>
 |
| Links |
A couple of interesting posts on topics near and dear to readers here:
Amanda Marcotte takes on “Nice Guys,” and the oft-repeated notion that women seek out abusers and assholes to date:
My counter-theory is that Nice Guys® group together traits like confidence with aggression, so they can convince themselves that confident men are always assholes, and thus that they’re being unfairly deprived of pussy by women who are sick fucks that enjoy being abused. Are some confident men abusive assholes? Absolutely; look at Charlie Sheen. But are all confident men? … [W]hat I can say is I’ve known many men who are great husbands/boyfriends and are also confident … Some shy men are also very nice people, just shy. But many shy men are inconsiderate fuckwits or even wife-beaters. I just don’t think there’s a strong correlation between “alpha”-ness and basic human decency.
And a couple of posts on some new research on gender and casual sex that challenges a lot of manosphere myths about women and hypergamy, suggesting that: 1) women, in general, are as interested in casual sex as men, so long as they feel they will be safe and 2) women, in general, aren’t so addled by their alleged hypergamous proclivities that they actually find Donald Trump to be attractive. In fact, the study suggests, women considering casual sex are driven by a desire for, er, hot sex with a dude who won’t kill them and who they think will be good in bed, not by a desire to get their claws into some random rich dude. Or, as the paper itself puts it:
Sexual strategies theory clearly predicts that higher status proposers should be accepted by women more readily than low-status proposers. The fact that status did not predict women’s acceptance of casual sex offers is therefore a problem for SST. Neither status, nor tendency for gift giving, nor perceived faithfulness of the proposer (nor, more precisely, the interaction of any of these variables with gender) predicted whether a participant would agree to the sexual offer, contradicting SST.
Here’s a brief summary of the research. And here’s a more detailed (if a bit convoluted) discussion from Thomas on Yes Means Yes, from which I got the above quote.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
![Google is Censoring Men’s Rights Searches and These Totally Not Fake Screenshots Prove It [CORRECTED]](https://i2.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/manboobzresearchlab.png?resize=50%2C50)
>It seems that some people believe women enter relationships with some idea how those relationships will unfold and end. There is no functional difference between the beginning of a short-term and a long-term relationship, so if someone is "hypergamous" it is likely that they will make the same decisions in both settings. For example, when I meet someone new, the only information I have is what *I* am looking for in a relationship and what *I* am willing to accept. The whole point of getting to know someone is to see how well what we are looking for and what we will accept line up. If those things line up well, it might be the beginning of a long term relationship, if they line up well enough, it might be the beginning of a one night stand. If one of us believes they do not line up, then we start looking again. What people are looking for is going to be infinitely varied, but since they are choosing for themselves it doesn't really matter. If a man or woman only dates rich people, it is only of importance to them and the people they are attempting to date.
>I personally think that people talk about relationships on one level, and then engage in them on another level altogether. So when people talk about them, they sound like Spock, but when they engage they act a lot more like Kirk or Bones. Easy to say what's healthy, but most people are moved by what they are moved by and are blind to the rest of it. This is why it can appear women "like" to be treated badly, when in reality we agonize over being attracted to someone that is abusive. This is why we groan when people say this, it hurts. I imagine the equivalent for men is when they do some stupid anti-social thing that hurts someone and we lament how terrible they are because they think with their penises. I suppose there is that same agony there. I can tell you as a woman I have NO IDEA why I'm attracted to some of the men that I am, physically. So they end up not "getting away" with abuse, but I end up in nightmare dramas that should be as easy as 1 2 3 get away from me. I try to be healthy like that, but then you know they really make you pay. Some men will try to ruin your life if you draw a line in the sand. But I just changed the subject. It really is agony to have ever been drawn to someone abusive, and then have to try to get away.
>@avpd0nmmng: I never said or thought that you could just switch off mental problems (I know what depression is like, and how impossible it is to snap out of it). But there are ways to work on yourself to be functional in society. From what I understand, there are ways to keep the impulses in sociopathy manageable and to refrain from being a complete monster. It's not easy, but you have to work on yourself (just like you have to work on yourself to recover from a depression or, I imagine, to talk to people when you have AvPD).I'm not sure about the gradation of sociopaths: there are high-functioning sociopaths and low-functioning sociopaths, and the former are the ones who manage to remain in control, but apparently they can't do it without mental strategies.Or, at least, that's what I understand: my only real knowledge of sociopaths comes from that blog. I'm absolutely not an authority on sociopathy.
