Study: Women like men (not testosterone)

TLDR: Looks count, bitch!

Chants: D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A.

Shall we?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180507074239.htm

“Data from almost 600 participants show that women’s perceptions of male attractiveness do not vary according to their hormone levels, in contrast with some previous research.”

Told. You. So.

A better question, how did I know this?

Years ahead of time.

(Apart from my own sample size of numero uno).

They aren’t controlling for male beauty!

In an ATTRACTIVENESS study.

It isn’t just something nurture, perceived, externally, it’s innate, it’s nature!

It’s BONE STRUCTURE.

HORMONE CYCLES DON’T DAMAGE THEIR EYE SIGHT!

The natural looks of a man draw the woman, it’s genetic fitness FFS!

(And no, packing on the muscle doesn’t really change your face).

“”We found no evidence that changes in hormone levels influence the type of men women find attractive,” say lead researcher Benedict C. Jones of the University of Glasgow.

You know, I know this might sound controversial, but someone told me once that, well, water is wet? Big if true.

Who might women find more attractive?

The richer ones? The weirder ones?

or

THE MORE ATTRACTIVE ONES.

[Fuck’s sake, people.]

“This study is noteworthy for its scale and scope — previous studies typically examined small samples of women using limited measures,” Jones explains. “With much larger sample sizes and direct measures of hormonal status, we weren’t able to replicate effects of hormones on women’s preferences for masculine faces.””

With a solid method, lookism is real.

Accept it.

We don’t like a higher-T lesbian compared to a low-T man, do we?

LOGICALLY.

They’re scared to offend ugly men. It’s the current year.

Your beauty is objective and the opposite sex care.

Sorry if the social construct upsets you but we can’t help evolution, cry in a safe space free of GI Joes to trigger you about your terrible stature.

Racist vegan white men countersignalling

http://reason.com/blog/2018/03/23/vegan-men-masculinity-sociologist

It was all in the title but OK, click.

When women have a special thing, we hate when men steal it.

e.g.

doing our hair

painting our nails

wearing dresses

wearing makeup.

That’s our thing. It’s characteristic. It’s disturbing to see men in our clothes.

Imagine a woman in a Kiss the Cook apron. Something is off there.

Men don’t do well on vegan diets obviously but the countersignal of “I can afford to” is a genetic signal to personal adaptiveness. The study is correct but the conclusions too PC to apply to real life. It’s the dietary equivalent of a peacock. Only a person without a real job (some desk jockey in media) would be able to afford the caloric drop and the nutrient loss (and the expensive food). It’s the middle class white man’s diet.

This writer doesn’t know how to write about science but I won’t bother punching at him. e.g. For this, the sample size is actually large in the field. Shh.
There are no blanket critiques, we have equations.

Click to access samplesize1.pdf

That ^ was on the first line of the first page of Google. STFU with that one.
I tend to kick sociologists, admittedly but I hate loud idiots. We all do.

Stop copy pasting criticisms of one study off reddit and randomly trying to stick it on another. Fake intellectuals keep doing this and it’s annoying. Each study is unique, like the wrinkles on your balls.

It would be like pointing at every painting and calling it a Picasso.
We call tell you’re wrong instantly. Please stop.

The problem with the internet is there will always be someone smarter than you reading your bullshit. Usually me. Angry tea-drinking.

But the study is basically angry that men still think like men even when they’re acting like women. It’s like they’re mocking us as stupid but also milking the virtue signal we own for male status points. It’s true and it is unfair but so what?

If something is the smart thing to do, the reasons don’t really matter. But it’s a way of framing their diet as an achievement of intellect, holding themselves up while pushing emotional people down, as if all humans aren’t emotional. There’s a good point in there.

Emotional reasoning exists, it isn’t an oxymoron. You could call it morality.

We are not machines, being purely rational is called being a monster. We shouldn’t be sociologically rewarding very cold people for being nice when it suits.

The study is correct. I don’t like it, but there’s solid reasoning.

I don’t care but there are always those sad people who view everything as a battle of the sexes when we all live in the same society.

It isn’t a sexed choice, it’s food. That’s the point.

