NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
Sometimes you do come across PUA advice that seems to make sense, but then it usually looks like something that would work equally well for women hitting on men, or gays for that matter.
Like, the other day there was an interview with Neil Strauss in our morning paper, and he gave some pick-up advice. One was not to start a conversation by giving a compliment, but asking a question instead. Something you really don’t no the answer to. That’s a better way to get a conversation started. Well, I can totally believe your chances of eventually going home with somebody’s phone number improves if you start a conversation by asking them something rather than just going “hey, beautiful!”, but that would apply to both genders, and you don’t need some particular evo psych theory to back it up.
There’s also this theory that you should wear crazy clothing when going out. I believe that might actually improve your odds for several reasons. Firstly, you’ll catch people’s attention, which I suppose is a good first step towards getting on with somebody. Secondly, your weird clothes can provide a topic for a first conversation with somebody. Thirdly, if you’re shy and your problem is that you tend to disappear into a corner, weird clothes that everybody stares at might force you to become more extrovert. But once again, that would apply to both genders, and not just heterosexuals.
Then there’s completely abhorrant advice as well of course, like to keep pushing when a woman says “no”. “Start raping people who don’t want to have consensual sex with you” is NOT a good answer to the question “how do I get laid more often?”.
There is no fucking way that’s in the original study, it’s in color! (Peer reviewed journals almost never let you submit figures in color, because they’re often printed in black and white) — so again “you might consider this” — also, that chart could easily be “as rated by” which proves jack all about the truth of life (you need a study actually getting at personality traits and then correlating them with gender, not one just asking people what they think)
Dvärghundspossen — yeah I sometimes see PUA advice that’s just decent advise in general, “One was not to start a conversation by giving a compliment, but asking a question instead.” being a common one. Maybe the more people who repeat that refusing to accept a no is rapist logic the more likely he is to realize I’m not just making shit up?
Dvärghundspossen — one other note — “both genders” — all genders, not both, not everyone is either a man or a woman (eg intersex people, genderqueers) — thanks!
Nancy:
“I pointed out that your belief that “male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status” is evolutionary psychology propaganda.”
No you just claimed it. Pointing it out would involve proving it. Not just saying it and trusting friends will agree to anything.
“PUA, like all organizations that have an interest in bolstering male privilege, eagerly adopts EP theories.”
PUA is not an organisation. Still just a method. Also most males do not have any privilege. The privileged people have privilege regardless of gender.
“One of the standard tenets of EP is that women aren’t visual and men are. This of course ignores all the evidence that women are in fact interested in exactly the same features in a partner – youth and beauty – that men are.”
No, it just conclude they are not as important for women as they are for men. This is not an opinion thousands of women have been tested for this in double-blind tests. The researchers tell the women to tell us which guy is more attractive HOWEVER they also make sure women can read information of the guys – thus scientists can easily trick girls by asking them which guy is hotter and lie about which guy works as a club owner and which guy works at macdonalds.
“And I’ll testify for you – I am much more likely to be sexually attracted to a 25-year-old than a 52-year old based on physical appearance”
EP never said you werent. It just said you would not be as likely as a guy to think this is important. Also you do not measure 25 compared to 52, you measure older looking 25 compared to younger looking 25. You measure rich 25 with poor 25.
“What EP always ignores is the fact that until very recently, women haven’t had the luxury to choose partners based primarily on youth and beauty.”
Neither had men. Young people were paired together based on class, family etc. Kennedy had younger women on the side, Clinton had younger women on the side. Lots of Kings in central and northern europe had bastard sons with younger mistresses.
“Until very recently most women had to compete to be chosen by a man who would then support her financially. Only in the last 50 years have women had the opportunity, in large numbers to be wholly self-supporting.”
Yes, but the data on this were not created 50 years ago. The data we have are based on the women of today.
“And a necessary caveat – this is only true of industrial societies. There are still some places in the world right now where little girls are sold into marriage by their families to old men.”
Yes, unlike USA where democratic politician Dennis Kucinich born -46 is married to Elizabeth -77
“But wherever women have the luxury of choosing partners based on aesthetics, they are very much visual creatures.”
