Having servants makes you happier

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/18/1706541114.full

No shit, someone alert Buckingham Palace.

SCIENCE.

 

Turns out, money can buy happiness.

 

You think Elon Musk launders his own underwear?

They say you all have the same number of hours in a day.

Bull-SHIT.

I’ve met these people who think their shit doesn’t stink.

These self help gurus don’t clean their own shithouse.

Yet they deflect and shame you like you’re lazy. Four Hour Workweek from Mr Expensive Tuition.

One of the most stressful life events, moving, can be ‘outsourced’!

https://paseattle.com/2016/08/20/moving-heres-personal-assistant-can-smooth-transition/

Why do you think they love immigrants so much?

Illegal wages – slave labour.

Nobody points out blatant classism.

Show me one working class politician.

 

Globalization exists so they can abuse foreigners across borders because abusing locals is more legally challenging.

 

Cinderella is literally about a woman marrying out of the need to do housework.

That’s the fairytale.

That’s the magical thing.

 

Give conservative women a housekeeper, dammit!

It’s cheaper than a divorce!

White woman isn’t a slave, the heartwarming folklore tale.

Buying Marital Bliss: Time-Saving Purchases Promote Relationship Satisfaction

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=53939

If it turns your head, “help” is why rich women have more energy for sex.

It isn’t the fucking spirulina smoothies.*

Most men don’t do manual labour anymore, most women still do. Studies only look at the middle class for this stuff.

They don’t get it. The woman on her feet for at least seven hours has it harder than the social-media browsing office worker. Who cleans the cleaner’s house? Why do women claim they can’t afford more children? When are men “run off their feet”? Why do women take longer to save for retirement while men work over-time, where are they, what are they doing in those prime dinnertime hours? Whose work uniform of clothing, haircare and make-up is more expensive? Whose ‘trims’ cost far more despite literally removing less hair per trip? Add up what women do against what they’re expected to do. It isn’t lazy.

Disagreements about chores are a primary source of relationship conflict: both men and women become frustrated working a “second shift” at home. Using data from nine studies of cohabitating working adults in committed relationships (N = 4,316), we provide the first empirical evidence that couples who make time-saving purchases in a typical month report greater relationship satisfaction. We also document why and when buying time promotes relationship satisfaction: Time saving purchases enable couples to spend more quality time together, protect couples from conflict, and are most likely to promote relationship satisfaction when couples are faced with controllable (vs. uncontrollable) stressors. These findings suggest a relatively simple solution to a critical source of marital conflict: spend money to buy time.

The Industrial Revolution caused a lot of divorces.

Suddenly, the sexes worked apart.

*Scum drinking scum.

https://www.livescience.com/48853-spirulina-supplement-facts.html

Teenagers used to work in place of immigrants but state schools refuse to let them go below the age of eighteen now. Also their minimum wage is lower, which is slavery. The anti-social habits of modern teens are the typical depressed habits of the unemployed, who feel useless.
Middle-class frat brats holding tiki torches can be laughed off. What terrifies the Left in its nightmares is a working class capitalist demo. Wages, work hours, immigrants being held above the law (protected class is against the tenet of blind justice). Offer all three and you’ll win any election.
UBI ignores how adult mortality is most predictive at retirement and how unemployed people are almost all depressed. This isn’t pocket money from parents, these are adults. Infantilization is an abuse tactic. The poor are already infantilized are not knowing what’s good for them, high time preference (unlike spoiled brats?) and degenerate sinners (criticism of welfare queens instead of deadbeat sperm donors, who made them).

Poor people binge-drink, middle-class people are alcoholics.
Poor people are crazy, middle-class people have intermittent explosive disorder.
Poor people are stupid, middle-class kids have dyslexia, ADD, on the non-existent “spectrum” everyone is on.*
Poor people are fat, middle-class people are victims of a sedentary office environment.
Poor rape victims must’ve been prostitutes, middle-class ones are real victims.etc.etc.etc.

*If everyone is on the DISABILITY spectrum, no-one is.
Logically, if one metric of psychiatry applies, so does IQ. Doesn’t that fit the symptoms better?

The sexist bias of infidelity stats

I wanted to post this.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/percent-of-female-infidelity-based-on-number-of-premarital-partners/

Alongside the male counterpart, which would be scientific.

One problem.

The male data doesn’t exist. Making the entire concept worthless for discussion. That isn’t science. That’s a tally chart. Numbers of douchebags in a club. Not science. No wider implication or logical meaning.

SMG understands the pain of women in STEM watching feminists talk about STEM

I wanted to study this. I wanted to compare this. Anyone discussing this subject based on that data isn’t even wrong.

You cannot claim anything about a population when you only study half of it.
Much medical data is based on male-only clinical trials. Also false. You can’t say anything about studying the female body – when you neglect to study the female body. redpills should know people are different (HBD), it would be like saying all men are Jack the Ripper, for an extreme example

Applied to this case, you cannot claim anything about the variables ‘studied’ (infidelity, premarital sex – a thing that requires two people) when the methodology wouldn’t be accepted in a science fair project.

I love this suit and everything about this demeanour

Does ANYONE have this data? 

ANYONE?

I’m not just bellyaching pointlessly, I really wanted the data and it pisses me off there are (((People))) who dare insult women and draw specious conclusions about avoiding us (MGTOW is male feminism, fish meet bicycle), on the basis of something that has been covered up in men, by other men*. They have combined statistics of temptation elsewhere, but NOTHING on the consequences of male, pre-marital sex. 

