 |
| Links |
Amanda Marcotte takes on "Nice Guys," and the oft-repeated notion that women seek out abusers and assholes to date:
My counter-theory is that Nice Guys® group together traits like confidence with aggression, so they can convince themselves that confident men are always assholes, and thus that they’re being unfairly deprived of pussy by women who are sick fucks that enjoy being abused. Are some confident men abusive assholes? Absolutely; look at Charlie Sheen. But are all confident men? ... [W]hat I can say is I’ve known many men who are great husbands/boyfriends and are also confident ... Some shy men are also very nice people, just shy. But many shy men are inconsiderate fuckwits or even wife-beaters. I just don’t think there’s a strong correlation between “alpha"-ness and basic human decency.
And a couple of posts on some new research on gender and casual sex that challenges a lot of manosphere myths about women and hypergamy, suggesting that: 1) women, in general, are as interested in casual sex as men, so long as they feel they will be safe and 2) women, in general, aren't so addled by their alleged hypergamous proclivities that they actually find Donald Trump to be attractive. In fact, the study suggests, women considering casual sex are driven by a desire for, er, hot sex with a dude who won't kill them and who they think will be good in bed, not by a desire to get their claws into some random rich dude. Or, as the paper itself puts it:
Sexual strategies theory clearly predicts that higher status proposers should be accepted by women more readily than low-status proposers. The fact that status did not predict women’s acceptance of casual sex offers is therefore a problem for SST. Neither status, nor tendency for gift giving, nor perceived faithfulness of the proposer (nor, more precisely, the interaction of any of these variables with gender) predicted whether a participant would agree to the sexual offer, contradicting SST.
Here's a brief summary of the research. And here's a more detailed (if a bit convoluted) discussion from Thomas on Yes Means Yes, from which I got the above quote.
--
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
gee who would have thought, women want their sex partners to not be creepy assholes. What a concept
ReplyDelete"And a couple of posts on some new research on gender and casual sex that challenges a lot of manosphere myths about women and hypergamy, suggesting that: 1) women, in general, are as interested in casual sex as men, so long as they feel they will be safe"
ReplyDeleteIt seems she's correlating the desire to have casual sex with men who they find physically and emotionally attractive as being evidence that woman don't desire to marry up in their long term relationships? Are you sure you want to stand behind this?
Please tell me your definition of casual sex that makes this theory work?
"2) women, in general, aren't so addled by their alleged hypergamous proclivities that they actually find Donald Trump to be attractive. "
Doesn't prove they wouldn't jump on the chance to be with him if the opportunity arose.
kratch go read the study, then you may comment
ReplyDeleteKratch, have you seen Donald Trump? YUCK
ReplyDeleteNow if Carrot Top came wandering by...
I read the pandagon post earlier today and it was so great. Especially this part, which applies so well to some of the commenters here:
ReplyDelete"If your reaction to hearing that a woman is in a relationship with a man who smacks her, kicks her, and calls her a “fat twat” is not to say, “Oh my god, that’s terrible! I hope she gets help!” but instead to say, “Damn, there’s one more woman whose pussy I’m not penetrating, woe is me,” you are not a sensitive man. On the contrary, you are a self-absorbed narcissist! The lack of dick-dipping in your life should be taken not as evidence that women love assholes, but that they avoid at least one asshole---you---like the plague. "
MRAs just can't grasp that women aren't all Lady Macbeth. A woman's choice of a casual sex partner is not a purely strategic consideration in a long-term plan to defraud men for child support. These notions that women are more sexually attracted to rich men are based on the misogynist belief that women don't actually like sex, they just use it as a tool to manipulate men.
ReplyDeleteOr to put it simply, sometimes I see a woman and think, "My, she has a nice body. I daresay I would enjoy sexual intercourse with her." Thus it's not too much of a leap to imagine that a woman sometimes looks at a man and thinks, "My, he has a nice body. I daresay I would enjoy sexual intercourse with him." MRAs deny the latter possibility because in their narcissistic minds, that should mean women would be jumping all over their cocks.
It seems she's correlating the desire to have casual sex with men who they find physically and emotionally attractive as being evidence that woman don't desire to marry up in their long term relationships?
Strawman strawman strawman. The study is about casual sex, not long-term relationships.