Yes, women are visual and men are more visual than women.
“The fact that the “cougar” trend has happened now is no coincidence – it’s a response on the part of women to their freedom to choose men on the basis of youth and beauty.”
Which cougar trend? Statistically no cougar trend ever happened. No change in the normal statistical age difference in couples happened. Dads did not magically become younger and moms did not get older. What did happen was Ashton Kutcher marrying Demi Moore. Off course due to operations she looked 20 years younger than her real age and now he has a much younger girlfriend.
“The term for men who prefer younger women is “men.” But the term cougar will fade as the behavior becomes more common, and in less than an evolutionary time-span.”
We have no reason to belive it will become more common. In fact the normal evolution is daughters do not wanna be like their mothers.
“And then of course there are “metrosexuals” – heterosexual men who put more care into their grooming and appearance than has previously been considered acceptable – or necessary.”
Metrosexuals are rich people in large cities, same as the nobility of old times. Nothing new. They are like the british in Pirates of the Caribbean in their fake-hair and brightly colored uniforms.
“Why should men primp for women? Men had all the money – it was up to women to show they were worth the financial investment of marriage by men.
Now you again assume men married based on attractiveness. They did not, in fact married public men like Clinton and Kennedy cheated their wives with younger women. Also wives were not judged on looks but on classy behavior.
“The appearance of metrosexuals at this time is also not a coincidence, but a response to female financial independence.”
Metrosexuals is nothing new. Any study on upper class men would reveal the same thing. Enjoy this picture of a russian metrosexual from the 1700s also observe women could not be judged on looks, you can hardly see what she looks like in those outfits
http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/30/3031/1TLBF00Z/posters/russian-noble-and-ladies-in-summer-dress-1700s.jpg
@Argenti: Sorry, all genders. 🙂 I’m not even sure I’m completely a ciswoman myself (although I’m definetily not a transman) so it was a really stupid mistake to make.
Both of these are the same problem — Nancy says men pick partners based on looks; Aktivarum assumes this only means the partner they married and then goes on to say their mistresses we picked on *drumroll* looks.
Aktivarum please learn to read for meaning at least, really though, you’re long past tedious, what’s the point here? You want the PUA definition changed and thus will argue every point under the sun?
David can we get rid of this fool already? Or at least direct him someplace that isn’t the damned glossary?
Dvärghundspossen — no problem, and the note kind of does belong in the glossary anyways (unlike the rest of this)
Argenti:
“Um…pump and dump, that’s all I’m saying.”
And I was saying guys do not want most women to stay after sex, They want to have sex with many women but they want to be with just a few special women. The problem was guys being in a relationship cause of sex with women they do not care for.
“I don’t care if some get married. The commonly seen method is the pump and dump, and even when it isn’t, the idea that your tactics will lead to an actual relationship are absurd, how does anyone have a relationship with someone they don’t even speak to enough to know if they have anything in common?”
Since when is “not speaking” PUA? One of the first things you look for is things you have in common. If she seems to be girlfriendly you find rapport, if she isnt you break rapport. Regardless which, you know things about her.
“That “how not to get raped and/or murdered” article is definitely meant as advice though.”
No it isnt. It is meant to cause fear and play on needs of conformity. Men are way more murdered than women yet no mens magazine writes how we can avoid being murdered.
“Wow do you not see the difference between introducing your girlfriend to your guy friends and isolating her from her friends?”
I do not see a difference between needing to go away from guy friends or needing to go away from girl friends. All I see is difference in the need arising. Guys dont as often go in between their friend and the girl he wants. Women let their girlfriends dictate what is appropriate.
“The latter is an abusers game to the point it’s commonly cited as a red-flag. How is isolating her from her friends ever supposed to “create freedom”?!”
Cause women sexually repress women (Beumeister, sexual economics), being alone means she is free from this. She can break the rules cause a) guys dont normally tell whatever happened with a woman to other women and b) even if she take initiative she can later say it was his fault.
“No, half of guys should ask again at a different time, she’s not currently interested.”