>@girlscientist, I agree that it would be a bad idea to carve out an exception where sociopaths can be more easily jailed or criminally punished without an actus reas. My point is that there is a moral problem at issue here and that there is reason for dislike, distate, and discrimination in this case. It is the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate the prescense of sociopaths until they act, but I am not accepting or affirming of it. Which makes this distinct from neurodiversity in general, from autism, from psychosis, etc. "We certainly should be careful around sociopaths (they're not exactly innocent fluffy bunnies)." A statement like that about autistic people or people with schizophrenia would be one which I would disagree with. Personality disorders are often seen as distinct clinically from mental illness as well (though this one is disputed). I am making a distinction in dealing with sociopaths vs empaths and I do not pretend that when I judge someone inferior to others in some way that I am not making a moral judgment about them. I make moral judgments about Bill O'Reilly being an asshole, it does not follow that I am willing to carve a legal exception in regards to his free speech rights, for example. Living with a few assholes in society is the the lesser of two evils compared to the totalitarian measures that would need to be put in place to make it otherwise, but that does not mean that I must like or approve of assholes.
>@DarkSideCat: I don't know. I don't like the idea of discrimination. Besides, we empaths aren't fluffy bunnies either: just look at the Milgram experiment.Why would you want to silence Bill O'Reilly? He's comedy gold:"Tide goes in. Tide goes out. Never a miscommunication!"Besides, with no O'Reilly, there would be no Colbert. Who would want that?
>No worries, girlscientist. I'm inclined to agree that sociopathy is probably primarily an inherent trait (though environment plays a role in how it manifests itself). It is certainly true that only a small percentage of sociopaths are violent or criminals (though a much larger percentage of violent criminals are sociopaths). Contrary to popular belief, sociopathy and psychopathy are not the same thing. Anyway, it's fascinating stuff…from a distance.
>"Now if men had as much mistrust towards women in general, they would be bitter misogynists."Interesting. So, in your world, men risk as much physical danger from women as the reverse? So that they would have a sane reason for being mistrustful?I would like to know where this magical mythical place is, that has such rough, violent, rapey women.
>walkertallJust because a minority of men are rapists, that doesn't give women are free pass to be sexist towards the whole male population.Let's put it this way, just because a minority of black people are criminals, would it be racism if I was paranoid towards ALL blacks because a minority of blacks are bad?Yes or no?You can't have two standards. It's funny how it's only acceptable to be so hateful towards men as a gender but when it comes to women or race, it's a big no no.A minority of women are violent, gold diggers, sexist, so does that give me a pass to be paranoid towards the whole female population?If a man was, he would be deemed as an anti-social misogynist idiot. But of course women get a pussy pass to have this type of bitterness towards men.Stupid bigoted feminists such as your self need to stop giving women all these privileges.Equality means equality 24/7 365 days a year. Equality doesn't mean women can pick and choose what areas they want equality in or switching it on and off when ever it suits them.This is equality:Women being paranoid towards most or all the male population = sexistMen being paranoid towards most or all the female population = sexistThis next example is not equality, its discrimination, bigotry, and sexism against men.Women being paranoid towards most or all the male population = socially acceptableMen being paranoid towards most or all the female population = sexistAre you feminists seriously this dumb to not figure out this simple fact that's so obvious?This blog is a cack session
>I think that is the only time Nick has ever been coherent. Good show little one!
>Just because a minority of men are rapists, that doesn't give women are free pass to be sexist towards the whole male population.All men benefit from rape culture (you're doing it right now, in fact). And women have to be particularly concerned about rape because so many men feel entitled to seize sexual control over women; it's a cultural message that the patriarchy attempts to instill in men. Rape is a tool of social control, and that control works even if most men don't actually rape.Let's put it this way, just because a minority of black people are criminals, would it be racism if I was paranoid towards ALL blacks because a minority of blacks are bad?Hilarious. This is the opposite of the above situation. Whites are the privileged group, blacks the oppressed. For whites to fear blacks is just disingenuous. The dangers that whites make up about blacks are usually fictional – most of the black crime you mention is black-on-black, and a black woman is far more likely to be raped by a white man than a white woman by a black man.Those fictional reasons to fear blacks is another form of othering and an excuse to continue oppressing. It's easier to keep them in their neighborhoods that way.The women fearing men thing is the opposite. Men are the privileged group here, women the oppressed. For the oppressed to fear the oppressor is far more reasonable.
>Thank you, triplanetary, for dealing with that massive mess of bullshit, convenient lies and cowardice.
>"Men are the privileged group here, women the oppressed."—TrianythingYeah . . . women that frequent clubs, drink overpriced cocktails, drive nice vehicles, get managerial jobs galore, and still complain about the toliet seat being up and how there are "no good men out there" are so oppressed. Must be fun to wallow in fear from your ivory tower vintage point.
