Just attended a feminist presentation on the wage gap.

[–]AlwaysABride 73 points74 points75 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]don_Mugurel 42 points43 points44 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]alrun 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]dontpet 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoctorButthurt 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]marauderp 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bienvinido 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Muffinmanifest 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alrun 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rethgil 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ichors 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnnyNumbskull 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlwaysABride 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]don_Mugurel 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dnavich -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Penuno 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]fengpi 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

But you don't see the dilemma!

Back in the bad old days when women were chained to the stove, they had no choices and were victims.

Today? They have too many choices so they're victims all over again. Today? They are forced to mix-and-match from a palette of traditional and new-style options. Full-time career? Work part time? Work not at all? TOO MANY CHOICES! IT'S MADDENING!

In contrast? Men don't have make these choices. Married men who are working full-time don't have to agonize over questions like "am I happy enough?" or "do I want to get drinks with my friends and sit around all afternoon?" or "are my orgasms with the pool boy big enough?" or "Should I get a different pool boy who will give me even better orgasms?" Women do have to ask these kinds of questions all the time and they are simply exhausting.

Spare a thought for the ladies for once, pig. The question you ought to be asking is: "Are they eat pray loving hard enough?"

[–]Rethgil 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spyder_J[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenandBoysareGood 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alkomb 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]neveragoodtime 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]neveragoodtime 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]synn89 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]synn89 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gnometard 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archibald_Andino 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]capmblade 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rethgil 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thespymachine 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Machnow 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archibald_Andino 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[M] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]qemist -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]qemist -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archimode 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]qemist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]KrisK_lvin -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (81 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[+]KrisK_lvin -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

Only at the micro level. At the macro level …

Do you mean a specific individual (micro) versus individuals on aggregate (the class of all women - macro)?

… they are in the power position because they are the one who chooses whether the advance is accepted or rejected.

This is a very one-sided view of a dynamic that involves (at least) two participants, though isn’t it?

Do you not see that what you’ve done there is to describe the experience solely from the male perspective without taking into account how the same situation might look from the female side?

Let me put it another way - have you ever walked into a bar and suddenly felt someone’s eyes on you, turned and seen an attractive woman looking at you? She holds your gaze for a second too long and then looks away (generally with the shadow of a smile on her face)?

You understand that, especially if you haven’t approached her and so she then turns her head toward you a second (even a third?) time, that she is actually signalling to you a cue that ‘says' something to the effect that “I think I would like you to approach me?”.

In other words, in her mind at least, she is giving what she thinks is a clear signal for you to go over and strike up a conversation with her.

If she hasn’t given a man any such kind of a signal and he just barrels on over there then she might well give him the cold shoulder as he’s literally been ‘uninvited’ because he hasn’t been given a cue to approach her; they might get on if he’s a fast talker or she just might find him an overbearing and arrogant prick.

But if on the other hand she has given him such a cue and he fails to take her up on it - maybe he’s shy, or maybe he just doesn’t find her attractive, whatever - she will most likely perceive that as a rejection of her even though no words have been exchanged and this has all taken place across a crowded bar.

Alternatively, she is one of those manic pixie girl types and she just barrels up to whatever guy she’s got her eye on and pretty much demands that he talk to her whether he likes it or not - in which case, if he gives her the cold shoulder then she is very evidently being rejected and she moves away.

So while I might be generalising for obvious reasons, there’s no real justification to write that:

they are in the power position because they are the one who chooses whether the advance is accepted or rejected.

I doubt many women out there would believe you on that one and probably with good reason.*

*It also depends a lot on whether we are talking about meeting someone significant - which not always but typically is what many women have in mind - as opposed to scoring for the night - which not always but typically is what many men have in mind.

[Edit] Minor corrections

[–]DevilishRogue 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Unless you think that what I said about the male being the pursuer is incorrect,

No, what I said was:

Do you not see that what you’ve done there is to describe the experience solely from the male perspective without taking into account how the same situation might look from the female side?

i.e. that you’re description is incomplete because it’s one-sided. As it is one-sided it cannot therefore be, as you claimed it was:

an external objective view of what happens in practice.

That is literally impossible if you are only acknowledging a single perspective (the male one).

focusing on the pursuer rather than the pursued

Why wilfully limit yourself to such a narrow perspective? What’s to be gained by such deliberate myopia? I mean, you’re welcome to do it, but I just don’t get why you would want to limit the scope of your vision in this way.

It appears that you are saying etc. …

Hm, not really - I’ve really only got one point and you seem to have already rejected - my point is basically that I think it would be to your benefit to actually try and think how the situation looks from another person’s (the woman’s in this case) point of view.

