>
 |
| Peggy Olson has no time for pseudoscientific PUA crap. |
Note: As regular Man Boobz comment readers will notice, this post is an expanded version of some comments I made here and here.
An extraordinary number of men in the “manosphere” — whether they’re wannabe Pick-up artists or woman-avoiding Men Going Their Own Way — have a very strange notion of what goes on (and what doesn’t go on) behind the closed doors of America’s bedrooms. (And sometimes in the bathrooms of dive bars.) They envision a world in which a small number of men are having all the sex they want, with any women they want, while the rest of the men out there — at least the straight ones — are condemned to lives of celibacy or near-celibacy.
So who gets blamed for this (imagined) state of affairs? Women. And something called “hypergamy.”
The term refers to the practice of “marrying up”in social class. But the dudes of the manosphere aren’t merely content to accuse women of being mere gold-diggers. They’ve combined the notion of hypergamy with some ill-digested evolutionary psych speculations and convinced themselves that women are in fact a giant gang of nymphomaniacal sexual status seekers, compelled by their very genes to throw themselves at the males on top of the sexual heap — variously described as alphas, jocks, bad boys, and thugs.
And, since men are similarly programmed to spread their seed far and wide — by which I mean fuck anything that moves — these women are getting all the attention from the alphas that their hearts and loins desire, while themselves making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright. Or so goes the theory.
Naturally, those manosphere men who find themselves sitting on the sidelines of this (imagined) orgy tend to build up a great deal of bitterness about this (imagined) state of affairs.
This little mythical tale of alpha males and the hypergamic nymphomaniacs who love them (long time) is repeated again and again on the blogs and message boards of the manosphere. But is there any real convincing evidence for any of this? I haven’t seen any yet.
But in a post earlier this year one of the more influential bloggers in the manosphere, a pick-up guru of sorts who calls himself Roissy, claimed he had found something like the smoking gun of hypergamy:
Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.
As evidence for this claim, Roissy pointed to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control which found that some “21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men.” (That link takes you to the Reuters article Roissy cited in his blog post; the CDC’s press release on the survey can be found here.)
Case closed? Not exactly. Had Roissy actually bothered to read all of the news story he cited, or the CDC press release, or done even a minute or two of Googling, he would have seen the real explanation for the disparity: because of biological differences between men and women — you know, the whole penis vs vagina thing — it’s simply much easier for women to be infected with herpes. As one online FAQ notes (and I’ve put the key parts in bold):
Women are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman. In other words, if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection. …
Women may be more susceptible to genital herpes infections because:
* The genital area has a greater surface area of cells moist with body fluids (mucosal cells) than men.
*Hormone changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle may affect the immune system, making it easier for the herpes simplex virus to cause an infection.
You’d think a sex guru would know enough about herpes to know this, wouldn’t you?
>did yohan up there try lecturing me about my own culture and language? how… precious. now excuse me, I have some laughing and rolling on the floor to do.
>Yes Jadehawk,You are the master of rebuttal! :s
>Thank You, Pam and TVV…I was stumped with the math, and wondering if "demographics" could provide an explanation…as in Pam's point. Nicely done, Folks.
>Jadehawk said… did yohan up there try lecturing me about my own culture and language? how… precious. now excuse me, I have some laughing and rolling on the floor to do. No idea what is your cultural background, but…Bundeszentrale für politische Bildunghttp://www.bpb.de/I gave you links to the statistics of theBundeszentrale für politische Bildung.It seems you are unable to read them.About easy to approach available women in Germany I was asking you if you deduct these 500000 legal working prostitutes from your strange estimates.It seems you cannot answer these questions.