It’s like vegan men are saying to vegan women “anything you can do, I can do better.”

No, it’s the exact same thing.
You come at it from opposite sides: animal welfare and scientific consumption.

Both are important but the men are trying to over-value themselves and mansplain for a sexual edge, I guess? That’s annoying. That’s really insulting, when you think about  it.

Like, “don’t worry, kitten, I know why you should eat that better than you do.”
For an opposite comparison, imagine if a woman told you that you were crying wrong.
We don’t do it, we could.

The obnoxious men are putting new people off, like tumblr fans ruining Sherlock.

“I’m a better vegan than you.” No veganer than thou intellectualizations. This isn’t a sexual thing, stop trying to make it a sexual thing.

I disagree with the practice of veganism but cannot fault the logic of this study.

Boys’ hedonism ruins them as men

I’ve been looking for this.

Yes, there’s even a GDP difference between Christians. They don’t dare mention other religions or the GDP connection to IQ (Protestants socially select the smartest workers to breed with, a “helpmate”, Catholics do not). That’s why there was a British Empire but the Vatican just sits there, pouting. Catholicism killed the Romans.

I think daytime alcohol consumption might factor in though.

Since there’s no such thing as a teenager, why don’t we hold teens responsible for their hobby choices? This is the time of greatest potency in learning and you can cherrypick me all the studies about response time you want, those exist in a vacuum. As in, when compared with any other use of time, including SLEEP, it’s the leisure equivalent of brain rot.

Imagine a little kid trying to convince you that because one sweet won’t kill you, they can live off sweets (this is also what vegans do).

And all around the internet, grown men with the same vices complain.

Why can’t we do anything?

Well, it’s a little like sawing off your feet at the shins then entering a marathon.
It isn’t that the other guy or girl has an advantage, you spoiled yourself.

In a healthy society, the words Spoil Yourself would garner the reaction of Kill Yourself.

You can’t blame adults or society for compulsive addictions like picking up the game controller to escape reality the fifth time that week.

Why not exercise? I don’t mean lifting weights, that’s bad for you. Human joints can’t take it, they’ll be the old geezers in wheelchairs while the rest can still walk. The price of vanity.

I mean gentle, everyday exercise our forefathers got by running errands.

You have every right to be lazy. However, if your brain learns nothing else, one day you won’t be able to turn it off and whose fault is that?

You gonna blame Ubisoft?

Don’t get me started on the damage of porn.

It’s worse than the pop music. And you think that’s repetitive.

If I forced you to watch some independent French film involving a tunnel for hours every week, you’d want to shoot me.

Involve a pair of tits, on the other hand…

and this is without going into the illegality of minors viewing such material, the grooming aspect.

Grooming for what? Well, that’s the wrong question. Grooming what out?

Ambition.

Ask any man who doesn’t really use porn or never did rely on it (the toxic 3D video kind), and men who broke the severe psychological addiction to its release (everything bad for men is scientifically referred to as self soothing) and you’ll find they have more energy. Freud knew this, which begs the question why was free porn allowed?

In an age of nuclear war, the world doesn’t need men. It doesn’t need soldiers. Men who are meek – capable of aggression but also capable of self control – so it beats it out of them. Or it ingeniously makes them beat it out of themselves.

Anything heavy on the endorphins is not good for you.

The scourge has a name but it goes disused – hypofrontality.

Vices do not just get a mention because everyone is a wet blanket. They destroy an individual’s life and that’s fine, they chose it and nobody cares. You wanted to ruin your own life, okay. However, they tend to spread like diseases. The wages of sin we see in modernity – bad fathers  > bad families > bad children > bad economy > bad marriages > bad children > bad fathers.

If men want to lead society, they must first reject vice. The cycle of Empires is clear about this. There is no way around it. That’s the fee, anyone can buy power if they suffer for it first. It’s just that men have the best natural advantage to grab for it – if they don’t androgynise themselves with destructive hobbies first.

The destructive hobby is a 20th century invention.

Think about that.

Prior to that hobbies were either useful, fruitful (including money) or self-creative.