Actually really put yourself in their shoes, the shoes they wear, so to speak, and not the shoes you believe they wear or want them to wear (speaking figuratively, obviously).

[–]DevilishRogue 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's disappointing as I thought you would have something more thoughtful to contribute than that. This comes back to my earlier statement:

they [women] are in the power position because they are the one who chooses whether the advance is accepted or rejected

Whether they realise they have the power or not, they do because they are the one's who decide. All that your earlier explanation seemed to do was to demonstrate that they could influence who approached them in addition to deciding whether to accept or reject approaches. You're absolutely right, women do have soft power as well as the hard power of accepting or rejecting but neither factor affects my original statement about women having the power.

An external, objective view of what happens in practice is that men do the approaching. They risk rejection. They do not have the power but are reliant upon the decision of others. Now they can attempt to game this by using systems like The Red Pill, Pick Up Artistry, or forego the whole experience by going MGTOW, but this is gaming the system, not changing the fundamental balance of power.

[–]KrisK_lvin 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all, we're talking at a macro level. Overall men do the approaching and women do the accepting/rejecting. This is the objective reality.

On a macro level women are aware of this and act accordingly. At an individual level things become more complicated the further we potentially deviate from the average. Neither party needs to be aware of their relative power to interact according to it and their level of success may vary as a result. Nevertheless, in practice the party who cares least has the most power and the party that cares least does so as a result of having an abundance of apparent options (i.e. being regularly presented with new options through approaches from interested suitors). Now not all women experience this but enough do overall that it is the norm. Certainly more women are approached by men than vice versa as any research into dating practice will demonstrate.

But the bottom line remains that when a guy approaches a woman she is the one who gets to decide to accept or reject and thus she has the power in that interaction. The best the man can hope to do is to stack the deck as much as possible in favor of acceptance.

[–]AloysiusC 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

In other words, in her mind at least, she is giving what she thinks is a clear signal for you to go over and strike up a conversation with her.

And why do you think she doesn't just go and strike up the conversation herself? Because she doesn't have to. She can give signals while maintaining plausible deniability. He cannot.

I doubt many women out there would believe you on that one and probably with good reason.

I think a lot of women know they have the advantage but it's not as conscious as it might be. The women who have tried dating as a man seem to have been pretty surprised at how hard it is.

The bottom line is, there is plenty of evidence to backup the claim that women have more power in mate selection. You just need to look at the stats on any dating networks or just the way courtship takes place. It's also true for our ancestors btw. We have more female ancestors than male because the majority of women reproduced with a minority of men. That alone explains most if not all gender disparities we see in society.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

And why do you think she doesn't just go and strike up the conversation herself?

With respect, you’re kind of missing the point I’m trying to make which is that from her perspective this is equivalent to making a move whether or not you (or most men) recognise it or not.

Because she doesn't have to. She can give signals while maintaining plausible deniability. He cannot.

Really you think so? I think you need to see how women behave around a man that makes them lose their mind.

If the attraction is powerful enough she will approach him and she will engage him - in fact, I find it incredible that you are wilfully blotting out of your memory all the times this must have happened to you. Maybe you were just oblivious to it happening either to yourself or to those around you because your attention was focussed elsewhere?

Who knows and I promise that is not meant to be insulting - I am simply saying that I don’t think you’ve noticed it happening and can only suggest next time you’re out on the town take some time to actually look at how people (women in particular) actually behave.

The bottom line is, there is plenty of evidence to backup the claim that women have more power in mate selection. You just need to look at the stats on any dating networks or just the way courtship takes place.

And I’m saying I think you need to review the evidence again except this time apply a different hypothesis that could just as easily explain the reasons for the same results.

[–]garglemesh42 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you know what it's called when you judge women and men's behavior standards the same way? EQUALITY.

You’re not putting words in my mouth but what you are doing is being incredibly disingenuous by having shifted the whole ground from how men and women deal with romantic rejection - the topic we were actually discussing - to equality overall.

If you want to discuss equality in work and elsewhere, fine, but that’s a different conversation from the one we’ve just been having which you can see here in your words:

Giving someone a "please talk to me" look and then looking away isn't the same as having to go up to someone, initiate a conversation ...

The level of social risk isn't the same. The level of effort isn't the same. The level of plausible deniability if it doesn't work out in your favor isn't the same.

It isn't the same at all.

The woman risks absolutely nothing if she rejects a man she's not interested in …

I can only assume from this that the kind of equality you want in relationships is for women to take as many risks and the same kind of risks that men take when approaching women in bars, clubs etc.

That and that only - what with it being the topic of discussion - is the context for my saying "If you judge women’s behaviour by male standards then they will always come up short, won’t they?”

To take that line out of context and apply it to workplaces and education etc. is just downright dishonest.