>i did not say anything about "easy to approach" women, since that's highly subjective. i gave the statistics for men who are unmarried, which was very low, and for the percentage of the population that's in relationships which was very high (the percentage of the population in marriages was about 10percentage points lower still).seems a vast majority of German men is fully capable of finding themselves a relationship. Whether you judge that relationship to be with a "good" woman is your own problem, not theirs or mine. After all, there's no such thing as a shotgun wedding in Germany, for lack of shotguns
>Anthropologist stepping in here to help with the hypergamy discussion: Hypergamy is a real Anthropological term, but the MRA's who use it either don't seem to know what it means, or have not read any of the ethnohistorical context (or even the wikipedia article on it for that matter).Hypergamy, simply meaning (in this case) "women marrying up," is a phenomenon that is present in highly patriarchal or male-dominated societies, which only allow women access to power and advancement through marriage. The rate of hypergamy is greatly decreased when women have access to greater economic and social means of self-advancement. Also, this rate is highly variable from society to society, and depends wholly on what is constructed as "meaningful" or "valuable" in that particular cultural context. Delving further into the issue, one could even look at the (somewhat dated) writing of French Structuralist Claude Levi-Strauss, who illustrated how women have essentially been traded as goods in order to strengthen kinship bonds–which still happens in societies with a monarchy, but not as much since the enfranchisement of women in the West.Also, mate-selection of this sort is limited to the elite within any population–relationships have historically tended to be less rigid in the lower social and economic echelons of most societies. Again, this is highly variable, but it is one of those "truths" born out of several hundred years of anthropology, ethnography, and historiography.The idea that there is a hypergamic conspiracy is more of a post-feminist, post-civil rights "structure of feeling," so to speak, about the changing nature of masculinities in a society that has fewer legal forms of discrimination and segregation that there were in the past. It is born out of a refusal to adapt to a more egalitarian order–instead clinging to archaic ideas of entitlement to women's bodies as property (a la the kinship ideas of Levi-Strauss).
>In addition, the idea of the 80%/40% ratio of reproduction can be attributed to many diverse institutions, which (the MRA's won't like to hear) have been largely [historically] created by men.- Particular men hording women as possessions: harems, polygyny, bigamy, polygamy, having both wives and mistresses.-Rape being used as a weapon of war, not being a crime, or being used for ethnic cleansing and ethnic humiliation (as is was in Bosnia, in the Congo, and in the Slavery era). Rape also being used to "cure" lesbians. Non-consensual procreation is a large part of why the inequality would exist. Even one of the foundational stories of Western culture is about this: see "The Rape of Europa," and thus the continent is named "Europe."- Men being forced into programs of gender based violence in state and pre-state societies, and not making it to the age of reproduction (yes, men experience gender based-violence every day). These programs include the military, which is overwhelmingly male, and has historically been controlled by male law- and policy-makers, and also includes male-specific massacres (such as often happens in genocidal situations, as it did in Bosnia and Armenia). So again, this is largely (unfortunately) men victimising other men.- *Historically* women have had fewer sexual partners than men, as they have simply had fewer opportunities to move around outside of the home and meet sexual partners. Although, because of other intersections of race, class, etc., certain more privileged men have always had access to more women. This is a double-bind where women are restricted into the roles of sexual "game" and less-privileged men are denied the ability to form relationships.Basically, hypergamy would not exist in societies that did not have vestigial ideas of women as economic units, and did not stratify men as rigidly (which is state violence, not violence of women against men)–so there would be everyone's problem solved!Try at least reading the wiki before misusing the terms of my profession!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy
>"Try at least reading the wiki before misusing the terms of my profession!"not gonna happen, since that would require reconnecting with reality.
>You're welcome, ahunt. This notion that there is a tiny minority of men who are the exclusive fuckers of the vast majority of women is bizarre, to say the least.
>Thanks very much, switchingtoglide. In a discussion that had left me (and I'm guessing a few others here) sometimes wanting to pound my head on the table it's great to have someone who really knows the subject offer some substantive points. If you have any suggestions for good stuff to read on the subject — of hypergamy, and of the historical issues you talk about in your second comment — I'd love to hear them. Also, I should have made clearer in the post and in the comments that the term has a real meaning/history and that the "manosphere" version of hypergamy is not only a fantasy but a distortion of the term. I made a small change in wording in the OP that I think makes that a little more clear.
>Yah Pam…here's the thing.Any guy can have sex whenever he wants. He just cannot have it with "everyone" he wants, or even "anyone" he wants.