That half of the women said they WERE interested. They said they would have slept with the guy had he actually been interested “man” enough to ignore yes.
“And saying no equals refusing sex? You are not entitled to sex.”
Awesome argument! Tell me what purpose free abortions have cause if sex is so un-important I cant see why the state should help women with abortions. Isnt the entire issue unless state helps with abortions women cant have sex as much as they want?
Or maybe you meant men having sex is not important for you. Your ability to have sex when you want and need (feeling entitled) should be everyones economical problem?
“One guy! That’s even more an anecdote than the note about men saying Bush looked like a guy you could drink with.”
One guy from the world ranking. Not just anybody but somebody important.
“Rape is a crime of violence or coercion. Using your logic would mean a normal sales call would be equal to committing fraud by coercion.”
They are not equal. Also Women lie about appearances to get sex. Its called the “beauty industry”
“Admire =/= respect, not when admire means “find sexy” (how in the fuck do I have to state that?)”
According to which bible?
“Point was more that respectful guys who absolutely suck are likely to get dumped/not called back.”
Most girls a guy have sex with he doesnt want her to call back cause she is not girlfriend material to him.
“Developmental, evolutionary, etc are branches of experimental; cognitive, Freudian, etc are branches of clinical. Please at least know wtf you are talking about.”
Yes they are branches or sub-fields or whatever you wanna call it. That was my point.
“Then I’d imagine he has some clue wtf he’s talking about, though that depends how long he was out of psych while doing philosophy”
I am pretty sure he as a better grip on the subject than you considering his points was suported by Diane Halpern.
“Yes, please see above re: coercive sales not being legal either.”
See above, Women lie to get sex, its called the beauty industry
“You’re arguing on what most people do based on one incredibly rich man?”
You said “regardless how rich” now you wanna point out he is rich. The entire point of your argument was it would not work even when he was rich.
“Really? Also, you just admitted PUAs want one night stands, thanks for playing, please play again!”
Read again, it clearly says “Guys in general” not “PUA” Also I never said guys dont want to have sex with girls who are girlfriend-material. I said most women the guys get to have sex with arent girlfriend-.material so its hardly their choice.
“You clearly have no clue how the world works…if a waitress’s tips are tied to how she looks, not how well she does her job, then yes, she is “required” to look sexy (more like preferred, but the point stands).”
Preference is the magic word. Its not required to get more money. People prefer to get more money and of free will chose behaving accordingly.
“Nobody is forcing stars to act “this way”? Oh is that why female stars regularly complain about having to dress sexy and what all the tabloid articles on them being seen in jeans are about?”
Them dressed sexy is part of the job they chose. Nobody is forced to be a star. They complain not over things they have to do, but things they are well paid to do. Things created by other people who are not stars.
“You clearly cannot see the difference between being sexy in front of a camera and being expected to be sexy while out for a walk though.”
When you are a star there is no difference: thats the reson for stars living a way most people dont and being paid very well.
“And Hollywood can do expensive movies because people will pay to see them — if you did 100% product placements it’d flop epically”
According to marketing people at “007 – Skyfall” they cant make the movie without placements. One of the placements involve James Bond drinking Heineken-beer instead of “shaken not stirred”. Last movie had him driving a Ford Focus. And he no longer plays baccarat in Casino Royale he now loves Texas No Limit Holdem
“And the same public interest in her appearance…or did you miss when Hillary Clinton wore no make-up and glasses?”
How many appearances did Jon Edwards do with his hair non-fixed? Try youtube: Jon Edwards, Feeling Pretty.
“…which is what darksidecat said, to which you replied:”
Incorrect: What darksidecat said was
“constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.”
I said (third time) The constitution was supposed to be a check on the goverment.
Argenti:
A copule of studies you asked for.
Marco Del Giudice, Tom Booth, and Paul Irwing “The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality”
Jason Wilder, Zahra Mobasher, and Michael Hammer, “Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males”
“And I was saying guys do not want most women to stay after sex, They want to have sex with many women but they want to be with just a few special women. The problem was guys being in a relationship cause of sex with women they do not care for.”
