Actual Criteria Exposed

[–]pilotlet 64 points65 points66 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]HaIoSmith 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pilotlet 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ultravoltron3000 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Last-Decision-4096 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]WhereProgressIsMade 77 points78 points79 points 3 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie -48 points-47 points-46 points 3 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]jhny_boy 45 points46 points47 points 3 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie -12 points-11 points-10 points 3 years ago* (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

I didn’t think this was new evidence.

The study compared unmarried women with comparable married women. They looked at the characteristics of the husbands of those women and then compared them to the actual characteristics of unmarried men. The study didn’t address the splitting of bills at all.

I’m asking how they concluded that women don’t want to pay significantly towards bills from this article. The conclusion that I saw was that the men who are getting married are more likely to have a job, have a higher income, and have a college degree. There’s a discrepancy between the demographics of the partners of married women and unmarried men available. The study seems to address cisgender heterosexual couples, and it concludes that this will either result in more people remaining unmarried or people getting married despite less suitability.

[–]denisc9918 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

You're being treated dismissively because we're not used to women coming in here wanting to actually understand. I wasn't going to engage but I checked your history and looked at your questions again, maybe you actually do and I like Caramel Cookies, soooo.

Originally I only glanced over this article presuming that it was just another biased study "proving" that once again it's our fault but I've just read it all.

Nobody concluded that women don’t want to pay significantly towards bills from this article alone, there is no data to support that... but we all know what "economically attractive" means and the article/study just confirms that women won't marry these men.

What do you think that "economically attractive" means?

Do you think a guy making $50k will be attractive to a gal making $75k? If not, why not? Surely $125k will provide a comfortable lifestyle wouldn't it? Why is it always "How much is HE making" shouldn't it be "How much are WE making"?

[+]karamielkookie 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

This movement has a lot of negative discourse surrounding it. I came to this subreddit to see what you all are saying for myself because I’m a really nosy person. I’ve been treated dismissively, insulted, and downvoted for engaging. On another post a man
not only stated that marital rape should be legal, but proposed paying women to falsely accuse other men of rape. I was downvoted for challenging him, and very few other people spoke out about his ugly words.

There have definitely been moments of education on here. It’s frustrating that there are so many people on this subreddit that are saying things that are untrue or don’t make sense. You’re saying that nobody made that conclusion from this article. The comment I was originally responding to literally started with “so they’re saying,” referencing the article. It has tons of upvotes. The comment doesn’t reference anything in the article at all, but I’ve been insulted for asking about that. It’s not a good experience.

I think that economically attractive means being employed and having similar or greater income.

I think that a man making 50k is attractive to a woman making 75k. I don’t know how relevant that particular example is though because I think the median salary for women is around 36k. So I think a lot of women would consider a man making 50k sufficiently attractive. Most household incomes are less than 125k so depending on COL I think most people would view that as comfortable.

[–]denisc9918 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

I’m a really nosy person.

OMG! what a terrible trait... I'm just Obsessively Curious which is a wonderful trait. ;-)

You mean the marital rape chat with Kancha_Cheen? He was missing focus and/or vocabulary and you were missing context. Marital rape is already covered under Indian law it's called something like "Treating you wife badly". They're all freaking out that spelling it out will lead to an increase in false allegations which they already believe is a problem. The "He said she said" scenario in a shared bed is a nightmare to prove either way. Will some rapists get off, of course but some murderers get off too under the burden of proof rules and there are no shortage of false SA/Rape allegations around.

It’s frustrating that there are so many people on this subreddit that are saying things that are untrue or don’t make sense.

That's all totally based on your knowledge, you don't know what the Red Pill is and that alone will fill in a lot of gaps.

The comment doesn’t reference anything in the article at all, but I’ve been insulted for asking about that. It’s not a good experience.

Awww, c'mon, ya copped some flak and a piddling number of downvotes... In a post about a female spray painting a guys car with stuff like "All Men are Trash" and "Men are Pigs" because he cheated on her I said "It's not ALL men only him and you shouldn't paint his car anyway".. I got almost -500 votes and the nicest thing I was called was "A Misogynistic Piece of Shit". You're gonna need to up your game if ya want to play in the big leagues... This be MensRights, thick skin mandatory.. LOL

I think that economically attractive means being employed and having similar or greater income...I think that a man making 50k is attractive to a woman making 75k.

You just said "similar or greater" and then "lower", can't be both... and then you argued that the median for women is $36k so she'd find $50k attractive, which she would because it's "greater".

The household income wasn't the point, the point was: Why is it always "How much is HE making" shouldn't it be "How much are WE making"?

The biggest predictor of divorce is him losing his job, what she's making is irrelevant. Add in her getting a better job or pay raises unil she out earns him and you've got the vast majority of divorces.

This is stuff we all know so full explanations aren't required. Which does make it harder for you but from our side we get a lot of women here asking in bad faith so we're sceptical and abrupt. We've all wasted too much time before.

[+]karamielkookie 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

I read up on the context. There are many people explicitly stating that sex between married people is inherently consensual. The cruelty penalizations weren’t the same as rape. Marital rape wasn’t criminalized and only had civil penalties. Marital rape is being heavily reported in India. The victims need justice.

The things I said weren’t true or didn’t make sense wasn’t based on my knowledge, it was based on the comments that I was reading. I don’t think being an expert on red pill ideology would have stopped me from recognizing the lack of logic.

I caught some flak and downvotes for asking completely reasonable questions in an effort to understand the positions I read. It was unpleasant. I don’t see how you having unpleasant experiences in other subreddits means that it’s okay to be rude to me. Stating “not all men” is a tactic often used by misogynists to derail conversations and invalidate lived experiences. It’s not said out of concern for the person speaking out. It’s not productive for the conversation. It doesn’t offer understanding or solutions to the problem the person was experiencing. It can also shift the responsibility of the problem to the person experiencing it, especially if someone is using that phrase to insinuate their judgment is at fault.

I’m sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say and/or, not just or. I did say I think a woman making 75k would find a man making 50k attractive. By that I mean I don’t think it would be a deal breaker, even if it isn’t ideal. I don’t have any data on this. Anecdotally, the only women I know in my age range making 70k or more who aren’t doctors all date men making less than them. I’m black though so that skews the data. I do think that most women making 36k would be attracted to a man making 50k because that economic range is similar.

I don’t really get the thing about always how much HE is making? Are you asking why the study looked at the socioeconomic characteristics of men instead of women? Who’s always asking that question?

