interests because you don’t share her priorities.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 02:10 AM
5

Women aren’t the only people voting. Men vote too. And you’re still acting like women have a lineup of viable candidates who support women’s interests every election. They don’t. If those candidates aren’t on the ballot or have no realistic chance of winning, what exactly are women supposed to vote for?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 11:39 PM
8

Women don’t vote for CEOs, though. Corporate leadership is largely decided by boards and executives, who have historically been mostly men. And you say women need to stop voting against their interests like we’ve been handed a buffet of female candidates every election. That’s not how it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 09:23 PM
11

This feels like you’re rewriting history. Feminism wasn’t created to optimize child outcomes. It was about women having the same legal rights, opportunities, and autonomy as men. If that helped mothers too, great, but that was a consequence, not the mission. The fact that many families now need two incomes is an economic problem, not a feminism problem. You’re blaming the wrong thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 09:21 PM
3

So now clothing is the equivalent of "offensive and obnoxious" bumper stickers? Even if I accepted that comparison, the person vandalizing the car is still responsible for vandalizing it. That's not a defence. It's victim blaming. If you're wearing a football jersey, does that mean strangers can tackle you in the middle of the street? Or is personal responsibility only a thing when it's convenient?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 01:48 PM
1

Are you separating people by age, attractiveness, social skills, confidence, venue, and what they’re defining as “success”? The socially awkward guy approaching strangers in the produce aisle isn’t comparable to the charismatic, good-looking guy meeting women at a club. Unless you’re comparing like with like, one overall success rate tells you very little. And even if you knew the average success rate, what would you actually do with that information? It doesn’t change your odds. It doesn’t pred…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 12:45 AM
1

Who is tracking this information?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:57 PM
12

Classic grass is greener mentality. You’re romanticizing one part of the experience while pretending the rest doesn’t exist. You see the free drinks. You don’t see the harassment, being dismissed, or having your value reduced to your appearance. Objectification isn’t wanted just because someone puts effort into their appearance. Looking good isn’t consent to be reduced to a body, just like driving a nice car isn’t asking people to vandalize it. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 08:19 PM
1

I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’m saying your experience isn’t evidence that “most women have someone.” You only know the women you happened to meet. You have no way of knowing how many women were single and sitting at home because you never met them in the first place. That’s selection bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 12:37 AM
1

“This is just my experience” That’s exactly why anecdotes aren’t great evidence. You’re only aware of the women who are socially active or already talking to someone. The women sitting at home single and lonely aren’t on your radar.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 12:09 AM
1

We’ve gone from “what’s the normal success rate?” to giraffes, crime rates, my friends, your friends, and now Reddit. We’re miles away from the original point. I’m done here.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 12:03 AM
1

Reddit and your social circle are both self-selected samples. That’s exactly why they’re not great for making broad population estimates.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 12:00 AM
1

No, I’m saying your social circle isn’t a representative sample just because it contains some variety. And whether my friends are attractive, unattractive, tall, short, or different races is completely irrelevant. We’re talking about whether anecdotal evidence from people you happen to know can produce a reliable population estimate. Those are two different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 11:56 PM
1

That’s not really true. People tend to associate with people similar to themselves. Your social circle isn’t a representative sample of the population. And you missed the point of the lightning analogy. It wasn’t about how rare lightning is. It was about how useful a population average is for predicting an individual’s odds. A charismatic guy approaching women at bars and a socially awkward guy approaching strangers at the grocery store don’t have the same success rate. So what does one overall …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 11:44 PM
1

Make the decision that makes the most sense for your family. Divide work based on who wants what, who’s better suited to it, and what makes the most financial sense, not outdated gender roles.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 10:23 PM
2

If you’re asking enough people to estimate a population, you’re doing survey research. That’s literally a study. And you’re chasing a number that’s too broad to be useful. Unless it’s broken down by age, attractiveness, social skills, venue, and other relevant variables, it tells you almost nothing about your own odds. It’s about as useful as knowing the average chance of being struck by lightning. Interesting? Maybe. Predictive for an individual? Not really.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 10:10 PM
2

And this relates to cold approach… how?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 09:53 PM
1

Friends, family, and random people online aren’t a representative sample. That’s anecdotal evidence. And I never said it’s impossible to estimate. I said there isn’t a universal “normal” success rate, and you can’t just make up percentages and present them as fact without data.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 09:51 PM
2

How’s a kid supposed to know? By looking it up. Giraffe height has data. Crime rates have data. You haven’t provided any data for your cold approach percentages. You just pulled them out of your ass. That’s the difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 09:48 PM
2

That’s a false analogy. Giraffe height is a stable biological trait, so a random sample will converge on a meaningful average. Cold approach success isn’t a fixed characteristic. It’s an outcome that’s heavily influenced by variables like who’s approaching, who they’re approach, where, when, and what counts as “success.” If you want to estimate success rates for a defined population, go for it. But you can’t just make up percentages and present them as if they’re representative without data.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 08:55 PM
2

You’re describing a distribution, not a normal success rate. Those aren’t the same thing. If you actually had a representative sample of everyone who cold approaches, you could estimate a distribution. My point was that there isn’t a single “normal” success rate you can cite because it varies enormously by the person and the circumstances. Also, the numbers you just gave are completely made up unless you have data to support them. If your argument is that we could estimate a distribution with go…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 08:54 PM
2

You could estimate it, but that still wouldn't give you a "normal" success rate. It would give you the average for whatever sample you happened to survey. If your sample is mostly socially skilled, attractive, confident men approaching in bars, you'll get one number. If it's mostly shy guys approaching strangers at grocery stores, you'll get another. The estimate changes with the population you're measuring, so there's no single universal success rate.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 05:01 PM
6

Colleges and employers actually track applications, offers, acceptances, and hires, so you can calculate acceptance and hiring rates. Who's tracking every cold approach?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 04:56 PM
8

Because there is no "normal" success rate. How would you even measure that? It depends on the person, their social skills, confidence, appearance, location, age, who they're approaching, when they're approaching, and plain luck. There are way too many variables to pretend there's one universal number.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 04:50 PM
0

(IMO) In places and situations in which people normally meet. Clubs, bars, parties, social events, concerts, hobby groups, etc. Don't approach women when they're running errands, at the gym, while they're at work, demonstrating that they don't want to be bothered (headphones), alone on the street. Be respectful and take no for an answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 04:49 PM
2

Highly doubtful.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/26 10:38 AM
1

He's free to stop replying, remove her, or block her. Nobody's forcing him to stay in contact. The responsibility doesn't suddenly become hers because he won't enforce his own boundaries.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 05:28 PM
4

Source?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 05:18 PM
1

That’s bullshit. She’s already told you directly and clearly that she wants to stay friends. If you’re still seeing a romantic possibility after that, that’s coming from your interpretation, not from what she actually said. Most of the time she’s probably just treating you the way she treats her other friends. The difference is that you’re looking at those interactions through the lens of attraction, so normal friendliness starts looking like mixed signals.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 11:33 AM
5

Men openly admit that they treat “wife material” differently too. Men and women do the exact same thing. You just don’t like it when women do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 11:28 AM
8

Your definition of “wife material” is the same as most women’s definition of “husband material”: someone you’d want a serious future with. The only difference is that you assume positive motives when men say it and negative motives when women say it. That’s a double standard. The idea that “husband material” means “the guy she settled for after having fun” is a chronically online take, not the normal meaning of the phrase.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 11:57 PM
5

It’s not the context. It’s hypocrisy and a double standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 08:52 PM
3

If you can’t be friends with someone who literally just told you they want to “stay friends”, then you’re the one who needs to break contact.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 08:28 PM
4

Male victims obviously exist. What I don’t understand is why you’re taking comments from a handful of women and turning them into “in the eyes of women.” If a woman knowingly lies to someone, leads them on, and exploits their feelings for money, attention, favours, or anything else, she’s in the wrong. Most women would agree with that. The problem is that you’re presenting a few bad takes as if they represent women generally. I can find people defending all kinds of terrible behaviour online. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 08:26 PM
3

Okay, but that still doesn’t make most of the items on the list red flags. Being liberal isn’t a red flag that women commonly miss. It’s not a red flag at all. Plenty of women specifically want a liberal partner. A red flag is something that signals potentially unhealthy or harmful behaviour regardless of personal preferences. A guy trying to control what you wear is a red flag whether you’re liberal or conservative. A guy who lies, manipulates, or ignores boundaries is a red flag regardless of …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 06:46 PM
2

Two things. First, a red flag is not a marker for incompatibility. Words have meanings. A red flag is a warning sign that suggests potential problems with someone’s character or behaviour, such as dishonesty, manipulation, controlling tendencies, aggression, or a lack of respect for boundaries. It’s not just “a trait that might annoy someone later.” Second, you keep saying “women complain” as though women are a monolith. For every woman complaining that a guy is quiet, liberal, or smokes weed, t…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 06:44 PM
4

The problem isn’t that your list is non-exhaustive. It’s that you’re confusing pet peeves with red flags. Actual red flags are things like dishonesty, manipulation, controlling behaviour, aggression, chronic jealousy, refusing to respect boundaries, taking no accountability for mistakes, or treating people with contempt. There’s a difference between “this person may not be compatible with me” and “this person’s behaviour suggests they may be a bad partner.” Most of your list falls into the first…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 05:12 PM
15

What a bizarre list. The fact that "mumbles when he talks" made the list, but lying, anger issues, manipulation, jealousy, and contempt didn't, says a lot about how little thought went into this. Being soft-spoken isn't a red flag. Being liberal isn't a red flag. Smoking weed isn't a red flag. At most, those are compatibility issues. A red flag is something that points to dishonesty, manipulation, controlling behaviour, aggression, entitlement, or a lack of respect for boundaries. You seem to be…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 04:58 PM
7

We also distinguish between someone we want to raise a family with and who we just want to bang Interesting. Are those the same men who think "husband material" is an insult?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 04:19 PM
1

Saying I’m ignoring the first sentence doesn’t really make sense when the thing I’m challenging is the conclusion you’re drawing from it. What part of that sentence do you think I’m ignoring? The words “I think”? Saying “I think” doesn’t make the argument immune from criticism. It just means you’re presenting an interpretation. The question is whether that interpretation is actually supported by the evidence. I’ve never disputed that men complain about paying for dates. I’ve been challenging the…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 12:27 PM
1

No, I didn’t ignore it. I disagreed with the assumption built into it. You said the problem is that if men stop dating women who expect them to pay, they’ll be left with those three groups. My point has been that they won’t, because those aren’t the only women willing to pay for themselves. The first sentence doesn’t change the issue I’m taking with your argument. The categories you’re using are still caricatures.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 11:52 AM
1

You’re moving between two different arguments. The first was that women willing to pay for themselves are mostly ball breakers, sugar mamas, and single moms. I don’t think that’s true. The second is that some men complain about paying for dates. Fine. Maybe some of them are whining. But even if that’s true, it still doesn’t make the first claim true. The existence of complainers isn’t evidence that your stereotypes are accurate.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 11:14 AM
5

What exactly is there to debate? You haven’t established any facts here. You’ve made a series of assumptions and interpretations, treated them as true, and then attached a prediction to them. “Women seem to not really like men that much to begin with,” dating women “feels like pushing a boulder uphill,” and long-term relationships “turn into deals that men didn’t sign up for” aren’t facts. They’re claims. Before anyone can debate the prediction, you’d first have to demonstrate those claims are a…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 10:09 PM
1

Why are you yelling? They’re probably complaining about the same thing people complain about in every area of dating: expectations that don’t match their preferences. Whether their complaint is valid or not, it doesn’t support your argument. You claimed women who pay for themselves are basically limited to a few extreme categories. That’s the part I’m disagreeing with.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 07:57 PM
1

You’re jumping from “these women exist” to “therefore men should exclusively date them.” Most people don’t choose partners based on a single trait. The fact that a woman is willing to pay for dates doesn’t automatically make her the best match for every man.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 06:21 PM
1

You’ve created a set of cartoon characters and then treated them as the only alternatives. Most women who split costs aren’t trying to dominate men, adopt struggling younger guys, or compensate for being unattractive. Plenty of attractive, successful, emotionally healthy women pay their own way sometimes and don’t fit any of the boxes you’ve listed. They’re just normal adults.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 04:35 PM
2

I think we’ve reached the point where we’re just restating our positions. You think it’s primarily biological. I think social norms play a larger role than you’re giving them credit for. Neither of us seems to be moving, so agree to disagree.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 12:55 AM
0

I've never said women are blank slates or that patriarchy is the sole explanation for every preference. I've said social norms can influence how people interpret and respond to things. So no, I don't think the choice is between "it's 100% biology" and "women are blank slates." And honestly, the fact that different cultures define strength, weakness, masculinity, and attractiveness differently is already evidence that culture is doing at least some of the work.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 07:14 PM
0

I agree biology matters. I agree women can reinforce these norms. What I disagree with is treating "women are innately disgusted by weakness in men" as a proven fact rather than a hypothesis. Especially when what counts as "weakness" is itself heavily shaped by culture.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 06:15 PM
–

My point wasn't about attraction specifically. My point was that every example that doesn't fit your theory gets explained away. And "you can't disprove my theory" is a pretty wild thing to say in a debate about evidence. If literally nothing could convince you you're wrong, then you're not following the evidence. You're defending a belief. That's exactly why every example that doesn't fit your theory gets dismissed instead of considered. Since you've already decided there's no possible evidence…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 06:07 PM
–

You realize you've built a theory where every possible outcome proves your point, right? If a woman dates Chad, that's evidence. If she dates an average guy, he's a beta. If she's happy, she's settling. If she's unhappy, that's evidence. If she stays loyal, you can't know what she's really thinking. If she cheats, that's evidence too. So what exactly would disprove your theory? Because from where I'm sitting, you've set this up so you can never be wrong. Any example that supports your view count…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 03:11 PM
1

Your argument falls apart in the first sentence. The fact that abusive men can get relationships doesn’t prove personality doesn’t matter. It proves that having some attractive personality traits doesn’t prevent someone from also having terrible ones. People aren’t either “good personality” or “bad personality.” Someone can be charismatic, confident, funny, socially skilled, and still be abusive. And your example misses the point entirely. The question isn’t whether a man who bites people has wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 11:36 AM
1

He’s one guy. Anecdotes aren’t evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 11:02 AM
1

Therein lies the problem. You don’t seem to distinguish between a preference and a sense of entitlement. Those are two very different things. I think we’ve both made our positions clear at this point.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 11:01 AM
1

And that’s the part I keep pushing back on. You’re saying women don’t need to be taught this because it’s innate. Okay, based on what? I agree some women react that way. That’s never been the disagreement. The disagreement is whether that reaction is entirely innate or whether social norms can influence it too. I haven’t seen any evidence that the reaction is wholly innate and unaffected by culture, socialization, media, family, religion, peer groups, or gender norms. Especially when those same …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 02:12 AM
0

Men are taught emotional vulnerability makes them less desirable. Women are taught to see emotional vulnerability in men as less desirable. Those are gendered expectations. Gendered expectations become gender roles. And a social system built around those gender roles is what people are referring to when they talk about patriarchy.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 12:34 AM
2

The spoiled kid analogy fails because the kid thinks the money should be given to them. The woman isn’t saying, “Give me your money.” She’s saying, “If that’s not how you date, I’m not interested.” One is a claim of entitlement. The other is a compatibility decision.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/26 12:30 AM
1

No. I’ve already explained it in this thread. If you want to engage with it, go back and read it. I’m not going to rewrite the same argument every time someone misses it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 11:13 PM
2

You’re starting with the conclusion. You see a woman who prefers men who pay and immediately declare she’s entitled to his money. I’m asking how. If he doesn’t pay, she leaves. If she leaves, he keeps his money. Where exactly did she receive something she wasn’t entitled to?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 11:10 PM
1

You’re using “entitlement” so broadly that it stops meaning anything. If I expect honesty, attraction, effort, ambition, or generosity from a partner, am I entitled? Or do I just have standards? A woman saying “I don’t date men who split first dates” sounds a lot more like a dating standard than a belief that she’s owed somebody’s money.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 09:08 PM
3

If a woman says “I prefer men who pay on the first date,” she’s not entitled to anything. She can prefer it all she wants. The man can say no. She can then decide not to date him. That’s how preferences work. And yes, if a man said “I prefer women who have sex on the first date and probably wouldn’t date someone who doesn’t,” that’s a perfectly valid preference too. Women would be free to reject him. The entitlement would be him claiming women owe him sex. Just like the entitlement would be a wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 08:47 PM
10

