Men are more likely to cheat when they make significantly more or significantly less than their spouse. For women, breadwinning decreases their chances of cheating, while being a stay at home spouse increases it.

liefelijk · 2023-03-30T14:56:10+00:00

For both men and women, economic dependency is associated with a higher likelihood of engaging in infidelity; but, the influence of dependency on men's...

[–]meteorness123 26 points27 points28 points 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]arvada14 -9 points-8 points-7 points 3 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]arvada14 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not strange at all, feminists won't bring up or care about anything that doesn't further the narrative that women are oppressed by men. The age gap argument has been debunked for decades, just like the "most rape victims" argument is categorically false, but that doesn't matter because pushing the narrative is more important than the truth.

Feminists won't talk about how men are half the domestic abuse victim, half the rape victims, feminists won't talk about how women outnumber men in universities worse than men outnumbered women in university back in 1960, and feminists won't talk about how women receive shorter sentences than men despite committing the exact same crimes.

Feminism treats equality like a one way street in favour of women, and anything that goes against their narrative is just more proof of patriarchal oppression and must be removed.

[–]gofigure62No Pill 65 points66 points67 points 3 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scarce12 23 points24 points25 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]gofigure62No Pill 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Friendly_Radio_8814 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]y2kjanelle -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Scarce12 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Diylion 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I agree that male competition revolves around financial success, but like it or not that's a competition due to women. Men making more money are more attractive to women on average (not true of all women, but it is still a trend that cannot be ignored).

Female competition revolves around beauty because that's basically what men find attractive. Men look for indicators of youth and fertility because that's what activates our monkey brains, and women look for provision, safety, and stability, all of which can be had with money.

Money and beauty are of course not the only two things, but they absolutely are significant yes. Women also want beauty in men, but what women find beautiful in men is incredibly diverse and broad, so it's hard for men to make themselves look beautiful for most women, whereas most men largely agree on what beauty looks like.

Women gauge how responsible men are based on how successful they are in their career.

I mean yes, but the thing is that this is a bad standard for seeing whether a man is responsible or not. There are better indicators of that behaviour, but it requires knowing the guy and taking more time to know him. Career is a quick and easy way to do it, but it's also inaccurate and mildly inefficient.

I don't think that we treat one gender more negatively than the other we just pick different standards to hold them too.

I agree we hold both genders to different standards but the current sentiment in society is that men ain't shit, women are entitled to ask whatever they want from men and deserve to get it, while any standards men have is shallow, sexist, misogynistic, and oppressive of women.

Men's baseline standards can boil down to don't be fat, don't be a bitch, and don't spend money recklessly, and every single one of those standards is seen as being problematic.

Women can demand a man be tall, rich, handsome, good with kids, in shape, and spends lots of time and attention on her, and the response is "yas queen you go gurl you deserve the best".

Both genders are treated negatively in different aspects of life, the difference is that when women are treated negatively it's taken seriously, and when men are treated negatively it's ignored and mocked.

Think of all the campaigns on rape and domestic abuse, about how much basically 99% of the time, effort, focus, and resources are spent on helping women, and then realize that studies have demonstrated basically since 20 years ago that men are half the rape victims and half the domestic abuse victions.

You'll never hear that because it goes against the prevailing narrative that women are victims from evil patriarchal oppressive men, and you can't have oppressive men if those men are victims, so male victims are deliberately ignored and sidelines.

Again, not saying women don't have problems, but at least those problems are taken seriously and take all the time and attention, whereas basically all of men's problems are ignored and dismissed.

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

I agree that male competition comes from women, and female competition is due to men.

Career is a quick and easy way to do it, but it's also inaccurate and mildly inefficient.

Why do you think it's innacurate? I don't know very many engineers that aren't disciplined. Simply managing the degree takes a lot of self-discipline.

agree we hold both genders to different standards but the current sentiment in society is that men ain't shit, women are entitled to ask whatever they want from men and deserve to get it, while any standards men have is shallow, sexist, misogynistic, and oppressive of women.

I think that a lot of the rhetoric around this is overblown. I don't think that one gender is more to blame than the other though. Men deal with a different set of fears than women because men and women look for different traits that they think are necessary for child rearing. Women wants stability, responsibility so they look at careers. And men want someone that, as you said, looks like they can make a baby, and also somebody that is put together enough to provide a clean house for that baby.

I will say though that when it comes to dating, women do have more power over sex than men. And I think that is mostly to do with women having a lower libito, which women adapted to because through most, if not all of human history they took on more of the consequence of children.

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think female competition comes from men. Female competition comes from other women, and trying to catch the eye of the man they want and not having him go to other women. After all it is women who by and large pick and choose the men who present themselves to women, it's not women who go out and get picked or rejected by men.

Why do you think it's innacurate? I don't know very many engineers that aren't disciplined. Simply managing the degree takes a lot of self-discipline.

They are disciplined about their studies and careers, but they could also be alcoholics, slobs at home, and/or have very little interpersonal skills.

If women want discipline, they ought to go after military men, because the military instils discipline if nothing else.

This is kind of what I mean by women thinking that the standards they choose is an accurate barometer for what they want, but often it's not.

Picking engineers means you'll have a partner who likely makes money, and is willing to work and study hard for his job, but it guarantees very little outside of that. Self-discipline in one area of life doesn't mean it will spill over into every area of life, especially when it relates to discipline towards one very narrow and specific goal.

I think that a lot of the rhetoric around this is overblown.

I mean you can think that, and you might be right, but a lot of men think the complaints women have about men are overblown.

The difference is that the concerns of women are validated and taken seriously, and the concerns of men are invalidated and dismissed.

I don't think that one gender is more to blame than the other though. Men deal with a different set of fears than women because men and women look for different traits that they think are necessary for child rearing. Women wants stability, responsibility so they look at careers. And men want someone that, as you said, looks like they can make a baby, and also somebody that is put together enough to provide a clean house for that baby.

I mean, both genders are to blame for the failings they have, it's just that women fail in different ways and at different things than men do ;)

We're all kind of always failing at something, and there's always ways we can improve, it's just important to acknowledge this, to see failure not as a moral failing but rather as an opportunity to learn, and to teach better with care and compassion rather than with scorn and shame.

Totally fair that women want stability and responsibility so they look at careers, so let's just stop pretending that money isn't attractive to women. It is. A man who makes more money is more attractive than one who doesn't. Let's stop lying about it so we can actually focus on what each gender wants to make everyone happy, because the more we lie about what we like and want and the more we obscure the truth, the more miserable everyone is going to be.

I will say though that when it comes to dating, women do have more power over sex than men. And I think that is mostly to do with women having a lower libito, which women adapted to because through most, if not all of human history they took on more of the consequence of children.

It's not just about sex too, men are enormously starved for touch and affection. I don't know if you've read this but by and large women don't seem to understand male perspective, male loneliness, and how starved for affection a ton of men are. Men can have a hard time understanding women's experiences, but by and large women's experiences are plastered everywhere, blared from every social media platform, and men are shamed for failing to understand women.

Meanwhile men continue to be misunderstood, neglected, and their needs ignored by women.

Women go through life drowning in an excess of male sexual attention they don't want, and men go through life dying of thirst in a desert devoid of female attention, love, or appreciation.

Women have power with sex, with marriage, with children, with affection, and with validation. Women are encouraged and supported in demanding whatever they want from men in relationships, and their concerns are taken seriously and validated.

Men have power with money, proposing marriage, and that's about it. Men are told they have to do more, do better, and their concerns are invalidated, ignored, and dismissed, and told they're sexist and misogynistic for daring to have standards.

It's not really equal and men are suffering for it, but nobody really cares.

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

I don't think female competition comes from men. Female competition comes from other women, and trying to catch the eye of the man they want and not having him go to other women. After all it is women who by and large pick and choose the men who present themselves to women, it's not women who go out and get picked or rejected by men.

I think you could argue that to a degree, both male and female competition comes from the same sex. Men are trying to compete in careers against each other and they other men to higher standards who are in better careers. Women are the same when it comes to beauty.

But the opposite sex also has an influence and I don't think that one has more influence than the other. There's tons of male dominated cultures that celebrate women's beauty. Everything from strip clubs to hooters to porn. And women have those cultures to that celebrate the idealized men such as chick flicks.

If women want discipline, they ought to go after military men, because the military instils discipline if nothing else

Military men literally have one of the highest rates of alcoholism and addiction in the country. They have one of the highest rates of divorce. They have one of the highest rates of domestic violence. And a large percentage of people that join the military do so because they didn't have any other options, because they weren't responsible enough to line a career up and they use the military as a fall back, and then a large percentage of people that leave the military end up being unemployed. Not to mention a lot of military members are thrill seekers.

On top of that, military careers inherently mean that he's never going to be home all of which is why women hold military players in such low standing. It will probably set off red flags not only to their character, but also too potential problems.

If I was in a bar and I saw a military member who was a perfect 10, and a very average looking engineer, 99 times out of 100 I would go for the engineer. The only reason I would go for the military was if I was looking for a one night stand, or if he just had a significantly better personality.

let's just stop pretending that money isn't attractive to women

I'm not at all saying that money isn't attractive, but it's attractive because of childbearing reasons. Many women want to be able to provide a family where they can be a stay-at-home mom, and raise their children the way they want, and have the resources to support their children, to not have to fight about money.

