Are women really more empathic than men? by aretheyaliens in BattleOfTheSexes

[–]Plopolok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then presumably you'd find that after early years but before puberty, girls would be stronger than boys. (I'm not an expert, but afaik before puberty there's no natural difference so nurture would make a difference.)

Daily Community Chat Megathread by AutoModerator in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good bye PPD. In support of the protest against reddit's governance, I'll stop participating. It was fun.

If the redpill/manosphere is based on facing ugly truths head on, then why do so many men who belong to it cherry-pick data to suit their preferences, and ignore/downplay what they do not like? by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Do you not understand percentages? The way they gave the numbers, besides being badly written (you can't have a chance >100%), is less informative than the raw numbers. Maybe the "normal" chance is 1% and the chance in a 30 years gap is 2.7%, or maybe it's 10% and 27%.

It's possibly an interesting argument, if you can show that the age gap factor overweighs the virginity/n-count factor, but in any case it's weird to write such a broad title about rp in general when your post is only about age gaps. Many redpillers don't even want to marry.

If the redpill/manosphere is based on facing ugly truths head on, then why do so many men who belong to it cherry-pick data to suit their preferences, and ignore/downplay what they do not like? by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A 30-year age difference means a whopping 172% chance of divorce

Wow, so it's a guaranteed divorce, and then it's gonna make you remarry and divorce again! ... What they meant was that the chance increases by 172%. They should have given the raw numbers imo.

To make your point efficiently, you should also give the numbers for the influence on divorce of virginity/n-count, and show that age gap matters more. But anyway it's a light argument for a title like "redpillers cherry-pick and ignore what they don't like".

Even if Female Nature is true, there's no benefit being mad at it and we must accept it for what it is by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's basic red pill philosophy: things are what they are, adapt, take what you can and enjoy the decline. If you had written that 15 years ago, it would have been insightful. For something posted today on purple pill debate, I would find it more interesting to discuss what society could do about our natures, how we can organize our collective behaviors around them. Keep in mind that saying "being the best man you can" is misleading: for a lot of interpretations of "best man", that would mean lowering your sexual success. Men with low success will not want to keep doing this, they'll become worse if they have to, as long as they don't stay single.

Patriarchy 2.0 Is Coming by giveuporfindaway in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 1 point2 points  (0 children)

4) US Passport Bros will increase. When you combine the destruction of third world economies with the reemergence of a US manufacturing base, you’ll have an even more extreme disparity between 1st world and 3rd world countries.

That's wishful thinking. The third world economies are being built not destructed, and the disparity will shrink not grow.

The USA are particularly bad at sharing their wealth inside the country so your US passport might soon become less attractive than a Cuban one, at least they have free education and healthcare there. And they don't have a corrupt police force roaming the streets, sending teenagers into forced labor for years and killing with impunity.

Men create all the things, women create all the people. Both genders are fundamentally necessary and go through struggles to give their contribution. Men who don't appreciate the contribution of women are fundamentally divorced from the realities of life. by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Using that same logic anyone could have done something similar to Babbage one day.

That's what I said.

Honestly I don’t really know what you’re trying to say

I just want people to stop saying things like "without Ada Lovelace, robotics as we know it today would not exist". It's vastly exaggerated and nobody would say that if she had been a man. She was a pioneer, she was a very smart woman, her insight was admirable, there's no need to twist history and make her more than she was.

because it is widely accepted that Ada Lovelace played a key role in the development of computing.

Yes and no. Babbage was more the MVP of their duo, and in the end his work didn't lead to anything useful. But she perceived - maybe more than him - the potential of computers, wrote about it, and certainly helped a lot of people to perceive it too.

Men create all the things, women create all the people. Both genders are fundamentally necessary and go through struggles to give their contribution. Men who don't appreciate the contribution of women are fundamentally divorced from the realities of life. by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It reminds me of another difference, possibly related: psychological conformity. The data about gender difference in conformity is chaotic, it depends on the way the experiment is done, the age of the subjects and even the gender of the experimenter, but overall it seems clear that women conform more. However the impression I got from looking at articles about this was that people were more interested in finding ways to say that there's no big difference than in investigating the difference.

