Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 1 posts:

• "Happy Cakeday, r/DebateFeminism! Today you're 9" by u/AutoModerator

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 1 posts:

• "Cases of Court-Ordered Caesarean Section" by u/ANIKAHirsch

I generally think than MRAs are msyognisitic and so are incels. But I find it hard to disagree with them on the topic of male genital mutilation, especially since feminists have specifically fought to have a ritual nick on the clitoral hood be recognized as FGM in America (as practiced by the Bohras, a sect of Shia Islam,) but routinely publish reports that dont recognize male genital mutilation as gender-based violence. They have even hosted Angela Merkel and Hillary Clinton. Angela Merkel proposed a law to legalize male genital mutilation in Germany. Many feminists organizations have hosted Hillary Clinton, and at least the UN Women has hosted and praised Angela Merkel after proposing this law. Furthermore, feminists have claimed that women are the majority victims of gender-based violence in the Islamic world, Israel and America, when most to almost all men in these reigions have been sibject to genital mutilation because of their gender. How is this acceptable?

Now I dont support MRAs and incels, but why are feminists claiming that male genital mutilation is not gender-based violence and praising a woman who legalized it in a developed country, against the will of most of her people?

I find this both outrageous and disingenuous.

I don't understand why sexual selection is always excluded from the discussion of patriarchy. It seems fairly simple to me why the patriarchy exists from the perspective of sexual selection; women want the best guys, guys become super competitive and become intense capitalists, ie 'the patriarchs'. after feminist activism however, 'the patriarchs' of today however, also need to also have some 'emotional intelligence' (along of course, with the un/conscious bias of being white, tall, and a job that pays more than the woman in the relationship, regardless of how much she is making) .

When you go out, do you see any short guys anymore?

Only tall guys chill.

This was not allowed on /r/askfeminists for some reason so i thought i would ask it here..

So hypergamy is the idea that people only date/marry only the cream of the crop when it comes to men, and patriarchy, through a systematic oppression of women, says that there are a small group of 'fathers' who can wield the most power in society.

Isn't this the same thing?

just as with anthropologists in the past, feminists today need to do a lot of self-reflection when it comes to exporting their ideas, ideas of individual autonomy that transforms whole cultures into participating into the Washington consensus, an academic imperialism, to places with wholly non-western world-views.

just as anthropologists were those who spread their objectifying science towards the worldly other, feminists today are on the front lines of exporting neoliberalism, and they are too traumatized to actually participating in a public sphere to discuss these ideas; either claiming it is too much emotional labor to participate in civic space, or threatening to cut people off from the conversation.

unfortunately, this is the exact same card that the republicans are playing, as is yet to be seen in the senate; and unlike feminists, they have the money.

I hope this fits here and I do not intend to sound hostile or troll anyone. I am simply trying to gain further insight into a problem I did not experience personally (my mother was the only case where I was indirectly confronted by this issue).

I don't consider myself a feminist since in the place I live in (Central Europe) women have all the rights men have and then some (they have an earlier retirement age and are exempt from the draft that forces every male citizen to serve as a soldier/EMT/firefighter for six to nine months). I do think it is a necessary movement in several parts of the world but struggle to see myself as a supporter of feminism in my home country although there are still problems women face (like the earlier retirement age and a lack of education in a significant group of female members of the baby boomer generation leading to post-retirement poverty). Yet feminists in my country do not address this problem. Instead of focusing on the cause they mostly claim that women simply make less money due to misogyny (there are various groups and not all follow the same doctrine of thought but some politicians and newspapers often paint the picture of women being repressed). Which was true sixty years ago. My mother wasn't allowed to pursue the career she wanted because my grandparents determined a farmer's daughter doesn't need to learn about chemistry to be a good house-wive and farmer. But maybe I lack information about the contemporary daily lives of women in other sectors of work in the 21st century (as an EMT we make no difference between men and women, the demands are identical for everyone and we are happy to have more recruits regardless of their sex, most a male since we are pressed into service). So I would like to know about your personal experiences in the work field and if it really is true that you face "structural" discrimination (I think the criticism is often one-dimensionally targeting the male population, holding us as responsible for female's disadvantages but as much as I oppose that term I don't have insight into most women's lives so without gaining insight I cannot truly understand if there is a point to all of this or not).