I didn’t know that that was a big predictor of divorce. I’ll definitely look into that. Correlation does not equal causation though. There are a lot of reasons why a husband being unemployed might correlate with divorce though. I can imagine that societal pressures for men to be the breadwinner could weigh heavily on involuntarily unemployed men, and that could have negative impacts on their mental health.

Maybe a sticky with foundational knowledge and data would be helpful for people who visit this subreddit.

[–]denisc99182 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn’t say automatically believe all women. I said marital rape is a big problem in India and it should be illegal. Marriage is not automatic consent to sex. The victims of marital rape deserve justice.

Yeah, you did downplay my experience. Just because it isn’t a big deal to you doesn’t mean that it wasn’t to me. Regardless of how big of a deal it is, or how much ruder other people are on this subreddit, I think it was unpleasant and I said so.

No, I didn’t really suggest that it was okay for her to vandalize his property because her feelings were hurt. I didn’t say anything about that woman or the car at all. What made you think I was suggesting that?

I’m not sure if you’re asking if I’m suggesting you’re wrong about all men not being pigs or if you’re wrong for saying it right then. But no, I don’t think you’re wrong. All men are not pigs, so I of course think that fact is true. In this particular case you said she said all men are pigs, so you said all men are not. That’s also true. It would be a different case if she hadn’t specified all.

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn’t say automatically believe all women.

There is no ambiguity in what you said, there is no room there for false allegations.

Yeah, you did downplay my experience..

It isn't a big deal to US and we've already allowed for you being female. Most of the responses you received would have been stuff like "FO idiot" if directed at other men. I was trying to point out that you're in a man's space and if you need to have thick skin. We largely don't care if your feelings get hurt from our already toned down words. It isn't from us "having unpleasant experiences in other subreddits" it's just the way we are.

No, I didn’t really suggest that it was okay for her to vandalize his property.... What made you think I was suggesting that?

The rest of the paragraph after: Stating “not all men” is a tactic. You've cleared it up here, ignore it.

In this particular case you said she said all men are pigs, so you said all men are not. That’s also true. It would be a different case if she hadn’t specified all.

If she had said Tony is "whatever" I'd have agreed with her. The "ALL" tag is idiotic and the problem. We're totally non-sexist with this shit, we will stomp men here saying "all women" just as quickly.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There isn’t any ambiguity in what I said. I unambiguously believe that marriage is not consent to sex. Sex without consent is rape. Rape is a criminal act. Marital rape should be illegal. The victims of marital rape deserve justice. Those are all complete sentences and I don’t see the need for ambiguity. Since ambiguity is an important aspect of this topic for you, have you brought it up in the discussions on that post? I don’t think I saw comments requesting room for the suffering victims of marital rape who are requesting this change when considering the potential false allegations.

What allowance did you make because I’m a woman? I understand that in your experience and on this subreddit men find it acceptable to mock each other, call each other mean names, and be rude. These men largely don’t care if they hurt other peoples feelings after they already tone themselves down. It’s just the way they are. I’m not challenging your experience. I didn’t ask you to take action. I don’t like being spoken to that way, and I said so. Since you don’t care how I feel about it I don’t think me typing about it would have a significantly different impact.

That’s great. I’m glad people can’t say “all women” here. I agree. The all tag is super dumb. It brings us into absolutes, and speaking in absolutes is really stupid. I mentioned before why people shouldn’t say
“Not all men,” and I specifically meant in cases where men have caused harm, especially in ways that have historically been supported systemically, and this further illustrates my point. The “ALL” is the problem. The person didn’t say all, and unless they’re an extremist who doesn’t understand statistics, they don’t mean all. So there’s no reason to say it except to derail the conversation.

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This has to be closed off..

Marital rape

That guy you were talking to Kancha_Cheen is a pretty heavy poster so hard to be totally sure but I went back thru his comments for 11 days and that post was the only time he's been here. He's also heavy in the subs India, LegalAdviceIndia and says that he's a lawyer.

In a comment on that thread he said: "you lose everything, spend half a decade inside prison awaiting trial to declare not enough evidence or spend a fortune to get bail and.."

A quick google and it seems 5ish yrs awaiting trial is fairly normal.

Elsewhere he said: "Nope, 80% of cases are false . And as a lawyer I am inclined to believe that it is even higher. Domestic Violence Complaint has become a joke these days, especially with free legal aid council being provided to women."

With a link to an article about the 80%, female cops are saying it.

So as well as the standard dangers we face in the west they also face a long long wait for the trial and there seems to be a huge % of false accusations.

India is a mess all around and I don't think you & I could understand the whole scenario enough to make more than surface level judgements. Is seems that men all over India are screaming about it, they all have mothers, sisters, daughters etc so the idea that they could all be rapists or enablers is ludicrous.

Actual rape is despicable and I would deal with it far more harshly than any western nation currently does, likewise false allegations.

That's the end for me on this subject unless ya got something profound?

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you answered my questions in the comment you’re responding to I would be satisfied.

In efforts to close the info in your comment off, I did see that 80% stat but it came from one person with no data. From what I could see quickly false allegations are an issue in Delhi. The motivation for them has not been proven to be for money in any cases, but there are a lot of families who would prefer the stigma of rape over a woman having consensual sex or use it to force men into marrying women they’ve slept with. Literally every man is related to women and that has no bearing on whether or not they are a rapist or an enabler. The same goes for all abusers and rapists.

I did see that you said actual rape is despicable and you’d deal with it harshly. I’m not sure how one could deal with the actual rape that married people experience without it being deemed illegal. I understand if you don’t want to explain that given that you’re closing the thread off.

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The things I said weren’t true or didn’t make sense wasn’t based on my knowledge, it was based on the comments that I was reading. I don’t think being an expert on red pill ideology would have stopped me from recognizing the lack of logic.

That's a nonsensical statement. More knowledge today can easily make what was said yesterday not true and allow you to make sense of things that didn't before. I have the knowledge and you telling me you "don't think" having it would help is just silly.

Oh, and The Red Pill isn't an ideology it's an acknowledgement of truths that have previously been hidden. Using the Matrix Red/Blue pills is stunningly appropriate.

I did say I think a woman making 75k would find a man making 50k attractive. By that I mean I don’t think it would be a deal breaker, even if it isn’t ideal. I don’t have any data on this.

We do and you're wrong. Anecdotal evidence is perfectly ok depending on how many. You just put 3 conditions on your data sample so probably statistically irrelevant.

