>
Recently, “game” guru Roissy offered his readers a list of “Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl.” Most were fairly standard pick up artist tricks of the “act like an aloof jerk and she’ll worship you” variety. According to Roissy, though, these little tricks will miraculously enable guys
to date women one to three points higher than you could be expected to get by societal standards. Do these to a girlfriend and you will be a god to her. A god among penii.
A few examples:
Don’t call back right away. Done properly, you will start to hear girls say things like “I didn’t hear back from you. You were making me nervous!”
Don’t live together. It’s much harder to project mystery living under the same roof, watching each other fold laundry every week. (Not to mention side action will be more difficult to coordinate.)
Cancel dates. (Make the reason seem apparently legitimate, but suspicious.)
Muse wistfully about past lovers.Never do her a favor before you’ve had sex with her.
Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny. If you must, chuckle under your breath.
When at her place, eat all her food, leave the seat up, change her TV channels, and torture her cat. Act like it’s your second home.
Bo-ring. These tricks may have worked on women once upon a time, but today’s women are far too sophisticated to fall for these tired old ruses . If you really want to score with the hot babes of today, you’ve got to kick your game up a notch — or three. To help, I have come up with some “New and Improved Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl.”
Wear a banana peel on your head like a hat. This will help to create an aura of “mystery” around yourself, as well as a lovely banana-y scent that will follow you everywhere.
Poke her nose playfully after sex and say, in a cheerful voice, “Hitler was right about you!” She will ponder this one for days.
Never laugh at her jokes. Instead, fall to the floor and begin singing “Rock Me Amadeus.”
Go out on “dates” with imaginary people. Introduce her to these people, and slyly suggest a “threesome.” (Or a “foursome,” if you are dating two imaginary people at the same time.)
Muse wistfully about butter.
Don’t buy her gifts. Instead, sneak clumps of dirt into her lingerie drawer.
Never call her back right away. Instead, hide under her bed and make low moaning sounds.
If you end up in an argument with her, shout out “mom always loved you better!” Then set her couch on fire.
Don’t move in with her. Instead, move into the apartment above hers, and watch her through tiny holes drilled in the floor.
When at her place, eat her cat, torture her TV, and replace her toilet with a sack of potatoes. Act like Meryl Streep in Sophie’s Choice, including the accent.
Go forth, my young apprentices, and score like never before!
—
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.
![In which I get an email from Women Against Feminism [CORRECTION: THE EMAIL WAS FROM A COPYCAT SITE]](https://i0.wp.com/wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/56179-cat-on-keyboard-typing-gif-hi43.gif?resize=50%2C50&ssl=1)
>Also, this bit: Since no one with any brains (according to your lights) could possibly believe that anything about your favorite political groups or stances is fucked up or incorrect, you don't have to actually, you know, deal with any argumentsActually, very few of the things I write about have arguments, per se. How do you "refute" something like "Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny." And many of the rest are not arguments, in the sense that they are logical and supported by actual evidence. Most are collections of dubious assertions based on some really bizarre assumptions about both women and men. Like, for example, the majority of your comments in this topic.
>Now, imagine at that point some lady … decided I'd make good "provider" material.I'm sorry, I'm trying, but I just can't imagine that. It's far too implausible.
>"Here's another ugly truth for you. Women generally get hit harder by aging then men." I absolutely disagree and I date people of all genders. There are far more forty year old women that I find attractive than forty year old men that I find attractive. Oh, and, btw, both my mother and grandmother had children over forty without any artificial medical procedures. You do know that menopause most commonly occurs at age 51, right? Most women are still fertile in their thirties and many women are still fertile in their early forties. Here's some fun stats"At age 30, 75% will get pregnant within one year. At age 35, 66% will get pregnant. At age 40, 44% will get pregnant. Within four years after trying to conceive naturally: 91% of 30-year-olds will be successful. 84% of 35-year-olds will. 64% of 40-year-olds will."(from a study by French Institute of Health and Medical Research).On another fun note, average age of first marriage in the US for fathers was 25 (as of 1996, the last major study, which found that average age of first marriage for mothers was 23). Maybe if you hadn't been such a career bitch and married and started baby making in your mid twenties, you would not have to worry about ending up childless because women your age were less fertile (despite the fact that the majority of women are pretty much fully fertile at 30).
>The younger the woman is the more health problems she faces. Physically the best age for her to have a kid is 34 while for the baby, the best age is 32. Your 21 year old is not good for your long term prospects of having a healthy child and spouse.But then it is not about her anyway-just you and your needs.
