Life is so much better now that I’ve stopped seeing women as human beings, loathsome manbaby explains

Technically not a mathematician here, but I was a psych major who took too many classes in research and statistics, so I’ll give it a go. We’re after all women they date or attempt to date being horrible and that being 50%+ of women? Cuz this is how the estimated numbers seem to work, said women are 15-64 — 65.9% of the population is in that age range. Sex ratio is close enough to 1:1 for our purposes, and the world population is 7.3~ billion.

7.3/2 = approximately 3.65 women on the planet
3.65 * 0.66 = 2.4 billion women aged 15-64

Assuming these guys are including “she ignored me”, which they are, they’re idiots, I’m thinking 100 rejections isn’t unlikely — most dating site messages go ignored don’t they?

So then 2.4 billion / 100 rejections each = 24 million MGTOW. Yeah, nope.

Limit to the US?
By age, cuz I need to transfer these numbers between devices:
15-19 = 7.1%
20-24 = 7%
25-29 = 6.8%
30-34 = 6.5%
35-39 = 6.5%
40-44 = 6.8%
45-49 = 7.4%
50-54 = 7.2%
55-59 = 6.4%
60-64 = 5.4%

15-64 = 67.1%
Out of a population of 328,729,000 that’s 220,580,000 cuz I’m rounding. Half of them women means 110,290,000 women aged 15-64. Divide by the assumed 100 failures each and that still gives us just over a million MGTOW.

Hell, lets narrow it to that “magic” 15-30 age window (is that too wide for them?) — 20.9% of the US population, assume half women makes for just over 34 million women of an age they’d acknowledge they exist. At 100 failures each, that’s fucking still over a quarter million of them.

200 failures each? 170,000
300? 113,000
400?! 85,000
500?!? 68,000

Well, that’d be if all women they failed with where horrible, so half all of that I guess? But that would mean they’d have to have struck out with a thousand women each if there are 68,000 of them. So yeah, math says they’re full of shit. Of course, I can’t well narrow it to HB8+ or whatever standard they use to acknowledge a woman exists, I could approximate it will a bell curve, but my pizza is here!

Fistpound, Argenti. There is no such thing as too much statistics and too much rigour in research.

Also, “Yudcultsky.” Heeee! I’m remembering that!

(If the relationship succeeded, after all, they wouldn’t be MTGOWs, except for Dean Esmay and what’s up with that anyway?)

Between Esmay’s history with the truth and the fact that your average MRA invents three new people before breakfast… Let’s just say I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s Canadian.

In case any of ya’ll are curious what Isaiah 4:1 is, well…

In that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying,
“We will eat our own food
And wear our own clothes;
Only let us be called by your name—
Take away our disgrace!”

(Isaiah 4:1, JPS 1985)

Mr. Isaiah4verse1 seems not to realize that, in context, this is a passage about the sack of Jerusalem. I.e., the reason all the women are begging one man to marry them is that all the other men are dead:

Her men shall fall by the sword,
Her fighting manhood in battle;
And her gates shall lament and mourn,
And she shall be emptied,
Shall sit on the ground.

(Isaiah 3:25-26, JPS 1985)

And here I thought the manosphere thought that men dying in war was misandry…

Sunny,
He sounds like a total m’lady from the Amy Schumer sketch.

If anyone wants a laugh, read the comments under the YouTube video of that sketch. There’s so much nice guy whining that completely proves the whole point of the sketch.

I’m from the engineering/computer science side when it comes to doing statistics. Generally, when trying to draw a conclusion about a population, we want a completely random sample, where every combination of data points of a given size are equally likely (as opposed to every individual data point being equally likely, which could happen if the population is divided into two equal-sized groups selected by coinflip). I imagine that stratifying it into groups and selecting a proportional number of data points from each group at random tends to give similar answers but probably does odd things to modelling curves.

However, when you’re doing sociology you’re interested in differences between groups and can carve it into groups that you have an actual reason to think will be different, so stratifying it will let you compare groups and have a meaningful total model. Plus even the ones that aren’t exclusively college student volunteers have trouble with making things actually random; phone surveys in the first half of the 20th century were biased towards the rich. Stratifying it means groups aren’t systemically underrepresented.

And yeah, their sample is actually from women that they attempt interaction with and is ignoring the possibility that the problem is them, which means it’s much less accurate than a random sample of equal size. Technically a random sample could include exactly the same people, though, which is why any sample smaller than the entire population can draw an invalid conclusion. The odds of that fall rapidly if you repeat the experiment with new random samples and generally get the same result.

This is why real authors say “New York Times bestseller,” because just “bestseller” can mean anything.

Not to side with this guy or anything, because I won’t, because he’s a disgusting creep, but I can guarantee that not being attracted to females anymore would be the best thing that could ever happen to me. I’ve literally thought that since I was like 12. But I sure as hell won’t be getting there by hating women so much that I’m overwhelmed with entitled manbaby rage whenever I think of them.
I don’t place my ego above everything else like every MRA type does, the only person I blame for my problems is me. And of course the bloody skeleton god of death Mictlantecuhtli, who clearly placed a curse on my head when I was born, but that goes without saying, I don’t think I need to tell you all about Mictlantecuhtli!