You’re doing exactly what you’re accusing other people of doing. You say Blue Pill people assume men’s dating experiences are the same as women’s. Then in the next breath you assume women’s dating experiences are so easy that any woman who struggles must have something fundamentally wrong with her. That’s not reality either. There are women who struggle because they’re shy, socially isolated, unattractive, disabled, older, living in small towns, have unrealistic standards, have poor relationship…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 08:41 PM
–

You’re comparing a dating preference to an obligation. “I prefer men who pay” = preference. “Men owe me dinner” = entitlement. “I prefer women who are sexually compatible with me” = preference. “Women owe me sex” = entitlement. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 08:22 PM
–

You’re arguing against a point I never made. Of course women have agency. That’s exactly why they can choose not to date men who don’t meet their preferences. The part I disagree with is calling every preference you don’t like “entitlement.” If nobody is being forced to pay, and nobody is being forced to accept a second date, where exactly is the entitlement?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 08:03 PM
–

If the people you’re claiming are being harmed by the tradition support it at higher rates than the people supposedly benefiting from it, then maybe it’s not as simple as “women only support it because it benefits them.”
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 07:38 PM
–

No, entitlement would be thinking you’re owed a date, owed a relationship, or owed someone’s money. Preferring not to date men who split the bill isn’t entitlement. It’s a preference. Nobody is forcing men to pay. Women who want that can date men who do, and men who don’t want to can date women who split. That’s just compatibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 07:35 PM
–

More men than women think men should pay for a first date.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 06:57 PM
1

You really typed “most women go for the exact small minority of men and those men keep rotating them” and not once stopped to think, “wait, does this actually make sense?” Look around. The world is full of completely average men in relationships. Yet somehow we’re supposed to believe a tiny handful of men are dating all the women and endlessly “rotating” them? At some point you have to ask whether you’re describing reality or just repeating something you read online.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 06:55 PM
–

I don’t know why you thought that was a mic drop. You were the one claiming it wasn’t a tradition. Now you’re comparing it to another tradition. Whether a tradition is good or bad is a completely separate argument. My point was that it is, in fact, a tradition.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 06:48 PM
1

No, that’s what you think it implies. I replied to the sentence that was actually written, not the one you’ve reconstructed afterwards. If someone wanted to say “women do this less often than men on average,” they would’ve just said that. You’re replacing the original sentence with a different one and insisting they’re the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:10 PM
–

First, men paying for dates is quite literally a tradition. You can disagree with it, but calling it entitlement doesn’t magically make the history disappear. Second, if paying is a dealbreaker for you, just say that before the date. “I prefer to split the bill.” Problem solved. If she doesn’t want to go, then you’ve both learned you’re incompatible and can move on with your lives. I don’t know why this gets treated like some great injustice. Dating is mostly people filtering for what they want.…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 02:30 PM
1

You’re arguing with a statement you’ve rewritten, not the one I replied to. I wasn’t responding to your interpretation of what you think people generally mean on this subreddit. I was responding to the actual sentence that was written: “Women won’t sleep with men they wouldn’t date.” That’s false. Women do sleep with men they wouldn’t date. Once you start adding qualifiers like “average,” “distribution,” and “on average,” you’re making a different argument than the one I responded to.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 01:19 PM
2

You’re rewriting this as you go along. “Women won’t sleep with men they wouldn’t date” isn’t the same thing as “women do it less often than men.” Women absolutely sleep with men they wouldn’t date. Once you admit that, we’re just arguing about frequency, which is a completely different claim than the one that was originally made.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 01:08 PM
–

So women are supposed to be psychic now? How is rejecting someone “unfair,” but carrying pepper spray and preparing for the possibility of violence somehow isn’t? Or, hear me out: instead of expecting women to develop psychic abilities, how about men who get rejected just handle rejection like reasonable adults? How would that be? You’re putting all the responsibility on women to predict, manage, and prevent men’s reactions instead of expecting men to be responsible for their own behaviour. And …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 01:02 PM
1

Then we’re discussing a different statement. “Women won’t sleep with men they wouldn’t date” is an absolute claim. “Women do it less often than men” is a comparative claim. I challenged the first one, not the second
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 11:21 PM
5

Congratulations on identifying the demographic that was literally named in the comment I was responding to.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:41 PM
2

That wasn’t the claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:34 PM
4

Rejection can be handled better on both sides, but nobody is entitled to someone’s time, emotional labour, or a justification for not being interested. Women don’t owe every interested man a detailed exit interview. And the reason many women choose indirect rejections isn’t because every man is dangerous. It’s because they have no way of knowing which man will react badly until after they reject him. That’s risk management, not collective punishment.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:15 PM
14

“Once” 🤣🤣🤣
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:14 PM
1

You’ve hidden your comments, so I have no way to verify that claim. Why should I just take your word for it?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 07:08 PM
17

That doesn’t make any sense. Women have been willingly having sex with men for all of human history. The existence of children, families, marriages, relationships, crushes, and hookups is pretty strong evidence that women are not universally repulsed by male sexuality. You’re taking the fact that women don’t want all men and reframing it as women not wanting men at all. Those are completely different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 06:29 PM
1

You’re confusing “I would like more evidence” with “you owe me personal details.” Those are not the same thing. You are free to remain unconvinced. You are not entitled to other people’s private experiences. I’m curious whether you’re this skeptical when men talk shit about women. Do you demand the same level of evidence, or only when women are the ones talking?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 06:27 PM
8

“Women won’t sleep with men they wouldn’t date” What? Of course they do.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 05:50 PM
24

You understand that doesn’t actually address what I said, right? You claimed women find male sexuality disgusting. Women not wanting every man who wants them isn’t evidence of disgust. It’s evidence that women have preferences. Those are two completely different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 05:46 PM
4

Being risk averse is reasonable. Assuming guilt is not. “I’ll be cautious because some men have behaved this way” is very different from “these hypothetical men don’t believe women deserve bodily autonomy.” The hypothetical doesn’t actually establish that.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 05:45 PM
1

So your argument is literally: “She wouldn’t give me the details I demanded, therefore she’s lying.” That’s not evidence. That’s just you assuming the answer you wanted from the start. The fact that a woman won’t disclose other people’s trauma to satisfy a stranger on the internet is not proof the events didn’t happen. You want proof? Go ask the women in your life, in good faith, not with the assumption they’re lying. Ask them if they’ve ever had a negative experience with a man that made them m…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 04:13 PM
4

It’s logical to say it’s possible. It’s not logical to assume it’s inevitable.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 03:00 PM
8

Some men have. That doesn’t tell us what these hypothetical men would do. You’re assuming they’d violate those women’s autonomy and then using that assumption as evidence. That’s circular reasoning.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 02:46 PM
–

Trying to assign percentages is impossible because the things you’re putting under “how he treats you” are often the evidence of “who he is.”
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 02:20 PM
47

“There’s no reason for women to take offense” is a wild thing to say. Who the hell are you to tell women how they’re supposed to feel? Maybe they’re offended because of how they’re being approached. Maybe they’re offended because the guy won’t take no for an answer. Maybe they’re uncomfortable because they’re being treated like a walking sex object instead of a person. And if women were genuinely “repulsed by male sexuality,” humanity would’ve gone extinct a long time ago. The fact that women ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 02:16 PM
11

Logically speaking, being upset is also a prerequisite to charity, protest, activism, voting, writing an opinion piece, or literally any action. Being upset about something doesn’t tell you what action will follow. Maybe one or two men in that scenario would try to coerce those women. Maybe none of them would. That’s the problem with hypotheticals like this. You’re just filling in the blanks with whatever behaviour supports your conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 01:58 PM
10

You’re jumping from “some men have done this” to “men as a whole don’t believe in bodily autonomy.” Most people can think a choice is selfish, stupid, unfair, or disappointing without believing they have the right to take that choice away. Those are completely different things. Also, your hypothetical assumes the very thing you’re trying to prove. You start with the assumption that these men would eventually coerce women, then conclude that they don’t respect autonomy because they would coerce w…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 01:55 PM
1

But that’s exactly the point. Andrew Tate isn’t “men” any more than some random woman on the internet is “feminism.” You treat bad men as individuals, but every woman with an opinion you don’t like suddenly becomes a feminist spokesperson representing the entire movement. That’s a pretty obvious double standard. And half the time you likely don’t even know whether the woman you’re arguing with is a feminist. You’re just assuming she is because you disagree with her.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 01:37 PM
1

That’s my point. Just like I wouldn’t point at Andrew Tate and say “that’s men,” you can’t point at one feminist and say “that’s feminism.”
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 01:30 PM
2

Who the fuck do you think you are that anyone owes you their friends’ private trauma? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? If she gives you more details, then what? Are you going to tell her she’s allowed to be cautious, or that she’s being irrational? The fact that women won’t divulge other people’s personal experiences to satisfy your curiosity isn’t the gotcha you seem to think it is. You’re doing a great job demonstrating exactly why some women don’t feel comfortable sharing these…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 01:29 PM
13

If those men didn’t respect women’s autonomy, they wouldn’t just be angry about the situation, they’d believe they had the right to force those women into relationships. Being upset that someone doesn’t choose you isn’t the same thing as believing they don’t have the right to choose.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 01:13 PM
2

No, I’m replying to the right person. Did you not read what she wrote? Because she said that all of her friends have had some sort of negative experience “ranging from”. She didn’t say all of them had been raped. That’s you willfully misinterpreting what she said.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 12:56 PM
4

You’re assuming women’s caution only comes from the most extreme crimes. It doesn’t. A woman doesn’t have to be raped to become cautious around men. Being followed, harassed, cornered, groped, pressured, catcalled, or having a man refuse to take no for an answer all contribute to that caution too. So when women talk about why they’re careful, you’re acting as if the discussion is only about serious sexual assaults. It isn’t. It’s about a much broader range of experiences that many women deal wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 12:13 PM
0

I already made it
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 02:58 AM
12

The only way for OP to overcome that misunderstanding is to ask his partner what they need. “Do you need me to listen or do you need me to help problem solve?” Sometimes people just want to vent.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 09:06 PM
24

Like the way you’re painting a picture of how most victims are? Apparently women sharing experiences is unfairly stereotyping men, but reducing victims to “here’s a tissue and a cookie” is totally reasonable. Got it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 08:31 PM
50

I think part of the disconnect is that people are telling you how they feel and you’re responding with statistics. Your ex wasn’t giving you a math problem to solve. She was telling you how she felt. If someone says, “I feel neglected,” and your response is to pull out a spreadsheet of your gaming hours, you’ve completely missed the point. It’s like if your favourite sports team loses and you’re bitching about the players. Do you want someone to immediately start reading off stats, or do you wan…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 06:50 PM
1

You’re acting like women’s concerns come from statistics when for many of us they come from lived experience. I was 10 when a middle aged man followed me in his car and didn’t stop until I called my brother. My 19 year old niece had to get security to walk her to her car because a guy was following her around at work. And those aren’t extreme stories. They’re exactly the kinds of things women are talking about. A lot of women aren’t just worried about murder, rape, or serious violence. They’re w…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 06:41 PM
0

Shaming and guilt tripping? Quote me
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 03:25 PM
13

Why is this always framed as a choice between complete chaos and complete boredom? There is a middle ground. Why aren’t men all chasing quiet, modest church girls who stay home on Friday nights instead of women they find exciting and attractive? Because most people want more than the most extreme version of “safe.” Being reliable, loyal, emotionally available, and stable are great relationship qualities. They’re not a substitute for having a personality. The chaotic guy isn’t attracting women be…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 10:54 AM
0

That’s a pretty bold thing to say for someone whose answer was just “the female sex drive.” Calling your answer “correct” doesn’t magically make it less of an assertion.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 10:41 AM
2

The problem isn’t that men are asking women for dating advice. The problem is asking strangers for dating advice. People who actually know you can tell you things random people on the internet can’t. Maybe you’re coming across as arrogant. Maybe you’re terrible at reading social cues. Maybe your standards are unrealistic. Maybe there’s something you’re doing that’s actively turning people off. Maybe the way you chew is off putting. Maybe your hygiene could use some help. Strangers have no way of…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/26 08:04 PM
–

Are you really not hearing how your examples come across? “You’re an adult, do whatever you want, it doesn’t bother me” sounds dismissive. There’s a big difference between “I trust you to make your own decisions” and “I don’t care what you do.” Most people want a partner who’s engaged enough to have thoughts, feelings, or a conversation when something comes up. With the job example, maybe she’s trying to have an actual conversation with you. Maybe she wants your opinion. You’re just opting out o…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/26 07:36 PM
17

You really need a disclaimer that she’s not speaking for her entire sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/26 02:56 PM
8

You know what, you’re right. My husband is a Leafs fan and his cousin is a Canadiens fan. Men are constantly sending mixed signals. Why can’t they get their shit together? One of them must be lying. Or, hear me out, maybe different people just like different things. There’s no contradiction. There’s just no hive mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/26 02:52 PM
1

they are all together because the man keeps quiet Oh, so we're just making shit up now? Cool, cool. In that case, maybe all those couples are together because the men are completely open about their feelings and the women appreciate the honesty. Maybe the women are the emotionally unavailable ones. Maybe they're together because they genuinely like each other. See, I can invent stories about millions of strangers too. The difference is I'm not presenting my fan fiction as evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/26 12:52 PM
2

You’re still arguing with something I didn’t say. I never said biology wasn’t involved. I never said patriarchy invented this. I’ve said repeatedly that something can have biological roots and still be reinforced by social norms. The fact that something might be natural doesn’t automatically mean culture has no influence on it. You keep responding as though I’m arguing nature vs nurture when I’ve been saying the whole time that both can exist at once. You’re not saying anything new so we’re done…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 09:13 PM
–

Are you going to answer my questions or keep deflecting?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 09:11 PM
–

Okay, then let’s focus on “promote.” What rights are women promoting the removal of? What specific legislation are you referring to? And how have you determined this is a women issue rather than a political disagreement where both men and women exist on both sides? Now let’s focus on “even more of.” The phrase “even more” implies some rights and freedoms have already been taken away Which ones? You’re making a claim about half the population. Surely you can be more specific than “they vote for t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:31 PM
1

But that’s not what OP was arguing. OP’s argument was that average women are dating exceptional men because average women are inherently more attractive than average men. If more women are choosing to stay single, then they’re not dating those exceptional men either.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:00 PM
2

Your argument falls apart when you ask a simple question: if average women aren't dating average men, who are all the average women dating? There aren't enough exceptional men to go around. Most couples are two pretty ordinary people. You're taking the fact that men often find average women sexually attractive and turning it into proof that average women are more valuable than average men. Those aren't the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 06:13 PM
–

You said women took away your rights. When I asked which rights, your example was gun restrictions. Then when I pointed out those are laws passed by governments, you jumped to abortion. That's not an answer, it's a deflection. Also, I never said anything about abortion, so let's stick to the claim you made and the question I asked. And the tax thing still makes no sense. I don't have kids. Some of my taxes go to schools. I don't accuse children of taking my money. Some of my taxes go to public t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 05:45 PM
–

What are you basing “best,” “worst,” and “average” on here? Are you saying average men can’t be abusive? Because that’s the only way your argument works. You’re taking cases where a man abused his partner and then declaring he must have been either exceptional or terrible, while arbitrarily excluding the possibility that he was just an average guy who happened to be abusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 04:03 PM
–

So your answer to “what rights have women taken away from you?” is that you had to buy a shotgun sooner than you wanted because of a law you didn’t like? That’s not women taking away your rights. That’s a policy outcome you disagree with. Men vote too. Men support gun restrictions too. Unless your argument is that women shouldn’t get a say, you’ve described democracy. And the tax argument is funny because it treats women as if they’re some separate species that doesn’t work, pay taxes, own busin…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 03:58 PM
–

taking away even more of my rights, freedoms, and money What rights and freedoms have women taken away from you, specifically? And what money? Be explicit. these women's fecundity is rodent-tier, and their half-psychopathic perma-angry unstable crotch fruits attend the same school as my kid. Are you arguing that women who date men you disapprove of shouldn’t reproduce, or did you just swallow a thesaurus and hope nobody noticed there wasn’t an argument underneath it?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 01:49 PM
2