Men have power with money, proposing marriage, and that's about

Those are pretty big things.

I don't see any reason though why men are more starved for physical touch than women. Women aren't particularly cuddly with each other. But women probably choose this for themselves in their twenties because of changes in Social expectations, women are getting married later and so a lot of younger men are not getting into relationships when they prefer. This is because cultures have changed to expect women to get a college degree and start a career before they settle down. I have a ton of single female friends that are just completely focused on their careers been there late 20s. And I understand that younger men take most of the loss from this because women have more power over things like sex and intimacy.

But while I understand that this has a negative effect for younger men, I think it has a positive effect for older men. If they get married later it means they're less likely to get divorced, which means they're less likely to be separated from their children. The studied outcomes for women and children in that equation are also better.

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I think you could argue that to a degree, both male and female competition comes from the same sex. Men are trying to compete in careers against each other and they other men to higher standards who are in better careers. Women are the same when it comes to beauty.

Men are competing for women's attention because women are the gatekeepers of relationship and sex. This is something that women are imposing on men in many ways, they're setting the standard for men to compete for the benefit of women.

In contrast women aren't competing for men's attention all that much, because male attention is constant and virtually endless. Women make men compete against each other, and women compete against other women. Men do not make women compete against each other.

There is absolutely nothing stopping women from chasing the men they want instead of waiting for men to come after them. By and large however women don't want to and won't do it.

But the opposite sex also has an influence and I don't think that one has more influence than the other. There's tons of male dominated cultures that celebrate women's beauty. Everything from strip clubs to hooters to porn. And women have those cultures to that celebrate the idealized men such as chick flicks.

Both genders definitely have an influence, but male dominated culture that celebrate women's beauty doesn't mean men force women to compete. This is just saying this is what men enjoy and want, and it's a clear and easy guide to "tell" women what they can do to get the guy.

Military men literally have one of the highest rates of alcoholism and addiction in the country. Th

Cool, then find yourself a military man who isn't alcoholic or addicted and you've got your alcohol and drug-free disciplined man. It's not that hard to screen for alcoholism and addiction.

They have one of the highest rates of divorce.

Which is initiated over 70% of the time by women.

They have one of the highest rates of domestic violence.

Could be, but do remember that half the domestic abuse victims are men, and I bet there are a ton of military men who get abused by their wives too.

And a large percentage of people that join the military do so because they didn't have any other options, because they weren't responsible enough to line a career up and they use the military as a fall back, and then a large percentage of people that leave the military end up being unemployed. Not to mention a lot of military members are thrill seekers.

All things you can screen against fairly easily to end up with a disciplined military man who doesn't have any of those issues.

Being an engineer is absolutely no guarantee against being a slob, being antisocial, being addicted, being abusive, or any number of other issues. The only thing that an engineering degree really positively correlates to is a high paying job, so it seems to me that despite the flowery language it's about the money more than the man.

On top of that, military careers inherently mean that he's never going to be home all of which is why women hold military players in such low standing. It will probably set off red flags not only to their character, but also too potential problems.

And you can bet there are a ton of military wives that cheat too. Cheating is not a gender-specific thing.

You're not necessarily wrong that a military dude comes with a host of other issues, but thinking that "engineering degree = discipline in most areas of life" is just plain mistaken.

but it's attractive because of childbearing reasons. Many women want to be able to provide a family where they can be a stay-at-home mom, and raise their children the way they want, and have the resources to support their children, to not have to fight about money.

I completely agree, but women have an odd way of showing it. If we could all just admit that money is attractive to women, then we could agree that it's normal for men to make more money than women overall, because women are driving for and selecting men who make more money than them. Then we could try and stop this whole competition about breadwinning between men and women, and make it easier for women who want a breadwinning partner to find them, and for women who want to be equal in careers to find an equal partner, rather than telling men contradictory messages, confusing them, and browbeating men for something that isn't even their fault.

Those are pretty big things.

Not really because her money is her money, and his money is their money. And if women don't want men to have the power of proposing marriages, they can start doing it and buy that 10k ring themselves.

Those are not big things at all, men have the appearance of power but by and large they only have power until women decide to take it away from them, and then the man is powerless.

I don't see any reason though why men are more starved for physical touch than women.

The fact you don't see it doesn't change the truth of the situation. Women are far more cuddly and touchy than men in N America, where men basically get nothing but brief hugs and a handshake from the age of 14 and up.

Feel free to read here and here. It's basically only an open secret because society doesn't even care enough about men to even take notice of these issues.

I have a ton of single female friends that are just completely focused on their careers been there late 20s. And I understand that younger men take most of the loss from this because women have more power over things like sex and intimacy.

Women have more power over things like sex and intimacy, getting more power in the workplace with affirmative action and workplace accusations (if you're a man getting harrassed by women you'll probably get laughed at, if you're a man accused of harassment, you're probably fired just to save the company PR), more power with getting more money (young women under 30 earn more than young men under 30), more power in education (60% of college graduates are women, which is a higher rate of discrimination than there was in the 1960s in the US against women), more power with complete control over childbirth and custody rights, more power with divorce laws, and more power generally over everything.

So just about the only place where men have more power than women is in the 50+ crowd, and any point below that age women in general have more power than men in just about every single metric.

If they get married later it means they're less likely to get divorced, which means they're less likely to be separated from their children. The studied outcomes for women and children in that equation are also better.

I mean yes but you'll forgive me if the solution of "young men you'll just have to be sexless, without relationships, and without female affection, until you turn 30 and women want you to have kids with" isn't exactly the most appealing solution I've heard.

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

This is just saying this is what men enjoy and want

And I think with the male romantic partner tropes that dominate chick flicks, women are saying what they want. But women are also competing for that partner against other women.

Cool, then find yourself a military man who isn't alcoholic or addicted and you've got your alcohol and drug-free disciplined man. It's not that hard to screen for alcoholism and addiction.

They can always develop that later.

Not really because her money is her money, and his money is their money

That's not how divorce law works.

then we could agree that it's normal for men to make more money than women overall,

Well I do think it's normal for men to make more than women overall because they have different preferences in lifestyle choices. Of course that doesn't mean they should be paid less for the same job.

Women are far more cuddly and touchy than men in N America, where men basically get nothing but brief hugs and a handshake from the age of 14 and up.

Yeah I don't see female friends doing more than that either. And the stories I've heard from my husband's experience in locker rooms comes nothing close to anything I've heard two women doing.

Your links are talking less about physical touch and more about emotional support.

more power with getting more money (young women under 30 earn more than young men under 30), more power in education (60% of college graduates are women, which is a higher rate of discrimination than there was in the 1960s in the US against women

So I've debated affirmative action quite a lot, and I disagree with the concept, but I do think to a point we have to accept that part of the reason that women are excelling in school(and by extension their early career) is because they work harder in school because they take more interest in school, whereas men tend to take more interest in competition especially sports.

If you're going to accept that women might be underpaid overall in the workplace because they make life choices to have children, then we have to hold men to the same standard and recognize that not all outcomes are due to prejudice. Women score better than men at every age in every subject, even STEM subjects. So you would want to see how enrollment compares to their scoring and control for degree (since some degrees are harder to get into than others)

I mean yes but you'll forgive me if the solution of "young men you'll just have to be sexless, without relationships, and without female affection, until you turn 30 and women want you to have kids with" isn't exactly the most appealing solution I've heard.

What other solution would you want that you think is better.

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And I think with the male romantic partner tropes that dominate chick flicks, women are saying what they want.

I mean yeah but basically the romantic trope for women is that they kind of want it all, and for the man to selflessly devote himself mind, body, and soul for her. Rather unrealistic.

But women are also competing for that partner against other women.

Are they though? They're competing for the man's attention, but any woman who wants the man's attention basically only has to go out and literally ask him, and she's almost guaranteed to get that attention. Men basically do not get asked out, ever, so either she will get his attention, or she will find out they're not a good match anyways.

Men just do not have that and cannot do that.

They can always develop that later.

Of course, just like engineers can always become alcoholics later. Now you're just looking for problems instead of seeking solutions.

That's not how divorce law works.

I meant more in relationships, where he is expected to spend far more money on her than she's expected to spend on him. Generally though, yes that's how divorce laws work, given women tend to go for men who make more money than they do.

Well I do think it's normal for men to make more than women overall because they have different preferences in lifestyle choices. Of course that doesn't mean they should be paid less for the same job.

I completely agree that men and women working the same job, same job title, same hours worked, same experience, same education, etc etc etc should receive the same pay. It just works out that men in general tend to work more, work longer, and choose careers that pay better than women on average, so on average men as a whole make more money than women.

It's just that according to feminism making this argument makes you a misogynist, so congrats on being a misogynist I guess?

Yeah I don't see female friends doing more than that either. And the stories I've heard from my husband's experience in locker rooms comes nothing close to anything I've heard two women doing.

I don't know what your husband's experiences were and I'd be curious to know. My experiences with locker room has been that most men under 50 just try and do their own thing quickly without looking or being seen, whereas the older men just don't really give a fuck anymore and feel comfortable talking and taking their time. I've never seen or heard anything remotely like the dreaded "locker room talk" that you hear about all the time, but then again I was never particularly inclined to do sports either.

