“Manosphere” Community Beliefs: Truths and Nonsense
Roosh V, a pick-up artist, and one of the foremost voices in the “manosphere” – especially its reactionary wing, has been getting some attention lately. This past evening, ABC’s 20/20 featured an exposé into the “manosphere”, the world of men who make an effort to improve their romantic/sexual success with women and discuss their frustrations with such.
The “manosphere”/”Game” world overlaps to a degree with the HBD-sphere. Many of its adherents and key voices are individuals with reactionary/paleoconservative ideology (one which I – as a fairly unique Left-leaning HBD’er – do not share), as is the case with the overarching community that includes HBD. And like the HBD-sphere, it has its own conventional wisdom that may not necessarily adhere to facts. RooshV recently posted a list of “Community beliefs”, encapsulating some of this community wisdom in one place. In this post I will do a quick analysis of these beliefs to see how well they hold up to the facts.
Here are the stated “Community Beliefs.” Let’s break them down one by one:
1. Men and women are genetically different, both physically and mentally. Sex roles evolved in all animals. Humans are not exempt.
True. Indeed, that men and women are genetically different is in fact tautological: it is this genetic difference (XY vs. XX chromosomes) that defines male vs. female. But, in the sense that this genetic difference entails biological mental differences, this is correct (see my page HBD Fundamentals: On biological sex differences).
2. Women are sluts if they sleep around, but men are not. This fact is due to the biological differences in gender.
True with caveats. As Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, and Arnold Schwarzenegger could tell you, it’s not like our society gives a pass to philandering men. That said, promiscuous women are looked down upon more than promiscuous men for one simple reason: paternal uncertainty. Unlike women, men have no way (prior to DNA testing, anyway) to guarantee that a child they have putatively fathered is in fact theirs. Human males invest in their children, but any investment in a non-biological child is wasted, evolutionarily. As such, female fidelity became a valued trait, since it increases the chances that any children born to a woman’s mate are in fact biologically his.
3. Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them.
Muddled. In the absolute sense (all men), it’s clearly nonsense. In the particular sense (some men), it’s unclear. For one, which men? How big a fraction of all men are we talking about? In which societies (“different peoples is different”)? But the most confused bit the claim “no incentives.” What would it mean for men to have “no incentives” to engage in monogamy or reproduction? Are biological drives not incentives? Men are continuing to marry and have children. Indeed, the most monogamous men may be having the most children.
Latvian women. My wife is (partly) one.
If taken in the weaker sense, that some men will forgo monogamous mating if given the option, this may be partially true. We do have some evidence that effective sex ratios impact male/female mating behavior. Particularly, when there is an excess of single females relative to single men, men become less likely to commit and exhibit greater preference for short-term mating. Females may adjust their behaviors accordingly, as perhaps Latvian women have.
4. Past traditions and rituals that evolved alongside humanity served a net benefit to the family unit.
Muddled. Whose traditions and whose family units are we talking about?
Even if we restrict ourselves to Europe and the Near East, a whole slew of “family units” and accompanying traditions evolved:
As documented by Emmanuel Todd (discussed further by HBD Chick and by Craig Willy), even in fairly recent history, humans have invented all sorts of family arrangements. Each may have been a response to the circumstances each group faced in their various environs, or they may be a reflection of the underlying traits of these peoples, or both. As we can see, what constitutes the “family unit” has varied greatly across various human societies.
5. Testosterone is [one of] the biological cause[s] for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men will cause them to be weaker and more feminine.
True, as corrected. While testosterone is the most well-known and arguably primary androgen, it’s not the only one nor is it the only one which is important. The other androgens, which “are of equal importance in male development,” include:
- Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA)
- Androstenedione (Andro)
- Androstenediol
- Androsterone
- Dihydrotestosterone (DHT)
Testosterone, or even the other androgens, aren’t quite the “things” that makes males male. Testosterone is found in women, for example. Further, while testosterone levels do indeed fluctuate in men in response to the environment, and while testosterone supplementation does alter male behavior, male-typical behavior cannot be simply reduced to the presence of testosterone. Giving a woman testosterone or other androgens will affect her behavior, but it won’t be enough to turn her into a man (see belief #1).