>Wow:A bunch of deniers here. I guess I'll have to link to some, you know, actual science. Linky1 mygoodnesslink2 And a quote from link below: "Middle reproductive stageApproximate age: 20 to 38Hormone levels: Your FSH and estrogen are within normal range (you might want to get a baseline test at around age 35).Characteristics: Your menstrual cycles should be regular throughout this stage. One percent of the female population, however, experiences menopause before the age of 40, where FSH levels prematurely increase and menstrual cycles stop.Fertility issues: This is the longest of all the stages. It's actually broken into three segments. The first seven years are your peak fertility time; the next third marks your first slight fertility decline, followed by the beginning of your second fertility decline, around age 35. (The sharpest statistical drop in fertility, however, occurs at the age of 45, according to the US Census Bureau.) " Linky3 Tsk, facts are so easy to put in the way of a good narrative, aren't they? Peak reproductive age for females is 20 to 27, or I've seen a few sources say 16 to 26. Pregnancy complications due to being "too young" tend to hit teen girls under ages 15 or 16. And I don't know what Elizabeth is smoking to think that 34 is physically the "best age" for her to have a kid. Want to back that up with a link, Elizabeth? Do you really think I didn't research this stuff?I'm under no obligation to make "older gals" feel better by being attracted to them, pretending their fertility is equal to younger ones, or any of that crap. Treat me as basically a sexual non-entity for years when I was younger and see how I turn it back on you when I'm the one being pursued, and your looks are fading. Besides, simply because I'm man doesn't mean I think aging is no problem with for me. My best chance for a kid is with a younger woman.
>Dude, if the 21-year-old girls of yesteryear wanted nothing to do with you when you were younger, what makes you thing the 21-year-old girls of today are going to want you now that you're old?
>David, David, David:It's obvious you didn't read Barry's post on Consad. Not only did he misrepresent it, but commenter "ballgame" from Feminist Critics totally schooled him in the comments thread. Barry DID promise to get back to it, but he never did, and it's been something like 3 or 4 months now.When I want a site which deconstructs bad statistics on both "feminist" and MRA sites I go to Feminist Critics, and some of the bad feminist statistics they deconstruct the most are those relating to the so-called "wage gap", which gets less and less the more variables you analyze. Of course this isn't surprising you really think that AAUW and most of the other feminist groups which put out these reports are disinterested scientific observers?
>speeedlines you silly fool:Because I'm dating them at times. :)Besides, I specifically did not rule out women up to 32, nor did I rule out sex with women up to like 45 or so. But the fact that I have any "age related preferences" at all, just makes some feminists and regular females soooooo mad. You mean we can't ride the "cock carousel" for years when we are young and expect 30 plus guys or guys of any age who learn game to want anything to do with our old asses? Poor things. I'd almost feel sorry for them, if they showed some of that "character" they supposedly acquired over the years when following their vag tingles.
>I divorce her. Really simple, right? Unless she wises up and divorces you first. But do you really want to bring kids into the mix? I mean, pregnancy tends to make women gain weight, which can be difficult to lose after the fact. Do you really want to have to explain to your kids that you kicked their mom to the curb for violating the "no fat chicks" rule? Could be awkward.
>So your evidence is…not contradicting my point.
>dating =/= marryingI'm just sayin.
>Elizabeth:Besides calling me a bunch of names and making a claim that you failed to back up, AND I've never seen anywhere ("physically the best age for a mother's health to have a baby is 34..right), I really don't get what your point is supposed to be. Do you know what your point is?
>How do you "refute" something like "Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny." I dunno. A good refutation would be something along the lines of, "Actually, this evidence suggests that laughing at a girl's jokes will actually help you get laid!" I'm not saying this to be snarky or anything–far be it from me to be a gratuitous guest, especially after so long–just saying there are convincing refutations you could give, but aren't. :/And many of the rest are not arguments, in the sense that they are logical and supported by actual evidence. Most are collections of dubious assertions based on some really bizarre assumptions about both women and men.Actually, they're assertions based on a sizable degree of personal experiences with women and assumptions based largely on evolutionary biology, at least in Roissy's case. You could argue that such assumptions are scientifically flawed or based on shabby evidence (which IMO is arguably true), but you haven't, as far as I know. Again, not trying to be snarky or anything, just saying there are more convincing ways to rebut these ideas instead of just pointing and laughing.BTW, Clarence, no offense, but frankly, if a desire to "pass on your genes" is what's animating you, why are you even bothering with "young, fertile" women? If you've got enough money you can just get a surrogate mother to accept your sperm and carry a kid to term for you. Look up "the Rotunda clinic," for instance. This is what a lot of MGTOW guys recommend, at least until their artificial wombs and/or sexbots are perfected and they can live without women forever! Now, I assume you're not a MGTOW, judging by the fact that you seem to be looking for a relationship, but I'm just sayin', and again, genuinely not trollin', it seems there are probably more efficient methods out there for a guy like you to spread his genes.
>Captain Bathrobe:It's ok for the lady to gain 5 or 10 pounds while pregnant and EVEN PERMANENTLY keep that on. I'm not some fascistic pig about this. But you'd be surprised how many women think "I'm married now, I'm not as attracted to hubby, and I'm not on the market so I can just let myself go" more or less. Remember, I'm being asked to consider a "cat" who used to be a "kitten". I didn't get her at her peak fertility OR peak looks, and she's aging. I'd like to enjoy boning my wife for a good 15 or 20 years, so I don't think its unreasonable of me to ask that she not hit "double chin" territory especially since I'm willing to do MY part and keep myself in shape. At near 40, I want to be in some sort of shape to play ball with Junior in 10 to 15 years and if she IS younger than me, I'd like to be able to have the stamina and looks she requires.Am I being so unreasonable?