@MaleSuicide

Other than the fact that I somewhat agree with you on the fact that porn can be addicting, and it could be beneficial for many men to break that addiction, you’re doing a great job of being wrong about everything.

Back about 20 years ago I decided to go MGTOW. Not that it was a thing then. And not that I was a horrible human being who hated women. But I had a rough go of dating in a small town so I decided to hang up my dating hat. I decided to focus on learning things I had always wanted to learn. I signed up for classes and went and talked to people who did all the cool things I wanted to do.

I also started taking people up on offers to do things I’d never done. I went to the gun range with some RCMP friends. I climbed a mountain. I learned how to blow stuff up. I was shown how three phase power works. I took singing lessons (they were a waste but I had a good time). I went on trips to places I always wanted to go. I learned about the future of film editing and sound editing when I was shown early versions of AVID and Pro Tools. Basically I put my energy into all the things I love.

You know what happened? I met my wife after I went to a medieval faire. I was confident, interesting, and funny because I worked on me. So, there is something to this ‘going your own way’ for a while but none of it involves being an asshole to 50% of the populace.

On the evolution question, I’m surprised no one else has yet brought up the basic principle that all animals are by definition currently at the exact same place in our evolution, because that is how evolution works; that is, the human is not more evolved than the shark, because the shark is perfectly suited to her (ha! sneaky feminism!) environment at this time (Even though the shark was pretty much the same however many millions of years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth and my dad started making dad jokes).
I would postulate that it may be possible for one sex to evolve changes while the other does not. I’m just an evolution fan and a student tho. I cant even think of a possible example; I thought of female hyeanas evolving a sort of female penis but it occurred to me that the male probably had to evolve in some way to adapt to that change.

Men and women did not evolve as if they were a dramatically different species. This is one of the most annoying things that people seem to believe. We here at WHtM surely know that gender and sex is a spectrum. First of all, all animals having evolved from a common ancestor, humans have commonalities with other animals (our hand bones are the same basic pattern as bat wings, hooves, even fish). We arent even as drastically different from other animals biologically as some people want to think the sexes are different. Sex development in the womb just doesnt produce an entirely different offspring, like we dont just get a bunch of “Women-Only” genes, it’s all utter nonsense. People seem to think they can just make up shit about history and science and call it a fact. We barely even know how “primative” humans lived ffs, we have a handful of remains and the more we learn the more we find that previous assumptions were incorrect. For example, women have a HUGE influence on the development of agriculture. I think the Cherokee tribe are one of the best preserved and documented examples of this – they were practically matriarchal (they were too equal to be compared to patriarchy though). It just made logical sense for women to “stay home” and do the hard work of farming while men went out after game and to war. Because of this, women controlled most of the food and all of the land. Women would have been responsible for all those agricultural developments that, say, kept Pilgrims from starving (yea jk that was a different tribe of course) and probably still influence farmers of those crops today. It’s just that as Europeans got more patriarchal the record reflected these prejudices by omission of the role of women in past incarnations of society. You can see evidence of the active destruction of women’s power in myths that undermind older pagan traditions that were more female-centric (like the hunting of witches). So I dont really buy modern-day men’s guesses about women ‘huddling in caves” (really, they had no way to defend themselves when men were away? How is that gonna help their babies survive?) esp when STEM fields are so full of ridiculously sexist dudes.

There was a troll on here earlier that didnt seem to get attention for his deliberate straw men against feminists, but I just wanted to say for the record, not only are feminist not WGTOWS, a lot of us are men. Some of us were even assigned a female role at birth and are so manly and love manhood so much that we take on a male role as adults. So it’s not terribly inaccurate to make some crack about how we are feminists because we are so manly althought that one has never made sense to me – why would someone ditching the female role care about how females are treated more than a femininie woman who dates men and therefore has to navigate all the worst parts of sexism? Whatever, sexist dudes never are very good at the whole logic thing. At any rate, no, women who want to vote and get paid fairly and have needed medical care and not be assaulted or harassed dont hate men, we hate men who treat us like shit and the stupid system they created to keep us down.

Also, someone asked for a Biologist! Warning, TL;DR incoming

Carnivorous Llamas

As SFHC pointed out, we haven’t found any. Yet. We find weird things all the time, though, so it could still happen!

Also, Llamas could potentially digest meat. It wouldn’t be good for them to have a steady diet of meat, though, because they kind of need the fiber. A llama eating meat and supplements would likely have terrible, terrible diarrhea.

Also, you’d have to figure out nutritional supplements, because the proportional mix of amino acids in animal vs. plant matter is fairly different.

Amino acids are kind of important. In fact, amino acid content is one of the reasons you really shouldn’t feed cats dog food and dogs cat food on a regular basis. Cats stealing nibbles of dog food is okay, but if they only eat dog food, they don’t get enough taurine which can lead to heart disease and other issues.

Dogs on the other hand… cat food is a little too high protein. It’s an excellent treat (yay dog training) but if they eat it too much, it can cause them vomiting and diarrhea, because too much protein and not enough fiber.