If the topic is ridiculous, you shouldn’t have studied it in anyone.

Science requires a balanced standard. Balanced = both.
If you studied bee stings, that doesn’t qualify you to say wasps don’t sting or that wasps are somehow better in light of a study that …doesn’t study them. Non sequitur. Deliberate fraud.

Oh what, do you think they just happened not to ask any men? By complete coincidence? But sex was a variable in report of this tally chart? [Literally if you look it’s just a tally chart, but I’ve seen the manosphere treat this one biased data collection with the reverence of scientism**, so I checked it out to learn something… Tally charts are not science. You need to do more calculations with the data e.g. significance, but those cannot be done without a sound method. Numbers don’t make it good math, and they bang on about superior male IQ too, Jesus…. no wonder they’re a laughing stock.]

inb4 triggered at a word feminists also use because they colonized simple English

Sexist because it blames one sex but acts like the other, also complicit in said act, is blameless. Pretty straight definition there.

** behold idiots of reddit and the people beaten by their experience

“A man’s sexual history has no effect on his marital happiness” he claims baselessly. No effect, the title says. No study though, meaning it’s your opinion.

A selection of comments.

I love how it’s always a fault with the women.
There are two people in every relationship, but the men aren’t to blame for any problems? They don’t have to take responsibility for how it turns out? Their sex lives “have no effect” on how happy their marriages are (even though the studies prove otherwise)? Nah… just the women. Those bitches are all the same, and they’re the ones who fuck it up.”
“Also “practice makes perfect” is a fallacy when it comes to sex. You don’t need a ton of partners to be good at sex, in fact some of the sluttiest girls I’ve fucked were the worst. Everyone’s body is different. Knowing what the average person will like because you’ve practiced with many can make you pretty good in bed, but nothing like learning how to fuck one person really well.”
People are different ~ HBD, common sense, reality.
“… No? Cocks don’t leach potential from women like vampires. Sleeping with people does not limit your ability to love.” They claim this about women implicitly, as a sexual purity – moral purity argument, but not about men, because male sexual misdeeds are twisted as ‘experience’ and ‘prowess’.
Ultimate point: “One could ask the exact same question of men.”
“Where is the proof that man’s sexual history has no effect on his martial happiness?”

Nowhere. In fact, the opposite.

eyeroll jessica jones omg wtf shut up

If they ignore Burden of Proof, it goes away!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201304/the-lingering-psychological-effects-multiple-sex-partners
The available data does link marital unhappiness with male pre-marital sex but I was looking for infidelity risk or marital stability data.
It’s all about WOMEN.
family-studies.org/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
Evil demon Liliths! Vagina magic making men propose!
It isn’t even linear! There isn’t even a clear correlation here! In a female-only sample?
“previously, women with two partners prior to marriage had the highest divorce rates.”
Less =/= better. aka redditfags are wrong and cannot read data as well as space memes
It’s really about an extraneous variable, religiosity.
How ironic that atheist men are rubbing this in the nose of Christian women… while claiming Original Sin (which is really Adam’s fault for not warning Eve, as previously covered).

So much category error, very wrong.

Women do this, THEREFORE Men blah blah blah.
Yet they’re also saying men and women are utterly, completely different ,polar really, which you’d think makes a category error impossible…. sure, if you have a brain.

re female promiscuity, as the only one studied:
“Having two partners may lead to uncertainty, but having a few more apparently leads to greater clarity about the right man to marry. The odds of divorce are lowest with zero or one premarital partners, but otherwise sowing one’s oats seems compatible with having a lasting marriage.”
“This is the result most readers of this brief probably expected: a lot of partners means a lot of baggage, which makes a stable marriage less tenable. It’s also entirely likely that the correlation is spurious, the product of certain personal characteristics. For instance, people who suffered childhood sexual abuse are more likely to have extensive sexual histories. Childhood abuse also increases the odds of a problematic marriage.”
These variables also apply to men. Someone, please study them.
It’s about marital stability, not blaming the women before you’ve even married Ms Imaginary in your head.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/sex-marriage-premarital-sex-divorce-rate-sex-partners-first-comes-loves-then-390269
*Nicholas H. Wolfinger, a professor in the University of Utah’s Department of Family and Consumer Studies and an adjunct professor in the Department of Sociology, in a statement.
Wolfinger looked at the five-year divorce rate for over 10,000 women, and took into consideration how many sexual partners the women reported having prior to the marriage. ”
Sociology, men as nameless (partner???) victim. A man only studying the blame of women. Not biased at all.
As the science publications overtly finger-points;
So, what does this all mean?

Wolfinger’s study has several limitations. It did not take into account the sexual behavior of men in marriages, and its effects on divorce.

Rather [they are being sarcastic there], women’s sexual behaviors were closely observed, and linked to high or low divorce rates. This can portray women’s premarital sexual behaviors as solely responsible for helping or harming a marriage.”
It goes on to connect ‘experience’, as in prowess, with marital unhappiness. That or fear of commitment.

To take another topic, both the unattractive and attractive are studied and COMPARED.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/attractive-people-success-statistics/
lookism has more data than this topic

Academese translation.

limitations – it’s bullshit folks
into account – no science here
men – also involved
effects – causes
rather – to cover his own fuck-ups
closely observed – blamed for everything
portray – lie and gaslight, frame
solely responsible – the problem and let people like him off completely

I’m tired of adults blaming other adults for their mistakes.

If the woman was Satan you shouldn’t have married her.
Nobody is forcing you to marry.
How you behave counts, marriage isn’t the finish line but the starting one.