>thevagrantsvoice:I've actually considered that, but in that case I'd rather not get married at all. No need to risk so much when I won't even have a bio mom for my child?
>So then don't get married and Go Your Own Way like the guys at Happybachelors or wherever. In that case, you can stop bothering with Roissy and Game and whatever as well. Just go out and "spread your genes" with the Rotunda clinic. If you can do that, why do you feel the need to defend Game/your preference for "fertile" women if surrogate mother technology has essentially rendered female fertility irrelevant for your purposes?
>thevagrantsvoice:Because I think a child is better off raised with two parents -best a man, and a woman, and because I want to marry the mother of my child. Maybe I'm romantic that way.
>Clarence,So, if she gains, say, 20 lbs., then it's off to divorce court? Where do you draw the line?
>Fair enough. Two things to consider, then:A: Remember, "bearing" a child is very different from "raising" one, and a 21 year old who's good at the former may not be good at the latter. An older, wiser, 30 year old, on the other hand, might be less likely to do stupid crap, like drinking while pregnant or neglecting to feed or clean the baby in lieu of watching Sex and the City reruns, that a 20 year old might do.And B: I want to marry the mother of my child. Maybe I'm romantic that way. I would say you are indeed romantic, and I mean that as a compliment. I have to ask, though, isn't that in contradiction with your acceptance of Pick-Up artistry? The inescapable conclusion that PUA adherents must inevitably accept (and this is what makes them similar to MRAs) is that women are biologically and immutably inferior to men in all respects, mental and physical. They're stupid, amoral children–or, as one commenter at the Chateau put it, "walking incubators." As Roissy himself implied, how could you have any respect for a gender that responds sexually to negs? So in that respect, why, exactly, would you want to marry the "mother of your child?" She–just like your mother, and like all woman–is a stupid, amoral child that shouldn't be trusted with anything, including raising an actual child.Heck, the fact that you want to get married *at all* seems to indicate, to me, even you don't really believe Roissy's PUA advice is all it's cracked up to be.
>Captain Bathrobe:If she gained 20 pounds during pregnancy that's one thing. I might still accept that, luckily I've heard (omg, I don't have any research) that gaining 20 pounds during pregnancy is not the norm, though its not unheard of.I was talking about her getting lazy and then gaining 50 pounds and refusing to lose it because that would be effort, and she doesn't have to, not weight gain during pregnancy or her getting in an accident or cancer or something and being stuck in a hospital bed and gaining weight that way. That becomes "in sickness and in health" and that gives her an excuse.Presumably if she has the uber entitled married woman's disease she'll display that before I knock her up, and I could dump her with little regret. As a mom (partly out of respect, and partly due to the kid) she gets much more leeway, but we'd still have an issue if she ended up looking like Rosie O' Donnell. In that case, I'd divorce early when it would do less damage to the kid and I'd try to stay in his or her life IF she'd let me. She could go pursue other options if anyone wanted her.
>Clarence, you could try actually reading some of the reports I cite in my wage gap post. For example, it doesn't matter what the ideology of the AAUW is; their report is an empirical one based on Census data. I was also unaware that the Government Accountability Office was a feminist group. As for CONSAD, I will have to look again at the report to see if Ballgame's critique is valid. Even if it is, that doesn't affect Barry's main critique, that the CONSAD report basically suggests that things like occupational segregation of women into lesser-paying jobs counts as female "choice' and thus doesn't reflect sexism. As Barry put it:Ballgame’s big mistake is assuming that sexism in the wage gap (if it exists at all, which he denies) is entirely a matter of women being paid less than men for identical jobs. But most economists who study the wage gap believe that it’s caused, to a significant extent, by occupational segregation, which means women and men are sorted by the market into different jobs – and the women’s jobs, on average, pay less.This is an issue taken up in more detail in several of the other pieces I linked to in my wage gap post.
>thevagrantsvoice:Have you even been following this thread? Did you miss the part where I said that Roissy is not the be-all and end-all of PUA?No, not all women are the same. Women, like men fall on a spectrum of personality traits with some overlap. The differences between the sexes are mostly differences of means and averages. Some women (a minority) can have sex like a man and apparently still pair bond. Why? I don't know. Some women are immune to most PUA techniques (no woman is immune to them all) some women prefer geeks over jocks. Some young women are wise, or just have families with wisdom to guide them and can find a young man like my brother was. Roissy's tips and assertions are all a matter of statistical averages and particular kinds of environments, such as clubs. He is right about some really ugly things, but even then it's "on average". I disagree with him on some things and are almost 100 percent sure he's wrong on those things.I also love how you try to conflate all MRA's with the ones you see quoted on this site, some of which ONLY have one or two arguably bad attitudes, others of whom are downright misogynists. Yet you'll note there is little mention of Warren Farrell or Glenn Sacks on this site, yet they are most assuredly MRA's. Meanwhile, if I pointed out that many feminists say similarly ugly things, and many of these ugly assertions and types of bigotries get codified into actual LAWS (Do you want some links?)and policies and propaganda, er "education" campaigns, I'm sure you'd complain and moan as if the MRA's and PUA's all got their attitudes in a vacuum.No, not every PUA or every MRA believes women are vacuous children, though few believe women are shining paragons of angelic light either. So lay off it. Do you really think I'd want to date or have a relationship or consider modern "marriage" to a creature I hated and thought was guaranteed to mess me over? Heck, if I hate a lady enough for doing me a wrong (thankfully this has rarely happened in my life) I'd rather not even have sex with her no matter how attractive she is. Really unpleasant , combative women aren't even good for one night stands.