"Strawman strawman strawman. The study is about casual sex, not long-term relationships."
ReplyDeleteHypergamy is about long term relationships, about "marrying-up" and/or finding a long term spouse if higher socioeconomic status. therefore this study says nothing about hypergamy, which is contrary to David's statement. it is not a strawman in the least, you are just focusing on the wrong part.
Oh, and on an unrelated note, I'm finding myself extremely attracted to those two female Links, to a degree that I'm not certain is healthy.
ReplyDelete@ Darksidecat
ReplyDeleteSeems to me it means that particular guy isn't enough of an asshole.
Random Brother
@Kratch: Most people, man or woman, marry within their socioeconomic class. If you looked around you, you would see that fact confirmed in most of the couples of your acquaintance. If someone (man or woman) had married up, they would be noticeable because they're the exception. So if women really all had strategies to marry wealthy men, they would be pretty ineffective. There are some women and men out there who marry for money, but they're pretty rare. Yeah, men too: George Washington proposed to every rish heiress he met until he found one who said yes. And he's not the only male gold-digger out there.
ReplyDeleteAlso, give me a break. I'd like to see what would happen if a woman like Martha Stewart or Oprah got interested in one of you guys. In the words of Sanchez in The Touch of Evil: "what was I going to do? Tell her, no darling, I can't marry you, you have too much money?"
@Richard: If you're so obsessed with sex that you can't even meet the baseline for basic human compassion, you should see a doctor. Or rather a psychiatrist.
ReplyDeleteObligatory "lesbians exist too" comment. Sometimes people forget that fact in these discussions about what women want.
ReplyDeleteKratch, guys in the manosphere are constantly confusing one-night-stands and regular dating that's why they believe that women that have sex with guys like Roissy or Roosh ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubMNBQwvV0I ) are hypergamous. They believe these guys are living in a harem. In the case of Roosh, I can guarantee that these women are not hypergamous, they're probably blind. :)
ReplyDelete@ girlscientist
ReplyDeleteWow a completely shame based statement with no facts! And from an *AHEM* girl scientiest! I am shocked I am.
Random Brother
girlscientist: "Most people, man or woman, marry within their socioeconomic class."
ReplyDeleteMaybe not in Britain:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12112283
"According to a new study more women are are marrying for money than did in the 1940s.
The author of the report, Dr Catherine Hakim, tells BBC Radio 5 live "there is this myth that women invariably choose to have a relationship of total equality".
Speaking to Victoria Derbyshire, Dr Hakim continues: "More and more women are choosing to marry men who are substantially better educated than them, and therefore have higher earnings capacity.""
Aishlin, I wonder how Nice Guys and MRAs make sense of lesbians? Let's say that women only see sex as an tool to scam money by entrapping those with "high social status" (it's evolution). But but but in a lesbian relationship, that would mean that the woman with "high social status" CHOSE to be with someone with "low social status"!!1!!1
ReplyDelete@Richard:
ReplyDeleteNo, it's based on your (factual) comment:
Seems to me it means that particular guy isn't enough of an asshole.
This comment can have two interpretations:
1) You're so desperate for sex that you're willing to continually look to the world like a Walmart shopper fighting for a Tickle-Me-Elmo on sale at 5 A.M. on Black Friday.
2) Beating and abusing another human being means nothing to you because you're a sociopath.
In the first case, you should see a doctor because there is clearly something wrong with your hormone levels. In the second case, go see a psychiatrist to get a formal diagnosis and help so that you can avoid the impulse-driven downward spiral that is usually the fate of low-functioning sociopaths.
@wytchfinde555:
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to say from the interview (which is 2 minutes long), but another interpretation is that men want to marry women who are less educated than them because they want to keep the dominant role in the relationship (if you hold the purse-strings and your partner has no job prospects, they are less likely to leave you and it gives you much more power over them).
Sorry to say this, but Dr. Hakim seems hellbent on preserving existing gender stereotypes. In her view, women can be either career-oriented and achievement-driven or they can be caring and family-oriented? No mother ever cares about her job or her career? It looks to me like, once again, they got Dr. Lazy PhD to spout some BS platitudes on the radio.
but another interpretation is that men want to marry women who are less educated than them because they want to keep the dominant role in the relationship (if you hold the purse-strings and your partner has no job prospects, they are less likely to leave you and it gives you much more power over them).
