Peer reviewed study: If you give him the power, he will abuse it.

I'm so pissed about the constant bullshit false equivalency- "women are just as bad, and so misogynist abuse is justified". please see the science. The only safe romantic relationship with a man is one where the power balance tips in your favor. It is not abusive to men for a woman to have the ability to protect herself and hold him accountable. Never idealize them, always be vetting. If they hate themselves or think they are trash, they will absolutely look down on you for dealing with their silly bullshit.

"Who Wears the Pants: The Implications of Gender and Power for Youth Heterosexual Relationships

Bay-Cheng LY, Maguin E, Bruns AE. Who Wears the Pants: The Implications of Gender and Power for Youth Heterosexual Relationships. J Sex Res. 2018 Jan;55(1):7-20. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1276881. Epub 2017 Feb 6. PMID: 28166414.

Abstract

Relationships in which power is equally distributed are consistently associated with greater quality (e.g., deeper intimacy, less turmoil, more pleasure), but it can be difficult to strike such a balance. Furthermore, dominant gender scripts and norms are complexly intertwined with power in heterosexual relationships. We studied the joint implications of power and gender for relationship quality using 114 U.S. emerging adults' quantitative and qualitative assessments of 395 heterosexual relationships. Linear mixed method analyses indicated that participants found relationships in which they shared power or were dominant to be more intimate and stable than those in which they felt subordinate, but we found no link between power and pleasure. Gender acted as a moderator such that women rated relationships in which they felt subordinate as less intimate and more tumultuous than those in which they felt dominant, whereas men's ratings did not vary by whether they felt subordinate or dominant. Qualitative data also showed power imbalances to be more problematic for women: Of the 17 relationships involving an abusive or controlling partner, 15 were reported by women. We conclude that while both young men and young women may feel subordinate in relationships, the consequences thereof are more detrimental for young women."

[–]say10s-exwifeFDS Newbie 173 points174 points175 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]yeahhh22FDS Apprentice 53 points54 points55 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KyliekimmyFDS Newbie 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KindredMaximusFDS Newbie 153 points154 points155 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I've spent years pondering this. The conclusion I came to is men - if given any power whatsoever - will never be magnanimous - it turns them nasty and megalomaniacal. They use every single little bit of power given -''you give them an inch and they'll take a mile'' and ''Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

On a micro scale it means the man, if he makes the money - in his mind you are his slave and he gets to do what he wants.

On a macro - well we can see very well what it means on a macro scale.

I suspect a LOT of women with absolute power would also be corrupt - if they ever got into power - the few examples show that absolute power can also corrupt women. It's very seductive.

But on the whole, I've spent my life pondering this power imbalance and whilst most women in their own home given the 'power' would ''rule'' kindly and magnanimously - most men just become arseholes and take you for granted.

Much like NGOs have found if women get given money and aid - they distribute it fairly and share it to make sure all are looked after. When men are given the money and aid - they take it for themselves and squander it or use it to enhance their own position - fuck everybody else. That's the same with power in relationships.

[–]SoftritoFDS Apprentice 96 points97 points98 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fds_throwaway_4_uFDS Newbie 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yeahhh22FDS Apprentice 71 points72 points73 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Platipus6FDS Apprentice 37 points38 points39 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BedazzledSwashbuckle 26 points27 points28 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think women have a lot of humility built into our bodies and daily lives in that we have monthly pain and mess and blood with periods. We have to face down the risk of death to bring our biological legacies, new little lives, into the world. (And we do that naked and sweaty, highly vulnerable and in pain ... not a moment that feels particularly superior or like we are wielding power.) We're reminded of our limitations and humanity regularly by virtue of inhabiting a female body with its reproductive processes. When we see other people, we see our small vulnerable little ones reflected in them, and we inherently know the immense sacrifice and risks that some woman somewhere faced to give them life - and we attribute worth to them as a result.

Men, I think, have bodies that allow them to ignore their mortality, fragility, and vulnerability. They can convince themselves that they're invincible and not be reminded of how wrong they are for decades, until old age kneecaps them. Others truly are *other* - they've never grown a new human in their own bodies, and they've never looked into another person's eyes and known that their own months and months of sacrifice created that life. They can afford to forget that everything they do isn't entirely and solely about their own self.

[–]Emergency-Feed8216FDS Apprentice 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Oracle_of_DelphiFDS Apprentice 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]KindredMaximusFDS Newbie 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FURYOFCAPSLOCKFDS Newbie 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_HEDONISM_BOTFDS STRATEGY COACH 117 points118 points119 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]msssstFDS Newbie 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergency-Feed8216FDS Apprentice 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That brings up painful memories of a coworker back when I was pregnant. I recall how she victoriously described getting an older scrote to confess love: "So I said to him, 'Do you have feelings for me or are you just using me?'"