>Yeah . . . women that frequent clubs, drink overpriced cocktails, drive nice vehicles, get managerial jobs galore, and still complain about the toliet seat being up and how there are "no good men out there" are so oppressed.Um, I don't really see the purpose of arguing about whether this tiny minority of women is oppressed. Your description is bizarrely specific and I suspect it wraps together a lot of different sources of bitterness lurking in your psyche.Yikes.
>"Your description is bizarrely specific and I suspect it wraps together a lot of different sources of bitterness lurking in your psyche."–TrianythingBitterness lurking in *my* psyche? Look who's talking—the "MRAs are pieces of shit" and "men are privileged" rant and raver. Holy shit.That "tiny minority" actually is more than you think. Get out of your cramped academic cubical you inhibit and get your nose out of feminist textbooks to look around you. Women are more favored than men in this culture, and if you think otherwise you are insane—and not worth talking to as well, either.
>"Inhibit"—I meant "inhabit." Oh, well.
>Look, if you think a lot of women are like Sex and the City characters, it's no wonder you're a misogynist. It's possible your description fits a fair number of upper-class women, what with the "overpriced cocktails" and "nice vehicles." Pretending that the upper-class way of life is the norm, and that the proles basically don't exist, is a common bit of classist myopia. MRAs' upper-class bias has always been evident, especially when they rant about how women all want to be housewives.I tend to avoid upper-class people in general, and I don't meet a lot of women like the ones you describe. Given that the upper class is a minority of the population, I don't think I'm the one in the narrow-minded bubble here, wytch.
Girlscientist stated that: “Most people, man or woman, marry within their socioeconomic class. If you looked around you, you would see that fact confirmed in most of the couples of your acquaintance. If someone (man or woman) had married up, they would be noticeable because they’re the exception.”
Even though most people do marry within their socioeconomic class, most women still marry men who earn more money. Let’s say the lower middle class income ranges from $30,000 to $60,000. A woman earning $30,000 who marries a man earning $60,000 would technically be marrying within her socioeconomic class, even though her earnings are nowhere close to his income level. I see it all the time. Female teachers earning 40k who are married to male engineers earning 70k. Female nurses earning 50k married to male IT professionals earning 80k. Female secretaries earning 20k married to male truck drivers earning 40k. This is what men see on a regular basis. So we aren’t buying the “women aren’t hypergamous” crap.
I have met many married people in my life, as I’m sure you have as well. I have only met one woman who married a man that earned less money, and it was only by a few thousand dollars. I’m sure you have had roughly the same experience with couples you know, even though I doubt you would willingly make that admission, as it would be detrimental to your post. I am willing to bet that most men and women commenting on this board know more married couples in which the husband earns more than his wife.
Census reports show that only about 1/4 of married women earn more than their husbands. However, these reports don’t show if these women were earning more than their husbands on their wedding day. Women usually marry men that have greater incomes, and then go back to school and/or advance their careers while they are married, thus resulting in their income surpassing their husbands. So the census numbers are misleading.
Feminism has given women economic and academic equality, and then some. Unfortunately, some women are starting to see the downside of equality, as it has lowered their options of available men.
I assume you are a scientist or potential scientist in college. I am also assuming you are single. Assuming you want to get married in the future, I seriously doubt you will marry a man who earns less than you, but is still within your socioeconomic class. You will succomb to biology, as most women and feminists have, and choose a mate who earns more than you. Whether it be $300 or $30,000, you will most likely subconsciously give-in to nature. All while telling yourself that you married your equal.
With more women graduating college than men, female hypergamy cannot sustain itself for much longer. Women who have a piece of feminist cake are starting to realize that they cannot all eat it, too. Either women will have to start marrying down, or they will remain single, and in some cases, childless.
Dan Conner: citation needed, yours is the typical paranoid argument against women emancipation, maybe you use the cases you know of “marrying up”, to confirm to yourself what you read of hypergamy. The question is do men like you use the idea of hypergamy to control the women or you think yourself women were controlled to prevent hypergamy, which is very not exact. They were controlled so that they have to marry because of necessity to sustain themselves.
“Either women will have to start marrying down, or they will remain single, and in some cases, childless.”
They start and already started marrying “down”, it’s a minority of course because women earn less statistically for many reasons (in turn debated by mras and manosphere, all of which insighted in this site), not because hypergamy.
First, they won’t grant women equal pay for equal work, resulting in women earning 79¢ on the male dollar.
Then, when inevitably in a majority of hetero couples the male partner earns more money, they accuse women of hypergamy.
I find it interesting that this very old thread was necro’d by a guy who named himself after John Goldman’s character in “Roseanne”.