Are men really this stupid?

MushroomMade · 2024-04-18T13:28:10+00:00

Whats your opinion on this situation?...

[–]Square-Vermicelli239 128 points129 points130 points 2 years ago (107 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dashing2026 30 points31 points32 points 2 years ago* (106 children) | Copy Link

[+]Square-Vermicelli239 -19 points-18 points-17 points 2 years ago (105 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dashing2026 22 points23 points24 points 2 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Square-Vermicelli239 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Dashing2026 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Mate, instead of reading unsubstantiated and unresearched bullshit written by quacks, whose reasoning amounts to little more than a hundred words, pick up any introductory textbook on evolutionary biology, and peruse the section on sexual selection and population bottlenecks. Male disposability, or the disposability of at least one sex, is an almost universal phenomenon across all clades of life. The loss of a number x females in a breeding population with N organisms, such that x/N is the percentage loss of females, results in an offspring population reduced by the same percentage. This increases the chance for that population to go extinct. However, moderate loss of males does not reduce the number of offspring as drastically, since males have many more gametes to spare. Therefore, populations in which there is an innate preference for female preservation at the cost of males, have a much higher chance of persisting to the present day, and would have outcompeted all others; i.e., we have instincts to generally value the life of the average woman over the life of the average man, given no other influencing factors.

The article which claims to "refute" gynocentrism literally contradicts science established for 150 years.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26057743#:\~:text=Females%20tend%20to%20be%20the,in%20the%20re%2D%20sulting%20offspring.

[–]Dashing2026 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Square-Vermicelli239 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

That's not the argument big man. The argument is that a moderate loss of males is less injurious to a population's chances of persisting than a moderate loss of females. This is a scientific fact. Nor am I asserting that a loss of men has absolutely no detrimental effect on a population's chances of survival; obviously, provision and protection would tend to decrease with a lower number of men in a population, but that's not as conducive to extinction as that population literally losing gametes that are in scarcer supply by a million times. That is why, in times of hardship, more females are birthed, so as to stop the population from going extinct. They are more necessary for the survival of a population than men are. This is a scientific fact, although it is not usually stated this way, for fear of radicalising men. Learn to read and to exercise your faculties of mentation.

[–]Square-Vermicelli239 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Proving the existence of some anomalous androcentric cultures or periods in time does not disprove the existence of gynocentric instincts, as both the environment and instinct conspire to give rise to culture. It is the average that matters. Moreover, it is possible for society to deviate from its biological programming, and this does not change the fact that those instincts still exist. In order to prove that gynocentrism isn't inherent, your argument must address our biological framework (since inherent is synonymous with biological, as biology determines our instincts, and instinct connotes our inherent tendencies), otherwise it's nothing more than clumsy cherry-picking, disproving a root cause by way of symptomology. As I said in another post, I do not contend with the notion that our biological instincts can sometimes be suppressed (assuming Islam is actually androcentric, which I do not know for certain, as the gynocentrism could be more subtle), which is all your argument really establishes.
Under your assumption, no single-mother kids would be able to reach adulthood or be reproductively successful. No shit, having no father reduces the quality of a child's upbringing dramatically. However, the very existence of x number of genetically distinct children are not literally dependent on the existence of the same number of fathers, in the same way they're dependent on the existence of the same number of mothers. Clearly, having a shitty upbringing by being raised fatherless, because your father was the same that impregnated several other women, does not nullify your very existence in the same way that not even having a mother to birth you would. Yeah, without a certain threshold number of men, women and their kids might die off, but that's not the point. It is the relative disadvantage to population size having less females incurs vs. having less males that matters. They do not have an equal effect on population size; seldom is anything exactly equivalent in nature, and so long as a surplus of one sex is more advantageous than a surplus of the other, over many generations, selection will act to mold our instincts in accordance with that fact.

tl;dr My argument is that if a>b, then Q. And if a<b, then P, where P<Q. We may consider a to be the number of females, b the number of males, and Q to be population number with female surplus, and P to be population number with male surplus. Proving that b is also necessary for Q and P does not prove that a=b, or that P=Q. Christ, you're fucking retarded.

[–]Square-Vermicelli239 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"anomalous androcentric cultures or periods in time does not disprove the existence of gynocentric instincts"

Of coures they do. If your biological-only hypothesis of Gynocentrism was true, those "anomalous" cultures wold have been going extinct long ago, which is not the case, quite the contrary, a lot of them (Islam, Judaism, heck, even Christianism centuries ago) are reproductive successes with very high birth rates, higher than most heavily-Gynocentric western cultures. Your hyphotesis falls right there via reductio ad absurdum.

