Ah, the good old days, when me were men and women were c**ts!
You know, just regular c**ts, not the pampered, stuck-up, fat c**ts of today.
Such is the argument of an unusually spirited, if sometimes incoherent, mini-manifesto winning plaudits from the regulars in the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit today.
In a post titled “Women/society made us think we were losers,” a proud MGTOW warrior calling himself shogunronin looks back with nostalgia on what he sees as the golden age of the nineties.
As a man who was gifted with growing up in the nineties, I experienced a time when women were c**ts but not as egotistical, a time where political correctness only was conjured in parliamentary buildings.
Ah, the nineties, “a time where SJWs were too busy listening to Korn or Marliyn Manson” to cause much trouble and when “fat women [weren’t] trying so hard to raise their sexual market value above men.” (Or at least above the sort of men who post angry manifestos on the MGTOW subreddit.)
How far we have fallen! In the nightmare world of today, some of these fatties actually have the gall to think of themselves as valuable human beings who deserve respect from others.
Now, we live in the times of self-made female celebrities, single mother culture, the media who language shames anyone who speaks the truth, down to the gagging of conservative thinkers on popular social media platforms, fat shaming and it’s reactionaries,
Er, in case you had trouble diagramming that last sentence, I think that bit at the end means he’s mad anyone complains about fat-shaming.
He continues, making up words as he goes:
And lastly, the detasteful rise of Feminism and their eternal hatred for anything with a dick. As a result of the army of manginas, white knights, beta-facebook pleasers, man-begging on dating platforms, women now are in control of the dating market and are free to act how they wish.
Imagine, women — some of them fatties! — actually having the gall to reject good and decent, if maybe just a teensy bit misogynistic, men like shogunronin!
They are free to treat a man like crap because 50 others are queing up on her social media account. Some women are even calling themselves celebrities as 5,000 manginas cheerlead her on Twitter in the hopes of one day bagging those golden vagina lips that could never do anything wrong.
You may wonder what exactly shogunronin thinks vagina lips are doing wrong. Robbing banks? Writing bad checks? Going to see Lady Ghostbusters?
Shogunronin does not specify. He is apparently more angry at the owners of these “golden vagina lips” for refusing him and other perfectly decent woman-hating men access to said lips.
I believe MGTOW is a reaction to the woman uprising. Men who are sick and tired of female priviledge in both society and the court room. If you noticed, MGTOW on the internet had risen just about the same time that online dating went mainstream. It is a F**K YOU to all women who think they’re above men. We are going our own way, bye hunny.
But shogunronin isn’t just angry at women and the manginas who love them too much. He’s also mad at pickup artists for suggesting that the value of men is determined in large part by the hotness of the hot babes they date (or date rape).
Yes, that’s right. There’s actually a portion of his manifesto that sort of has a point.
As a man in my early twenties, I was indoctrinated into the PUA cult. I was led to believe that if i couldn’t attract a woman than I was a failure with women which equaled a failure at life. It was only after reaching my later twenties that I began to realise how dangerous this mindset can be.
Alas, after this brief moment of clarity, shogunronin is once against swallowed up by the ideological fog of MGTOWism.
Women were the only ones who benefitted from the PUA movement.
Because nothing benefits women more than having an army of aggressively creepy dudes using every psychological trick in the book to overcome “last-minute resistance” and get them into bed. (Or just plain date raping them if that don’t work)
It turned awesome men into tools. It provided women with a stream of unappreciated attention. It was full of men who went out building their entire confidence around women. I know this because we would discuss how shitty we felt when being rejected multiple times in one day and successful when we got laid. Women were constantly pressuring men to impress them, and now with the rise of social media dating, women have a eternal pool of meatheads and manginas who are thirsty.
Sorry, MGTOW dudes. Your self-esteem problems are not the fault of women who don’t want to have sex with you.
We now live in a culture that demonises men and rewards women for their shitty behaviour.
Apparently he’s very angry that women are “rewarded” for saying no to sex with men they don’t like by, er, not actually having to have sex with men they don’t like?
THE HORROR.
A fat whale now has access to the more attractive men while the average joe has to ‘brand’ himself both metaphorically and physically just to meet the outlandish standards of modern women.