Your links are talking less about physical touch and more about emotional support.

Fair, this thread and this one are probably better.

Basically men don't talk about being starved of physical affection and emotional support, because being starved of both is just the normal male experience, like being fed one meal a day since you were 6, you just don't notice it because you've never experienced anything else.

With there being more trans men it's starting to come to light, but it's still far from generally accepted or recognized, because unfortunately society in general doesn't give a fuck about men, they'll figure it out and succeed on their own or fail and be miserable, either way society doesn't care.

I do think to a point we have to accept that part of the reason that women are excelling in school(and by extension their early career) is because they work harder in school because they take more interest in school, whereas men tend to take more interest in competition especially sports.

I mean yes, but also girls are graded higher by female teachers despite accomplishing the exact same task. There is an element of girls focusing better, but there is also a large element of school not being made for boys, not making accomodation for boys, and the 75%+ educational staff (and 90%+ female teachers) being actively discriminatory against boys. We went from 60%+ male university attendees in 1960 in the US, to 60%+ female university students today.

If a majority male university student body was a problem then, a 60% majority female university student body should be just as much of a problem. Equality is when it's at 50/50, treating equality like a one-way street in favour of women isn't equality at all, but that's exactly what we're seeing at pretty much all levels of society.

Women score better than men at every age in every subject, even STEM subjects.

I agree, but that doesn't mean there isn't systematic discrimination either. It's another one of those double standards where anything that negatively affects women is seen a systematic discrimination first, until and unless proven otherwise, and anything that negatively affects men is just their own damn fault, and good luck trying to prove discrimination or getting people to care.

You kind of did it yourself here. Men's issues are almost automatically dismissed and seen as less important in today's society.

What other solution would you want that you think is better.

Women actually taking on half the burden in romantic relationships to actually become equal partners, and to start aggressively pursuing men as much as men pursue women, to start actually listening to and caring about men as a whole, and to actually and actively make it safe for men to express themselves emotionally instead of demanding men put up an emotional performance and then punishing them when the fail to perform.

It's a tall ask, but basically, for women to treat men like an equal partner with vulnerabilities and systematic issues the same as women have, and to try and give back to men as much as they demand from them in ways those men appreciate.

[–]Diylion1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are they though? They're competing for the man's attention, but any woman who wants the man's attention basically only has to go out and literally ask him

I think that women might compete differently than men and that they're competing for an actual relationship whereas you may find it more common among men to compete just for sex. But I definitely think women compete.

Of course, just like engineers can always become alcoholics later. Now you're just looking for problems instead of seeking solutions

The emotional toll of being in the military is greater though so it seems more likely. And that is evident in the data.

I don't know what your husband's experiences were and I'd be curious to know

Oh like men sitting on other men's faces when their deadlifting as a prank. Men comparing penises. Towel whipping.

You kind of did it yourself here. Men's issues are almost automatically dismissed and seen as less important in today's society.

But you're willing to assume that women being paid less is because of women's choices, which is evident by data. Why wouldn't you hold men to the same standard if there's evidence they are scoring worse?

Women actually taking on half the burden in romantic relationships to actually become equal partners, and to start aggressively pursuing men as much as men pursue women,

This would lead to marriages being earlier, and the positive outcomes that we see for women children and in divorce would disappear. Do you think that that is a necessary sacrifice?

to start actually listening to and caring about men as a whole,

I don't think it's a fair claim that women don't care about men.

and to actually and actively make it safe for men to express themselves emotionally instead of demanding men put up an emotional performance and then punishing them when the fail to perform.

I don't think that men or women are excluded from social checking, but I agree that men should have the ability to express emotions, so long as it's constructive.

and systematic issues the same as women have, and to try and give back to men as much as they demand from them in ways those men appreciate.

I think that the men's rights movement is gaining traction, and has several strong arguments, unfortunately it's routinely plagued by new age incel women hating rhetoric, and is misled in some arguments that it misunderstands.

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think that women might compete differently than men and that they're competing for an actual relationship whereas you may find it more common among men to compete just for sex. But I definitely think women compete.

Fair, but I think that while women want relationships, they compete against each other to see which one has the higher status man. It's not a competition where men have much to do, it's about women competing to show who bagged the biggest catch.

This is a contrast to men pretty much being made to compete against other men because of women being far pickier and choosier, and men being forced into the role of the one who must ask, initiate, and escalate every single step of the way, wheile women just have to sit back and pick whichever one she likes most of those who come her way.

Men cannot sit back and wait because by and large they're not going to get anything, and if a woman actively wants a guy, there is nothing preventing her from going out and asking him. In essence women kind of get the best of both worlds when it comes to dating.

Women might have a hard time getting the relationship they want instead of casual sex, whereas most men struggle to get any relationship at all in any way shape or form, period. Men are made to compete against each other by women, and women compete with each other to brag about which can bag the better man.

Men and women are not playing the same game at all.

The emotional toll of being in the military is greater though so it seems more likely. And that is evident in the data.

I agree, but military = discipline, whereas there is no guarantee of that with engineers. Whether that is worth all the associated baggage is a separate question entirely.

Oh like men sitting on other men's faces when their deadlifting as a prank. Men comparing penises. Towel whipping.

I can see that happening between good friends or with immature guys in high school, but I'm pretty sure you realize those aren't really positive in terms of physical contact and affection, if anything it would make men even more leery of physical affection in general and especially with other men.

But you're willing to assume that women being paid less is because of women's choices, which is evident by data. Why wouldn't you hold men to the same standard if there's evidence they are scoring worse?

I'm not willing to assume, that is explicitly what the data shows us. When you group women as a whole vs men as a whole, there's a 30% pay gap. When you compare hours worked, education levels, amount of experience, similar jobs, and similar job titles, that wage gap reduces to something like 2-3%.

The vast majority of the disparity between women's income and men's income boils down to women's choices, not discrimination in the workplaces. If businesses could get away with paying women 30% less than men to get the same job done, they'd fire every man and hire nothing but women.

The problem is that whenever a systematic issue affects women, it is seen as a social issue oppressing them that must immediately be corrected and addressed, but when a systematic issue affects men, it is seen as a personal failing and those men just have to man up, pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and unfuck themselves on their own. You are doing this very thing right here. If it were women falling behind it would be a problem to be solved, but since it's just men falling behind it's their own fault for being stupid.

You are proving my point. The gender empathy gap is real, and as a society we dehumanize men, see them as disposable, and believe that men can't suffer the same way women do. Men are just not seen as deserving of basic empathy and sympathy, as you are showing yourself right here.

This would lead to marriages being earlier, and the positive outcomes that we see for women children and in divorce would disappear. Do you think that that is a necessary sacrifice?

I don't understand what you mean here. What does marriage being earlier have to do with women pursuing men, what are the positive outcomes for women children and in divorce that would disappear, and what is being sacrificed? I genuinely don't understand.

I don't think it's a fair claim that women don't care about men.

And yet the data backs it up. Not saying that every single woman is a psychopath who hates men, but as a group, women care about women and men care about women, but women don't care about men and men don't care about women. As a society we are failing men every single day, and nobody gives a fuck, because men are seen as disposable and not deserving of basic empathy.

I don't think that men or women are excluded from social checking, but I agree that men should have the ability to express emotions, so long as it's constructive.

That's the problem though, women have an inherent right to express their emotions however they see fit, and that is healthy, but men are told they're only allowed to express their emotions the way women will allow them to. This turns emotional expression into a performance men have to do in favour of women, and it is toxic as fuck. Nobody cares to call it out though because again men are disposable and not worthy of deserving basic empathy.

I think that the men's rights movement is gaining traction, and has several strong arguments, unfortunately it's routinely plagued by new age incel women hating rhetoric, and is misled in some arguments that it misunderstands.

That's certainly a fair assessment, and I do hope the men's rights movement is gaining traction. Often it feels like screaming into an uncaring void with no progress being made.

[–]Diylion1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But there is evidence that men or boys do study less. Boys spend more time watching television and girls spend more time studying. Young boys also take more leisure time than young girls.

Would you use this exact same argument to say that the reason that literally any under-represented minority in university is under-represented because they don't study enough?

This is a perfect example of when problems affect women, it's seen as a systemic issue in society that must be corrected, but when it's an issue that affects men, it'S not systemic at all, it'S their own fault, and they just have to unfuck themselves on their own with no help or support.

Your argument didn't fly when it was said about women, instead they said we need more women in university to achieve equality in university. Gender disparity in universities is now just as bad as it was in the 1960s in the US, except it's women outnumbering men, and women still have more scholarships and programs specifically to help get even more women in university, whereas men get absolutely nothing.

It makes sense that they would have better graduation, and higher wages early on.

It also makes sense that we have an education system that systematically disfavours boys. Teachers give higher grades to girls than to boys with the same academic ability, according to a study published today in the British Journal of Sociology of Education..

