TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Women are nearly five times more likely to show an automatic preference for their own gender than men.

Vambrosek

July 20, 2015
878 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/women.aspx
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Women are nearly five times more likely to show an automatic preference for their own gender than men.
Author

Vambrosek

Upvotes 878
Comments 131
Date July 20, 2015 7:18 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3dx60m/women_are_nearly_five_times_more_likely_to_show/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/women-are-nearly-five-times-more-likely-to-show-an.975025
https://theredarchive.com/post/975025

Comments

[–][deleted] 140 points141 points142 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Men and women who automatically perceived men as more threatening or intimidating than women also had pro-female preferences, suggesting that negative male stereotypes can promote greater liking for women.

And the feminist movement hasn't been a notorious legitimiser/promoter of negative male stereotypes? Not to mention encouraging women and girls to hold a general ingroup/outgroup "battle of the sexes" view of men and women (which I think is enough on it's own to explain the difference).

I also found this interesting given the prevalence of female sex-negativity and the feminist demonization of male sexuality :

women who implicitly liked sex also preferred men

[–]Endless_Summer 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't like, idk, 99% of all women implicitly like sex?

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know who's downvoting you. It's certainly very common for guys to think so. But apparently not (which makes sense given how sex-negative so much feminist rhetoric is) - obviously what they mean by this is "sex" by default without qualifiers.

There are certainly cultural and possibly biological factors involved (the way I would see is that there are culturally adaptive "semi-biological" factors involved - related to the theory of sexual conflict). What this study shows is that one of those correlates is negative feelings towards men, which given sexual conflict theory shouldn't be surprising.

[–]_skipp_ 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

(which I think is enough on it's own to explain the difference)

Either way, this is a massive problem.

[–]SarahC 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A flood of women in the workplace?

I can see situations where all women offices are going to be much more common than all male due to these in-group biases.

[–][deleted] 53 points54 points55 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

This is why you see feminists always assuming the worst intentions by men. See the tried and true 'all these men in congress no one is looking out for women' etc. Women on the whole experience constant own group preference and assume the same of men. The 'boys club' mentality, when it simply doesn't exist, atleast not to a degree that matters.

They're stuck in the mindset that if men are in charge then no one is looking out for women, even if all of history is staring them in the face refuting just that. Women look out for women so surely men look out for men. We aren't all evil, colluding bastards.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I'd like to see the feminists vote in some kind of Sarah Palin / Ann Coulter presidential ticket and then watch in horror as abortion is outlawed.

B-b-b-b-but women would never pass laws that harm women!!!

[–]nick012000 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Except that to Feminists, conservative women aren't really real women. That's why they hate both Palin and Coulter with a passion.

[–]the-tominator 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And why they ignore/forget about Thatcher in the UK, instead of seeing her as proof that women can succeed just as well as men when they try as hard.

[–]horrorshowmalchick 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

women can fuck things up just as well as men

FTFY

[–]the-tominator 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep, but then feminists pretend that women can't fuck things up as well as men and conveniently forget to mention the countless examples of women who have done just that. Whereas people like us know and accept that there are men who are good and bad at what they do, and there are women who are good and bad at what they do, and that a woman won't automatically be better/more caring/more clever just because they're a woman.

Another example might soon be on her way in the form of Hillary. Hopefully, if she does win, at least some good will come of it because it might dispel some of the pervasive 'women are wonderful effect' in America - which seems to me to be one of the worst countries for that attitude.

[–]horrorshowmalchick -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's falled the No True Scotsman fallacy :)

[–]nick012000 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No True Scotsman would be their constant NAFALT arguments. This is more along the lines of accusations of Heresy. Feminists think they own women as a class, so women aren't allowed to disagree with them.

[–]horrorshowmalchick 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Interesting.. I'd not heard of NAFALT before. After a first read-up, I wonder to what extent NAFALT is genuinely fallacious, sinply because so many varied ideologies get called feminism, from female chauvinusm to gender-egalitarianism.

[–]nick012000 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There's only one real feminism with any real political power, though, and that's the anti-male Radical Feminism; all the rest of them pretty much just serve as a form of smokescreen for them.

[–]horrorshowmalchick 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. What's that based on?

[–]nick012000 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact that every single major feminist organization is composed of RadFems, and they just use the less-radical feminists as a smokescreen to deflect criticism and to garner power and money, while they push their anti-male agenda into the halls of power?