>which (the MRA's won't like to hear) have been largely [historically] created by men.MRAs would argue, though, that all those patriarchal institutions were created *at the behest* of women. According to The Spearhead, women like being treated as chattel… Some MRAs often claim that rape is either almost nonexistent (the vast majority of rape accusations are false, and men are biologically hardwired to "protect and provide" for women making rape an absolute anomaly) or something women enjoy anyways (citing the preponderance of rape fantasies among women), and therefore wouldn't take the rape argument as being a legitimate explanation…And some MRAs would argue that the preponderance of men being drafted to fight in wars is an example of how "patriarchy" actually favors women and is merely giving them what they want. Aside from the fact that it benefits women because women don't have to fight, it's also the fault of women because women like violent men, especially those who can wield state violence (see this, for instance). Of course, they'd also say that women can't be truly 'blamed' for it since it's just evolutionary biology, but they'd still claim it's an example of how 'patriarchy' was supported and maintained by women, not men.Do I agree with any of this? No. I get the feeling it is what they'd tell you, though. I wouldn't say all or even most MRAs believe 'women are the root of all (or at least most) evil,' but the sentiment is there.
>well, I'm sure that's what the MRA's would argue, but again, they'd simply be empirically wrong.The way the world works is really not a matter of opinion or rhetorical debate
>You told me over in the other thread that the 'social sciences' have 'empirically validated' your worldview and/or the benefits of feminism or whatever, but aside from the studies which refute certain elements of PUA/MRA dogma, as we discussed previously, I haven't really seen that much evidence in favor of your position either. Still, though, that's getting off topic…whether or not you're mistaken in your view of how 'the world really works' doesn't make the MRAs correct either. I'm merely providing their counterarguments for switchintoglide to appraise, in the hopes she'll add to the critiques of them I've already had/seen.
>I had no idea. From an anthropological and biological sciences standpoint, I find a lot of the pseudoscience hard to take. I have worked extensively on evolutionary biology and anthropology/archaeology, so when I see terms of that discourse being mis-used for ill-informed political movements it saddens me. The state of political discourse in the West really is tragic.Anthropology, for example, is a thoroughly intersectional discipline. From my point of view, you can't reduce the variables to "women vs. men." When you are looking at something as complicated as marriage and kinship structures (such as with hypergamy), how could you avoid critically using the lenses of race, class, ability, and age? never mind just looking at history. What about miscegenation laws? Targeted rapes for ethnic cleanising? Blood Quantum and gender difference in the Indian Act (Canada)? The construction of the "black male rapist" in white supremacist discourses? Forced child marriage? Eugenics and medical experimentation on ethnic minorities deemed undesirable to reproduce? Legal sterilisation of disabled individuals in Alberta until 1971? The idea of "white slavery"? Hueism in marriage selection? Trafficking of Asian and Eastern European women for marriage? Contract marriages between gays and lesbians in China? Institutionalised homosexuality in Gebusi, Melanesia? Colonialism and disruption of indigenous family structures? Not a single one of those examples could be reduced to "women" and "men" when considering the variables at play. Also, so many of the examples you (@thevagrantsvoice) listed can be reduced to class: from an intersectional perspective, higher class women have certain powers over lower class men; white women have certain powers over black men. Capitalist-patriarchy, as a political (State) system, does not categorically advantage all men over all women, nor does it advantage all whites over all blacks. What it does do is attach certain values on the lives of each of these identity markers, and have different expectations of each. Privilege, although politically useful, can be a limiting framework in order to grasp this whole picture. That's why a lot of activists use "kyriarchy." I do sometimes identify as a feminist because of this anthropological perspective, but on most days, it would situate me as an "anti-oppressionist"! It seems that MRA's lack that holistic perspective when trying to reduce everything to "men" and "women" (even despite the fact that there are intersex and genderqueer people here too). From a personal perspective, I am a woman who is a primary breadwinner in a wonderful long-term relationship, and I have always had pretty much an equal number of male and female friends, so this "war of the sexes" makes very little sense to me (personally).
>Any guy can have sex whenever he wants. He just cannot have it with "everyone" he wants, or even "anyone" he wants.Oh, the INHUMANITY of it all!!!
>(Just removed a couple of duplicate posts.)