The irony is that I'm the one who took the male victim's account seriously. You brought up his story, then dismissed his own takeaway because it didn't fit your narrative. Rather than address that, you've made this about me being a feminist. If this is how you evaluate evidence, it's hard to take your concerns about fairness very seriously.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 12:50 PM
1

Women usually are honest about their preferences all the time. The problem is some people seem to think women are a monolith. One woman likes blondes, another likes brunettes. One likes gamers, another finds gaming unattractive. That doesn’t mean someone’s lying. It means different women like different things. And if women sometimes soften rejection, it’s usually not because they’re hiding their real preferences. It’s because experience has taught them that some men react badly when they’re dire…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 11:21 AM
1

Have you not been outside? Go look at real life couples. They are all remarkably average.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 10:26 PM
0

You quoted me saying women reinforce these norms and then replied by saying women reinforce these norms. I’m not sure what disagreement you think we’re having there. The fact that women enforce a norm doesn’t prove the norm isn’t patriarchal. It just means social norms are enforced by the people living under them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 07:33 PM
1

Some do. Some don’t.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 07:31 PM
1

Correct, you can’t negotiate or convince someone to be attracted to something. But that’s not how social conditioning works. If generation after generation blondes were mocked, ostracized, portrayed negatively in media, and treated as undesirable, eventually that would affect how people viewed blondes. That’s how social norms work. Not through persuasion, but through repeated exposure and reinforcement over time. We’re not going in circles because I don’t understand your point. You’re not correc…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 05:04 PM
0

I don’t know why you keep pretending I’ve said women have no role in this. I’ve literally been saying women reinforce these norms too. My point is that women participating in a system doesn’t prove the system doesn’t exist. I don’t get why “feminists are anti-patriarchy” is supposed to be a gotcha. These gender norms hurt men too, so men should be against them too.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 05:00 PM
1

Who is the patriarchy? Who is the internet? Who is capitalism? Who is religion? They’re systems, not people.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 04:15 PM
0

You’re acting like those are mutually exclusive. Women reinforcing a gender norm doesn’t somehow make it stop being a gender norm. My point wasn’t that women never reinforce these expectations. My point was that women’s reactions are one of the ways those expectations get reinforced.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 04:14 PM
1

You’re talking about female dating standards as though women throughout history were freely swiping through options and picking whoever they wanted. For a lot of history, marriage was heavily dictated by family, economics, religion, and social expectations. Women had preferences. That doesn’t mean they always had the freedom to act on them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 04:09 PM
1

All these comments are just going in circles. You think the preference created the norm. I think the norm can influence the preference. Repeating that same conclusion over and over doesn’t get us any closer to proving it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 04:08 PM
2

His takeaway should be the same takeaway women have had for decades: institutions can fail victims, reporting comes with risks, and not everyone will believe or support you. Male and female victims both deal with that reality. By your logic, if I read a story about someone being seriously injured in a car crash, my takeaway should be to never get into a car. That’s not how people assess risk. You’re taking a story about a university, specific administrators, specific students, and a specific ass…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 02:12 PM
1

Okay, but you don’t have evidence for that either. How exactly do you know the gender empathy gap existed before patriarchy? We’re talking about prehistory here. And even if it did, that still wouldn’t prove patriarchal gender norms don’t reinforce it. Something can predate a system and still be reinforced by it. Those aren’t contradictory ideas. We’re at an impasse. Be well.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 01:10 AM
1

You’re just restating the conclusion. “These norms come from nature” is the thing you’re trying to prove, not the thing you’ve proven. And honestly, “weakness isn’t tolerated in males of any species” is doing a lot of work there. We’re not talking about a male deer failing to defend a herd. We’re talking about whether a guy saying “I’m struggling right now” gets treated differently. Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 12:23 AM
1

No, what you’re “calling me out on” is a position I haven’t taken. I’ve never said women don’t reinforce gender norms. I’ve never said women can’t be criticized for reinforcing gender norms. I’ve never said women can’t do anything wrong. I’ve never blamed men. Saying social norms influence behaviour isn’t the same thing as saying nobody is responsible for their behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 12:11 AM
1

You mocked a made-up theory because it was just a story somebody invented. Then immediately replaced it with a different story about progressives gaslighting men. How is that any different? Where’s the evidence that’s the reason men are guarded?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/26 12:08 AM
1

I don’t think anyone’s arguing that patriarchy is defined by men hiding their feelings. Your point is that you can’t have patriarchy without men holding primary power. Fair enough. But if your argument is that men would still be expected to suppress their emotions even after patriarchy ended, then all you’ve shown is that those norms can outlive the system. You haven’t shown they’re unrelated to it. The original comment described a world where men are valued for what they provide, expected to be…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:44 PM
1

You literally just invented a theory on the spot and then admitted you invented it. That’s exactly why “this sounds plausible to me” isn’t evidence. And no, I don’t think we should start calling women idiots because they have preferences we don’t like. I also don’t know why you keep acting like the choices are either shame women or shut up about it. Those aren’t the only two options.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:41 PM
–

Who are you to determine someone else’s reality? If someone says they’re lonely, you don’t get to decide they aren’t because you’ve concluded their circumstances should make them feel differently. If someone tells you they’re afraid of flying and you think flying is safe, does that make their fear invalid? No. It just means you disagree with their assessment of the risk. You can disagree with why someone feels something. You don’t get to decide whether they’re feeling it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 08:34 PM
1

I never said negative generalizations of feminism are invalid. I said they’re not all-encompassing. My issue is that you seem completely unwilling to acknowledge that feminism can ever do anything positive. Every bad example is proof of what feminism “really is,” while every good example gets dismissed as an exception. And your house analogy doesn’t work because feminism isn’t one person. You’re taking the actions of millions of different people and treating them as though they’re a single indiv…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 08:06 PM
–

That’s not actually true. Being alone and being lonely aren’t the same thing. Plenty of people spend a lot of time alone and don’t feel lonely at all. They’re content with their own company and have meaningful connections with friends, family, or their community. And plenty of people in relationships feel intensely lonely. In fact, many people would say feeling lonely while lying next to someone who doesn’t understand, value, or connect with you is worse than being single. Loneliness is a feelin…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 08:02 PM
1

The existence of misogynistic men who get dates doesn’t prove misogyny is irrelevant. How do you know the women they’re dating even know they’re misogynistic? A lot of people are perfectly capable of being charming at first and revealing the ugly stuff later. More importantly, “some misogynistic men are successful” and “misogyny can hurt your dating prospects” are not mutually exclusive statements.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 08:01 PM
2

If the same norms and expectations still exist, then you’ve changed the name, not the system. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 07:10 PM
–

That’s a pretty big assumption. Most average couples I see look like two average people who genuinely like and are attracted to each other. And if your argument is that average men are routinely dating women they aren’t particularly attracted to just to avoid being alone, then you’re no longer talking about solving loneliness. You’re talking about avoiding being alone. Those aren’t the same thing. A relationship with someone you don’t actually want can make you not single. It doesn’t automatical…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 07:07 PM
1

I don’t doubt you’ve heard some women say that. I’ve heard people call women shallow for wanting tall men too. What I’m pushing back on is the idea that this is some widespread belief rather than opinions from individual people. Because “men like attractive women” isn’t exactly a controversial position. The disagreement usually starts when people make claims like beauty is the foundation of a relationship or that men can’t develop deep feelings without a strong physical attraction first.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 07:04 PM
1

You literally brought up looksmaxxing. How is responding to the thing you said a derailment? If the culture attached to the term is irrelevant to your point, then why use that term instead of just saying people are improving their appearance?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 07:03 PM
1

Fair enough, I confused you with the other commenter. But I still don’t see how those are the same claim. “Beauty matters too much to you” and “beauty shouldn’t matter to you” are different arguments. If everyone agrees beauty belongs in the equation, then the disagreement isn’t whether attraction matters. It’s about how much weight it should carry.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:59 PM
1

I’m not fixating on the word. I’m talking about the culture attached to it. Nobody hears “I’m working on my appearance” and immediately starts talking about facial ratios, canthal tilt, or hitting their face with a hammer. Those associations exist for a reason. “Working on your appearance” is a normal description of a behaviour. “Looksmaxxing” comes with an entire online worldview about attractiveness, status, and self-worth. There’s a very toxic culture wrapped up in “looksmaxxing” that goes we…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:57 PM
3

Feminists aren’t “divided” because feminism isn’t one person, one organization, or one ideology that everyone subscribes to in exactly the same way. The fact that some people who identify as feminists supported him while others treated him horribly tells me that people who call themselves feminists are capable of doing both good and bad things. That’s true of literally every large social or political movement. You’re also making a lot of assumptions here. We know some of the people who mistreate…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:24 PM
2

But that’s exactly my point. You started by arguing patriarchy wasn’t about controlling women and was just a practical response to survival and agriculture. Now you’re saying some men opposed women’s independence because they were afraid of losing power, losing assets, or being unable to attract women. That’s not survival. That’s control. You’re no longer describing why patriarchy began. You’re describing why some people wanted it to continue long after the original conditions had changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:21 PM
1

Gossiping or mocking others is not attractive in anyone. Full stop. > a recurring thing I’ve seen… Where have you seen this IRL?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 03:16 PM
1

Sure, I’d expect some change. But you’re acting like Sweden and the US are so radically different that all gendered expectations should have vanished by now. They haven’t. And again, I feel like we’re going in circles. I’ve never denied biology might be involved. What I keep asking is why you’re so certain social conditioning isn’t also influencing this. Because “women in Sweden and the US both like similar traits” doesn’t answer that question. It just tells us women in Sweden and the US both li…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:47 PM
1

You’re explaining a possible origin story. You’re not answering the question. If patriarchy was only about survival and protecting farmland, why were women still being denied basic rights long after those survival pressures had changed?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:44 PM
3

If it’s completely in line with what feminists believe, then how do you explain the feminists who supported him? And the irony is that while accusing feminists of dismissing male victims, you’re dismissing a male victim because his perspective doesn’t fit your narrative. At some point you have to admit you’re not being objective about this.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:43 PM
1

I’ve been arguing that social conditioning can influence people’s preferences. Not that biology plays no role and not that women are mind-controlled. You’re overstating how much gender roles have disappeared. We still socialize boys and girls differently. We still have different expectations for men and women. We still send messages about masculinity and femininity. You can think biology is the bigger factor if you want, but “society changed in some ways and this preference still exists” doesn’t…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 01:53 PM
5

The survivor himself disagrees with your takeaway, and you’re still insisting you know what his story means better than he does. You’re arguing with the victim at this point, not me. You’re doing the very thing you condemn feminists for doing: refusing to listen to a sexual assault survivor when what he’s saying doesn’t fit your narrative. Well done.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 01:49 PM
–

“You could always just pick an average dude” doesn’t really address loneliness. Being able to get a date, a hookup, or even a relationship you don’t actually want might stop you from being alone, but it doesn’t stop you from being lonely. Lonely and alone aren’t the same thing. By that logic, a lonely man could solve his loneliness by dating a woman he’s not attracted to, doesn’t enjoy being around, or treats him like shit. Most people would recognize that isn’t a real solution. Why is it differ…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 01:38 PM
5

You keep citing his experience, but when the man himself showed up and explained his views, you ignored most of what he said and went right back to your original talking point. He literally said, “I wouldn’t be here at all if it were not for the support of people who are feminists…” and concluded that “I don’t see sexual exploitation, assault, harassment, and abuse as a gendered issue.” You’re treating his story as proof of a conclusion that he explicitly rejected.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 01:27 PM
7

I can’t believe that was your takeaway. A sexual assault survivor took the time to share a nuanced account of what happened to him, and your response was to ignore most of what he wrote so you could recycle your anti-feminist talking point. You care more about scoring points against feminists than you do about actually supporting sexual assault survivors, so don’t pretend otherwise. He spent several paragraphs explaining why this isn’t a simple “feminists bad” story, and your response was to tur…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 12:48 PM
1

You’re moving from “biology influences behaviour” to “therefore this preference is biological.” That’s the leap I’m asking you to justify. I’ve never denied that biology affects sexual selection. What I’m asking for is evidence that women’s attitudes toward male emotional vulnerability are mostly biological rather than being shaped by both biology and social influences. Because so far the argument seems to be “biology exists, therefore biology is the explanation,” and that’s not the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 12:37 PM
1

That’s not evidence. That’s an evolutionary narrative. You’re basically saying “this would have made sense from an evolutionary perspective, therefore that’s why people think this way today.” Maybe. Maybe not. The existence of a possible biological explanation doesn’t automatically mean social influences stop existing.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 11:05 AM
2

That’s a different claim. You started with “feminist doctrine” teaches that men are superficial and are blamed for valuing beauty. Now you’ve shifted to “many feminists think men place too much value on beauty.” Those aren’t equivalent statements. And no, not all the branches I listed would agree on that either. Feminists disagree on whether beauty standards are primarily social, biological, economic, patriarchal, empowering, oppressive, or some combination of the above. Also, saying “don’t fixa…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:52 AM
1

People improving their appearance isn’t chronically online. Calling it “looksmaxxing” is
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:46 AM
6

Thank you for sharing your story. I’m really sorry that happened to you. What happened to you was wrong, and no one should be assaulted, dismissed, harassed, or punished for reporting it. I also appreciate the nuance in your comment. A lot of people would have taken an experience like yours and turned it into a sweeping statement about an entire group of people. Instead, you acknowledged the people who supported you, the people who harmed you, and the reality that neither of those groups can be …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:38 AM
4

According to OP “universities are run by feminists” so basically the same thing
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:33 AM
0

So all men are Andrew Tate then?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 10:33 AM
1

Google “Jake and Josie poster”. There are lots of articles about it
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:48 AM
11

Link his posts So your evidence for the claim that feminists don’t believe men can be raped is a single Reddit anecdote? If that story happened, it’s terrible, but one person’s experience doesn’t prove what an entire movement believes. Plenty of feminists recognize that a blackout drunk person can’t consent, regardless of sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:41 AM
9

Which feminist theory, specifically? Liberal feminism? Radical feminism? Marxist feminism? Intersectional feminism? Equity feminism? They don’t all agree with each other, so you can’t just say “feminist theory” like it’s one thing and then declare victory. And none of those are summed up by “men are oppressors, women are victims.” That’s your description of feminism, not theirs. As for the criticism, “I haven’t seen it” doesn’t mean much. You didn’t go looking for criticism of the poster. You sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:39 AM
8

Is this an actual scenario or did you just make it up?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:33 AM
12

Of course the backlash is relevant. You just want it to be irrelevant because it undermines your argument. You claimed this was an example of what feminists believe. If the ad was criticized for its double standard, including by feminists, then it’s weak evidence that the double standard is a feminist belief. And “universities are run by feminists” isn’t evidence. It’s an assertion. Your argument seems to be: A university made a poster. Universities are run by feminists. Therefore the poster rep…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:32 AM
22

Just because someone posts something on TikTok doesn’t mean they actually believe it. Influencers get paid for attention, not accuracy. If outrage, controversy, or saying something ridiculous gets more views, likes, and engagement, that’s what many of them will post. Their income depends on clicks, not sincerity.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:25 AM
30

You can just admit you don’t have a credible source.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:23 AM
46

“Just go on tiktok” makes this the most unserious argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:22 AM
11

That ad faced massive backlash and criticism for exactly the double standard you’re pointing out. So I’m not sure that’s the example you think it is. If anything, it’s an example of people criticizing that double standard, not defending it. And a university posting an ad isn’t the same thing as feminism. The university is not feminism. You can’t just point to something you dislike and declare it feminist.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:18 AM
5

“I am disappointed that this belief isn't applied equally to men” It is, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 02:14 AM
3

If patriarchy was just about survival and protecting farmland, why were women still fighting for property rights, voting rights, education, legal personhood, and financial independence centuries after those survival concerns stopped being relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 06:07 PM
11

Once you’ve decided all women are the same, you stop paying attention to all the women who prove you wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 04:03 PM
3

I don’t really get the point of this post. You spend most of it describing a human behaviour, then acknowledge at the end that both men and women are influenced by looks, confidence, status, and other superficial traits. If that’s the case, why is the entire argument framed around women? Men date attractive toxic people too. This isn’t evidence of some uniquely gendered flaw, it’s just people being people.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:51 PM
11

Because they’ve spent more time listening to red pill influencers talk about women than actually talking to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:47 PM
1

Where did I say it was just a social construct?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 12:08 PM
2