(Exception: the original feminists maintained little girls were wasting themselves on pointless occupations, busywork.)

Hobbies used to be lifestyle choices. There is no such thing as a suicidal lifestyle choice.

The men did well out of that. By keeping teenage men out of the workplace too, it is great for the old men who couldn’t keep up but wastes their time when at least apprenticeships or some part-time work are vital to retain brain functions.

One of the biggest false takeaways from this: let’s make learning fun! – lazy teachers everywhere

You can’t throw ipads at this problem until it goes away.

Learning is not fun. It is a job. It is hard. It is work. That is its value.

LEARNING IS WORK.

Don’t fear work. Don’t lie to them. Don’t make it seem easy. Have faith in them. Stop infantilizing everything.

Let the lazy kids drop out and ruin themselves pre-emptively (13/14 should do it) than hold back the rest. Head Start failed. You can’t make everyone college material.

Asia is pounding us in league tables because they still learn by rote, the Victorian method that worked. It isn’t some patronizing fun task. You take it seriously, it’s a job. Stop measuring little kids like Nordic countries do or they’ll give up too soon. Pay students, a meagre amount, maybe means-tested. Take education seriously or standards seriously fall.

This includes: fire all teachers below a certain IQ. They make terrible role models. There used to be morality requirements of a teacher, to prove character. Bring those back.

No mixed schools. Lower performance, optimize for performance.

Oh, and PE classes are ridiculous. Why should little girls be doing army drills, no wonder they become mannish? It releases testosterone.

Bonus observation:

The American economy will never recover until the video game industry dies. Gamergate happens, a lot of men opt out of new releases and a short time later the economy is doing better. Coincidence, friends?

Stupid “men” learn to consider success in a fake world as real. It’s kinda like status Communism, they get all the shots of adrenaline and endorphins pumping, so why try? So why seek that the hard, real way? The biochemistry makes it feel real already.

Old men, dead babies

Harsh title? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

Both parental ages factor into miscarriage risk, equally.

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/17/6/1649/2919231
Miscarriages occur in teens too so I dunno who is dumb enough to rely on this one variable alone.

37 is the age when maternal age starts to matter for women (depending on family history) if you look at the shift in gradient on the charts (barely any change before) but 40 is the huge risk age in both men and women, as in this study.
“However, the increase in risk was much greater for couples composed of a woman aged ≥35 years and of a man aged ≥40 years.”
Is Human Reproduction not a prestigious enough journal?

The 37/40 thing:
Age and the Risk of Miscarriage
It isn’t sufficiently studied in men but data on paternal age as a factor keeps coming out.
Looks like you can’t just blame the woman again. Takes two to make a baby.
“a dramatic rise starting after age 37, with the steepest increase occurring after age 40.”
“The man’s age matters too. Having a partner over the age of 40 significantly raises the chances of a miscarriage.” Nature doesn’t like old, mutant sperm either.
“Over half of miscarriages are caused by genetic abnormalities.” It isn’t a bad thing, really.
“On average, a woman in her early 20s will have chromosomal abnormalities in about 17% of her eggs” So that’s a really terrible metric considering humans are human. There is always risk.
It’s worse in men than women, so I’m hardly favouring women by opposing this reductionism.
“And as men age, chromosomal defects and point mutations–changes to a single nucleotide in their DNA–become increasingly common.”
Where minors are raped and studied, they tend not to do well either.

Memorize that chart.

A teenager is as bad (at-risk) as a woman with an additional two decades.
You’re still debating less than one percentage point of difference though. Are you autistic?

It’s an interesting variable but hardly everything.

An IVF study


Note: Again, 37 is the magic number.
“While IVF helps many couples overcome their fertility problems, it largely cannot overcome the age-related increase in genetic abnormalities. Without genetically normal sperm and eggs, a viable pregnancy is impossible.”
“Despite this problem, several studies involving couples discordant for age now paint a clear and consistent picture: older prospective fathers raise the risk of miscarriage by about 25-50%. One study found an a 60% increase in the odds of a miscarriage if the father was over 40. Another found a roughly 25% increase in the risk of miscarriage for fathers over the age of 35.”

