Over on the Men’s Rights Subreddit, PacmanWasALangolier is taking concern trolling to a whole new level. Apparently, according to some unspecified research, the women of today have gotten picky — tragically picky — about the men they date.
It turns out that a lot of women aren’t interested in dating just any dude out there! They cruelly, selfishly, wantonly insist on choosing whom they date and whom they don’t.
The horror!
Mr. Pacman is concerned, “honestly concerned,” for this can only end in disaster, not just for men but for those poor misguided women themselves. And possibly civilization itself.
To drop the sarcasm for a moment, let’s look at his “evidence.” First, that bit about how, historically, only 40% of men have passed on their genes. This figure comes from a paper by psychologist Roy Baumeister that’s a favorite amongst the Men’s Rights crowd, and the claim seems to be true — at least if you’re talking about the whole span of human existence.
Does this prove that women have always looked down their noses at the majority of men, refusing to have sex with decent average Joes in favor of riding that old “alpha asshole cock carousel,” as manosphere assholes so delightfully put it?
Well, not exactly. It merely suggests that in the past, more powerful men had sex with more women than the poor and subjugated, and thus were far more likely to pass on their genes. (Or at least that, however many partners they had, their babies were more likely to survive to produce babies of their own.) The figure tells us very little about the actual preferences of women, because many times the choice about who had sex with whom was made by men. Powerful men collected women into harems; male soldiers routinely raped women on the defeated side; in patriarchal cultures, fathers decided whom their daughters would marry. And so on.
Mr Pacman might also be referring to an interesting post on the OKCupid blog that revealed some interesting data on how the dating site’s (straight and bi) men and women rated the attractiveness of members of the opposite sex. But (if that is indeed what he’s referring to) he’s leaving out half of the equation, and thus totally missing the point.
Yes, it’s true that women on the site rated roughly 80% of the men on the site as “below average,” while men were much more “charitable” in their choices, with “a woman … as likely to be considered extremely ugly as extremely beautiful, [while] the majority of women have been rated about “medium.”
But Mr. Pacman has left out the most interesting part of the findings. Even though men on the site were charitable in how they rated women, with their assessments of female attractiveness falling roughly along a normal bell curve, they were more selective — much more selective — in whom they contacted. As the OKCupid blogger, Christian Rudder, puts it, “when it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque.” Women at the top of the bell curve in terms of attractiveness (at least as rated by site members) get
nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten.
For women, the results are strikingly different. While they tended to be pretty selective when it came to rating men on their looks, in practice they were far more open to dating men they considered average or below average in looks. As Rudder notes,
women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. … [T]he average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.
Of course, the data here might be skewed by another factor that the blogger doesn’t address: on OKCupid, when someone rates someone else highly, and that someone else has also rated them highly, the site sends out a message informing both of them of a possible match. Women rating particular men as unattractive may not actually think of them as unattractive, but may be simply trying to avoid getting a lot of spammy messages from guys whose profiles they may not have looked at in detail.
So, yeah, once again, the real world is a lot more complicated, and much more interesting, than the world inside the head of the typical MRA.
LOL I remember the first time I saw a mullet, back in the 80s. I’d never heard of them and didn’t realise that what this bloke was sporting was a hairdo. I just thought “Grow it long or cut it short, but don’t leave it like this! You just look like a gutless wonder who isn’t game to have proper long hair!”
@Pear_Tree – You’re not selfish. It is not wrong to want companionship and passion in a relationship. If the right person comes along, you’ll want to be ready, willing, and able to dash off into the sunset, not already tied down to some jerk who was supposed to be your last best best. If they don’t, at least you’ll have spent your life on *YOU*, not on dancing around the whims of some indifferent clod.
I know what it’s like to be lonely and feel abandoned by luck. Jedi hugs if you want them.
In my own dating experience (I tend not to “formally” date as much as I have relationships with people that tend to go towards friendship with romantic/sexual stuff), I have been with all sorts of guys. Tall, short, skeletally thin, fat, various cultural backgrounds/racial groups, etc. Most of the time there was just some kind of “something” that really made me feel drawn to them (mutual attraction probably played a part, of course!) and in many cases, being with said guy was basically a way for me to figure out if our desires in said relationship “meshed” properly. If not, we would both go our respective ways. The most important part is figuring out what *I* want out of the relationship- what *I* am looking for, and figuring out if the person that I am with is the kind of person who would appreciate me. For awhile when I was younger, I felt that I would simply be lucky to find someone who was remotely attracted to me in the first place. But it was only with time that I realized that I wanted to be in a long-term relationship with someone who had compatible religious, political and financial views, among other things. I don’t think it’s picky or unreasonable to want to be with someone who shares a lot of my views, or at least isn’t a fucking asshole about it when we disagree. In fact, I would find it preferable to be alone forever than to share my life with some random guy whose only reason for marrying me is because I have a vagina and he has a penis.