You’re arguing against a position I haven’t taken. I’ve never denied biological differences between men and women. I said expectations about how men and women are supposed to behave are gendered expectations.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 02:35 AM
3

It’s not a “notion”. It’s a biological fact. What does that have to do with whether social norms can influence behaviour and preferences?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:37 AM
1

How’s that relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:25 AM
-2

Oh, I’m sorry. We call it patriarchy. Patriarchy was the answer we were looking for. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:24 AM
-3

You realize you’ve agreed with the point you quoted, right? I said women’s aversion to emotional men reinforces the norm. You replied that women reinforce the norm. Okay. Glad we got there. Now you’ve moved on to arguing about feminism, which wasn’t the point I was making in the first place and not one I’m interested in engaging with.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:23 AM
1

Keep that same energy when women talk about their issues with men
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:21 AM
2

I can see why you read it that way, but that’s not what I meant. When I said he was describing patriarchy, I meant he was describing the gender expectations people are talking about when they use that word. I wasn’t saying his experiences weren’t real or that he didn’t learn those lessons through life. I just don’t think “life taught me this” automatically rules out social norms playing a role in why those experiences keep producing the same lesson.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 01:17 AM
1

I don’t doubt you’ve had those experiences, and I don’t doubt a lot of men have. What I’m pushing back on is the leap from “I’ve experienced this with multiple women” to “this is just how women are.” Your drink example is a good example of that. One woman reacted badly to a pretty reasonable request. That doesn’t tell me anything about women as a group. It tells me something about that woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:53 PM
2

Something can exist before, outside of, or independently from a patriarchal society and still be reinforced by patriarchal gender norms. I swear half the replies I’m getting are to arguments I never made. I never said patriarchy invented these expectations. I said they’re patriarchal gender norms. Those are not the same claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:49 PM
0

I think you’re conflating assertiveness with emotional invulnerability. Those aren’t the same thing. A guy can be assertive and emotionally open. A guy can be emotionally closed off and completely unassertive. And your example doesn’t really disprove what I said. You had women tell you to be more assertive. Okay. That’s still a gendered expectation about how men are supposed to behave.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:47 PM
1

That’s a completely different argument from the one you started with. First it was “you can’t call it a patriarchal norm unless it’s unique to patriarchy.” Now it’s “I don’t think patriarchy explains it.” Okay, that’s a different conversation. But I still don’t see why something existing in multiple societies means social norms can’t reinforce it. Those two things can both be true.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:44 PM
2

I think you’re conflating “this happens a lot” with “therefore this is just how women are.” Most women could tell you stories about bad experiences with men too. That doesn’t mean “that’s just how men are.” And I don’t really get the idea that calling something a patriarchal gender norm means blaming men for it. Men can be negatively affected by gender roles too. Honestly, some of you get so hung up on the word that you stop engaging with the actual point. If I called it evolution instead, would…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:47 PM
2

You’re acting as if the only two options are “people were taught this” or “people observed this.” Why can’t it be both? People observe the world through the lens of the culture they were raised in all the time. And it’s kind of wild that in the same comment where you’re denying gender norms, you describe women as emotional, men as stoic, emotional expression as feminine, and masculinity as what women are attracted to. How is that not gender-role thinking? And while we’re on the subject, it’s pre…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:43 PM
1

Where did I claim it exists uniquely in patriarchy? I’ve said it’s a patriarchal gender norm. That’s not the same thing as saying it can only exist in patriarchies.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:37 PM
4

That sounds rough, and I’m not going to argue with your experience. But I don’t see how it disproves what I said. You’re basically describing people expecting you to deal with your problems yourself, stay functional, and push through it. That’s the exact kind of expectation we’re talking about. And the reason I brought women into it is because another comment specifically brought up women’s aversion to emotional men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:35 PM
1

That doesn’t make any sense. A norm doesn’t stop being a norm just because it exists somewhere else too. By that logic, captains can’t be a sports norm because ships have captains too.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:29 PM
2

I never said patriarchy created these ideas from scratch. I said they’re patriarchal gender norms. Whether those expectations came first or patriarchy came first is a completely different conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:18 PM
2

Getting yelled at for saying “I’m not doing great” is shitty. I’m not going to defend that. But “I’m not doing great” isn’t the entire conversation. It’s the start of one. I’d much rather someone tell me they’re struggling than just shut down and say nothing. If someone tells me they’re not doing great, I can ask what’s going on. I can ask questions. I can ask how I can help. If they say nothing, I’ve got nothing to work with. And you clammed up after that, which honestly is fair enough. If some…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:17 PM
3

I never said biology doesn’t matter. Not once. I’ve been saying social conditioning matters. Both things can be true. You seem very confident attraction is mostly biology. What I still haven’t heard is why social conditioning couldn’t also be part of the equation.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 10:01 PM
0

“Incorrect” is doing a lot of work there. We’re discussing a society that doesn’t exist. Neither of us has any way of verifying it, so we’re both speculating.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:53 PM
5

You’re acting like finding one example of something outside a patriarchal society somehow proves it can’t be part of patriarchy. That’s not how that works.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:49 PM
2

You’re doing it again though. You’re treating emotional openness, impulsiveness, poor emotional regulation, and being a fuckup like they’re all the same thing. They’re not. A guy saying “I’m struggling right now” isn’t the same thing as a guy punching a hole in a wall because he can’t control his emotions. And using prison as an example is kind of proving my point. Those aren’t examples of healthy emotional expression. They’re examples of poor emotional regulation.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:46 PM
5

I think you’re kind of proving my point here. You’ve started with the assumption that an emotionally expressive man is more likely to be unstable, violent, or a mess, while a stoic man is the safer option. Why? That’s not some self-evident truth. That’s a belief about masculinity. And then you make another leap from “some people have that belief” to “therefore it’s genetic memory.” I don’t see how you’ve established either of those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:08 PM
0

Attraction is part of dating. Calling women shallow for caring about looks while men do the exact same thing is a weird double standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:07 PM
3

How are you not getting this? Women get fed the same patriarchal gender role bullshit as men. The idea that men should be stoic, tough, self reliant providers didn’t just appear out of nowhere. Why is it so hard for you to believe that might influence what some women find attractive?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:37 PM
4

I think you’re treating emotional vulnerability, emotional instability, emotional expression, and weakness like they’re all the same thing when they’re not. A guy can be emotionally open without being a mess. A guy can be emotionally composed without being emotionally unavailable. Those aren’t the same things.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:33 PM
1

Which women? Women aren’t a hive mind. They’re attracted to different things, so I don’t know which women you’re talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:30 PM
2

I like the word mate. How I reply depends on what I’m replying to. Didn’t realize the FBI was taking notes.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:29 PM
4

No, it won’t disappear tomorrow, but social norms aren’t some immutable law of the universe. If people stop teaching, rewarding, and reinforcing the idea that men are weak for showing emotion, eventually that shit changes. What you’re describing, whether you realize it or not, is exactly what feminism has been trying to do for decades: challenge and dismantle restrictive gender norms.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:22 PM
1

WTF are you talking about? Do you just scream AI whenever you lack an argument?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:14 PM
0

I’m not going to explain insults to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:13 PM
2

Men enforce them too.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:13 PM
7

The fact that basic literacy now gets mistaken for AI is a little depressing
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:11 PM
3

Are complete sentences too confusing for you?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:09 PM
1

I’m not interested in debating an imaginary matriarchy. Neither of us has any way of knowing what people in that society would believe, so it’s a pointless tangent. As for “we don’t blame patriarchy for it now,” that’s exactly what I’m doing. That’s the position you’re arguing against. You’re responding as though nobody is making that argument while actively responding to someone making it. And “it’s human nature” isn’t evidence. It’s the claim you’re trying to prove.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:09 PM
5

I’m not the one who introduced the claim that women are turned off by emotionally vulnerable men. OP did. I’m simply following his argument to its logical conclusion. But it’s interesting that your response is essentially, “What if it’s biology?” Okay. What evidence do you have for that beyond the fact that the preference currently exists? And if men would do a complete 180° the moment emotional vulnerability became attractive, that sounds a lot less like hardwired biology and a lot more like pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:05 PM
-1

He’s insecure about his masculinity. That’s what that insult is targeting. Also I never said “only”, “always” or “ever”. I forgot how pedantic Reddit can be.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:03 PM
6

This is honestly fascinating. You’re not arguing against patriarchy. You’re giving examples of it. At this point I’m convinced you think patriarchy just means “men bad,” because you keep describing patriarchal gender norms with remarkable accuracy and then denying that’s what they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:00 PM
2

Mate, if we lived in a matriarchy and men were still being taught that vulnerability is weakness, we’d be blaming the matriarchy. You’re arguing over the label while completely missing the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:48 PM
11

Step by step: Men are taught that emotional vulnerability makes them less desirable. Women are taught to see emotional vulnerability in men as less desirable. Both are gendered expectations. Gendered expectations that shape how men and women are supposed to behave are what people mean by gender roles. Patriarchy is a social system built around those gender roles. So “it’s women’s aversion to emotional men” isn’t an alternative explanation. It’s an example of how those norms get reinforced.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:44 PM
0

Mate, you’re so close. What do we call a system that teaches men they’re weak if they’re emotional and teaches women that emotional men are unattractive? Take your time.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:43 PM
–

RIght?! This reads less like a rebuttal of patriarchy and more like a definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:36 PM
24

Mate, you’re describing patriarchy almost word for word and then calling it life. Do you not see the irony?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:35 PM
1

So you still don’t know how insults work.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 01:11 PM
11

“Feminist doctrine”? Which branch exactly? Liberal feminists, radical feminists, Marxist feminists, socialist feminists, intersectional feminists, and fourth-wave feminists disagree with each other on all sorts of things. So which specific branch is teaching that men are morally wrong for wanting an attractive partner? Or are we just treating millions of people with wildly different views as a single hive mind? The funny thing is that nobody in this thread has actually shown this widespread beli…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:32 PM
14

This feels like a very long post arguing against a position most people don’t hold. Who exactly is saying men should apologize for wanting an attractive partner? “People want partners they’re attracted to” isn’t exactly a controversial revelation.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:38 AM
22

“Most men are looksmaxxing” is the most chronically online sentence. Most men probably don’t even know what looksmaxxing means.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:35 AM
1

You not recognizing nuance isn’t the same thing as me failing to provide it. I didn’t realize every general statement required a list of exceptions before you’d acknowledge the obvious grey areas. We’re done here
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 11:08 AM
1

It depends on the context, which seems to be the part you’re struggling with. Not every statement is an absolute. Not every word has one fixed purpose. Sometimes calling someone a dick is criticism of a behaviour. Sometimes it’s a judgment of character. The meaning comes from the context. I’ve lost the energy to keep explaining nuance to someone determined to interpret every statement in the most rigid way possible. If treating every comment as a universal law helps you feel like you’ve won some…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 09:04 PM
1

I've explained the difference between slurs and insults three times: "Yes, a slur is an insult. It’s also a specific type of insult aimed at someone’s race, ethnicity, sexuality, or other protected characteristic. That’s why we have a separate word for it." Then "A slur is a type of insult. That’s why it falls under the category. The entire reason the word “slur” exists is to distinguish a specific kind of insult from insults generally. Insults target the individual. Slurs target an entire group…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 07:48 PM
1

My argument now is the same as it's always been: insults aren't moral judgements.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 07:40 PM
1

You didn’t explain anything. No, what you mean is you didn’t like the explanation. Those are two very different claims. If I got publicly bodied, surely you can quote the part where I said slurs aren’t insults or that insults are only ever used to target insecurities.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 06:51 PM
1

To your first question, I never said it was strictly about that. You added the word “strictly,” not me. To your second question, yes. I’ve literally acknowledged that already. Now back to my question, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 06:48 PM
1

I’ve explained this multiple times now. First you pretended I said slurs aren’t insults. I didn’t. Now you’re pretending I said insults are only ever used to target insecurities. I didn’t say that either. I said insults target insecurities. I didn’t realize I needed to add “including but not limited to” to prevent you from treating every statement as an absolute. At this point you’re not arguing with me. You’re arguing with a version of my position that only exists in your head. And for whatever…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 04:52 PM
1

I’ve said repeatedly that slurs are a type of insult. At this point you’re arguing with an imaginary version of my position. The word “slur” exists because it’s a specific category of insult. That’s why we don’t use the words interchangeably. Walk into a crowded mall and yell “idiot.” Then yell the N-word. If you genuinely believe they’re the same thing, you should expect the same reaction.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 04:36 PM
1

Your argument only works if you ignore how the English language works. A slur is a type of insult. That’s why it falls under the category. The entire reason the word “slur” exists is to distinguish a specific kind of insult from insults generally. A wolf and a Chihuahua are both canines. Surely you can admit that doesn’t make them interchangeable.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 01:28 PM
1

Either you forgot or have poor reading comprehension skills. I said it’s not “just an insult”
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 01:18 PM
1

Oh, did you just discover categories? Yes, a slur is an insult. It’s also a specific type of insult aimed at someone’s race, ethnicity, sexuality, or other protected characteristic. That’s why we have a separate word for it. A tiger is a cat. A kitten is a cat. Surely you can see why those aren’t the same thing. “If you’re comparing the badness of two words, and you won’t even say one of them, that’s the worse word.”
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 10:56 AM
1

I don’t think we’re actually that far apart. I agree the perception is real and worth examining. My only point has been that feeling blamed isn’t necessarily the same thing as being blamed. Beyond that, I think we’re mostly arguing about how much of the perception comes from the messaging itself versus how it’s being interpreted.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 10:46 AM
1

Much appreciated!
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:17 PM
–

I agree perception matters. What I don’t agree with is treating feeling blamed and being blamed as the same thing. The argument started as “young men feel blamed.” At some point it became “young men are being blamed.” Those are two very different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:16 PM
1

Okay, so if these things mean different things to different people, why does my definition matter? You’re not trying to date me. Am I supposed to give you my definition, and then the next time a woman gives you a different answer, you’ll call her a liar? Because that seems to be the pattern here. Someone disagrees with you, and instead of accepting that different people think differently, you decide they’re lying. Unless you’re finally admitting that different people can genuinely have different…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 05:08 PM
1

We’re back to the same problem. You keep saying “why would she admit something that undermines all she stands for?” Why are you assuming it undermines all she stands for? That’s the claim you’re supposed to prove, not the premise you’re allowed to assume. Right now your argument is basically: “Women are lying because it would undermine their ideology.” “How do you know it would undermine their ideology?” “Because they’re lying.” Do you see the problem? At this point, I can’t tell whether you’re …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 04:53 PM
1

Buddy, if you genuinely don’t know what a sense of humour, hobbies, interests, charisma, or social skills are, then I don’t know how to explain them any more clearly. And if those are all meaningless buzzwords to you, I’m not sure how you’ve managed to arrive at a firm understanding of “nice.”
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 04:51 PM
1

First, there is no single “feminist worldview.” Feminists disagree with each other about all kinds of shit. Second, you’ve still provided no evidence that women are lying. You’ve just repeatedly stated that you don’t believe them. Third, you’ve never shown that feminism requires people to deny the existence of beauty standards. Most women, including feminists, openly acknowledge that beauty standards exist. And underlying all of this is the assumption that when one woman says looks don’t matter …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 04:20 PM
1

I’ve explained personality, social skills, hobbies, interests, humour, and connecting with people. The person before me said funny, charming, charismatic, knows how to flirt, and extroverted. At what point does this stop being “you haven’t explained it” and start being “I don’t like the answer”?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 04:16 PM
1

Hold on. Let’s take your Lizzo example. Do you actually think someone’s entire worldview is wrapped up in whether they find Lizzo attractive? Because that’s what “all they stand for” suggests, and frankly that seems absurd. You’ve skipped from “I don’t believe them” to “they’re lying” to “their whole worldview depends on the lie” without proving any of those claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 04:01 PM
1

How is that relevant to the original discussion?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 03:51 PM
1

Do you really need examples of evidence? A private message contradicting their public position. An admission. A statement from them saying they don’t actually believe what they’re saying. Literally anything beyond “trust me bro, no one could really think that.”
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 03:23 PM
1

Being able to connect with people means being able to build rapport, hold a conversation, show interest in others, make people feel comfortable around you, read social cues, and create a sense of mutual enjoyment. That’s what people mean when they talk about chemistry or a connection. Yes. And tons of people are funny, interesting, attractive, and still get rejected. Dating isn’t a vending machine where you insert enough personality traits and sex falls out.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 03:21 PM
2

Of course boys aren’t born knowing what women find attractive. Neither are girls. You’re acting like there’s some hidden master list of female preferences that women are refusing to disclose and the manosphere is bravely revealing. There isn’t. Do you have the exact same taste in women as every other man you know? No. There’s overlap, but there are also plenty of differences. Why would women be any different? That’s why I don’t think a woman is being dishonest when she says she wants a good man …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 03:19 PM
3

I’d need evidence that they don’t actually believe what they’re saying. That’s the part you keep skipping over.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:55 PM
4

Your entire argument seems to be: “I don’t find Lizzo attractive.” Therefore: “Nobody finds Lizzo attractive.” Therefore: “Anyone who says they do is lying.” That’s not reasoning. That’s just assuming your own preferences are universal and working backwards from there. Your inability to imagine that other people might genuinely have different preferences than you is not evidence of dishonesty. It’s a failure of imagination.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:48 PM
2

I literally just did.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:45 PM
3

How do you know they’re lying rather than genuinely believing what they’re saying? Because “they’re wrong” and “they know they’re wrong but say it anyway” are two completely different claims. You’ve asserted the first and assumed the second.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:45 PM
3

If I say “it’s raining,” are you going to accuse me of lying because somewhere in Arizona it’s sunny, or do you understand that human beings communicate with context? Same thing here. When someone says “Lizzo is beautiful,” normal people understand they’re expressing an opinion. They don’t need to preface every subjective statement with “I think” or “in my opinion” for it to count as an opinion. We do this constantly. “That movie was great.” “That car is ugly.” “Pizza is delicious.” Nobody hears…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:40 PM
2

You’re acting like women saying “I want a good man” is some deliberate attempt to conceal the shocking truth that attraction matters. It’s not. I don’t buy the idea that young men are wandering around genuinely confused about whether attraction matters. They’re attracted to some women and not others. They know this from their own experience. So why would they assume women operate by completely different rules? Nobody needs to hold a press conference announcing that people date people they’re att…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:36 PM
2

You can keep asking the question, but the answer is never going to be “be nice” because that’s not actually an answer. Being nice is the bare minimum. It’s not a personality. If the first and only thing people can say about you is that you’re nice, that’s usually a sign they can’t think of anything else memorable about you. Having a personality and social skills means having interests, hobbies, opinions, stories, things you’re passionate about, and being able to connect with people. None of that…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:16 PM
5

Have you never called in sick when you weren’t sick? Never said “I’m fine” when you weren’t? Never told a white lie to spare someone’s feelings? If your standard is that anyone who has ever lied has questionable integrity, then you’ve just discredited the entire human race. The real issue is that you keep treating ordinary human behaviour as evidence against women specifically. You haven’t actually established that women lie more than men, or that women who disagree with you are lying at all. Yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:12 PM
2

Kind of like what you’re doing right now? You start with the conclusion that women don’t care about truth, then interpret everything women do as evidence for that conclusion. That’s literally the ideological reasoning you’re complaining about. Just because you don’t find Lizzo attractive doesn’t mean women who do are lying. People disagreeing with you isn’t evidence of dishonesty. Sometimes it just means they disagree with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:07 PM
3

What quiet part? All I ever see is women saying “looks matter, but they’re not the only thing that matters.” And some of you interpret that to mean “looks don’t matter.” Also, what exactly is being left to interpretation? Do you really need it spelled out for you that people date people to whom they’re attracted? That shouldn’t even need to be said.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:04 PM
2

By having a personality and social skills. Nice isn’t a personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:24 PM
2

Why are some of you constantly surprised that women want to date people they’re attracted to?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:24 PM
7

That’s not what you originally said, though. You said it “pulls into question the integrity of what ALL women say” and that “women just don’t care for speaking truth.” That’s a lot broader than “some women lie when their ideology is threatened.” It sounds like you’re walking back your original claim now that people are pointing out how sweeping it was.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:21 PM
4

Women don’t say that, though. A lot of women quite loudly say the opposite. “Nice” isn’t a personality. “Nice” isn’t a dating strategy. Nice is the bare minimum. Being nice doesn’t get you into someone’s pants. You’re arguing against a position most women don’t actually hold. > It really pulls into question the integrity of what ALL women say That’s a fascinating standard. One subset of women says something you disagree with and suddenly all women’s credibility is in question. Yet somehow when w…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:20 PM
4

A racial slur isn’t just “an insult.” That’s why we don’t call them insults. We call them slurs.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:52 AM
–

I don’t think young men are imagining the pattern. I think they’re often interpreting the pattern differently than I am. Talking about male privilege isn’t saying men don’t have problems. Talking about toxic masculinity isn’t saying masculinity is toxic. Talking about male violence isn’t saying all men are violent. A lot of these conversations are about specific behaviours, incentives, or social dynamics. Somewhere along the line criticism of those things started getting interpreted as criticism…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:46 AM
2

Wasn’t yours “mainstream media”? Nobody automatically assumes they’re a bad person. “Automatically” is an important modifier that you keep ignoring.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:42 AM
–

I don’t think anyone is saying women aren’t involved or that men exist in a vacuum. What I’m pushing back on is the tendency to make women the explanation for everything. Men are lonely because of women. Men don’t support each other because of women. Men can’t open up because of women. Men organize politically because of women. Men don’t seek help because of women. At some point men have to be more than just reactors to women. You just spent several comments describing men organizing, building c…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 02:15 AM
5

I actually agree that men voting, building communities, supporting each other, creating podcasts, and discussing their problems is men exercising agency. What I don’t agree with is the leap to “women don’t like it.” Women generally don’t have a problem with men supporting men. They don’t have a problem with men improving themselves. They don’t have a problem with men having friends, mentors, communities, or spaces of their own. What people tend to object to is when those spaces become centred ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:58 AM
3

I think the disconnect here is that every solution seems to get dismissed. Women won’t change. Society won’t change. Help isn’t available. Men can’t support each other because women will punish them for it. If that’s your view, then what’s left besides suffering? At some point you have to stop treating men as passive bystanders in their own lives. If men are lonely, isolated, struggling, and unsupported, then the answer can’t be that everyone else needs to change first while men do nothing. Men …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:23 AM
2

But this is exactly what I don’t get. The original complaint was that the left isn’t helping young men. Now your argument is that nobody will help them, so they should shut down emotionally and expect nothing from anyone. How is that helping? And what do a handful of comments from women on Reddit have to do with men helping themselves or helping each other? If men’s problems are real, then surely the solution can’t just be “look at these women being unsympathetic, therefore stay silent and suffe…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 01:07 AM
0

I think a lot of young men genuinely do feel abandoned, but I also think people often exaggerate how much of that comes from “the left” versus social media outrage and partisan messaging. There are real issues affecting boys and men that deserve attention. Where I disagree is the idea that criticism of certain behaviours is the same thing as saying men are the problem. Criticism is criticism. It’s not blame, hatred, or demonization simply because you don’t like hearing it. I also think it’s too …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 11:31 PM
0

I have repeatedly. I’m done.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 08:59 PM
1

How many posts in the sub every day are women making entire threads blaming men for all their problems? I can name two users in the sub who are women Looks like you answered your own question, mate.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 08:52 PM
0

You keep accusing others of making sweeping generalizations about men while making sweeping generalizations about women. “Feminism is women blaming men for everything” isn’t an argument. It’s the conclusion you’re trying to prove. If you can’t have this conversation without a double standard, then there’s nothing left for us to discuss.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 08:49 PM
4

You’re treating every insult like a sworn affidavit of the speaker’s deeply held beliefs. Most people understand that insults are often chosen for their ability to get a reaction, not because they’re a carefully reasoned moral position. You continue to confuse “I know this will hurt your feelings” with “I think this is objectively bad.” Those are completely different things. I’ve explained this a dozen different ways at this point. If you’re still not getting it, I genuinely don’t know how to ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 08:46 PM
1

You’re focusing on the word nobody and ignoring the word automatically. The point wasn’t that it never happens. The point was that “this man struggles with dating” and “this man is a bad person” are not conclusions most people automatically treat as interchangeable.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 05:32 PM
1

I was thinking the same thing about you. I think we're done here.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 03:49 PM
1

Where did I say you should go somewhere else? I'm saying a gender debate forum is a pretty poor place to gauge what's "commonly believed." The people here are specifically here to argue about these topics. That's like going to a Star Trek convention and deciding that's a representative sample of the population.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 03:48 PM
1

Interesting how every example of a man who isn't canceled becomes a "special case," but every example of a woman behaving badly becomes proof women get away with everything. Ordinary women get publicly shamed, doxxed, fired, and dragged online all the time. The internet doesn't reserve outrage for men.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 03:43 PM
1

It would’ve been a much shorter conversation if you’d read the context instead of the words in isolation.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 02:35 PM
–

Considering the very next sentence was "'therefore women are shallow' and 'therefore women only want assholes,' that wasn't exactly a difficult conclusion to reach, Einstein.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 02:25 PM
7

Do you genuinely not understand how insults work? People target things you're insecure about. That's it. If you're insecure about being blonde, I can use "blonde" as an insult. That doesn't mean being blonde is morally wrong, bad, or undesirable. It just means I know it will hurt your feelings. This is something most people figure out in elementary school.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 02:22 PM
0

You're asking me to prove a claim I never made. "The people you want" means the people you're interested in dating. It doesn't mean "women out of your league," and it doesn't mean "this is why men are upset." You're arguing against an interpretation you added yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 02:15 PM
1

"Spaces like this" isn't helping the argument
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 02:12 PM
5

Do you hate every woman you’re not attracted to? No? Then grow up and stop pretending rejection and hatred are the same thing. It’s embarrassing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 11:18 AM
3

This is the third time you’ve said this, so I’ll repeat myself. A woman not wanting to fuck you does not mean she hates you. In reality, most women who reject you aren’t sitting around thinking about you at all. They’re simply not interested. You’re mistaking indifference for hatred.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 11:03 AM
2

Not wanting to date you isn’t the same thing as hating you. That’s a very childish way of looking at other people. Nobody is obligated to be attracted to you, and rejection is not evidence of hatred.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 11:01 AM
2

Because that’s how attraction works. You’re not attracted to every woman who’s attracted to you. Is she entitled to be angry at you for rejecting her? Or is she expected to accept that not everyone is compatible with everyone else? Being disappointed, frustrated, or hurt by rejection is normal. But nobody is entitled to someone else’s attraction. The problem is you’re treating attraction like a reward that people are owed if they meet certain criteria. It doesn’t work that way. And honestly, bei…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:59 AM
3

The claim was “mainstream media and the press.” You’ve responded with a meme and a tweet. Those are not the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:57 AM
0

Data to prove what? That people get criticized for making sweeping generalizations about the opposite sex? Have you read this thread?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:51 AM
2

I think you’re conflating two different things. Sometimes people assume a struggling man is misogynistic. Sometimes they’re responding to things he’s actually saying. The fact that misogyny can be a factor in some men’s dating struggles doesn’t mean people believe every man who struggles has a preexisting moral failing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:49 AM
4

“Ugly” still isn’t a moral judgement.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:46 AM
1

> a heap of caveats One. One caveat. I asked you to support the claim you made. You said women blaming men for all their problems is widespread and at least as common as men blaming women for theirs. What are you basing that on? Because so far you’ve gone from “it’s everywhere” to “if you don’t already see it, no example will convince you.” That’s a convenient way to avoid providing any examples. > the whole feminist movement is women blaming men for everything wrong in their lives Feminism is a…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 10:45 AM
7

Sure, pretty privilege exists. People absolutely make assumptions based on appearance, and media has reinforced a lot of those stereotypes. But that’s my point. The fact that people make those assumptions doesn’t mean they’re correct. It means they’re biased. You’re describing a prejudice people have, not evidence that being unattractive, awkward, or unsuccessful in dating is a moral failing. Those are two different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 11:42 PM
2

You’re proving my point. I asked for examples and you responded with another general statement about women. You keep asserting that women do this constantly, but whenever I ask for actual examples, the conversation shifts back to vague claims about “society,” “the media,” or “women.” If it’s that widespread, show me.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 11:41 PM
3

But those aren’t the same thing. “Getting mad at women isn’t going to help you date” is a criticism of behaviour. “Women can smell your misogyny a mile away” is saying that misogyny is a factor in why some men struggle. You can disagree with how often that’s true, but that’s very different from claiming that any man who struggles with dating must be misogynistic. And honestly, I see far more men being told to improve their appearance, social skills, confidence, or expand their social circles tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 11:40 PM
4

Okay, if we’re arguing semantics, fine. Replace “nobody” with “most people.” Most people are not saying that a man who struggles with dating is automatically a bad person. Now, can you cite some examples of these mainstream media that supposedly say otherwise? Because there’s a big difference between “you’re single because you’re a bad person” and “if you’re angry at women and blame them for everything, that’s part of the problem.” You seem to be treating those as identical.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 11:01 PM
0

Okay, then show me. How many posts in this sub every day are women making entire threads blaming men for all their problems? You’re changing the subject instead of addressing the point I made. Do you have anything beyond whataboutism?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 10:58 PM
0

Sure, some people make that assumption. I never said nobody does. I said struggling with dating is not inherently a moral failing. The fact that some people wrongly assume it is doesn’t change that. And “hot people have an easier time dating” isn’t moralizing attraction. It’s the opposite. It’s acknowledging that attraction isn’t a reward system where the best person automatically wins.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 10:56 PM
0

“Some people unfairly assume single men have bad hygiene or bad character” can be true. “People criticize men who turn rejection into resentment toward women” can also be true. They’re two different things and two things can be true at once.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 10:55 PM
1

Howard Stern built a career on saying shit about women. Louis C.K. still sells out shows. Chris Brown is still a star. Mel Gibson still works. Donald Trump is literally President. The claim that men get canceled while women get away with everything falls apart the second you look at actual examples.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 10:54 PM
1

I think you’re mistaking “people don’t always react the way I want them to” for “this is socially accepted.” Those aren’t the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 07:50 PM
2

That’s a pretty wild interpretation of what I said. I never said men have to blame themselves or pretend society plays no role. I said there’s a difference between talking about your struggles and turning women into the villain of your life story.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 07:38 PM
5

If by “delivery” you mean completely different words with a completely different meaning, then sure. Just like “he made a mistake” and “he’s an idiot” differ only in the delivery.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 07:30 PM
2

That’s a weird response to me saying there’s a difference between struggling with dating and blaming women for your struggles.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 07:26 PM
6

You're looking for a level of consensus that doesn't exist on any topic. We can't all even agree that the earth is round. Some women make bad generalizations about men. Some men make bad generalizations about women. Criticize both when you see them. I don't know why this needs to be more complicated than that, or why the existence of one is supposed to excuse the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 06:43 PM
13

Thankfully, most people aren't using you as their moral compass.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 06:39 PM
3

You're arguing against a point I never made. I didn't say dating struggles are entirely men's fault or that systemic factors don't exist. I said people often react to the bitterness and blame, not the fact that someone is struggling.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 06:37 PM
12

If someone calls me old, are they accusing me of immoral behaviour, or are they just trying to be insulting? If it's the latter, then you've already disproven your own argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:45 PM
3

Or you're noticing the men who are struggling and assuming that's why they're being criticized. I've seen plenty of men talk openly about being lonely, inexperienced, virgins, or struggling with dating without getting attacked for it. What I see people getting criticized for is the bitterness, entitlement, and blaming women for their problems. Calling that a "post hoc rationalization" doesn't make it one.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:43 PM
25

The same way "short," "bald," "poor," or "ugly" function as insults. People use things they're insecure about, or things society stigmatizes, as insults. That doesn't mean those things are moral failings. Being short isn't immoral. Being bald isn't immoral. Being a virgin isn't immoral. You're confusing "people mock this" with "people think this is morally wrong."
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:33 PM
5

Of course "shallow" is a value judgment. "Women care about looks" is an observation. "Women are shallow" is a judgment. The fact that you're pretending those are the same thing tells me you know exactly what you're doing. And are we done because the conversation is over, or because your argument falls apart the second you're asked to apply the same "attraction is amoral" standard to women?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:32 PM
3

No, they say that to men who turn their dating struggles into bitterness, misogyny, and blaming women for all their problems. There's a difference between struggling with dating and making your struggles everyone else's fault.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:31 PM
5

Except that's usually not being said because he's unsuccessful with women. It's being said because of the behaviour he's displaying right now. There's a difference between "women don't want me" and posting a rant about how women are shallow, only want assholes, and are responsible for all your dating problems. People are responding to the misogyny and bitterness, not the lack of dates.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:29 PM
11

Ok and? Have you just learned how insults work? People use things they think will hurt someone as insults. That doesn't mean they genuinely believe being a virgin or struggling with dating makes someone a bad person. This is just common sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:27 PM
9

Then criticize those women too. "Women make bad generalizations sometimes" isn't an argument for men making bad generalizations. It's just another example of the same problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:25 PM
4

How?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:22 PM
12

Yes, but what does that have to do with being a bad person? Being mocked for something and being viewed as morally wrong are two different claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:18 PM
6

You're still trying to have it both ways. If attraction is amoral, then women choosing attractive men, including attractive men with flaws, isn't evidence that women are shallow. It's just attraction. You're taking an observation, "some women date attractive assholes," and treating it as proof of a moral character flaw in women as a group. That's the part people are criticizing. Also, if the problem is simply genetics and attraction is completely amoral, then why are you so intent on assigning b…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 05:16 PM
1

No, they wouldn't. A feminist isn't going to be offended by the claim that men suffer from violence. They're more likely to object when it's used to dismiss or derail a conversation about women.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 03:59 PM
4

I think that's a pretty uncharitable interpretation. When someone says "women don't want me," most people understand they're talking about their own experience, not literally every woman on earth. The issue isn't saying you've struggled with women. The issue is when people use that experience to make claims about women as a whole.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 03:56 PM
16

You're proving my point. Nobody said women don't sometimes choose tall, attractive men who are assholes. Men do the exact same thing with attractive women. People overlook flaws in people they're attracted to all the time. But if attraction is amoral, then you don't get to use "women date attractive assholes" as evidence that women are uniquely shallow or morally failing. That's just attraction doing what you claim attraction does. And no, an attractive man saying the same thing wouldn't necessa…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 03:54 PM
40

You're treating two completely different arguments as if they're mutually exclusive. Nobody is saying a man who struggles with dating is automatically a bad person. In fact, most people would agree that you can be kind, respectful, employed, emotionally stable, and still not be attractive to the people you want. Attraction isn't a meritocracy. What people push back on is when someone takes "I'm not attractive to the people I want" and turns it into "therefore women are shallow," "therefore women…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 02:59 PM
1

Says who? Of course men can complain about rape and domestic violence when they're the victims of it. What a toxic thing to say.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 02:54 PM
1

Neither did you. You don't like the analogy, so come up with a better one or tell me how it's flawed.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 02:53 PM
1

So you can't think of a better one then?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 01:22 PM
1

Come up with a better one
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 10:43 AM
1

Yes, men get rejected more often. Life isn’t fair. This whole discussion is about whether men make choices, not who gets rejected more. You’re arguing against a point nobody made.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 12:42 AM
3

Why are you changing the subject? This whole discussion was about whether men make choices, and they do.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 08:36 PM
1

Your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 08:19 PM
2

Of course women suffer rejection. What an absurd thing to say. The irony of calling women deluded while insisting no woman has ever been rejected is incredible. Being turned down, ignored, ghosted, cheated on, dumped, strung along, or not chosen is rejection. It doesn’t magically stop being rejection because the person experiencing it is a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 06:36 PM
2

The analogy wasn’t about power. It was about whether both people make choices. But if a woman approaches you and you’re the one deciding whether to say yes, is that power imbalance a problem too? Or do you only notice it when you’re not the one holding the leverage?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 05:45 PM
2

What’s the relevance of that to anything being discussed?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 05:34 PM
3

You’re missing the point. I didn’t say women can’t approach men. I said that if a man decides to approach a woman, he’s already made a choice. Her ability to say yes, no, or approach first doesn’t change that.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 04:47 PM
2

In that part of the analogy, yes. But both sides are making choices throughout the process. He chooses which jobs to apply for. She chooses whether to interview him. She chooses whether to offer him the job. He chooses whether to accept the offer. Same thing with dating. He chooses who to approach. She chooses whether to say yes. He chooses whether to pursue things further, commit, or walk away. At every stage, both people are making choices.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 04:46 PM
2

Mate, that’s not what we’re talking about
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 10:42 AM
2

Everybody gets rejected. Approaching people has always been a numbers game. If you’re not willing to approach because you don’t like the odds, that’s your choice. But it’s still a choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 11:44 PM
1

Sure she can, but that’s not what the conversation is about.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 11:41 PM
2

You’re proving my point. The second I made broad claims about men, your response was “prove it.” The second you make broad claims about women, your response is “I can back it up with indirect supporting evidence.” Funny how one group gets nuance, exceptions, and demands for proof, while the other gets sweeping conclusions. That’s such an obvious double standard that I can’t take the rest of your argument seriously. I’m done here
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 11:40 PM
2

No. You keep confusing trends with universal truths. You see a pattern, strip away all nuance, and then declare you’ve explained half the human population. That’s not a “correct generalization.” It’s an oversimplification. For example: Men will date women they don’t even like just because she said yes. Men confuse being lonely with being in love. Men are so desperate for sex they’ll overlook obvious incompatibilities. Men blame women for problems created by their own lack of standards. Men see a…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 10:11 PM
0

Selection is the act of choosing someone or something from a number of alternatives. It doesn’t require a guarantee or the final say. You select who to approach. She selects who to say yes to. Both people are making selections. At this point you’re just redefining words so only women’s choices count as selection while men’s choices somehow don’t. Stop stripping men of agency and acting like they’re passengers in their own lives. Men make choices every day about who to pursue, date, commit to, re…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 10:08 PM
1

I didn’t say those claims came from your personal experience. I said they were generalizations about women. You asked me to quote them, so I did. Whether you think they’re true or not is a separate discussion. You went from “when did I generalize?” to “my generalizations are correct.”
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 09:53 PM
2

Yes. You can choose to date someone you don’t like or you can choose to be single. And if you are doing the approaching - you are choosing whom to approach.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 09:52 PM
1

I’m referring your original post. You literally made multiple sweeping claims about women as a group: “Women are the ones who concentrate attention on a small slice of men.” “Women have the picking power.” “Almost all women can have sex and relationships anytime they want.” “If she has trouble it’s because of her standards.” That’s what I was referring to. You were criticizing women for generalizing from their experiences while making broad generalizations about women’s experiences and behaviour…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 09:33 PM
1

You’re acting like a choice only counts if you get the final say. That’s not how choices work. You choose which jobs to apply for. The company chooses who to hire. You choose which women to approach. They choose whether to say yes. Both people are making selections.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 09:31 PM
0

You’re arguing that online dating gives women more options. Fine. But that doesn’t address my point. In your own example, you’re talking about your standards, your preferences, whether a woman is worth committing to, and how you compare one relationship to another. Those are all choices. You can argue men have fewer options. You can’t seriously argue men aren’t making choices. You’re describing how men make decisions, not proving they don’t.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 09:29 PM
2

“Men should be selective” doesn’t mean every man has endless options. It means having standards is generally better than accepting any relationship simply because it’s available. Plenty of men date women they don’t even seem to like simply because those women said yes, then use those experiences to make sweeping claims about women as a whole. That’s still a choice. If you’re willing to enter relationships with people you’re fundamentally incompatible with, that’s not evidence that men have no ag…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 08:57 PM
1

I don’t think online dating changes the basic point. Even on dating apps, men are still choosing who to swipe on, message, match with, date, and pursue. Women aren’t the only people making decisions. And calling men’s choices “not really choices” is a strange argument. If men are so indiscriminate that they’ll go along with whoever is available, then why do men reject women, ghost women, end relationships, refuse commitment, have preferences, or swipe left at all? You can’t simultaneously argue …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 08:55 PM
7

The irony is that you’re complaining about people generalizing from their own experience while doing exactly that. Not every woman is flooded with options, and not every man is struggling for attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 08:54 PM
4

If I choose which jobs to apply for, I’ve already made a selection. The employer makes another selection when deciding who to hire. Both are selectors at different points in the process. You’re confusing final approval with selection. A man choosing who to approach is selection. A woman choosing who to accept is also selection. Both are making choices. You’re just counting one type of choice and ignoring the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 08:52 PM
20

The irony is that you’re describing women as selectors while completely ignoring that men select first. She can’t choose you unless you chose her to approach in the first place. Men aren’t passive participants being sorted into relationships. They decide who to pursue, who to ignore, who they find attractive, and who gets their attention. That’s selection too. The difference is that you’re counting women’s choices as choices and men’s choices as something else.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 07:54 PM
2

The problem is that none of the examples you’ve given are actually examples of people opposing men’s rights. Not creating a council for men and boys is not opposing men’s rights. Supporting HeForShe is not opposing men’s rights. Disagreeing with MRAs is not opposing men’s rights. You keep taking “didn’t support this specific thing” and inflating it into “they oppose men’s rights.” That’s a leap you’ve never actually justified. At this point you’re just repeating the same examples and hoping they…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 02:03 PM
1

So we’ve gone from “there was a study” to “okay, there wasn’t a study, but I’m sure it would happen.” That’s the opposite of common sense
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 01:00 PM
3

You’re comparing accusations from random people to accusations from your life partner. If a stranger thinks I’m a liar, I don’t care. If my spouse suddenly tells me they think I cheated and am trying to pass off another man’s child as theirs, that’s a completely different situation. The issue isn’t the test. The issue is the accusation behind it. If you genuinely believe your partner might commit paternity fraud, why were you trusting them enough to have a baby with them in the first place?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 12:58 PM
1

Let me get this straight. You don’t have a scientific study. You have a reality TV show. And the reason I should treat it as science is because you’ve decided any actual science that disagrees with you must have been censored. Do you see the problem there?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 12:55 PM
2

So he’s the cheater but she’s the one being accused? That makes sense to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 12:54 PM
18

You’re joking, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 03:19 AM
77

> women always have feelings involved in everything So do men.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 03:16 AM
21

It’s an accusation of cheating. How is that not offensive?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 03:14 AM
1

The problem is that you’re treating feminism as a monolith when it suits your argument and treating individuals as individuals when it doesn’t. A feminist does something you don’t like? Suddenly it represents feminism. An anti-feminist does something you don’t like? Suddenly they’re just one person. That’s a pretty convenient double standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 02:54 AM
1

It’s interesting that every problem affecting men is apparently caused by feminism, even when the problem existed long before modern feminism did. At this point you’re not describing reality anymore. Stay mad. I’m done.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 02:52 AM
1

Feminists have been some of the biggest advocates for paternity leave, which directly benefits men. Feminists have pushed for breaking down the idea that men should be stoic, emotionally closed off, and handle everything alone, which is directly relevant to men’s mental health and suicide. Feminists have challenged the idea that childcare is inherently women’s work, which makes it easier to argue for fathers as equal caregivers rather than just providers. Feminists have pushed for workplace flex…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 02:28 AM
2

You keep giving examples of specific feminists, organizations, and policies. What you haven’t shown is how you got from that to “the vast majority of feminists.” And no, “I argued with a feminist who had a bad take” isn’t evidence. I’ve argued with plenty of anti-feminists who think women shouldn’t vote. I don’t use that to define everyone who disagrees with me.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 02:27 AM
1

Mate, you’re literally describing powerful people deciding ordinary men are expendable and then presenting it as an argument against patriarchy. That’s not the rebuttal you think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 02:24 AM
0

Do you have a source for that? I’ve looked for it and can’t find a scientific study where men and women were placed on separate islands and the women starved. The closest thing I can find is a reality TV survival show, which isn’t exactly the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 02:22 AM
2

You keep turning “some feminists did a thing I don’t like” into “the vast majority of feminists believe X.” That’s a pretty big leap. I’ve seen feminists with terrible takes on men’s issues. I’ve also seen feminists push for paternity leave, more involved fatherhood, men’s mental health, and breaking down rigid gender roles. At some point you’re going to need something stronger than “trust me, most feminists are like this.”
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 01:28 AM
1

> feminism specifically fighting against equality for men Examples
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/26 01:25 AM
1

That’s fair, which is why I didn’t claim men are favoured in every hiring decision. If the evidence shows a preference for women in some STEM hiring contexts, then that’s what the evidence shows. But correcting one example doesn’t get us to “there are no group-level advantages for men and no group-level disadvantages for women.”
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:12 PM
0

I’ve acknowledged your point from the beginning: men cast the votes because only men were allowed to vote. You haven’t engaged with mine even once: that women’s suffrage was the result of decades of activism and political pressure, not a spontaneous gift from benevolent politicians. At this point we’re just going in circles, so I’m done.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:10 PM
3

A lot of trans men talk about noticing clear differences once they pass as male. They describe being taken more seriously at work, interrupted less, assumed competent or authoritative without having to constantly prove it, and receiving more baseline respect in everyday interactions. That’s not theory. That’s people comparing their own before and after experiences. Ben Barres wrote about how differently he was treated after transitioning. Before, his work was questioned and dismissed. Afterward,…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:08 PM
2

What?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:06 PM
2

You asked for group-level disadvantages. I gave examples. And ironically, many of the male disadvantages you’re pointing to come from the same system you’re defending. The expectation that men should be stoic, disposable, self-sacrificing providers wasn’t created by women. It’s strange to point to those outcomes as evidence against patriarchy when they’re often cited as examples of how patriarchy harms ordinary men.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:06 PM
1

You’re talking about feminists as if they’re a hive mind. If your argument is that some feminists dismiss men’s issues, sure, I’ve seen that too. But that’s very different from claiming feminism has never done anything that benefits men. A lot of things feminists have pushed for help men too. Better mental health awareness. More acceptance of men expressing emotion. Paternity leave. More involved fatherhood. Challenging the idea that men have to be stoic providers who solve every problem alone. …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:02 PM
1

Rich and powerful men sending poor men to die in wars isn’t really the argument against patriarchy you think it is. That’s often used as an example of how those systems can hurt men too.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 04:00 PM
0

That depends entirely on the time and place. There were plenty of periods where women’s property rights were restricted and access to higher education was limited or outright denied regardless of wealth. But even if I grant your point, it doesn’t address mine. The issue isn’t whether large numbers of men and women were excluded. The issue is why they were excluded. A poor man was excluded because he lacked property. A woman could have the property and still face restrictions because she was a wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 03:57 PM
2

The existence of queens doesn’t prove women as a group weren’t restricted any more than Taylor Swift proves women are billionaires today. And “why didn’t women just build their own society?” doesn’t prove incapability either. It assumes women had the same freedom, resources, and opportunities to do so in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 03:57 PM
0

No. Taylor Swift is an individual outcome. We’re discussing group-level restrictions. A rich man could overcome a property qualification. A rich woman often couldn’t overcome being female. Those aren’t the same kind of barrier.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 02:02 PM
3

Sure. But “women sometimes receive a hiring preference in STEM today” isn’t the same thing as “women were never disadvantaged.” Those hiring initiatives didn’t appear out of nowhere. They were largely created because women were historically underrepresented and excluded from many STEM fields. It’s a course correction. And the evidence isn’t one-sided The 2012 Moss-Racusin study found that science faculty rated an identical application as more competent and hireable when it had a male name rather…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 02:00 PM
3

Men were typically excluded by class or property requirements. Women were excluded by sex. Those are fundamentally different restrictions.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 01:46 PM
–

One bank account. We don’t keep track or nickel and dime eachother
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 01:44 PM
1

That’s fair, but you seem to have assumed I was one of those people before I’d even made my argument. If you’re looking for objective and constructive discussions, it helps to approach people as individuals instead of assuming they’re going to fit the worst stereotype of whatever group you associate them with.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 01:01 PM
2

Sure, men are stronger on average. But women weren’t just excluded from hunting and warfare. They were excluded from voting, higher education, property ownership, many professions, and political office. How exactly does upper-body strength determine whether someone can vote or study medicine?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:59 PM
2

• Men are overrepresented in political leadership, corporate leadership, and other positions of institutional power. • Studies have found that identical or near-identical résumés can be evaluated more favourably when perceived as belonging to a man rather than a woman. • Research has found that men are more likely to be promoted based on perceived potential, while women are more often expected to demonstrate proven performance before receiving the same opportunities. • Women’s competence is more…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:59 PM
4