How dare these “fat whales” only sleep with men they’re attracted to and who want to have sex with them!
The truth is none of us were losers because of these women,
TRUE. Your loserdom has nothing to do with these women.
the truth is women priced themselves out of the dating market.
NOT TRUE. They just said “no” to you when you came at them with your PUA bag of tricks.
Upon being MGTOW, I have been financially better off, I have been happier, I have more time to follow my passions in life other than chasing some egotistical self-made celebrity c**t.
Apparently one of these passions is posting bitter, woman-hating manifestos on the MGTOW subreddit.
Life is good for me now.
I don’t … actually believe you. This manifesto is pretty obviously not the work of a man enjoying the good life.
Not surprisingly, the regulars in the MGTOW subreddit disagree with me on this point, applauding shogunronin’s mini-manifesto and responding with mini-manifestos of their own.
2045_revolution laments how exploitative the current sexual marketplace is. Exploitative of men, that is. Sure, he admits,
Men may use women as wet holes attached to a uterus, but women use men as wallets and sources of high quality genetic material. It gets demoralizing. As a man, the best you can hope for is to be a strong and healthy host for a female parasite to latch onto. When you think of guys in their expensive clothes, expensive cars, etc just advertising how filled with resources they are to parasites, it loses its appeal.
Meanwhile, 2045_revolution complains, some women he thinks aren’t so hot are trying to date men he thinks are hotter!
Internet dating and the rise of PUA culture have created a generation of crap women who think they are amazing catches. It used to be that a woman who as a 6 knew she was a 6. Now the 4s and 5s think they are 8s because of all the validation they get from thirsty men.
How dare women have the gall to try to date men they find attractive!
People can ridicule MGTOW all they want, but the exodus is really just starting. I think there will be sociological consequences. In ten years there will be tons of angry MGTOW men and bitter, used up women who got kicked off the CC. A society full of angry, bitter women (many of whom will be single mothers) who chased a hypergamous fantasy and ended up feeling used and empty handed, and lots of angry, bitter MGTOW men who felt ignored and devalued is what we are looking at. Nobody will win.
And if single mothers think they can have 2045_revolution’s “beta bucks,” well, NUH-UH!
Just as there is not an infinite supply of male 9s and 10s willing to enter committed, monogamous relationships with female 5s, 6s and 7s, there is not an infinite suppply of gainfully employed male 6s and 7s willing to clean up these women’s messes as they push 40. I say this as a BB who has had a half dozen single mothers try to use him in the last few years.
A fellow calling himself cheaperautoinsurance puts the blame on “smartphones and social media” for “basically destroy[ing] american women,” presumably because so many dudes who want to have sex with them say nice things about their selfies and sometimes send them lovely photos of their penises.
For blackierobinsun2, though, the roots of our current situation are rather more basic:
Women f**ked up America when they wanted jobs
Most of these btches going to college only work for a couple of years to end up getting pregnant and not wanting to work again, stupid whore just wasted a college degree and stole a job opportunity from a man feeding his family
Such a tragedy that blackierobinsun2 is taking himself out of the marriage market. What a lovely husband and father he could be!
Let me say it again: If you’re going your own way, fellas, just freaking GO. Lead your own life however the hell you want, as long as you’re not hurting anyone else in the process. Just stop cluttering up the internet with your ridiculous rants.
Because that’s the point you’re driving.
I’m not going to play that pathetic little game with you. If you didn’t think hypergamy was both something bad and something women but not men engage in, you wouldn’t have brought it up.
Either put up or shut up. You brought up women dating and/or sleeping around in her twenties and “settling” in her thirties but did not bring up that men do the same thing. Why do this if there was not some sort of implied value judgement?
Oh, and by the way, if you’re going to study dating and marriage behaviors in heterosexual women, you are going to need to look at the dating and marriage behaviors of heterosexual men as well. A data point on its own doesn’t mean much. You need something to compare it to.
Ohmigosh.
Brony’s gonna eviscerate Mick
I can’t watch.