We've tested it. Profiles/Pics only the hot guy gets it, start adding earnings/jobs info the money starts getting picked. For women attractiveness is directly related to money, men couldn't care less about her money.

If you would like to watch a few hundred/thousand podcasts or vids asking women questions I can suggest a few YT channels. ;-)

I've never noticed any deviation based on skin colour except in dating app data where US Black Women are by far the least chosen.

I don’t really get the thing about always how much HE is making?

I was asking. There is a video where womanA asks womanB "Would you date a bus driver?" WomanB ducks and weaves a bit but then answers no. IIRC womanA says "You're earning $150k he's getting $50k. You can live really well in $200k" to which womanB mumbles the standard.. he has to match my energy, can't be with a man with no drive, yadda yadda yadda...

Correlation does not equal causation though.....

We know and "societal pressures" are largely irrelevant since providing for our family is in our DNA but any man with 1/2 a brain knows that when you lose you income the clock starts ticking, divorce is imminent regardless of what she earns.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It’s not a nonsensical statement. Of course more knowledge provides context. That has no bearing on what I’m saying. The thing I said was untrue and didn’t make sense was the statement that the linked article could lead someone to say that despite getting most of the degrees and earning more money than ever, women don’t want to pay significantly towards the bills. I asked how the article supported that conclusion. Eventually he said that it wasn’t the article, it was Kevin Samuels and other sources. I could be the founder of the red pill movement and I couldn’t make the article linked in this post show any data or conclusions that said that women don’t want to pay significantly towards bills. What’s silly about that?

I don’t understand how believing red pill concepts to be true means that it automatically isn’t an ideology. I apologize for mislabeling.

I don’t have the data you’re using of course. It looks like 16% of marriages have the wives as primary or sole earners, so I don’t think it’s a deal breaker. That’s just a quick google though. I don’t listen to podcasts and those channels aren’t my thing. Could you suggest some peer reviewed studies?

The article we are referring to literally mentioned minorities. I’m not sure why you haven’t noticed the impact of race. Intersectionality certainly puts black women in an interesting position in the social hierarchy. Luckily for me, I’m an attractive lesbian so I’ve had a lot of success on dating apps.

I’m not sure I get how that random video ties in. I don’t think many bus drivers are married to people who make 150k. Most people don’t make 150k. Like it’s just a situation that doesn’t apply to the majority of the us population. She doesn’t want to date a bus driver. Okay?

I think it would be very difficult to find data supporting the idea that societal pressures are largely irrelevant in most circumstances, but especially regarding the mental health of men in terms of financially providing.

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The thing I said was untrue and didn’t make sense was the statement that the linked article could lead someone to say....Eventually he said that it wasn’t the article, it was Kevin Samuels and other sources...

If you knew about KS and Others could you have made the same conclusion that we obviously have done? It's not a lack of logic on our part it's a lack of knowledge on yours.

It's silly for someone that doesn't have some knowledge telling someone that does have it what affect having it would cause.

I don’t listen to podcasts and those channels aren’t my thing. Could you suggest some peer reviewed studies?

Ok but that's where you can quickly see an enormous number of women expressing themselves. Peer reviewed studies on what exactly? If it's womens preferences then I've never seen one. There are any number of studies showing "why" women have these preferences which will be in the Red Pill stuff.

I've never seen any differences in what women want, black skin or otherwise. Any attractive woman has success on dating apps, US black women just have the least success compared to others.

I’m not sure I get how that random video ties in. I don’t think many bus drivers..

Her attitude is standard for women.

I think it would be very difficult to find data supporting the idea that societal pressures are largely irrelevant in most circumstances, but especially regarding the mental health of men in terms of financially providing.

The need to provide is in our DNA, "societal pressures" are largely irrelevant because they can't apply more pressure than we have already placed on ourselves. Our glass is already full nothing anyone else pours on will make a difference.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem is not the conclusions you came to. The problem is that you and the other commenters said you came to those conclusions from this article. You did not. That is not my ignorance; that’s yours. I’m not sure where you’re struggling in terms of reading comprehension, but I’m certainly not being silly.

Podcasts are not a reliable source of information. Even if you saw a million women saying the exact same thing that would be a very very tiny fraction of the billions of women in the world. That’s why the samples matter when we’re looking at data.

Peer reviewed studies that support the claims you’ve made. So yes, studies on women’s preferences. I don’t understand your statements. It looks like you just said you both haven’t seen any studies on women’s preferences and also that there are any number of studies about them? Can you send me the links to those in the red pill stuff?

I mean, it doesn’t look like you’re looking at data about what women want, so how would you have seen the differences? I don’t understand the relevance about black women dating.

Statements like “her attitude is standard for women” without any data supporting that don’t really mean anything. The same goes for your idea about men needing to provide.

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem is that you and the other commenters said you came to those conclusions from this article.

I said: "Nobody concluded....from this article alone".

Why is there no one else asking like you are??....because if you had the knowledge that we have then you wouldn't be asking either. The article was just a trigger for a vent about how reality is.

ps: I long ago blocked that idiot dipshit that said: "Not the sharpest tool in the shed"...

but I’m certainly not being silly.

You said: "I don’t think being an expert on red pill ideology would have stopped me from recognizing the lack of logic."

You're giving an opinion on what you would have thought if you knew something that you didn't... sooo, How do you know what affect something you don't know will have on you when you do know it?

.. I had to type that slowly so maybe you should read it that way too.. lol

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You did say that, to which I responded

You’re saying that nobody made that conclusion from this article. The comment I was originally responding to literally started with “so they’re saying,” referencing the article. It has tons of upvotes. The comment doesn’t reference anything in the article at all, but I’ve been insulted for asking about that.

The lack of other people in this subreddit questioning those conclusions is not sufficient evidence of proof. I agree, it does seem like the article was just a trigger to vent. It would have been honest if the commenters had admitted that instead of insulting me for asking about the article.

lYou're giving an opinion on what you would have thought if you knew something that you didn't... sooo, How do you know what affect something you don't know will have on you when you do know it?

Alright, say you’re correct. You do know a lot about red pill. How did that make those responses to me logical? Just to remind you, my question was “Where did you get that conclusion that women don’t want to pay significantly toward the bills? The article that I saw didn’t mention any data about bill division or women’s desires regarding that.”

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I said: "Nobody concluded....from this article alone".

The lack of other people in this subreddit questioning those conclusions is not sufficient evidence of proof.

We're mostly fact driven and argumentative and will call out any bullshit from anyone. Only you questioning it is a huge indicator of the problem being on your side.