"no single-mother kids would be able to reach adulthood or be reproductively successful."

Welfare state (aka, Taxpayers, aka Men) prevent/alleviate this from happening. Remove State help and those kids will starve to death, you know, like in those African countries. Also, there are theories around that children of single mother households do not perform as well in society (e.g., increased chances of criminal behaviour, higher suicide rates and more), which will obviously decrease fertility for said demographic.

"relative disadvantage to population size having less females"

Not entirely true. The natural gender ratio favours men actually, with slightly (0.5-1%) more male births than females (the reasons are irrelevant). If females were oh so important for the human race the ratio would favour them. At the minimum: we are as equally important for the species...

...which I personally disagree. I think we males are more important for the specie's survivality. You can just do some thought what-if scenarios to test this hypothesis: 1) reduce male population by 50% and civilization as you know it collapses, mass death will quickly occur as pivotal societal infraestructures are maintained mostly by men. 2) reduce female population by 50%... and nothing of importance happens beyond a few lonely men crying because of less OnlyFans content, heck, we will even recover with time.

Even women themselves, instinctively, oppose Gynocentrism. Want to dry a fertile woman's pussy fast? Be very Gynocentric to her and treat her like the queen she is. Women sexually select for non-Gynocentric men, aka, mysogynist Bad Boys that treat them like dirt. We all know this.

[–]Present_League9106 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (92 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (89 children) | Copy Link

[+]Present_League9106 -7 points-6 points-5 points 2 years ago* (88 children) | Copy Link

Which post?

Edit: Read it. I'm not a huge fan of evolutionary psychology. It's an interesting look at some things, but too often, people draw conclusions that aren't backed by science. What I do know is that some claims of evolutionary psychology are directly refuted by archeological evidence. Archeological records show that we aren't hypergamous (ironically feminists seem to favor the polygamous and red pillers favor the hypergamous understandings), which is a foundation of this idea of innate gynocentrism

I tend to favor the idea that gynocentrism is cultural and that our natural state is more egalitarian. I don't think the science is settled on the matter. What I will say is that believing it is natural means you believe that nothing can change it. I prefer to hold out to hope that things that people who often reference Evo psych are much more mutable.

[–]SetophagaPalmarum 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago* (87 children) | Copy Link

It's not evolutionary psychology mate. It's evolutionary biology. The hypothesis has been around since the last century and has been verified in numerous studies and simulations. If you have a problem with it, why not debate the logic directly instead of resorting to this whataboutism lol? Yeah psychology is often pseudoscientific. But this is biology. It consists of claims about quantitative data such as population loss and simple, observable behaviours. It makes no claims about the nature of the ideal world as psychology does.

I never said that the phenomenon could not be suppressed, or even altered to some degree by culture. Claiming that the behaviour is innate is not equivalent to stating that the tendency is immutable.

That being said, your opinion that hypergamy has been definitively "refuted" by archaeological evidence is ridiculous. The extent to which humans are hypergamous is still in debate among the scientific community. The prevailing attitude is that women possess hypergamous tendencies, but in practice, hypergamy is less extreme.

https://www.britannica.com/science/good-genes-hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway

Hypergamy is not merely a human phenomenon, but one of biological necessity. That females are restrictive in their mate choices, selecting only the top males, is questioned by no models of sexual selection. Even if the trait were arbitrary and neutral in terms of fitness (the most probable assumption is that some are neutral, while others are beneficent, but harmful preferences are quickly weeded out by natural selection, resulting in sexual selection which tends towards net increase of a population's fitness/genetic quality), the preferences are usually not isolated to a singular female organism (e.g. "Several alternative hypotheses use the same genetic runaway (or positive feedback) mechanism but differ in the mechanisms of the initiation." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway#Alternative_hypotheses ), though its fate will be left to genetic drift rather than selection.

[–]Present_League9106 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (86 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (76 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present_League9106 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Biology also "flows" from physics. That does not make statements about physics biological statements, since biology is a subset of physics; however, it does make biological statements physical statements. Likewise, psychology is a subset of biology. Biological statements, like observations on the mate choices of a population of female cichlids, are not psychological statements, but musings on the mechanisms of sadness, and the mechanism of attraction, are biological statements. However (and I hate to reiterate this for the third time, but I hope dearly that it will be able to penetrate that thick skull of yours this time) I am making no claims on the psychological mechanism of sexual selection. I am only investigating the behaviour of populations of organisms. No shit, humans are driven by their brains, but attraction and mate choice is a necessarily instinctual phenomenon. No one chooses to find so-and-so attractive or lovely lmao. There may be secondary considerations influenced by reason, but they will always be just that--secondary and prior to the original, instinctual impetus. And as this secondary reasoning cannot but proceed from the instinctual elicitor, any properties of our instinctual framework for mate choice necessarily holds sway over the final romantic/sexual decision. Indeed, they permit reasoning about it in the first place.