Does anyone else think it’s hilarious that Mashed Dick, after making a sad plea for attention in the other thread and getting ignored, decided to lurk until the other, more amusing troll went away before posting in this thread again? Poor chap couldn’t compete and he knew it.
@Mick Dash
I’ll avoid avoid the extraneous rhetoric and simply say that if you do some investigating you will see that this site is explicitly stated to not be a safe zone by David.
(By the way, Mick, if you hadn’t caught it, Brony is expecting you to provide links that demonstrate all of the phenomena you are claiming. Otherwise the null hypotheses stand. Not sure if you had caught onto that!)
@Scildfreja
I’m watching this instead, it has cats and misandry. And one of the cats Goes His Own Way.
@ Mick Dash
I’m gonna have a go at a lot of those questions. Be warned: Teal Deer ahead.
I skipped some because, really, quite a lot of them fall under the heading of “why is hypergamy the conclusion if the answer turns out to be yes”. These questions are absolutely crawling with unacknowledged assumptions. But here we go…
If the answer is, why is “hypergamy” the reasonable conclusion as opposed to any number of other reasons why this might be the case?
Demonstrably no. Men come out of divorces better off financially. Women are usually worse off.
How do you even propose to measure this? Further, if the answer is “yes” why is the conclusion “hypergamy” and not e.g. patriarchal views of men as provider and/or patriarchal views that if a man buys dinner he’s owed sex?
Why in the actual fuck is this even here? Do you legit expect women to be virgins until they marry?
Again, “better looking” is not a thing that can be measured objectively. Further, people are allowed to have sex with people they find attractive and, likewise, not obligated to have sex with people they don’t find attractive.
Lots of unacknowledged assumptions in this one. You seem to be drawing a distinction between “better than average looking” and “financially well-off”. This also falls under the heading of “why do you think this indicates hypergamy and not e.g. “the man she fell in love with happened to make more than her previous boyfriends”?
Why is who initiates a divorce an indicator of loyalty? Why do you apparently place loyalty above, say, not remaining in a relationship that’s no longer working for whatever reason?
OK, I’m not an expert in these things but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that your null hypothesis shouldn’t include loaded terms like “divorce rape”. The answer, by the way, is no. Women do not come out of divorce financially better off on average.
…
Why is the null hypothesis to women cheating with more attractive guys that they never cheat? Women are either hypergamous, cheating sluts or paragons of virtue? No in between?
Why. Is. This. Relevant?
Why is it wrong for women to care about looks? Seriously dude! Why? WHY? Are you actually straight up saying that women should have sex with every man who comes knocking regardless of whether they find him attractive? If yes, how does that then work with your questions of loyalty and cheating? If women are expected to show no preference for who they fuck, how the fuck are you then trying to hold them to a standard of perfect, unwaivering loyalty?
Again, why do women have to never cheat in order to falsify hypergamy?
Example: alimony stats showing 50/50 alimony,
Pretty sure you’ve been recommended some reading in this very thread that addresses this subject. Further, this is a deflection; not an answer.
And now you’ve just assumed your “feminism is a religion” conclusion again. No. You don’t get to just skip ahead to the part of the conversation where you’ve already demonstrated that you’re right.
Again, why the weird dichotomy between “good looking” and “well to do”? Also, why the assumption that if a woman marries a man who is better off financially than those she dated that she’s doing it “to get money”? How do you intend to show this isn’t just coincidence?
@Sinkable John, I love Simon’s Cat :3
Just thinking out loud here, but… in theory, as we get older, we get more skills and experience, and so start earning more. So, assuming one’s looking for partners more or less one’s own age, it’s likely that one’s later partners will be better off than one’s earlier ones, simply by default.
Granted, capitalism being what it is, there’s going to be a million and one exceptions to that rule. Still, makes more sense than a massive feminine conspiracy to defraud billions of unsuspecting menz.
Ten whole pages, and still not gone?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51YUt8yOcaL.jpg
Pffft. Pffffft. Pffffffffffft.
Did that do it?
Is this gonna be a pattern gimmick of his? The other nhilist and MGTOW rhetoric got him nowhere, nor did him trying to gaslight/butter up people. Is it now going to be repeat ad nauseum at random times of the day like the world’s worst cuckoo clock?