So the “problem” PUA “solves” is that some men can’t handle dumping people they don’t like? And that’s solved by never getting involved? Yet you won’t admit that most PUAs do not have long term relationships? o.O?
“Since when is “not speaking” PUA? One of the first things you look for is things you have in common. If she seems to be girlfriendly you find rapport, if she isnt you break rapport. Regardless which, you know things about her.”
Yeah I didn’t exactly mean “do you like football?” there, but you’re clearly incapable of having an actual conversation in general, so I’m not going to bother trying to teach you how.
“No it isnt. It is meant to cause fear and play on needs of conformity. Men are way more murdered than women yet no mens magazine writes how we can avoid being murdered.”
Well yes it’s fear mongering, no one was arguing it wasn’t, you were arguing that cosmo et all have an “if you want” clause attached — “Neither PUA nor Womens Mags tell what you should do. They both tell you HOW you do things if you want to.” — I was arguing that there is no “if you want” attached to how not to get killed (FFS I need to explain this? really?)
“I do not see a difference between needing to go away from guy friends or needing to go away from girl friends. All I see is difference in the need arising. Guys dont as often go in between their friend and the girl he wants. Women let their girlfriends dictate what is appropriate.”
I did not fucking ask about gender differences, I asked if you really didn’t see the difference between forcing someone to be isolated and introducing your partner to your friends. The former is, and always will be, an abusers game.
“Cause women sexually repress women (Beumeister, sexual economics), being alone means she is free from this. She can break the rules cause a) guys dont normally tell whatever happened with a woman to other women and b) even if she take initiative she can later say it was his fault.”
I can’t even…wow…ok even if it is true that women sexually repress women (and you can provide a link if you want me to check the methodology on that study) — feminists are against the idea the whole “too slutty” thing, so please try again. And b?? You think it a good thing that if she comes onto you she can always accuse you of rape later? Well, you aren’t an MRA is all that proves…
“That half of the women said they WERE interested. They said they would have slept with the guy had he actually been interested “man” enough to ignore yes.”
I repeat, CITATION NEEDED — and again, the idea that women must play hard to get is something feminists are against.
“‘And saying no equals refusing sex? You are not entitled to sex.’
Awesome argument! Tell me what purpose free abortions have cause if sex is so un-important I cant see why the state should help women with abortions. Isnt the entire issue unless state helps with abortions women cant have sex as much as they want?
Or maybe you meant men having sex is not important for you. Your ability to have sex when you want and need (feeling entitled) should be everyones economical problem?”
“you cannot rape” => “ABORTION!!!” Dude go fuck off or at least stay on your made up topics. You are not entitled to sex with any given person and any given time, period, end of discussion, insisting otherwise is fucking rapist logic. (And no, abortion has nothing to do with economics, it was a legal case saying women [and others] have the right to make medical decisions with their doctors, not with the state) — Do I seriously need to state that men having sex with people who want to have sex with them is just fine by me? I mean really now!
“One guy from the world ranking. Not just anybody but somebody important.”
I don’t care if he’s the pope, it’s still an anecdote and not a statistic.
“‘Rape is a crime of violence or coercion. Using your logic would mean a normal sales call would be equal to committing fraud by coercion.’
They are not equal. Also Women lie about appearances to get sex. Its called the ‘beauty industry”'”
“rape can also be coercion” => “but women wear make up!” — yeah just go fuck off. And no, they aren’t equal, rape by coercion will usually get you a decade, rape by force 25+ — you gonna go argue how that’s a meaningful difference with someone serving a decade?
“‘Admire =/= respect, not when admire means “find sexy” (how in the fuck do I have to state that?)’
According to which bible?”
“I only like you for your body” =/= respect, if you can’t wrap your fucking head around that I’m not explaining it.
“‘Point was more that respectful guys who absolutely suck are likely to get dumped/not called back.’
Most girls a guy have sex with he doesnt want her to call back cause she is not girlfriend material to him.”
So the fuck what? You made the valid point that one cannot judge how good a partner is in bed until you’ve done such, I said I was saying that’s correct, but still a factor in whether to continue the relationship…wtf does your reply have to do with this?