Honestly, I don’t understand why these guys are so up in arms. Why do they want to have all the choice and tell women not to have choice at all? And if it is true that the top couple of conventionally attractive women are the women being targeted the most on dating sites like OKCupid, then what does that mean- if the top conventionally attractive women must partner with a disproportionate amount of guys and cannot say no, that leads to the same problem that is being BLAMED ON WOMEN in this post!
*sigh*
You’re not alone, aworldanonymous. With all the anti-feminism shit spread all around (especially on the Internet) that tells half-truths and things that are even blatantly false about feminism, it’s easy to get a false idea of what it is.
@Pear_Tree – “last best *bet*” Sorry!
Am I the only person who found nothing shocking in the rest of study summation by David?
I mean really, considering the hours in the gym, shopping for clothing, doing our hair, bleaching our teeth (and select body parts), removing any hair not fixed to our scalp, moisturing, manicuring, pedicuring, tanning, choosing what to wear for the day, applying makeup, exfoliating, blemish care, checking to make sure the hair and makeup are in place and any other personal hygiene stuff expected of women just to look moderately pretty or “professional”, why do guys think that shit shower and shave are going to cut it? We aren’t blind guys. If you have blackheads across the bridge of your nose or a monobrow or dress in ways not flattering to your physique, we see that. And women who do everything society tells us we must just to be treated as visible are likely (though not always) going to be people who place a higher value on personal presentation.
I’ve had boyfriends who’ve tried the old “if you gain five pounds you’ll be disgustingly fat and I’ll dump you” routine. And that’s when I decide that the amount of weight I need to lose is approximately the same weight as the asshole telling me this. I have more important things to do in life than sweat over every minor weight variation my body goes through.
Pear Tree, I can tell you that being single and friendless is far and away more preferable and healthy than having a relationship with someone you have to supress your personality or interests for.
Been there, done it.
Not really, no. I mean, I read it and had the instant reaction of
– hot babes won’t fuck me because I’m not a physically perfect specimen
– ugly and fat chicks give my boner a sad and don’t deserve to exist
– you’ll all be sorry when you’re alone with your cats
YAWWWWN.
And don’t even get me started on the difference in “office appropriate” wear for women and men, the commensurate expense of buying and maintaining the wardrobe. And makeup. And accessories. And salon appointments for hair and manicure. And “take-charge manly man who’s a natural leader” versus “heinous ball-busting bitch who needs to get laid but what man could bring himself to touch her (but she must have slept her way to the top)”.
Oops. Looks like I got my own self started.
But if women are less choosey, then the MRAs would complain about them being low-standard sluts.
I think MRAs would prefer our being low standard sluts to the Brazen Harlots they think we are now.
The harm is that there will be a slew of women getting on with their lives (and often happily so) that will not be taking the slightest notice of mens wishes or their penises.
Unimaginative, don’t you find it amazing how hard it is to keep track of the beauty regimine for women.
I’d also like to note shoes. As in heels. That we are often forced to stand in for eight hour stretches and become painful after an hour. That do damage to our feet and our backs. That are bloody treacherous on stairs or smooth floors.
I am endlessly grateful that I’ve never worked in the sort of corporate world where all that shit is expected. Sure, it’s meant I’ve been through a succession of low-paid jobs, and never had a “career”, and that has its downsides. But oy, the pleasure of NOT having to go through all that … the only time I’ve not been able to wear casual dress was when I had a uniform (and a godawful ugly one it was, too). But even there, the only requirement of the shoes was that they be black: nobody was trying to make the women of the group wear high heels. In fact I think it would have been discouraged if anyone had done so; the job involved a lot of standing up, and stupid though management could be, they weren’t that stupid.
But it’s all too rare. Most of the women I see while commuting are wearing shoes that make me think “Crippled in ten years … I should have been a podiatrist, I’d have made a fortune!”