So, yeah, carnivorous Llamas could have existed. Current Llamas could potentially eat meat for a limited amount of time with additional fiber and nutritional supplements. Getting them to eat it? A little harder. If they’re starving, maybe?

Is it possible for one sex (particularly the ‘female’ sex)to be less evolved than the other

Warning: I’m going to be using female in the Biology Student sense, of ‘the phenotype that produces the larger gametes during the reproductive phase’. I say ‘phenotype’ because not all organisms have genetic sex determination. Also, some organisms have sex determination, but it’s backwards relative to ours.

I’m doing this warning because sometimes biology definitions can be wacky and not nice, and if anyone is a woman who happens to be stuck with a body that produces smaller gametes (or visa versa), I’m not trying to call you male. This thing really has nothing to do with you and everything to do with the in general thought experiment.

Back to the biology!

First off, the easy answer. No, you aren’t going to have one sex that’s less ‘evolved’ than the other.

Buuuuut, for the sake of argument lets play the Ancient Aliens game. You know the one where you start with a huge “what if”, assume it’s true (when it’s really not) and then try and build a plausible thingy off of that.

So, “What If” a sex could be less evolved than the other?

We’ll start with the mechanism of evolution. Evolution is defined as a change in the proportion of an allele through a population, over time. While there are a whole kit and caboodle of things that can influence the changes in the proportion of an allele (a specific form of gene – think of genes as “Ice Cream” and alleles as “vanilla” or “strawberry”: the genotype is the specific combination of alleles an organism received from their parents for each gene), there’s one thing that you kind of have to have for evolution to occur:

Mutations.

Yes. We are all mutants. Take that, MRD!

…sorry. I’m a nerd. Sorry.

Evolution can (and does play) with alleles without mutation, but for anything ‘new’ to arise, we have to have mutations.

Luckily, mutation happens all the time! Most mutations are detrimental, but some mutations can be ‘silent’, and some mutations are beneficial!

Well, or were beneficial at some point in time. Or were close enough to another beneficial allele on a chromosome (within 50 base pairs of nucleic acids on the DNA strand) that they didn’t get selected against. Or just got lucky through random assortment, or an evolutionary bottleneck event…

Bad mutations sometimes endure. It happens. I digress, back on topic.

Mutations are the slowest form of evolution (selection is much faster) but they are the most fundamental unit of evolution.

But, we’re going to have to throw out selection, because selection just acts on mutations that are already there. Also, even if selection selects for dimorphism of sexes in some species (i.e. selection pressures are different for each sex) they’re still both equally evolved because both are responding to selection pressures at the same time.

Unless, of course, one sex just has more mutations for selection to play with…

Okay, enough with the background. Back to Mutation, Evolution, and Sexes!

We’re going to have to throw organisms without genetic sex determination right out the window here. Sorry turtles. I love you, but I’m sorry.

The reason for this is because if one sex needs to be less evolved than the other, that means they have to have a reason for their alleles to be different from one another. If there’s no genetic sex determination, and the population is breeding (which is kind of the biological point of having different sexes), then there’s really no difference between the two sexes from evolution’s standpoint.

So, we’re limiting ourselves to organisms with genetic sex determination. Yay.

We’ll also have to limit ourselves to the sex chromosomes, as all other alleles will have all the usual crossing over and breeding shenanigans. There’s a reason independent assortment of alleles is a general rule of thumb. Your chromosomes from mom and your chromosomes from dad don’t stay nicely packaged together as a bundle for you to bequeath to your offspring. They mix, they mingle, they sidle alongside each other and go “Hey, you’ve got the same genes I do! Wanna swap some alleles?”

Except for, interestingly enough, the sex chromosomes.

Well, to be more accurate, the sex chromosomes in organisms with a mismatched set… like XY. Or if you’re a bird, WZ.

So, only females (in XY determined species) will be able to gain any mutations caused by mistakes in allele swapping (called crossing over), because only females will have two sex chromosomes of the same size with the same gene loci. Basically, XX can swap ice cream flavors with each other. XY can’t.

In chickens, though, only the roosters would get the extra mutation boost. Lucky roosters, eh?

Moreover, females of XY determined species (and males of WZ) would also have a higher likelihood of more typical mutations: insertions, deletions, and other errors caused during the replication of the DNA strand forming the chromosome during cell division.

Why?

Because the X and W chromosomes are thousands of base pairs longer than the Y and Z chromosomes. Basically, more base pairs for a polymerase to screw up with.

So, that means evolution would have more mutations to play with in ‘female’ humans or ‘male’ chickens. Thus, if a sex is capable of being more evolved than the other, it’s clear that it would indeed be the sex with the matching sex chromosomes.

It’s still BS, though, because our initial “What If?”is a bogus question.

We’re all equally evolved, dudes.

Live with it.

@contrapangloss

fuck yes! Thanks!

I would LoVE if you would kinda clarify what I was trying to remember and articulate about how sex is a spectrum and when we are born we dont just inherit strictly “female-only genes” or whatev. Im trying to learn as much as possible about gender/sex in particular.

*[I prefer your in depth and better educated explanation!]