>David:Yes, Barry claimed that ballgame and Consad claimed that but they don't. Thus Barry misrepresented things. Like I said, check out that comment thread. Most of the studies Barry and you cite were cited in the Consad report. It was what is called a "meta- analysis".As for occupational segregation to the extent that exists I'll fully agree to getting more women in the CEO chair, if you work at getting more women into the coal mine.
>Did you miss the part where I said that Roissy is not the be-all and end-all of PUA?Nope. Problem is, he's close to it. Even you admit that there's not a single woman out there who's completely immune to this PUA stuff. Women may exist on a "spectrum," but if there's any truth to Pick-Up Artistry, it's a pretty wretched spectrum anyways. What's the point of even bothering with any of them, then?And if you're talking about "averages," well then, older women are only less fertile "on average." If you want to find a young lady who's not as amoral and stupid as PUA holds women to be "on average," you might as well try your luck finding an older lady who's more fertile than to be expected "on average" too.I also love how you try to conflate all MRA's with the ones you see quoted on this site, some of which ONLY have one or two arguably bad attitudes, others of whom are downright misogynists.Not All MRAs Are Like That. Problem is, most are. If you'd like to argue they're not–and again, genuinely not trolling–I would really, *really* like to hear more names than Sacks and Farrell. Because as far as I can tell, for every Farrell or Sacks in the MRM, you can find twenty bitter MGTOWers or wanna-be Sodinis on the comments section of any given MRM blog *alone.*I'm sure you'd complain and moan as if the MRA's and PUA's all got their attitudes in a vacuum.Nope. I hate feminism as much as I hate much of the MRA ideology, and in fact consider them mirror images of the other. I suppose you can credit our gracious host for this. I beg his forgiveness for being blunt, but when I first came here I was mildly sympathetic to the Men's Rights Movement while still having a degree of respect for feminism. Now, though, I despise both. I suppose he can take credit for dragging a potential MRA away from their side, but then again, considering he describes himself as a "feminist," perhaps creating a new enemy for his side wasn't exactly his intent. Oh well.Do you really think I'd want to date or have a relationship or consider modern "marriage" to a creature I hated and thought was guaranteed to mess me over?Nope, which is why I recommended you to Go Your Own Way like the other guys and get a surrogate mother if you really need to spread your genes that badly. The fact that you're still romantic enough to even consider marriage or any kind of relationship with a woman at all indicates, IMO, that you're probably too romantic to really have much business with PUA/the MRM in the first place.
>Clarence:OK, 50 lbs. without a good reason and Fatty-Fatty-Fat-Fats, the mother of your children, is history–maybe a little more leeway out of respect for her or concern for the kids. Got it. Would you include that stipulation in a pre-nup or let her find out the hard way?
>DarkCat“There are far more forty year old women that I find attractive than forty year old men that I find attractive.”I agree with this. I’m bi-sexual and not only do I encounter more men 35-45 that haven’t aged well and don’t put in any effort toward their appearance/otherwise than women, but they tend to be shallow and have the same bitterly condescending, immature attitude as Clarence. I’m not here to validate you or enable the weakness you’ve refused to overcome and now use half-ass evo-psych explanations to rationalize. Heck, even guys my age and younger hook up with and date older women.If I wanted a baby (which I don’t) I wouldn’t go for a guy that age, either. Younger sperm is better for a healthier baby and a younger man has the strength and energy to be a more significant part of the child’s life.Clarence -“Not only did he misrepresent it, but commenter "ballgame" from Feminist Critics totally schooled him in the comments thread. Barry DID promise to get back to it, but he never did, and it's been something like 3 or 4 months now.”Schooled? I wouldn’t say that, though maybe it’s because I think it’s cute that FC tries so hard to manipulate people into thinking that, assuming the CONSAD report is accurate, the 5% difference is inconsequential. Not to mention occupational gender segregation, but a favorite tactic of the FC types is to focus on numerous meaningless details to distract from the overall picture (“nothing to see here!”). That and whereas it doesn’t occur much now, FC regulars and bloggers were routinely destroyed on Alas. That was usually followed by running back to FC and complaining about the meanie feminists.“When I want a site which deconstructs bad statistics on both "feminist" and MRA sites I go to Feminist Critics”That explains a lot. I stopped reading Feminist Critics after it became apparent they have nothing to offer except an inability to see the forest for the trees, a tendency to misrepresent everything you say, and then a platform for the so-called unlucky in love guys to whine about how oppressed they are because women aren’t obligated to participate in pick-up culture. And any forum that doesn’t school some poor soul on the silly notion that wearing eye-liner is the same as telling calculated lies is a hack forum.