I’m always sort of amazed at how hard beauty standards are pushed on women. I subscribe to Cooking Light magazine, which used to be just about food. Sometimes they have travel articles, but they focus on the food of the place, and maybe some healthy lifestyle stuff, like parks and outdoor things to do. A few years ago, they started featuring beauty tips. In a cooking magazine! I think they call the section “Health and Beauty.” Like, eyeshadow is a health concern, uh huh. I know it’s what the advertisers want, but it’s annoying to have the subject constantly pushed on me.
Out of those of you who read or have read magazines aimed at women and girls, how many of you were utterly bored by the makeup articles by the time you were 19? “Choosing the right color of mascara: 7 tips.” Uh, I’ll take the black? Or maybe the brown?
Actually, Kitteh, when I worked at my last office job, I wore lots of comfortable stuff. I worked in IT and didn’t meet clients, which helped. Plus, I’m stubborn about my comfortable shoes.* No one had any problems at all with me always wearing pants and cushy, flat shoes.
*I have a bit of a moral objection with high heels. Why should I be expected to handicap myself with shoes that are hard to get around in while I’m out and about? I’m not going to be able to anything as well as someone wearing flat shoes, and if there does happen to be a predatory person around, they’ll just make me more vulnerable. Fuck that.
My mother enjoys the time she spends on her hair and makeup. That hour every morning was pretty much the only time she had to herself when we were younger. So from the age of thirteen to sixteen, I also spent significant time, thought and resources on my appearance. Then one day I decided I would be happier to spend the time, thought and resources on things like sleeping an extra hour, getting good grades, pusuing my interests in art, embroidering, saving money and buying music. I suddenly had so much more time and felt happier when I didn’t have to worry about my looks or how I moved about in short skirts and high heels.
Imma back the rad fems on their views about todays fashionable clothing being just as restrictive and unhealthy as the corsets and bustles of yore.
I’m bored of the fashion magazines that endlessly push clothing priced for the very wealthy at the middle class and the parade of sex tips for him.
Its pretty bad when a thirteen year old girl knows ten ways to give a blowjob, but has no clue what the names are for various parts of her own genitalia because sex tips for him is all that’s written about.
Clairedammit – It’s always a relief to hear of other office jobs (and of course office doesn’t equal corporate anyway) where there isn’t such a narrow idea about what one can wear. I’m with you entirely on the high heels. Even if I could wear them I wouldn’t, for the vulnerablility reason and the crippling myself reason. I also wonder about how walking awkwardly and uncomfortably, something I see in a LOT of women wearing the current crop of very high, heavy platforms, can be seen as ‘sexy’. In fact I’d feel very dubious about someone who did see that sort of ‘scared I’m about to break an ankle’ movement as sexy.
I at least have the excuse of not being physically capable of wearing heels. Who knew that a fuckleg could be an advantage?
The thing is, a lot of my friends LOVE makeup and hair and shoes and stuff. I just don’t. And I resent that “meets minimum acceptable appearance levels” are so low and easy and cheap for men, in general, and so high and labour-intensive and expensive for women.
I always have the hardest time when I get my hair cut. I don’t do anything with it except wash it (and condition) every day and then let it air dry. No straightening, no color, no gel or hairspray or whatever. And stylists just. Cannot. Deal. So when I find someone who gives me a reasonably decent haircut without bugging me about all the stuff I need to be doing to my hair, I’m very loyal to them.
@ clairedammit, me too. I’ve found that what works best is to first get a recommendation, and then say straight up that, whatever my intentions are when I’m sitting in the chair, I will never do more than shampoo, condition, towel-dry, and comb. So give me something that will work with that.
I’ve been really, really lucky in that my scalp is basically one giant cowlick, so I have lots of body, and for the last few years, I’ve found some talented cutters.
@ pillowinhell
See, this is what confuses me. Given that women have been taught to notice the tiniest of flaws in ourselves, and to assume a high standard of grooming as standard, isn’t it logical that we’d then start to notice the tiniest of flaws in men too? I know that wasn’t the cultural intent, but I don’t think it’s exactly a shocking side-effect. If I’m going to expend effort making myself look nice for a date/in a relationship then I expect the other person to do the same.
Also, come to California and work in the tech industry! Where jeans are always appropriate office wear, and it’s not unusual to see your boss in shorts and flip-flops. This is one of the reasons I can’t take 50 Shades seriously, because the idea of a 27 year old West Coast entrepreneur who wears flannel slacks and a tie is so lulzy.
Me too! 🙂 Yay for orthotic soles and a half-inch shorter leg, even if it is a right pain in the arse/knee/hip/feet at times.