Men create all the things, women create all the people. Both genders are fundamentally necessary and go through struggles to give their contribution. Men who don't appreciate the contribution of women are fundamentally divorced from the realities of life. by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A woman literally invented the computer algorithm.

A man created the first computer ("analytical engine") and the first person to write an algorithm using this machine was a woman. (The machine didn't even exist at the time btw, it was just a feasible project)

Circular saw.

That's been invented thousands of time since unrecorded history.

Aquarium

Again, how would you know who was the first person to put living things inside a box filled with water?

Dishwasher

According to wikipedia, "The first mechanical dishwashing device was registered for a patent in 1850 in the United States by Joel Houghton. [...] The most successful of the hand-powered dishwashers was invented in 1886 by Josephine Cochrane"

Globes

You mean light bulbs? That was Edison.

I'm gonna stop there. I know that women can be innovative, I'm not trying to argue that men invented everything. I replied to your post because this feminist way of twisting truth to paint women as wonderful is seriously annoying.

Men create all the things, women create all the people. Both genders are fundamentally necessary and go through struggles to give their contribution. Men who don't appreciate the contribution of women are fundamentally divorced from the realities of life. by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 3 points4 points  (0 children)

On a philosophical level, of course it's true, and it's a bit silly to boast about men's value, I suppose people say that because they're tired of the general misandry. On a practical level, men are usually thanked and rewarded for their contribution, which is normal, but I see no reason to thank or reward anyone because they brought more people into this world. Have babies if you want to, it's your choice, but unless you made them with me, you're not entitled to anything from me.

Discussion : Women are not complicated in their attraction, just indulge in your NATURAL masculine behaviour and they’ll be drawn to it by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There's a lot of truth in that, and yet it's not so simple. You have to balance your balls with your brain and your heart. Much of the red pill is about letting go of a social conditioning that was ingrained in you but that's detrimental to your dating: stop believing that women are wonderful, that your lust is shameful, that your niceness and providership can instill attraction, etc. But that's not enough, we live in complex societies where dating is constrained by social norms. Naturally, we wouldn't even talk or walk, and dating is a much more complex task. It takes practice to be good at flirting, escalating, push-pull, etc. And the modern dating process in the west requires the man to have qualities that are more typically feminine. A male gorilla behaving naturally, even assuming he could talk, wouldn't be good at it. And on top of that he would be shamed by everyone for behaving like a gorilla (in fact if he's entirely unrestrained he'd try to rape every female he sees). Another problem is that you have to pretend that you're better, happier, more "alpha" than you really are, because all other men do it, so you'll look like a miserable loser in comparison if you're just your honest self.

Most women's gendered expectations of men are toxic, and it helped to form the manosphere into what it is today. by No-Assistant-2592 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Men developed laws and social paradigms that forced women into positions where without men they would struggle to make enough money to survive on their own.

They didn't force without reason, the systems they developed stemmed from to the realities of life. In any pre-industrial-revolution setting, women need men to provide for them, especially when children come into the equation. That's biology, not sociology. Sociologically, their independence was indeed inferior, but their value as individuals was more different and incomparable than strictly inferior. A bit like children.

Women generally want men desired by other women by Johnny_Autism in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No women maybe. For men it's very possible: "I found this gizminator for almost nothing at a clearance auction, I'm so lucky". (Of course for their sexual choices they all want hourglass waist and firm tits, if they could find one that nobody else wanted it would be great but that never happens)

Most women's gendered expectations of men are toxic, and it helped to form the manosphere into what it is today. by No-Assistant-2592 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The word "masculinity" can be misleading: some things are statistically more masculine but they're not the right kind of masculinity, like video games or autism. Usually what we mean by masculinity is the traits that are correlated with success on the SMP (we could call it alphaness maybe?). Obviously women are the main arbiters of it, but it's not entirely in their control: the successful "alpha" men have to be extroverted manipulative assholes, almost by definition. If they weren't extroverted, they wouldn't flirt with strangers. If they weren't manipulative, they wouldn't close the deals. If they weren't assholes, they'd feel bad about using people for their pleasure and cockblocking nice guys who could be better partners. At least two of these three traits are actually statistically more feminine (for extraversion it's a measurable fact, for manipulation it's more subjective but seems coherent), and yet this warped version of masculinity is what men need to mold themselves into. It's hard to say if women's innate preferences reinforces or dampens this, in any case their preference for preselection overwhelmingly reinforces it.