You won't hear about it though because it's something that disadvantages men and boys, so society ignores it and does not care about it. It's not even the only piece of evidence, there's tons out there saying the developed world is failing our boys, from structuring school around ways that are easier for girls to learn (the sit, shut up, don't move, and listen model), from boys getting lower grades than firls for the same work, from boys getting disproportionately more disciplining actions than women, to boys literally having no male role models for the first 18 years of their lives, whereas young girls are literally surrounded by adult women since the age of 3.

But you won't hear about any of that unless you go looking, because society only cares if it negatively affects women and girls.

Do you have evidence that women care more about other women than men? It seems odd to me but I've always had more men in my life than women.

It's called the gender empathy gap. An in-group bias is when people in a group prefer/favour members of that group, whereas an out-group bias is when members of the group prefers people who are not part of that group. Women have an in-group bias, men have an out-group bias. In general, men care more about women than men care about men, and women also care more about women than women care about men. The end result being that everyone cares more about women's safety than men's. There's even a name for the phenomenon called the missing white woman syndrome. It explains how missing and murdered white women make the news far more frequently than missing and murdered women of colour, but what's often flat-out ignored is that missing and murdered women of colour still make the news far more frequently than missing or murdered men of any colour.

There's absolutely a racial bias in the US judicial system, but what they won't talk about is that men of any colour get sentences 60% longer than women of the same colour, despite committing the exact same crimes. Anything that negatively affects women or minorities gets sensationalized in the news, anything that negatively affects men gets ignored or blamed back on men.

r/menslib is a good place. It takes steps to remove incel rhetoric, and I've noticed that it is taking more seriously than the other men's rights forums.

Men'S lib is a feminist subreddit first, designed to promote feminism second, and to talk about men's issues as a distant 3rd priority, so long as it doesn't conflict with the other two. Anything that affects men negatively must be tracked back to men, the patriarchy, or some nebulous undisclosed source, because it can never be blamed on women or feminism.

They invited a man to talk about domestic violence against men, and he said "The “gender-based violence” language is useful but without also naming it as men’s violence against women, the primary perpetrators, men, are then made invisible in some ways. This only benefits the perpetrators. The ‘intimate partner violence’ can be useful as well as it is inclusive of battering that occurs in same sex relationships and not just heterosexual relationships."

This is literally erasing the decades of research that shows that men are half of all domestic abuse victims.

The subreddit also closes on holidays because they cannot guarantee they have mods on deck to ban and censor any comment that doesn't pass their feminist-approved filter.

The moderation there is drastic and draconian, and despite all that, there are still feminist subreddits that call menslib far too lenient on men's issues and leaning too far on the right politically.

You can't really call a sub as a good place to talk about men's issues, when it is specifically and deliberately created as a safe space for women, and where men are made to shut up and stop talking about their issues if it's not said in a way and with a language that feminists approve of.

So no, menslib is not a good place for men to talk. It's a great place to control the narrative and force men to fit a certain mould of what feminists want men to be like and tell men what they are allowed and not allowed to say. This makes it a great place for feminism, at the expense of men.

[–]Diylion1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Would you use this exact same argument to say that the reason that literally any under-represented minority in university is under-represented because they don't study enough?

Yes? There's tons of evidence of that also. Why do you think Asians do so well?

Your argument didn't fly when it was said about women, instead they said we need more women in university to achieve equality in university

Because the problem was prejudice, not because women weren't trying hard enough.

Again, if you were willing to recognize that personal choice affects women's representation in the workplace, why can't it also also explain why men fall behind in other areas. There's evidence that women study more so it makes sense that they would do better in school.

The study you linked that looked at teacher bias was conducted in Italy. That's why you don't hear about it in America.

The men's issues in other countries are vastly different than the ones in America.

what they won't talk about is that

I spend a lot of time on liberal reddits and they talk about that one all the time.

and where men are made to shut up and stop talking about their issues if it's not said in a way and with a language that feminists approve of

But you realize why a sub like that might go further improving men's issues than a sub that perpetrates incel rhetoric? Since as we discussed, it tends to be why people write off men's rights issues. If every other thread is "women should be required to have sex with young men" no one is going to take it seriously.

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes? There's tons of evidence of that also. Why do you think Asians do so well?

In part because they study and have good grades, but good luck saying that black people are under-represented because it's their own fault. It's also ironic that Asians are being discriminated against despite being a minority.

Because the problem was prejudice, not because women weren't trying hard enough

I mean I agree, but then isn't it time we started looking at prejudice against men too? Or are we just going to assume that prejudice against men is not possible?

Again, if you were willing to recognize that personal choice affects women's representation in the workplace, why can't it also also explain why men fall behind in other areas. There's evidence that women study more so it makes sense that they would do better in school.

I absolutely recognize that personal choice affects women's representation in the workplace, but I can also recognize that sexist discrimination also has an impact. When studies point out that sexist discrimination is happening, it should be taken seriously, but for some reason, the studies that demonstrate discrimination against men seem to never get any traction.

The study you linked that looked at teacher bias was conducted in Italy. That's why you don't hear about it in America.

That was one example, but the results were duplicated in 50 countries in the OECD. It's not limited to Italy.

The men's issues in other countries are vastly different than the ones in America.

And yet, worldwide, men are still 3/4 of suicide victims, 3/4 of the homeless, the majority of victims of assault, murder, and theft, the majority of workplace deaths, and men around the world live on average shorter lives than women and die more of virtually every single disease and cancer.

Men's issues around the world might be more similar than you think, and it has just gone unrecognized because as a whole society doesn't care about men and considers them disposable.

I spend a lot of time on liberal reddits and they talk about that one all the time.

I am honestly surprised, I did not expect that. I tried talking about it on many feminist-adjacent subreddits and nobody believed me. I don't know why liberal subreddits would talk about it often, and yet feminists would seem to ardently deny it so much.

But you realize why a sub like that might go further improving men's issues than a sub that perpetrates incel rhetoric?

Not really, since men can't really talk about their issues, they can only talk about the issues that feminists let them talk about, using the language that feminists allow them to use.

Since as we discussed, it tends to be why people write off men's rights issues. If every other thread is "women should be required to have sex with young men" no one is going to take it seriously.

If that is what you think is going on in actual men's rights subs then you have a very misguided notion. r/leftwingmaleadvocates is nothing like that, but it still doesn't get taken seriously because it dares to talk about men's issues, when everyone knows men are the privileged sex that faces no issues and no obstacles, and is responsible for oppressing women, don't you know.

I wish I was joking but that's the reaction of literally 95% of people who hear about men's issues and men's rights.

LWMA is infinitely better than menslib, but it will never be recognized, because feminism will actively undercut it and mock it, and will only allow the recognition of subs that have been neutered and sanitized like menslib.

Random question, do those liberal subreddits you go to know that half of rape victims and half of domestic abuse victims are men? Did you know?

[–]Diylion1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Random question, do those liberal subreddits you go to know that half of rape victims and half of domestic abuse victims are men? Did you know?

No. I was referring to the statistic that you were talking about about black people receiving disproportionate sentenced.

I haven't been on LWMA, but r/mensrights seems to have a lot of women hating rhetoric.

And yet, worldwide, men are still 3/4 of suicide victims, 3/4 of the homeless, the majority of victims of assault, murder, and theft, the majority of workplace deaths, and men around the world live on average shorter lives than women and die more of virtually every single disease and cancer.

Do you think that all of this is due to prejudice?

Men are more likely to be violent. And violence is tied to testosterone, not only in men but also in women (who see higher rates of testosterone during PMS). Men also tend to take more interest in large machinery than women, I mean boys like to play with Tonka trucks right? So it's not really surprising that they end up in construction industries. There's nothing stopping women from joining the military, yet men do it significantly more often because the culture is idolized.

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No. I was referring to the statistic that you were talking about about black people receiving disproportionate sentenced.

We might be having a misunderstanding then because my link wasn't about black people receiving disproportionate sentences, it was about men receiving sentences 60% longer than women. A black man would get a sentence 60% longer than a black woman, and a white man would get a sentence 60% longer than a white woman. Black people do still get longer sentences, but even a black woman on average receives a shorter sentence than white men despite committing the exact same crimes.

I haven't been on LWMA, but r/mensrights seems to have a lot of women hating rhetoric.

I mean, yes, but there's also a ton of man hating rhetoric on a bunch of feminist subreddits, it just doesn't get called out. People should be allowed to have a place for them to vent in, and if we're not going to allow men to vent in subreddits that cater to their issues, then we should also not allow feminists to vent in feminist subreddits.

Do you think that all of this is due to prejudice?

Not all of it but prejudice absolutely does play a role.

Men are more likely to be violent. And violence is tied to testosterone, not only in men but also in women (who see higher rates of testosterone during PMS). Men also tend to take more interest in large machinery than women, I mean boys like to play with Tonka trucks right? So it's not really surprising that they end up in construction industries. There's nothing stopping women from joining the military, yet men do it significantly more often because the culture is idolized.

Does this mean then that men dying more, dying more of every disease, killing themselves more, etc, does not matter?

Should we only strive for equality whenever it's to benefit women, that when women are doing worse than men they need and deserve help, but that if men are doing worse off than women well that's just too bad?

[–]Diylion1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It does matter, but we can't base it off of inequality of outcome because is not a good measurement of equality of opportunity.

I mean I agree, but it seems that whenever something disadvantages women it is automatically taken as an inequality of outcome that needs to be addressed immediately, whereas for men it's seen as an issue of equality of opportunity so men can just try harder and deal with it on their own. It seems there are two very different standards on what we should do about an issue, and it boils down almost exclusively to whether the group affected is men or women.

I of course don't want men to die more, but if it means repressing women to achieve equal outcome then it's probably not going to work out well.

And yet there has been absolutely no hesitation in repressing men to give a more equal outcome to women.

But whenever men's outcome is lesser than women's, it's seen as men's fault and nothing needs to be done.

Not going to start telling men that they're allowed to commit crime more than women just because they have higher levels of testosterone. I'm going to tell women they have to go work in construction sites just so that we can have equal death rates at workplaces.

I mean some amount of deaths in the workplace are inevitable, accidents will always happen, and it will always be a good idea to minimize the amount of deaths.

That being said, if men work more in jobs where they risk their lives, it makes sense that men should be compensated more for taking more risks, and that therefore men on average should be paid more than women on average.

For some reason though the outcome that men on the whole earn more than women is seen as proof of systemic oppression, but if mean earn less that's just men being lazy and not working hard enough.

Do you see the double standards there?

[–]Diylion1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The goal should be to judge women similarly to men then we're inequality of outcome does not assume inequality of opportunity.

I agree.

Except that the prevailing narrative has been that there is systematic inequality of opportunity for women, simply because there is an inequality of outcome.

Women as a whole make less money than men? It must be systematic sexism and oppression, it couldn't possibly be because women choose lower paying jobs, work less overall, are less likely to negotiate for raises and higher salaries than men, and take more time off to raise children.

No, none of that is the cause, it must be because of systematic sexism.

Not enough women in sciences? It cannot possibly be because women can do and there are no obstacles for them, but that they just don't really want to, it must be because there is systematic oppression so we have to give more money, scholarships, and help to get more women in science.

Like I agree with you, we should aim for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, but virtually everything surrounding feminism looks at equality of outcome as something horrible whenever it disadvantages women, but then feminism doesn't have a single fuck to give whenever anything disadvantages men. Then it's always considered men's fault, men do it wrong, don't try hard enough, don't try often enough, act wrong, etc etc etc.

Whenever anything disadvantages women it'S a systemic problem in society and we collectively need to do better to help them out, whenever anything disadvantages men it's their own damn fault and men just have to work harder to unfuck themselves all on their own with no support, understanding, or even basic empathy.

The gender empathy gap is real.

They should be compensated based on what they can negotiate.

Then if women negotiate less than men, should we say the gender pay gap is entirely caused because women don't negotiate well, and therefore it's their own fault they're paid less than men for doing the same job?

Men are not paid more because they take on more dangerous work. The dangerous work is usually one of the worst paid work.

I mean, if there are two identical jobs, except that one is far riskier, the riskier job should be compensated more precisely because it is riskier.

They earn more because women tend to take a portion of their career off to raise children, so their earning potential stagnates.

Men don't earn more because women take time off, women earn less.

For what it's worth I am absolutely in favour of not just 3 months of maternity leave, but also 3 months of paternity leave. It would equalize the earnings gap for men to take time off to raise kids, it would help men's mental health, it would help men be more involved in the family, and overall everyone would benefit from it.

It's really weird that for something that would help women so much, that I rarely if ever hear about that as a pressing concern for feminism. The feeling I have is that feminists resent pushing this forward because it would actually benefit men, and feminists by and large don't want to do that.

[–]Diylion1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women as a whole make less money than men? It must be systematic sexism and oppression, it couldn't possibly be because women choose lower paying jobs, work less overall, are less likely to negotiate for raises and higher salaries than men, and take more time off to raise children.

But your logic is missing.. why would we try to make the same mistake if we recognize a mistake? If it's solely for the purpose of being vindictive, you're not actually achieving anything.

mean, if there are two identical jobs, except that one is far riskier, the riskier job should be compensated more precisely because it is riskier.

No no. It should be paid based on the supply of workers and the demand for that kind of work. If you have a thousand qualified men applying to be a logger, and a hundred qualified engineers applying to be an engineer and there's more demand for engineers, the engineers are going to be paid more.

Then if women negotiate less than men, should we say the gender pay gap is entirely caused because women don't negotiate well, and therefore it's their own fault they're paid less than men for doing the same job?

I actually think women are better at negotiating and which is partially why younger women are paid more for the same job.

For what it's worth I am absolutely in favour of not just 3 months of maternity leave, but also 3 months of paternity leave. It

If you think the maternity leave is what is causing women to make so much less than men than you'd be wrong. The reason women make less on average is because they take years off their career, sometimes decades to raise their children.

would help men's mental health

No it wouldn't. Paternity leave isn't actually a vacation. Taking care of an infant is harder work than actual work, not to mention when your wife is on bed rest. There's also evidence of cognitive decline that is often seen in people that have children because there is more stress.

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But your logic is missing.. why would we try to make the same mistake if we recognize a mistake? If it's solely for the purpose of being vindictive, you're not actually achieving anything.

I don't know what you mean here. When women make less money than men, it's taken as proof of systematic oppression, misogyny, and the patriarchy. When women make more money, it's because men simply aren't trying hard enough, and it's blamed on being individual problems caused by men themselves.

It's a very glaring double standard, and what I wanted to achieve was pointing out that glaring double standard.

No no. It should be paid based on the supply of workers and the demand for that kind of work. If you have a thousand qualified men applying to be a logger, and a hundred qualified engineers applying to be an engineer and there's more demand for engineers, the engineers are going to be paid more.

Fair, I should have said that if there are two jobs that are similar, and one of them is far more dangerous, that one ought to be paid more to compensate for the increased risk.

You do have a good point about going towards careers that pay more, but interestingly enough, men tend to make the choices where their education leads to higher paying jobs more than women. This is however ignored, and men choosing higher-paying jobs and getting paid more, is again taken as evidence of patriarchy, oppression, and male supremacy, despite the fact that the vast majority of the wage gap can almost entirely be explained by the choices that women make.

And yet it is still portrayed as a systematic issue that affects women, and when any issues affect men it's automatically taken as though it couldn't possibly be anything systematic and must be the fault of those individual men.

Again, this double standard is what I'm trying to point out.

I actually think women are better at negotiating and which is partially why younger women are paid more for the same job.

That's not really what the data says though. If younger women are paid more than men, it's probably not because of their negotiation tactics. Which leads to an interesting question, of if men are more likely to negotiate for more pay, and men tend to aim for jobs that pay more, why then are young women out-earning young men?

Could it possibly be because there are systematic issues that help young women and restrict young men?

If you think the maternity leave is what is causing women to make so much less than men than you'd be wrong. The reason women make less on average is because they take years off their career, sometimes decades to raise their children.

Well yes, including maternity leave. If women take maternity leave and men don't take paternity leave, that slows down women's careers automatically, and also puts more of the household responsibilities on her. If the man was more present at home, odds are higher that men would take more household chores and women wouldn't have to do so much.

It's also interesting because many women choose not to go back to work full-time, and their personal and deliberate choice not to go to work slows down their career, and yet this is blamed on men.

No it wouldn't. Paternity leave isn't actually a vacation. Taking care of an infant is harder work than actual work, not to mention when your wife is on bed rest. There's also evidence of cognitive decline that is often seen in people that have children because there is more stress.

It's not a vacation but it would help men actually be more connected and present with their family. Taking care of an infant is harder work than some actual work, not all.

That being said, there is also a wider social problem. Like the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. The 8 hour workweek was also specifically made for factory workers where the mother would stay at home full time to take care of the children. It is borderline impossible for two parents working full time to raise children properly without help or support, and it's making our society and quality of life worse for literally everyone. This is something society needs to change, because it leads to situations like in Japan where young people are just not getting children since it is too expensive and they don't have enough time outside of work. It's happening in literally every single first world country, and the only reason population in those countries continues to grow is immigration.

[–]nothatyoucare 23 points24 points25 points 3 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Boxisteph 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]arvada14 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Smile_60 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]arvada14 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Smile_60 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Friendly_Radio_8814 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Smile_60 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Boxisteph1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

No, that's a man issue not a biological one for reasons I'm not going to explain to men whonwould probably use it to exploit women.

Men have never had it so easy with women. Previously you'd have to pay the parents of a woman to have her as a wife to have any form of sex that didn't include prostitution or rape. Men were expected to work themselves to death to support the children that would pop out from a fertile wife with no access to fertility control. In the west 100 years ago 12 was the average number of children a woman would have but there were some who hit the 20s.

Women back then, on the whole couldn't choose to be independent of men, so less active romance was required and just the promise of stability was. Now women don't need men to function in society more romance is required and less promise of financial stability. Men have welcomed not having to achieve as much economically but dropped the ball on upping the romance. So women don't see any reason to be with men. Casual sex isn't that appealing, many men don't want the burden of having children and being with you isn't more fun qnd emotionally rewarding that having a male friend or two.

Women can love you and not want to spend all of their energy on you so men offer romance and it's enough of a hook. Then men stop offering romance and wonder why women 'change'

[–]Ok_Smile_60 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Ok_Smile_60 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

Western husbands do very little. In the east wives do not work unless they want to and mothers certainly do not. A man that cannot support a family, is not allowed by his parents to marry, as it brings shame on the family for the community to see his failings through the struggling wife and children. Yes some parents are dysfunctional and don't care but those women either don't marry as the man can't afford a dowry or the wives are actively pitied and supported to leave.

Even 50 years ago an average man's working week was much longer. The vast majority of modern western men could not compete with Eastern men. They haven't been raised to have the masculine grit and to be able to bear the load. It's why immigrants do so well when they make it over. Which by the way is part of the reason you're less sexually attractive. Women like strength, strong bodies, strong minds, strong resolve. Willingly displayed vulnerability is a sign of strength, only strong animals lay with the bellies showing and the strongest of men are gentle, patient, calm and able to share fears and emotion. Western women don't see a lot of strength in their men they also don't see a lot of father (ability to balance masculine and feminine ) type qualities in their men. So...yes men in the west are less sexually appealing on the whole at a raw gut level. But you work with what you have. Many women try to change men that's wrong, the guys need to figure it out on their own steam but fir many Western men by the time they do figure out attractive masculinity, they're old ED has set in and their sperm mutation rate is high.

But, I digress. The topic is why people cheat.

[–]Ok_Smile_60 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Boxisteph1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

Romance is for men. It's the way you psycologically control women. Just like makeup is for women, it's our way of short circuiting your brains. (Caveat: women mainly like makeup as a face paint and to do lots of fun things with it but if we want to use it as a manipulation tool, we can)

Most men weave a fantasy for the women to fall in love, then once you 'have her' you stop. Then wonder why she miserable, well you tricked her then had the audacity to say it's too hard to keep up the illusions but stay with me anyway In this reality that you'd have never thought twice about. Then men cry when women leave them in their reality- often for another illusion or to be on their own. Very rarely do women sit with men in their reality unless they have to due to children, women's reality is better than men's, you're asking her to downgrade.

A successful marraige is where a man can romance up to at the very least the woman's reality consistently and occasionally go further. Men don't realise how far behind they are. Often you working your hardest brings you in line with a woman, so yes, it's hard to maintain but from the woman's side she sees you as equal and therefore worth a try. She doesn't see you pedaling for your life below water while she's effortlessly gliding.

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Romance is a tool used by men, but the intention of romance is for men to provide something that appeals to women. It's a bit like saying that the butler's uniform is for the butler. Well yes, but in reality it's for the butler to provide services to whoever is paying him, except in this case we convinced the butler to pay for the uniform himself and to serve others without getting paid.

I guess the confusion was in the distinction between who is using something vs what that thing is used for. Men use romance to woo women, and women use makeup to woo men. Both can be used manipulatively for sure, but for some reason men manipulating women is seen as worse.

Most men weave a fantasy for the women to fall in love, then once you 'have her' you stop

Or, you know, maintaining that fantasy is hard work, expensive, and draining. If you can woo a fantasy for the woman to fall in love with effortlessly and without spending any money, then the guy is either damn handsome or extremely talented with words (or both), but that's not most men. Most men have to work to make romance happen to the benefit of women, and that seems to be the one thing that women consistently overlook and/or take for granted.

Very rarely do women sit with men in their reality unless they have to due to children, women's reality is better than men's, you're asking her to downgrade.

The thing is, there is only one reality, and we all share it. There is no "your reality" and "my reality", there is one reality, and then there are different perceptions and perspectives on that reality.

The reality is, maintaing a fantasy is hard work, and women seem to resent men not working at 120% to maintain that fantasy for them, without really making much effort in return to make the man want to maintain that fantasy. The tingles of first love and falling in love is not love, it's infatuation, and infatuation doesn't last.

Love requires work and sacrifice, and isn't always pleasant. Demanding men keep everything pleasant and sacrifice-free for women, while men work hard and have to sacrifice, is not a fair deal.

A successful marraige is where a man can romance up to at the very least the woman's reality consistently and occasionally go further. Men don't realise how far behind they are. Often you working your hardest brings you in line with a woman, so yes, it's hard to maintain but from the woman's side she sees you as equal and therefore worth a try. She doesn't see you pedaling for your life below water while she's effortlessly gliding.

Again there is no "women's reality", just their perception of a fantasy which is not real, it's basically a delusion.

This seems to me to be the epitome of entitlement, where you are expecting men to work hard and pedal non-stop to keep their heads above water, while their hard work and effort helps the woman glide effortlessly through life.

Tell me, what exactly is the man getting while he's basically working himself to death to keep you happy? Why should a man ever accept that kind of horrible deal?

If she doesn't see you pedalling for your life below water while she's effortlessly gliding, its because she doesn't love him, doesn't value him, and treats him as a slave instead of as an equal partner. Any woman who demands that men carry them to glide effortlessly across the water like that is incredibly selfish and entitled.

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

What I've realised as I've grown is there's lots of things that are effortless for women and excruciating for men. Women don't realise men have to try so hard which is why men feel unappreciated. Women didn't realise he's peddaling so hard as it never occurred to her to look because it's easy for her. Not because she's looking for a slave.

As for the romance what you're describing is catfishing. A man presents himself as more than he is and then when women see his true level of baseline competence its too low for her to tolerate. Men complain when women who don't have their own teeth, wear corsets with bum pads and transform when make-up is on and don't realise the high level of unsustainable (for him) romance is the same thing.

A little bit of make-up/out of the norm romance is fine but the baseline should be tolerable for both.

As for what men get from women....you know exactly what it is. Not everything of value has to be tangible. Men soften around women because various needs are being met, just sitting around pretty, happy women energises and relaxes a man. And if you're a man who doesn't benefit at all from female energy and presence then stay around men, save your money for man toys. You have that choice now.

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

What I've realised as I've grown is there's lots of things that are effortless for women and excruciating for men. Women don't realise men have to try so hard which is why men feel unappreciated. Women didn't realise he's peddaling so hard as it never occurred to her to look because it's easy for her. Not because she's looking for a slave.

And the reason women don't notice is because they either do not care to or do not want to. It's not like men have been keeping this secret. We hear everywhere in society about all the issues and plights that women face and everyone is expected to be caring and understanding about all of those, but by and large in society nobody gives a flying fuck about men's issues.

So how can women sincerely say they love their men, if they are unable or unwilling to see what's right in front of their face? Men get told they can't really love their wives unless they walk a mile in their shoes and understand all the hardships women face.

That apparently doesn't count for men, because it seems women prefer the comforting lie of men being steadfast rocks of support who are expected to fulfil sky-high requirements and continually jump through hoops rather than actually caring about everything that's making men kill themselves at 3x the rate of women.

She's not looking for a slave, but if she doesn't realize that he's not far from being a slave, then she cares more about her fantasy than she cares about him, in the same way we'd say a man cares more about the fantasy of a stay-at-home wife who does everything for him if he doesn't care to understand the struggles his wife faces.

As for the romance what you're describing is catfishing. A man presents himself as more than he is and then when women see his true level of baseline competence its too low for her to tolerate.

Would you describe makeup and filters/touched up pictures to be catfishing?

You misunderstand, because if a man doesn't try and do something special to catch a woman's attention, he's not going to get it, and he's going to die alone.

It wouldn't be a problem if women chased men half as much as men chase women, but by and large women don't want to and won't do it. So men have no choice but to try and do something special to get her attention, or else he gets nothing.

don't realise the high level of unsustainable (for him) romance is the same thing.

Are you seriously comparing high levels of romanticism to women lacking teeth, wearing corsets, and wearing makeup?

See she might think his standards are too low for her, but it is possible for sky-high standards to be unreasonable. Would you say that a man has unrealisti standards if he expected a bombshell babe who is a good cook, wants to have sex with him every day of the week and who has a job that pays 100k a year?

Women seem entitled to set whatever standards they want at whatever level they want and consider it to be perfectly reasonable, whereas men's standards are regularly decried as being sexist, misogynistic, and oppressive. I think it's only fair if men are also able to tell women that their standards are often unreasonably high.

A little bit of make-up/out of the norm romance is fine but the baseline should be tolerable for both.

Completely agree but if her baseline tolerance for her is sky high, it's still unreasonable.

As for what men get from women....you know exactly what it is.

Spell it out for me so we don't misunderstand each other yeah?

Not everything of value has to be tangible. Men soften around women because various needs are being met, just sitting around pretty, happy women energises and relaxes a man.

And yet if it is that freaking simple to do, why do so many women fail at it?

I love how you basically say that women can have sky high standards and men just have to put up with it, whereas men should just settle for the benefits of being happy that a woman is around them.

Can you seriously not see just how extremely unequal and lopsided that exchange is?

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

Hiya. I hear your frustration. I do sort of, love men, which is why I'm aware enough to have this conversation. I'm not trying to have a go at you at any point in this.

Women genuinely don't realise how much men struggle. Not because theyre more invested in their fantasy but because they - hmmm women are taught they are behind and inferior to men (patriarchy) so they expect men to be at the same level or better. Its what men and women say and what societies structures reflect. That's why when individual men say they're struggling they get called weak. Women are doing it and have been taught that men are as well. The struggling man is a weak outlier, not someone being honest. This is why feminism supports men's rights. It dictates that patriarchy hurts men because it holds them to standards many struggle to meet. Many men see women attacking patriarchy as attacking men. Unless they're angry 3rd wave anarchist feminists, they're not.

"Would you describe makeup and filters/touched up pictures to be catfishing?" Yes and some husband say they never want to see their wives without make up and some wives sleep in their makeup.

'if a man doesn't try and do something special to catch a woman's attention, he's not going to get it, and he's going to die alone.' I understand...as much as a female can. All male animals share the same fear and potential fate. The difference is bar penguins and a few other species the male only needs to trick a female into 1 round of sex and sometimes he will literally give his ife for it, like spiders and mantis. We're social animals so as a male you want to retain a female, it's more than just sex. I get it but you can't try and deceive and retain a female, that's a short term strategy.

" Are you seriously comparing high levels of romanticism to women lacking teeth, wearing corsets, and wearing makeup?" Yes it's the female equivalent. For men it's looks and indicators of youth, for women it's personality type and willingness to show traits of being an attentive husband and father. That's what you're showing during romance. That if she got pregnant you'd be supportive during and once the baby is raised. Doesn't matter if either of you want a baby. Your genes tell you to get a fertile woman and hers tell her to get a good father.

You need to remember that when females of any species set standards, they set them for the species. They choose which genes make it into the next generation, its on their backs to choose wisely. Historically women that chose poorly would starve or be brutalised to death along with the baby. So yes, standards are much higher because women subconsciously think these things through. A handsome face or funny personality may distract them but those relationships won't last if she doesn't feel like he's a man whose genes pass - even if she doesn't want children. Where as men just want a fertile female, possibly his preference but anyone really will do. All females are like that and all males are like that. It's why we are here as a species and individuals. This is why most social species have some sort of polygamy and why monogamy (of the woman) at least is a cornerstone of patriarchy. Men are catered to. This is the best men can get and have historically had. Women's choice has been limited due to needing money and only men could fully legally access financial instruments. All women needed man to survive and chose them accordingly.

I think you said above that men have an addiction to women. It's true. Men will move mountains to get to a woman on the other side. Women will not do that. There's no biological drive to chase a man. Patriarchy has had to construct social drives, the need to marry, have children in early 20s, to have enough children to work the farm, to have a bank account, to be able to leave the house or access healthcare etc but women don't and have never needed men. If you a dissapear off the face of the earth tomorrow, there will be distress from losing loved ones but no distress from losing mankind. It is just nature.

So modern men were raised in a failed patriarchial system. Their parents got full access to female rights but they saw the first generation of it. Grandmothers raised their daughters to expect a world of partial rights. The women you're coming across were raised knowing they have full rights. So now you get to see women truly. Without having to pretend to get access to an so she can have a bank account etc. That softness that you want is only for select, chosen men that she sees as reproductively viable or friendly, but it's not an energy that women will have for everyone. Especially when they're working hard, having to borrow masculine traits to function in a man's world. Like I said, women don't naturally function in pyramids. The energy they need to utilise to be in a pyramid seems strange to you, we are better off outside of it.

At the end of the day every male from praying mantis being eaten from the head down for a chance to have sex to male deer who sometimes die from trying to grow the biggest antlers of all the males and deplete their body of necessary minerals to monkeys fighting each other for the chance to be 'qlpha' and have the most access to females as other male monkeys won't get in his way. They will all agree that being a male in the natural world is beyond tough. You are in a failed patriarchial system which is pretty close to the best life you will get as an averagely without enslaving all women. Even in the 1960s wen could get loans or have bank accounts. They had to have a man whether he beat them or not. That's as civilised as functional patriarchy got.

There's unfair things about being a woman too but men certainly have a hefty cross to bear.

[–]HungerISanEmotionPill Pilled Piller and Penis owner 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]gofigure62No Pill 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]bbc322 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]gofigure62No Pill 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bbc322 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gofigure62No Pill 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Friendly_Radio_8814 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]bbc322 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NationalistGoyRed Pill Man -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]angryearth😺multipass 19 points20 points21 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]gofigure62No Pill 24 points25 points26 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kipp-SkhoolRapskallion's twin brother 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Purple317 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Friendly_Radio_8814 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Friendly_Radio_8814 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Friendly_Radio_8814 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gofigure62No Pill 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Boxisteph 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gofigure62No Pill 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Friendly_Radio_8814 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fogofit24 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]gofigure62No Pill 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fogofit24 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gofigure62No Pill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fogofit24 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gofigure62No Pill 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphamaker420 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing is though, men give up their ability to be with other people, in exchange for sexual access to her. What's the point of men giving up their ability to be with other people, if they then also can't have sex with the person they're supposed to be with?

Women sacrifice access to sex from other people that they don't really want, but don't understand that men actually really do care and do want sex. Men's sex drive remains more or less constant from the day they marry, but her sex drive drops over time, and then she gets mad that he keeps wanting as much sex as when they started when she doesn't want sex anymore. Women expect to be free to change the terms of the relationship to suit them whenever their wants change, but expect men to keep providing and protecting and doing everything despite the men getting less and less of what they want.

That's the problem. There's an old adage, if you want to keep your man keep his belly full and his balls empty. Obviously that alone isn't enough, but it's still more than the majority of other women out there seem to be willing to do.

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women wanting a provider is totally normal. The thing that is demonized is women expecting/demanding men to be providers, shaming men who aren't, and then women also expecting they don't have to give anything beyond their time and presence in exchange for men being providers.

If a woman wants a man to be a provider, and in return she'll be the best damn stay at home wive, most men will have no issues with that.

If a woman wants a man to be a provider, and then she in return gives nothing in exchange beyond her presence, most men will have lots of issues with that.

All men want sex, and a good majority of men want sex with different women throughout their lives. Of course men in relationships can't say this out loud, or in front of their partners. Why should women expect fidelity from men, knowing full well what men want?

By and large women wouldn't have to worry about a man's fidelity if they took care of it. There's an age-old adage that says that to keep your man, you just have to keep a man's stomach full and his balls empty.

If the woman refuses to empty his man's balls, she shouldn't be surprised if he starts to stray, since she's not upholding her end of the bargain anymore so why should he?

[–]SliptheLust, Thrust, Bust and Dust 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AquaChipChad Conoisseur 44 points45 points46 points 3 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]armpitpics 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Affectionate-Crow622 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I’ve experienced this myself. My ex-BF had an unhealthy power dynamic with me; he had years of experience with various partners while I was a virgin and avoided dating until adulthood, and he was older than me. He took advantage of me and broke me down enough emotionally that I willingly believed his lies - even when I called him out for the obvious signs of an affair.

He was poor and a college dropout and, after being in a physically and emotionally abusive relationship with an older woman, found me and then moved on from me to an even more vulnerable girl right out of high school as I matured mentally and became less tolerant of certain behaviors (such as poor housekeeping, double standards, etc.). After I went back to school, he bailed for the younger woman and became baby trapped by her. Now they’re on and off again and he’s regularly reached out to me to complain and for comfort that I keep turning down.

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

[–]Affectionate-Crow622 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Friendly_Radio_8814 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Affectionate-Crow622 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Friendly_Radio_8814 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]luroot 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]BecretAlbatross 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AquaChipChad Conoisseur -14 points-13 points-12 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kipp-SkhoolRapskallion's twin brother 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]AquaChipChad Conoisseur -8 points-7 points-6 points 3 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kipp-SkhoolRapskallion's twin brother 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]buntyisbestMedium Value Man 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]rantsincognitoPurple Pill 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Mobile-Aioli-454 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]King-SAMOWhy are you like this? 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Affectionate-Crow622 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]farm_hand_7 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]princeps_gaussStop Overcomplicating Things-pilled 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Here2RunItDown 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nothatyoucare 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

Those men are usually subjected to violence from theirs wives first soo, don't start none won't be none.

Domestic violence against men is often under-reported. Further, multiple studies demonstrate that in Intimate Partner Violence (“IPV”), women are more often the initiators of physical violence

“Analyzing data gathered from 11,370 respondents, researchers found that “half of [violent relationships] were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more that 70% of the cases.” Out of all the respondents, a quarter of the women admitted to perpetrating the domestic violence and, when the violence was reciprocal, women were often the ones to have been the first to strike.

“Sophie Goodchild reported in a 2000 Guardian piece on a study showing that women were actually more likely to initiate violence in relationships, writing:

The study … is based on an analysis of 34,000 men and women by a British academic. Women lash out more frequently than their husbands or boyfriends, concludes John Archer, professor of psychology at the University of Central Lancashire and president of the International Society for Research on Aggression.

Professor Archer analysed data from 82 US and UK studies on relationship violence, dating back to 1972. He also looked at 17 studies based on victim reports from 1,140 men and women…. [H]e said that female aggression was greater in westernised women because they were “economically emancipated” and therefore not afraid of ending a relationship.”

“Research showing that women are often aggressors in domestic violence has been causing controversy for almost 40 years, ever since the 1975 National Family Violence Survey by sociologists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire found that women were just as likely as men to report hitting a spouse and men were just as likely as women to report getting hit. The researchers initially assumed that, at least in cases of mutual violence, the women were defending themselves or retaliating. But when subsequent surveys asked who struck first, it turned out that women were as likely as men to initiate violence — a finding confirmed by more than 200 studies of intimate violence. In a 2010 review essay in the journal Partner Abuse, Straus concludes that women’s motives for domestic violence are often similar to men’s, ranging from anger to coercive control.”

[–]TermAggravating8043 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]nothatyoucare 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]nothatyoucare 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]nothatyoucare 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nothatyoucare 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze6 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TempoIndigo5 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cloudnymphe -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]nothatyoucare 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]cloudnymphe -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

Did you read? IPV is broken down as none, one way, or reciprocal.

In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more that 70% of the cases.

So, Women are more likely to be the ones committing violence when its one way. When the man fights back and it becomes reciprocal its reported that its often the woman striking first

when the violence was reciprocal, women were often the ones to have been the first to strike.

Women lash out more frequently than their husbands or boyfriends, concludes John Archer, professor of psychology at the University of Central Lancashire and president of the International Society for Research on Aggression.

Oh look the fact that women make more makes them more violent according to one researcher:

[H]e said that female aggression was greater in westernised women because they were “economically emancipated” and therefore not afraid of ending a relationship.

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

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

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

[–]TermAggravating8043 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jxjkskkk 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nemma8834/F/UK Married 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LordPeppino 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]liefelijkthat’s *Queen* Camilla to you, thank you very much[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

From the study:

For women, men’s economic dependency appears to stabilize marriage: breadwinning women were less likely to cheat. This is especially noteworthy given that breadwinning women may actually have more opportunities to engage in extramarital sex. Conceivably, breadwinning wives have more disposable income to conceal extramarital activity, and they may be more likely than economically dependent wives to work in male-dominated occupations that allow for frequent cross- gender interactions.

While it is possible that women with economically dependent husbands are simply more satisfied with their relationships than their economically dependent counterparts, and therefore less likely to engage in infidelity, the relationship between relative income and infidelity was not medi- ated by relationship satisfaction. Thus, a more plausible interpretation is that women’s increased fidelity is the product of women’s efforts to counteract their own gender deviance, validate their husbands’ masculinity, and safeguard their relationships.

[–]LordPeppino -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EulenWatcherEgalitarian feminist 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze24M Egalitarian 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EulenWatcherEgalitarian feminist 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze24M Egalitarian 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Maffioze24M Egalitarian 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]8m3gm60 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]woahisme111PSA: date within your league 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Preme2 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]woahisme111PSA: date within your league -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VehementlyDrawn 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]woahisme1111 points 3 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]VehementlyDrawn1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]woahisme1111 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Film20211 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]catchtowards12345Red Pill Man[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]woahisme111PSA: date within your league 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingsugar-pilled 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HungerISanEmotionPill Pilled Piller and Penis owner 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LowCredditTrans-Inclusive Radical Misogynist 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]New_Hat8820 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]_here_ok 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I think that's just a matter of time to oneself, the likelihood of a partner is to follow their spouse to work and how likely one is to follow their suspicions.

When a man makes significantly more or less then his spouse it is safe to assume that he has a lot of time to himself. (When I say time to himself or herself I mean time away from spouse not free time.)

If he takes the role of househusband then he can use the time his spouse is at work to cheat. If he is the breadwinner then during the time his spouse is at home he can use it to cheat.

Women will also do this. Husband is at work, potential time to cheat. If the husband is at home, potential time to cheat.

I think the main difference is that women tend to work less hours then men and that leads to the breadwinner coming home sooner. A cheater has less opportunities to cheat basically. Because a. the time away from their spouse is less and b. the spouse doesn't have as much time either.

All that's left is which sex is likely to suspect their partner of cheating, capability to act on that suspicion and in which situations would that suspicion arise.

[–]Ok_Smile_60 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Ok_Smile_60 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Enough_Chemistry3258 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Enough_Chemistry3258 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]EulenWatcherEgalitarian feminist 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Chemistry3258 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]angryearth😺multipass 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Chemistry3258 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]nemma8834/F/UK Married 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Maffioze24M Egalitarian 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have read the study and first I want to say respect to the authors because this seems to be one of the unfortunately not so frequent cases where a social science paper was written in a nuanced and intellectually honest way where bias was kept to a minimum.

I agree with most of its conclusions and its explanations except two things I have doubts about:

This is especially noteworthy given that breadwinning women may actually have more opportunities to engage in extramarital sex. Conceivably, breadwinning wives have more disposable income to conceal extramarital activity, and they may be more likely than economically dependent wives to work in male-dominated occupations that allow for frequent cross- gender interactions.

This take misses an important difference; men with high status are way more desirable than women with high status because of that status. When this is ignored you won't get a complete understanding of what is going on.

it is noteworthy that relationship satisfaction did not mediate the relationship between economic dependency and infidelity. According to the theory, overbenefiting (i.e., putting in less than one receives) is unpleasant, and infidelity provides over-benefited individuals with the opportunity to escape displeasure while proving their desirability. One possibility is that the relationship satisfaction variable did not capture this displeasure. Relationship satisfaction comprised two questions, one that asked how close respondents felt toward their partners and one that asked how much respondents felt their partner cared. One might feel close, and feel that one’s partner cares, yet still experience distress due to income inequity

Imo the relationship satisfaction variable did indeed not capture the displeasure (possible also caused by the woman losing respect for the man) not just because the questions were to limited but because I believe self-reported date on relationship satisfaction from men specifically is gonna be unreliable. When a man feels disrespected he will often not even be honest to himself and definitely not to someone surveying him. Men are taught to ignore their own feelings from a young age and especially when a woman is involved.

[–]Kipp-SkhoolRapskallion's twin brother 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prior_Discipline30851 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Expose any cheating spouse with proof only , Upgrade your credit Score.

I am recommending everyone to a very trusted, reliable and gifted hacker. She is competent, and provides excellent services. She is very affordable and charges way less, Contact

KITSORTS244 AT GMAIL DOT COM

Many services she can render include: Social Media Hack( Snapchat, WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook/Messenger, Twitter, Tiktok, Telegram Viber etc.), GPS Location Tracking, Recovering of lost bitcoin/ bitcoin account, Incoming calls Restriction, Intercepting and Retrieving Instant Messages, Grade Hacking, Credit Score Increase, USSD Control Commands, WhatsApp Spy, Viber Spy, Facebook/Messenger Spy, Skype Spy, Hacking into Databases of all kinds, Calendar Monitoring, Internet Usage Monitoring, Remotely Accessing SMS, Game Hacking and Cracking, Key Logging, Remote Email Spying, and more. What made me had trust in her was her offer of total Refund of any displeasing services but i didn't have to use that Choice. Contact her

KITSORTS244 AT GMAIL DOT COM

WHATSAPP: +1 (518) 336 5490

TELEGRAM: +1 (347) 504 1677

[–]Sea-Inspector88371 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]jimmiefan48foreverNo Pill “They taste gross” -6 points-5 points-4 points 3 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Early-Christmas-4742 17 points18 points19 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jxjkskkk -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EulenWatcherEgalitarian feminist 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]jimmiefan48foreverNo Pill “They taste gross” -10 points-9 points-8 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]liefelijkthat’s *Queen* Camilla to you, thank you very much[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

From the study:

For women, men’s economic dependency appears to stabilize marriage: breadwinning women were less likely to cheat. This is especially noteworthy given that breadwinning women may actually have more opportunities to engage in extramarital sex. Conceivably, breadwinning wives have more disposable income to conceal extramarital activity, and they may be more likely than economically dependent wives to work in male-dominated occupations that allow for frequent cross- gender interactions.

While it is possible that women with economically dependent husbands are simply more satisfied with their relationships than their economically dependent counterparts, and therefore less likely to engage in infidelity, the relationship between relative income and infidelity was not medi- ated by relationship satisfaction. Thus, a more plausible interpretation is that women’s increased fidelity is the product of women’s efforts to counteract their own gender deviance, validate their husbands’ masculinity, and safeguard their relationships.

[–]NationalistGoy1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze24M Egalitarian 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WishGullible5142 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jimmiefan48foreverNo Pill “They taste gross” 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Convinceparents 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WishGullible5142 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]jimmiefan48foreverNo Pill “They taste gross” -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]liefelijkthat’s *Queen* Camilla to you, thank you very much[S] 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]VehementlyDrawn -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Affectionate_Pen_623 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]badgersonice 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze24M Egalitarian -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]liefelijkthat’s *Queen* Camilla to you, thank you very much[S] 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze24M Egalitarian 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Haunting_Syllabub617 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Specialist-Action-33Magnet for lame modest women & PPD Jail Bait - 4 time felon 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]azurix1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]liefelijkthat’s *Queen* Camilla to you, thank you very much[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]azurix1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]liefelijkthat’s *Queen* Camilla to you, thank you very much[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

Men are more likely to cheat when they make significantly more or significantly less than their spouse. For women, breadwinning decreases their chances of cheating, while being a stay at home spouse increases it.

Comments

Looks like another futile attempt to brush off the uncomfortable "both men and women feel awkward when woman works and men stays at home" fact.