It’s hard to claim women were less capable when, for much of history, they weren’t even allowed to compete on equal footing. Women were often excluded before anyone had evidence they were less capable. If you don’t let people vote, own property, get an education, or hold office, you’re not discovering they’re incapable. You’re assuming it. That’s not testing a hypothesis. That’s starting with a conclusion and working backwards.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:48 PM
0

You’re inventing a contradiction that isn’t there. If society’s most powerful positions were disproportionately held by women for generations, I’d have no issue describing that as female-dominated. Nothing about my comment depends on using a different standard for men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:46 PM
1

I can agree that some people frame these discussions badly. But that’s still not the same thing as the definition of patriarchy. If someone says “men are the problem,” judge that statement on its own. If someone says “patriarchy is a social system that affects both men and women,” judge that statement on its own. Otherwise we’re not discussing ideas anymore, we’re just lumping together everything anyone who calls themselves a feminist has ever said.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:45 PM
5

No. Just like a society doesn’t magically become a patriarchy the moment men make up 51% of people in power. The point is that men have historically held a disproportionate share of power and authority in major institutions. You’re reducing a discussion about social systems to counting heads.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:15 PM
4

Even if there are average differences in variability, societies were treating women as less capable long before anyone had the ability to measure that. So that can’t be the original reason those beliefs developed
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:13 PM
3

Interesting. A minute ago you were arguing that group-level advantages for men don’t exist because some men struggle. Now you’re asking me to look at group-level disadvantages for men. Either group-level patterns matter or they don’t. Use spellcheck.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:08 PM
3

We were talking about patriarchy, not random things individual feminists may have said. If someone says “men are a problem,” judge that statement on its own. It doesn’t magically become the definition of patriarchy
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:06 PM
6

Patriarchy isn’t a criticism of men. It’s a criticism of a social system. Feminists have been arguing for decades that it harms men too. If people stopped reacting to the word and started listening to the argument, they’d know that
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 11:36 AM
-1

You’re confusing individual outcomes with group-level patterns. Some men struggling doesn’t mean men as a group have no advantages, just like wealth inequality doesn’t disappear because some rich people go bankrupt
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 11:34 AM
1

Patriarchy doesn’t mean every man benefits equally. It means society’s most powerful positions are disproportionately held by men.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 11:32 AM
1

I’ve never seen someone so committed to missing the point. Nobody is denying that some men supported women’s suffrage. I’ve acknowledged that. What you’re doing is taking the fact that men cast the final votes and turning it into a story where women were generously granted rights by men who wanted them to have autonomy. That’s not what happened. Women spent decades organizing, protesting, lobbying, getting arrested, publishing, campaigning, and changing public opinion. Some men supported that mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 10:38 AM
7

Have you considered that the women who say they want emotional honesty and the women who lose attraction are not the same women?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/26 12:19 AM
2

I don’t know how you don’t see the flaw in this argument. The only people who voted were the only ones who were allowed to vote. Sure, some voted because they believed in equal rights. Others voted because the suffrage movement had built enough public support that fighting it was becoming politically costly.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 10:25 PM
0

You can’t exclude women from the vote and then turn around and say, “See? Men were the ones who voted for women’s suffrage.” Of course they were. Men made themselves the only people allowed to vote on it. That’s like a thief expecting praise for returning stolen property after getting caught and being forced to give it back. Giving back something that never should’ve been withheld in the first place doesn’t make you the hero of the story.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 08:16 PM
1

I get what you mean, but that’s a different claim. “No single gender role is universal to all societies” is very different from “traditional gender roles didn’t exist until recently.” The first is obviously true. The second doesn’t follow from it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 06:54 PM
-2

You’re moving the goalposts. First it was “men gave women those rights.” Now it’s “it was a large-scale social movement that persuaded enough people, including men, to support change.” Those aren’t the same argument. Nobody said every man opposed women’s rights or every woman supported them. Of course there were women against suffrage and men in favour of it. Pointing to exceptions doesn’t change the broader reality of who had those rights and who was fighting to obtain them. The point is that w…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 06:51 PM
0

You’re treating “not universal” as “doesn’t exist.” Those aren’t the same thing. The details varied from society to society, but most societies still had different expectations, rights, responsibilities, and social norms for men and women. That’s what gender roles are. That’s like arguing Christmas isn’t a tradition because different countries celebrate it differently. A tradition doesn’t have to be identical everywhere to be a tradition. The fact that gender roles varied across societies doesn’…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 06:41 PM
13

JFC. You’re looking at a gossip subreddit, reality dating shows, and pop music, then concluding women only care about sex. That’s like looking at MMA, porn, and Call of Duty and concluding men only care about fighting and shooting people. It’s a ridiculous generalization. One of the most popular shows among women is Grey’s Anatomy. By your logic, women must be obsessed with surgery too. People talk about relationships because relationships are a huge part of most people’s lives. That doesn’t mak…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 05:17 PM
0

So which society was your post about? Because your original argument wasn’t that different societies had different roles. It was that traditional gender roles are a recent invention. The details varied from place to place, but most societies throughout history had different expectations, responsibilities, and rights for men and women across Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas. You don’t get to make sweeping claims about “all of history” and then switch to “every society was d…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 04:52 PM
0

If nobody had primary social roles until recently, why did men and women have different legal rights, inheritance rights, political rights, and family obligations for most of recorded history? “Everyone worked” doesn’t mean everyone occupied the same role in society.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 04:16 PM
5

“Men were the ones who gave women those rights.” Well, yeah. Men were the ones holding most of the political power. Who exactly do you think had to vote to change the laws? This isn’t the gotcha you think it is That’s like saying workers don’t deserve credit for better working conditions because management signed the paperwork. Having the power to approve a change isn’t the same thing as being the reason it happened. Acting like women didn't spend decades organizing, protesting, campaigning, and…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 03:44 PM
1

You’re still treating “women worked” and “traditional gender roles didn’t exist” as if they’re the same claim. They aren’t. Women working in fields, factories, and family businesses doesn’t mean men and women occupied the same social and economic roles. Traditional gender roles can exist while both sexes work. In fact, that’s how most pre-industrial societies functioned. And yes, women were excluded from many occupations. But that doesn’t support your argument. If women were legally and socially…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 02:07 PM
2

You’re mixing up “women worked” with “women participated in the labour force at the same rate as men.” Nobody denies women worked. The question is whether men were generally the primary earners. Historically, they were. In the U.S., female labour force participation was about 33% in 1950 compared to roughly 86% for men. Even by 1970, it was only around 43% versus about 80%. You’re also overlooking the fact that women were legally and socially excluded from many occupations for much of history. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:50 PM
5

Men didn’t want to give women equal rights. Women had to fight for them. Women organized, protested, campaigned, lobbied politicians, went on hunger strikes, got arrested, and spent decades fighting for those rights. Rights weren’t simply handed over out of generosity.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:38 PM
1

What did he lose? Because from where I’m sitting, the only thing being lost here is your sense of proportion. If you’re keeping score this hard over ten minutes on public transit, you’ve got bigger problems than chivalry. I’m not engaging with this anymore. It was funny at first, but watching someone turn a guy giving up a bus seat into a manifesto about male oppression has gone from amusing to just plain pathetic.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:31 PM
6

You’re treating “men suffered too” as if it disproves “women had fewer rights,” when both can be true at the same time. Being expected to provide, fight wars, or work dangerous jobs isn’t equivalent to being barred from owning property, controlling your own finances, pursuing an education, or having legal authority over your own life. You’re responding to an argument about rights and legal status with examples of responsibilities and social expectations. Those are related, but they’re not the sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:22 PM
7

“Both sides had gender roles” isn’t an argument that there was no misogyny. It’s an argument that both sexes were constrained by gender roles. And if your standard is “some people in a movement hold sexist views,” then you’d have to apply that standard consistently. Otherwise you’re just excusing sexism when men do it and generalizing it when women do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 12:19 PM
33

You say misogyny isn’t derived from hatred of women but from older ways of thinking and poorly thought out beliefs. Where it comes from is fucking irrelevant. It’s still sexism. If a woman believes men are violent, incompetent, or disposable because of some misguided belief, would you suddenly stop calling that misandry because it wasn’t motivated by hatred? Your argument relies on a double standard. When men are sexist, you explain it as outdated beliefs. When women are sexist, you treat it as …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 07:20 PM
8

This is honestly just making me sad for you. If you’re this worried about what men lose by being kind to other people, I suspect you’re losing a lot more by viewing the world this way. I hope you find some peace. I’m done here.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 07:10 PM
12

Or maybe a guy gave up a seat, someone appreciated it, and everyone moved on with their day. Not every act of courtesy is the first domino in a societal collapse.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 07:08 PM
9

Inflation affects my purchasing decisions, sure. What I don’t do is stand in the grocery store lecturing strangers about how buying the name brand is keeping them from achieving greatness. Because that would be fucking crazy.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 06:59 PM
15

Mate, he gave up a bus seat, not a kidney. If a small act of politeness is all it takes to keep a man from achieving greatness, that greatness probably wasn’t much to begin with. Do you even hear yourself? 🤣🤣
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 06:58 PM
22

Imagine defining your masculinity by how much you dislike women. If women are influencing every decision you make, you’re not independent of them. You’re obsessed with them
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 06:44 PM
21

Nothing says “I’m definitely winning at life” quite like getting angry at a stranger for being polite. And then some of you wonder why men are lonely. If basic kindness feels like oppression to you, that’s a you problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 06:42 PM
5

This is a massive stretch. You start with a paper proposing a solution you don’t like, then somehow end up at “we don’t care about men and want them gone.” Those are not remotely the same thing. And if people are studying men’s problems, writing papers about them, discussing them in the media, and proposing solutions, even bad ones, that’s literally evidence that people care about the issue. You can argue the solutions are wrong without pretending the discussion itself proves men are being aband…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/26 12:56 PM
–

We actually just want you to listen
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 06:51 PM
1

You’re describing basic social skills.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 03:25 PM
1

Their own actions. Not the actions of other people.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 03:20 PM
0

I’m replying to you
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 03:19 PM
0

You’ve gone from “women should know who’s nice” to “women should make educated guesses” to “women who guess wrong must not have tried hard enough.” You’re assuming character is reliably observable. It isn’t. If it were, manipulative people wouldn’t be successful in the first place. Funny how the conclusion always circles back to women being at fault.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 03:14 PM
2

I didn’t dodge your question. I rejected the premise. You’re arguing that men with more opportunities are more likely to cheat. Fine. That’s not the same claim as “men who confidently approach women are more likely to cheat.” Those are two different arguments. And “choices don’t matter” is where you’ve completely lost me. Choices are literally the thing we’re talking about. Two people can have the exact same opportunity and make different decisions. If opportunity alone explained behaviour, then…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 02:55 PM
0

Right, so we’ve established they can’t actually know. They can only make assumptions based on limited information and hope they’re right. That was my point from the beginning.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 02:41 PM
2

If you think the only thing separating a loyal person from a cheater is opportunity, then you’re describing a lack of integrity, not proving your argument. You keep talking about access. I keep talking about choices. And now you’ve switched from “men who approach women” to celebrities and professional athletes. Those are completely different claims. A man isn’t unfaithful because he’s confident. He’s unfaithful because he decides to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 02:40 PM
–

No. Cheating requires a lack of integrity and a willingness to betray your partner. The fact that you keep framing loyalty as a confidence issue makes it sound like you think most people would cheat if they had the opportunity. Not everyone views relationships that way. And that’s what I don’t understand about your argument. Do you genuinely believe men who are confident enough to approach women are automatically more likely to be cheaters? That’s such a bizarre leap. You’re taking a trait share…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 01:39 PM
–

No. Approaching a woman requires confidence and a willingness to risk rejection. Cheating requires a lack of integrity. The fact that you’re treating those as the same thing is bizarre.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 01:33 PM
–

Confident? Maybe Arrogant and cocky? Definitely Those aren’t the same thing
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 01:20 PM
0

You’ve written three paragraphs explaining that people make inferences about each other. Nobody disagrees with that. The question was how women are supposed to reliably identify the “nice guys” you’re talking about. Your answer keeps coming back to the same thing: guess. An educated guess is still a guess.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 12:54 PM
–

I’ve never seen someone make this many assumptions about a complete stranger with this much confidence. And your argument doesn’t even make sense. Confidence isn’t toxicity. Physical attractiveness isn’t toxicity. Being outgoing isn’t toxicity. You’re taking traits that exist in both healthy and unhealthy people and treating them like warning signs. The problem isn’t that women are attracted to confidence or attractiveness. The problem is that toxic people aren’t required to announce themselves …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 12:35 PM
–

You’ve got to be really right-brained to think “study people” answers the question. People decide whether to approach someone in seconds. They don’t conduct a behavioural analysis first. Being nice isn’t stamped on someone’s forehead, so your advice ultimately boils down to observing people and guessing their character.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 12:32 PM
1

more confident What? Confidence is confidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 12:01 PM
2

Lighting up a room is charisma. Taking charge is leadership. Making people feel at ease is social skill. Those traits can overlap with confidence, but they aren’t the same thing. Plenty of confident people aren’t charismatic, aren’t leaders, and have no interest in commanding a room. It sounds like you’re conflating several different traits and calling all of them confidence. Wanting a confident partner also doesn’t mean someone is looking for a person to compensate for their shortcomings. Confi…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 12:00 PM
–

The rest is irrelevant
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 11:53 AM
–

So be psychic? That’s your advice to women?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 11:52 AM
–

How are we supposed to know who they are?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 11:48 AM
–

you can never know who will be nice You’re so close to getting. It.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 11:47 AM
–

How are women supposed to know who’s genuinely nice and who’s not? That you can make an ignorant comment and then follow up asking “ignorance of what?” is peak Reddit
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 11:36 AM
–

countless normal, unabusive men simply invisible to you How are women supposed to reliably tell them apart from the toxic men?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 10:51 AM
–

This is such nonsense. you could have limitless options Why do some of you act like all these “nice and good men” are approaching women all the time and women are just turning them down? Why do some of you act like toxic men start relationships that way? The level of ignorance is staggering.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 10:49 AM
1

Imagine being the one being stared at. It’s not a comfortable position to be in.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 07:44 PM
0

Many men are willing to pursue and value women who do not fit idealized standards of attractiveness. They pursue women they find attractive. They just don’t have the same taste in women as you do.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 06:54 PM
3

Glancing at someone is normal. Noticing an attractive person is normal. Staring, gawking, or treating someone like public property is not. And “dressing revealingly” is incredibly subjective. If I’m wearing shorts and a tank top because it’s 30 degrees outside, am I dressing revealingly or dressing for the weather? Plenty of women get unwanted attention in jeans, hoodies, work uniforms, gym clothes, or fully covered outfits. The idea that there’s some clear line where attention is simply the nat…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 06:10 PM
11

We try so hard to protect women Who’s “we”? Women get criticized constantly. Their appearance, weight, age, sexuality, parenting, careers, dating choices, all of it. Misogyny is so common it’s basically background noise at this point. I also don’t buy the idea that misogyny exists because society is too reluctant to admit some women are bad. People acknowledge bad women all the time. Nobody seriously believes women are incapable of being toxic, selfish, abusive, manipulative, or cruel. The part …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 06:03 PM
4

The entire argument falls apart once you stop pretending “some” and “all” mean the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 02:13 PM
6

You’re looking for hypocrisy by treating millions of women as one person. “Women say X but women do Y” only works if the same women are saying and doing those things. Acknowledging risk while still participating isn’t hypocrisy. It’s how adults navigate literally every risk-reward decision they make.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 01:34 PM
8

You’re treating “some women complain about men” and “women think all men are dangerous” as if they’re the same thing. They aren’t. People complain about dating, marriage, work, family, and friendships all the time. Then they continue participating because most experiences aren’t the worst-case scenario. And your argument keeps collapsing into absolutes. Women taking precautions doesn’t mean they think every man is a predator. It means they acknowledge a risk exists and act accordingly. By your l…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 12:04 PM
17

Can your eyes see through walls? You have enough idea what’s going on behind closed doors.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 11:06 AM
13

Women date despite safety risks for the same reason people drive despite car accidents existing: the potential reward is worth managing the risk. Participating in an activity doesn’t prove the risk isn’t real. You’re also comparing completely different things. Rejection, embarrassment, and awkwardness are common dating experiences. Assault, rape, and murder are far less common, but they’re also far more severe. Frequency and severity aren’t the same thing. Women’s behaviour actually does reflect…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 11:03 AM
7

Did I say likable was the only trait required? Most people are looking for partners, not dependents.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/26 11:21 PM
–