[–]LobotomistCircu 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This is actually kind of surprising to me, just because I feel like I have a really bad habit of immediately defending or identifying with the man in whatever story I read regardless of context.

Honestly I thought that was something everybody kind of did. You identify with the person most like yourself in whatever setting.

[–]WAFC 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact that you identified your bias and then labeled it a 'bad habit' sets you quite a bit apart from the women.

[–]plainwalk 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I do, too, but I'm gay. Most of my straight friends seem to prefer playing video games with female characters as the lead. One of them explained it as preferring to watch a sexy woman's ass for hours on end while playing the game than a man's. I have your view -- I can relate far more easily to male characters, and get more out of the story when it's from a male perspective (even in games where the perspective is essentially gender neutral like Mass Effect).

[–]WAFC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm with you (straight, though). When I play, for instance, Bayonetta, there's more of a disconnect. Whereas when I'm playing MGS or some other male protagonist game, I can more easily put myself "in" the character's shoes.

[–]kinkthrowaway4022 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm a straight guy and I like playing with female playable characters too, but that's mostly because I find assertive and non-passive women and female characters very attractive. Especially when they are not written as an explicitly "female character", i.e. it's a mostly neutral character that can be played as a male or female.

Of course, feminists would spin this as me thinking with my dick and "expressing my desire to control a woman through control of a female game character". But for me, it's escapism and a it's a theme I like to see and fiction is the best way to experience it. I would certainly like to see more games with female characters like those, but unlike SJWs, I don't want to demonize existing games for a lack of such characters. I would prefer that people who like such characters come up with new games of their own.

Another thing is that I don't really "relate" with characters in fiction. I have never imagined myself to be the playable character, even in first person view. So being able to relate is not really a requirement for me.

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

Funny thing is, you sound like you'd be a great feminist. Heck, technically you already are. Too bad you had your mind mucked by these mysoginistic. paranoid weirdos and their fear-mongering. Maybe you'll change your mind one day.

[–]horrorshowmalchick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As soon as you feel that initial pang, quash it. Concern yourself with actions and intentions instead of chromasomes, and settle in a side after that.

[–]AloysiusC 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The implications of this are huge. Because the entire basis for feminism is that society is biased towards men. But this contradicts that basis which means virtually all of feminist theory falls apart.... yet again.

[–]polyphonictree 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Just came here to point out that this is ONE study published over ten years ago with a total of 204 participants that were probably screened to minimize differences/diversity... Notice it's also an association study, meaning there is no real objective measurement that can support the conclusions the article, and now this discussion, are coming to.

Sorry, but it's just not scientific to use outdated/poorly conducted social psychology experiments ("research") to support the MR movement - you need hard facts that can't be argued with. I'm not saying I'm on the other team, but I am saying this isn't going as far to support MR as some people are making it out to...

[–]GreasedLightning 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ahh, the old Women are Wonderful effect dissected. It's nice to see I'm not fucking insane when I notice some heterosexual women love being around other heterosexual women, and that some of them hate me -and men like me- quicker than other women without much reason. I think it's safe to conclude that a sign of an unhealthy mind is one that desires more conflict, and these women are just that.

Make your choice: A depressing life bickering and being part of the collective that both simultaneously despises itself and everyone around it, or lavishness and a less stressful life paid off in the form of a bit of isolation? It reminds me of this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfAt7TshLw

Personally, I'll take my life and death more happy and fulfilled, with a lot less conflict any day of the week.

[–]Sherlock--Holmes 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should watch a movie called Swept Away (the original in Italian with subtitles.) A man and a woman on an island together and she needs him to survive.

[–]The_Kids_Lying 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Could this be explained evolutionarily? Looking through these comments, I keep seeing people blaming feminism, but if we think back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, the women were back at camp taking care of kids and doing other "household" kind of chores. It was advantageous for women to stick together, and the ones that did not stick with the others as well were the ones eaten by the tiger or killed by the enemy tribe. That's at least how I've always rationalized "the sisterhood." I'm wondering what other perspectives are looking at this from a biological perspective rather than just a social perspective.

[–]Frittern 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why do womens periods and therefore estrous/ovulation sync up with other womens? There definitely seems to be biological mechanisms that support social structure and gendered characteristic behaviors with humans, just like that found in other animals.