What was he going to say? He let her do some more Cirque de Soleil back flips off the headboard, launder his socks and clean his pee ring from around her toilet for a few more months before dumping her. She had a lot of competitive hubris about methods of "keeping a man," probably gotten from Cosmo and Insta, and seemed dumbfounded that the system hadn't "worked."

If she hadn't been kind of a horror show to work with, I might have felt sorrier for her. Pickmes are frequently crappy to other women, particularly in work settings. That's why I didn't pipe in to set her straight. When I was pregnant, I mostly guarded myself against stress and I'd learned years before that no one is nastier than an entrenched Pickme whose groveling credo is contradicted. Still, it was hard watching her diet herself down to a piece of beef jerky in the vain hopes the creep would come back. She gained all the weight back and then some and was back on OLD, having learned nothing. She recounted some of those adventures too. Cringe.

I learned later that her father was an adulterous alcoholic Trump fanatic and she never formed political opinions since she'd mold her views to whomever she was situationing with. Sad cautionary tale.

[–]_HEDONISM_BOTFDS STRATEGY COACH 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergency-Feed8216FDS Apprentice 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]_HEDONISM_BOTFDS STRATEGY COACH 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Emergency-Feed8216FDS Apprentice 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mesmerizFDS Newbie 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]CowProgrammatically3FDS Newbie 29 points30 points31 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mesmerizFDS Newbie 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CowProgrammatically3FDS Newbie 22 points23 points24 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mesmerizFDS Newbie 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergency-Feed8216FDS Apprentice 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PixiesGemFDS Newbie 24 points25 points26 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]husheveryoneFDS Apprentice 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_HEDONISM_BOTFDS STRATEGY COACH 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

How can I change the power dynamic to switch to my favour?

Almost ALL pickme women are unwilling to do what's necessary to grab and retain the power in situations like these.

Let's examine the situation carefully. At this advanced stage, where he boldly feels comfortable enough to disrespect you to your face, without giving a shit, while you continue to initiate and pursue him?

It's a lost cause. The dynamic is so fucked, that there isn't much you can do at this moment to recapture power. You can try (and you WILL waste your time and break your own heart trying). I'd Advise against it, and the other women who replied to you are correct.

You are better off leaving him forever via block on everything ( do NOT send him paragraphs or an essay on why you're leaving, what he could've/should've done differently, or how you feel). He doesn't give a shit.

once a man has had a taste of low standards, he won't tolerate it when you suddenly flip a switch and decide to have higher standards. When pickme women attempt to introduce higher standards, the men respond with retaliation, and usually this whips the pickmes back into chasing these LVM.

It won't work.

You have to literally be willing to BLOCK HIM THIS INSTANT without giving a shit, crying yourself to sleep, having panic attacks, or becoming obsessed with him.

What you need to be doing right now is dumping him and IMMEDIATELY moving on. Like give yourself an hour after the breakup to set up dating profiles and start swiping again.

Contrary to male-authored dating advice. It's easier to date when you're fresh off of a breakup. Like the same day. It's not shameful, it's not wrong. Yes, you need "space and time to heal", but you can have space and time to heal AND swipe on new guys at the same time. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Male authored dating advice tells you to avoid dating other men for months or years "while you heal" because it gives the dumped ex a chance to grovel and beg for you back. Or it gives him a chance to go find another woman to court (it takes men months, years, and sometimes DECADES to replace a good girlfriend.) It gives men time to get over you, it gives them time to watch you be hurt/single while they desperately try to replace you, without much success. It gives HIM time and space to heal from the relationship while you sit there, miserable, lonely, and missing him because you aren't swiping or talking to other men, while he is busy chatting up other girls. This is one of the reasons men bombard women with this dating "advice". It helps men.

NOTICE that men don't tell other men to avoid dating "while they heal". Men tell other men to IMMEDIATELY start chatting up other women. Why is that? Why is it that men tell OTHER MEN to immediately move on, and male-authored dating advice encourages women to avoid dating "while they heal"??

After all. Women aren't encouraged to avoid friends "while they heal". We aren't told to avoid family, or coworkers "while we heal". Why are we being told to ONLY avoid dating again immediately after a break up "while we heal"? Why are men NOT told the same thing by other men?

Women are better at emotional control and regulation than men are. If anything, men should be telling other men to avoid dating after a break up, and telling women to begin swiping immediately, like the second the breakup text is sent/delivered.