Speaking of “acting dumb”
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 08:17 PM
–

Banking dates back to around 2000 BCE, coinage became widespread around 600 BCE, Italian merchant banks were operating in the 1400s, and the Bank of England was founded in 1694. In an age where the world’s knowledge is sitting in your pocket, there’s really no excuse for being this wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 08:16 PM
–

They’re using their parents and grandparents as reference points.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 08:11 PM
–

“does that imply that men’s primary value in relationships historically was providing resources and financial security?” Yes. Just like women were historically valued for having children, cooking, and running a household. “how do you reconcile it with the idea that relationships are about companionship, love, emotional support, family, and partnership?” Because for most of history, marriage was primarily an economic and social institution. The expectation that it should also provide companionshi…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 08:10 PM
4

I bet you started this thread convinced you’re one of the good guys. Then someone explained how abuse works, and your response was to mock the victim for not spotting it sooner. You’re so focused on why women didn’t spot the red flags that you haven’t noticed the ones you’re waving.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 07:56 PM
4

“I just wish women would explain why they think abusive men have such great personalities.” This is such a bizarre strawman. Women: Abusers often hide who they are, manipulate people, and don’t reveal the abuse until later. You: So you’re saying abusive men have great personalities? No. That’s you saying that. Nobody is claiming abusive men have wonderful personalities. You’re taking “people can be deceived by manipulators” and translating it into “women think abusers are great guys,” then argui…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 07:50 PM
1

This only makes sense if you have absolutely no understanding of how abusive relationships work. Abusers don’t come out swinging on the first date. They love bomb, manipulate, isolate, and gradually erode their partner’s self-esteem. That’s why people are constantly shocked when they find out someone’s abusive. “But he seemed so nice” is practically a cliché at this point. The fact that an abusive man got into a relationship isn’t proof he had a great personality. It’s proof that abuse is often …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 07:47 PM
0

Only on Reddit can responding with facts be dismissed as a “despicable rant.” You’re genuinely hard to take seriously.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 05:28 PM
0

This is kind of what I suspected. I asked for evidence that men-hating is mainstream feminism and got a list of things you’re angry about: Erin Pizzey, UN Women, education policy, STEM programs, incarceration, the pay gap, a book from the 90s, a slogan, and some academics you don’t like. Even if I granted half of those points, it still wouldn’t prove your claim. You’ve basically gone from “men-hating is mainstream feminism” to “here’s a list of feminist ideas and institutions I disagree with.” T…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 04:06 PM
1

So we’ve gone from “this is a fucking lie” to “I don’t disagree there were research gaps affecting women.” Which was my point from the start. I never said men were privileged. I never said there was an anti-woman conspiracy. I said there were documented research gaps affecting women. Now you’re arguing about the interpretation of those gaps, which is a different argument entirely. And the whole “9 month babies are being aborted” thing is such a chronically online version of this debate. Nobody i…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 04:03 PM
0

It’s hard to take your complaints about sexism seriously when your response to disagreement is calling people liars, gaslighters, man-haters, sexist pigs, and “Frauen.” You seem to see prejudice everywhere except in your own comments. I’ve wasted enough of my time with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 03:27 PM
1

Great, then we agree nobody represents all feminists. So now we’re on a different claim: that men-hating is mainstream in feminism. What’s the evidence for that beyond being able to find a few women saying hateful things online? Because I can find men saying women are inferior, should lose rights, should submit to men, etc. That doesn’t automatically make misogyny mainstream masculinity.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 03:26 PM
1

You said the idea that male bodies were treated as the default in medical research is “a fucking lie.” Except there’s a reason the NIH literally had to change policy in 1993 and require the inclusion of women in federally funded clinical research. Women had been excluded or underrepresented in a lot of trials, often because researchers assumed results from men would generalize to women or because women were considered too medically “complicated” due to hormonal cycles and pregnancy concerns. (Ne…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 03:24 PM
1

You seem to think calling people “men-hating sexist pigs” is the same thing as proving they’re wrong. It’s not. You’ve spent more time insulting researchers and organizations than actually demonstrating that their data is false.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 03:04 PM
1

That’s not a No True Scotsman. I’m not saying she isn’t a real feminist. I’m saying she doesn’t represent all feminists. Those are completely different claims. Andrew Tate is a man. He doesn’t represent all men. This YouTuber is a feminist. She doesn’t represent all feminists. A person can belong to a group without being the spokesperson for everyone in it. That’s not a complicated concept.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 03:02 PM
2

Mate, I know exactly what you’re saying. This isn’t a comprehension issue. You’ve made the same point over and over. It’s in women’s interest to change their behaviour because some men won’t control theirs. Got it. What you don’t seem to understand is that my criticism has never been about whether women have a moral responsibility to do that. It’s that you’ve spent this entire conversation talking about what women should do in response to men who won’t control themselves, while showing remarkabl…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 02:52 PM
–

This sounds less like romance is dying and more like people can no longer build entire fantasies about the opposite sex. Your partner was never supposed to be special because they were mysterious. They were supposed to be special because you knew who they were and loved them anyway. If learning what men and women are actually like kills the attraction, then what died wasn’t romance. It was idealization.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 02:20 PM
–

If this is really about family formation, social isolation, and community, why is almost the entire post about men? Women are also reporting loneliness, isolation, difficulty finding partners, and declining relationship satisfaction. Yet every problem here gets framed through the lens of what happens when men can’t get dates, sex, marriage, or children. And on the population side, maybe it’s time to start asking whether systems that depend on endless population growth are sustainable in the firs…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 02:08 PM
1

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that women already have equal pay, equal status, equal opportunities, and equal responsibilities everywhere else. That’s a pretty convenient starting point. Women still earn less on average, are underrepresented in leadership, do more unpaid labour at home, and take bigger career hits for caregiving. So the idea that society is already perfectly equal except for dating is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. If your point is that some dating expectation…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 02:01 PM
2

I understand the difference just fine. It doesn’t change my point. Do you not understand how making men’s behaviour women’s responsibility is a fucked up thing to do? You’ve spent this entire conversation explaining why women should adjust their behaviour around men who won’t control themselves, and you don’t seem to see anything wrong with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:31 PM
2

What’s odd is that you’ve spent this entire conversation framing that as a reason women should change their behaviour rather than a reason men should change theirs. You don’t see how fucked up that is? Women get called paranoid, sexist, man-haters, and compared to racists for saying they take precautions based on how some men behave. Meanwhile you’re openly arguing that they should do exactly that and treating it like common sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 11:27 AM
3

No, I understand your point perfectly. You’re arguing that women should adjust their behaviour around the possibility that some men won’t control theirs. The wild part is that you keep saying this like it’s a criticism of women instead of a criticism of those men.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 02:20 AM
5

You keep making analogies that compare men to criminals and then somehow expect me to walk away thinking less of women. If your position is that women should modify their behaviour because some men will behave badly, congratulations, you’ve just described why women are cautious around men in the first place. You’re making my point, not yours.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 02:10 AM
7

Why does a woman need to justify posting a bikini photo, but men don’t need to justify making sexual comments? I’ve never seen someone so confidently explain why women are cautious around men while thinking he’s making a point against women. You’re literally arguing that women should alter their behaviour because some men can’t control theirs, and somehow you think that’s a criticism of women. JFC
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:59 AM
4

The answer is the same reason people keep going outside even though some strangers are rude. The existence of bad behaviour doesn’t create an obligation to accommodate it. The question isn’t why women post bikini photos. The question is why some men think seeing one entitles them to comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:46 AM
8

Is it really that hard to keep your opinions to your fucking self? Do you just walk around narrating everything you see? “Nice car.” “There’s a pigeon.” “That’s a tree.” “Dog poop.” Because most people learn somewhere around childhood that not every observation requires a public announcement. Learn some self-control.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:41 AM
4

Except women know many men will enjoy it quite vocally. We don’t know this. Because we hold some shred of hope that men are decent human beings. Thanks for proving us wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:32 AM
10

Me: “Understood. Respectfully… what exactly am I supposed to do with the visual information that has just been delivered directly to my eyeballs?” Nothing. That’s what.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 01:30 AM
5

“I’ve never heard it IRL” doesn’t really mean much anymore when huge amounts of modern social interaction happen online. A lot of women are reacting to things they hear constantly in podcasts, comment sections, dating content, TikTok clips, Twitter threads, YouTube channels, etc. I’ve never been stung by a bee either, that doesn’t mean bees don’t sting people.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 09:43 PM
2

Except the standards themselves are still gendered. A man being judged for income or status is tied to what he provides. A woman being judged for aging, body count, makeup, clothes, voice, weight, being “too masculine,” “too emotional,” “too loud,” “too opinionated,” “too old,” “too easy,” or “too hard to get” is tied to her existence as a woman. That’s why the insults aren’t interchangeable. Men are usually criticized for failing performance expectations. Women are constantly criticized for fai…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 09:41 PM
5

You’re still flattening completely different things into “everyone gets criticized.” Asking a 30 year old guy when he’s settling down is not the male equivalent of entire conversations about women “expiring,” “losing value,” or being undesirable after 30. Nobody’s out here calling men “ran through” because they had too many partners or comparing them to worn out objects. And calling your buddies sluts (an insult usually directed at women) as a joke is not the same thing as women constantly heari…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:16 PM
6

So do you also call your male friend “ran through” when he sleeps around? When a guy turns 30 do you tell him he “hit the wall”? Do you call stay at home dads lazy parasites living off women? Do you assume men who cry are manipulative? Do you tell divorced fathers they’re “damaged goods” and nobody wants another woman’s leftovers? Men roasting each other over bad decisions is not the same thing as gender-specific insults and double standards aimed almost entirely at women. That’s the part you’re…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:08 PM
2

Apparently saying “a random YouTuber with 28k views does not represent all feminism” now requires me to produce the officially certified borders of Feminism™ first. I also don’t need to define the exact boundaries of “mainstream masculinity” to know Andrew Tate doesn’t represent all men. This isn't a difficult concept What point are you actually trying to make here, exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 05:52 PM
1

You keep replying to arguments nobody actually made. Half the time you take a pretty clear sentence, apply your own weird interpretation to it, then get mad at the version you invented. Nobody said “medicine knows more about male bodies therefore men are privileged.” The point is that male bodies were historically treated as the medical default, which created documented blind spots around female symptoms, pain, hormonal differences, drug side effects, etc. “Mice get tested on too” is not the dev…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 05:47 PM
1

It’s wild watching you complain about “men hating sexism” while calling anyone who disagrees with you “men-hating sexist pieces of shit.” You accuse everyone else of cherry-picking, then immediately start adding vague, unmeasurable stuff like “do or die culture” because the actual data clearly isn’t giving you the slam dunk you want. And no, housework didn’t disappear because dishwashers exist. Automation reduced labour for everyone. Women still statistically do more childcare and domestic labou…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 05:43 PM
1

You keep having these full blown meltdowns over arguments nobody even made. Nobody said men don’t suffer. Nobody said male issues aren’t real. Nobody said men never faced historical disadvantages. You just keep hearing “women also faced sex-based restrictions” and reacting like it’s a personal attack. And honestly, the irony of accusing everyone else of ideological hysteria while calling people “fraus,” “feminazis,” and “retards” every second sentence is pretty incredible. You sound way more emo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 05:38 PM
5

Right? I love these “imagine if men did this” comments because it’s basically just men reacting badly to being treated the way women have been treated for generations.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 12:51 PM
5

You should probably be asking OP that since he’s the one trying to turn a random YouTube creator into the face of feminism.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 11:06 AM
1

You’re just machine-gunning grievances now without actually responding to the point. Nobody said men never have health issues, or that prostate cancer shouldn’t get more attention, or that male health disparities don’t matter. None of that disproves that women’s health has historically been understudied in specific ways, especially around reproduction, pain, hormones, medication side effects, etc. And the “well drugs get tested on men first” point is not the gotcha you think it is. Part of the c…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 11:01 AM
0

That stat gets a lot less convincing once you isolate full-time working couples with kids. Women working full-time still tend to do more childcare and unpaid domestic labour overall, while men tend to do more paid work hours and commuting. So no, the “everything evens out perfectly” argument isn’t really supported as cleanly as you’re pretending it is. Also calling researchers “men-hating sexist pieces of garbage” isn’t evidence. It just sounds emotional.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 10:59 AM
2

You’re acting like “poor men also suffered” somehow disproves women facing specific restrictions relative to men in the same societies. It doesn’t. Both class oppression and sex-based restrictions existed at the same time. And it’s funny watching you dismiss women’s historical restrictions as ancient irrelevant history while bringing up the draft in the same breath. Women in the US couldn’t even get credit independently without discrimination protections until the 70s. The last US draft call was…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 10:56 AM
1

No, I put “feminism and women” together because a lot of MRA spaces do in fact spend a huge amount of time attacking both. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous. And “have you ever talked to a feminist?” is not evidence. You keep making massive sweeping claims about millions of people based on your personal experiences and internet discourse. Also, supporting men’s issues is not the same thing as uncritically supporting every MRA space or argument. I support things like better mental health support…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 10:46 AM
2

You’re kind of answering your own question though. You describe masculinity with words tied to competence, strength, building, utility, achievement, power, dominance, etc. Then femininity gets framed as prettiness, softness, innocence, sensuality, pleasantness, and decoration. That’s exactly why people say femininity is often socially undervalued. Not because nobody enjoys or desires feminine traits, but because the traits associated with masculinity are more often linked to authority, capabilit…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 10:34 PM
1

“Who is supposed to be paying you” kind of gives away that you missed the point entirely. Nobody is saying your husband should literally hand you an invoice for doing dishes. The point is that domestic labour is still labour even when it happens inside a relationship and often falls unevenly on one person. And honestly it’s weird to call childcare, household management, caregiving, scheduling, emotional support, etc “mundane nothingburger minutiae” when society literally falls apart without peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 10:33 PM
2

Nobody is saying femininity is never seen as powerful. The point is that sexualized or fetishized forms of “power” are not the same thing as broad social respect, authority, or status. A dominatrix existing doesn’t disprove that femininity is often trivialized, objectified, underestimated, or associated with softness compared to masculinity. You’re taking one very specific context and trying to generalize it into a universal social reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:35 PM
4

“Unpaid domestic labour isn’t real” is such a funny argument because unless dishes clean themselves, children raise themselves, appointments schedule themselves, groceries appear magically, and elderly relatives care for themselves, somebody is obviously doing labour. You can argue about distribution, expectations, or how to measure it. Pretending it doesn’t exist at all is just unserious. And emotional labour absolutely exists too. Remembering birthdays, managing social relationships, planning …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:35 PM
8

28k views is not proof of “mainstream feminism.” That’s a tiny YouTube video, not government policy. The internet is also full of men saying women have too many rights, should submit to men, are inferior, manipulative, low IQ, unfit for power, etc, and most of that content stays up too. You keep treating algorithm ragebait like it’s some massive institutional movement instead of what it actually is: a controversial YouTube video getting engagement because people are mad at it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 07:41 PM
3

You keep collapsing attraction, desirability, and interpersonal influence into “power” while ignoring the massive difference between being desired and being respected. And now you’ve jumped from “some women dislike male submissiveness” to “women have a monopoly on weakness because that’s how they like it,” which is just a sweeping projection. Women are not a hive mind. Plenty of women like dominant men, some like egalitarian dynamics, some like submissive men, and most people are more nuanced th…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 07:37 PM
13

Ah yes, the classic “I didn’t mean the words I used, you just read them too accurately.” At some point “you’re too literal” just becomes code for “I phrased my argument badly and my fragile ego won't let me own it.”
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 07:35 PM
12

You changed the claim from “she is citing established feminist doctrine” to “feminist doctrine can be used to justify this conclusion.” Those are different arguments. One means “this is an established feminist position.” The other means “someone can take feminist ideas and extend them into something extreme.” The problem isn’t my comprehension. It’s your inability to stick to one argument for longer than two replies.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 07:00 PM
8

Convenient.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:52 PM
11

Mate, you literally said, and actually fucking bolded, “she is citing established feminist doctrine to justify what she says.” Now suddenly it’s “well duh, feminism doesn’t explicitly say that, it just creates the logic for it.” That’s not my reading comprehension failing. That’s you shifting the claim after getting pushback. Own your words. How else is anyone supposed to interpret “citing established feminist doctrine” other than “this comes from established feminist doctrine”? Sigh indeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:51 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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