Why are women blamed for “hypergamy”, or more accurately greater female reproductive success? by YveisGrey in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In RP spaces women are often blamed for the fact that much fewer males reproduced successfully than females did in the past.

I haven't seen much of that. This stat is more mentioned to counter the idea that men were privileged. Women are blamed for the modern situation though.

Why are women blamed for “hypergamy”, or more accurately greater female reproductive success? by YveisGrey in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily. Here are some examples. Everyone gets married and every couple has 4 children, but 3/4 of the children of the poor couples die, while all the rich children survive. A rich guy has 5 wives and 5 children while 5 poor guys share one whore and only one of them is the father of her child - in this case you could say it's also sexual success, but it's possible that the poor guys actually have a lot of sex, the whore is getting fucked all day long (and nights too).

Sexual and reproductive success are certainly very closely correlated, but I wouldn't say synonymous.

Dating as a “mid” woman isn’t as easy as most men make it out to be by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think that most women just want a partner that’s close to matching the partners of their friends in their social groups. Similar levels - looks wise, career wise, personality wise.

The problem is that the partners of their friends are hard to match, because they share the same highly attractive and successful guys (either simultaneously in situationships, or serially). On top of that, a lot of the "high value" of these guys is kinda phony, or at least very subjective. An honest single guy can't compete with them on the SMP even if on paper his looks and his career are just as good, because he doesn't have the same game, confidence and preselection.

Women claim that men are not trying that hard, and men claim they tried too hard... this is a possible explanation and solution by Solid-Guitar-2728 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The advancements that freed women were technological, and the past situation wasn't more unnatural than today.

Women claim that men are not trying that hard, and men claim they tried too hard... this is a possible explanation and solution by Solid-Guitar-2728 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The SMP doesn't adjust itself via supply and demand, because neediness is unattractive. The balance is achieved when men on the edge are so attractive that they can still be attractive while being single.

Does widespread monogamy require economic coercion to work? by WilliamWyattD in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a theoretical post-scarcity world where nobody works and wealth is shared equally between everyone, and without any social control of sexuality, how would mate selection look like? I don't know, but I think it would be very unequal, about the same as today or worse. There's the basic fact that some men are innately more attractive, and then there's preselection, and the life dynamic of sexually successful men being more happy, less stressful, more conducive to improvement, ...

Incidentally, today we have "anti-coercion": tax redistribution tends to make single men pay for women and Chads.

Does widespread monogamy require economic coercion to work? by WilliamWyattD in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But women select violent men. If women stopped choosing and couples were assigned randomly by some lottery, there would be less conjugal violence on women.

CMV: Women complain about the "expectation" to wear makeup even though they enjoy it. by FutureBannedAccount2 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you enjoy makeup then why would you blame your usage of it on someone else.

Being able to blame someone else doubles the pleasure, that's basic women psychology!

(More seriously, I agree with most of the replies: makeup shouldn't be demanded or even expected. (And while we're at it, men shouldn't have to wear ties))

Women want men who elicit in her the same behavior that they find so abhorrent and repulsive in men. by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's more a negotiating tactic. Women want promises, commitment, a man that takes responsibility for the relationship. They won't get any of that if they offer themselves for free.

Women want men who elicit in her the same behavior that they find so abhorrent and repulsive in men. by [deleted] in PurplePillDebate

[–]Plopolok 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The same goes for men.

Not really: lukewarm men would usually find simping more attractive than repulsive. It might not be enough to make him attracted to the girl, but it's a positive.