If so, oh dear is that just dull.
Is it so surprising that my personal experience alone gives results opposite to what Meek Wash expects ? Granted, I could be the exception… in all of the points. Yeah, just a coincidence.
Here are the two general themes that I can bother adressing directly right now. Again, this is from my personal experience and that of the people close to me, so I could be a fluke. Except then that means I’m one hell of a fluke, ’cause I’m the exception to all of your rules.
“Divorce rape” : My mother got “divorce raped”. She did initiate the divorce, to get away from the man who actually raped her, as in marital rape, among all sorts of other abuse, and to protect her child from that man. When she divorced my father, she was left with nothing. Absolutely nothing. He kept the house, half of which she’d paid for. He kept the company, almost all of which was made up of her money. He siphoned the joint bank account they had. There was no alimony. There was child support though, which he never paid. He kept most of her personal belongings along with the house. She and I spent several years in poverty because he’d taken everything from us. He got away with all of that because your so-called gynocracy allows it and does nothing about it, and watches it happen without batting an eyelash.
Dating : I can honestly say that I’ve never been rejected for reasons like having no money or no job. It just doesn’t happen, dude. You get rejected because you’re an asshole, either get over it or do something about it. It’s not like I often pay for their drinks either, since I have very little money. So yeah, a lot of the women I’ve dated have paid for my drinks. And a lot of the women I’ve dated have sometimes been unable to pay as well, in which case it boiled down to the two of us figuring out something else together. Believe it or not, but going out on dates does not always involve spending money.
But then why am I even surprised that a meektoe’s griefs would boil down to sex and money. Apparently those are the only two interactions that can happen between people.
The whole thing basically boils down to Mick Dash having a major problem with women being actual thinking, feeling human beings with preferences about who they spend their lives with. His questions leave no room for a woman to have legitimate grounds to divorce or to not marry the first man who shows an interest in her.
@Sinkable John
That’s a very tough situation. I hope that life is treating you and your mother better now.
Then you and I must have watched different trailers. Please link the one you did watch, so I can see it too.
I know David offered to do an interview with her (and I would think it would be welcome, considering the kind of blog he runs), but she later declined his offer after he questioned the integrity of her movie and her achievements.
You do realize that she implied sexism against women right? Hence the name “feminism”? Feminism is against sexism and sexist exploitation of WOMEN.
Are you against sexism against women?
Because, from what I’ve seen, you’re really not. You seem to be against it when it comes to men (even when it’s not actually happening), but you don’t seem to give a damn about women, and in fact, go so far as to blame women for the “sexism and sexist exploitation” of men that you perceive to be happening, as I’m going to demonstrate a little further down.
In the meantime, I’m sure Brony won’t mind if I take a crack at these while he waits for you to post links to sources to prove that the things you want to test are actually happening. *cracks knuckles*
Several of the other posters have ninja’d me on a few of these points already, but I think they bear repeating.
I’m going to look at your first set of questions, the “scientific, testable, questions”, and see if they can actually be tested in the way you present them.
Then again, I’m a graphic designer, not a scientist, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt, and I will also defer to the more science-literate commenters here should there be flaws in my reasoning.
I’m getting a lot of my information from this source if you’d care to follow along.
That seems like a very vague question that doesn’t take into account WHY these divorces are being initiated. Not quite sciencey enough for my tastes. Let’s give this shit some mother fucking CONTEXT:
Are these women who are initiating divorce being abused? Do these women feel unsafe in their relationship in a way that’s not connected to abuse directed at them? Do they suspect their partner of cheating on them? Is their partner actually cheating on them? Are there financial troubles in the relationship? If so, what’s the nature of their troubles? Do these women feel like they’ve been deceived by their husbands in some manner? Do they feel like they cannot care for their husband anymore? Do they feel like their husband doesn’t care for them anymore?
What reasons do men initiate divorce? Are they the same? What are the rates at which a divorce is initiated because of these reasons?
I’m no divorce lawyer (I usually defer to Alan on lawyering) or statistician (I leave that to Scild, our beloved resident Fluttershy), but I’ve seen enough Divorce Court on Daytime TV to know that there are plenty of reasons why women (and men) ask for a divorce, and I think it would be in your best interest to also look at that, instead of just “wimmens are asking for divorces everywhere!”.
It’s a catchy bit of clickbait, but it needs some context to provide the meat of the article, yanno?
Yeah, you seem to be making vague assumptions without any sort of “why?” attachment, so allow me:
More often than not, women are the primary caretakers of children (and children need to be cared for and that costs money) due to societal pressures on women to be mothers and caregivers, and more often than not, women are also the ones who make less money in the relationship, sometimes because they were a housewife for a period of time in the marriage due to societal pressures on women to be mothers and caretakers first and career women second, if at all, and the pressure on men to be the PRIMARY BREADWINNER, and to have their wife make less than them because of masculine pride.
Thankfully, feminism has got you covered! A lot of states in the good ol’ US of A have now made it against the law to have preference of the mother for child custody, and thus, child support!
And alimony is now becoming more even between genders because women have fought to be a fixture in the job market! (Because alimony actually goes to the spouse who makes less money if they actually seek it).
The problems with men not getting child support/custody and alimony is simple: Many men don’t know it’s an option to seek it out, or outright refuse to.
Should more men actually wish to seek out custody/alimony, or be told that those are viable options and that there isn’t any shame in seeking them out, then perhaps the numbers would even out.
So, here’s a question: If this is such a concern for the manosphere, why aren’t they spreading awareness and support for men who are seeking custody/support or alimony?
Instead of just crowing that the men’s ex-wives are all vicious, evil harpies and that the courts are all under the “matriarchal feminazi jackboots” that is?
Still needs more context bruh.
Do women prefer to pay for dates? Why or why not? Do men prefer to pay for dates? Why or why not?
If men do pay for dates, where do they typically spend their money? If women pay for dates, where do they spend their money?
Who pays more for dates when it’s a first date? Who pays more when it’s a continued relationship?
Of those surveyed (because that’s how you’d do this shit), how many prefer to split the bill? How many prefer to interchange who pays for their date (one person pays one date, the other pays for the next time and so on)?
This one needs a clear definition of “the dating game”.
What is “the dating game”? How is it played? Who are the players? What are the conditions for victory? How long is the game played?
What are the advantages/benefits of not playing the game at all (which is what MGTOWs advocate)? What are the advantages/benefits of “playing the game” for men and women?
I wasn’t aware there was an application process to date women. I’ve never run across it, nor have I ever felt the need to employ one.
@Jackie, did I ever ask for your credit score when I agreed to date your lovely self?
But, let me throw you a bone here: Should you actually test this, you would need to survey a LARGE number of women from various states of the US, and other countries, as well as those other countries’ provinces, etc.
Then you would also need to break this down by the socioeconomic status of the women themselves, as well as look at the the socioeconomic status of the men they typically date.
You would have to present them with example men (I would say at least twenty to get a good idea of how each subject thinks), as well as give them the example men’s credit history, jobs, and typical income (don’t worry, these can be made up for the purposes of the experiment).
And even then, this would take years of time (and lots of money to test), and by then your data could actually fundamentally change, and even then, it wouldn’t be a proper sampling to make a sweeping statement about ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE.
My advice would be to start small in one neighborhood or two of varying “richness”, and then make a statement based on that.
And then repeat this process every ten years or so to keep your data current, and to show a trend of thought moving from one decade to the next.
That’s going to be hard to test to scientific standards. “Better looking” is a personal preference, not something you can accurately and consistently test across large swaths of women. You would find trends among specific groups of women in specific statuses, but not women as a whole.
And even then, you’d have to see if these women would even consider cheating on their husbands.
Though, for reference, I’d also test men to see if they’d cheat on their wives with “better looking” women. Just for a point of comparison and reference.
Well, that would depend on a few things:
1. Do women would want to actually get married or be in a committed relationship in their late twenties to early thirties?
2. Do women want to have non-committal sex before then? Do they want to have it at all?
And this is another question that would benefit from a comparison with men as well.
Again, that’s personal preference. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.
And again, I would also test men for this for comparison.
It might not be “settling”, they might actually, you know, love the guy.
Of course, most miggy-toes don’t think we feeeemales are capable of such an emotion.
_______________________________________________
All in all, I think you need to add a lot more context to your questions, and I think you need to really narrow down your focus. You also need to add points of comparison by testing men (and maybe people of other genders) as well, just so there are points of data to compare and contrast to.
You’re focusing on “women” as though we were a monolith, but the fact of the matter is you’ll never get any conclusive evidence this way. You’ll only be able to find evidence based on specific groups of women in specific parts of the world, in specific societies, with specific lifestyles and financial statuses. And even then, you won’t be able to say anything about “women” as a whole group, because of one undeniable fact:
“Women” is a group composed of individual people, with individual preferences, desires, dreams, and expectations for living.
Not to mention your “scientific inquiries” completely ignore the existence of women who are exclusively attracted to genders other than men, and women who are attracted to men and people of other genders, but that’s par for the course for manospherians in my experience.
PI did a fine job breaking it down, but I’ll just add a few more quick things.
The dinner bill is not the one and only cost of dating. If you want to get an accurate picture of what dating costs men and what dating costs women, you need to compare some more things. Who tends to spend more money on clothes, shoes, hair styling, cosmetics, and grooming products to look presentably attractive according to current social conventions in dating? I know misogynists – and for that matter, men who are just a bit clueless – think that women can and do roll out of bed looking coiffed, made up, and fashionable. But that’s not the case. Beauty is a huge expense for women. Even women who don’t look as obviously styled as a Kardashian.
Another big expense for cis women is birth control. Men do provide condoms some of the time, but women are the ones responsible for hormonal BC, which in the US can mean paying out of pocket for some or all of the BC as well as potential lost wages going to the doctor to get a prescription. Women also tend to bear the expenses of emergency contraception when prophylactics fail. We also tend to pay for an abortion and all the direct and indirect costs associated with that.
MGTOW love to focus on a dinner bill or drink tab to the exclusion of all other costs of relationships, but it is not that simple.
Another silly thing MGTOW like to do is ignore the difference between only wanting a affluent partner and wanting a partner who can take care of himself. I know I’ve never rejected a man for not being wealthy. I wouldn’t even know how to find out the credit score of someone who isn’t me. But I wouldn’t want as a life partner someone who slacks off at work, doesn’t show up to work or mouths off to the boss and/or clients and as a result cannot hold down a job. It’s hard enough to take care of myself, I don’t need to play mommy to a grown man. Lest Dick Mash or any other miggy toe take this opportunity to whine about evil feeemale hypocrisy, I think it is also perfectly reasonable for a man to expect a woman he partners with to be willing to take care of herself.
This question to me shows how simplistic Dick Mash’s worldview is. Yeah, some people (of all genders) are just assholes who have no respect for their partners and are constantly looking to cheat, but there’s plenty of research into infidelity and it’s quite often more complex than just wanting to tap hot ass. It can be a symptom of deeper problems with the relationship.
I already talked about this one upthread but wanted to expand on things. Like I said, people tend to marry within their own socioeconomic status, but in addition to that, SES can be a good predictor of what age people marry and if they even marry at all. Poor people, for a variety of reasons are less likely to ever get married than wealthy or middle class people. People with college degrees or higher tend to get married later than people without college or advanced degrees. People who are educated are more likely to have been born into middle or upper classes. Therefore, an educated and affluent man will likely marry in his late twenties or thirties, but it is likely to be to a similarly educated and affluent woman of a similar age as opposed to a “golddigger.”
Yeah, this. I should think any half decent gender studies class would introduce these concepts and not present everything in a completely ciscentric and heterocentric way. I could certainly be wrong as I am not a gender studies expert, but I have really hard team believing that any gender studies class would be like an extended version of Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus. It’s almost like Dick Mash is full of shit and just wants a way to call women whores without coming out and directly saying it!
ETA: Maybe not so quick. That was actually a bit of teal deer.
Seems to me that if Mick actually wants to investigate these questions of his, the place to do that is in a graduate program in gender studies, under adult supervision, not on a mockery website’s comment board.
That presumes that someone who doesn’t even know how bell hooks spells her name is actually interested in the real answers, rather than the fact-free assumptions spread around the redpill-o-sphere.
Been meaning to adress that, but I can’t engrish up the words. That’s just fucking low.*
ETA : *Believe it or not, but that wasn’t a pun.
Thanks for the awesome additions, WWTH! I didn’t even think about the prep work and the cost associated with it.
Then again, there could be an argument made that women are expected to not even leave the house without makeup on/hair done/outfit on point, but date night is usually super special for a lot of people, and thus requires more effort and more/better products. Thus, more cost.
Sure, men also make an effort, but do they make the makeup/hair/high heel effort? My intuition tells me “no”.
Then again, I would like to see this study of Mickey’s actually done (though not by Mickey. Not through enough for my tastes. He’s too biased and is missing very important data). The numbers would be very interesting, and it would make a lovely reference for later miggy-toes who come stomping in here throwing a tantrum about money and feeeemales.
Most dudes I’ve talked to on that subject are under the impression that women spend money on makeup, clothes, etc, because they like that sort of thing. Usually followed by a complaint about how shallow women are, and how they should spend their time thinkin’ thinky thoughts and smart-having instead of being concerned about their appearances.
(i.e. they have absolutely no clue)
Yup. The double standard lives on and men pretend it’s not happening, or refuse to hear otherwise.
Women are supposed to like makeup and clothes. But if they do, they’re shallow, vain, petty harpies who have heads full of naught but air. Women who like makeup and clothes live on as the villains of movies who hate the plucky-yet-plain protagonist, until she gets the makeover to turn her into a TOTAL HOTTIE (irony alert), and then they’re scrambling at her feet for friendship.
But if women don’t like makeup and clothes, then they’re scruffy, frumpy, lazy, ugly, or they have no self-respect for themselves because they don’t spend every spare dollar or moment of their time perfecting their appearance to society’s (read MEN’S) lofty standards. They’re the frumpy girl that screws up all her courage to ask the hot guy out, only to be laughed at and turned down because she’s not pretty enough. She’s the “DUFF”. The “Designated Ugly Fat Friend”. Who only exists to make her society standard friends look more beautiful.
http://www.impawards.com/2015/posters/duff_ver7.jpg
Look at that ugly girl in the overalls! She’s so fat! Look how she just makes everyone look better by comparison!
@Mick Dash
I’ll play pretend with you a little bit, it’s obvious that you just have a personal issue with women. But it’s fun to go through the motions to see just how shitty this would be if someone did try to do science with what you have presented.
I did not just type up that process to exercise my fingers, this is premature. A scientific testable question is one that has some basis for being investigated. Go look at my part a and b again. What do you know about the phenomena in question and what have you read about it so far?
You were motivated to type up those nine questions and want to look for a connection between women and those things. What persuaded you to want to test these questions?
The previous was a serious replay based on how people really go about figuring out what to scientifically investigate. This next bit will be focusing on things show precisely how your biases would screw up any science you tried here. Let’s line your questions up and show how this is not likely about science to you, it’s about social conflict games.
My first comment is that if I had to design these experiments with these I would do your questions twice after eliminating the bias and replace “women” with “men” in the second set. Though I would still need to think about if current social stereotypes prevents me from getting at anything that would get me the “opposite data” that I was looking for. These things can get weird.
The first is a statement having to do with seeking numbers of a phenomena, the second uses the word “loyal” which has to do with feelings about initiating a divorce and not numbers of divorces. Your feelings about women initiating divorces are corrupting your ability to construct good questions. One can study reasons for initiating a divorce but that is separate from your question.
The first is a statement having to do with seeking numbers of a phenomena, the second is a grotesque sarcastic non-literalism that makes it obvious that you are coming into this expecting to see a pattern despite the fact that you have not explored anything yet. Such reasoning biases have cause many problems to researchers in the past.
Bias patterns: you already seem to see women as disloyal and violating in a manner that leaves you inarticulate to the point of taking an experience that is not your to take and lying about your experience. Have the courage to stand on your own instead of stealing from others if you want to express that you don’t like an experience.
Again the first has to do with recording numbers of a phenomena, the second irrationally brings in a social issue having to do with the money that women make.
Bias pattern: you are willing to contaminate your science with irrelevant sociopolitical tangents for purposes of political sniping.
The first is not a very good question because “dating game” is not a technical term, it is a casual social descriptor. The second again sarcasm that that imputes motives to any data collected.
Bias pattern: You have already come to a conclusion about any data you might collect and have contaminated your null with your emotional disposition towards any financial benefits that women might gain from dating.
This is a very difficult question to investigate and if you were serious about this I would suggest that you look at the difficulties involved in doing studies that might make people feel negatively about themselves.
Bias pattern: Again you already believe that you will find certain patterns with respect to women even though you have not done anything research related.
The first is something that can potentially be studied, promiscuity and perceived attractiveness. The second is a black and white assumption about potential data results that there is no reason to assume.
This question is connecting commitment to sex without reason and appear to be assuming that “non-committal sex” (whatever that is) affects other kinds of relationships. Other things would need to be explored before such assumptions are appropriate in testable questions. For example what are these commitments and how would sex earlier in life affect them? How would you measure “commitment” and assign values?
Bias pattern: you appear to believe that sex without “commitments” (needs defining) is different from sex with “commitments”. This means that you personal beliefs about sex and “commitments” are influencing your scientific questions when you have not even determined if those beliefs have any grounding in reality to begin with.
This is only half a question, and the next is the other half.
This would be a very tricky thing to study as the tastes in what is considered to be physically attractive vary widely both between cultures and within cultures, especially over time (suggesting much of what we consider attractive is nurture instead of nature). You would have to do some work to correct for this when looking for something that might be inherent to women, including taking social messages about what women should consider attractive into account (since the wide ranges in what is considered attractive could manifest in different ways for different groups). The biases assumptions have revealed would make this very difficult for you.
Additionally you assume that perceived attractiveness of sexual partners versus age is already a thing, and that there would be the pattern you mention. That would need to be independently studied in both sexes.
This assumes that money is what attracts women, and assumes that attraction towards men with money varies over time. A scientific question is not supposed to assume what it is seeking to investigate. You would need to look for changes in attractiveness of men with money in general similarly to the previous question.
Well I certainly learned a lot about you. You are quite a piece of work and I would not trust your opinion on women if my life depended it. I only looked at some of the problems too, I could have doubled my number of observations about these questions easily.
So you are running away from the things that you wanted to have studied? That is how I interpret it anyway since these would be separate questions instead of any “real question”. An honest scientist would be interested in both sets of questions if they has adequate reasons for wanting to pursue them to begin with.
I also see that you definitely did not do anything remotely like my part b or you would have encountered some of observations supporting male privilege already. I suspected that I had no reason to think that you actually read anything about these issues and are only projecting your personal experiences onto a whole group of people. It’s good to see the evidence for your bigotry confirmed so nicely. That quite potent irrational prejudice and discrimination you have there.
Which you have done jack shit to substantiate beyond waving at concepts that have to do with philosophy and government broadly. I’m still waiting for you views that government and philosophy are also religion, AND your examples that have to do with faith and supernaturalism. You don’t look like you have any idea about what you are talking about and we are rapidly approaching the point where the only good excuse you might have is that you are 12 years old and come from an authoritarian family.
If you are by some slim chance actually serious you will start having to actually get specific about the faith and supernaturalism, and drop the personal BS that I saw in your questions. I actually hope that you are just pretending and “messing with the feminists” as the reality of the resulting reasoning abilities, influence of negative experiences, and inability to defend yourself would be very bad for you.
An restatement of the same thing. Noted.
Is it just me or is he working with an unusual syllogism?
“I dislike religion.”
“I dislike feminism.”
“Therefore, feminism must be a religion.”
The thing about this logic is that it can be applied in all sorts of ways:
“I dislike olives.”
“I dislike nationalism.”
“Therefore, olives must be nationalistic.”
“I dislike Metal Gear games.”
“I dislike Carl Benjamin of Swindon.”
“Therefore, Carl Benjamin of Swindon must have made the Metal Gear games.”
That doesn’t seem reliable to me, but since it’s been said by someone who evidently understands science much better than I do, it must be true.