[–]Karissa36 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do womens periods and therefore estrous/ovulation sync up with other womens?

When breast milk is the only possible food to keep infants alive, and the maternal death rate is high due to child birth and other things, synchronized pregnancies are a good thing. If the mother dies or can't successfully breast feed at any time during the first year, the baby can still survive if there is another breast feeding mother.

[–]Kuato2012 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's also the fact that many species' populations can tolerate male losses much more easily than female losses (just in terms of population number). Females* are the rate-limiting element in reproduction... if 50% of the males die, the other 50% can keep the reproductive rate stable. If 50% of the females die, then the reproductive rate drops by 50%. So it's quite possible, even likely, that there's an inherent, evolved psychology for males and females to both be biased in favor of females. Unsurprisingly, humans have long held on to chivalrous ideas like women are wonderful, and men are disposable. (I'm not saying that's a good thing. Evolution is brutal and callous, but people don't have to be).

Many bird species have camouflaged females and brightly colored males. Part of that is for males to display their reproductive worthiness via their bright feathers, but part of that is likely also to stack the deck in favor of females when a predator comes hunting. Evolution has favored a bias toward the females.

You might be thinking "yeah, but feathers are a physical structure. We're talking about psychology." The field of evolutionary psychology is a little contentious, and there are certainly some pitfalls, but the bottom line is this: psychology is rooted in the brain. The brain is a physical structure in the body, physical structures in the body are produced by the actions of genes, and anything produced by genes is subject to evolution. The particular conclusions of evolutionary psychology are debatable, but the fact that evolution has influenced our psychology is certainly not.

*I'm including nonhuman species here, so yeah, "feeeeemales" instead of "women."

[–]Karissa36 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hunting large animals with primitive tools, even in groups, is quite dangerous. Hunter gatherer societies had to be willing to encourage risk taking and lose a few men for the greater survival of the group.

In addition, there is really no substitute for breast feeding in subsistence cultures. With a high maternal death rate from child birth, having another lactating woman available to feed the baby if the mother died or became sick and lost her milk supply was a huge survival advantage. Think about it. Humans basically had only one food to keep all their babies alive for the entire first year of their lives. Darn right that both men and women would evolve to protect that food supply.

[–]eaton80 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense from an evo-biology perspective. Sucks for the 21st century male thrown in front of a Divorce Court though. Especially if the guy's only "fault" was that his wife read Eat, Prey, Love.

[–]Globalization101 44 points45 points46 points 11 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Thanks feminism.

[–]ithinkmynameismoose 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Ok, this needs to be a subreddit Announcing /r/Thanksfeminism

[–]ametalshard 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's private.........................................................

[–]ithinkmynameismoose 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Haha, I actually didn't expect it to be a thing.

Paging /r/ofcoursethatsathing

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

No. They all have to know.

[–]youdonotnome 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

even non-feminists take a woman's side in all situations.

ever tried watching 'the break-up' or '500 days of summer' with a girl friend? infuriating.

[+]DevilishRogue -21 points-20 points-19 points 11 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

This isn't something feminism has caused. This is an innate thing.

EDIT: Protecting women and children is an innate drive. Virtually all mammals do it to some extent. Blaming feminism for something that happened long before feminism existed is juvenile. Feminism reinforces this but certainly did not create it. Either we are being brigaded by people trying to make the contributors here look like morons or we have a lot of morons here who think that male disposability wasn't a thing before feminism.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

You can't say that. There's no real evidence either way. Personally I don't see any real reasoning for it to be innate. It's not like there aren't women who prefer men.

I don't know where/when you grew up that you didn't see girls being actively encouraged to hold an ingroup/outgroup "battle of the sexes" view... and I don't see why these thoughts wouldn't become internalised as default automatic reactions if consistently held over a significant period of time. So yes, I'd be very much of the opinion that this is all tied in with feminism.

[–]DevilishRogue 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

It existed long before feminism e.g. "Women and children first!"

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just got the Portlandia joke.

"Woman and woman first" is the name of the bookshop run by radical feminist.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

I'd be inclined to think that women want to preserve male disposability much more for their own selfish benefit than for that of other women. From an evo psych pov a woman's reproductive capacity just does not carry the same potential advantage for another woman that it does for a man. Women are each other's reproductive rivals. Yes, from a group-conflict pov female survival is more important, but we live in a world with the lowest level of group conflict (and strong group identity) there has ever been.