If you lurk around the heartbreak and breakup subreddits. Some of the most DEVASTATING posts are from men who were dumped by an ex who IMMEDIATELY moved on with another guy. It's PAINFUL for men to watch you IMMEDIATELY MOVE ON with another man. This is one of the reasons male-authored dating advice tells you to avoid dating other men "while you heal". It spares men's feelings. It helps men. You can and should "heal and have space" as you ALSO swipe on other men. If your ex didn't want to go through the devastation of watching you easily move on, he shouldn't have lost you in the first place. The consequences of his actions are between HIM AND HIMSELF. Do NOT spare his feelings. He didn't spare yours.

While you're busy NOT swiping on other men, your loneliness will build up and you'll be more likely to take the shitbag back, and this benefits men, which is the reason they bombard women with this useless "dating advice".

What you need to be doing is BOTH. YES heal and move on, but also set up dating profiles and swipe away and talk to other guys. YOU CAN DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. You SHOULD do both at the same time, if you feel comfortable with it.

going forward, in a new relationship. Block him at the first red flag, the first time. FOREVER.

Do not explain yourself, don't write paragraphs or essays about feelings. It is NOT your job to "educate him" or to cOmMuNiCaTe. You're not his mother. If he wants to learn how to properly court women without disappointing them, he needs to be googling it. It's not your problem or place to teach them.

YOUR PLACE is to show up and be courted. Your place is to show up and be entertained, impressed, catered to. You are NOT there for a bad time. You are there to be properly courted so you can consider him for a relationship. If he can't impress you, that's between him and himself. BLOCK, DELETE, IGNORE, NEXT!

I recommend you date at least 5 guys at the same time. Make THEM compete for your commitment. This is a great way for pickme women to get out of their "pickme ways". One of the fundamental Pickme values is the belief that "good men are scarce and hard to come by."

"Good men are hard to come by (or are scarce)" is male authored dating "advice" aimed at women because it benefits men. They don't want us to know that HVM are abundant and in high supply. It is WOMEN who are in low supply and high demand, not men.

It's not that HVM are scarce or hard to come by, it's that most women aren't good at vetting out LVM. It's that most women are taught to settle for mediocrity by misguided male-authored dating advice. Male-authored dating advice aimed at women is a poison pill designed to help men get laid. That's it. That's the goal of it. If you follow men's advice, you'll end up pumped/dumped, disappointed and heartbroken. Almost ALL pickme women have consumed too much male-authored dating propaganda.

You've got to dispel this myth (that HVM are scarce) yourself by proving to yourself that you can date a rotation of high quality, high value men, and block them at the first red flag, forever. You need to see with your own eyes that an HVM is as easy to replace as a few swipes on a dating app. You need to see it for yourself, with primary evidence through your own lived experience. Reading about it on reddit via my comment won't help you. YOU NEED TO SEE IT YOURSELF. This is called "examine the evidence" - a cognitive behavioral therapy technique endorsed by Dr. David Burns, an award-winning Stanford educated physician who specialized in mental health.

Ideally, you're on the apps swiping until you're married or in a committed relationship. You need to flip the narrative. Instead of YOU being desperate to be picked by men, you create an environment (by dating 5+ guys at the same time) where they compete to be picked by YOU.

most pickme women aren't willing or interested in doing these things. A lot of them feel like they're incapable of doing to these men what they do to them.

good luck!

[–]mesmerizFDS Newbie 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]_HEDONISM_BOTFDS STRATEGY COACH 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FI-REfoxFDS Newbie 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]daisy_0720FDS STRATEGY COACH 94 points95 points96 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FineDeliciousSnakesFDS Newbie 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lansburysodaFDS Newbie 220 points221 points222 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergency-Feed8216FDS Apprentice 23 points24 points25 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Not always true. Humans are most closely related to the regular rapey chimp. Some poly fanatics and pop scientists try to claim that we're more closely related to the kinder-gentler feminist bonobo chimp but carbon dating, biology (and one glance at human history) argue against this.

While it seems discouraging at first to admit that humans literally evolved as vio.lent, warring, ba.ttering, infanticidal rapists, the only way to improve things is to start with an accurate model of human behavior, then embrace the fact that our bigger brains and free will make long term social engineering possible. Like maintaining democracy, the work of equal rights advocates will never be done.

One way in which starting with an accurate model of human nature can lead to better solutions would be, for instance, critiquing "choice" feminism's acceptence of BDSM and sex-work-as-work as "progressive." How can acceoting those things be progressive if they are in essence a literal return to our patriarchal rapey-ape past where all females are subs (or "doms" on demand but only in service to male agenda: read Wrangham's Demonic Males)?

To quote Thomas Hardy, "If a way to the better there be, it exacts a full look at the worst." Utopian idealism-- like the idea that humans would be peace-loving egalitarians in their natural state-- rarely leads to social improvement.

[–]dkwantsdkFDS Newbie 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergency-Feed8216FDS Apprentice 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I can't agree. Read Wrangham and Peterson. The carbon dating is off by 5m years.

Wrangham makes the point that even without the concrete evidence, you can pretty much tell by human history that we hail from the rapey ape.

I suspect the porn industry, poly folks and pop primatologists (Frans de Waal, bleah) are popularizing the idea that we're closer cousins with the nicer chimps. Many people find it comforting and the sex industry likes it because, if humans are dyed in the wool, solidly, genetically more bonobo-ish, then what's the point of guarding against rapey influences when, as supposedly bonobo-ish beings, we would be psychologicaly immune to those influences? Also it justifies group sex and adultery, weee (except of course-- inconvenient fact-- regular rapey chimps also engage in group sex, but it's just not always consensual).

I also think many fear that admitting that we descended from a common ancestor with regular chimps supports social Darwinism and justifies rape as "natural", etc. But regular chimps are just as prone to infanticide and cannibalism and we're not seeing a loosening of laws prohibiting child murder and eating people. So something being ancestral doesn't make it permissible.

The idea that we're closer in all ways to bonobos just makes no sense. There has never been a true human matriarchy. We arose from the shittier ape and the only way to go is up.

Edits: posted too soon.

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

[–]Emergency-Feed8216FDS Apprentice 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Richard Wrangham, primatologist and author of the arguably radfem Demonic Males: Apes and the Evolution of Human Violence, authored a theory that early humans made the leap to language because gossip was a way to keep tabs on mates. In other words, humans evolved as more or less monogamous.

That also addresses your point that humans are something different than apes-- yes, it seems we went in our own direction in many ways. Not enough though. One key difference between regular chimps and bonobos is that regular chimps suicidally destroy every habitat they occupy.

Sound familiar? As for why the truth of our origins matters, I think the above illustrates it best. If we were less regular rapey chimp-like and more kinder-gentler environmentally harmonious bonobo-like, we might be able to relax and be less self scrutinizing. But as history is the best guide, that never worked out for our ancestors and doesn't works out for our own species. We need to constantly kick our own asses or the planet will be destroyed.

I think the strange movement claiming that we're more bonobo-like is nearly a Utopian crisis cult to deny how close to the brink we've driven ourselves and a way to say "oh relax, it works out. We just need to have more orgies." But it won't just work out unless we take serious measures to change the current trajectory.

To quote political philosopher Karl Raimund Popper, "Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell." The bs that we evolved from bonobos is dangerous in several ways. Climate change, perpetual war, increasing inequality speak against the idea that we're on the way to Utopia. And like Rousseau's disastrous Noble Savage theory that fueled the Jacobin reign of terror in revolutionary France, this idea that humans in their ungoverned state would be peace loving saints is so absurdly wrong that it always leads believers to killing a mass of people when it turns out that, D'OH, humans just refuse to be pure and good.

That brings up the issue of witch burning. Women also have difficulty fitting the male ideal of purity, passivity, service and beauty and so periodically throughout history a bunch need to be tortured and killed to get the rest in line. That ideal is like the Procrustian bed: because the guest is too big to fit the bed, his legs have to be cut off to make him fit. Women are often "pruned" to make us fit the ideal.

Also like a slave rebellion, men fear that a few uppity women could turn legion and tend to nip it in the bud before any real power is achieved.

One thing I really appreciate about Wrangham is his conclusion that we will have to consciously emulate bonobos in achieving women's equality because this would cause a sea change that might save the planet. But Wrangham doesn't sugar coat the difficulty of acheiving this since it goes against our animal programming enough to be incredibly challenging.

[–]lightcobaltblueFDS Newbie 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Cat_EmpressFDS Newbie 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Witchy-WoodsThrowaway Account 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Peer reviewed study: If you give him the power, he will abuse it.
Author	StatisticianOk767
Upvotes	344
Comments	44
Date	October 28, 2021 12:30 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/qhann1/peer_reviewed_study_if_you_give_him_the_power_he/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/peer-reviewed-study-if-you-give-him-the-power-he.1081428 https://theredarchive.com/post/1081428

"Who Wears the Pants: The Implications of Gender and Power for Youth Heterosexual Relationships

Abstract

Comments