Only one dipshit insulted you. Honesty has nothing to do with it. I think that the 2 guys that said "How can you not" and "It’s an expectation many women..." didn't realise that you didn't know the basics. You kept at one until he realised and told you not just from this article.

Alright, say you’re correct....How did that make those responses to me logical?

You said "I don't think having X knowledge would have stopped me from recognizing the lack of logic"

There is NO "lack of logic" for us. We have all puzzle pieces and could see the whole picture, YOU were/are missing a bunch of the pieces and so there "seemed" like a lack of logic.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I said: "Nobody concluded....from this article alone"

Yes, you did say that. That indicates that this article, along with other sources of information, led you to that conclusion. What information in this article supports the conclusion that women don’t want to pay significantly towards the bills? I did not see any data or information that supported that conclusion in this article. This is what I’ve been asking.

We're mostly fact driven and argumentative and will call out any bullshit from anyone. Only you questioning it is a huge indicator of the problem being on your side.

I haven’t found that the people responding to me are fact based. Even if I took your statement to be true, there could be any number of reasons why people didn’t ask these questions. That doesn’t change my questions and it also doesn’t contribute to my understanding of this position.

Okay. One commenter insulted me, and several others were dismissive. Knowing the basics isn’t really relevant here, because I specified that I was asking about this article, and this article doesn’t include the basic information you’re referring to.

There is NO "lack of logic" for us. We have all puzzle pieces and could see the whole picture

I’m going to rephrase my question, because I don’t believe you understood what I meant. Since there is no lack of logic for you because you have all of the puzzle pieces and can see the whole picture, can you explain the logic of the responses to the question that I asked. There’s no lack of logic to the commenters here, meaning that the responses were logical. I’m just asking you to take me through the logic because I don’t have the contextual information you’re referring to.

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What information in this article supports the conclusion that women don’t want to pay significantly towards the bills?

THERE IS NONE, I said that right at the beginning. My full sentence was..

Nobody concluded that women don’t want to pay significantly towards bills from this article alone, there is no data to support that.

Among any group of people that have an in-depth knowledge of ANY subject there is an unconscious expectation of a level of knowledge from anyone asking them questions. Hence responses like "How can you not?" and "Not the sharpest tool in the shed". It will also account for a number of the people that ignored you.

There aren't "any number of reasons why people didn’t ask" what you did, have a look at the responses they all displayed acceptance of the conclusions as fact which would absolutely not happen here if it was bullshit.

There’s no lack of logic to the commenters here, meaning that the responses were logical.

Yes, they were. Just not to you.

The number of times my youngest daughter has said "That's stupid, it doesn't make any sense" but after 10 mins of me explaining all the pieces her general response was always "Oh okay, but I didn't know that". ;-)

We're both saying the same thing over and over just worded slightly different. I obviously can't find the right words to flick on the epiphany light bulb in your head. I think you should either accept it as fact, shelve it until more info later makes it clear, or decide I'm nuts.. ;-)

A very large number of your questions would be answered if you read/studied some Biology & Psychology.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m glad we agree that there is no information in this article that supports the conclusion that women don’t want to pay significantly towards the bills. That would make drawing the conclusion that women don’t want to pay significantly towards bills from this specific article ILLOGICAL, because there’s no information in this article to support that claim. I’m not sure where our disconnect is there.

You disagreed that it is illogical to draw that conclusion from this article, which is what I’ve been asking about. I asked you to explain the logic to me, because I don’t understand it. We are not saying the same thing over and over again with slightly different wording. I have asked you clearly and concisely to explain your logic to me. You have instead asserted that I should believe the logic despite your lack of an answer because if it were indeed illogical other people would’ve pointed it out as well.

There are a lot of reasons people may not have asked those questions. I feel you lack imagination if you can’t think of any good reasons that people may not have questioned this. There are a lot of illogical people. Relying on others without ever fact checking is dangerous and leaves one open to manipulation and propaganda. I’m not sure how your child wanting you to explain to her is relevant to our conversation at all.

I’m not sure why I’d need to study biology and psychology for you to explain why it’s logical to draw a conclusion from this article that wasn’t supported by the article’s contents.

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m glad we agree that there is no information in this article

I said it right at the beginning. You missed the "alone" and the "No Data" and kept arguing there is no logic. That you missed those words never occurred to me, why would it? You kept saying "No Logic", I kept saying "You don't have all the data" which you apparently didn't actually think about for a second and just kept parroting "No Logic". That's the disconnect.

You disagreed that it is illogical to draw that conclusion from this article

I have not said that, I've constantly repeated that you don't have the data we have so "WHAT WE SAY" is only not logical TO YOU. I said "if it was bullshit" other people would have pointed it out.

There are a lot of reasons people may not have asked those questions..

List some.

Relying on others without ever fact checking is dangerous...

Yes, we know. Create another account, make a post with an incorrect statement and watch the response. Men do not have the Gender In-Group bias that women have, we do not blindly agree with other men.

I’m not sure how your child wanting you to explain to her is relevant to our conversation at all.

She didn't "want me to explain anything", she jumped to a conclusion that was incorrect because she didn't have all the data. You are doing exactly the same thing. I threw it in there because sometimes people understand things more easily if it's a 3rd party doing it.

I’m not sure why I’d need to study biology and psychology for you to explain why it’s logical to draw a conclusion from this article that wasn’t supported by the article’s contents.

I said "A very large number of your questions" I didn't refer to this article at all. You've only asked the same couple of questions about this article just many times. If you'd read Biology & Psychology you would have some of the data that we have. If you read, watched and listened to women objectively as much as we have then you would have all the confirmation of those 2 subjects that you would need and you would never have questioned the "logic".

How can you know about "humans" without a knowledge of Biology & Psychology?

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You didn’t say it right at the beginning. You hadn’t even read the whole article when you started commenting because you assumed it would be biased. It didn’t occur to you that I had missed those words because I didn’t. We discussed them. You even bolded the word “alone” in one of your comment’s to me and I responded to it directly.

First you said “Nobody concluded that women don’t want to pay significantly towards bills from this article alone, there is no data to support that”

To which I responded “You’re saying that nobody made that conclusion from this article. The comment I was originally responding to literally started with “so they’re saying,” referencing the article. It has tons of upvotes. The comment doesn’t reference anything in the article at all, but I’ve been insulted for asking about that. “

Then you said “I said: "Nobody concluded....from this article alone .” That would indicate that while the conclusion not be drawn entirely from this article, there is support in the article for the conclusion.

So I responded “Yes, you did say that. That indicates that this article, along with other sources of information, led you to that conclusion. What information in this article supports the conclusion that women don’t want to pay significantly towards the bills? I did not see any data or information that supported that conclusion in this article. This is what I’ve been asking.”

I’m not asking about what is logical to me. You said you didn’t say that you disagree that it was illogical. Do you agree that it was illogical then? I’m not sure why you’re specifying that this is illogical to me in particular. You have the data that I don’t have, so I asked what the data was and to show me the supporting evidence.

You’re right, you didn’t say she wanted you to explain anything. You just said that you did. I apologize. I am saying that I want you to explain to me, though.

Some possible reasons:

The commenters are not (currently) fact based and argumentative
The commenters didn’t read the article
The commenters don’t care that the article didn’t support the conclusions in the comments.

Nearly all of my questions were about this article. Which questions could be answered by studying biology and psychology?

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you seriously suggesting that me saying "right at the beginning" of our long back'n'forth is not exact enough because it was actually my 2ND comment!!

The biological drive of women is to find a partner to protect and provide. It doesn't matter what women earn they always want a man that earns more. Biology and psychology shows and explains why.

Are these comments from the article not supporting that? If you had any background knowledge you would not have missed them.

estimated potential husbands had an average income that was 58 per cent higher than the actual amount unmarried men earn.
The fabricated husbands were also 30 per cent more likely to be employed
but current shortages of marriageable men – men with a stable job and a good income
“Marriage is still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain,

Funny statement, based on love but fundamentally not... LOL

Men are loved as long as they provide.

The Red Pill

The "Marry for Love" crap is only a recent invention. The last 50? yrs we've been smothered in The Disney Fairy Tale bullshit. Girls are made from sugar and spice and all things nice, boys are made from frogs and snails and puppy dogs tails. Women in particular have been buried under the idiot notion that a handsome & rich Prince Charming will be waiting for each and every one of them and "You can have it all".

The Red Pill is simply seeing the actual nature of women. They are not the wonderful creatures of light & love that they have been portrayed as they are simply human with flaws and a biological drive just like us, albeit diametrically opposite....

There have been a few men all along telling us but we didn't notice because the brain washing was too intense.

Women themselves utilising social media has shoved female nature in our faces so hard it's almost impossible to ignore. Those that do manage to ignore it we call Blue Pilled.

RP is just having the veil of bullshit removed and being able to see the truth.

MGTOW, Passport Bros, Fuck Boys, Purple & Black Pills etc etc are all just different reactions to some level of RP knowledge.

Most? MRA are RP aware to some extent, hard to not be given the world we live in.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Reddit is having problems currently. Your reply is still not in my notifications and I only saw it by accident.

I came back to add this link. It's about the Redpill and the Manoshphere in general. I saw the vid wks ago but didn't think about it until a post just now, thought it might be helpful.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you’d like to refer to that as right at the beginning I don’t really have a problem with that. My point was more about you not having read the article thoroughly before you started commenting.

I didn't have to read it, I've read dozens the same, good chance I read that one previously anyway. My comment pointed at the HEADING and does not need the article to justify it. You, of course, would have noted that I read it before getting into any discourse about it's actual contents tho, wouldn't you... ;-)

men who are getting married are more likely to have a job and make more money.

YES, because these are the only men that women will marry.

It's really simple... Women want a man who makes more than they do. If the women start out earning men, which is happening now, then less and less men are "Economically Attractive" to them.

ETA: this is actually really alarming to me.

<shrug> Sure it's bad and it's alarming to everybody, except us! We saw it coming and were powerless to stop it. This current situation is BY DESIGN!

There is no lack of men with a stable job and good income, there is a lack of men with a good ENOUGH income. These things are different. A man earning $150k will happily marry a woman earning $50k but reverse the genders and it will NOT happen.

There are more and more older women(40+) posting vids etc regretting the career first, family later bullshit they fell for. They won't be in your feed you'll have to look

Passport bros is stupid. It’s financial exploitation of impoverished women....

This whole paragraph is just a repeat of the bullshit talking points that I hear constantly. YOU can figure out the answer yourself, start with: WHY, Why are these guys going overseas? There are a number of women on YT telling you why.

I hope this post isn’t indicative of the men’s rights movement as a whole, or else I don’t see a solution coming anytime soon.

I am indicative of the MRA, we want actual equality ie, Egalitarianism.

It's to late to fix it. The elite puppeteers with their sock puppet Politicians and Useful Idiots the Feminists have screwed our society royally.

Be warned: Life is about to get very very bad for females in the near future, 2-5 yrs I suspect.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did you notice that you don’t answer my concrete questions? I’m really not interested in YouTube videos because I don’t think they’re reliable sources. As I’ve said before, if you could link me to peer reviewed studies I’d be really interested in those.

I didn't have to read it, I've read dozens the same, good chance I read that one previously anyway.

This is a dangerously ignorant statement. You yourself stated you only glanced over it because you presumed it was a biased study. I’m not sure if you’ve read it previously, but you said you had just read it all in one of your first comments. You viewed it through a strongly biased lens. You assumed it supported the conclusions of the commenters here regarding how much women want to pay for bills but it doesn’t.

My comment pointed at the HEADING and does not need the article to justify it. You, of course, would have noted that I read it before getting into any discourse about it's actual contents tho, wouldn't you... ;-)

This is also dangerously ignorant. The headlines of articles are designed to grab attention, not necessarily accurately inform. It’s important to read the whole article to make sure you’re getting the larger picture and to make sure you’re not just confirming biases, whether that be from the author or yourself. I consider commenting on a post about an article to be engaging in discourse about it, so no I would not agree that you read it first.

Also, I just saw a study that indicated that sharing news can make us think we know more about topics than we actually do. Only 51% of people in the study actually read the whole thing, 26% read part, and 22% read only the headline or a few lines. The people who shared the news had an increase in subjective knowledge even when they hadn’t read the article. I know you’re commenting and not sharing, but this quote stood out to me and I hope you stop and read it.

"If people feel more knowledgeable on a topic, they also feel they maybe don't need to read or learn additional information on that topic," Susan M. Broniarczyk says. "This miscalibrated sense of knowledge can be hard to correct."

men who are getting married are more likely to have a job and make more money.

I feel I should have added more context to this. Just to recap, the article looked at women who are married. They compared the unmarried women to married women with similar characteristics. They used the partners of the married women to come up with a synthetic profiles of married men that corresponded with the characteristics of those women. They then compared those synthetic profiles to the profiles of actual unmarried men. They observed that men who are married are more likely to have a job, make more money, and have more education than the unmarried men that would correspond with the profiles of the unmarried women.

YES, because these are the only men that women will marry.

The data doesn’t show this. I believe I saw in another article on this sub that 16% of women are the primary or sole breadwinner in the US. So while it’s not exactly likely, they aren’t the only men that women will marry. Also, correlation does not equal causation. There are other variables that could compound the lack of attractiveness or desire to marry. Men who have higher income, education, and a stable job might also have other qualities that make them more attractive for marriage. Men who have lower incomes, less education, and job instability could also have other qualities that would make them less attractive for marriage. The same factors that influenced a struggle economically could also have social and interpersonal ramifications. That’s not a leap.

It's really simple... Women want a man who makes more than they do. If the women start out earning men, which is happening now, then less and less men are "Economically Attractive" to them.

The article doesn’t show that. It shows that married men are making more money, more less stable jobs, and have more education. It doesn’t show anything about how much in relation to what women make. In fact, 55% of households in the US have men as the primary or sole breadwinners. So 45% of married men either make the same or less than their wives. I can’t speak on their desires because I haven’t looked it up, it looks like almost half of women are married to men who don’t make more than them.

<shrug> Sure it's bad and it's alarming to everybody, except us! We saw it coming and were powerless to stop it. This current situation is BY DESIGN!

Who is we? Even if you saw it coming, how does the disenfranchisement of men not alarm you? Who designed the situation?

There is no lack of men with a stable job and good income, there is a lack of men with a good ENOUGH income. These things are different. A man earning $150k will happily marry a woman earning $50k but reverse the genders and it will NOT happen.

This is where you’re losing the plot. There are a lack of men with stable jobs and good income. Period. That’s documented everywhere. Men are leaving the workforce. A lot of pathways to middle class have been closed due to manufacturing being sent overseas. Women are outperforming men in schools, and given that economic success is tied to education in our society, it stands to reason that the next generation of men will have poorer outcomes. There are not a lot of men earning 150k, so it’s not relevant to most people. But the article also pointed out that women on the high and low end of the economic scale struggle even more.

There are more and more older women(40+) posting vids etc regretting the career first, family later bullshit they fell for. They won't be in your feed you'll have to look

There are also a lot of women posting that they regretted putting their husbands and families first over their happiness and careers. The algorithms are designed to show us more of the things we like. That’s why we can’t rely on social media for our world view. It creates echo chambers that erase nuance and obscures the big picture.

This whole paragraph is just a repeat of the bullshit talking points that I hear constantly. YOU can figure out the answer yourself, start with: WHY, Why are these guys going overseas? There are a number of women on YT telling you why.

What are your rebuttals to those bullshit talking points? You just told me to figure out the answer to a question I didn’t ask. I didn’t ask why men are going overseas. I said that when they do so they exploit women financially and cause the same type of economic instability and imbalance that they complain about in their home countries. There are a lot of reasons why men are doing this. The reasons don’t justify the negative impact.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You have got to be joking.

I came back to add this link. It's about the Redpill and the Manoshphere in general. I saw the vid wks ago but didn't think about it until a post just now, thought it might be helpful.

Did you even watch this freaking video? It’s only 10 minutes long for godsake.

I am indicative of the MRA, we want actual equality ie, Egalitarianism.

The fundamental “truth” according to that video is that men and women are biologically different, which he states is not a philosophical statement. It’s a factual claim supported by empirical evidence from biology and genetics. He then goes on to say that men and women are not equal. that’s it. That’s the red pill. Which is the opposite of what you just said. You should be embarrassed. And what is equal? Men and women don’t have to be biologically the same to have equal value.

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Egalitarianism is the belief that all people are equal

Egalitarianism is a school of thought within political philosophy that builds on the concept of social equality, prioritizing it for all people. Egalitarian doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.

Egalitarianism is a philosophy. School of Thought is a way of thinking. Concept is an abstract idea.

It is NOT saying the genders are in fact equal. It IS saying the genders should be treated as equals socially.

You believe men and women aren’t equal.

XY and Testosterone is NOT the same as XX and Estrogen. Since we are not the same biologically we CAN NOT BE EQUAL. No more than an apple and orange can be.

Those are mutually exclusive.

One is a scientifically proven fact and the other is a way of thinking, they are not Mutually exclusive.

so again, Where's the problem?

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Egalitarianism is the belief that all people are equal

Egalitarianism is a school of thought within political philosophy that builds on the concept of social equality, prioritizing it for all people. Egalitarian doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.

Egalitarianism is a philosophy... School of Thought is a way of thinking.... Concept is an abstract idea.

It is NOT saying the genders are in fact equal, it IS saying the genders should be treated as equals socially.

You believe men and women aren’t equal.

XY and Testosterone is NOT the same as XX and Estrogen. Since we are not the same biologically we CAN NOT BE EQUAL. No more than apples and oranges can be.

Google "can we be equal if we are not the same".

Those are mutually exclusive.

Mutual exclusivity is if they cannot both occur at the same time. A clear example is the set of outcomes of a single coin toss, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.

One is a scientifically proven fact and the other is a way of thinking, they can not be Mutually Exclusive.

You're wrong 3 out of 3.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is not a scientifically proven fact that we cannot be equal because our chromosomes are different. Estrogen and testosterone are different sex hormones and are both found in men and women. Of course they aren’t the same hormone.

Apples and oranges is not a valid comparison. Apples and oranges are two different fruits with millions of years of evolutionary distinction from one another. Men and women are not.

You do not have to be the same to have equal value. And under egalitarianism men and women aren’t treated the same. The concern is equal outcomes to reflect equal worth and value. That often necessitates treatment that ISN’T exactly the same. Which is what you said you didn’t want.

So to clarify, you believe that because men and women are biologically different they are not equal, but they have equal worth. How did you determine equality? What is the functional difference between being equal and having equal worth?

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How would i know that you spend years doing data analysis? I also didn’t tell you how to do it. I just made an accurate comment about samples.

I never suggested anyone sample one million anything. I said that a million women were a tiny fraction of all women. I was showing that any conclusions reached based on their shared behavior wouldn’t automatically be representative of all women.

Podcasts and TikToks are not reliable as sources to make statistical inferences about the population. The problem isn’t the number of women necessarily, but the selection of women. I’m not a data analytics expert by any means. I barely know anything. I do know that podcasts and TikToks provide non probability sampling, causing the results to be extremely susceptible to biases and highly unlikely to apply to the population.

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]denisc99181 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WhereProgressIsMade 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhereProgressIsMade 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhereProgressIsMade -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

I just used the female delusion calculator and it stated the probability of a man (aged 20-60) meeting the standard of being unmarried and making at least 50k a year in the US is only 14.3%. That’s without any qualifiers. So it doesn’t seem that there are a ton of men to choose from in that range, which supports the study.

I still don’t think I get your conclusion. The study showed that women both on the high and low end of the socioeconomic scale fare worse, so being willing to date under the median doesn’t seem like it’ll fix the imbalance. The article didn’t define the term economically attractive outside of what similar women choose to marry. I don’t see any evidence that women don’t want to contribute towards bills.

Economic attractiveness is still a concern when you significantly contribute towards bills. Unless you make a ton of money, which most people don’t, your partner’s socioeconomic status greatly impacts your quality of life. It makes sense that that is an important factor for marriage. Two people making 60k together is a lot different than two people making 100k together. I think that financial compatibility would be an essential part of a good partnership.

[–]WhereProgressIsMade 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhereProgressIsMade1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah I definitely think that your first comment was poorly worded because it indicated that you were concluding from that article.

No, you missed that it was a translation from what women were saying with their literal words into something closer to what they were actually meaning. Most everyone else understood this. I know it’s correct because guys like Kevin Samuels would get them to admit that’s what they meant. Women play this game a lot and it’s often difficult to figure out what they mean but with time you get better at it. And yea we get it wrong frequently.

When I said I could have worded it better I meant I could have made it more clear that it was a translation.

Hopefully I’m helping you understand a bit how some things come across to guys. For example, in dating, we have to watch out for women who aren’t very attracted to us but are just trying to grab a guy with a good income to have kids with. We have to screen for this to not get burned and some good women get thrown out with the bath water. So sure it’s fine for guys with a good income to be a better option for a women with options. We generally prefer someone who likes us for who are apart that too though. It’s hard for us to tell. Some women are really good at faking it for a long time.

I remember reading about how it was a light bulb going off when some women realized the nerdy guys driving and dressing humbly often made good money and that the guys with expensive cars and flashy clothes were often players living paycheck to paycheck.

If you’re here in good faith, I’m sorry if I came across as dismissive. Also I wish so many guys didn’t downvote you so much.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WhereProgressIsMade1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]karamielkookie2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WhereProgressIsMade1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok. That’s cool. I can see how it came across the way you’re saying.

The “so they’re saying” was meant to be part indicating translation.

I started to try to explain a bit why I don’t consider linking articles like this misogyny. I think I remember finding data that shows men will tend to favor taking a woman’s side and women will also tend to favor taking a woman’s side. You can see this bias in places like the AITA sub when people post the same story just with genders flipped. I’ve realized I do in real life too and have been working on treating people more evenly. Trying to hold doors more based on timing or if someone needs help and less on just doing it for women and ignoring men like I used to. That’s minor but more significantly in raising my daughter and son to not develop a spoiled or entitled attitude.

It’s a social norm that feminism seems to overlook or minimize how much of an advantage it can be in life. If “smashing the patriarchy “ is supposed to be about leveling these norms across genders, then this is a norm that needs to be leveled too.

A man can be bad. A man can be good. A woman can be bad. A woman can be good. A man can be both good and bad. A woman can be both good and bad. Most men generally do more good than bad. Most women generally do more good than bad. (Repeat for other genders). There shouldn’t be anything controversial in this paragraph.

In MSM and culture (reflected by places like AITA), we argue there is a bias though in men being portrayed as mostly bad and women as mostly good.

Some criticism of women is just trying to counter this a bit and remind people or wake people up to the fact that they’re not always angels. It’s not hatred of them. I love my wife. I love my daughter. I love my mother. There are a lot of good women out there trying to make our world a better place. If women come to me with questions I try to answer them honestly but not sugarcoat things. I’m still learning and working on doing better and being better.

Yes, it can get to be a bit much at times and devolve into guys seeing who can make fun of women the most. Partly it’s probably because there are few places to do it. Saturday Night Live makes fun of politicians and it really irks some of them. It doesn’t mean they hate them. There used to be more male spaces to vent a little or get something off your chest but they’re mostly gone now except for a few places like sports and restrooms/locker rooms. So it happens in men’s forums instead.

So yes my first comment was poking some fun at women, trying to warn men a bit (not very well in this case but several other times I’ve tried to warn men to watch out for gold diggers), and I’ve been in this sub long enough to know it would probably garner some upvotes.

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You poked some fun at women in response to an article by stating claims about them that aren’t supported in the article in question. It’s a really weird thing to do. This subreddit is called Men’s rights, so why did you focus on painting women badly instead of the issues here that impact men’s rights? Women aren’t angels, there are bad women. That means there’s actual issues to bring up, so there’s no need to derail this conversation.

The article in question shows there’s a lack of economically attractive men. That’s a huge issue and I think there’s probably a lot of important factors that can be changed to address this issue. I’d think the contributing factors to this problem would be a huge topic of conversation but it wasn’t in this thread.

I think it’s fine that you wanted to vent and get some upvotes. I don’t think that the gold digger comments are really applicable to most people. I think a lot of people are really financially struggling right now. Most people aren’t making enough money to attract a lot of gold diggers. Society makes it hard if you don’t have a two income household.

I asked why you came to that conclusion from the article specifically a few times, and it took a while for you to admit that it wasn’t the article at all. That’s annoying. You started to explain about why linking articles isn’t misogyny without saying that linking articles isn’t misogyny. You started “translating” without either saying that you’re translating or even what information you were translating. That’s not an effective way to make points, which again wouldn’t matter if you hadn’t pushed back on me asking about the article.

[–]WhereProgressIsMade1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]karamielkookie1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TurbulentFlow7145 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie -4 points-3 points-2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TurbulentFlow7145 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TurbulentFlow7145 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrazyJazz 107 points108 points109 points 3 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 52 points53 points54 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mechanik_J 24 points25 points26 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExMuzzy 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Huffers1010 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Huffers1010 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Huffers1010 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm honestly trying to introspect what that would even mean. For instance, she's working away right now, and we have phone calls at least every other evening. I guess I could refuse to talk to her, but I don't know: this is the woman I love, and I haven't seen her in a couple of weeks, and I don't really want to do that. Everything I know about the situation tells me that she's as anxious to talk to me as I am to talk to her.

What exactly should I be denying her? We're different people and we have different needs, habits, expectations and experiences, so it's not like it's ever going to be possible to tally up a meaningful total of who's put the most work into the relationship.

See - even if I go out of my way to justify the idea of it being transactional, I really can't. We really need to avoid falling into the trap of thinking that all women are evil, that all relationships with women are doomed to enslave the guy. We're not married and we don't have kids, which makes it easier (and, I guess, reduces the risk to me) but if that's what you want, find someone else who also wants that. It does exist.

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

The fact you aren't cognizant of the emotional labor you perform as a man towards women in relationships is telling; it speaks to our underdevelopment and lack of teaching about our value and contributions to relationships.

Much of your post is non-sequitor; I neither said nor alluded to 'women being evil'. I acknowledge that ALL relationships have expectations of performance, and failing to do so generally means the relationship dissolves. My statement now is 'what do you do for your partner that is essential to the relationship?'. Ask her straight up what is a requirement for her to be there.

What I will say is the entire modern dating scene is chaotic, messy, and prone to failure, if not self destruction, precisely because people want to believe in 'love', rather than respect and cooperation with each other. I had this discussion with my wife before we married, and it level set us both; we both understood what was essential to the relationship working long term, and what was nice things for it, and we are 8 years strong.

[–]Huffers1010 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think the reason we're differing on this is that I simply don't accept the term "emotional labor" as reasonable in this context. There are lots of things that anyone in a relationship does to further that relationship, but you are entirely mischaracterising what is being done and why. Your terminology implies a transactional motivation which cannot exist unless someone is keeping score.

Yes, absolutely, problems often arise when people suddenly do start keeping score. Overall, though, your entire thesis rests on the idea that nobody ever does anything for fun.

I agree wholeheartedly that people expect to fall in love and have the maintenance of the relationship be effortless and automatic. It's clear that this is a completely unrealistic expectation and it's no great surprise to me that places with the most idealistic outlook on life - that you are the star of your own blockbuster movie about fulfilment and success, and everything will be a fairtyale if you simply want it to be - often have horrible statistics on divorce and fatherlessness. Yes, here's looking at you, USA.

But on that basis, you could refer to eating as "work" if you wanted. I eat because I enjoy it and because it keeps me alive. I put into a relationship what I put into it because I enjoy it and it makes us both happy. If people stop doing that, relationships break down. That's not a men's (or women's) rights issue, it's an issue of the increasing infantilisation of the adult populace, as, I suspect, are the crazier extremes of politics.

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

[–]reverbiscrap1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]ConestogaCreek 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Minute_Ad_1494 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KrazyJazz1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie -33 points-32 points-31 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]VickerAndFlips 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrazyJazz 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WeEatBabies 58 points59 points60 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]karamielkookie -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

That’s what I’d call gynocentrism instead of RP. I’m not sure how much MRA endorses the concept that society is gynocentric. it’s been a while since I’ve read the FAQ here.

Ask 10 guys familiar with it and you’ll get different answers so I won’t pretend my take covers it all.

I’d say it believes the mainstream world is either in denial about “how things really work” (mostly in male-female romantic relationships, blissfully ignorant, or simply naive. And of course, they have all the answers.

I’ve experienced some of this in my own life experiences (anecdotal but I believe a similar experience many guys have). Like many, I was very awkward with women as a teenager. I slowly figured things out enough the hard way to get first dates but not ever second ones. I tried looking for advice. Advice I got about being nice, kind, chivalrous, be myself, didn’t help. So I turned to some advice written my men on how to get a woman to pursue me instead. Most of it was just working on myself to be more attractive. That dis the trick. I’m old enough that this all happened before red oil was a thing, but it’s advice has a lot of overlap and seems to think it’s made some huge discoveries when there is really nothing new about it.

I do think they’re right about some things that have become taboo to discuss but weren’t historically. Some of it is people trying to sell stuff to guys as in but my advice and it will help you attract women. Some of it seems to probably be a chicken and egg thing: The women it works on are used as evidence that it works but if you dig enough find someone who admits it only worked on a few women out of a thousand attempts for example.

[–]WeEatBabies 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jhny_boy 38 points39 points40 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]disayle32 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]griii2 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lonewolf_087 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Our_media_lies 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheSystem08 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Express-Economist-86 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carverstein7 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]asdf333aza 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Another consequence of women in the workforce.

If they made "zero" and wear stay at home moms, they would be much more appreciative of what men do. A guy with a normal salary would be attractive as a mate.

Let women into the workforce and suddenly they make t the same amount of money and all those "normal" salary guys and below are suddenly invisible and "not economically attractive". The female still expects the guy to earn significantly more than she does. However, we have been giving CHEAP access to money, and we'll paying jobs in air-conditioned buildings that essentially don't contribute anything besides middlemen processes. Fluff jobs like that are some of the reasons they say American health care is so expensive. There are so many middlemen and useless jobs that are trying to take their cut. In reality, less than 20% of what you pay in hospital bills goes to doctors and nurses. The rest is administrative payouts.

A bit of a ramble. Point of this being this is another side effect of women entering the workforce. Along with stagnant wages, broken families, single mom epidemic, increased house prices, increases car prices, social welfare spending and so on and so on.

[–]corporate_robot_dude 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LocksleyFletcher 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Inskription 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sendmeloveletters 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]another-cosplaytriot 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhereProgressIsMade 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]another-cosplaytriot 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]New-Baby5471 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's true. Some criteria to judge men and the male role in society have remained virtually unchanged for centuries, meanwhile men now are expected to share the roles and burdens that were formerly given to women with little to no social recognition compared to women when getting good jobs or being capable of providing.

In a nutshell: Are you a man who can raise the children, take care of the house, and also attend the elder while your wife does the money providing part? That's good, but don't expect society to see you as a successful parent. Also, don't expect any legal advantages given to women if you get divorced. That day, you'll be way more likely to lose your children's tuition and be forced to become a provider with limited weekly hours of parenting.

There'll be little to no chances that a judge say "Hey, he was the raising parent, he should get the tuition and she should provide an alimony".

[–]LocksmithBig4103 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ERiC_693 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cistacea -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Title	Actual Criteria Exposed
Author	ConsistentPicture583
Upvotes	198
Comments	132
Date	July 9, 2023 1:20 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14ul7bg/actual_criteria_exposed/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/actual-criteria-exposed.1224744 https://theredarchive.com/post/1224744

Comments