[–]garglemesh42 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

This does happen. Sometimes. But it is incredibly rare.

It’s only incredibly rare because you are taking an incredibly narrow perspective that, crucially, doesn’t appear to include women from a woman’s perspective.

Just look at the OKCupid stats ... if you don't believe me.

OK Cupid? Really? Does Harvard need to be worried? ; - ) … sorry, I’m being flip there, but OK let’s just say for sake of argument that the stats from OK Cupid are absolutely correct - if that’s the case then that not only does that not contradict the point I’m making - that women don’t hold any kind of power of veto over men and therefore can feel just as rejected as men - is actively confirmed by your points:

If there are a 100 men and 100 women in a bar on a Saturday night and (to simplify) all of the women rule out 80 of the men as people they might be interested in romantically or sexually, this means every woman has at least four rivals for every desirable man, doesn’t it?

Therefore - and ruling out any suggestion of menage-a-trois shenanigans - 4 out of 5 women in this scenario are going to find themselves going home alone unless they finally decide to lower their expectations / standards about what they consider to be a desirable man and start to consider men from the next quintile (61-80) or the next one below that (41-60) - or until they get seriously hammered (even then it’s very unlikely they’ll look twice at any man they consider to be in the bottom 40%).

It therefore becomes immaterial, from the woman’s point of view, whether or not she ruled out 80% of the men in the room at the beginning of the night as to whether or not she feels overlooked and rejected. Because she will have actually been rejected, along with three other women, if only 1 in 5 men are considered to be properly worth the effort or attention.

If they seem "way, way, way more picky about their partners”, has it seriously not occurred to you that this might be projection on your part?

I mean, if this woman turns down this man does that make her picky? I don’t think so. And what if that same man turns down this woman does that make him picky? I don’t think so either, but using your criteria he would be absolutely. And what about this woman? Would he be picky or not to turn her down?

edit link fixed; some typos

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dworgi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If there are a 100 men and 100 women

The mistake you're making here is to artificially constrain the population. What you'll see in dating scenarios like this is that there is a minority of men who hook up with a majority of women. Among your 100 men at such bars, most of them will belong to that minority precisely because they have incentive to go there where other men do not. And among the 100 women at such bars you will find a far broader range of people.

So your 100 men have been preselected - literally even because there's usually things like free entry for women etc. And nothing you've written here has an explanation for things like that. Why do you think single bars do that sort of thing?

4 out of 5 women in this scenario are going to find themselves going home alone

By choice. Big difference.

[–]KrisK_lvin -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If the attraction is powerful enough she will approach him and she will engage him

Of course. But you don't seem to be aware of the difference in how the sexes evaluate partners. This "powerful attraction" tends to be far more selective than it is for men.

I find it incredible that you are wilfully blotting out of your memory all the times this must have happened to you.

You're projecting women's experience onto men. What you don't know is that a great many men never experience interest from women. They don't even register on the radar of women. When women say they can't find a man, what they really mean is that none of those they can currently choose from, meets their standards. When men say they can't find a woman, they literally can't find a woman - regardless of what their standards are.

That's not women's fault (or men's for that matter) but it's time that people understood this difference and the problems it causes for both sexes.

And I’m saying I think you need to review the evidence again except this time apply a different hypothesis that could just as easily explain the reasons for the same results.

I'm open to alternative suggestions. Why do most women deem 80% of men substandard? Do you have any explanations for that maybe?

[–]KrisK_lvin -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

you don't seem to be aware of the difference in how the sexes evaluate partners

Well … perhaps … but by the same token you don’t seem to be willing to acknowledge the similarities or even, apparently, the possibility that there might be any at all.

This "powerful attraction" tends to be far more selective than it is for men.

Why do you appear to think sex selectivity is only a one-way street? Why, for instance, is this woman deemed more desirable than this one?

You're projecting women's experience onto men.

Definitely not doing that.

What you don't know is that a great many men never experience interest from women.

Umm … you know ^edit I’m a man, right? I know this must seem incredible, but it is entirely possible to try and look at situation from multiple perspectives …

When women say they can't find a man, what they really mean is that none of those they can currently choose from, meets their standards.

Yes, sure. And I defy you to find anywhere in any of the comments I’ve made in this thread that would contradict that.

At not point have I said women aren’t selective; the only point that I have challenged - and still do challenge - is that women and woman alone are sexual gatekeepers to magical kingdom of vagina.

If a woman, X, becomes besotted with a man, A, it is wholly irrelevant whether there are some other men (B, C, D, E … etc.) around if she finds that women Y and Z are also pursuing man A. And if man A looks straight past woman X and leaps into bed with woman Y, then X and Z will have both been spurned.

And that being the case, it kind of pops the bubble when it comes to this idea that women are sexual gatekeepers. That might well be how they appear to men B, C, D etc. who are jerking themselves blind every night but it doesn’t make it true from woman X or Z’s perspective who are burning like crazy for man A.

When men say they can't find a woman, they literally can't find a woman - regardless of what their standards are.

This is just not true. There are single women out there, plenty of ^edit them, but they’re practically invisible … or so it seems.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Well … perhaps … but by the same token you don’t seem to be willing to acknowledge the similarities or even, apparently, the possibility that there might be any at all.

It's the differences, not the similarities, we're talking about.

Why do you appear to think sex selectivity is only a one-way street?

Because you're reading wrongly into what I wrote. Stating that there's a difference in sex selectivity does not imply that it's only one sex that's selective.

Umm … you know edit I’m a man, right?

Both men and women have a bias towards women. Being male doesn't mean you're empathizing with other men. That's one of the problems.

the only point that I have challenged - and still do challenge - is that women and woman alone are sexual gatekeepers to magical kingdom of vagina.

Well then we agree because nobody (certainly not me) is saying that. What I'm saying is that women are significantly more selective than men.

If a woman, X, becomes besotted with a man, A .....

IF

This attempt at abstraction is failing for the same reason the other one did: You're running on the assumption that the biggest hurdle (a woman finding a man attractive) is already taken. In other words you're effectively saying "Assuming women and men are equally likely to be attracted to somebody, then .... they're equally selective". It's circular reasoning basically.

This is just not true. There are single women out there, plenty of edit them,

Again you're misreading what I wrote. This is happening a lot so I suggest you read more carefully. I never said there aren't single women out there. But I am saying that in most cases women are single by choice as opposed to men. Not always of course but the difference is significant.

but they’re practically invisible … or so it seems.

Nothing is as invisible to society as men who fail. The people that matter are women and successful men. That's why feminists think they're asking for equality when they compare male CEOs to average women.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's the differences, not the similarities, we're talking about.

No actually - that may be what you’re talking about, but it isn’t what I have been saying.

Because you're reading wrongly into what I wrote.

Only because you did not qualify the statement more clearly - you have now, which is fine of course. But before it was left open to suggest that all or at least the greater part of the choice in selection was in the hands of women, not men.

This after all was how the whole thread began when I challenged OP that women may not actually get to choose partners so easily.

Both men and women have a bias towards women.

Fair point.

What I'm saying is that women are significantly more selective than men.

I still have some doubts about this that I won’t go into here, but as you might be aware for some reason I’ve been bombarded with dozens of comments for what initially seemed to me to be a fairly uncontroversial statement and I may well have confused some of your points with those of someone else (although they do seem to resonate quite strongly with those other points, so I don’t think it’s completely unexpected for me to have done that if I did).

I never said there aren't single women out there. But I am saying that in most cases women are single by choice as opposed to men.

Well in point of fact you never mentioned single women at all - but the point is I do understand what you are saying, but I still believe you to be wrong.

Ever heard the expressions ‘dog’, ‘hound’, ‘boiler’, ‘slapper’, ‘skank’, ‘ham beast’ etc. etc.? If those women to whom such epithets apply are single, do you think they are single by choice? I shouldn’t think so.

That therefore means that men have chosen to be single and pursue women they feel are more attractive in preference to women they feel are not worth the time or effort; in other words, they have exercised selectivity.

But there’s another difference here which is whether, to be blunt, we are talking about one-off fucking or finding a more meaningful partner.

If it’s simply one-off fucking we’re talking about then, yes, it is potentially easier for women to make this happen than men on the proviso that they are willing to go to bed (assisted by vodka goggles or otherwise) with a man they would not normally consider partner material.

But then, IRL, how many men - including, perhaps yourself - have had a hook-up with a woman at a party or whatever that in any other circumstance they wouldn’t dream of being seen dead with?

The experience of waking up next to someone and thinking ‘Oh, my God I did that!’ is not restricted to either male or female experience which sort of blows the fuck out of the water this idea that women are more selective than men. If they are then it must be to a very minimal degree - one which to all intents and purposes is functionally immaterial to the way people live their lives.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dnavich 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

There is only a single line of evidence we need to show women have the power in mating. The fact that in our deep past for every ten women who reproduced, only one man did.

Explain to me why this isn’t the very definition of a Patriarchal system as Feminists describe, in which a small elite of ‘superior’ men (taller, stronger, smarter etc.) dominate whatever social group they are in, having a harem of women and exploiting or abusing the other men who are shorter, weaker, less intelligent for their own gain?

One other question: do you consider yourself to be a Men’s Rights activist and, if yes, how does this understanding you have of male/female intimate relations figure into your activism?

… the balance is still massively weighted in females favour.

It’s wearing to have to keep making the same point, but very few if any women would perceive it the way you do - why? because they are women and so literally experience it from a different perspective.

You, like others here, are taking the male perspective on dating/mating and calling it objective fact. How, for example, do you explain the following:

Long-term Mistress Syndrome - you know what I’m talking about; the woman who is having an affair with the married man, sometimes for years on end always with some vague understanding that at some point he is going to give up the wife and kids and move in with her, but it just never seems to be the right time.

There are lots of things going on here psychologically of course, but ignore those and just tell me how this demonstrates that "women have the power in mating” as you put it?

[–]Dnavich 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

You misunderstand. Patriarchy never existed in hunter gatherer societies not in the ones still existing today nor in our deep past. For 190,000 years of the last 200,000 years we humans have been egalitarian (mostly) hunter gatherers.

In these societies women choose who they will associate/mate with and when. Google Briffault's law.

Polygamy was widespread in pre patriarchal societies. These women would rather share a single high status male than have a single low status male to themselves.

The women not the men chose polygamy.

20% of the men got to breed, selected by women, and 80% missed out.

Polygamy greatly increases the value of women in non patriarchal cultures. This is because by sharing suitable men individual women can access an alpha rather than stele for a beta. This also reduced the number of eligible women in the dating pool compared to the number of men. Supply and demand says that the oversupply of men and under supply of women will increase the value of the women.

Then along came patriarchy within the past 10,000 years mostly spearheaded by religion. This was an attempt to regulate the sexual marketplace and ensure ever man found a wife.

Most patriarchal cultures took over from polygamous cultures and if not outlawed strongly discouraged polygamy and told of the virtues of monogamy. Islam says polygamy, present in the people who converted to Islam, is allowed but not encouraged. In fact it strongly discouraged in Islam. In Christianity the most patriarchal religion there was, polygamy was totally banned. In Judaism. Banned.

Monotheistic Religion and patriarchy was an attempt for every man to have a wife and none to go without and force women to abandon polygamy. This was because unmated men are volatile. What to do with a volatile tribal population you've jut conquered? Give them families so they have something to lose if they rise up against you. Makes men much more placid and agreeable, and importantly cooperative.

TLDR: Women are naturally polygamous/non monogamous. It increases their value relative to men and causes men to compete for their selection. Most of our history women held the relative power in mate selection with a small number of genetically elite men getting to mate and the rest going without. Most women had a mate. Most men had none. Patriarchy was at its very core a method of market regulation to give every man a mate because men without mates are inherently volatile with nothing to lose.

Note> This did not mean our early cultures were matriarchal. In fact they were very egalitarian male led communist cultures, where women had additional privileges and powers in mate selection.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Then along came patriarchy within the past 10,000 years mostly spearheaded by religion. This was an attempt to regulate the sexual marketplace and ensure ever man found a wife.

So you agree with Feminism that for the duration of civilisation that civilisation has been male and Patriarchal? And you also have a similarly prelapsarian faith in the notion that before the rise of settled civilisations, societies were more egalitarian?

What to do with a volatile tribal population you've jut conquered? Give them families so they have something to lose if they rise up against you. Makes men much more placid and agreeable, and importantly cooperative.

So, again, you fundamentally agree with Feminism in that the nuclear family is utterly ruinous and destructive to the material, physical and mental well-being of individuals and should therefore be abandoned for some alternative?

Google Briffault's law.

I did. I ask again: do you consider yourself to be a Men’s Rights activist and, if yes, how does this understanding you have of male/female intimate relations figure into your activism?

If not and you would consider yourself a TERPer of some kind - you certainly sound like one - why do you visit this subreddit?

[–]Dnavich 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

for the duration of civilisation that civilisation has been male and Patriarchal?

In essence yes. Though feminists stress matriarchal theories, which have been disproven. Tribal hunter gatherer societies were (mostly) egalitarian (but never matriarchal); they were communist, male led, with female privilege in mating.

you fundamentally agree with Feminism in that the nuclear family is utterly ruinous and destructive to the material, physical and mental well-being of individuals and should therefore be abandoned for some alternative?

No. The opposite in fact. One man one woman is FAIR. The previous mating system was ruinous to men. As a male I utterly oppose any return to such a mating system that gives females all the power. Monogamy gives every single male a chance for a fulfilling family life, which is actually a males ultimate ambition. Well it used to do so. Modern feminism, in undoing patriarchy has caused a dissolution of the best invention of patriarchy, the nuclear monogamous family.

do you consider yourself to be a Men’s Rights activist and, if yes, how does this understanding you have of male/female intimate relations figure into your activism?

I am a mens rights activist yes. My understanding of history and prehistory means my ideal society would be the best elements of tribal and patriarchal cultures. Male led classless societies combined with a regulated mating market that enforces monogamy through social mores.

consider yourself a TERPer of some kind

Are you talking about the red pill or those lesbian seperatists who hate male to female transsexuals? Personally I love male to female transsexuals as they increase male value and discomfort feminists. If red pill I think it should be TRPer not TERPer. Also I am a little into TRP and a bit more into MGTOW and I agree that the facts they present are indeed factual, but unlike them haven't given up on changing my society to better suit male needs. They have the facts and use them to get what they want short term. I believe their facts and use them to get what I want long term by altering my society.

If it all goes tits up MGTOW.

why do you visit this subreddit?

Because I believe in the equality of opportunity for men and women, though not in forced equality of outcomes. I believe women on the whole are inferior and sometimes I hate them but I also recognize some women are outliers, NAWALT and all that, and these, unicorns, deserve the chance to choose to do whatever they want that would usually be done by males.

I can see that men are disadvantaged in many areas in our society compared to women, and want to fix this. As a man I want more and better male rights and less female privileges, and while I believe in female rights, I couldn't care less about females, and wont expend any effort helping them get rights where they might be lacking.

[–]Dnavich 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dnavich 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

by your own admission and in your own words you have literally just said that women "wanted polygamy”

I believe women instituted and desired polygamy. This happened before patriarchy.

Feminists say men wanted polygamy to oppress women. They say this happened under patriarchy.

See how that is the OPPOSITE viewpoint?

There is such a thing as Patriarchy

Yes; patriarchy is a society ruled by men. Not led, ruled. Patriarchy outlaws polygamy and enforces monogamy. Women hate it because they love polygamy, because polygamy benefits women and ruins and oppresses men.

and that we live under a system controlled by it

No. Right now the west is ruled by a matriarchy.

A key feature of Patriarchy is that it oppresses women, preventing them from having the autonomy that would lead to them choosing the life they want;

No.

Yes.

Would you say laws oppress a rapist when it stops the rapist from committing rape? Perhaps, but that is a good thing.

Patriarchy did not oppress women. It prevented women from oppressing men. That was a good thing.

Patriarchy is there to control women’s sexuality.

Patriarchy was there to stop women raping men. It controls women's sexuality in the same way the law against rape controls the rapists sexuality, ie its a good thing.

[–]Azothlike 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azothlike 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Well at least you have some.

LOL. Just saw your message, mate. Don't worry, I gotchu. I'm not used to providing citations for things no sane person outside tumblr would question.

I remain personally doubtful about that

LOL²

You already saw the primary link I give special bus people that for some reason are unaware of one of the most basic biological differences in the sexes.

But here's some more to heap on you.

NSSH masturbation statistics. - Surprise surprise, men masturbate a shit ton more than women do. Masturbation is considered one of the purest forms of libido measurement, as it is the least subject to social pressures. Nonetheless, silly people like KrisK still try to justify it with unproven hypotheses that sound good, like "women are more ashamed of masturbation", even though men list shame as a reason they don't masturbate much more often than women do, who prefer "I just didn't feel like it".

In another staggering surprise, men want to have more sexual partners than women do. This one really shocked the pants off me.

How many sexual fantasies and urges do men have? More than women, tell the presses!

Study, like many others, desperately tries to prove that women think about sex just as much as men, and fails, when it proves men think about sex twice as much as women. My favorite quote from this is "There's really no good reason that our society should have believed that men are thinking so much more about sex than women.", right after the results from said-person's own study that show men think about sex ~19 times a day, and women ~10 times. This lady's a real KrisK in the making, real potential. Commit science, ignore results, state preformed conclusion.

Bonus round, a person's anecdotal experience with testosterone hormone therapy, and it's instantaneous and dramatic effect on their libido. It's almost as if biology has a strong and obvious impact on sex drive, crazy. I guess this explains why the most reported side effect of MtF hormone replacement therapy is reduced sex drive, and increased sex drive for FtM. In all seriousness, this is what I would recommend most for you, as the hard science and facts and authoritative scientific opinion seems to have been less effective. This is a very human explanation of how women have zero idea of what they are comparing their sex drive to, and vice versa, when they feel they can speak to sex drive in the other gender. Meanwhile, virtually all people who have walked on both sides of the fence, hormonally, have been blasted by the difference.

Whoo. Glad we got over that personal doubt hump.

Except we probably didn't, because the cognitive dissonance is undoubtedly, indubitably oozing from the pores at this point.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

LOL. … LOL²

Well, I’m ever so glad to have been the source of so much amusement for you ; - )

… silly people like KrisK still try to justify it with … This lady's a real KrisK in the making, real potential.