>Clarence, the argument ballgame had with Barry had to do with part-time vs full time workers. Not what I was talking about. The whole point of the CONSAD report — which has a clearly ideological tone, and was commissioned by the Bush administration — is to dismiss much of the wage gap as the result of "choics." Indeed, the intro to the report claims this:The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers. But the report doesn't actually show this.
>Not to spoil anyone's party, but I don't really see why a bisexual woman's opinions on female attractiveness would mean much–if anything–to a straight man. The fact that you seem to have different tastes or standards of attractiveness doesn't really tell us what we don't already know. By that token, the fact that you apparently like older women is utterly meaningless to us. I don't know what you girls look for in women, but since guys like smooth skin, pert breasts, etc. perhaps it's understandable why some, like Clarence, may not be as enthusiastic for the older ladies, at least not in general.Heck, even guys my age and younger hook up with and date older women.No offense, but one might argue that most of the young guys you know are simply desperate. No more, no less. I do agree with you when it comes to older fathers, though. They say women age like milk while men age like wine, but there aren't many 60 year old men who'll say they're as attentive, energetic, and strong as they were back when they were 20. In that respect, maybe men don't have it that great after all…though perhaps they still have it better than women.
>CinamonCW:Basic logic escapes you.For one, the CONSAD report put it at a 5 percent difference, but it might be less than that, it might even disappear entirely if one was to take all variables into account, which even CONSAD never claimed to do.Forest for the trees? When you can't even handle basic statistics or logic? This tells me you are either uneducated in mathematics and statistical modeling/interpretation or you are being a deliberate liar. Neither of which looks good for you. Besides, you know as well as I do that even if CONSAD was 100 percent accurate (which it isn't as explained above) feminists (including Barry!) are still claiming it's over 10 percent, with most still using a "women only earn 75 cents per dollar compared to man". You can find that one all over the web and in reports released to this day.Call me a liar. I dare you.Now, I suggest you learn something about basic statistics or learn how to argue without lying.
>It's quite amusing. Every now and again the genteel facade slips, and we're treated to a glimpse of the seething rage within.
>David:Unless you can show CONSAD misusing the reports it analyzed (which so far no one has apparently done, though you'd think they would have tried), CONSAD, as a meta-analysis , should be more definitive than any of the studies that make it up.By the way, do you really want to quote ballgame's post, as I feel you've made a total mess of what his disagreement with Amp was, or will you perhaps go back and actually READ ballgames comment (it's just a little bit after comment #30 in that thread) and give me a more accurate and perhaps less sleepy argument against it? (I'm being fair here, and assuming you were just tired and didn't actually read through the thread but merely Amp's opening remarks) I mean, assuming you can. I do note that as I said, to this day Amp hasn't responded to it, either to refute or deny it.
>I should also point out that complaining about the Bush administrations ideological bias is rich when most of one's own "research" is by advocacy organizations that long ago shot the arrows of their credibility. It's not like CONSAD is the only report to ever come out that disputes a "wage" gap at more than "white noise" levels when all relevant factors are taken into account. Indeed, the more one tries to factor things in on one's own, the smaller the so-called "gap" becomes. Honestly, after 14 plus years of checking into this stuff and debating it on the web, I don't even believe a wage gap exists. Certainly no one has ever found a "smoking gun", nor do feminists ever point to companies that somehow end up paying male and female workers differing amounts of money for the same job.
>Lilly Ledbetter?
>Clarence, I'm not arguing with the data in the CONSAD report; I'm arguing with their interpretation of this dats. Here's what the report says: Extant economic research has identified numerous factors that contribute to the gender wage gap. Many of the factors relate to differences in the choices and behavior of women and men in balancing their work, personal, and family lives. These factors include, most notably, the occupations and industries in which they work, and their human capital development, work experience, career interruptions, and motherhood. Other factors are sources of wage adjustments that compensate specific groups of workers for benefits or duties that disproportionately impact them. Such factors for which empirical evidence has been developed include health insurance, other fringe benefits, and overtime work. It is not possible to produce a reliable quantitative estimate of the aggregate portion of the raw gender wage gap for which the explanatory factors that have been identified account. Nevertheless, it can confidently be concluded that, collectively, those factors account for a major portion and, possibly, almost all of the raw gender wage gap.They are claiming that things like gender differences in occupation are the result of individual choices, so therefore they assume that differences based on this (which contribute to the "raw gender wage gap" aren't the result of sexism. In fact, differences in occupation may be the result of occupational segregation — that is to say, rooted in sexism. They've simply dismissed this issue by waving their hands and saying "choice." This is one of Barry's key points in his post, and, as I said before, is discussed in a number of the articles I cite in my post. Again, I suggest you read some of them. The studies I cite that provide data all derive from govt sources (the GAO, the Census). The feminist articles I cite in the post offer INTERPRETATIONS of that data. I don't actually claim anywhere in my post that the "raw" gender gap is an accurate measure of discrimination. But I think the CONSAD report exaggerates the amount of the gap that is the result of simple "choices."
>David:It's rather late, but I will say one thing you seem to have forgotten and then depart for most likely 12 hours or so:There may be no "gap" to be explained. And that's the whole point. Like I said, the more this is analyzed the smaller the "gap" becomes. And thus, it doesn't really matter why men and women segregate into different careers, or at least it doesn't matter to women anymore than to men. After all, men do the vast majority of dangerous and uncomfortable work in most sectors of the economy and as I said: you want more women in the boardroom ( a place very few males get to) then I want more females in the coal mines.
>Clarence: I was beginning to warm to you several hundred posts ago. I was also beginning to wonder if I had been wrong about the amusingly-named Dark Lord and his teachings. However, I am now beginning to remember why I took such a violent dislike to the keyboard jockey extraordinaire and his bootlicking minions to begin with.For one thing, your obsession with women's ages is ridiculous. There are women of my acquaintance who are startlingly beautiful in their early forties. There are women of my acquaintance who are plain and overweight at twenty-one. I do not think I am being controversial to claim that Nigella Lawson is significantly more attractive than Kelly Osborne. Or that driving a vintage Jaguar will gain you considerably more kudos than driving a showroom-new Ford Focus. This is not to say that there are not also strikingly beautiful twenty-one year old women and plain, overweight forty year olds. It is simply to say that your sweeping generalisations are annoying and banal. As is your odd perception that men age like fine wines, accruing the sly weapons of devastating sexual attraction as the ageing process accelerates. Some of us simply acquire large sums of money. Others acquire the ability to emotionally manipulate naive teenagers who have yet to learn how to identify a wrong 'un. Neither of these things should be mistaken for 'sex appeal.' Incidentally, a woman who is 'in shape' in her early twenties may well let herself go in grand and spectacular style. A woman who is 'in shape' in her mid-thirties is very, very unlikely to. Finally, an observation from my own life and experience. The happiest men I know are those who have sought out partners at their own age and attractiveness level. The unhappiest men I know are those who have not. Make of this what you will.
>"I'll fully agree to getting more women in the CEO chair, if you work at getting more women into the coal mine."Let's get more men walking the streets as prostitutes, if you want to talk about jobs that are brutally ill-paid and subject to violence.
>Thevagrantsvoice:Why does it have to mean anything to straight men? We’re talking about aging.“By that token, the fact that you apparently like older women is utterly meaningless to us. I don't know what you girls look for in women, but since guys like smooth skin, pert breasts, etc. perhaps it's understandable why some, like Clarence, may not be as enthusiastic for the older ladies, at least not in general.”As opposed to queer and straight women, that prefers blemished skin and saggy parts? But since you mentioned it, a lot of men like big breasts. Depending on what you consider “pert,” D’s or DD’s may not fall into that category even if they don’t actually sag.At any rate, I didn’t even say I preferred older women perse. I just said that when choosing between older women and older men, older women generally win based on aging better and having a better attitude.“No offense, but one might argue that most of the young guys you know are simply desperate. No more, no less”Yes, that’s what I’d argue to make myself feel better if that wasn’t something I wanted to hear, too. But I’m glad you brought that up, actually. One of the young men is actually a 6’2, muscular guy that fronts a band. He has a huge personality and many tattoos; he knows people everywhere he goes and has connections. There is always a couple women completely taken by him; I wouldn’t exactly call him desperate for attention or sex. What else may he be desperate for? It sounded to me like guys such as Clarence are desperate for something.Another one is a “work hard, party hard” type that has had a couple long-term relationships. He’s had his own place since he was out of high school (works with computers) where he’s semi-regularly held parties. Again, I can’t think of any area where he’d be desperate; he’s actually been called a player.Both of these guys are well-hung, btw.“They say women age like milk while men age like wine,”Of course they say that! But I like cheesecake more than vinegar, honey. Clarence is vinegar. The dark-haired beauty with the big smile and leather jacket is cheesecake.“Basic logic escapes you.” This better be good …“For one, the CONSAD report put it at a 5 percent difference, but it might be less than that, it might even disappear entirely if one was to take all variables into account, which even CONSAD never claimed to do.”My god you have a knack for saying a whole lot of nothing, don’t you?I know CONSAD put the difference at 5%; that’s the report FC used when they dismissed any meaning to a 5% difference. I’m going to go ahead and skip over the rest because it’s just speculative and misses the issue that goes to my larger critique of FC anyway.“Forest for the trees? When you can't even handle basic statistics or logic? This tells me you are either uneducated in mathematics and statistical modeling/interpretation or you are being a deliberate liar. Neither of which looks good for you.”Calm down, sweetie. I know it makes you feel better about yourself to draw bizarre conclusions from words people say that do not support them, but you’re going to give yourself a heart attack. That’s a big risk for guys your age.
>I notice that Clarence complains that young women don't give men like himself when he was young, or his cousin, the time of day. Now he thinks he should be dating them and they are more attracted to him.No insight into the connection!As a youth he's competing with the Clarence of today. And he's the one causing young men to be bitter, by fishing in their pond, and giving young women reason to become cynical about men.Nothing new here, of course. It's not like older creeps picking up young girls just started with the PUA movement.Guys like Clarence and his nephew (who had a two-year relationship (let me guess, it spanned 2008 and 2009) with a "redheaded hottie" but hey, that's over, isn't it? that's his entire claim to sexual fame?) say are just not attractive to women until they get older … and that may mean, when they become craftier and learn ways to prey on younger women who don't have their defenses fully formed yet.Don't flatter yourself by thinking this means I'm jealous. I don't want guys like that paying attention to me. Didn't like it when I was young, even if I couldn't figure out exactly why they were bogus then; don't like it now, when I can see the strings.
>You know, I have to wonder–genuinely not trolling here–but looking over this discussion, why are guys like clarence, who go for younger girls, "creepy," while the older women who manage to capture the attention of younger guys aren't? If you say folks like Clarence are "preying on girls who haven't learned to 'defend' themselves,' why aren't your older female friends 'preying on young guys who haven't learned to defend themselves?'Again, genuinely not trolling here, I'm curious as to why Clarence would deserve condemnation for pursuing younger girls while an older woman wouldn't for pursuing younger guys.Full disclosure: I actually like older women. While I won't divulge too much of my personal life here (I don't want to be uncouth or ungentlemanly) suffice it to say I've little issue with courting their affections. However, I'm not really in the market for a relationship at the moment, much less marriage. If Clarence feels differently, so what? IMO, as I said above, it's a much more telling critique to mention that if you want kids, a surrogate mother can serve just as well as most 'young girls' you can find.
>“If you say folks like Clarence are "preying on girls who haven't learned to 'defend' themselves,' why aren't your older female friends 'preying on young guys who haven't learned to defend themselves?'”This is a bit of a strawman. He’s made his bitterness and immaturity very clear, almost unapologetically. That isn’t inherent to older men that like younger women, it is just an obvious factor with Clarence. He can’t handle a woman that knows better and that is easier to find in younger women.If an older woman came in with the same attitude, it’d be no different. But this isn’t the case, is it? In fact I made it clear the older women I encounter are quite self-aware and mature.
>FWIW, I know several 40-something women who've tried online dating and quickly found themselves beseiged with messages from guys in their 20s and younger; they were not interested. Indeed, one of them (who I believe was 49 at the time) ended up writing a sort of motherly note to one 18 or 19 year old who'd written her, warning him that any fortysomething woman who was willing to get with him probably had a screw loose. I don't think age differences are that big a deal, but generally speaking the half-your-age-plus-seven rule is probably a good guide to the outer limit of what is healthy and what is exploitative. 40-something men — or women — going after 21 year olds is a bit creepy.
>When what you want is someone interesting, and you find out that the interesting person is older or younger than you, or from another country, or otherwise "different," no problem.When what you want is someone older or younger than you, or from another country,k or otherwise "different," so you can gain a particular advantage over them (or think this will give you an advantage)? Problem.
>And when what you want is someone older or younger than you, or from another country, or otherwise "different," because you think choosing them is somehow going to punish those people of your own age and country, that's just all kinds of screwed up.
>Thevagrantsvoice:To answer your question, I think it has to do with the approach. Are older women seeking out younger men or are younger men (as David's anecdote indicates) seeking out older women? And if it's the older person seeking out the younger, why are they doing that? This all will lead you to figure out why one is creepier than the other. If I had to give an answer, I'd say that generally it's because IN GENERAL the motivations of the older men are to exploit the naivete of the young woman, while the older woman is usually just seeking a good time with a younger man. She's older and probably pays for dinner, but she's not seeking the power differential that the older man is seeking.Now, anecdote: The men aren't always just seeking power. A girl in my class was rumored to be dating her coach (my teacher). She was 16 or 17. Some years ago, I found out they got married. Creepy? Kind of. But obviously he wasn't seeking to exploit his position of authority. Not like the band teacher, the geography teacher, the art teacher, the French teacher, the principal … list goes on … in my jr. and high schools, who were reprimanded or who left because they were being inappropriate with female students. One or two may have been seeking genuine romance, but the rest were just trying to feel up pre/teens and exploit the power differential.It's all about the motives. People who want to use + people who are less aware of being used = creepy. From my own vast experience on the internet over the last 12 or 13 years, I know that older guys will say just about ANYTHING if they think a young woman will bite. I've always been a way cynical person, so I never bit. And then the guys would get really angry and frustrated, and accuse me of being an older man PRETENDING to be a young woman, because I wasn't all naive and stupid, and I spelled too well. Then they can tug out the other mind game–the, "Well, if you aren't a man then go on cam and show me!" (Yeah, go jump off a bridge.) I'm sure that works for someone. Not me. So there you go. I'm sure this is a bit rambly, but I can't stop thinking about my horrible heartburn. The front of my brain is going, "AGGGHBURNING DEATH" and the rest of it is trying to type out this answer.
>Captain Bathrobe said… "It's quite amusing. Every now and again the genteel facade slips, and we're treated to a glimpse of the seething rage within."With many feminists I've encountered, they practically wear it on their sleeve. And they are even proud of it. It's interesting—as much as David himself is pro-feminist, even he will mention something when another feminist crosses the line too much. That's actually very uncommon, because feminist anger is perceived to be righteous and justified.
>Dude, I was laughing so hard that I had tears. Have I ever mentioned that I love this blog? Best place to satisfy my cravings for snarkiness.
>Clarence: You expect your future hypothetical wife to put on between 5 and 10 lbs during pregnancy? Five pounds, are you nuts?The average newborn weight in the developing world is 7.5 lbs, so you are already over the 5-lb mark. Add the weight of the amniotic fluid, plus the normal weight gain caused by hormonal changes during the pregnancy. In fact, normal weight gain for a woman within normal BMI limits is between 25 and 35 lbs — and the lower her BMI pre-pregnancy, the more weight she is expected to gain in order to be able to carry it to term without significant health problems for her and/or the baby. So keeping it in the 5-to-10 pound range, or even under 20 lbs, as you later magnanimously allowed, would require your future hypothetical wife to work against the normal physiological process of pregnancy — no doubt by severely starving herself. The fact that it might kill her is of little concern to you, I'm sure, since being a widower is probably better in your eyes than being married to a woman who's overweight for a year or two — but what do you think pregnancy starvation will do to the baby? Have you thought through all the implications of raising a developmentally disabled child, especially if you have to do it on your own?It's nice of you to plan to "try" to be in good shape for your hypothetical future wife. I note, though, how she absolutely MUST keep thin, while you will merely try. Why is that? Because it's so much harder for you? She'll have to contend with the immense hormonal changes of pregnancy and (possibly) breastfeeding, so that will explain her weight gain. But when YOU put on the pounds, what will be YOUR excuse? If she's allowed a maximum of 20-lb weight gain during pregnancy, I take it you won't think it's unfair if she slaps you with divorce papers the moment you gain even a single ounce?
>If I had to give an answer, I'd say that generally it's because IN GENERAL the motivations of the older men are to exploit the naivete of the young woman, while the older woman is usually just seeking a good time with a younger man. She's older and probably pays for dinner, but she's not seeking the power differential that the older man is seeking.No offense, but I have to apologize–this just sounds like the rationalization hamster spinning away. "Power differentials?" "Exploiting the naivete of the younger women?" Maybe in Clarence's experience, women "his own age" tend to be either worse looking (by his standards) or bitchier/harder to deal with (what you'd call "experienced" or "less naive"). Yes, because a couple of bisexual women on some blog think older girls "age well" indicates Clarence ought to feel the same way. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks–maybe younger women are just what turn him on, much like MILFs (or black women, or asian women, or whatever) are what turn on different guys who have different sexual tastes and/or fetishes. Your condemnation of him seems much more like a selfish, self-serving post-hoc rationalization of your (or more specifically, your gender's) self-interest that is, sadly, perfectly keeping with what most PUAs, MRAs, and MGTOWs would say is the amoral, irrational, and solipsistic nature of women. Oh well.
>Thevagrantsvoice: I don't think anyone seriously disputes that a person's sexual preferences aren't a matter of political conviction. However, Clarence does remind me of a man I talked to once, who planned to bring over a (much younger) mail-order bride and stated that if she happened to give birth via Cesarean section, he would divorce her and send her back, because he couldn't possibly be expected to have sex with a woman who has a surgical scar. Contrary to what traditionalists and PUA's preach, the nature of sexual attraction is complex. It's funny that Clarence mentioned "bonding". If you are truly bonded with your partner — emotionally, romantically, intellectually and sexually — then it will take a lot more than age or pregnancy-related physical imperfections to destroy that bonding. That's why happily married couples are known to fuck well into old age, apparently still finding each other attractive and exciting despite all the cellulite and sagging flesh, and why good relationships survive scars, injuries, loss of limbs and, yes, weight gain. If a pregnancy gain of more than 20 lbs is enough to completely dissolve Clarence's bond with his wife, it means that he never had much of a relationship with her to begin with, it was always about sex and breeding — nothing more. Every "I love you" was a lie. It is what it is, of course, and I would never presume to "require" Clarence or other men like him to be less shallow, but if that's how he feels — then honestly, marriage is not for him. This is merely a practical consideration: marriages, ideally, last a long time, and it's likelier than not that your partner will develop some physical imperfections along the way (and you will too); and if you can't see past that and still love this person, then marriage simply isn't the type of arrangement that would work. It's not just a matter of "different taste" — it's a matter of one's ability to, ironically enough, bond with another human being. If you are able to stay happy with a woman only as long as she is thin and under 30, you can't very well claim that you are "bonded" with her.As for alleged selfishness and "rationalization" — I, for one, feel that women shouldn't have to rationalize their aging. We ALL age. Most men DON'T age like wine, either. We all become less physically perfect with age, that's just an inescapable fact of life. I think what gets some folks' hackles up, however, is the way most PUA's, MRA's and MGTOW's try to portray women's aging as a personality flaw, or some kind of divine punishment, rather than the result of a physiological process that affects everyone.