“Is it just me? Or are women biologically inferior to men?” Red Piller asks

I think it starts in adolescence, when people are dealing with the effects of the unfamiliar hormones while trying to figure out who they are. The sex drive is there but they are not emotionally ready for an intimate relationship. It is my impression that girls tend to develop serious crushes on rock stars, movie stars, etc. — the point being that they can fantasize about these guys but they’ll never be in a situation where they might have to think about actually sleeping with them. The fact that they are unattainable is part of the attraction. Boys are mainly confused. Society tells them that men are supposed to be unemotional and independent, never needy, but a Real Man has sex with lots of women. Since adolescents of all sexes are not ready for a real (adult) relationship, the issue of sex in high school is mostly about status, about one’s self-image and place in the pecking order. Guys learn to believe that status in the male pecking order is derived to a substantial extent from the conventional attractiveness (and popularity/status) of one’s girlfriend. I assume that some analogous situation exists for girls at that age.
The problem is that nerdy guys have very low status in the male peer group, so they tend to be especially insecure, and since they tend to be socially awkward as well, they have a hard time making friends with girls. To a certain extent they long for a conventionally attractive girlfriend because she would raise their own status. On the other hand, dating a girl who is not gorgeous would tend to confirm their inferior status. But high-school kids are pretty superficial and status driven, so the conventionally attractive girls tend to date the high-status guys, who tend to be the ones who pick on/try to humiliate the nerds.
If things go well, a guy eventually acquires a few platonic girl friends, interacts with them in a mainly non-sexual manner, and learns to see women as people not sex objects. They learn to not overvalue appearance — it doesn’t have much effect on whether a girl is fun to be with. But it’s all to easy to fall into a group of disgruntled guys who create an echo chamber of the misogyny that has been regarded as common wisdom for ages. The combination of disgruntlement, misogyny, and sex-obsession makes them unattractive to girls, which makes them even more disgruntled and misogynistic, and you get a synergistic effect. The underlying theme is that to be a Real Man you have to fuck a lot of conventionally attractive women, and it’s easy enough to slip into the view that it’s women who are spitefully keeping you from being a Real Man by refusing to fuck you — rather than understanding that if you want to have a girlfriend you have to figure out what she wants from the relationship and give it to her if you can, and if you can’t then look elsewhere.
Most guys manage to get out of the misogynistic bubble to a greater or lesser extent, but some of them stay there and putrify, becoming more and more unattractive to women — and that’s where you get the hardcore manospherians.
Oh, that thing about women hitting the Wall at 25 or so? I think that’s not so much about looks but about the fact that the vast majority of single women have become fairly cynical about men by the age of 25, and they find misogynistic men very easy to detect. You have to get ’em while they’re still young and naive.

tl;dr: A lot of the problems adult men have with women derive from attitudes acquired in adolescence. That is obvious enough, but what is not obvious is how to prevent those attitudes from developing. It is a lot more effective to prevent misogyny from developing than it is to try to fix it once it has fully developed.

@Luzbelitx, well speaking as someone who just graduated with a degree in evolutionary biology I can confirm said mansplainer is talking out of his ass.

In first year classes they tell you that the definition of what a species is pretty much an arbitrary guideline invented by humans. Most people use the biological species concept (a biological species is a group of individuals which can breed together. However, they cannot breed with other groups), but anyone who actually knows about evolution knows it isn’t perfect and have flaws. Plants of different specie hybridize and produce fertile offspring, bacteria have horizontal gene transfers between species, not all members of defined species can mate naturally due to infertility, early in species divergence individuals may not be completely reproductively isolated etc.

There’s a reason scientists spend so much time arguing if a specimen is a new species or a subspecies or an alternate phenotype of the same species because it isn’t clear cut and it’s generally best to go with the consensus and which hypothesis has the most evidence (in this case it would be separate species for neanderthal and human).

(Sorry for off-topic evolution tldr)

This dude jumped in to correct me, mansplaining that different species actually can’t have fertile offspring, so it had to be the same species, and produced a few scientific articles about humans having a certain % of Neanderthal DNA (which I was already aware of).

By his logic, lions and tigers are the same species, because female ligers are perfectly fertile.

http://i.imgur.com/XeXXkyJ.jpg

Just for cuteness’ sake, have a liger mother with her cub!

@SFHC

At first I was like, “Wait, aren’t ligers sterile?” Then I remembered the few ligers I’ve heard of have all been male.

I’m pretty sure the argument would include both male and females being able to come together to have completely fertile children of all sexes to be the same species.

But then you bring up that there’s also kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, subfamily and genus before they get to species. People tend to forget the whole taxonomy stuff.

Kings play chess on fine green silk.

@SnuffY

Yup. My suggestion for testing was rejected as “impractical” on the dubious ground that cloning dinosaurs wasn’t yet possible.

@ Panda

Cheers for that. Love me a mnemonic.

We got in to all the different ways of defining ‘species’. It ended up with ducks being split in to “a l’orange” and “cherry sauce” families.

And “duck surprise,” which is duck without oranges or cherries.

What duck?

(/pratchett)

I had a duck tell me I had the most beautiful eyes.

I said “Waiter, I ordered *aromatic* duck”.

[Why yes, that is my coat]

My sister argues that ducks are a grain crop. Her reasoning for this is that it’s possible to harvest a field of ducks using a combine. Then again, she also argues that lambs are fruit, which technically makes sheep a form of tree. Perhaps my family is just weird.

🙂 well people used to think cotton was a ‘vegetable lamb’….

@Kirbywarp,

so, Roosh realized GamerGate wasn’t a cash cow for him to milk after all? What a surprise. I checked the comments in the article you posted, it seems even its regular readers were fed up with ‘anti-SJW bs’.

I guess Matt Forney will have some spare time on his hands now, I hope that doesn’t mean he’ll start blogging again.

kirbywarp | August 4, 2015 at 4:02 pm
Random side-note: Reaxxion, Roosh’s reaxxionary gaming website that was trying to create a “male safe space” in response to gamergate (for those who don’t know), is now shutting down due to lack of traffic.

This is my shocked face. See how shocked i am. 😀

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-31074-J-Jonah-Jameson-laughing-gif-S-NWLY.gif

Oh, that’s just hilarious. Oh, and the article gets even better!

The fact the gamergate continues to be successful and influential in other communities shows that I did not even provide a substantial need to the audience it was intended for.

http://media.tumblr.com/d83747372e9ae135c4c0609c88f1113f/tumblr_inline_mqty015dCe1qz4rgp.gif