i think that if people were to admit to, and take responsibility for their own complicity in the domination and oppression and colonialism of others, the world would be a better place.

we all have to admit to something, for men, it is to stop viewing women as holes to be fucked.

we have been doing that. but there has been no admittance of complicity from the other side.

for women, this is in the form of admitting to the fact that golddigging is not a result of oppression, it is something that women do regardless of how well they are doing. statistics prove this. the lived experiences of all the ignored men on the internet, that erupts instead into vitriol, is from this point.

beauty can be in the eye of the beholder, but how much paper you have in your wallet? well, that is the most objectifying thing in the world. and women always, always, always always always have their eye on the prize. even when they think like they dont.

the fact that men can't utter their impotence in public forums is itself the biggest sign that the patriarchy is not such a simple construct of 'fucker and fucked'..

just as men always keep their eye on the prize too.

we have been working hard, in our universities and our commercials, to make men aware of their domination. but we dont do the same for women. they get a free pass. It is the evil bad weinstein wagging his fat stumpy cock at women thats the problem, and dave chappel should not be seen as a hero for refusing to suck cock.

No, Dave chapelle is the evil one, the one who walked away from the dirty money, because he says a few bad words.

The rest of them golddiggers, well you see they had no agency!

Wait a second, was Jennifer Lawrence sucking harveys dick WILLINGLY? Oh yes, Jennifer Lawrence has agency, but the rest of them gollddiggers were between a gold rock and a "hard place".

this is an age old point of privilege that manifests in women, and a type of feminism that we see popularized today, that wants to have the cake and eat it too.

unfortunately, its funny to see competition itself as being labeled "male" toxicity. lets be a little more context-aware no?

there needs to be a moral awakening in female western femininity that takes responsibility for the action that golddigging is problematic, and it is indeed an epidemic, because if they don't there will truly never be any revolutionary change.

but there is no admittance; we call it instead "liberal feminism" or something.. and again, not taking responsibility, no admittance of complicity.

we can either admit that there is collective emotional labor to be done, or we can continue to pretend like the problems of others are not real problems, they are not my problem. but then the sea levels rise...

but who cares what i think right? im just another incel... albiet one that has fucked more people than can humanely be thought to be possible /r/ihavehadsex LOL

​

---

I am convinced of feminism, I think feminism is a good thing, but after surviving the ideological bootcamp of undergraduate life and being thrown into the desert of the real, I am also convinced that feminists are full of it.

If feminists had the chance to be golddiggers, they would. They can't accept the fact that you can either be a gold digger or a "hoe", but you cant be both.

feminists continue to insist that this is where they can find their freedom, to have their cake and eat it too. that hot steamy 50 shades of cake.

And they resentfully scorn the fact that they cannot have this.

(and i am someone who has read a shit ton you can call me names all you want, but please, please test me, i beg you)

what convincing is there to be done with words when really it is the case that female behaviors speak louder than any so called 'lived experience' can ever hope to portray?

there would be no capitalism without female mating choices.

an anticapitalist revolution requires a truly sexual revolution; but women dont want to be polyamorous, it doesnt work in their favor.

dont believe me? google something like "why polyamory wont save us"

feminists didn't give us the bonobo society i dreamed of. it gave us instead hypercapitalism, every interaction is a calculation of emotional labor.

women, even the feminists, chose to hold onto whatever crumbs of privilege they got, rather than at any point, truly speak truth to power.

have fun fighting about whether terfs can be included as feminists or not, ladies. 'da boys' will be discussing the real political issues, as always.

I truly don't understand the feminist perspective on this.

Do feminists advocate that such activity should be seen as 'totally normal' (if there is such a thing as normal)... should it normalized?

Do you believe that sex work should be treated as a "real career" ?

Is there a limit to this perspective, or do you think such work should be viewed on par with, and the same dignity, with other professions, like lawyers, doctors and teachers?

_____________

My follow up questions:

1. Since sex-work is a valid profession, should we be taking steps to protect consumers and producers, as we do for example in the massage industry, with accreditation programs?
2. Since sex-work is a valid profession, should we allow this profession to be popularized by teachers, given out as valid results on high school career tests to 16 year olds? Should their be a booth at career fairs?
3. Since sex-work is a valid profession, should it be taxed? Perhaps such a tax can go into the accreditation programs that would indeed help with the safety of the profession as stipulated in question 1.