Thank you for just assuming to know what I think about this or that or anything else as it’s always so much less of a burden to make an argument than to watch someone else make it for you.

You know a lot of people claim that calling ‘straw man’ is often over used, but in this case as you have quite literally added my name to arguments I haven’t made it’s completely justified that you are arguing with yourself about points you have pre-prepared answers to that you will not find me making anywhere or at any time.

Surprise surprise, men masturbate a shit ton more than women do [ … ] men want to have more sexual partners than women do [ … ] a person's anecdotal experience with testosterone hormone therapy, and it's instantaneous and dramatic effect on their libido. [ … ] This is a very human explanation of how women have zero idea of what they are comparing their sex drive to …

OK so now to business - you have provided me with lots of evidence that women’s sex drive pales in comparison to men’s. So much so that they just cannot grasp how powerful the male drive to sex is.

So let me pose you a few questions:

[1] If the male sex drive is so much more powerful than women’s, then surely you must agree that in any he said/she said date rape case we should always believe the woman when she cries rape, right?

Take Emma ‘mattress girl’ Sulkowicz and Paul Nungesser. Her claim that he raped was that when she said stop he didn’t he just pressed on and finished himself off anyway. If you believe that men have a sex drive that is so much more powerful than women’s and that therefore he could not control himself even when she said stop then you would make an excellent case for the prosecution, wouldn’t you?

“He just couldn’t help himself your honour! 10,000 years of evolution have made him horny as hell and nothing can get in the way of his male lust.”

I exaggerate for effect, of course, but explain to me seriously how your argument does not support the always-believe-the-victim mantra?

[2] Do you consider yourself a Men’s Rights Activist?

If yes, can you tell me how your insistence that women hold all the aces in intimate partner relations relates to your activism on behalf of Men’s Rights?

If no, what would you call yourself (if anything at all) and why are you on this subreddit at all if you don’t have an interest in Men’s Rights?

[–]Azothlike 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Lolwhat.

If you believe that men have a sex drive that is so much more powerful than women’s and that therefore he could not control himself even when she said stop then you would make an excellent case for the prosecution, wouldn’t you?

Sex drive twice as high as women's =/= Uncontrollable. Sex drive twice as high as women's =/= innocent until proven guilty is no longer a worthwhile justice paradigm. Statistical truths about a group =/= legal or ethical basis to hold an opinion about any one individual.

That was easy.

[2] Do you consider yourself a Men’s Rights Activist?

If yes, can you tell me how your insistence that women hold all the aces in intimate partner relations relates to your activism on behalf of Men’s Rights?

I believe in advocacy and activism for equal rights for every protected class, gendered women and men axes included. But to humor you, I'll say that yes, that makes me at times an advocate for men's rights.

Which has nothing to do with biological differences. People are different. Black people are statistically more likely to be criminals, and biologically have more risk-behavior-associated Testosterone. That does not make it legally acceptable to refuse to accept them as customers/patrons, because individuals are not a group and the innocent until proven guilty paradigm still applies to people more likely to be guilty/whatever. It is the basis of civil rights; you don't get to discriminate via protected classes in any legal capacity

Likewise, women are more likely to retire early, more likely to work less hours, more likely to take more sick days, all statistically factual. That does not make it legally acceptable to choose not to hire them.

Acknowledging a biological difference proven by studies is not discrimination. It is science. Ignoring science to push your ideals is idiocy.

[–]KrisK_lvin -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Lol what.

I believe that’s Lol³ actually - I think I should start charging you if you’re enjoying yourself this much.

Statistical truths about a group …

I must say I do admire the gay abandon with which you throw the word “truth” around; it’s almost touching.

Sex drive twice as high as women's =/= Uncontrollable … That was easy.

It’s only easy because you’re not particularly bright.

On the one hand you want to insist that the male sex drive is much higher; on the other you want to deny that there are no consequences or sequelae as a result of that higher sex drive. It’s simply not possible to demand one and not the other.

Besides which, it is not my argument that it means uncontrollability; it is my argument that an interested group - in this instance Feminists or Lawyers prosecuting in a rape trial, would exploit that the supposed existence of that higher sex drive to argue toxic masculinity is driven by its impulses and that therefore, when she allegedly said ‘No’, he should have stopped, but didn’t - therefore he’s guilty.

You couldn’t stand there in a court of Law tracing LOL with your fingers if you are the one arguing that the drive is so much the higher; you would be condemning yourself by your own words in the eyes of the jury.

I believe in advocacy and activism for equal rights for every protected class

protected class?

People are different.

Indeed, they are - which has been my point all along.

I have argued consistently that you cannot speak about objectivity when talking about psychological states involving men and women interacting together without trying to understand how that experience looks from both participants.

Acknowledging a biological difference proven by studies is not discrimination.

Of course not, no, and here I would agree with you - it would be hard not to on this particular point.

However, I think the crux of your difficulty is that you having serious trouble trying to relate the results of data that describe behaviour of a population as a whole with impacts on behaviour of individuals in day-to-day life.

For one thing, you are dealing with gross categories which does not take into account the huge variation within those groups e.g. a white female heroin addict is many times more likely to commit a crime than a black lawyer.

That may seem like an obvious point to make, but make it I must if you are going to talk about statistics using such gross classes and categories of people because the scope you are looking at is so unbelievably narrow.

It is science.

A real scientists would use far more caution than you do here. The more people understand science and how it works, the more tentative they become in their conclusions.

This is the first error of a lot of climate scientists because in order to push an agenda they make ever bolder, ever grander and ever more definite claims about what they ‘know’ to be the truth.

I don’t see any difference between that and you’re unbearable overconfidence in declaring objective truths about intimate interactions between men and women.

Also this.

[–]Azothlike 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I must say I do admire the gay abandon with which you throw the word “truth” around; it’s almost touching.

When virtually every single study done on a statistical subject repeats the same result, that result is true. It is factual. I'm sorry that you are having a hard time understanding that.

On the one hand you want to insist that the male sex drive is much higher; on the other you want to deny that there are no consequences or sequelae as a result of that higher sex drive. It’s simply not possible to demand one and not the other.

Nobody said that there are no consequences for the fact that the male population has a sex drive that is on average significantly higher than the female population.

Your flaw is in attempting to use that justification to target or judge a single individual.

Also, consequences would not change the statistical fact that's already been shoved in your face with 5+ studies and sources.

Besides which, it is not my argument that it means uncontrollability;

Yes. It is. "If you believe that men have a sex drive that is so much more powerful than women’s and that therefore he could not control himself". Either you are implying I said that, which would be a blatant strawman, or you are attempting to represent that point. Your choice.

But continue.

it is my argument that an interested group - in this instance Feminists or Lawyers prosecuting in a rape trial, would exploit that the supposed existence of that higher sex drive to argue toxic masculinity is driven by its impulses and that therefore, when she allegedly said ‘No’, he should have stopped, but didn’t - therefore he’s guilty.

For example, this, is you attempting to apply it to a single individual, the defendant in a court case.

Applying stereotypes, even if they are statistically factual stereotypes, to an individual is prejudice. It is statistically factual that women, despite living longer than men, generally choose to retire earlier. If this is a concern for my business, and I choose not to hire a female individual because of that, that would be prejudiced behavior. And illegal.

Also, consequences would still not change the statistical fact that's already been shoved in your face with 5+ studies and sources.

protected class?

Yes. It's a legal term. An incredibly commonplace one. You should look it up. You know, after you tell me how I'd be tracing LOL with my fingers in a court room, you imbecile.

I have argued consistently that you cannot speak about objectivity when talking about psychological states involving men and women interacting together without trying to understand how that experience looks from both participants.

Sex drive 'psychological states' are subjective. Nobody needs to speak objectively about it. All subjective reports and studies indicate that, subjectively, men have vastly more frequent sexual drives and urges. Subjectively, people who have experienced both male and female hormonal states universally note that the male-typical hormonal state results in a higher sex drive. Objectively, when it comes to actual sexual behavior such as masturbation, men do it far more on average. Again, I'm sorry that you're having trouble understanding this.

However, I think the crux of your difficulty is that you having serious trouble trying to relate the results of data that describe behaviour of a population as a whole with impacts on behaviour of individuals in day-to-day life.

I have not attempted to relate the numerous, repeated results of the male population having a higher average sex drive to individuals at all. You have tried to do that. Despite repeated reasons and examples as to why that is a flawed, and often illegal, line of action, and despite it being completely irrelevant to the fact that, on average, male sex drive is higher than women, which you still apparently have difficulty comprehending.

A real scientists would use far more caution than you do here.

You don't get to speak for scientists.

A scientist doesn't say "well I still have personal doubt" when smacked in the face by a comprehensive overview of sexuality studies, reviewed by a multiple panel of experts with hundreds of sexuality papers and studies under their belt.

Idiots painfully oozing cognitive dissonance do.

[–]nazislowpoke -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_poderosa 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GirlTrollsBros -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Just attended a feminist presentation on the wage gap.
Author	Spyder_J
Upvotes	195
Comments	112
Date	March 21, 2016 5:27 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4bd8we/just_attended_a_feminist_presentation_on_the_wage/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/just-attended-a-feminist-presentation-on-the-wage.953573 https://theredarchive.com/post/953573

Comments