6. A woman’s [mate] value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty. A man’s [mate] value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character.
True (as corrected) with caveats. First, even when corrected, it’s an oversimplification. “Mainly” is too strong of a word. Health is an important quality in both sexes. Intelligence is valuable for women as well men, as is a woman’s character (particularly her fidelity – see belief #2).
7. Elimination of traditional gender roles and the promotion of unlimited mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative behaviors that block family formation.
Sort of. As discussed in the posts by Peter Frost linked under belief #3, unbalanced sex ratios can often lead to later marriage and more preference towards short-term mating. To the extent that this now occurs, we like to think that this is a modern phenomenon. But, as M.G. once discussed, a similar period occurred in America before – incidentally during of a time of great societal inequality and national strife in the turbulent Interwar years.
Further still, despite the loosening of sexual mores, as Frost noted, there are racial constraints on how much it can change. Despite whatever prevailing trends, family formation is going to remain the norm among slower life-history groups, like Europeans. Family formation may be less common among say Blacks, who have traditionally had unstable polygynous pairings.
8. Socialism, feminism, and cultural Marxism cause societies to decline because they destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and require large entitlements that impoverish the state.
Nonsense. Let’s take a look at something from some of my earlier posts:
The countries with the most “socialist” policies in place also have the highest fertility rates. Now before any of you criticize the NW Euro fertility rates being driven by non-European immigrants, in all the more fecund NW Euro countries, native fertility rates are 1.7 children/child-bearing woman or higher. Fertility rates are lower – indeed much lower – in the less feminist, less socialist Southern and Eastern European countries.
Even the other aspect of fertility that (rightly) concerns people – eugenic fertility – may be best achieved with “socialist” policies (as I’ve previously explained). These include programs to help working mothers, such as state supported day care and paid maternity leave. (Though of course, even these cannot completely compensate for basic effective cost of living – which, in the developed world, is the main driver of fertility rates.) Many in the right-wing corners of the manosphere wish for a return to the pre-sexual revolution days. That is simply not going to happen. Women in the West aren’t going to completely abandon education and careers – that’s here to stay. The best ways to encourage eugenic fertility is to reduce the conflict between education/work and family for high-IQ women. I will take up this issue again in a future post.
As with the HBD community, the manosphere circulates truths not necessarily known to the mainstream world, but it also propagates a fair amount of rubbish. As I do with HBD and the human sciences in general, I try to seek out the truth of the matter, and set the record straight whenever I can.
Some food for thought:
JayMan's Blog 
The countries with the most “socialist” policies in place also have the highest fertility rates. Now before any of you criticize the NW Euro fertility rates being driven by non-European immigrants, in all the more fecund NW Euro countries, native fertility rates are 1.7 children/child-bearing woman or higher.
What does “native” mean, HBDologically speaking? I would be interested to know the genetics of individuals like Mick Philpott, who killed five of his own children in an arson-plot. But he’d already been in the news by then:
Philpott featured prominently in the media after 2006 as a result of his large family (he has fathered 17 children), and his reliance on state benefits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Philpott
England has a much lower murder rate than Jamaica. If you take membersoftheJamaicancommunity out of the English stats, the difference gets even bigger. If you take Scots, Irish, gypsies and so on out too, the English murder rate drops even further. Similar things are true of rape, theft, fraud and so on. I wouldn’t say that the people responsible for England being a good host (in more than one sense of the word) are reproducing as well as those who have migrated there because their own homelands aren’t such good places to live. England is doomed as a first world nation if present trends continue.
Fertility rates are lower – indeed much lower – in the less feminist, less socialist Southern and Eastern European countries.
Some are much poorer too, but it’s an interesting question why, e.g., Italy has such a low fertility rate.
Great article. I think there are more left-leaning HBDrs out there. It’s especially interesting to not that Finland, a very White country in the democratic socialist tradition, has a high fertility rate. The southern part of Sweden has the same rate as the northern although it has twice as many foreign borns (most of which are non-Europeans).
And generally speaking, the fact that we use sex for reproduction makes for neurodiversity and a variety of behaviors. For example, there is research that unsurprisingly show that conscientious people are less promiscuos than others. Let’s put the D back in HBD.
“Let’s put the D back in HBD.” I don’t know if the double entendre was intended here, given you are in Sweden, but it was hilarious.
~S
@Sisyphean:
Well, it is all about the “D”… 😉
Hehe, obviously I don’t approve of the diversity we have here. That’s like a cancer patient appreciating his tumor as biodiversity.
the fertility map looks at a snapshot in time and proves nothing.
What you want to know: Is the fertility rate increasing or decreasing as the countries become more socialist, feminist, and less traditional? That would take more than one map and I don’t think it would support your viewpoint.
Your suggesting that we look a fertility rates over the time period when the rates fell in practically all Western countries – and then blame that on democratic socialism.
Are the rates of recent decades really showing such rank order instability that a snapshot, as you call it, is useless? You make that claim, but do you have any data to back it up with?
You admit that fertility rates in all countries fell over a time period where there was a rise in socialism, feminism and a move away from traditionalism. Seems to me I’m not the one who needs to show data here. If you reject my premise you need an alternate explanation and data of your own.
@jack
I hate to be unoriginal and boring but correlation =/= causation. Since the world went through many changes in that time period you would need to control for many factors to make the claim that socialism and feminism lead to lower fertility rate.
Reading a post like this makes me think that the social sciences are in rather good shape, in fact better than ever, just not in academia, where they have completely gone to the dogs. Economics is still pretty weak everywhere however.
I should have written that economics is still pretty weak everywhere except for Steve Sailer.
“Indeed, the most monogamous men may be having the most children.”
Feministx over at Heartiste posted this:
http://feministx.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/2915/
“For men with wordsum scores in the top range, answering “no” to the question about ever having cheated on one’s spouse is associated with -.217 less children. For women it is the opposite. Never having cheated on one’s spouse is associated with .122 more children for women with wordsum scores in the top range.
The association with number of children and having cheated is even stronger for men with
wordsum scores below 8 while the relationship between cheating and number of children
is not significant for women with wordsum scores below 8.”
Might be that you are both right.
Perhaps I missed any mention of contraception?
This is a great post and I’m glad you addressed some of these issues.
“8. Socialism, feminism, and cultural Marxism cause societies to decline because they destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and require large entitlements that impoverish the state.
Nonsense. Let’s take a look at something from some of my earlier posts:”
Hmm. I agree with you about the issue of fertility rates.
But you didn’t really address the issue of whether they destroy the family unit. I believe there is a case to answer there.
“Large entitlements that impoverish the state” – well most governments across Europe are socialist in some form or other. Government spending in Sweden is 52.5% of GDP, while in Italy is not far behind at 48.8% of GDP [versus only 38.9% of GDP in USA] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP
But public debt as a % of GDP is only 38.6% in Sweden, versus 126.1% in Italy, so clearly whether a state is ‘impoverished’ or not is down to its economic management (or mismanagement) rather than the presence or absence of “socialism, feminism, and cultural marxism” there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I think it’s important to distinguish between socialism/marxism in western countries pre-1965 and post-1965. The pre-1965 variety, and especially pre-WW2
..earlier form of ‘socialism’ was more working class in nature, and purely concerned with issues of class, the trade unions, and the economy, but in social, cultural, and moral matters was often very conservative [nationalist, anti-immigrant, sexist, racist, homophobic].
Whereas later socialism in western countries, post-1965, was more middle class and less concerned with ‘the workers’ and more aligned with feminism, gay rights, animal rights, environmentalism, nuclear disarmament, anti-war, multiculturalism, open borders, drug decriminalisation/legalisation, atheism, etc. etc. [This is what is referred to as ‘Cultural Marxism’].
I think that the Eastern and Southern European countries are far more in the mould of the old-style socialism, while the Northern and Western European countries are more in the mould of the ‘Cultural Marxism’ type of socialism.
Another thing about testosterone is that levels vary from man to man, with this variation rarely having any meaningful consequences. Only if levels are abnormally low does it matter, and that’s easily treated.
Peter
“The countries with the most “socialist” policies in place also have the highest fertility rates.”
I think that Government Expenditure as a % of GDP is the best determinant of the extent to which a country really can be considered ‘socialist’. Whether they happen to spend this public money on social programmes for women, gays, and ethnic minorities or instead spend it on national infrastructure, roads, public transport, or the military, etc. is immaterial. It’s the size of the state that counts.
There is no question that Italy has a massive bloated state sector, including high welfare spending, and government expenditure is 48.8% of GDP, but it also has one of the lowest fertility rates in the western world (1.4).
Austria has very high government expenditure of 49.0% of GDP, but a fertility rate of only 1.42.
Hungary has government expenditure of 49.2% of GDP, but a fertility rate of only 1.28.
Belarus has govt. expenditure of 49.6% of GDP, but fertility rate of 1.20.
Bosnia & Herzegovina govt. exp. = 50.3% of GDP, fertility rate only 1.23.
Ukraine govt. exp = 47.3% of GDP, fertility rate only 1.22%.
So the connection between ‘socialism’ and higher fertility rates isn’t quite so clear-cut.
Years ago, I once did an analysis of the percentage of mothers who were in the work force and for western european countries, the percentage of mothers in the workforce was positively correlated with fertility. Italy had a very low percentage of mothers in the workforce, probably due to cultural expectations. I think that this expectation that mothers stay at home (coupled with the desire to have a normal first world standard of living) leads to an overall low fertility as its difficult to make it on one income.
@feministx:
Good point!
Do you have that online anywhere?
I dug it up for you here: http://feministx.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/mothers-in-the-workforce/
” Many in the right-wing corners of the manosphere wish for a return to the pre-sexual revolution days. That is simply not going to happen. Women in the West aren’t going to completely abandon education and careers – that’s here to stay.”
Those women don’t reproduce themselves, even in socialist Europe (1.7 being well below replacement level), so one way or another the current situation is definitely not “here to stay”. Either European women start reproducing themselves, or there won’t be any European women.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11525804
“Is Sweden the Best Place To Be a Woman?”
“Sweden does have one of the highest employment rates in the world for women. But if you bring out the magnifying glass, you’ll see that many women are working part-time in low-paid jobs.
According to a report from the TCO, among blue-collar workers, 50% of the women work part-time in often insecure employment conditions, compared with only 9% of men.
Their earnings are even further reduced when they decide to work less after having children.
This conflict between employment and childcare stops women from becoming economically independent, and reinforces the notion of men being the principal breadwinners.
There is an on-going discussion about how income differences between the sexes can be counterbalanced by equal opportunities at home.
Swedish women – like women around the world – are often still expected to play the lead role on the family stage. Two-thirds of housework is done by women.”
I commend their results in keeping their fertility rate at near replacement level. However, even Sweden can’t eliminate ‘gender roles’, and no matter how hard they try feminising men and masculinising women it will never cause them to meet in the middle in some sort of ‘gender-neutral’ utopia. After more than 50 years they still haven’t realised that humans are not a ‘blank slate’.
Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Swedish women work in undemanding, low status local government jobs. It has enabled women to do what they wanted all along: have a couple of children.
I think America is really more of a feminist utopia, in that women more often achieve greater success in their careers or in business than they ever would in the likes of Sweden or Denmark. But the difference is that they work far more hours, and have to pay for a nanny out of their pocket, whereas in Sweden they can work part time and daycare is funded by the state.
http://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/lessons-from-a-feminist-paradise-on-equal-pay-day
As a Swede I agree with most of this. I’m pretty sure Sweden is not that good for women anymore. I’ve heard older women say it was better in the 1970s and that today it’s good on paper but not in reality (no stats will for instance tell you of the young men patrolling some areas here and instruct women on how to dress).
Regarding fiscal policies, the socialist party did handle our fiscal crisis in the early 1990s and their voters were extremely dissapointed with the spending cuts. They have never recovered from this; they used to get some 45 percent of the votes and now they have 30 percent – and a lot of that is newly arrived immigrants who vote for welfare checks.
And I’m pretty sure our fertility rate is maintained by a steady influx of people from the Middle East.
‘There is an on-going discussion about how income differences between the sexes can be counterbalanced by equal opportunities at home.
Swedish women – like women around the world – are often still expected to play the lead role on the family stage. Two-thirds of housework is done by women.”’
House’work’ is such a farce and underlies the entitlement of housewives. Such a lifestyle is clearly a luxury that mostly only well to do countries can afford. It isn’t productive.
Although, historically, the house was actually a place of production and in some places it still is. But the work in those houses actually produced pots, clothing, drinking water from the river, etc… It wasn’t based on cleaning the home, modern house chores, or watching the kids.
House work, as a so called occupation, is a drain on wealth which shouldn’t be artificially inflated by the government.
Jack wrote,
“You admit that fertility rates in all countries fell over a time period where there was a rise in socialism, feminism and a move away from traditionalism. Seems to me I’m not the one who needs to show data here. If you reject my premise you need an alternate explanation and data of your own.”
This is also a period of technological development and urbanization and democratization. Those are steps away from traditionalism but different from socialism and feminism.
It coincides with increasing wealth and urbanization – those are steps away from traditionalism but not necessarily towards socialism and feminism. If we look at the TFRs provided by Wikipedia/CIA Factbook for 2013 we find,
Denmark 1.73, Sweden 1.67, Finland 1.73, Norway 1.77
Poland 1.32, Italy 1.41, Spain 1.48, Portugal 1.51, Greece 1.41
This may be partly a matter of immigration but Finland has seen very little of that. If we look at Muslim part of the population we find that,
Italy, Spain and Norway have 2-4 percent. Denmark and Greece have 4-5 percent.
Speaking of Finland, this country has according to UN data has a higher TFR than Italy since 1980. This suggests that there may be rank order stability in these figures that would make a snapshot valid.
Great post (as usual). I do think I disagree with your assessment that the nordic countries are more socialist than others. There’s more to “socialism” than just govt spending as a percentage of gdp. look at the Heritage Foundations Freedom Index for instance… Nordic countries (and UK and Ireland) are far better than most Southern Europe, which is more paternalistic/regulatory/etc.
The old cliche of Sweden as some socialist paradise is not true. Furthermore, you have to take into better account how big an impact 50 years of actual real in your face state socialism had on Eastern Europe. I think a big part of the decline in fertility there (and in Russia) can be ascribed to the loss of religion and the dispiriting impact of a horrible system of govt for decades, something theyre still slowly culturally recovering from.
Apparently the Nordic countries are not strictly speaking “socialist”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
“The Nordic model (or Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy[2][3]) refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland). Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a “universalist” welfare state (relative to other developed countries) which is aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, promoting social mobility and ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights, as well as for stabilizing the economy. The Nordic model is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of wealth redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.[4]
The Nordic combination of extensive public provision of welfare and individualism has been described by Lars Tragardh, of Ersta Skondal University College, as “statist individualism.”[5]
Sometimes mistaken by Americans as socialist, while simultaneously being criticized by Scandinavians as overly capitalistic, the Nordic model could best be described as a type of middle ground. It is neither fully capitalistic or socialistic, and attempts to merge the most desirable elements of both into a “hybrid” system.[6]”
I’ve had some thoughts percolating through my brain about the mano-sphere for some time. You’ve hit quite a few of the points that irked me but not the main one, the root assumption that annoys me: that there is one best way to be male. Basically it’s go alpha or go home. I see the human population has supporting multiple reproductive strategies among both men and women. I’m reminded of a primate documentary I watched years ago where the alpha males would strut and bluff and invest all this energy into controlling as many females as possible, while smaller sneakier males where quietly copulating with their ladies in the bushes. Those sneaky males exist because their forebears managed to procreate, just as today’s men and women exist (in all our variety: geeks, nerds, weirdos, jocks, overachievers, etc) because their parents were successful.
~S
@Sisyphean:
Precisely. The idea that there is only one way to be male is self-evidently wrong because multiple reproductive strategies exist.
Of course, there are many other wrong-headed assumptions about “Game”; key among them is the idea that any man can become a master seducer with enough effort. That’s the equivalent of saying that anyone can become an NBA champion or a Nobel-prize winner if they put in enough effort…
@Jayman Partly I think that’s just salesmanship. Saying you can turn flabby Johnny gamer into a sizzling Mr. Game gets a lot of page views. If there’s one thing guys want to know how to do, it’s get with women (except of course for those guys who already get with women)… but rarely do we see nuanced analysis on what kind of relationships a person ought to pursue given who he is/what he wants other than: get game, use game, swim in women. I can see the game community influencing how other men I know are engaging with women though, so there is definitely something to be said for proper salesmanship, the meme is propagating itself, it has game, so to speak. And I’m not saying everything they preach is wrong, or even that any of it is, it’s just that I think it’s not for everyone.
~S
please not that TFR currently understates the actual fertility rate do to tempo:
Click to access Bongaarts-J_1998_On-Quantum-Tempo-Fertility.pdf
Click to access PCB05-Bongaarts.pdf
“Latvian women. My wife is (partly) one.”
is your wife a hottie like these latvian girls of the pics? 😀
Socialism (almost) works for Swedes because Sweden is an ethnically homogeneus society (almost, again). Socialism will never work for Spain (where I live) or the States for the opposite reason. And it will soon stop working in nordic countries as they are being deluged with immigrants.
Very true. As soon as we began mass immigration in the 1980s it seems no one was interested in paying taxes anymore. The socialists adjusted to this and shifted to a centrist position. Today all parties are social liberals except for the anti-immigration party, who have around 10 percent in the most recent polls.
Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them.
This is definitely true. Not ALL men, but enough to make it one of those “social problems.” Just like saying “kids won’t eat their vegetables if they aren’t made too,” might not include all kids, it includes enough to make the statement noteworthy.
Are there biological incentives to engage in monogamy? Are there biological incentives to engage in polygamy? Look at how the incentives have changed. A hundred years ago it was hard for a young, non-rich man to have a sexual relationship outside of marriage. Now it is easy. At the same time women were unlikely to leave marriage. Now they do it about a third of the time. It is easy to see why marriage is becoming a raw deal for men.
Even if we restrict ourselves to Europe and the Near East, a whole slew of “family units” and accompanying traditions evolved:
There was no unit consisting of single mothers sleeping around and leeching off of the government to feed their spawn. We just saw variation in inheritance and living arrangements. Roosh was referring to the former, not the latter.
female-sluts are disrespected because…. they are not accomplishing any accomplishments. Even very ugly women will find eager partners.
Men-sluts are admired because they have to WORK to get their notches.
@Eliezer Ben-Yehuda:
” Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them.”
Men, are not wired differently, per se (after all, male monogamy evolved out of strategies in monopolizing the reproduction of an individual female). *Promiscuous* males, however, *are* wired differently, and for evolutionary reasons, physically attractive males will tend to be overwhelmingly promiscuous (exceptions do not disprove the rule).
Still, I think it should be pointed out, that the *vast* majority of males are not promiscuous, even if only because they lack the options. But, many women who are fixated on the top %10-20 of the most attractive males who *have* those options, are apparently blind to this false generalization (I have met very few western women who either had the intuitive faculty, or the integrity, to acknowledge that *most* males aren’t prmiscuous).
What western women need to reconcile(something that women in developing world populations already know) – is that LTRs are – and always have been – about ‘settling’ (trading off male physical attractiveness for commitment). Are there attractive exceptions? Yeah, sure – but even so, these exceptions tend to commit to the most attractive women.
And since females are *vastly* more selective, these guys are prohibitively rare (and thus have more attractive women to choose from) – meaning that even for an attractive woman, the odds of pairing off long term with a reciprocally attractive male is anything but certain.
Thus, the average western woman with astronomically high standards has two realistic options – either lower their standards and ‘settle’, or keep riding the carousel, hoping they luck out (but expect otherwise).
“A man’s [mate] value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character.”
Totally wrong!. As I have tried to explain on various topical blogs, female selectivity is a dynamic that changes over time (consider selection runaway in female choice), given chance and opportunity and the rate of information efficiency.
Thus, what held for previous generations will not hold for current generations, much less future ones. It occurs that your bad and unjustified inferences follow from an ignorance of how sexual evolution acts upon human behaviors.
Because of the economically prosperous, systemically mediated welfare state dynamic that prevails in developed world populations, economic and ecological pressures no longer mediate their mate choices to the extant they did in the past.
One consequence of this is that male erotic capital (physical appearance) has supplanted other forms in the stratification of male status with respect to mate availability. So, being a high status male (with respect to mating) now says less about material wealth, than about physical beauty. Therefore nowadays male mate choice by women is focused in erotic capital, as occurs in female mate choice by men.
See the freakanomics data for online dating posted on another topic. Females do indeed fixate on the top %10-20 of the most physically attractive males, in the *general case*. But that doesn’t mean that only 9 or 10 males are the only ones wo are getting laid – it just means that the odds of a lower ranking male finding a receptive female is that much more remote.
Also, you seem to forget that considering a higher male optimal mating rate, we also come to an inescapable conclusion: that not only should the most attractive males mate with the most attractive females(duh), but also a significant proportion of average females as well(given the higher male mating rate).
Which, of course, renders less available ‘average’ females to be mated with average guys – necessitating an imbalance that progresses down the attractiveness scale(rendering a sexually asymmetric mating dynamic).
This is why it is so easy to observe that even relatively unattractive females are still much more successful than unattractive males at disassortative mating (ie. such as with fat women being able to commonly mate with non-fat men, etc). The other thing to remember is that even if human variance follow a normal distribution, the way that attractiveness is subjectively deemed will not be assessed symmetrically, between the sexes. But rather, it will be sexually dimorphic, out of necessity for the way sexual evolution works.
So, the thing about attractiveness rankings is that the male population will be ‘ranked’(by females) in such a way that it is are bottom heavy in distribution, while females will be ‘ranked’ such that they are top heavy(meaning there are more female 7′s than male 7′s, by virtue of the fact that there is a higher probability of a female attracting a statistical subset of male 7′s, than of a male attracting a statistical subset of female 7′s).
Also marriage rates have *zero* correspondance with who is actually mating with whom, so it says *absolutely nothing* about sex(as many a married man can attest).
“As a Swede I agree with most of this. I’m pretty sure Sweden is not that good for women anymore. I’ve heard older women say it was better in the 1970s and that today it’s good on paper but not in reality (no stats will for instance tell you of the young men patrolling some areas here and instruct women on how to dress).”
I hope you realize that you are reinforcing the idea that women should be provided for. Instead of looking at women’s own behavior you’re looking at the society/house they live in and asking society society to provide for women’s needs…
Sorry, I got caught up in accuracy and completely forgetting about reinforcing political correctness. Let me try again: Sweden is a great country for women and will no doubt continue to be so in the future since the numerous immigrants from the Middle East wholeheartedly embrace the nation’s egalitarian ideals.
Is that better?
Roosh has allowed a lot of trash, cultural marxism, and crude hatred of women on his website. He also wrote an article repeating crude, leftist talking points on hbd:
http://www.returnofkings.com/3316/introducing-the-muscle-bio-diversity-mbd-movement
Criticism: Welfare state = Camp of the Saints. Native pop annihilation by r selected third world.
Also, modern contraception tilts balance with welfare state even aming Whites to single motherhood.
I’ve been in the community for a long time and have pretty much read all the PUA blogs. The most rational insight comes from the owner of this blogger blog: http://tomenunite.blogspot.com/
#2 You mean philandering women are looked down upon more
And also with #3, women are never allowed to opt out of monogamy especially in most parts of the world, including Latvia, where there is an excess of single men to women on average. Lots of mass violence and murders against females everyday. Did you know that most women are married while most men are single? Women are pressured to be married at an early age and have children while men can mate with married women until their husbands threaten violence against them.