I don't understand how "the patriarchy" is allied with "capitalism" ...makes more sense that they are opposed to one another.

Has there been any attempt to quantify the amount of unpaid work women do?

"The economics of industrialized countries would collapse if women didn’t do the work they do for free: According to economist Marilyn Waring, throughout the West it generates between 25 and 40 percent of the gross national product."

How accurate is this?

When this book first came out, I wondered why so many feminists were up in arms.

Why so many feminists were screeching why we should keep "male political economic thinking" outside of feminism.

Well it's 2019 and I realized that the failures of feminism pointed out by this book many years ago would be so looked down upon by today's uncritical feminisms.

Neoliberalism today is sold by a Medusa in the form of a young girl on a Starbucks cup, and the "sisterhood" that is behind her, tear down whole cultures, the newest form of neocolonialism，to pave the way for cost benefit analysis in all aspects of life.

Any dissent is looked upon as not politically correct, bans from the community, censorship.

You call them white feminists but don't be naive..native informants are all about. They don't need to be.

Culture destruction is happening all around us. In the face of so called cyber feminist freedom. Just look in the black mirror and realize you are but a pawn.

Capitalism with a smile. Capitalism with an eerie female smile, the kind of you see on your colonizing cup of coffee.

oh, and here is the kicker if you want "studies" Research found that men prefer "nice" women (talkative, cooperative, peaceful, caring, compassionate):

http://www.newsweek.com/study-finds-men-nice-women-not-other-way-around-261269

Women like jerks, men like nice girls.

https://www.spring.org.uk/2017/12/quality-women-more-attractive.php?fbclid=IwAR1yog0Vb4pCM56vmkek-TBo2ddYltYFb4Wpk-IeCy6h2A9drYbthqCzHXE

Men prefer nice women, women do not prefer nice men.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263424760_Why_Do_Men_Prefer_Nice_Women_Gender_Typicality_Mediates_the_Effect_of_Responsiveness_on_Perceived_Attractiveness_in_Initial_Acquaintanceships

Why Do Men Prefer Nice Women? Gender Typicality Mediates the Effect of Responsiveness on Perceived Attractiveness in Initial Acquaintanceships

But research found women do not prefer nice men. In fact, they prefer predatory men (selfish, aggressive, careless, non-talkative):

http://archive.is/ZGvcF

https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40806-017-0126-4

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/sex-and-relationship/161217/dominance-may-make-bullies-more-attractive-leading-to-more-sex-study.html

Manipulative, asympathetic, arrogant bullies have higher numbers of sexual partners and have sex more often.

https://www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/research-news/all-english-research-news/do-bullies-have-more-sex-/15305552

Bullies have more sex and more sexual partners than non-bullies.

http://www.wdish.com/life/bullies-sex-study

Bullies have more sex and higher self-esteem.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0126-4

Antisocial bullies get more sex than others. Men who are abusive and manipulative to women get more sex.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3177486/Child-bullies-sexier-popular-dates-victims-grow-new-research-suggests.html

Child bullies are sexier, more popular and have more dates than their victims when they grow up.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/women-really-dont-go-for-nice-guys-study-indicates/

Women really don’t like nice guys.

http://archive.is/e6p19

Unempathethic, narcissistic criminals are one of women’s first sexual choices.

https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Dark-Triad-Personality.pdf

Women find narcissist assholes more attractive.

Women find more attractive guys who are narcissist and psychopaths.

https://www.elitedaily.com/women/women-are-attracted-to-narcissistic-men/992989

Science explains why women like narcissist assholes.

https://www.academia.edu/36525083/ADHD_Autism_and_Psychopathy_as_Life_Strategies_The_Role_of_Risk_Tolerance_on_Evolutionary_Fitness

Psychopaths are more successful at dating and getting sex.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys

Why do women fall for bad boys?

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c55/a8cae3c8a5d238002a261fec643f767d1126.pdf

In a large forensic hospital, 39% of psychopathic patients had a consensual sexual relationship with female staff members (Gacono et al., 1995)

The malingerers were significantly more likely to have a history of murder or rape, carry a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder or sexual sadism, and produce greater PCL-R factor 1, factor 2, and total scores than insanity acquittees who did not malinger. The malingerers were also significantly more likely to be verbally or physically assaultive, require specialized treatment plans to control their aggression, have sexual relations with female staff.

https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/719862

ADHD is strongly associated with criminal behavior: studies show that at least 25% of prisoners in the United States have been diagnosed with the disorder. ADHD sufferers often exhibit dark triad personality traits.

http://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=psyc_gradetds

“In social interaction tasks, Normand et al. (2011) observed that children with ADHD were more insensitive and self-centered when negotiating with friends, and were often more dominant than their typical friends”

A Danish prospective cohort study found that teenage boys (aged 12 - 17) with ADHD were more than two times more likely to father children than their non-mentally ill peers.

Compared with individuals without ADHD, those with ADHD were significantly more likely to become parents at 12 to 16 years of age (IRR for females 3.62, 95% CI 2.14–6.13; IRR for males 2.30, 95% CI 1.27–4.17) and at 17 to 19 years of age (IRR for females 1.94, 95% CI 1.62–2.33; IRR for males 2.27, 95% CI 1.90–2.70).

This is not just because they're less likely to use contraception: adolescents with ADHD actually had nearly twice as many sex partners as normal teens.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24972794

Males with ADHD reported their age of first intercourse to be nearly 2 years sooner than TD peers. Irrespective of gender, adolescents with ADHD had nearly double the number of lifetime sexual partners.

ADHD was likely an advantageous trait in pre-Neolithic times. Even though by modern standards, men with ADHD are often impaired in psychosocial, educational and neuropsychological functioning, they may still be favored by sexual selection. https://chadd.org/about-adhd/long-term-outcomes/

The researchers also noted that unpredictable behavior—a hallmark of ADHD—might have been helpful in protecting our ancestors against livestock raids, robberies, and more. After all, would you want to challenge someone if you had no idea what he or she might do? In essence, the traits associated with ADHD make for better hunters-gatherers and worse settlers.

If you have any research indicating the CONTRARY of these studies, please share it. I make compilations.

NOTE: this research REALLY matches what I have seen in real life. Aggressive junkies and bullies in college did amazing with women while calm nerds got nothing. And the fact that the guys were wild and aggressive was... fetishized? Yeah, that's the word.

I just have a pretty simple question here that I was hoping a feminist could offer an educational answer to in order to help me understand and potentially improve the outcomes of certain interactions and events. Why is it that when other straight men or myself respond in literally the exact same fashion to being hit on by a gay man as the way feminists champion women for when responding to being hit on by an undesired (the rules seem to be waived based on level of attractiveness) straight man, that any female first or second hand witnesses, especially ones who identify as feminists, will go completely apesh*t on me for doing so? The commonly cited "wrongdoing" is having made the gay man feel bad and rejected, whereas that seems to be entirely inconsequential when concerning a straight man. Thanks in advance, as I've been confused for quite some time as to why I face such hostile responses to actions that followers of an ideology held by the very same people attacking me in response to the above actions have repeatedly stated is perfectly acceptable, and anytime I've attempted a civil discussion with any who've attacked me for such actions it has always been met with a slew of arbitrary and baseless insults, childish name calling, and an onslaught of unnecessary vulgar language.

I think the feminism reddit have been blocking my messages so i came here. Anyone free to chat? Thanks

1. The argument for emotional labor as a cost-benefit analysis resorts to neoliberal understanding of subjectivity, which inevitably ends up destroying the argument for equality since we all become objectified. For this understanding, I recommend reading Foucault.
2. The erosion of the public sphere. In relation to the topic above, we cannot avoid the list of cognitive biases with respect to those we consider creepy when we engage with eachother in public. Instead the argument seems to be that men should only engage in conversation with women online, where 'there is no objectification at all' instead of making people feel uncomfortable. Yes, people should be aware of the space they take up in public but now we are on the verge of public hysteria. For this understanding, I recommend reading Hannah Arendt.
3. The number of people who were happy with their situation being objectified in a hierarchy, made itself evident in the election of Donald Trump. If you don't know what I'm talking about, search 'white woman who voted for Trump'.
4. Censorship with regards to trans exclusionary feminists, and others. I don't like terfs but I hate censorship more. The continual finger pointing, and outing of people who do not follow the line is a problem that continually makes the right stronger. We need to come together, disagree and have debate. I hate how some people think they are right no matter what. Nobody has a "truth." For this understanding, I recommend reading Zizek, maybe some Nietzsche.
5. Universalism. I think universalist feminism is a problem, people like Angela Davis find the universalism of intersectionality problematic. No, your one size fits all solution, even in the form of intersectionality, is actually a form of neoliberal colonialism. You can read Stuart Hall or Angela Davis for this one.
6. Lack of philosophic backing to morality and concept of agency, and consent. Take for granted that these concepts are "simple." No, they are not and you simplifying them is actually a problem. Akin to my last question, IF I am someone who is happy with my position in an objectification hierarchy, what motivation do I have to act?
7. Nobody points the finger at women who need to also take responsibility for their shitty actions. The lived experience of men dealing with gold diggers is real. It's not because they are going after a certain type of woman either. Most Women have a tendency to dump a guy based on superficialities. Thus guys turn around and become business men who decide to just pay for women. It's a chicken and egg situation, and both sides need to take up the responsibility of objectification or else nothing will change. For this understanding, maybe read some Jordan Peterson LOL.

Hey guys, I just uploaded my first ever youtube video arguing that I think it's the false dichotomy fallacy when some feminists argue that if you're not a feminist then you must be a sexist. Let me know what you think :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM89Jbglzek

​

I stopped advocating for feminism after many years of experiencing gold diggers. how do I change my mindset?

i am very experienced in the relationship game, and never had a problem taking on emotion labor. however, many of my relationships have ended with a women leaving for someone who is making more, is taller, etc.

Now I look at academics like bell hooks and butler as operating in a narrow ivory tower, and instead see the 'real world' as best described like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLZBvgWVlOc

https://youtu.be/54v1dMZcD8M

its not that i even put myself in those situations, even my feminist and hippy girlfriends ended up with guys who are just raking it in. all power to them, but it doesn't really help my mindset.

its an age-old psychological problem.

if you want a someone, and show passion, they will never want you.

if you go after your ambition, and make money. women will come to the power, and security, including that of money, but only if you never show insecurity.

if you show vulnerability, in the realm of money or emotion, its a crack that she will remember. women who aren't emotionally weak will never want to be there for the struggle, but if you do well, there will be a lot of them waiting for you at the finish line, when you are doing well.

i feel like female insecurity is insatiable. i feel like all this metoo outrage, though very legit, is a little bit inspired by a trauma, and went way overboard because of it. and now this instagram, black mirror, social status game has seeped into the hearts of all people, but i feel women are insecure and they constantly seek validation.

the relationships i get into these days, i only go out with girls who are low maintenance. im cold. i dont develop a relationship anymore. i think its ephemeral, use value. i am being used.

I am cold in relationships and even dismissive of emotions, and its unfortunate but it becomes an easy way to get laid. why does acting like this work?

i dont believe in their love.

i think of 'love' as being a dependence based mental illness.

and I can't get it out of my head that women are way more likely to complain about emotional labor issues when a guy doesn't make that much money. historically, it is a legitimate complain not to expect anyone to take on emotional labor, but in reality, it is a complaint only wielded by the overly-privileged.

i think the whole thing is a farce.

and my last complain has to do with the erosion of the public sphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OabTK7y7d6E

instead of advocating for men to stop harassing women, the claim seems to be not to talk to women at all. its obvious why, because your social status needs to be checked before we engage in conversation.

its individualism and pure ideology at its best.

(like, if this dude was ugly, she wouldn't be fooled:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbhsxGSHUc8 )

The problem is I learned this misogyny from experience, not from some ideological presumptions...

i am trying to unlearn to think from this 'Machiavellian perspective' ..

regain an innocent perspective of life... i dont know how.

As an interectional feminist, I find that I brush of off many topics as not worthy of my attention. The emotional labor to address every feminist detractor is simply too high, especially when I'm trying to fight the patriarchy. However, I came to realize that I was being systematic in my dismissal of voices that were trying to be heard. Obviously, most critiques of feminism are rediculous. However, if I systematically label all detractors as bad faith actors that would mean I'm using my Privilege as a feminist to oppress others.

Yeah I’m pretty sure I’ve boiled down a single universally attractive trait. From the stereo type to actual relationships this, is the simplest thing men need to embody to get girls and I wanna know what y’all think.

Kind but dangerous.

Why this, cause let’s be honest no one wants the “nice guy” and the kind loving football quarter back to literally Jesus Christ have this in common. A person loving and gentle but can crush anyone. I don’t think you can be a good man if your harmless. Good is controlling yourself and directing that power.

The best, most convincing arguments I've heard from feminists were not the ones that said "don't you know feminism just means equality" or "men's issues are covered by feminism anyway - we deal with that when we deal with the patriarchy" or "we represent women's issues first first and foremost because they're the ones that have got it rough". The best ones are the ones that explicitly addressed why they think women have it worse in society rather than treat their detractors like some sort of small child who doesn't understand what feminism really means, that it just means equality of opportunity for women at the best and that at the worst anyone who disagrees with feminism really and truly is just a bad person, some sort of terrible misogynist who would strip away women's rights.

Because it's obvious that feminism just means equality right and that we need to represent women first and foremost in a society where clearly they are the marginalised gender who are more likely to be sexually assaulted, more likely to be underpaid because of their gender, more likely to be catcalled and all the rest of it. Men's rights issues are mostly just trivial stuff about divorce courts (I mean most men are happy for the women to have control over the kids and half their financial resources anyway aren't they?) and a couple of incel dudes that can't get laid. The fact that:

• men are more likely to die in war and even get conscripted in some countries (not everyone lives in US) and have been historically
• men are more likely to die or experience serious injury working dangerous blue collar jobs and have done historically
• men are more likely to experience violent assault
• men are more likely to be incarcerated
• men are more likely to experience prison rape

All of that suddenly becomes irrelevant because men 'choose' to fight in wars. All of the social narratives about constraining influences from the 'patriarchy' that affect women's agency - their fear of being confident in their body and sexuality without being "body-shamed" or "slut-shamed; their fear of not being able to work hard and find as high paying jobs as men because of stigma about women not being "in the kitchen" - all of that reasoning and constraining influences from cultural norms, the economic circumstances and "toxic masculine" influences on men to fight for their country suddenly becomes irrelevant and all that deterministic reasoning suddenly goes out of the window. Instead, the historic, social and economic circumstances that have historically pushed men into a subjugated position where they often felt it was the right, just, honourable and masculine thing to do to fight for their women and children is irrelevant. Men fighting and dying in wars is simplified to "well that's just shit men are doing to each other: be a feminist and fight patriarchy!".

The fact that men are in fact more likely to die or experience serious injury working dangerous blue collar jobs to provide for their family is also suddenly irrelevant because "that's what men choose to do", or "at least they have the career options, unlike women who just get told to go make a sandwich". Men experiencing violent assault, the socioeconomic circumstances that lead to these situations and all the other complex, intricate situations? All of that is just patriarchy and men doing shit too each other. Saying that "we'll deal with all that when we deal with patriarchy", ignoring the socioeconomic circumstances that lead to incarceration, the fact that not everyone who is in prison is a sociopathic axe murderer and that prison rape makes up an extremely significant proportion of sexual assault because it is male on male, whereas feminists are only interested in stuff that men do to women, all of this comes across as an extremely dismissive view on men's rights issues. And surprisingly a lot of it is toxic masculinity stuff that the feminists are supposedly against as well - "men should stop bitching about these things and just man up", that kind of thing.

​

--------------------------------------------

For the r/GoodMenGoodValues (GMGV) subscribers and readers of my journal I add in this extra section to explain the relevance of looking at a broader socioeconomic context when we talk about dating issues. We already know at GMGV our dating issues hardly compare to women that have been sexually assaulted or men that die or experience serious injury working blue collar labour jobs to provide for their families. But when our detractors, often feminists but from other ideological backgrounds too, bring up these tired points time and time again it seems very dismissive and like a worn out way of thinking: "the fact your finger just got chopped off does not compare to the fact someone else had their arm chopped off".

It is also an old, worn out and historically a conservative way of thinking that if you have difficulties with something in life, or some people the "common denominator" is you, that you are the problem not other people. This is said as if there are not other common denominators like social barriers in dating or existing difficulties in dating methodology for men or the fact that dominant high status men are more likely to be successful in dating:

- Women have possibly evolved to prefer the most dominant man available because that man can provide protection from other contenders (bodyguard hypothesis) as well as access to higher quality foods. (Geary 2004)

- Women regard male war heroes as more sexually attractive. This effect is absent for male participants judging female war heroes, suggesting that bravery and high status are gender specific signals. (Rusch 2015)

- 66% of women prefer a partner who is dominant toward either the in-group, out-group or both. (Giebel 2015, p. 40)

- Males are selected more by dominance hierarchies than by female choice. Intimidation of rivals and physical dominance, not sexual attractiveness as judged by females, predicted mating success of males. (Kordsmeyer, 2018)

- Women find men scoring high in dark triad traits more attractive (d = 0.94, N = 170). The dark triad traits are are narcissism (overvaluing one's importance), Machiavellianism (manipulativeness), and psychopathy (lack of empathy), the latter two of which correlate with dominance. (Gibson 2015), (Carter 2013)

- In a large US sample, high status men (especially of lower IQ) have ~18% more children compared to low status men, whereas high status women have ~40% fewer children compared to low status women. (Hopcroft 2006)

- Adolescent bullies have more sex partners (0.38 more partners per 1 point increase on a 5-point bullying intensity scale). (Provenzano 2017)

​

But of course, all of these points will get derailed every time by feminists who want to make out like the only guys making these points are sexist, misogynist neckbeard types. Or by bringing up women's issues which is why we need to approach these topics from an anti-feminist, anti-MRA egalitarian perspective as I have done in the first section of this post. As for other people having things worse than us in society, we already get it that some people have it worse than us. That doesn't mean our own social, sexual and romantic isolation does not have a significant impact on ourselves or others in society.

​

• the correlation between isolation and depression:

Relevant time-stamps:

- 17m00s - 19m11s (esp. 18m10s onwards)

- Screenshot at 19m35s

​

Also, see physical effects of isolation:

- 19m40s - 21m34s (cardiovascular emotional dampening @ 20m30s & 20m42s; sleep deprivation@ 21m08s)

​

• work productivity loss from depression: evidence from an employer survey

Relevant quotations (for drawing a causal link between depression and loss of workplace productivity):

ResultsThe average company realized an annual $617 (SD = $75) per capita loss from depression by compensation methods and a $649 (SD = $78) loss by disruption correction, compared to a $316 (SD = $58) loss by friction correction (p < .0001). Agreement across estimates was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90, 0.93).

​

• Further reasons why isolation and depression is destructive to society / conversations Good Men (GMs)[1] want to have about:

- the fact that there may be a significant demograph of GMs falling behind in the dating world now and what can be done about it

- what does it mean if there is a crisis among males who are depressed and not getting what they want from their sexual/romantic lives? depression has been widely linked to a lack of productivity and other problems

- what the problems are in this sort of society, and what it means for future generations if we cannot pass on intelligent & virtuous traits (as inherited biologically and through child rearing)

- what roles gender politics play in this (I discuss the clash between feminism and traditionalist gender politics on my subreddit, both of which I see as being equally harmful to GMs)

- the biological and social conditions of women that contribute to this

- our individual experiences and struggles in the dating world for which we should be able to refer to ourselves as GMs and whatever virtuous or otherwise desirable traits we may have as it is relevant background information to our situation, (not because GMs walk around in real life referring to themselves as such).

- the warning of the Big Question which is posed by post-wall hypergamous women[2] (not all women), a fate that no woman wants to end up with when. This is the case after years of ignoring and neglecting GMs, ridiculing us, calling us "Nice GuysTM" (NGs)[3], they turn around and ask "but where have all the Good Men gone?" Essentially, these are the same GMs that already pursued and were rejected, often harshly by these same women, and the same self-respecting GMs that no longer want anything to do with these same women.

- our concerns about the absence of platforms[4] which are dedicated to the discussion of Good Man Discourse (GMD)[5] rather than the damnatio memoriae[6]