“Yes they are branches or sub-fields or whatever you wanna call it. That was my point.”
No your point was that I don’t know what I’m talking about and you apparently do know when to back down, good idea.
“I am pretty sure he as a better grip on the subject than you considering his points was suported by Diane Halpern.”
Point stands that asking people who they find attractive in a study means jack all about who they actually date. “More attractive” =/= “the only person presented who I’d fuck”
“See above, Women lie to get sex, its called the beauty industry”
Wearing make up versus refusing to take a no? MILES APART. Men sometimes wear hair gel, and fancy clothing, hey, I beat that’s even PUA advise! This the same as a girl refusing to take a no from you? Some girl you have no interest in who just will not leave you alone?
“You said “regardless how rich” now you wanna point out he is rich. The entire point of your argument was it would not work even when he was rich.”
Argh, remind me never to use modifiers — one man is an anecdote, he could be Brad pItt and he’d still be an anecdote.
“‘Really? Also, you just admitted PUAs want one night stands, thanks for playing, please play again!’
Read again, it clearly says “Guys in general” not “PUA” Also I never said guys dont want to have sex with girls who are girlfriend-material. I said most women the guys get to have sex with arent girlfriend-.material so its hardly their choice.”
Are PUAs not men? Then “guys in general” includes PUAs. And now it’s “hardly their choice” that their method of meeting people means most of the people they meet “aren’t girlfriend-material”? You just contradicted your first point here, the one about PUA solving exactly that problem — then again, if PUA both creates and solves the same problem…that’s like advertising gold right there XD
“‘You clearly have no clue how the world works…if a waitress’s tips are tied to how she looks, not how well she does her job, then yes, she is “required” to look sexy (more like preferred, but the point stands).’
Preference is the magic word. Its not required to get more money. People prefer to get more money and of free will chose behaving accordingly.”
Do you realize how little waitstaff gets paid? <>.<$4 an hour usually…so no, making more money isn’t merely a preference — she is preferred by her boss, customers and society to wear make-up, be sexy, whatever — doing so is required to make enough to survive as waitstaff however.
“Them dressed sexy is part of the job they chose. Nobody is forced to be a star. They complain not over things they have to do, but things they are well paid to do. Things created by other people who are not stars.”
Nicely done ignoring how many celebrities are in industries unrelated to looking attractive — eg singers. And photoshoots pay shit, because “publicity is good!” (which is true to a degree, but merely showing up for a photoshoot does not pay well)
“When you are a star there is no difference: thats the reson for stars living a way most people dont and being paid very well.”
See above FFS, re: singers, and being an actor/actress should NOT automatically make your life open to public scrutiny, you seem to have most celebrities mixed up with lifestyle celebrities like Lady Gaga (who grocery shops dressed like that so she doesn’t have to worry about this FFS)
“According to marketing people at “007 – Skyfall” they cant make the movie without placements. One of the placements involve James Bond drinking Heineken-beer instead of “shaken not stirred”. Last movie had him driving a Ford Focus. And he no longer plays baccarat in Casino Royale he now loves Texas No Limit Holdem”
They can’t get the money without product placements =/= hollywood only exists because product placements, please try again.
“How many appearances did Jon Edwards do with his hair non-fixed? Try youtube: Jon Edwards, Feeling Pretty.”
Irrelevant — relevant question would be if anyone would give a shit if Obama or Edwards wore glasses instead of contacts. Or, better yet, whether any of them are expected to wear make up in the first place (noting that public appearances do generally require it of everyone because stage lights do weird things, I mean while speaking to Congress here)
I can’t tell if you’re fractally wrong or gaslighting at this point, so let me quote the entire conversation:
darksidecat — “constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.”
you — “Actually, The Constitution is a check on the goverment. Historically majorities was opressed by kings and churches (something u should know) making a law to protect us from the majority completely redundant.”
me — “constitutionalism =/= The Constitution, let me google that for you.”
you — Yes and guess what Stanford Encyclopedia says on the matter ‘Constitutionalism is the idea — that government can and should be legally limited in its powers'”
my last comment, the entire relevant section:
This has now gotten meta enough I cannot tell if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with darksidecat’s original point.