I guess the Have it All guys can’t read.


As you can clearly see, getting a teenager up the duff would actually be worse.
All things considered.
There are plenty of studies on this but what’s the point?
They basically show the same thing.
No doubt they’ll try to cherry-pick something else to draw focus back onto Boo Women.

A little more then I’ll give up and hope men who value their health listen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809297/
“Trends towards increasing paternal age are being observed in the UK as well as USA, due to delay in marriages for attaining better socio-economic stability.”
Fucking feminists. /sarc

Advancing paternal age has been shown to result in subfertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, late foetal death, preterm delivery, low birth weight), birth defects (cleft lip and palate, congenital heart defects), achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfect , Apert’s syndrome, schizophrenia, childhood cancer (brain cancer, retinoblastoma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) and adult cancer (breast, prostate and nervous system).3 Possible mechanisms for these problems include single gene mutations, autosomal dominant diseases, structural abnormalities in sperm chromosomes (e.g., reciprocal translocations) and multiple genetic / chromosomal defects. DNA damage in sperm of men aged 36 – 57 years was found to be 3 times that of men less than 35 years”

Good luck blaming females for that.

“The present study has demonstrated that the paternal age more than 35 years was an independent risk factor associated with spontaneous first trimester miscarriages. In order to eliminate the effect of maternal age, which is itself a known risk factor, we selected women between the age of 20 – 35 years, as this is considered to be ideal age for child bearing.”

Yes. 20-35 is the ideal range.


The reproductive system needs time to become stable, women take longer to physically mature (completed by the late twenties).

Paternal age is a factor in disease and infertility, independently.

“They recommend counselling of men more than 40 years of age when seeking pregnancy.
I’m not gloating, my heart goes out to men who waited too long and have to raise, at best, a sickly child. They need to be warned of the risks of waiting just like women do.

“Kleinhaus K et al have studied various age groups and have found father’s age more than 40 years to be significantly associated with spontaneous miscarriage.13 Slama R has also studied age ranges and have found that risk of spontaneous miscarriage showed linear increase in the hazard of spontaneous miscarriage in male age between 20 and 45 years. They also observed that hazard ratio was highest with male age > 45 years compared with 18 – 24 years (HR = 1.87, 95% CI, 1.01 – 3.44).1 Others have used paternal age between 30 to more than 50 years.”

The male system matures before the female, (18, mid-20s). If we’re being nubile about social policy, the wife should be older slightly.

So the ideal female age for motherhood is 20-35, but as we see here, ideal male age for fatherhood is 18-24, up to 30 if we’re pushing it. You’d expect the male age to be earlier since they have more DNA damage over time and shorter lifespans combined with earlier physical maturation.

Biology? Sorry?

Freezing sperm doesn’t last by the way. They go off.

“Studies on paternal age and fertility suggest that male biological clock does exist. Similar to women, advancing paternal age results in negative effects on reproductive outcomes.”
“Klonoff-Cohen also found decreasing pregnancy rate with male age. Pregnancy rate was 53% for men less than or equal to 35 years, 35% for 36 – 40 years and 13% for men > 40 years.”
Again, 35 seems to be the turning point for male infertility. Almost equal to the female 37 downturn but the male peak is earlier because the (greater) damage is cumulative (see next quote) and gamete production is ongoing.

Why do you oldies wanna marry young unless you’re admitting there’s a deleterious effect to counteract?
In future, more studies will look at differences in the under-35 men, between, say, 18-24, 25-29 and 30-35.

We postulate from these studies that damage to sperm accumulates over a man’s lifetime. Sperm making cells continue to divide throughout the man’s life, increasing the chances of mutations. Impaired DNA replication and repair mechanisms and increased DNA fragmentation.
DNA damage could also result from reactive oxygen species formed by alcohol, nicotine and drug abuse.”
The wages of sin.
“According to Aitken RJ’s study, male genital tract infection can result in DNA damage in male germ cells and therefore, increase the rates of miscarriage.”
Oh look, male chastity was logical.

“CONCLUSION
Paternal age more than 35 years was found to be an independent risk factor in spontaneous first trimester miscarriages.”

They haven’t really studied younger in sufficient detail to claim that’s fine though, findings like those mentioned above show <30 is ideal in both sexes, to start.

https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/16/1/65/705193
There a section called “Paternal age and infections”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125283/
“In this Opinion piece we argue that the tendency of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to cause infertility is likely to reflect an evolutionary adaptation of the pathogens. We use an evolutionary perspective to understand how STI pathogens may benefit from reducing fertility in the host and what clues the mechanisms of pathogenesis can offer to the evolution of this ability. While we concentrate on human infections, we will also briefly discuss the broader context of STI-induced infertility in other species.

STIs are a common cause of human infertility worldwide…”
No, men can’t sow any wild oats.

No such thing.

“Reduced fertility and an increased risk of complications during and following pregnancy both contribute to reduced reproductive success in the host—and may benefit the sexually transmitted pathogen by destabilizing partnerships and increasing promiscuity.”
The microbes in your urethra are thinking for you.

Not even your dick.

This does explain gay culture. Wow, gay germ theory gets everywhere. This also explains their fetish for fluids and pozzing parties. At least they’re somewhat aware of it.

“Not only are highly promiscuous individuals exposed to a higher risk of acquiring STIs, but STIs may also actively generate hubs of transmission in a vicious circle of promiscuity and infertility: in traditional societies,”
It’s anti-natal and terrible for society.
You can’t leave behind a life of sin.

Also liberal fertility rates make a lot more sense right about now. It is a bug, and it is a feature!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pass-it-on-children-can-inherit-herpes/
STDs can be passed on at conception, which explains the first trimester paternal age miscarriage finding, the older you get, the more diseases infect the body.
A direct study hasn’t been conducted yet – sexual infection history and miscarriage.
Could it find funding?

Doubtful. Even if it looked at both parents.

Onward, to computer modelling!

Sim City; Sin City Edition.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/12/stis-may-have-driven-ancient-humans-to-monogamy-study-says
“Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Bauch and his colleague Richard McElreath from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, describe how they built a computer model to explore how bacterial sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis that can cause infertility, affected populations of different sizes. The authors considered both small hunter gatherer-like populations of around 30 individuals and large agricultural-like populations of up to 300 individuals, running 2,000 simulations for each that covered a period of 30,000 years.

In small polygynous communities, the researchers found that outbreaks of such STIs were short-lived, allowing the polygynous population to bounce back. With their offspring outnumbering those from monogamous individuals, polygyny remained the primary modus operandi.

[coughs in r-selection]

But when the team looked at the impact of STIs on larger polygynous societies, they found a very different effect. Instead of clearing quickly, diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea became endemic. As a result, the population plummeted and monogamists, who did not have multiple partners, became top dog.

[hums in Malthusian tones]

The team also found that while monogamists who didn’t ‘punish’ polygyny could gain a temporary foothold, it was monogamists that ‘punished’ polygyny – often at their own expense of resources – that were the most successful.

[religion is evolutionally fit]

[K-types FTW and for discrimination based on self-protection]

While the form of such punishments were not specified in the model, Bauch suggests fines or social ostracisation among the possible penalties.

[stop paying for their babies and STD treatments? FIRSTLY?]
[kinda like how prison was meant to keep you from breeding – a genetic death penalty – until you dummies invented welfare for their women and conjugal rights, making the whole thing useless]

The results, they say, reveal that STIs could have played a role in the development of socially imposed monogamy that coincided with the rise of large communities that revolved around agriculture.”

Socially imposed?

Well, he had to get published I suppose.

The social/cultural clearly comes after the rest. Like, the die-offs?

Civilization has and always will be K-selected. 

Video: How promiscuity hurts men

Society still holds polite people to standards but they need to be tightened up.
Anyone thinking they can have it all has been lied to, male or female.
That lifestyle makes you more isolated and easier to sell things to, to fill the void love should take.

A lot of men are gonna die alone, when they didn’t expect to. This will make them bitter bachelor types. This isn’t the worst thing, it emulates post-war conditions because only those who want to breed, will be allowed. Those who miss the boat would probably make poor fathers regardless. Men refuse to drop their standards once they realize their own, aged league for marriage after dating/fucking around a lot (The Tinder Effect), spoiling them.

Part of the reason? A completely delusional hold of reality. They become feral and believe women find the aggression attractive or hostility wise or whatever is going on up there…. they’re not smart.

A fine example is shaming Southern for not being married. I don’t even like Southern but holy cow did I balk. With friends like those? Well, most of the men complaining… are super-single, they can’t even date, so if you suddenly can’t be traditional before you get married (no, all the people I’ve seen were born that way) then it’s pot-kettle-black, innit?

Like, what is the line here? No singles allowed? Really? Society never operated like that. What are they thinking because it seems to be a feminazi=single train of thought and most of the world just finds that weird.

Or is it that they won’t listen to a woman until she rushes a man, ANY man with a functioning pee-pee, to the altar, because clearly such a woman would be a good person, a balanced person and have her head screwed on straight?

Women?

Good women are rarer than ever before so most will marry.
There will always be exceptions, but the same could be said of good men. It’s a slim margin of “Never found the right one” and they shouldn’t be shamed for it. But by the time a man’s clock loudly ticks at around 40, he’s old enough to be a grandfather and no sane woman would prefer him. Money can’t make up for autism and schizophrenia rates, sorry?

The sexual revolution was great for men. Young men. It ages old men out by the ick factor. Ick, he could be my dad.  Ask any divorced man on the dating scene. In the olden days, maybe a compliment… maybe. Nowadays? Who wants to be the trophy wife of a creep? Who wants to know he’ll die decades before us and we’ll be alone in the very years we need a spouse the most (after kids moved out)?

That’s how women think.

Assortative pairing evolved for very good reasons.
Men ignore it at their peril.

Divorces are caused by many things but disconnect in life stage is huge.
Ideal age gap is five. F-I-V-E. Lowest odds of divorce I saw were male is 5 years older than the female. Same age is acceptable, a couple of years more preferable. The woman needs to respect his maturity but not lose that cultural connection of growing up with the same references.

Stress proteins and heart disease

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21348724_Stress_proteins_and_cardiovascular_disease

Heart problems are basically the indicator of male mortality, mind.

Type A men

stop getting your anime panties in a bunch?

Wrath kills.

It explains why married men live longer. We tell you to slow your fucking roll.

In addition, members of this family have essential roles in protein processing and assembly of macromolecular complexes, and in regulation of gene expression, even in unstressed cells. 

Because a day of rest is for weaklings, right?

BTW yes this is the epigenetic trigger for stressed population models.
The out-of-touch politicians eat like Kings. Champagne socialists?
What happened to the French again?

Don’t comfort eat either because you tell yourself you’re stressed and deserve it.

Drop the starvation pattern, guys, you are not competing on ANTM.

Stress is biochemical!

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258213031_Food_restriction_by_intermittent_fasting_induces_diabetes_and_obesity_and_aggravates_spontaneous_atherosclerosis_development_in_hypercholesterolaemic_mice

Contrary to our expectation, epididymal and carcass fat depots and adipocyte size were significantly enlarged by 15, 72 and 68 %, respectively, in the IF mice compared with the ad libitum-fed mice. Accordingly, plasma levels of leptin were 50 % higher in the IF mice than in the ad libitum-fed mice. In addition, the IF mice showed increased plasma levels of total cholesterol (37 %), VLDL-cholesterol (195 %) and LDL-cholesterol (50 %). 

Science.

Ask any rich woman about cortisol fat, this is not news to us. Higher testosterone makes this problem worse. Have you seen the way manly women expand once they hit menopause?
Manly – by build and bone structure. Not height or race. Does she have a waist or is she just skinny? Does she have bone structure or a manjaw? Prime example – Jolie. What does she do? Starve herself to stay thin, stressing out her body more. It’s a cycle.

Have you looked up leptin?

Obese people have more leptin, it suppresses hunger. The fact you don’t feel hungry starving is a red flag. Your body’s signals are wrong. Women feel full sooner, because we’re meant to have a higher body fat percentage and therefore more leptin is produced.

Never listen to the dregs

comment credit _svd

Why would you listen to drags on anything, anyway? Majority of modern men are shite, that’s why historically 60% of our kind (and 20% women) never procreated during sexual free market of pre-agriculture, and that’s why we are so mad about forming hierarchies. But now, we are weak, spoiled brats, even the best of us. And of course that means that women are shite too. You can’t lower the standards for half the species; men and women constantly involved into mutual conditioning.

It is too easy for the boys. Boys must never have it easy, or they will stay boys forever.

We shouldn’t listen to the dregs and keep our banners high. They always back-rationalise their losership. “Women are not ladies, hence I’m not interested, hence the fact that they ignore me is ok, because I wouldn’t accept their attention anyway”. Yeah, right.

Women are no longer obedient housewives from 1950s, rushing to make you that sandwich wearing only an apron (you can remember your grandma, right? Was she ANYWHERE close to that?)? I hear you pain, pal, you being a man from 1950s, who muddled through Great Depression with a wife and three kids, and now got back straight from your voluntary shift on Normandy beaches with a shrapnel in you hand only to see no decent women around!

Weak; and soft; and spoiled; and bitter; and entitled. All of us.

I finally worked through my backlog of comments from pre-hols. Another few slipped through the suspicious net.

The majority were lovely but the few crazies Missing The Point remind me why I hate the internet. No test for use. It’s always the posts about psychiatry and abuse that bring out the crazies. Never post about BPD or ADD or domestic abuse or sexual harassment unless you’re prepared to confront true cray.

It’s worth it for the smart ones.

I commented: They refuse to accept the duties with maturity. Adulthood means parenthood. Ready to screw, ready to follow through.

_svd

Well, The Pill and abortion tipped the balance here.

But then again it only applies if you are a “tis not fair!!!!!1!” kind of … ma… male.

My thoughts on this: men rarely have any deep ambitions of our own to follow and mature on the way. Most often, we have to be pushed by our needs, maturing during interaction with harsh environment (i.e. mass-poverty until 60s or so) and by fulfilling enforced obligations (early marriage as a social expectation; caring about your elders and siblings – and of course of yourself).

But now there’s nothing of it left. What’s in place though is:
* parental support well into late 20s – because your parents only have you – and maybe one more, but not 12; and they can afford to work in their 60s. Mine kicked me out of the door at 15 (to Uni), and stop paying my rent at 19, when I took a part-time job.
* sexual liberation: she’ll put out for nice set of pecs and abs; you don’t have to really be masculine, just apply some masculinity make up – fake self-confidence, learned ZFG attitude and ripped muscles from local gym. She’ll see through it after a month, sure, but you’d be tapping next ass by then. All in all – no commitment have to be paid to acquire sex. Girls screwed the role of being the gatekeepers to sex with nice “if you want to be a ‘housewife’ in your 30s, you’ll have to start with ‘ho’ in your teens” model they’ve been provided with by “society”.
* massive welfare state that picks up the smithereens. People are bailed out of the consequences of their bad choices – so they keep doing more o them.

You need to add some real stress to the system to change the pattern. And it will probably take a few decades.

The fake male co-founder

https://www.fastcompany.com/40456604/these-women-entrepreneurs-created-a-fake-male-cofounder-to-dodge-startup-sexism

That is one interesting social experiment.

To state the obvious.

Misogynistic men only trust other men with their money.

It’s wrong but they have every right, because it’s their money.

The Chinese rent white men for their privilege.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/29/china.rent.white.people/index.html

Studies have shown competence is assumed where it is undeserved.

Blame stock images IDK.

Such men consistently over-estimate their competence.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-28/confessions-of-a-confident-mediocre-man/8562708

Surely it’s the arrogance effect? In the modern world we call this vice a virtue.

“a natural tendency to overrate their past performance on maths tasks by 30 per cent”

It’s terrifying how many men rate themselves as good at maths and then I have to explain 12yo level shit.

This finding is old. There are also far more compulsive liars in the male group, which somewhat explains it. In their minimizing terms, this is bluffing, like lying on a CV (illegal).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

OLD.

These people are the reason we blind exams. These people.

Like Is she flirting? studies all over again. Men don’t really do meta-cognition, by comparison.

This is why we have all the psychometrics. Either you can do it or GTFO.

The masculine traits are the capitalist ones: taking risks, being rude or arrogant, stepping on others, ruthless ambition, Crusaderism, many that are probably antisocial if not tempered by other stuff.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12848221

“A meta-analysis of 45 studies of leadership styles showed that women tend to exhibit many of the character traits associated with effective leadership — such as effective communication, a tendency to empower subordinates, and creative problem solving — and are more likely to adopt effective leadership styles than men.”

They’re selecting the cocky guy who relies on underlings to do his work for him. No wonder so many companies are tanking. Everyone, male or female, hates them. They’re drains, they parasite off the productive. A minority in every group or company do the bulk of the work, remember.

The problem is seeing masculinity as successful without anything to back it up on the project.

We need to upgrade our primal brain that says this man is leading us into battle.

Another part of the problem is seeing everything as gendered.

So there’s no Scientists trying to make the world a better place. Yay!

There’s male scientists trying to make the world a better place.

….

OK, everyone else go home and fuck the cure for cancer?

Like, what do you hope to achieve here? Rah-rahing your pompoms for part of the group?

Why do they have to do that? Ruin everything?

Supposedly, accounting for this bias statistically (with mathematical models and quotas) makes companies more efficient and meritocratic.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/workplace-gender-quotas-incompetence-efficiency-business-organisations-london-school-economics-lse-a7797061.html
“Quotas can work to weed out incompetent men.”

Everyone should be overjoyed by that.

Less stupid people with power, who cares if they have a banana or fig down there?
You’d have to be really insecure to identify strongly with someone who shares a single pair of chromosomes.

HBR has noted incompetent men being promoted on the basis of bravado is an issue for companies.
https://hbr.org/2013/08/why-do-so-many-incompetent-men
Bravado and popularity over actual performance metrics.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/men-and-women-biased-about-studies-stem-gender-bias-opposite-directions/
“The new study’s authors reasoned that men especially might devalue the evidence because it threatens the legitimacy of their status in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Men might also be critical because of prior beliefs that gender bias is not a problem in STEM.”
But they’re proving any bias by believing that female competence is a fairytale.
Those women take exactly the same exams.
Oh, it hurts their ego? Broflakes.

“Men rated the research quality of the abstract less favorably than did women in both samples. This gender gap was especially large for STEM faculty, potentially suggesting that evidence of bias might threaten men in STEM seeking to retain their status.”
“When reading these results, a male scientist might think, “oh my gosh…if we’re going to fix this equality issue, that almost necessarily means that there’s going to be fewer opportunities for men,” said Ian Handley, lead author of the new PNAS paper and associate professor of psychology at Montana State. Handley suggested that discounting evidence more likely reflects a subtle, unconscious process than overt sexism.”
Read Freud, there’s no subtle.
They just lie about it.
The depressing thing is that STEM helps everyone and there’s literally a shortage of talent.
We can’t afford to lose any talent.
People who took it for the money though, can fuck right off.

“This mixed literature tempers the paper’s claims about strong gender bias. But obviously, the paper’s central goal was not to systematically review literature on gender bias, but rather to present studies of reactions to evidence of bias.”
“Based on the best current data, remaining challenges include sexual harassment, bias in teaching evaluations and science mentoring, and gender stereotypes about innate genius and creativity.”
That last one is part of the Genius Famine.

Women can’t be the ‘crazy’ sex and also suddenly the less creative one when studies show they’re linked.

“The new PNAS study shows that men, on average, are less likely to believe this evidence of gender bias where it exists. And that’s a concern, considering men are the current majority of STEM professors. But it’s also a concern if the evidence of gender bias is overhyped. Overhyped claims could make these fields unattractive to women or even make people less likely to believe evidence of bias when it does exist.”

Be honest in science, the musical.