Weird how “I prefer to date intelligent women” and “I prefer to date women with a high IQ” have totally different levels of social desirability.
The former conceals the fact that the latter may not apply to the woman reading it. That’s why one is Feminism but the other is Low-Status Male.
SSC’s latest seems like a classic case of letting gender politics obfuscate power and class issues that cut across gender.
He quotes some PUA:
Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value dudes hording all the pussy.
And then he uses both his intuitive experience and his LW survey data to show that men and women in polyamory date about the same number of people. There’s at least no clear cut numerical advantage to men. My experience also agrees.
But what if we neuter that sentence, and look at it again:
Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value people dudes hording all the dates.
Which is to say, charismatic and confident people of either gender, dating a lot of people, and awkward and introverted people of both genders dating no one, only one person, or being a hanger on in a larger polycule that doesn’t get a lot of attention from the partner regardless.
That sounds… less implausible. It doesn’t exactly match my observed experience, but it’s not super far from it either. I’ve certainly seen in nerdy groups a Queen Bee that is dating half the men, in a way that seems parallel to the alpha-males that PUA’s fear/worship.
It’s not at all clear that this is bad. This seems just as likely to be the result of “some people want more partners, and are more socially outgoing to find them, while some people want less or are less willing to put themselves out there to meet them,” which would be fine. Or it could be this high-value thing. (I detest rat-tumb’s focus on high-status-males as the evil beneficiary of social engineering, which seems both empirically and ontologically unsound, but from a capitalist-critical perspective, “liberalizing trade regimes” often means “the rich people get more stuff and poor people somehow have less.”)
But, I’m also not going to be surprised by the subjective perspective of people low on the social totem pole. Before, they had hope in this pigeon-hole thing, where each person could get at most one partner, so eventually the people as attractive as them would realize their best chance for a life long relationship was with fellow low-class dates like themselves. It was a bad model, but I’m aware people believed in it. Now they worry no one will be left waiting for them, and they’ll be entirely alone forever. So there’s some people who seem to be having a lot of sex (stealing their jouissance) and they aren’t reaping the benefits.
The answers they come up with are usually dumb, but they are at least seeing/feeling a thing.
Bambam honey darling kun, and also @slatestarscratchpad friend,
I love weird nerds but weird nerds aren’t a representative sample for the behavior of typical relationship norms.
A better example for normies applying this would be all the other countries, territories and communities where polygamy is practiced, as well as communities within the US where one man will have 11 kids by 8 different women.
No full poly until Tranhumanism makes it possible to ‘defect’ from both your sex and sexual orientation, pls.
Anonymous asked:
Dearest Anon-kun,
My representation is a bit more dire than how I actually interpret the situation, in part because it’s intended as a counter-balance to mainstream feminism, which strips women of their agency and refuses to critically examine their role in the social dynamics which create these situations.
“Women are powerless” is really quite deeply normalized almost everywhere! It’s very insidious.
Comments regarding even cishet neurotypical women should be regarded as generalizations that do not uniformly apply to the population, and many subgroups don’t necessarily fit them. Additionally, low-status women also exist. In fact, women that don’t fit this mold are more common in my subcultures!
Additionally,
1) I have a reasonable shot at making it to the Transhuman era.
2) I have a close relationship to my ex WRT expressed vulnerability & female companionship, though not sexually.
3) Have you observed the number of self-identified “traps” and other such individuals among the Alt Right? I believe this represents a sign of an impending Male Gender Meltdown, the consequences of which are hard to predict. Overall, I do think progress is being made, as indicated by the appearance of multiple male gender movements.
Also,
All my exes are bisexual (and therefore have no set reason to behave in a certain pattern of attraction), and this blog will continue to not disclose my sex/gender.
Kind Regards,
Miti
P.S. If you are secretly the tumblr user known as BA, this blog hopes for your swift recovery regardless of whether that is low in probability. If you are secretly tumblr user RO, this blog hopes for an increase in your available useful energy.
I laughed so hard i cried
The person writing this is 100% done and I love them.
Further proof the Alamo Drafthouse is the best. They kick out anyone on cell phones during a movie no exception, show old movies, and serve beer.
There is no “manpocalypse”, it’s just that everyone knows this is hypocrisy and they’re tired of being lectured by hypocrites.
Anonymous asked:
cyberpunkpixeljunk answered:
Nah, just make sure the women in the setting fit the setting. Plus, what do we know about this game? It could be just fine.
Ugh…
Transhumanism destroys gender/sex binaries by enabling mass alteration of bodies, sex, and gender.
Done properly it will be “Post-Feminist” because Transhumanism massively weakens the boundaries around what the term “woman” even means, and fundamentally alters the mechanics of human reproduction. (I mean, just take the idea of artificial wombs by itself and you’ll get big changes.)
Feminism itself is already struggling to adapt to the world it has created with only modern technology levels. The “Feminists” of 2065 (or whatever) will likely be very different from the ones of 2017.
WE USED TO HAVE A GENDER BINARY
This assumes that the gender binary isn’t something many people want (on some level or another). Considering that clothes often up being gendered, it wouldn’t be surprising to me if bodies become even more gendered among a significant portion of the population. We already have this to a certain extent. After all, men don’t get breast implants even though (unless you count transwomen or related things). Even if you could trans people, then number of ciswomen getting breast implants and cismen getting breast reduction out-numbers them (I think, I am not sure where to look for stats about this.)
Even women shaving legs while men generally don’t could be seen as a evidence that give the opportunity to make the gender differences even greater, people will.
Absolutely. Go on Second Life and you’ll see muscle mountains posing as men.
What I’m expecting however, is mass defection from a significant contingent of men, and a smaller counter-part group among women, into something new.
The idea is to show that men who enforce strict gender roles are failing on their own terms, which is hard to mistake for endorsement of those roles. It’s similar to how it’s not homophobic to make fun of the gay scandals of anti-gay politicians.
I disagree with this; for reference consider critique of anti-feminist women such as Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter which focuses on shaming their appearance and casting aspersions at their sexuality; this might be ironically highlighting the difficulty of performing femininity to the degree that they themselves would advocate, but it’s still a fucked up approach with considerable collateral damage.
Consider: Almost no one that doesn’t already agree will see this as “well we’re just pointing out how they ~ironically~ fail to live up to it”. They will see it as hypocrisy from a movement that they already know is full of hypocrites.
The whole “man tears” thing was similar, and similarly stupid.
@digging-holes-in-the-river reminded me of a form of sexism, or at least huge wrongness, that I sometimes suffer from, although I think I’m improving.
Logical belief: as reported by reliable statisticians, women are 52% of the population
Alief: women are a small minority, like 5% or something. They don’t really take part in society.
I think I get this from working in a very male dominated profession, and, to the extent I ever socialise, socialising with people from that profession.
I don’t often seem women complaining about this kind of view, presumably on the view it’s too ludicrous to occur to them, although I think complaints like “why are you treating all women as a uniform special case” are a sort of second-order effect.
I mean you’d feel like that in some industries, business, politics.
On the other hand: primary school teachers, nurses, dental hygienists (apparently 98% female, in Australia at least).
It’s interesting when you see a particular field pass 50% female intake because you know there’s going to be a shake up coming when all the old guys hit retirement age and society recodes whatever it is as a ‘girl thing’.
Victoria Police has got their female representation up from 8% to 26% and I’m really curious to see how people react if it ever gets to 50% or above, that’ll be totes fun.
Some Normie: as reported by reliable statisticians, women are 52% of the population
A Nerd: women are a small minority, like 5% or something. they don’t really take part in society.
Enlightened Discourse Master: there are no women, only men and traps
They spend the 3rd most in the nation per student and can’t produce a quality student.
MONEY IS NOT WHAT MAKES SCHOOLS GOOD.
It’s family values and communities. Things the left has been trying to destroy for decades.
I completely agree, they would have been good at math if they’d hated gay people more, you make sense.
Actually, Community and Family don’t require hating gay people (if you aren’t a member of [SUBSET OF RELIGIONS]). It is this blog’s belief that stable and beneficial families can be the new cultural norm without stomping all over the LGBTs.
Github eliminated gender bias in selecting conference speakers for ElectronConf by using randomized blind review, 100% of selected speakers turned out to be men, so they are cancelling the conference
amazing
now reveal the demographic breakdown of the reviewers
For diversity purposes in tech companies, Asians count as white. So obviously majority white, ofc.
I mean, you think I’m shitposting, but most of my shitposts are not completely groundless - there was a criticism of diversity levels at some Silicon Valley tech company a while back, and they conveniently left out that like 30% of the staff were Asian.
(And from what I’ve read, it’s Asians that take the actual brunt of Affirmative Action policies in schools… overall I’m not sure how long the political alignment will hold out. The true racists are split on this matter from what I’ve seen.)
the gay marriage will lead to polygamy slippery slope argument makes it sound like homophobes are more worried about a dude marrying two women than another dude.
It isn’t obvious, Argumate, dear old boy? It’s trying to trade against the greater remaining taboo value of the second to stop the first. The ideological tools to pass the first will be used to try to allow the second, even though gay marriage is most likely pro-civic while polygamy is very likely anti-civic. (The civicness is not the argument being used, after all!)
Wonder Woman strikes a blow against the patriarchy by having the male lead be only 4 years older than the female lead instead of 40 years older.
MRAs might see it as a victory against “female hypergamy” when the woman is actually older and slightly wealthier. Not sure how to be woke in that case.
Oh, this one is obvious. By the laws of vague internet liberal feminism, any activity can be transmuted into female empowerment if it’s done by a woman. Easy! Next question, please.
