women's unrealistic expectations of men

[smurph]

Lolzies. Complaints of internet incels who are holding out for Jennifer Lopez.

[MissMischief]

I would say that both genders are held to high standards in different ways. It’s true that guys have to face ridiculous expectations, but so do women.

Can we just all agree that society is extremely shallow and shitty to everyone?

[Peterski]

It’s true that guys have to face ridiculous expectations, but so do women

Like what for example?

[smurph]

But that's why lower status women marry earlier and have more kids. The opposite of 40-something high status spinsters I mentioned before.

You know what it means? That the evolution is selecting for low status in women.

Low status is an evolutionarily beneficial trait in women.

And this is one of reasons why gender equality is not working. Because the female brain is not adapted to a world with gender equality.

Once gender equality was unleashed, women started acting suicidal in an evolutionary sense (I'm not talking about actual suicide, but generational population suicide - women are having fewer children and this is largely due to the behaviour of medium and high status women who delay marriage almost until menopause).

It has been proven in some scientific study, that average women are more successful with men and relationships, than high status ones.

High status women are less successful with men than average women because of their own mistakes (such as having too high standards).

I know you're trolling, but if you haven't heard of the r/k selection theory, please let me introduce you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

When social conditions are good, people (not just women) tend to breed less and invest more in the fewer offspring they do produce.

[smurph]

This video explains that in a traditional society K-selected people still have higher birth rates:

Skip to 6:11:



During most of European history, high status people had more kids than low status.

This is true if you look at Medieval data about size of families of different types.

No time to watch a video, but I'm assuming that by "traditional society" you mean how it was during a time when people died early of diseases and other threats. That's the whole point. When it's not likely that offspring will survive or be healthy, people will breed more to make sure their genes continue. In those times the poor folk died early from all kinds of things, so it stands to reason that they had less kids on average than the high status families, who were more healthy than they were. But in modern times when healthcare is widely accessible and basically no one is starving (i.e. in first and second world countries), there's no loss to offset. It's pretty clear when you look around that the more environmentally-strained folks are breeding like rabbits while stable, middle class families choose to keep family size small. It's not a fluke. It's biology.

[smurph]

It is not just that attractive women have self-destructive behaviours which make them less reproductively succesful, but also men actually prefer average women (maybe it is subconscious / instinctual, something deeply evolutionary):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...wish-list.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl...en-really-want

"Study after study (this piece in Psychology Today has a good, general round up) shows while men pay lip service to being hung up on physical attractiveness, once they interact with a woman in real life, they’re far more swayed by personality than they profess to be. A speed dating experiment (reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) with 163 university students found ‘spark’ far outweighed looks for men and a subsequent study further confirmed feeling an emotional ‘connection’ won over ‘sexiness’."

So it is wrong that men have high expectations. Quite the contrary, very attractive women are less succesful with men than average women.

You're on a tangent. However, judging by the comments on this forum, many average men obsess about women's appearance, and the same is not true in reverse. Do women swarm forums with complaints about why they can't get a high-status male? Do women "rate" men on forums? Maybe, as a form of mockery....

Nothing against guys (because as a gay Irish bloke I happen to like them ) but they are generally too dense to recognize their own hypocrisy.

[smurph]

By traditional society I mean a society with traditional values.

Today it is also the case, that conservatives are reproducing much faster - and it is not related to how rich they are:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20...of-patriarchy/

"(...) Declining birthrates also change national temperament. In the United States, for example, the percentage of women born in the late 1930s who remained childless was near 10 percent. By comparison, nearly 20 percent of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having had children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and 70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of their parents.

Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Nor do single-child families contribute much to future population. The 17.4 percent of baby boomer women who had only one child account for a mere 7.8 percent of children born in the next generation. By contrast, nearly a quarter of the children of baby boomers descend from the mere 11 percent of baby boomer women who had four or more children. These circumstances are leading to the emergence of a new society whose members will disproportionately be descended from parents who rejected the [progressive] social tendencies that once made childlessness and small families the norm. These values include an adherence to traditional, patriarchal religion, and a strong identification with one’s own folk or nation.

This dynamic helps explain, for example, the gradual drift of American culture away from secular individualism and toward religious fundamentalism. Among states that voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, fertility rates are 12 percent higher than in states that voted for Sen. John Kerry. It may also help to explain the increasing popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also those least likely to have children.

Does this mean that today’s enlightened but slow-breeding societies face extinction? Probably not, but only because they face a dramatic, demographically driven transformation of their cultures. As has happened many times before in history, it is a transformation that occurs as secular and libertarian elements in society fail to reproduce, and as people adhering to more traditional, patriarchal values inherit society by default. (...)"

^^^
What we observe today in elections - rising support for the right-wing / conservatives - is the results of right-wing people having more children (and political views are inherited from parents, partly through upbringing and in large part even genetically). This trend will continue.

Keep talking, broseph. I dunno how it is in Poland but over here where I'm at, the foster system is overloaded with minority kids whose parents can't be bothered to use a condom. Not a whole lot of healthy wealthy white babies. Plain observation.

But if you want to convince yourself otherwise, go right ahead.

[Oneeye]

The premise is correct, but most guys sound butthurt when they talk about it.

[smurph]

Groups like Mormons (who are Celto-Germanic whites) or Orthodox Jews are having lots of kids, it has nothing to do with race.

Actually it does, since there is a correlation between being a minority (racial or religious) and poverty/ disenfranchisement.

Just one more point...

What we observe today in elections - rising support for the right-wing / conservatives - is the results of right-wing people having more children (and political views are inherited from parents, partly through upbringing and in large part even genetically). This trend will continue.

You're deluding yourself. There will always be a large percentage of the population which exists in the middle of the bell curve. These are your "Trump supporters", the uneducated, "traditional" as you call them, conservative folks. They function as the meat and bones of society. At either end you have the mentally disabled or incarcerated, and then those that eschew family for career and thus aren't breeding. Nothing has changed and nothing will change. The only thing that's different is that these middle/lower class conservatives came out in vast numbers for this particular election. Historically, the pendulum always swings the other way in time.

[Celestia]

Men have much more unrealistic expectations of women imo.

+1

Just read Mortimers description of his ideal partner on my thread lmao