>Fantastic comments from switchintoglide, thank you. I thought intersectionality was a little too advanced for this comments section but you explained it well.
>Yah Pam…this is what MRAs do not get…Anyone can have sex pretty much anytime, anywhere. All one has to do is…lower one's standards.
>Women get STDs more than men. It's because of the environment for the disease. If men had sex in their asses and mouths they would have the same issues. I study pornography and it's proven there beyond a shadow that women get more diseases, but men sharing the same women can avoid a disease she gets. It's not hard to figure, our bodies are different. I thought this was common knowledge, I loled at the original post, but I'm puzzled the way David seems to have backed down in the comment section. He's right. Another bit that we need to keep pointing out is, they moan about this oppression of not having power or leverage OVER women. The goal clearly stated is that they want more choices so that they get what THEY want, which by male nature is based on physical attractiveness largely thus allowing a woman to express much less of a range of her humanity than the paradigm offered to men who can be successful in a myriad of ways and be attractive to women. Keep in mind is the goal is to lord it over the bitches, not to get a nice woman that might be off in a corner somewhere expressing her humanity. Ah but these guys know about those gals, too. Talk to them and turns out THEY have preferences and selections and are, you know human beings, which always gets in the way of a narrow utilitarian egoistic goal. Make no mistake that the main aspect of the assertion that foreign women are better has to do with (and they know it), these hos have fewer choices and so this is how I like to play. So none of this is about some nice guy that can't find a nice lady to treat like a human being and with whom to share a meaningful relationship.
>@avagrantsvoice:The Social Sciences, while often using the scientific method, do not claim empiricism. For findings to be empirical, the must be reproducible; thus, as 'culture' is far too complex an organism to be reproduced in a lab, empiricism is not possible. You will find, however, that the Social Sciences place an extreme amount of importance on people's own interpretations of their experiences (called the 'emic' perspective) in combination with the 'etic' perspective (that of the researcher). Additionally, Social Sciences are heavily influenced by Marxism in terms of situating many a social custom in terms of political economy–great examples include Sandra Theresa Hyde's "Eating Spring Rice," Jeff Schonberg's "Righteous Dopefiend," or Nancy Scheper Hughes' "Death Without Weeping."As far as studies go, you will find that social institutions of censure and punishment have existed at the behest of both men AND women with class privilege. However, the ways in which such power is manifest are unequal and variable. Take this ethnographic example:http://books.google.ca/books?id=BbgW3oL0YsEC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=anthropology+hypergamy&source=bl&ots=K6vt6x_NCs&sig=5hIzU0zej9PsvwiGdwtgCbK9TY4&hl=en&ei=p4cdTb8X0LCeB7ymzI8O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=anthropology%20hypergamy&f=falseIf you read the few pages linked there (it should be accessible to everyone), you will find that it is not individuals, but sets of social relations and customs which determine hypergamy. Specifically, these customs have a lot to do with strict sex role segregation and gendered economics. Such a situation really doesn't exist in modern North America or Europe, post-feminist advances.In essence, hypergamy is something that has been roundly critiqued by feminists because of its root in class and gender-based oppression, so it makes zero logical sense that such a practice would be construed as a massive feminist conspiracy.Between that and the assertion that custody laws and lack of paternity leave are somehow wrought by feminists, my brain may have had enough bad reasoning for one day.
>oh c'mon. I think it's pretty safe to say that any claim that rape is an aberration so rare, it's not used in warfare is 100% empirically wrong.And empirical data can be gathered by both experiment and observation, not just experiment.
> ahunt said… Yah Pam…this is what MRAs do not get…Anyone can have sex pretty much anytime, anywhere. All one has to do is…lower one's standards. Another, much more realistic solution in such a situation might be to give her more money…
>"But is there any real convincing evidence for any of this? I haven't seen any yet." Sure there is: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQnen_Iq5rI/AAAAAAAAAfg/L_VHE4zgG9k/s1600/ScreenShot029.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQnfSL6CyYI/AAAAAAAAAfo/9w-350XLDHs/s1600/ScreenShot030.jpg
>Also David, I would enjoy it if you were to provide some constructive criticism of my blog: Rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com I am wondering if you can find something…anything about my writing.