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's whataboutism, because instead of refuting my argument on gynocentrism, you decided to change the subject to hypergamy. The validity of an argument is not predicated upon its field; bringing up worries with the integrity of the field is similar to an ad hominem attack as well. That being said, you misidentified the subject (like mate, this shit is taught in evolutionary biology for a reason; pick up Campbell Biology 11th Edition or look at the Wikipedia articles I provided, in which they're classified as articles about evobio), Also refer to the following:

Evolutionary psychology does not discuss the broader means by which sexual selection operates on a population of organisms, nor the manner in which it originated and persists. It may, however, investigate the mechanism of sexual selection in humans; i.e., its fine details, so not the general existence of mate choice in a population, but the individual characteristics that are chosen, their evolutionary utility, the way they appeal to us, etc. I have not gone into any of that. All I have claimed is that directional sexual selection acts on humans as well as any other species, and that this is otherwise known as hypergamy.

,

I didn't read the rest.

There's your problem mate. You don't know how to read, and don't reply to sections of my argument that completely pummel your ass, as I've been repeating ad nauseam from the beginning.

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So the reason you've been meandering around calling me an idiot is because the idea that one man can breed with many women. So, to substantiate this theory, we'd need evidence that most people come from a small population of men. Does this information exist? Maybe stop calling people an idiot and actually argue your point. Just a thought.

This is the first time I'm seeing you employ a coherent argument, though I still disagree and I don't think, even though we have the means to substantiate your claim, that you can substantiate it. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong, but so far you haven't offered anything that actually supports your claim. I know you've been. Using sources, but they never really addressed the issues you were talking about which is why I still argue that you employ an appeal to authority fallacy.

Congratulations on not saying something stupid.

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Congratulations on committing whataboutism yet again, and pivoting from a discussion on hypergamy back to gynocentrism, when you've sunk so deep that you can no longer gasp for air. I should point out that at least 95% of my arguments have remained opened thus far, as you've failed to respond to them.

And thank you for implicitly admitting to your fallacy by returning to the actual subject of discussion.

https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

To, to substantiate this theory, we'd need evidence that most people come from a small population of men.

You're so retarded that I'm frankly at a loss for words. Truly stupid beyond all belief. All we'd need evidence for is that a smaller ratio of men does not bottleneck the population as much as a smaller ratio of women. This is obvious when you consider the following:

No shit, having no father reduces the quality of a child's upbringing dramatically. However, the very existence of x number of genetically distinct children are not literally dependent on the existence of the same number of fathers, in the same way they're dependent on the existence of the same number of mothers. Clearly, having a shitty upbringing by being raised fatherless, because your father was the same that impregnated several other women, does not nullify your very existence in the same way that not even having a mother to birth you would. Yeah, without a certain threshold number of men, women and their kids might die off, but that's not the point. It is the relative disadvantage to population size having less females incurs vs. having less males that matters. They do not have an equal effect on population size; seldom is anything exactly equivalent in nature, and so long as a surplus of one sex is more advantageous than a surplus of the other, over many generations, selection will act to mold our instincts in accordance with that fact.

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Mate, instead of reading unsubstantiated and unresearched bullshit written by quacks, whose reasoning amounts to little more than a hundred words, pick up any introductory textbook on evolutionary biology, and peruse the section on sexual selection and population bottlenecks. Male disposability, or the disposability of at least one sex, is an almost universal phenomenon across all clades of life. The loss of a number x females in a breeding population with N organisms, such that x/N is the percentage loss of females, results in an offspring population reduced by the same percentage. This increases the chance for that population to go extinct. However, moderate loss of males does not reduce the number of offspring as drastically, since males have many more gametes to spare. Therefore, populations in which there is an innate preference for female preservation at the cost of males, have a much higher chance of persisting to the present day, and would have outcompeted all others; i.e., we have instincts to generally value the life of the average woman over the life of the average man, given no other influencing factors.

The article which claims to "refute" gynocentrism literally contradicts science established for 150 years.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26057743#:~:text=Females%20tend%20to%20be%20the,in%20the%20re%2D%20sulting%20offspring

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91060 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

That being said, to claim that innate polygamy has been definitively refuted by science is ridiculous. The topic is still in contention amongst scholars, with the general agreement that humans are naturally both monogamous and polygamous.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full

Consensus on a human-typical mating system has remained elusive in the literature. Across human societies today, monogamous, polyandrous, polygynous, and short-term mating patterns are present, with most societies exhibiting multiple types of marriages and mating relationships.

And:

1) Although polygyny is socially sanctioned in most societies, monogamy is the dominant marriage-type within any one group cross-culturally. 2) Sex outside of marriage occurs across societies, yet human extra pair paternity rates are relatively low when compared to those of socially monogamous birds and mammals. 3) While the timing of the evolution of certain anatomical characteristics is open to debate, human levels of sexual dimorphism and relative testis size point to a diverging history of sexual selection from our great ape relatives.

I hope you understand what "relatively low" means in this context, but I don't have much faith from the intellect you've demonstrated thus far.

In summary, humans are generally *socially monogamous (*i.e. they bond in exclusive relationships as in marriage, to rear offspring) while having plenty of extra-marital sex. Humans are polygamous insofar as they are not totally monogamous. Monogamy may have been higher in the early agricultural era, during which culture largely overrode many of our natural impulses, but the same cannot be said for prehistoric times--hence, our return to our instincts and pervasive polygyny, after obviating many of our natural impediments with technology. The implication is that much of culture once necessary for the survival of our civilisation, such as serial monogamy, is no longer necessary.

[–]Present_League9106 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The article says that it's not an established fact, currently. That's obviously apparent, that's why it's not useful information. I don't really have to identify evolutionary benefits to monogamy because that's not my field and randos speculating on how why things come from evolution is and has been a major problem in society. It's better to let scientists speculate and then, importantly, conduct experiments to test their hypotheses.

What I do know is that in 2014, bio archeologists found evidence that pre-homo sapien hominids pair bonded. This is a dramatic divergence from other primate species. From this, they speculated (with far more scientific scrutiny than the internet is used to) that homo sapiens were also a pair bonding species since we evolved from a pair bonding species.

Where a lot of this hypergamous rationale comes from is primatology. We are very different from other primates. This is apparent. Maybe our tendency (and i would emphasize the word tendency here) to be monogamous is part of why we can sustain population greater than 200 or whatever it is chimps max out at. I don't know. I don't study those things, and that I'm aware of, scientists haven't expounded further on the discovery from 2014.

As for the increase in polygamy and the like, I would argue that this is both cultural and to the detriment of the people who do this. The hypergamy we see today seems to negatively impact both men and women who engage with it. I personally think polyamory is a sign of psychological instability. This doesn't mean that hypergamy is "natural". It just means that it's present.

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present_League91061 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetophagaPalmarum1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Specialist-2332 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Present_League9106 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Catch-the-Rabbit 44 points45 points46 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lolocraft1 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redidiott 25 points26 points27 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MannerNo7000 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Imissyourgirlfriend2 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MushroomMade[S] 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kayne2000 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superb_Raspberry_208[🍰] 25 points26 points27 points 2 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+]MushroomMade[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 2 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superb_Raspberry_208[🍰] 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]MushroomMade[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superb_Raspberry_208[🍰] 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]MushroomMade[S] -8 points-7 points-6 points 2 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superb_Raspberry_208[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]MushroomMade[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superb_Raspberry_208[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Superb_Raspberry_2081 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MushroomMade1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Superb_Raspberry_2081 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MushroomMade1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Superb_Raspberry_2081 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MushroomMade1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Superb_Raspberry_2081 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MushroomMade1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Superb_Raspberry_2081 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MushroomMade1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Superb_Raspberry_2081 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WannabeLeagueBowler 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]g1455ofwater 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Ambitious-Reach-1186 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mobile_Lumpy 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Real-Turnover-7289 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]NameIs-Already-Taken -6 points-5 points-4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WannabeLeagueBowler 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]NameIs-Already-Taken -9 points-8 points-7 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Naive-Dingo-2100 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShennongjiaPolarBear -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Are men really this stupid?
Author	MushroomMade
Upvotes	105
Comments	149
Date	April 18, 2024 1:28 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1c73cdt/are_men_really_this_stupid/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/are-men-really-this-stupid.1515582 https://theredarchive.com/post/1515582

Comments