I am, however, damned sure that you seem to think we can’t scroll up to see what you said last.
Marco Del Giudice, Tom Booth, and Paul Irwing “The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality”
“In univariate terms, the largest differences between the sexes were found in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension (higher in females), and Emotional stability, Dominance, Rule-consciousness, and Vigilance (higher in males). These effects subsume the classic sex differences in instrumentality/expressiveness or dominance/nurturance (see [11]).”
Considering those are ALL also socialized traits, I’d be wary of taking it as innate, but my biggests issue here is you made up the damned chart you cited last time. The point of which was about gender differences in voting. And ftr, I strongly disagree with their first objection in the discussion section, nothing gets publicized if you don’t cover those bases, but it’s the most common section for “make shit up!” this is neither the time nor place to debate univariate versus multivariate weighting, nor does it have shit to do with the glossary.
Jason Wilder, Zahra Mobasher, and Michael Hammer, “Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males”
Biology isn’t my field, but an N of < 75? *wary face* Second, this is about genetic variation and mutation. Third they say —
“However, no population exhibits a significant excess of rare variants in our NRY data sets, which is thought to be one of the genetic signatures of a recent selective sweep (Tajima 1989b; Fu and Li 1993; Braverman et al. 1995).”
“Thus, our results provide no additional support for the hypothesis that differential positive selection causes the disparate TMRCAs of the NRY and mtDNA, although we cannot rule out selective sweeps (acting either globally or locally) that may have occurred before the coalescence of the observed genealogies.”
“These lines of reasoning lead us to postulate that sexspecific demographic processes are the most likely causes of the observed discrepancy in the TMRCAs of mtDNA and the NRY.”
They then go on to discuss how men take longer to reproduce (I’m simplifying because no one wants to read 3 paragraphs about generation times) and have a bit of discussion of polygyny and how reproductive success might be inherited patrilineally.
“For instance, the widespread phenomenon of patrilocality (defined anthropologically as the tendency for a wife to move to her husband’s natal domicile) could contribute to the observed pattern if it resulted in higher rates of mtDNA thanNRYgene flow between genetically distinct populations (Seielstad, Minch, and Cavalli-Sforza 1998).”
“In reality, both polygyny and patrilocality are common occurrences in human cultures, and it is, therefore, not surprising to see patterns in population genetic data that are congruent with these phenomena.”
It would appear the only sentence you understood was this one — “Instead, we favor a hypothesis whereby sex-specific demographic processes act to reduce the male breeding population size.” — except they’re refering to the above discussed phenomenon, which have fuck all to do with mate selection by women.
“This observation differs significantly from neutral expectations based on a one-to-one breeding ratio but is extremely close to the expected results given a breeding ratio of two females per male (Hedrick 2000).” — yeah they think men taking multiple wives was important, not men being unable to take any wives.
And that’s evolutionary biology btw, not ev-psych.
…but, again, he’s proving the wrong point here, isn’t he? Any examination of John Edwards would have to include the ways he was attacked, and the way that was an outlier. He was attacked because he was percieved as taking too much care of his appearance. Yet he wasn’t putting in a fraction of what a woman in the same position would be expected to do–and the woman is attacked because she is percieved as not giving enough attention to appearance.
It’s as if he thinks throwing out a series of random attacks makes it look like he’s winning. As if the quality of the ideas expressed has nothing to do with it.
Hmm.
Shorter version — first study does find notable sex differences, but makes no attempt to account for socialization, I find their counter to the first objection highly questionable, and anyways, it’s got fuck all to do with how women vote — which was why you introduced the chart that I’d questioned.
Second study is about genetic variance and determines it is probably due to sex selective factors like polygyny (multiple wives) and patrilocality (wives moving to their husbands location) — point is two fold, one that if you take many wives, all your sons, etc down the generations, will have your Y-chromosome, whereas your daughters will have a variety of X-chromosomes (you’d see the inverse if polyandry was more common) AND that because women are more likely to move, they’re less likely to be mating with their 5th cousin, thus spreading their X-chromosomes around more and introducing more variation. Again, fuck all to do with your claim, this time the claim being that half of men don’t mate and thus are evolutionary dead ends.
I’m forming a theory about Aktivarum, at least as scientific as anything he’s said so far. He’s observed internet debates before, and thinks he understands the way they work. Based on his observation, the person who raises the most objections to what the other person says and references science and outside links the most often wins.
He hasn’t actually read those debates, and doesn’t see a difference between saying ‘well this study by somebody says something’ and, um, ‘well, walrus, so, pigeon.’
So we’re getting a lot of walrus and pigeon. Making noise to make it look like a furious debate. Because as far as he’s concerned, that’s as good as winning.
Stuff like staying on point? Proving his points? He’s happy to throw out examples that disprove his points. As long as he throws out lots of examples.
“It’s as if he thinks throwing out a series of random attacks makes it look like he’s winning. As if the quality of the ideas expressed has nothing to do with it.”
Yeah I can’t tell if he’s just dense, intentionally obtuse, or trying to gaslight his way into being right — I mention the latter because of the assumptions that a) I’m a woman, and b) that means I don’t care about whether men get any, when, if he’d hung around on any actual thread, he’d have seen I tend to indulge trolls in their requests for dating advice.
Your theory seems at least partly correct, though I’d add sprinklings of “no clue how to have an actual conversation in general” and “things annoying people into giving up is the goal” (cannot tell if that’s idiocy or that he’s usually an emotionally abusive prick, given the defenses of isolating your partner and refusing to accept no, the comparison between that and make-up….it’s not looking good)
Ah yes, the old, “all women are prostitutes” argument beloved of EP promoters.
Although if you had two identical men, but one was rich and one was poor, why wouldn’t you choose the rich one? That means they are identical in every way, except that by one single metric one is superior.
That’s hypothetical of course, no two people are exactly the same, even twins.
And of course that’s not what EP promoters are talking about. EP promoters actually believe that if you had a hot 25-year old guy with no money and an ugly 25-year old guy with money, women would feel *sexual desire* for the ugly guy because of his money.
I know that sounds insane, those of you who are not familiar with the core beliefs of EP, but this is exactly what they posit – that women are sexually aroused by money.
There are gold diggers of course – of both genders. What EP does is take the concept of gold digging and turn it into an innate sexual preference, not an opportunistic financial scheme – but only for women.
Why do they do that? Because such a belief bolsters the status quo in which men have more money than women. And if men don’t have money – or at least more money than women – then according to EP theories, women are incapable of being aroused by them.
Here is an op-ed, written by EP promoter Helena Cronin, in which she argues that the British government should have a mommy-track and a daddy-track system for employment in order to promote marriage. It promotes marriage because it ensures that men have more money than women. This op-ed was originally a policy paper called “The Evolved Family.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,239317,00.html
“Here is an op-ed, written by EP promoter Helena Cronin, in which she argues that the British government should have a mommy-track and a daddy-track system for employment in order to promote marriage. It promotes marriage because it ensures that men have more money than women.”
Um, wow, that would increase marriages, and make women literally second class citizens and more like slaves. Plus the transphobia, gender binary reinforcement, homophobia, heterosexism and assumption everyone wants kids (maybe, idk if children are specifically discussed, I’m not sure I want to read that!)
“Some rich men practise serial monogamy – which is effective polygyny straining at the leash of institutionalised monogamy – and leave broken families in their wake.”
Add classism to the above list apparently. Not to mention how is the solution to men leaving their wives supposed to be to give them MORE control?? The mind, it does boggle.
I mean, we all knew that was what they really wanted. But they really take the mask off sometimes, and even _knowing_ isn’t enough to stop the horror….
Arktivarum: Yes people know this but when women do have sex they more often have sex with which guy? The one listening or the one not listening? A published study on “token resistance” showed 50% of women refused sex with guys who respect their no. Guys according to half the woman population should “risk it”
As to this: Guys in general dont want most women to stay after sex. Guys want to have sex with many women and relationships with a few special ones.
I think you might want to consider this in regards to It means nothing hinders a woman to become president, except lack of interest and support from other women.
This is why democracy is the superior system. Ideas are tested on merit – not on social relations. </i
Really You are saying a plebiscite of the masses = tested on merit?
In a world where we have referenda whether or not other people’s rights ought to be stripped from them?
Right.
The point I made was women changing their opinion to Hillary Clinton. I did not talk about why they earlier voted for Obama I expressed what made them change their mind.
And you said this was a problem when women did it, while (still) ignoring that it’s not a failing limited to women.
No I did not say women vote on likeable. I said women stopped voting on whoever they voted on cause Hillary Clinton cried and had a tough time. She might actually have won had she played more on it being so hard for her – however that is not the way she wanted to portray herself.
Because that wouldn’t have bothered men at all
It was a conclusion from the scientific studies of gender differences.
What studies? Links, please. Because right now all we have is your word, and your word is, at best, confused, and at worst downright false, as with your claim in that link to your blog that you have a study. That’s a graphic which pretends your opinion is data based. It may be, but there is no actual data to evaluate.
But you are, so it seems, willing to be intentionally dishonest (or so lacking self-awareness that you could say this No you just claimed it. Pointing it out would involve proving it. Not just saying it and trusting friends will agree to anything. with a straight face).
<a href =http://img33.glitterfy.com/12117/glitterfy2193958T831D30.gifThis is not an opinion thousands of women have been tested for this in double-blind tests. The researchers tell the women to tell us which guy is more attractive HOWEVER they also make sure women can read information of the guys – thus scientists can easily trick girls by asking them which guy is hotter and lie about which guy works as a club owner and which guy works at macdonalds.
Yes, but the data on this were not created 50 years ago. The data we have are based on the women of today.
Citations needed.
Yes, women are visual and men are more visual than women.
Citations needed.
Now you again assume men married based on attractiveness. They did not, in fact married public men like Clinton and Kennedy cheated their wives with younger women.
Which proves nothing about why they married their wives. It also has no provable relation to why they cheated, nor to why they cheated with those women.
All I see is difference in the need arising. Guys dont as often go in between their friend and the girl he wants. That’s why no one ever invented a term like, “cock-blocking.
It happens that, in all your claims, the links above would be really helpful to you in not looking like such an idiot.
On the other hand, you seem to think that’s working for you, so perhaps you have found your bliss.
Argenti: You clearly have no clue how the world works…if a waitress’s tips are tied to how she looks, not how well she does her job, then yes, she is “required” to look sexy (more like preferred, but the point stands)
Actually, no. She is pressured to look the way that gets more tips, but her employers don’t care; one way or the other, because the tips don’t affect their bottom line, and so the pressure to hire/fire on looks isn’t there.
What is there means any waiter who doesn’t make enough in tips to pay the bills will move to a different restaurant.&Dagger:
This means that waiters will stay where the money is good. If the higher end restaurants tend to hire more men than women, the better jobs will be filled (and stay filled) by men, meaning women have to compete for the better jobs of those remaining.
So the pressure isn’t inherent in the jobs, it’s situation caused by the discriminatory hiring.
&Dagger: That pressure is, indirectly, applied by the people who think the serving class owes them something pleasant to look at as well as the actual service they are providing.
To EPs the ideal world was the 1950s, during which there was blatant discrimination against women in the workforce – jobs were advertised based on gender. But since women have entered the workforce in large numbers and are no longer required to marry a man in order to have a liveable income, there is no longer this desperate need to marry. Cronin wants to rig the system back to the 1950s to revive the desperate need to marry.
Not that EPs ever admit that what they’re doing is a political maneuver – they’ve chanted “is – isn’t – ought” so many times that they believe their own propaganda. But they will ALWAYS insist that anybody who questions the conclusions of EP is just being politically correct.
And now I have to prep supper before I go to work, so I’ll pick this up later.
Not that I think Aktivarum will say anything new, so I suppose I can premptively say:
Prove it
Hrmnn… I was just noticing; the only people Akitvarum is actually engaging is those with female sounding handles.
One wonders why that might be.