Men are also almost certaintly a lot more likely to engage in male disposability-linked behaviour for women they are close to than for women they are not (unless they're living in a culture which explicitly top-down forces it upon all men towards all women - something which I think is environmentally maintained through cultural rewards/punishments and something which I think we are moving away from).

I don't think preferring men or women more overall can be tied down to one dynamic. Are you denying that in the past the demands placed on men were compensated with advantages? I would go as far as to say if you look at the societies with the strongest pro-male sexism you will also on average find male disposability and coward-shaming etc. are also much stronger too. If a woman is used to benefitting from male risk-absorbance, this could be precisely why she would prefer men over women.

[–]_skipp_ 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Based on my own admittedly limited experience I have found that females are actually more competitive than males. There are several amusing "survivor"-type TV shows where men and women are segregated, and invariably the men become cooperative while the women become catty backstabbing bitches.

At the same time, women have a sense of solidarity ("an an attack on one woman is an attack on all!") that men simply do not possess. It occurs in relation to men. Paradoxical but it's clearly there.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is evidence that female same-sex socialisation tends towards more intimate relationships with a smaller number of people. I don't think either sex is more cooperative or egalitarian on the whole, but I think de-individualised large-group cooperation is something men/masculinity are geared towards enabling.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women are each other's reproductive rivals. Yes, from a group-conflict pov female survival is more important, but we live in a world with the lowest level of group conflict (and strong group identity) there has ever been.

And when did that low level of group conflict start? Only a blip of time ago in genetic history?

What you don't realize is that you completely supported his argument while imagining you were arguing against it.

[–]DevilishRogue -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This entirely supports my point i.e. that this was a thing long before feminism.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Male disposability was a thing - ever since humanity emerged, but this was compensated with strong pro-male advantages. Advantages which women were for the most part fully willing to grant. It was a trade-off between the sexes. It doesn't mean women's overall social biases were towards other (direct competitor) women rather than men.

[–]chmbrs 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That saying isn't actually very old. 150 years I think and it was more a show of British strength during adversity than a matter of chivalry.

[–]Esco91 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, it was a way of saving as many upper class people as possible.

150 -200 years ago it became the norm for armed forces personnel to be deployed for extremely long periods of time, particularly on the Indian and African subcontinents. The families of officers - from the upper middle classes - would take their families with them. Ship building had advanced a great deal, but lifeboats had not. And when the British conquered India, the average British soldier was suddenly got a lot more social rights, as he was no longer the lowest class in the Empire (which became the 'coolies' or native Indians).

As such the British (and other colonial powers) couldn't really follow their previous doctrine - save the people according to social status - without fear of mutiny should a ship flounder and the call for evacuation go up, as it did on the HMS Birkenhead.

So the upper ranks realised they could save their families, and ordered the men to stand back and die whilst the women and children took the lifeboats, leaving them to die.

As was the way with British propaganda (e.g Charge of the Light Brigade) at the time the British claimed success from the disaster and claimed it was the chivalry and guts of the British gentleman which saved anyone at all.

[–]chmbrs 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think we are saying very different things here. It wasn't a "women are more important than men" thing.

[–]Esco91 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know, I just tagged it all onto your post as it seemed as good as any!

[–]NotRoosterTeeth 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The article directly says it's from a negative view of men ad a society. What does Feminism do. Act like all men are rapists and ect. to the point they make fun of us for saying "not all men..."

[–]DevilishRogue 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism reinforces this, it doesn't cause it.

[–]NotRoosterTeeth 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Reinforces the idea that all men are rapists. Exactly, that's the bad part dude.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah, absolutely. Feminisms doesn't make women go lesbian!

Not sure if it doesn't make men go gay though, because we've had it.

[–]LoLThatsjustretarded 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Prove it.

It's just as likely caused by decades of 'You go Girl!' bullshit, as it is some innate thing. And no, creating some abstract argument is not the same thing as 'proving' it.

[–]DevilishRogue -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The fact that it existed before feminism proves it. I'm not sure why I'm getting downvoted for stating the obvious.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Belief in a god existed long before Christianity was a thing. Does that mean evangelical Christianity is not to blame for all the radical conservative religious influence in american politics?

No, it certainly does not. Feminism is most definitely the leading cause of this today.

[–]DevilishRogue 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Like I said, feminism reinforces it but didn't create it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Right. The bias itself probably created feminism, not the other way around.

I don't think anyone is thanking feminism for creating sexism, just for perpetuating it today.

[–]DevilishRogue 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. I'm glad you get it at least but there are a lot of downvotes for what I said which is very worrying indeed about how little people here understand about the differences between what caused feminism and what feminism caused.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's because people think you're defending feminism, which is a big no-no in this sub.

[–]DevilishRogue 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's disappointing that so many people on the right side of the debate get it so wrong on whether feminism is the cause or merely reinforces the cause :-(

[–]_skipp_ 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Okay I'll say it. This is disturbing.

[–]chillaxbrohound 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why it is extremely dangerous to be a male in a female majority workplace. The threat goes both ways, but this proves that it is possibly worse for men. Confirming some of our experiences.

If you are a feminist and you feel mad, angry, or hurt by this: get over it. That's your problem. It's your responsibility to be honest.

Obviously misogyny is real.

The reverse is too. That's literally all we're saying.

The problem is that the reverse is actually worse in many cases, and the truth is oftentimes the exact opposite of what is currently being shoveled by the media and school system.

[–]SarahC 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

All women offices will be an automatic result of this bias - I wonder how long it will be before laws are passed that men need to be hired too?

[–]bikemaul 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In the US you can't discriminate based on gender (or is it sex?) if you employ more than 14 people.

[–]ghaki 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others..."

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RaptorSixFour 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would say in same gender based group think. I've met my fair share of male demagogues.

[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Could possibly be another reason why men tend to value niceness a lot more than women do. For them, it's not a given and it is something they think differentiates them from other men, where as women just assume that every other women is good, therefore develop no real appreciation for it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Personally, I think this needs a larger sample size, and a broader sample. n=204 and only college students doesn't seem like a very representative sample to me.

[–]whitey_sorkin 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And it's ancient.

[–]ConfirmedCynic 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We've long known about the "Team Women" thing.

[–]sillymod 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men and women who automatically perceived men as more threatening or intimidating than women also had pro-female preferences, suggesting that negative male stereotypes can promote greater liking for women.

This is the key statement. The proliferation of negative male stereotypes influences pro-female views (though the reverse is not shown from the study, I believe).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TLDR: "A clear pattern shown in all four studies is that men do not like themselves automatically as much as women like themselves," Rudman says. "This contradicts a lot of theoretical thinking about implicit attitudes regarding status differences."

"These results suggest that for men, pro-female bias is moderated by sexual gratification," Rudman says. "By contrast, women who implicitly liked sex also preferred men, whether or not they were high on sexual experience."

"So men NEED to have sex in ORDER to feel loved. While Women NEED to FEEL LOVED in order to have sex. - At some point someones fucking lying" - Billy Connolly

[–]Turn_Coat 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

... and that's why having women in HR is destroying the country.

[–]qemist 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

APA sucks. No link to paper or citation or even a title. WTF?

Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men? Rudman, Laurie A.; Goodwin, Stephanie A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 87(4), Oct 2004, 494-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494

Full text: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laurie_Rudman/publication/8226295_Gender_differences_in_automatic_in-group_bias_why_do_women_like_women_more_than_men_like_men/links/0a85e5324b69af209e000000.pdf

[–]WAFC 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Anyone who frequents the relationship subs already knew this. You see it every day. OPs gf/wife does shitty, horrendous things, and all the comments are about how it's his fault.

I think it's just self-interest. Women want to make shitty female behavior socially acceptable so that they can pull it some day.

[–]eyeothemastodon 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

204 heterosexual college students

I'm not sure this is the sample group represents our whole culture very well.

[–]Kuato2012 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"New study finds that 86% of the population owns Macbooks and has literally everything paid for by their parents."

[–]Conspo 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Thank feminism for that. Also, I once saw a study that aske women who watched porn which kind of porn they watched the most. Unfortunately i can't find the study, but I remember lesbian porn was one of the most watched.

[–]bozwizard14 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Not relevant to feminism. Lesbian porn shows women getting off more and is generally less rough than straight porn. Lots of straight porn is all about the dudes pleasure, many women are totally put off by that.

[–]Endless_Summer 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty sure the pornhub survey showed it was mostly women that watch the roughest stuff and the gangbangs. So basically, the complete opposite of what you said would be correct.

[–]goodfoobar 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Lots of straight porn is women being dominant over men and it can get very violent toward the men. This idea that women prefer "less rough" is ridiculous. Think it comes down to male sexuality bad so should be punished, female sexuality good so should be promoted.

[–]loddfavne 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Lots of straight porn is women being dominant over men and it can get very violent toward the men.

Femdom can be quite violent. Striking the testicles is not uncommon in that genre. But, since it is girls being violent on men people won't care about it.

[–]Hanzo44 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Dom porn is violent. Because it's dom porn.

[–]loddfavne 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're probably right. Equality then. Both kinds of dom porns may be equally violent.

[–]Hanzo44 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Have you seen dom porn? Whips to the vagina, choking girls with dicks, smacking their faces? If there is anywhere it goes both ways equally it's dom porn.

[–]loddfavne 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll take your word for it.

[–]bozwizard14 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Hey I like rough, in certain contexts. There is still a prevailing trope of stoic men who aggressively demand want they want which isn't related to if women want that in porn or not, whereas when woman are aggressive in porn it's still done based around male fantasy, not females own place of sexual aggression.

[–]goodfoobar 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

stoic men who aggressively demand

The only demanding that stoic people do is to pass on the demands of someone else. Stoic means your not acting in your own interest but someone else's interest while taking on the full risk of making those demands. The trope may exist for some people but it is completely illogical.

[–]bozwizard14 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

By stoic I mean emotionally unresponsive and not very vocal, I'm sorry if there is a better word for that!

[–]goodfoobar 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If they are unresponsive and not very vocal then how can they make demands?

[–]bozwizard14 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Vocal in terms of feedback, lots of women over on /r/sex have said they would love to hear men making more sounds of pleasure etc in porn. Besides, "not very vocal" doesn't mean "is never vocal" so it would still be pretty easy to make demands without making that statement untrue.

[–]goodfoobar 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So lets see if I understand. The women demand that men be more vocal or aggressive and stoic men respond. Due to miscommunication things don't always match what the woman originally demanded. Guessing this causes problems as nobody is really getting what they want and the male looks stupid for getting it wrong and looking like the aggressor is blamed. That is really messed up.

[–]AloysiusC -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you mean lesbian porn as in porn for lesbians or do you mean the regular lesbian porn?

[–]bozwizard14 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the majority of porn involving two women

[–]AloysiusC -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well then I have news for you. They're rarely lesbians and it caters mostly to straight men rather than lesbians.

[–]bozwizard14 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh yeah definitely!

[+]TheRavenousRabbit -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This isn't feminism, this a biological and innate thing because it's evolutionary preferred to have this behavior within women.

[–]samtheredditman 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well that's not true at all. There's no way to tell why these women got the way they are, because there was no control group and no way of measuring the influences each of these people have experienced.

It's just as likely, maybe even more likely, that these behaviors are learned from society.

[–]Demonspawn 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's just as likely, maybe even more likely, that these behaviors are learned from society.

I doubt it. The female is valued while the male has to earn value. It's not "learned from society" when monkeys engage in prostitution once you teach them what money is.

[–]bozwizard14 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is really interesting, though anything showing group behaviour usually is. Not hugely surprising though, an increase in negative images or experience of men makes them feel safer among women.

[–]TechnoSam_Belpois 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And this starts young. Just yesterday I watched a group of kids play "duck duck goose." A girl was chosen to walk around the circle first, and she chose a girl. Who also chose a girl. This went about 10 times and on the very last time the girl finally chose a boy.

This could in part be due to the girls expecting boys to be able to outrun them. But at that age the differences are very small.

[–]bub_rub 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this why girl's night out is a much bigger thing than guy's night out? Or why the other day I was at a baby shower for my fiance's sister and she kept lamenting that the men hadn't left yet, when there were 20 women and 3 men? Are some women unable to have fun in the presence of men?

[–]youdonotnome 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"women defend women in all situations? there's a surprise" -Arri Gold

probably not word for word, i haven't seen this show in a while.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Huh. I've been citing it as only a four-times greater prejudice. Downplaying female misandry? I guess it's true: I am an accidental feminist!

[–]JayBopara 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting self-report academic study. Is consistent with women showing in-group bias towards women.

[–]duhmoment 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is very apparent in shows like Survivor where the women always say "let's make an all woman alliance for the final" the men on these shows then invariably have to circle their wagons and do an all male alliance or be voted off. I simply have never thought in those terms.

[–]SpiritofJames 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Men low on sexual experience showed implicit sexism to the extent they liked sex.

Hmmm, I wonder what the hell this is supposed to mean? What is their definition of "sexism" here? Maybe, possibly, the mere absence of the very effect they're cataloging?

[–]qemist 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Implicit sexism is the phenomenon the paper is about. They mean associating positive words more with women than men.

[–]MasterZapple -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

A friend with bachelor's in psychology just said: "well, that's evolutionary psychology and that field is... just... rubbish...."

[–]dejour 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Umm, it's not evolutionary psychology. It's social psychology.

Secondly, evolutionary psychology has some issues. But not every study produced by evolutionary psychology is garbage. A lot of them have good value. The studies deserve to be evaluated on their individual merits.

For the most part, the people who discredit evolutionary psychology are feminists who adhere to a blank slate view of the human mind.

[–]loddfavne 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

For the most part, the people who discredit evolutionary psychology are feminists who adhere to a blank slate view of the human mind.

Just about every feminist dogma I've seen out there can be proven false by evolutionary psychology. That's the real problem feminsts have with the field.

[–]dejour 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Exactly. Most of their criticisms are ideologically motivated rather than scientifically motivated.

If the ev psych conclusions supported feminism they'd have no problem with the field.

That said, the nature of the field makes experimentation and hypotheses-testing difficult, and I think researchers are more prone to reaching incorrect conclusions than in harder sciences (or even other fields of psychology).

[–]loddfavne 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the ev psych conclusions supported feminism they'd have no problem with the field.

Like they do with sociology. A field of science that's been hijacked by the left. Disregarding basic biology.

<That said, the nature of the field makes experimentation and hypotheses-testing difficult,

Experiments with gametheory can be used to explain observations made by the behavioral part of psychology. This can be used a pretty sound foundation.

[–]wisty 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

EP isn't rubbish. I think it's a reasonable teaching tool, as it can lead to fairly credible explanations of observed phenomena. Of course, these observations (and EP predictions) need to be validated with empirical tests.

Evolution isn't rubbish. IIRC, antibiotics was invented thanks to Florey's knowledge of evolution (he knew that from the principals of evolution, molds were likely to create anti-bacterial secretions, so he did a literature search and found Flemming's discovery of penicillin).

[–]Ithinknotttt -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who would have guessed...

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]qemist 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's not a grammatical error, though it is a little hard to parse. I'm more bothered by "such" than "or".

[+]Lethn -31 points-30 points-29 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why would people bitch about this? I'm telling you guys, support gay marriage if you want threesomes ;) trolololololol.

[–]garglemesh42 30 points31 points32 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Try being one of a handful of men in a group led by a woman that doesn't know how to compensate for this in group bias, a group mostly made up of women. You'll find out real quick what discrimination feels like. The dynamics are nothing like what happens in mostly male groups.

Also, look at what happens to boy's grades in our k-12 education system, where the teachers are mostly women: http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/students-can-detect-teachers-gender-bias-boys-suffer-most/

The only teacher that I ever had that was openly sexist was a bitter old woman that taught english grammar in high school. She gave girls easier assignments and graded them much easier. A paper from a boy that got a B would easily be an A+ from a girl.

[+]Lethn -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It depends entirely on the women to be fair, obviously, if you have some sexist morons then the treatment will be different. As it so happens I take Jewellery lessons working with silver and gemstones ( proper metal working mind you not beading or anything ) which is pretty female dominated.

Now it could easily be because a lot of the women are in their 30's and have had kids etc. so they know how to communicate with guys but I've never had a problem with any of them.

Just depends on the type of people you meet. I of course, probably wouldn't be caught dead in a group of girls my age because then the likeliehood of them acting as you describe is increased and I'd agree on that.

It all depends on who you meet though, I've met some girls online that I still have a chat with because they're way more pleasant than most girls their age. I also find it depends on which country they're from, I hardly ever get along well with girls from the UK but girls in europe generally are really great and some girls in the U.S I'm fine with.

[–]Manatee7474 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Try WORKING with a group of women.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I find that most MRAs/antifeminists I've come across are more supportive of gay men and our sexual preferences than are the loudest voices in feminism, and possibly most feminists. Supporting gay men is the bitter medicine they have to take to advance lesbians' rights.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter