Chubby Older Dads Are More Attractive To Women, Study Finds

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
I don't understand on this forum the endless wondering and discussion about what women want sexually and physically and emotionally. Some will want something, some will want another. Always people trying to "figure out" women like we are the same?

Can't we jut want what we want, and if it's not you, move on?
The problem lies in forced wealth transfers from male taxpayers to female tax consumers as they decide they don’t “want” to be with their husbands or baby daddies and would rather the state (other men) financially support them.

I doubt many men would have a problem with the behavior of women in the absence of paying for it through forced wealth transfers.
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
The problem lies in forced wealth transfers from male taxpayers to female tax consumers as they decide they don’t “want” to be with their husbands or baby daddies and would rather the state (other men) financially support them.

I doubt many men would have a problem with the behavior of women in the absence of paying for it through forced wealth transfers.
Yeah its pretty messed up. At least in America, what are the laws in other nations?
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Yeah its pretty messed up. At least in America, what are the laws in other nations?
Europe has a bigger welfare state but probably less punitive alimony/family courts. And not as bad drug laws to lock up the young men all of the time.
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
Europe has a bigger welfare state but probably less punitive alimony/family courts. And not as bad drug laws to lock up the young men all of the time.
Society is definitely against young men. It tries to contain and neuter them as much as possible.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
6-pack personalities
This might have something to do with long-term nutrient deprivation.

Healthy men (without feminine fat distribution) can get up to ~20% body fat before becoming physically unattractive.

main-qimg-24f38545ed9d4b8cac6f0bde6dd7c54a-c
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
This might have something to do with long-term nutrient deprivation.

Healthy men (without feminine fat distribution) can get up to ~20% body fat before becoming physically unattractive.

main-qimg-24f38545ed9d4b8cac6f0bde6dd7c54a-c
I think the 3-4% guy is about to die.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
"There is the lover and there is the provider, and women find it difficult to see you as both."

Begs the question, explaining little. Put a little crudely, as stated by an anonymous writer, "Beta bux, alpha fux." Women are attracted to a**holes - alpha men - because bad boys are much more of a thrill and exciting. not boring. But unreliable, often are bad providers and unfaithful. Life is certainly exciting with such guys, but they are unsuitable as husbands and fathers, and home life with them is not exactly tranquil. Beta men - who are in the majority - make good providers and fathers, are reliable, and much less likely to cheat. The world would fall apart without them. Life and home are stable with them. Main negative: they are boring and unexciting and sexually flat, as compared to alpha jerks.

The smarter or psychologically mature women are well aware of this distinction between men and realistic enough to realize they have to make their choices based on what is most important to them: stable, tranquil home and marriage, children with a stable, dependable but dull and sexually boring man, or thrills and regular sexual highs (plus the lows) and constant romance/intrigue/drama - which often will not last too long in many cases- with a charming but unreliable jerkman?

Feminism urges young women FIRST to go after a career and chase jerkmen - fun, fun, fun - then settle down later. Trouble is, by the time they settle down and look to get married, they find the best quality men have been scooped up by their less liberated sisters, and these careerist sluts have gotten old enough in the looks department to be unable to compete with other women for decent men to marry. Especially later on (in their 30s), many such women cannot get the alphas (who want younger flesh) to marry them and they are left with 2nd-rate, desperate betas (who often have a lot of problems - addictions to drugs, alcohol, porn, job instability, psychological problems etc., etc.) to choose from. Plus any quality men still available are not going to be interested in marrying a woman who has dedicated the prime years of her life to sluttery. Also, due to the merciless clock, by that time, even if they can get married at all, they may be too old to give birth to children.

From what I have observed, such women were not expecting such outcomes before choosing to immerse themselves early-on in careers and so-called sexual freedom resulting later in a very single and later still, very lonely life. It used to be their mothers - and especially grandmothers - would convey cautions and wise advice to their daughters to help them avoid such outcomes. Alas, it seems they either are not advising them anymore or if they are trying to advise them, they are unable to penetrate the conditioning their daughters have accumulated in schools and other societal conditioning agents.

I think all of the men in this thread are well aware that women behave this way. It just is what it is. It is the women that I have spoken to who vehemently deny this, which I find endlessly amusing. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, it's just something that men need to be told early and often. There is the lover and there is the provider, and women find it difficult to see you as both.
 

whodathunkit

Member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
777
Are you saying that I’m unfairly putting “the blame” on women as a group? I think that is extremely simplistic.

Let’s analyze one thing, welfare for single mothers. If you subsidize something, you get more of it than you otherwise would have had, so welfare for single mothers is artificially increasing the number of single mothers, with all of the negative downstream effects in society that brings relative to intact families.

If women did not have the vote, would there be this program of welfare for single mothers as it stands today? What if men did not have the vote, but women did?

So, to the extent involuntary wealth transfers (welfare) to single mothers is immoral and creates more broken families, “women” as a voting block are “to blame.”

Or am I missing something?
Kyle, you don't strike me as someone who wants to be deliberately disingenuous, so I'll try one more time, with some broad but hopefully pertinent detail.

As I'm sure you're aware, the issues of liberalism, socialism, etc., actually came about as an outgrowth of the general philosophical introspection that began in the West as a result of the Enlightenment. It began with the flattening of traditional monarchial hierarchies, when nobles banned together and used their collective power to successfully contest and balance the despotic and unbalanced power held by traditional monarchies. Think Magna Carta.

That same kind of liberalized thinking, where entrenched political structures were upended, eventually led to the American Revolution, the end of slavery by all Western cultures, and then, logically, to the "enfranchisement" of formerly oppressed segments of Western culture like women and minorities.

The main proponents of this much needed and beneficial liberalism were Western men.

So, basically, when you complain about women having the vote, or about welfare, or liberalism in general, you're complaining that men are really the problem. What's happened since women got the vote is simply a continuation of the male-instigated trajectory we've been on for half a millennium.

And yes, the concept of liberalism has been carried well beyond what was originally intended by the high-minded gentlemen of the Enlightenment. But that's what always happens in hypercivilized cultures. Sadly, autophagy seems to be a social as well as biological function.

I'm curious...do you also feel the same way about minorities in Western cultures having the vote, as you feel about women? Because minorities tend to vote the same kind of liberalism as women. Do you think voting rights for women and minorities having is what is leading to the decline of our culture?

But really, the biggest point I hoped to make with my last post is that all the flaws in liberalism are human flaws. The flaws are not present only in subgroups within a culture (e.g., women), they're present in all groups. Even in men, or the Enlightenment would not have happened.

If you can't admit that, then I guess I'll just have to chalk you up to disingenuous at best, tone deaf at worst.

Anyway...to make these comments more pertinent to this original topic of the thread:

Since we're all human and we all fall prey to the same finite set of flaws, IMO instead of "othering" our problems or chasing the erstwhile tangential topics that seem to plague these types of threads, we need to look inside and root out our own failings.

For example, I am single because of behavioral and personal choices I have made, that either cause me to turn away from potential mates, or cause them to turn away from me. If I want to not be single, I probably need to change my perspective in some manner, and make different choices.

*Everyone* on this board who is single, is single because of behavioral or personal choices they have made. They're not single because women are too picky, or because their body type isn't the ideal, or because their gonzo physical attractiveness is vastly underappreciated by the opposite sex...they're single because they're either limiting themselves with preferential choices, or they're turning people away with unattractive behaviors. And my bet is on the latter.

Juxtapose the dad bod guy in the top photo with the dad bod guy in the lower photo. Same chubby body types, two COMPLETELY different mindsets and behaviors.

I'd be happy to tap the first. I used to date a dad-bod guy that looked a lot like him, with the same cheerful smile and a very similar mindset (although my ex's mindset never got tested). I let him get away because I was shallow and stupid.

I have always politely ignored the second.

I think most sane women would agree.
 

opethfeldt

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
685
It's impossible to generalize what women want in a man because it changes depending on their fertility status. A woman who is ovulating and is fertile will generally shift her preferences for a man with the best genetics and current health. This usually means a man with low cortisol and high testosterone, which would mean a man with a six pack more than likely. At any other time of the menstrual cycle, women shift their preferences toward men who would be better providers or who have good current health. This is one of the main reasons even women themselves can't accurately describe their ideal man. Their instincts are driving them to particular men at particular times.
 

Lurker

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
317
It's impossible to generalize what women want in a man because it changes depending on their fertility status. A woman who is ovulating and is fertile will generally shift her preferences for a man with the best genetics and current health. This usually means a man with low cortisol and high testosterone, which would mean a man with a six pack more than likely. At any other time of the menstrual cycle, women shift their preferences toward men who would be better providers or who have good current health. This is one of the main reasons even women themselves can't accurately describe their ideal man. Their instincts are driving them to particular men at particular times.

La donna è mobile
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
So, basically, when you complain about women having the vote, or about welfare, or liberalism in general, you're complaining that men are really the problem. What's happened since women got the vote is simply a continuation of the male-instigated trajectory we've been on for half a millennium.

I'm curious...do you also feel the same way about minorities in Western cultures having the vote, as you feel about women? Because minorities tend to vote the same kind of liberalism as women. Do you think voting rights for women and minorities having is what is leading to the decline of our culture?

I don't like anyone having the vote, as I don't believe in democracy. But if we must have a vote, it should be stake holders in the system in a "skin in the game" test. That's why land owners were the first voting class, they had something to lose from bad "public policy." Elections now are simply an advanced auction on other people's material resources: "vote for me and I'll give you this stuff, which I take from this other group." They usually leave out that last part, but where the **** else would it come from? You can literally be on welfare, not working and contributing anything to the nation, and have the right to vote on how much welfare you will get from people who are contributing. What part of the game is that?

As I'm sure you're aware, the issues of liberalism, socialism, etc., actually came about as an outgrowth of the general philosophical introspection that began in the West as a result of the Enlightenment. It began with the flattening of traditional monarchial hierarchies, when nobles banned together and used their collective power to successfully contest and balance the despotic and unbalanced power held by traditional monarchies. Think Magna Carta.

But really, the biggest point I hoped to make with my last post is that all the flaws in liberalism are human flaws. The flaws are not present only in subgroups within a culture (e.g., women), they're present in all groups. Even in men, or the Enlightenment would not have happened.

If you can't admit that, then I guess I'll just have to chalk you up to disingenuous at best, tone deaf at worst.

The problem here is that you're confusing the word liberalism as it can apply to pre-1930s and how it applies post WWII. The Magna Carta, Enlightenment, etc. were all liberal movements with a small l in the sense that they advocated for individual rights and away from traditional coercive control of some (aristocrats, kings, magistrates, whatever) over others (hoi polloi). What liberalism means now, and what it means vis a vis feminism, is totally different. It's actually a return to coercive control via democracy and large voting blocks like women and minorities essentially colluding to transfer wealth to them from working white males. There's nothing "liberal" about constant wars and war spending, compulsory state education, monopolies all over the economy (medicine, biomedical research, and healthcare being most significant to this forum's members), and of course involuntary wealth transfers. Voting for welfare IS NOT compassion, voting to steal from some does not make you a good person. If you want to be a good person, donate to charity personally, or volunteer. If you enslaved someone to volunteer for a charity, would that make you a good person? How is that different than voting for wealth transfers?

To finish it up, I will say that *in general* women do not understand these things and are much more likely to vote for emotional feel good things like wealth transfers and laws to "protect" people like criminalizing drugs, outlawing firearms, etc. So yes, those kinds of things when they are measurably from the female voting block are "their fault."
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
I like the dad bod and visible muscles/six pack are a turnoff. Even to 'fornicate' with.

This board is full of incels/MRA types with their grossly distorted conceptions of what they think women are like LOL :roll: so ******* boring. @lisaferraro you responded way too politely/apologetically to that misogynistic bull****.
:ss
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
Beneficial liberalism? You were doing fine relating the historical facts on the Enlightenment until you fell off the wagon with this little bit of editorializing inserted into your historical narrative.

This brief observation below from a post I saw elsewhere yesterday very succinctly eviscerates the popular notion that Enlightenment-inspired women's suffrage lead to Good Things:

"Women's suffrage 100 years later: The borders are open & millions of foreigners have invaded. The culture is degenerate. The government is 20 trillion in debt. The army is functionally a globalist mercenary organization."

How could the Enlightenment and it's bast*rd daughter - women's suffrage - be such good things when such horrors (and much more left unmentioned, such as World War 2) were unleashed by it? This quote above implies none of the horrors mentioned would have emerged were it not for women's suffrage. Sounds like a heretical notion to contemporary ears, but I think it's plausible enough to be worth debating.

Hence, in light of such horrific developments and "works" - you will know them by their works, not words - maybe we'd be better off disposing of the Enlightenment and all its direct works/actions and offshoots, such as feminist suffrage, and go to a modified form of medieval patriarchy, which would disallow females from voting, plus much more. Then we'd have a shot at survival. Or maybe we should leave it alone, let the victim - the West - inevitably succumb from the cancer unleashed by the Enlightenment, and start over again. A western world of open borders, cultural degeneracy, 20 trillion dollar debt and purely mercenary - NOT defensive - militaries is utterly and completely unsustainable. It will fall apart no matter what Hilary Clinton, the LGBTQ community, the Deep State, defense contractors,the MSM, or Wall Street apologists say.

Kyle, you don't strike me as someone who wants to be deliberately disingenuous, so I'll try one more time, with some broad but hopefully pertinent detail.

As I'm sure you're aware, the issues of liberalism, socialism, etc., actually came about as an outgrowth of the general philosophical introspection that began in the West as a result of the Enlightenment. It began with the flattening of traditional monarchial hierarchies, when nobles banned together and used their collective power to successfully contest and balance the despotic and unbalanced power held by traditional monarchies. Think Magna Carta.

That same kind of liberalized thinking, where entrenched political structures were upended, eventually led to the American Revolution, the end of slavery by all Western cultures, and then, logically, to the "enfranchisement" of formerly oppressed segments of Western culture like women and minorities.

The main proponents of this much needed and beneficial liberalism were Western men.

So, basically, when you complain about women having the vote, or about welfare, or liberalism in general, you're complaining that men are really the problem. What's happened since women got the vote is simply a continuation of the male-instigated trajectory we've been on for half a millennium.

And yes, the concept of liberalism has been carried well beyond what was originally intended by the high-minded gentlemen of the Enlightenment. But that's what always happens in hypercivilized cultures. Sadly, autophagy seems to be a social as well as biological function.

I'm curious...do you also feel the same way about minorities in Western cultures having the vote, as you feel about women? Because minorities tend to vote the same kind of liberalism as women. Do you think voting rights for women and minorities having is what is leading to the decline of our culture?

But really, the biggest point I hoped to make with my last post is that all the flaws in liberalism are human flaws. The flaws are not present only in subgroups within a culture (e.g., women), they're present in all groups. Even in men, or the Enlightenment would not have happened.

If you can't admit that, then I guess I'll just have to chalk you up to disingenuous at best, tone deaf at worst.

Anyway...to make these comments more pertinent to this original topic of the thread:

Since we're all human and we all fall prey to the same finite set of flaws, IMO instead of "othering" our problems or chasing the erstwhile tangential topics that seem to plague these types of threads, we need to look inside and root out our own failings.

For example, I am single because of behavioral and personal choices I have made, that either cause me to turn away from potential mates, or cause them to turn away from me. If I want to not be single, I probably need to change my perspective in some manner, and make different choices.

*Everyone* on this board who is single, is single because of behavioral or personal choices they have made. They're not single because women are too picky, or because their body type isn't the ideal, or because their gonzo physical attractiveness is vastly underappreciated by the opposite sex...they're single because they're either limiting themselves with preferential choices, or they're turning people away with unattractive behaviors. And my bet is on the latter.

Juxtapose the dad bod guy in the top photo with the dad bod guy in the lower photo. Same chubby body types, two COMPLETELY different mindsets and behaviors.

I'd be happy to tap the first. I used to date a dad-bod guy that looked a lot like him, with the same cheerful smile and a very similar mindset (although my ex's mindset never got tested). I let him get away because I was shallow and stupid.

I have always politely ignored the second.

I think most sane women would agree.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
"Women's suffrage 100 years later: The borders are open & millions of foreigners have invaded. The culture is degenerate. The government is 20 trillion in debt. The army is functionally a globalist mercenary organization."
Lol causation from correlation on a Ray Peat forum. Truly great :clap
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Are you saying that I’m unfairly putting “the blame” on women as a group? I think that is extremely simplistic.

Let’s analyze one thing, welfare for single mothers. If you subsidize something, you get more of it than you otherwise would have had, so welfare for single mothers is artificially increasing the number of single mothers, with all of the negative downstream effects in society that brings relative to intact families.

If women did not have the vote, would there be this program of welfare for single mothers as it stands today? What if men did not have the vote, but women did?

So, to the extent involuntary wealth transfers (welfare) to single mothers is immoral and creates more broken families, “women” as a voting block are “to blame.”

Or am I missing something?
It's possible that with or without welfare, many women would have become single moms in the US. I can't speak for other countries, but single moms have been on the increase also in the Philippines, and there is no welfare for single moms here. I'm no sociologist, but my gut feel is that many women here have decided it doesn't make sense to get married if they think they're likely to marry someone who doesn't give them marital bliss, having seen the experience of their moms. But many are needing to have the satisfaction and comfort of being a mom, and so many have become single moms. Also, many men have decided that marriage isn't for them, because of the pressures that have come along with the newfound expectations of women in a married relationship. I personally find it befuddling that women have come to expect men to wed both the Asian and the Western concept of a husband, to expect men to be gentlemanly and chivalrous as Sir Walter Raleigh would be to Queen Elizabeth (allowing himself to be stepped on as a bridge in a puddle of mud), while at the same time wanting to expect egalitarian treatment from him. Men also see in their contemporaries husbands being subservient to their wives, losing their own being, giving in to the persistent and unyielding "requests" of their mate, and becoming compliant as a means to save their sanity. Finding women who can compromise in a marriage is becoming more and more of a challenge. Women have found that being like their "compliant" mom is anachronistic, and sway the pendulum beyond what men can tolerate, in general.
 

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,648
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
Beneficial liberalism? You were doing fine relating the historical facts on the Enlightenment until you fell off the wagon with this little bit of editorializing inserted into your historical narrative.

This brief observation below from a post I saw elsewhere yesterday very succinctly eviscerates the popular notion that Enlightenment-inspired women's suffrage lead to Good Things:

"Women's suffrage 100 years later: The borders are open & millions of foreigners have invaded. The culture is degenerate. The government is 20 trillion in debt. The army is functionally a globalist mercenary organization."

How could the Enlightenment and it's bast*rd daughter - women's suffrage - be such good things when such horrors (and much more left unmentioned, such as World War 2) were unleashed by it? This quote above implies none of the horrors mentioned would have emerged were it not for women's suffrage. Sounds like a heretical notion to contemporary ears, but I think it's plausible enough to be worth debating.

Hence, in light of such horrific developments and "works" - you will know them by their works, not words - maybe we'd be better off disposing of the Enlightenment and all its direct works/actions and offshoots, such as feminist suffrage, and go to a modified form of medieval patriarchy, which would disallow females from voting, plus much more. Then we'd have a shot at survival. Or maybe we should leave it alone, let the victim - the West - inevitably succumb from the cancer unleashed by the Enlightenment, and start over again. A western world of open borders, cultural degeneracy, 20 trillion dollar debt and purely mercenary - NOT defensive - militaries is utterly and completely unsustainable. It will fall apart no matter what Hilary Clinton, the LGBTQ community, the Deep State, defense contractors,the MSM, or Wall Street apologists say.
This is some incredile bull****.

Women got the vote largely because the industrial mode of war requires women to work the factories, giving women bargaining power to acquire the vote. Your whole post is ridiculous. For example, open borders used to be the standard, and the only reason the European states even started to track who is a citizen and who crosses the borders is because they installed social safety nets. I recall it was a policy first adopted by Bismark, who basically made the deal that if the working people let support the socity, the state supports them.

During times before women's suffrage, mercenary militaries were the standard. The delevopment of women's rights and conscription went together. This again is where you get you correlation wrong, and there are causative factors which go the wrong way around.

I'm pretty sure you are coming from the 'Dark Enlightenment' crowd, a bunch of contemptible psychopats who believe that because they can make good money in a modern society they could be rulers in a neo-feudal system.
 

whodathunkit

Member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
777
confusing the word liberalism as it can apply to pre-1930s and how it applies post WWII.
Sweetie, I'm not confused about anything, and I'm not confusing or conflating anything. YOU apparently confuse the rancid 20th century *Progressivism* with liberalism. So does @Badger, although I'm quite sure after that last post that he doesn't even approach understanding the concept of liberalism or its historical context in Western Civ.

That smart people continue to conflate the liberalism with progressivism is the reason why the term liberalism is so villified and is bandied about so by dummies, to the eternal detriment of the idea.

To finish it up, I will say that *in general* women do not understand these things and are much more likely to vote for emotional feel good things like wealth transfers and laws to "protect" people like criminalizing drugs, outlawing firearms, etc. So yes, those kinds of things when they are measurably from the female voting block are "their fault."
Yeah, I'm calling bull**** again. Where does the rise of Marxism and socialism fit into your little "Blame women" paradigm, or the the fact that *widespread acceptance* of ideas like wealth transfer and gun control in the West largely began with the Bolshevik Revolution? A revolution that occurred BEFORE women got the vote in the U.S. or any other Western country, IIRC. A revolution born from philosophical ideas promulgated by MEN?

Also IIRC, the Bolshevik revolution, which is arguably the harbinger of the global adoption of ideas like wealth transfer and the general disarming of the population, was instigated by MEN. A bunch of stupid, venal, male demagogues who got a larger group of stupid, lazy-minded men to kill a bunch of other stupidly passive men, thereby transferring power from the traditional ruling class to the first group of stupid, venal demagogues. All this under the guise of being for the rights of the "common man". The "common man" who idiotically swallowed this claptrap like stale, poxy giz, and then mystifyingly clamored for more.

Again, who did all that...? Yes, that's right, it was MEN.

You want to get back to where it all began, that is it. And it was all due to MEN. Stupid men with the same lazy, venal, uncritical minds you accuse women *in general* of having.

So, Kyle, sorry, but you're the one with an overly simplistic view, and I think it would do you some good to examine your deeper motives (e.g., fear of or insecurity about women) for the fact that someone as otherwise bright as you is content with such a narrow, lazy "blame women and minorities for society's ills" paradigm as you seem to have. Because in truth, it's a HUMAN thing.

FWIW, I think we're on the same side of most of the things discussed in these kinds of threads around here. Where we diverge are the etiologies of the problems.
 
Last edited:

whodathunkit

Member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
777
I'm no sociologist, but my gut feel is that many women here have decided it doesn't make sense to get married if they think they're likely to marry someone who doesn't give them marital bliss, having seen the experience of their moms.
This is actually a great quote, and I strongly agree with it, although my reasons for thinking so are probably not yours.

My dad was a great man, IMO, and a hero in his own way, although he never got the chance to be show-offy with heroism. But he believed strongly in family and worked many hours for many years in a good-paying job he hated so that he could provide a good life for us. He wasn't touchy-feely but could be quite sensitive, and showed his love, integrity, character, and sense of duty in other ways, like always being around when you needed him to be. When I really needed him, he was always there.

But he could also be a first class prick, and there were many days that if my mother or I had an idea that was even a whisker's breadth out of line with his, things could come within a hair's breadth of violence. Sometimes it did come to violence, although mostly verbal abuse, not so much physical. Not only that, but when I was young, he really seemed to feel that he was *entitled* to act this way, and that it was okay to stifle those he loved in this manner. I also noted that he didn't act this way with the other men in the family, only the women.

Because of this, I think I decided early on I was never going to give a man the power over me that my father had over my mother. I started stepping to him when I was a teenager, and we came to blows a few times. But my mother never did step, not really. All my romantic relationships have been ultimatelyy unsuccessful, I think in large measure because of the constant power struggle and the dominance of my father that I witnessed in early life. I was always wary and never did a good job of compromising in any relationship, because I thought that to compromise was to open the door to bullying dominance, and a complete subjugation of whatever ideas I had.

Also because of this experience with my father, as a young women I bought into the idea of feminism, although I was never a screeching, sign-waving harpy about it. But I did devalue men as people, largely in reaction to the way I had perceived myself to be devalued as a female early on.

I think experiences like mine are the primary driver of feminism and the reason, as you noted, for the rise in single motherhood even in cultures that don't promote it with welfare. With women finally able to eke out a living for themselves, why bother putting up with being subjugated and dominated?

I realized the sloppy, lazy errors in my thinking years and years ago, though, and began to try to rectify it. I rectified it by trying to see people not in the simplistic terms that the '60's and '70's-era "Battle of the Sexes" would have us see one another (which is still being promoted around here in threads like these!), but in more complex terms on an individual level. This was how I was able to come to terms with my father's behavior and my mother's seeming passivity, and see the complex love that was underpinning the whole relationship. This was how I realized I really do like men, and that don't have to devalue men in general, that I can dislike certain things in some men but that I don't have to generalize every unpleasant experience I have with an individual man to *all* men. Unfortunately, generalizing is the easiest and most passive way to think,which is why so many of us fall prey to it, and why it causes so many problems.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
It's possible that with or without welfare, many women would have become single moms in the US. I can't speak for other countries, but single moms have been on the increase also in the Philippines, and there is no welfare for single moms here. I'm no sociologist, but my gut feel is that many women here have decided it doesn't make sense to get married if they think they're likely to marry someone who doesn't give them marital bliss, having seen the experience of their moms.

The change in America coincided with welfare, and was greatest in the highest welfare populations (blacks). The correlation is really strong.

Also, women's happiness (according to their own reporting) has been steadily declining as they have been turning down or not being able to achieve and maintain traditional gender role marriages.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Sweetie, I'm not confused about anything, and I'm not confusing or conflating anything. YOU apparently confuse the rancid 20th century *Progressivism* with liberalism. So does @Badger, although I'm quite sure after that last post that he doesn't even approach understanding the concept of liberalism or its historical context in Western Civ.

That smart people continue to conflate the liberalism with progressivism is the reason why the term liberalism is so villified and is bandied about so by dummies, to the eternal detriment of the idea.


Yeah, I'm calling bull**** again. Where does the rise of Marxism and socialism fit into your little "Blame women" paradigm, or the the fact that *widespread acceptance* of ideas like wealth transfer and gun control in the West largely began with the Bolshevik Revolution? A revolution that occurred BEFORE women got the vote in the U.S. or any other Western country, IIRC. A revolution born from philosophical ideas promulgated by MEN?

Also IIRC, the Bolshevik revolution, which is arguably the harbinger of the global adoption of ideas like wealth transfer and the general disarming of the population, was instigated by MEN. A bunch of stupid, venal, male demagogues who got a larger group of stupid, lazy-minded men to kill a bunch of other stupidly passive men, thereby transferring power from the traditional ruling class to the first group of stupid, venal demagogues. All this under the guise of being for the rights of the "common man". The "common man" who idiotically swallowed this claptrap like stale, poxy giz, and then mystifyingly clamored for more.

Again, who did all that...? Yes, that's right, it was MEN.

You want to get back to where it all began, that is it. And it was all due to MEN. Stupid men with the same lazy, venal, uncritical minds you accuse women *in general* of having.

So, Kyle, sorry, but you're the one with an overly simplistic view, and I think it would do you some good to examine your deeper motives (e.g., fear of or insecurity about women) for the fact that someone as otherwise bright as you is content with such a narrow, lazy "blame women and minorities for society's ills" paradigm as you seem to have. Because in truth, it's a HUMAN thing.

FWIW, I think we're on the same side of most of the things discussed in these kinds of threads around here. Where we diverge are the etiologies of the problems.

Women were instigating for the vote and being a part of American politics in the 19th century, notably in the temperance movement that became the prohibitionist movement and amendment.

I've written at length before on this forum about sexual politics and how total war and total state are an expression of over-reaching feminism, even when executed by men. Have you never experienced the following: girl gets pissed off at someone, gets boyfriend to beat them up?

That's the female strategy, to organize men to perform the violence necessary for their political or social ends. Now, a lot of the intellectuals behind communism were men (mostly Jewish) but again I believe that the ideology and tactics are on the feminine side of sexual politics, involving saying "nice" things like "we're going to give everyone free such and such." It's a nice thing to say, but it never works out, and it leaves out the part of who you're going to rob from to get it. Harsh truths, like "there are no free lunches" are more male political statements, flowery language and ideals are more female. At least that's how I see it, and it's because females evolved without having to work for the resources but were kept safe by men and had resources brought to them, and manage the home. So it makes sense that a feminine political outlook would not take into consideration how you obtain the resources, but just focuses on how to use them (whether they exist or not).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom