Men are pigs

[JazzGal]

Ok, I'm too depressed to talk basketball today. So, here's something I've long wondered. I was reading about the woman who has accused Carolina Panther owner Jerry Richardson with sexual harassment, and this fits the common pattern of old/overweight/unattractive men who sexually harass young/shapely/attractive women, AS IF these young, hot 20-30 somethings find old/overweight/unattractive somehow sexually desirable. Whereas men are sexually attracted to young, attractive women, it's as if these men think the converse is never true, that these women look at these old/overweight/unattractive men and routinely think to themselves, "Oh yeah, I want to tap that." Take, for example, Donald Trump. By all objective measures of physical attractiveness, the man's a pig. Yet, he seems to think that women routinely find him sexually desirable.

It reminds of years ago when I had a long commute back home after work. I'd listen to this radio show with two co-hosts. These guys were funny at times, but they routinely objectified women for physical attractiveness. I was curious one day, so I googled them. They were both badly overweight, middle-aged men, and I had a hard time believing that the average woman (attractive or not) found these guys sexually alluring.

I understand that money and power play into this, that's it's not all about physical attractiveness, but it does seem to me that men can be a wee bit disconnected from reality at times about how attractive they are to women. Men, I've concluded, tend to badly overrate how attractive women actually find them. They talk about how they'd like to do this and that to these young, beautiful women but never seem to realize that the vast majority of these women would be grossed out at the thought of seeing these guys naked, let alone having sex with them.

Anyway, that's my rant for the day. Now back to being depressed.

Don't be too depressed. We are actually in a time, finally, when women's voices are being heard. Rich/powerful/ugly men are hopefully getting the message based on others' ruined careers and lives, but sadly these types of men often believe they deserve anything they want and do not understand how their actions and words cause harm. Hopefully poor/powerless/handsome men get it as well (because they can be every bit as horrible). I imagine that some men will always over-estimate their attractiveness to women. But the times are a'changin' and hopefully it will only get better from here.

But thanks for the empathy. I often have to remind myself that the vast majority of men I've met in my life have treated me decently, and I try not to focus too much on those who haven't.

 

[addictionary]

Indeed they are.

But women has their own agenda of being women.

Here is a tombstone from Turkey:



It says: “Here lies a man named Halil who died from the constant nagging and fighting of his wives and his mother and who wanted these words written on his tombstone: El Fatiha (smth like RIP) for the soul of Esseyid Halil who died of the bitching of women”

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

So, biologically speaking, women are attracted to a feature that is not biological?

Well, yeah. Reproductive biology and sociology conclude that for the sake of extending the survival of the species, women are supposed to be young, healthy and fertile. Men look for those traits -- young skin, bright eyes, good geometry, etc. Whereas, the male is supposed to be a provider and protector, with ample resources to successfully raise children. So women are looking for prowess as well as other attractive traits and will often trade up from one man to the next on their list if they can.

This doesn't justify predatory behavior like Harvey Weinstein. Women obviously have a right not to be intimidated or sexually dominated. However, women are far from innocent and are not merely "taken advantage of" when they're actively pursuing attention from powerful men.

 

[MVP]

Edit: I don't know what I do wrong with images.

This was supposed to be the old comic where the unattractive, overweight man looks in a mirror and sees a buff, handsome stud. A thin, pretty girl looks in a mirror and sees an ugly, fat woman.

Stereotypes exist for a reason, I suppose.

not the same I guess but the same point?

 

[JazzGal]

Yes, basically like that one.

 

[One Brow]

Stereotypes exist for a reason, I suppose.

Because we teach them to the next generation?

 

[One Brow]

Well, yeah. Reproductive biology and sociology conclude that for the sake of extending the survival of the species, women are supposed to be young, healthy and fertile. Men look for those traits -- young skin, bright eyes, good geometry, etc. Whereas, the male is supposed to be a provider and protector, with ample resources to successfully raise children. So women are looking for prowess as well as other attractive traits and will often trade up from one man to the next on their list if they can.

The are social traits instilled by a patriarchal system, not the results of reproductive biology.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

The are social traits instilled by a patriarchal system, not the results of reproductive biology.

Patriarchy? You think this is political? Who told you this? You are aware that women have a limited time window of fertility and are in a somewhat vulnerable state when nursing and caring for infants. You're also aware that it takes nearly 20 years and a lot of resources to raise a child. That's not political science. That's how one generation succeeds the next.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

The are social traits instilled by a patriarchal system, not the results of reproductive biology.

lol sure. ffs

 

[Ron Mexico]

Hey, @idestroyedthetoilet this seems like a good enough thread for you to continue to justify your sexism.

I know you are one of the many on our board that get a little sensitive about racism, sexism, homophobia and other things pointed out. I do try and avoid posting it in the Jazz sections. Its just too funny in a thread with people getting upset with being accused of racism to make sexist and homophobic comments. But yes I did point it out although not a specific post (too many to point out tbh) and then the next post said I would not post anymore in the Jazz section about it because I know some people cant handle that and dont want those conversations in there.

But back to your post, you literally gave the definition of sexism as a reason for your comments not being sexist.

Saying men are the stronger sex is sexist.

Calling other men female terms as an insult is definitely sexist/Calling a man a female body part to infer that they are weak is sexist.

Assuming something about a person because they are a women even if the majority fit the mold is sexist.

Yes, in general the average women is not as strong in the upper body(not all though) as the average man. There are many factors to that but that does not make an entire sex "weaker," using history does not help your argument more either. History is filled with humans being terrible.


Our society is sexist and racist and lot of other things. It isn't necessarily a bad thing individually (but leads to bad things as a society) and it isn't an insult to say you are one of those things, despite it making most people defensive. All of us make assumptions. All we can do is realize when we do and try and be better.

 

[One Brow]

Patriarchy? You think this is political? Who told you this? You are aware that women have a limited time window of fertility and are in a somewhat vulnerable state when nursing and caring for infants. You're also aware that it takes nearly 20 years and a lot of resources to raise a child. That's not political science. That's how one generation succeeds the next.

You seem to be confused about terms and biology. Patriarchy is cultural state, not a political system. Depending on the woman, the "limited window" is actually 30-40 years. Until very recently (biologically speaking, practically no time at all), we were hunter-gatherer primates whose children were marginally self-sufficient (that is, they could find enough food to feed themselves) before they turned 10, and consumed few resources before that age.

You seem to be stuck in white, 1950s stereotypes regarding gender.

 

[MVP]

How about this girl? Certainly nobody would call her weak lol.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

You seem to be confused about terms and biology. Patriarchy is cultural state, not a political system. Depending on the woman, the "limited window" is actually 30-40 years. Until very recently (biologically speaking, practically no time at all), we were hunter-gatherer primates whose children were marginally self-sufficient (that is, they could find enough food to feed themselves) before they turned 10, and consumed few resources before that age.

You seem to be stuck in white, 1950s stereotypes regarding gender.

Why don't you ask a woman or women of any culture (not just so-called white American culture) what traits they look for in a male partner then? Explain to these women that they don't need a man to be a stable provider, but rather, that we were recently hunter-gatherers whose children could scavenge for themselves at the age of 10. Write back.

 

[One Brow]

Why don't you ask a woman or women of any culture (not just so-called white American culture) what traits they look for in a male partner then? Explain to these women that they don't need a man to be a stable provider, but rather, that we were recently hunter-gatherers whose children could scavenge for themselves at the age of 10. Write back.

It's sad you just assume I have not discussed this with a variety of women over the years. Is that so rare in your world?

The results of human society speak for themselves, as do many women (if you bother to listen). Different women want different things (as you would expect, evolutionarily speaking). In fact, the same woman often looks for different things in men at different times in their life. Some prioritize financial support, some emotional support, some appearance, some intelligence, some artistic ability, etc. Many prioritize several of these to different degrees.

 

[One Brow]

lol sure. ffs

Laughter is easier than learning.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

It's sad you just assume I have not discussed this with a variety of women over the years. Is that so rare in your world?

The results of human society speak for themselves, as do many women (if you bother to listen). Different women want different things (as you would expect, evolutionarily speaking). In fact, the same woman often looks for different things in men at different times in their life. Some prioritize financial support, some emotional support, some appearance, some intelligence, some artistic ability, etc. Many prioritize several of these to different degrees.

Would you be willing to describe yourself in terms of age, location, demographic and who you're partnered with, if anyone currently?

If you look at actual social data (as opposed to anecdotes and your own personal admonitions), you'll see that when women choose a long-term male partner and ultimately marry, they rarely deviate from some very specific criteria -- including physical criteria and status/success within social hierarchies. Women rarely choose men who are not at least as tall (or at least nearly as tall) as they are, who do not have equal or at least near-equal status within social hierarchies as they themselves do, and who do not meet certain standards for physical appearance that they themselves meet. There may be a few exceptions to these general rules, and you can argue that these are culturally learned or transferred attitudes if you want, but they are nonetheless consistent from culture to culture.

Jordan Peterson is one clinician who has covered related topics in his lectures. This is an example.

 

[One Brow]

Would you be willing to describe yourself in terms of age, location, demographic and who you're partnered with, if anyone currently?

If you look at actual social data (as opposed to anecdotes and your own personal admonitions), you'll see that when women choose a long-term male partner and ultimately marry, they rarely deviate from some very specific criteria -- including physical criteria and status/success within social hierarchies. Women rarely choose men who are not at least as tall (or at least nearly as tall) as they are, who do not have equal or at least near-equal status within social hierarchies as they themselves do, and who do not meet certain standards for physical appearance that they themselves meet. There may be a few exceptions to these general rules, and you can argue that these are culturally learned or transferred attitudes if you want, but they are nonetheless consistent from culture to culture.

Jordan Peterson is one clinician who has covered related topics in his lectures. This is an example.

Mid-50s, Midwest, which of the 50 or so are you interested in, and my wife, who is early 50s and, oddly enough, lives in the Midwest. I came from a lower-class background, she came from an upper-middle-class background.

I see we have moved on choosing long-term mates as opposed the preferences from biology. I don't blame you there, you were foundering in that discussion, and you probably think you will do better in a different field. Your invocation of Jordan "Lobster" Peterson is an indication that you won't. For example (from his video), "youthful appearance" is a failure as a measure of fertility, but it's a great measure of the ability to dominate a relationship by virtue of superior experience and assumption of a partially parental role in life. That's the sort of mistakes those steeped in patriarchy, and unaware of that bias, tend to make.

The cultural norms of patriarchy affect women just as much as men, and so their socially-instilled response is to follow those norms. They are consistent across many cultures because patriarchy is consistent across many cultures. However, in the few exceptions of non-patriarchal cultures, these preferences are often absent.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Mid-50s, Midwest, which of the 50 or so are you interested in, and my wife, who is early 50s and, oddly enough, lives in the Midwest. I came from a lower-class background, she came from an upper-middle-class background.

I see we have moved on choosing long-term mates as opposed the preferences from biology. I don't blame you there, you were foundering in that discussion, and you probably think you will do better in a different field. Your invocation of Jordan "Lobster" Peterson is an indication that you won't. For example (from his video), "youthful appearance" is a failure as a measure of fertility, but it's a great measure of the ability to dominate a relationship by virtue of superior experience and assumption of a partially parental role in life. That's the sort of mistakes those steeped in patriarchy, and unaware of that bias, tend to make.

The cultural norms of patriarchy affect women just as much as men, and so their socially-instilled response is to follow those norms. They are consistent across many cultures because patriarchy is consistent across many cultures. However, in the few exceptions of non-patriarchal cultures, these preferences are often absent.

People's preferences in choosing long-term partners are rooted in real biological and economic reasoning, not just cultural indoctrination (as you seem to claim here). If a person is dating with an eye for building a longer term relationship, then their short-term preferences might well be the same as their longer term preferences. I'm not trying to change the subject whatsoever, just explaining the logic that people normally use to select a partner, especially if the plan is ultimately to have children.

You seem to be suggesting here that men prefer young, attractive women (with youthful features), not because it signals health and fertility, but because men will likely find these women somehow easier to dominate, as though the man's goal here is to simply make the woman to submit to their will. If that's the case, I find that to be quite a reach. Some people will also likely find that offensive. You're the first I've heard make that type of argument.

You also seem to be suggesting that women are inclined to choose men in possession of equal or greater resources and status (at least you haven't disputed data to that effect), not because the women value comfort, security and stability in a partner, but because the women, like men, have been culturally indoctrinated with a belief that they should submit to whatever the man wants. Again, it's your patriarchy claim.

You are certainly entitled to your unique point of view and you may have a unique set of circumstances, but to dismiss mainstream studies and other people (whom you know little about) with the blanket claim of "patriarchy" is foolish.

 

[One Brow]

People's preferences in choosing long-term partners are rooted in real biological and economic reasoning, not just cultural indoctrination (as you seem to claim here).

I'll grant you economic reasoning, as that is a part of the cultural indoctrination. As for biological reasoning, 10,000 years ago there was no such thing a long-term partners; they don't form these relationships in hunter-gatherer lifestyles. 10 millennia is far too short a time for these biological preferences to have formed.

If a person is dating with an eye for building a longer term relationship, then their short-term preferences might well be the same as their longer term preferences. I'm not trying to change the subject whatsoever, just explaining the logic that people normally use to select a partner, especially if the plan is ultimately to have children.

The result of a logical argument is only as good as the initial conditions you feed into it. You are using faulty initial conditions, based primarily in the projection of 1950s stereotypes.

You seem to be suggesting here that men prefer young, attractive women (with youthful features), not because it signals health and fertility, but because men will likely find these women somehow easier to dominate, as though the man's goal here is to simply make the woman to submit to their will. If that's the case, I find that to be quite a reach. Some people will also likely find that offensive.

It's a good thing I'm not posting around a bunch of snowflakes, eh? As for what you find a reach, since the fertility argument is counter to reality (quick example: the best predictor of fertility is the existence of prior children, but it seems widows and single mothers are not high of the list of desired mates), I would like to hear your alternative explanation.

You're the first I've heard make that type of argument.

Really? It's explicitly stated by some members of movements like Quiverfull. Perhaps you need to expand your knowledge base a little.

You also seem to be suggesting that women are inclined to choose men in possession of equal or greater resources and status (at least you haven't disputed data to that effect), not because the women value comfort, security and stability in a partner, but because the women, like men, have been culturally indoctrinated with a belief that they should submit to whatever the man wants. Again, it's your patriarchy claim.

Most men also value comfort, security, and stability in a partner over one is difficult, untrustworthy, or unstable. However, they are not taught to look for that in their wives.

You are certainly entitled to your unique point of view and you may have a unique set of circumstances, but to dismiss mainstream studies and other people (whom you know little about) with the blanket claim of "patriarchy" is foolish.

The general features of my point of view my seem unique to you, in whichever sanctum you have been keeping yourself, but they are neither rare nor unsupported by mainstream scholarship. Do you really think Jordan 'I choose the pronoun I want' Peterson is somehow a new revelation for me, whose words I have never read nor examined?

 

[Siro]

Decent discussion. One Brow winning. Hopefully other contenders jump into the ring.