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point. Misogynistic men, and even just middle-of-the-road non-feminist men in general, tend to be disinclined to marry a woman more successful than them. At best it's an issue of discomfort with women who don't fit the gender role, and at worst, it's, as you said, a power thing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ triplanetary
ReplyDeletehttp://www.divorcesaloon.com/2010/09/10/new-york-cornell-university-study-shows-that-divorce-rates-are-higher-for-women-who-make-more-than-their-husbands-higher-infidelity-rates/
"Latest divorce news: Study reveals the obvious: both men and women like it better when the man is the main breadwinner in the family"
"The study clearly showed that divorce rates are higher for men who make less than their wives. First of all, men whose wives make more money than they do were more likely to cheat on their wives. As the Daily Mail put it, it’s probably because they can’t resist all the “yummy mommies on the playground.” But these men also exhibit a sense of powerlessness and “gender identity threat” when their wives out-earn them. And so they cheat to reaffirm that they wear the pants in the family, according to the study.
Also, when a woman’s income far outpaces her husband’s she is also more likely to cheat on him, and to be dissatisfied with him as a husband, according to the research done in the study.
All of this increased the odds of divorce for that couple and so the rate of divorce is actually higher for couples in this control group.
The opposite is not true, however. When a man out-earns a wife, the marriage is less likely to end in divorce and she is less likely to cheat on him. It can also be inferred from the Cornell study that if the parties make roughly the same income, the problems of infidelity, dissatisfaction and cheating still exists. Something in the male DNA (and probably the female too), needs for the man to make more money and to be the main breadwinner for the man to feel powerful, in control, and, frankly, to feel more like a man. When a man feels like a man in his relationship, he is less likely to cheat; and he has wife who is happier and also less likely to cheat. And feeling like a man seems directly related to how much money he brings home. We can mess with nature all we want. Some fundamental things are never going to change."
Aw, pesky reality keeps getting in you little ladies way.
So sad.
I have to add this because you seem to need everything spoon fed to you.
It's better for a man to marry someone who is less likely to cheat on him, so if a man gets married, marrying someone who earns less would be better than marrying some "strong, proud, independant" career woman who'll cheat on him and bring home some bastard child and claim the child is the husbands. Get it?
Or can you not even understand this?
Random Brother
@ girl scientist
ReplyDeleteWell if we are doing the whole pop psychology thing, then the reason you don't like what I said is either
1) You were rejected by men as a teen and therefore threw yourself into womyn's studies, leaving you even less capable of making logical choices and you should get therapy, lose weight, and shave your legs
OR
2) You have some form of mental disease which makes you even less intelligent than the average feminist, meaning you likely need help getting dressed, tying your shoelaces and bathing yourself and you should focus on things that you may be able to understand like how to get toothpaste out of the tube.
Random Brother
@ David
ReplyDeleteSpam filter
@ triplanetary
Women who make the same or more are more likely to cheat on their husbands, making them unsuitable for marriage.
Random Brother
@richard:
ReplyDeleteAlas, I'm an asexual analytical chemist. In light of this new data, how do you interpret your findings, o wise one?
@ girlscientist
ReplyDeleteWow. Another feminist weirdo/degenerate.
How many nutcases are feminist gonna put under their tent?
I can't believe you were telling, ME, someone who is normal, to get help. You're the one who needs to seek help, and a whole lot of it, dear.
We've got you, Kave the milk boy, that one chick who always talks about how much casual sex she has, one of the chicks on this site shaves her head bald. And lets not forget the groveling psuedo men, manginas. Ugh. Feminist freak show. I guess being normal and a feminist is a non starter.
Random Brother
@richard:
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, how do you define normality?
@ girl scientist
ReplyDeleteWell since most people have some sort of sexuality, we can start there.
Wait, if you're an asexual feminist why do you even post on things to do with marriage, and or traditional male female sexual issues that you shouldn't care about, and have limited personal knowledge of?
Random Brother
@richard:
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in having sex with other people, that doesn't mean I don't have a sexuality. I just keep it to myself, that's all. It's not that unusual: there are plenty of people who never pair up, never get married, who don't see the point. Just because they're not shouting it from the rooftops doesn't mean they don't exist. Studies estimate that approximately 1% of the population is asexual. It's funny that you think that I'm a freak because I do absolutely nothing that could even remotely be considered freakish. There are elderly nuns out there who are more freakish than me.
I still like to read and talk to people about sexual issues because, while I'm asexual, I still live in a sexual world, and it helps to know how the rest of the world operates. If you travel abroad, you need a guide to the country you're going to and you need to learn the language if you don't want to spend the whole time completely lost. It's the same thing with asexuals living in a sexual world: it's very confusing if you don't understand what's going on, and you're likely to give offense if you're not careful.
Normal does not equal good. Most allegations of "abnormality" are nothing more than either a an appeal to nature fallacy and/or a ad populum fallacy.
ReplyDeleteMost people are not doctors, so are doctors abnormal and therefore socially undesirable?
There is no reason to believe that simply because most people are different from something that the thing is bad.
And, girlscientist can be concerned about things which she does not take part in for several reasons. Some of the most obvious ones would be that (1) the attitudes espoused in these areas affect her life in other areas (for example, pay or pension systems designed under these beliefs) and (2) she is not a sociopath and cares about how these things affect others around her.
@ girlscientist
ReplyDeleteAll right. Fair Enough.
Random Brother
@ DSC
ReplyDeleteAll right. I can accept that, except for the whole sociopath stuff tacked on at the end. Caring for onesself and not helping those who engage in stupid activities or activities that are designed to harm you doesn't make you a sociopath.
Random Brother
@DarkSideCat: Thanks!
ReplyDelete@richard: No problem. The accusation of sociopathy leveled against you comes from the fact that you seem to think that being violent and abusive are valid and appropriate strategies to get sex. I may be asexual, but I do know that most people recoil from that.
Sociopathy is one of the areas of neurodiversity, just like Asperger's syndrome, and not, in itself, something to be ashamed of. As long as you don't actually hurt someone, nobody should judge you for what's going on in your head, if you ask me. If you want to have an insight in the mind of a high-functioning socopath, you should visit Socopath World. I can especially recommend the FAQ.
@David:
ReplyDeleteMy last comment disappeared :-(
Did it get stuck in the spam filter or did I say something wrong?
(At least) two asexuals on one board--we can't be that abnormal! I bet we're more than 1% of the commenting population. ;)
ReplyDeleteMy usual comment to people who complain how others aren't "normal" is to point out that the world would be terribly boring if everyone were the same. Really, really, horribly, terribly boring.
Guys in the manosphere deliberately want women they see as inferior to them to dominate them. As an example there is female blogger called LovelySexyBeauty (LSB) that is from India and was virgin. She married a jobless guy that was living off the money of his parents and that abuse and insult her after following the advice of guys like Roissy (according to these guys women should marry very young and virgin to guys that dominate them) : http://lovelysexybeauty.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/abuse-or-anger/
ReplyDeleteI take offense to the we're all freak shows since you know by your limited definitions of normal (which are completely arbitrary just so you know) I fit right in there and I am indeed a feminist. I also happen to be at a weight that is considered socially acceptable and I shave my legs so I'd like to hear one thing that makes me a freak richard
ReplyDelete@ briget
ReplyDeleteI don't enough about you to make that sort of statment.
Random Brother
okay then. Please remember that the next time you would like to call all feminists freaks.
ReplyDeletegirlscientist, yeah, your comment was in the spam filter, and it's up now.
ReplyDelete@David: Thanks!
ReplyDeleterichard, yours was also in the spam filter and it up now.
ReplyDeleteEveryone, cool it with the personal attacks. Especially you, Richard, since you're the one making the most of them.
"Sociopathy is one of the areas of neurodiversity, just like Asperger's syndrome, and not, in itself, something to be ashamed of. As long as you don't actually hurt someone, nobody should judge you for what's going on in your head, if you ask me."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I also am not to fond of the aspie comparison as a person with aspergers. I think you can judge someone based on their thoughts and emotions. We can and do make these thought and emotion based distinctions in moral judgements.
Example:
A gives C a cookie, knowing it is not poisoned, C is fine.
B gives C a cookie, thinking it is poisoned, but it is not and C is fine.
A gives C a cookie, not knowing it is poisoned, but it is and C dies.
B gives C a cookie, knowing it is poisoned, and C dies.
We accept that B is worse than A. Legal systems do this as well. While there is dispute over whether sucessful and failed attempts should be equivalently punished (the model penal code says yes, most state penal codes say no), there is a general concensus that mens rea is needed for at least crimes which involve serious punishment. In other words to use the example above,, we only ever want to send B to jail for murder, even when the consequence of A's action is the same. However, we likely would not want to punish B until B actually tried to do a bad act, for a variety of reasons (such as the fact that punishing the attempt and the thought equally takes away the incentive to not act on every bad thought).
Being uncommon in and of itself is not evidence of being bad or morally impaired, but it can be the case that a certain uncommon trait is bad, or leads to poor moral judgment, or is the result of poor moral judgment. So, the uncommon group of doctors is not mostly bad, but the uncommon group of serial killers is (not to imply that all serial killers are sociopaths or vice versa).
@DarkSideCat:
ReplyDeleteYou're still talking about actions: it's the intent of the action. A wants to give C a cookie, and B wants to poison C. B's plan to poison C only becomes morally wrong when B puts it into action. Otherwise I'd get in trouble every time I'm in line at the grocery store behind someone who's talking on their cell phone.
You can't help or control your emotions. The best you can do is analyze them, go to their cause and try not to hurt anyone. Whether you're capable of empathy or not, morality comes down to self-control: if you're capable of empathy you imagine the grief and distress of the offensive shopper's children, and if you're not, you think about all the witnesses and how you could never get away with it.
Imagine D, a sociopath who would like to kill C but who refrains from doing it because it's a bad idea (D stands to inherit from C, is commonly known to hate C, and doesn't want to go to prison because it would be unpleasant). Along comes B, who hands D a cookie to give to C. D complies, not knowing that the cookie is poisoned, and C dies. D is happy about C's death. D wanted C dead and handed C the poisoned cookie, but D is still not the murderer because D had enough self-control not to do it.
Richard, after a lot of digging, I found the this response to the study that does a better job of breaking it down.
ReplyDelete"On the other end of the spectrum, infidelity seemed to rise when one partner made a lot more money than the other. And that held true whether the man or the woman was the big wage earner."
Make a lot of money, get cheated on is the ultimate message here. Oh and the numbers are very low for who cheats when the wife makes more.
“Most people, man or woman, marry within their socioeconomic class.”
ReplyDeleteMost does not mean all. You seem to have a problem with that, as you later accuse me of saying “all” women had strategies to marry wealthy men. Some women do, and it is not unreasonable to acknowledge that, especially given the number of campaigns claiming all men are potential rapists (and that potential is far smaller then the potentially hypergamous women).
But all that is irrelevant, as I didn’t come to debate hypergamy, only to point out that David’s “research that challenges myth’s about hypergamy” has absolutely nothing to do with it
“Kratch, guys in the manosphere are constantly confusing one-night-stands and regular dating”
But it’s David who is equating a study on casual sex (IE, one night stands and short flings) as saying something about hypergamy (long term relationships). It’s not the manosphere who are making the mistake, it’s David. It’s right there in the article for you to read…
“And a couple of posts on some new research on gender and casual sex that challenges a lot of manosphere myths about women and hypergamy”
How does a study on casual sex say anything about hypergamy? They’re Davids own words, not mine. Explain them or acknowledge his mistake instead of blaming it on the manosphere.
girlscientist:
ReplyDeleteThat link to Sociopath World was fascinating! I didn't have time to get too far into it, but I would ask you: how do you define sociopathy? Do you follow the DSM-IV TR diagnostic criteria for Anti-Social Personality Disorder, or do you define it more broadly as a congenital lack of the ability to feel empathy?
@girlscientist, did you miss this part of what I said "However, we likely would not want to punish B until B actually tried to do a bad act, for a variety of reasons (such as the fact that punishing the attempt and the thought equally takes away the incentive to not act on every bad thought)." The reason I think that we should punish only attempts is not because I think all thoughts or emotions are value neutral. To go all godwin, let's say that the person has the same beliefs, desires, and feelings about Jewish people as Hitler. Is that morally neutral so long as they fear the social consequences enough to refrain from starting their holocaust? I would say definitely not. Wannabe Hitler is still a bad person, and a person we want to keep a careful eye on and keep out of positions of power. We would want to treat Wannabe Hitler differently than Wannabe MLK, and would be downright foolish for not doing so.
ReplyDelete"morality comes down to self control" I disagree whole heartedly with this statement. Queer people not controlling their desires to have consensual sex with other adults is perfectly moral. However, self control in order to conform with orders to go on a murder spree helterskelter style is immoral. Morality is about harm-harmful results and harmful intents.
You talk about actions combined with intent, but "trying not to hurt someone" is not the action of the sociopath here. While the surface behavior may seem similar at times, this intent is absent. "Avoiding punishment" is the sociopath's intent, not "trying not to hurt someone".
I think there are valid reasons to punish act plus intent vs just intent, but I do not think that neutrality of intent is amoung them. Here is a list of a few: 1) evidence. It is rather difficult to prove to a legal standard exactly how much someone wants their thoughts to become reality until they actually try to do it. 2) punishing intent the same as act with intent fails to discourage and sometimes encourages the act. Bad intent alone is better than bad intent plus bad act. 3) encouraging people to discuss their plans and intents gives an opportunity to intervene or to change their mind. We want people to discuss these things so we can nip them in the bud, but punishing the intent the same as the intent plus act discourages this.
I also want to add that, more likely than not, you do not actually have an intent to harm the other shoppers in your analogy. Many fantasies are such that they involve no real intent to make the situation reality and would even cause the person distress should it become reality.
"And a couple of posts on some new research on gender and casual sex that challenges a lot of manosphere myths about women and hypergamy, suggesting that: 1) women, in general, are as interested in casual sex as men, so long as they feel they will be safe"
ReplyDeleteNow if men had as much mistrust towards women in general, they would be bitter misogynists.
But I guess when it comes to having mistrust towards the opposite gender, double standards and feminism come hand in hand.
@Captain Bathrobe: I can't answer your questions: I'm not a psychiatrist, just an armchair psychologist. I'm fascinated by neurodiversity, but that doesn't make me a specialist.
ReplyDelete@DarkSideCat:
Is that morally neutral so long as they fear the social consequences enough to refrain from starting their holocaust? I would say definitely not.
Oh, you're right. But that's not something that is specific to sociopaths. There are lots of people who don't act immorally only because they're afraid of getting caught.
Wannabe Hitler is still a bad person, and a person we want to keep a careful eye on and keep out of positions of power. We would want to treat Wannabe Hitler differently than Wannabe MLK, and would be downright foolish for not doing so.
We certainly should be careful around sociopaths (they're not exactly innocent fluffy bunnies), but that doesn't mean we should lock them up, or cast opprobium upon them. You can't send people to prison just for being raving antisemites inside their heads, they should at least have committed an crime for that.
I think there are valid reasons to punish act plus intent vs just intent, but I do not think that neutrality of intent is amoung them.
I take it I should read "action" instead of "intent" the second time, otherwise I could refer you to an excellent novel by George Orwell to explain why punishing just intent is a bad idea :-)
Kratch, one of guru of the manosphere, Citizen Renegade - Roissy, has a whole section of his blog about hypergamy : http://roissy.wordpress.com/?s=hypergamous . Hookingupsmart, which originally was a site about dating, is now flooded by Roosh and Roissy admirers that constantly say if a guy want to have a girlfriend, he need to learn game because women are hypergamous and are chasing alpha males in clubs.
ReplyDeleteGirlscientist, there is a degree in mental health problems. If someone is a light sociopath, he probably can control himself, but a full-blown sociopath will not be able to control himself. And it's the same thing with any mental health problem. I have AvPD and I cannot switch it off. If someone has asperger, he cannot switch it off either.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that some people believe women enter relationships with some idea how those relationships will unfold and end. There is no functional difference between the beginning of a short-term and a long-term relationship, so if someone is "hypergamous" it is likely that they will make the same decisions in both settings.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when I meet someone new, the only information I have is what *I* am looking for in a relationship and what *I* am willing to accept. The whole point of getting to know someone is to see how well what we are looking for and what we will accept line up. If those things line up well, it might be the beginning of a long term relationship, if they line up well enough, it might be the beginning of a one night stand. If one of us believes they do not line up, then we start looking again.
What people are looking for is going to be infinitely varied, but since they are choosing for themselves it doesn't really matter. If a man or woman only dates rich people, it is only of importance to them and the people they are attempting to date.
I personally think that people talk about relationships on one level, and then engage in them on another level altogether. So when people talk about them, they sound like Spock, but when they engage they act a lot more like Kirk or Bones. Easy to say what's healthy, but most people are moved by what they are moved by and are blind to the rest of it. This is why it can appear women "like" to be treated badly, when in reality we agonize over being attracted to someone that is abusive. This is why we groan when people say this, it hurts. I imagine the equivalent for men is when they do some stupid anti-social thing that hurts someone and we lament how terrible they are because they think with their penises. I suppose there is that same agony there.
ReplyDeleteI can tell you as a woman I have NO IDEA why I'm attracted to some of the men that I am, physically. So they end up not "getting away" with abuse, but I end up in nightmare dramas that should be as easy as 1 2 3 get away from me. I try to be healthy like that, but then you know they really make you pay. Some men will try to ruin your life if you draw a line in the sand. But I just changed the subject.
It really is agony to have ever been drawn to someone abusive, and then have to try to get away.
@avpd0nmmng: I never said or thought that you could just switch off mental problems (I know what depression is like, and how impossible it is to snap out of it). But there are ways to work on yourself to be functional in society. From what I understand, there are ways to keep the impulses in sociopathy manageable and to refrain from being a complete monster. It's not easy, but you have to work on yourself (just like you have to work on yourself to recover from a depression or, I imagine, to talk to people when you have AvPD).
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about the gradation of sociopaths: there are high-functioning sociopaths and low-functioning sociopaths, and the former are the ones who manage to remain in control, but apparently they can't do it without mental strategies.
Or, at least, that's what I understand: my only real knowledge of sociopaths comes from that blog. I'm absolutely not an authority on sociopathy.
@girlscientist, I agree that it would be a bad idea to carve out an exception where sociopaths can be more easily jailed or criminally punished without an actus reas. My point is that there is a moral problem at issue here and that there is reason for dislike, distate, and discrimination in this case. It is the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate the prescense of sociopaths until they act, but I am not accepting or affirming of it. Which makes this distinct from neurodiversity in general, from autism, from psychosis, etc. "We certainly should be careful around sociopaths (they're not exactly innocent fluffy bunnies)." A statement like that about autistic people or people with schizophrenia would be one which I would disagree with. Personality disorders are often seen as distinct clinically from mental illness as well (though this one is disputed). I am making a distinction in dealing with sociopaths vs empaths and I do not pretend that when I judge someone inferior to others in some way that I am not making a moral judgment about them. I make moral judgments about Bill O'Reilly being an asshole, it does not follow that I am willing to carve a legal exception in regards to his free speech rights, for example. Living with a few assholes in society is the the lesser of two evils compared to the totalitarian measures that would need to be put in place to make it otherwise, but that does not mean that I must like or approve of assholes.
ReplyDelete@DarkSideCat: I don't know. I don't like the idea of discrimination. Besides, we empaths aren't fluffy bunnies either: just look at the Milgram experiment.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you want to silence Bill O'Reilly? He's comedy gold:
"Tide goes in. Tide goes out. Never a miscommunication!"
Besides, with no O'Reilly, there would be no Colbert. Who would want that?
No worries, girlscientist. I'm inclined to agree that sociopathy is probably primarily an inherent trait (though environment plays a role in how it manifests itself). It is certainly true that only a small percentage of sociopaths are violent or criminals (though a much larger percentage of violent criminals are sociopaths). Contrary to popular belief, sociopathy and psychopathy are not the same thing. Anyway, it's fascinating stuff...from a distance.
ReplyDelete"Now if men had as much mistrust towards women in general, they would be bitter misogynists."
ReplyDeleteInteresting. So, in your world, men risk as much physical danger from women as the reverse? So that they would have a sane reason for being mistrustful?
I would like to know where this magical mythical place is, that has such rough, violent, rapey women.
walkertall
ReplyDeleteJust because a minority of men are rapists, that doesn't give women are free pass to be sexist towards the whole male population.
Let's put it this way, just because a minority of black people are criminals, would it be racism if I was paranoid towards ALL blacks because a minority of blacks are bad?
Yes or no?
You can't have two standards.
It's funny how it's only acceptable to be so hateful towards men as a gender but when it comes to women or race, it's a big no no.
A minority of women are violent, gold diggers, sexist, so does that give me a pass to be paranoid towards the whole female population?
If a man was, he would be deemed as an anti-social misogynist idiot. But of course women get a pussy pass to have this type of bitterness towards men.
Stupid bigoted feminists such as your self need to stop giving women all these privileges.
Equality means equality 24/7 365 days a year. Equality doesn't mean women can pick and choose what areas they want equality in or switching it on and off when ever it suits them.
This is equality:
Women being paranoid towards most or all the male population = sexist
Men being paranoid towards most or all the female population = sexist
This next example is not equality, its discrimination, bigotry, and sexism against men.
Women being paranoid towards most or all the male population = socially acceptable
Men being paranoid towards most or all the female population = sexist
Are you feminists seriously this dumb to not figure out this simple fact that's so obvious?
This blog is a cack session
I think that is the only time Nick has ever been coherent. Good show little one!
ReplyDeleteJust because a minority of men are rapists, that doesn't give women are free pass to be sexist towards the whole male population.
ReplyDeleteAll men benefit from rape culture (you're doing it right now, in fact). And women have to be particularly concerned about rape because so many men feel entitled to seize sexual control over women; it's a cultural message that the patriarchy attempts to instill in men. Rape is a tool of social control, and that control works even if most men don't actually rape.
Let's put it this way, just because a minority of black people are criminals, would it be racism if I was paranoid towards ALL blacks because a minority of blacks are bad?
Hilarious. This is the opposite of the above situation. Whites are the privileged group, blacks the oppressed. For whites to fear blacks is just disingenuous. The dangers that whites make up about blacks are usually fictional - most of the black crime you mention is black-on-black, and a black woman is far more likely to be raped by a white man than a white woman by a black man.
Those fictional reasons to fear blacks is another form of othering and an excuse to continue oppressing. It's easier to keep them in their neighborhoods that way.
The women fearing men thing is the opposite. Men are the privileged group here, women the oppressed. For the oppressed to fear the oppressor is far more reasonable.
Thank you, triplanetary, for dealing with that massive mess of bullshit, convenient lies and cowardice.
ReplyDelete"Men are the privileged group here, women the oppressed."---Trianything
ReplyDeleteYeah . . . women that frequent clubs, drink overpriced cocktails, drive nice vehicles, get managerial jobs galore, and still complain about the toliet seat being up and how there are "no good men out there" are so oppressed.
Must be fun to wallow in fear from your ivory tower vintage point.
Yeah . . . women that frequent clubs, drink overpriced cocktails, drive nice vehicles, get managerial jobs galore, and still complain about the toliet seat being up and how there are "no good men out there" are so oppressed.
ReplyDeleteUm, I don't really see the purpose of arguing about whether this tiny minority of women is oppressed. Your description is bizarrely specific and I suspect it wraps together a lot of different sources of bitterness lurking in your psyche.
Yikes.
"Your description is bizarrely specific and I suspect it wraps together a lot of different sources of bitterness lurking in your psyche."--Trianything
ReplyDeleteBitterness lurking in *my* psyche? Look who's talking---the "MRAs are pieces of shit" and "men are privileged" rant and raver. Holy shit.
That "tiny minority" actually is more than you think. Get out of your cramped academic cubical you inhibit and get your nose out of feminist textbooks to look around you. Women are more favored than men in this culture, and if you think otherwise you are insane---and not worth talking to as well, either.
"Inhibit"---I meant "inhabit." Oh, well.
ReplyDeleteLook, if you think a lot of women are like Sex and the City characters, it's no wonder you're a misogynist. It's possible your description fits a fair number of upper-class women, what with the "overpriced cocktails" and "nice vehicles." Pretending that the upper-class way of life is the norm, and that the proles basically don't exist, is a common bit of classist myopia. MRAs' upper-class bias has always been evident, especially when they rant about how women all want to be housewives.
ReplyDeleteI tend to avoid upper-class people in general, and I don't meet a lot of women like the ones you describe. Given that the upper class is a minority of the population, I don't think I'm the one in the narrow-minded bubble here, wytch.