MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE

[atribecalledgabi]

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.

Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.

It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.

It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.

Anyways. Happy turkey day nigga.

How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?

Or explicitly or implicitly offered pussy to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?

You are who you are.

If I said never, then what? Exactly.

But you probly don't believe it so....

Happy turkey day bro

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.

Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.

It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.

It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.

Anyways. Happy turkey day nigga.

How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?

Or explicitly or implicitly offered pussy to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?

You are who you are.

If I said never, then what? Exactly.

But you probly don't believe it so....

Happy turkey day bro

Exactly. He has in his mind what he believes to be the truth and nothing but the truth. It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[LordZuko]

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.

Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.

It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.

It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.

Anyways. Happy turkey day nigga.

How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?

Or explicitly or implicitly offered pussy to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?

You are who you are.

If I said never, then what? Exactly.

But you probly don't believe it so....

Happy turkey day bro

Never believe anything a woman says. Believe her actions. You lie to yourself. And think its the truth. So you could never be honest.

Perhaps you don't do these things to the degree of the worst, but you still do them.

 

[sunlord]

Disrespect is not mutually exclusive to making a point. In fact there is a long tradition of them existing side by side. I fundamentally don't respect male feminist or their positions they are objects of ridicule nothing more.

 

[LordZuko]

Male feminists are the extreme end of blue pill.

 

[2stepz_ahead]

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.

Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.

It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.

It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.

Anyways. Happy turkey day nigga.

How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?

Or explicitly or implicitly offered pussy to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?

You are who you are.

If I said never, then what? Exactly.

But you probly don't believe it so....

Happy turkey day bro

Never believe anything a woman says. Believe her actions. You lie to yourself. And think its the truth. So you could never be honest.

Perhaps you don't do these things to the degree of the worst, but you still do them.

see...

this here has alot of truth. the lie to yourself an realities chicks create to justify how they feel or felt.

its just not true on a grand scheme....well not the whole female race....just like 2.5%

 

[atribecalledgabi]

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.

Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.

It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.

It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.

Anyways. Happy turkey day nigga.

How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?

Or explicitly or implicitly offered pussy to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?

You are who you are.

If I said never, then what? Exactly.

But you probly don't believe it so....

Happy turkey day bro

Never believe anything a woman says. Believe her actions. You lie to yourself. And think its the truth. So you could never be honest.

Perhaps you don't do these things to the degree of the worst, but you still do them.

but if I said yes I do those things, you'd believe it straight away without knowing my actions to confirm or deny it, correct? Lmao yea exactly.

 

[LordZuko]

No bro. It's all of them.

If it wasn't then the behavior would be called out by other females regularly.

These are behaviors that have helped females survive and breed throughout human history. Every female alive isa descendant of a woman who has successfully done this at least once.

Epigenetic.

 

[LordZuko]

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.

Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.

It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.

It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.

Anyways. Happy turkey day nigga.

How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?

Or explicitly or implicitly offered pussy to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?

You are who you are.

If I said never, then what? Exactly.

But you probly don't believe it so....

Happy turkey day bro

Never believe anything a woman says. Believe her actions. You lie to yourself. And think its the truth. So you could never be honest.

Perhaps you don't do these things to the degree of the worst, but you still do them.

but if I said yes I do those things, you'd believe it straight away without knowing my actions to confirm or deny it, correct? Lmao yea exactly.

Would i believe that'd you conduct yourself according to your nature? Yes.

I'd believe a cat that meows or purrs. Wouldn't believe one that says it clucks.

I've never had a female admit to that question. Which is how i knew you wouldn't.

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

briffault law?

while humans are animals in biology, but we have far more ability to act against instinct and to create complex systems of socialization than any other animals right?

and if you study briffault's work, there is 0 reason to believe his law has any relevance to contemporary gender roles or behavior

because you'd then be aware that the law was specifically describing the behavior of non human animals and to a lesser extent early human tribes. he also goes on to argue that those systems were replaced by male dominated systems around the time we began cultivating crops for food and such

and you have to also ignore the majority of the last 4, 5 centuries or so

and what about rape?

you still want to argue women determine the conditions on which men and women associate sexually or romantically, then you'd have to show that no statistically significant number of women had ever been broken up with

women initiate divorce 2/3 of the time, but now we're not talking about some kind of hard social power imbalance... at most, it's a tendency. not to mention recently divorced women are more likely to live in poverty

and while i agree a woman would prefer association where she gains something (protection, your company, emotion, financial security, sex) ...you can say the same of men (sex, emotion, company, children, a maid, etc). most human relationships men or women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

research also strongly suggest women afflicted with a serious illness were at least 3 times as likely to become separated or divorced as men with similar health problems
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.24577/abstract
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/

 

[atribecalledgabi]

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.

Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.

It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.

It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.

Anyways. Happy turkey day nigga.

How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?

Or explicitly or implicitly offered pussy to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?

You are who you are.

If I said never, then what? Exactly.

But you probly don't believe it so....

Happy turkey day bro

Never believe anything a woman says. Believe her actions. You lie to yourself. And think its the truth. So you could never be honest.

Perhaps you don't do these things to the degree of the worst, but you still do them.

but if I said yes I do those things, you'd believe it straight away without knowing my actions to confirm or deny it, correct? Lmao yea exactly.

Would i believe that'd you conduct yourself according to your nature? Yes.

I'd believe a cat that meows or purrs. Wouldn't believe one that says it clucks.

I've never had a female admit to that question. Which is how i knew you wouldn't.

It's my nature to offer pussy to niggas who aren't interested in me? The fuck? Lol

It wouldn't have mattered how I answered the questions, you were gonna believe that I do regardless.

 

[LordZuko]

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.

Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.

It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.

It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.

Anyways. Happy turkey day nigga.

How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?

Or explicitly or implicitly offered pussy to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?

You are who you are.

If I said never, then what? Exactly.

But you probly don't believe it so....

Happy turkey day bro

Never believe anything a woman says. Believe her actions. You lie to yourself. And think its the truth. So you could never be honest.

Perhaps you don't do these things to the degree of the worst, but you still do them.

but if I said yes I do those things, you'd believe it straight away without knowing my actions to confirm or deny it, correct? Lmao yea exactly.

Would i believe that'd you conduct yourself according to your nature? Yes.

I'd believe a cat that meows or purrs. Wouldn't believe one that says it clucks.

I've never had a female admit to that question. Which is how i knew you wouldn't.

It's my nature to offer pussy to niggas who aren't interested in me? The fuck? Lol

It wouldn't have mattered how I answered the questions, you were gonna believe that I do regardless.

It was a two part question gabi

 

[LordZuko]

briffault law?

while humans are animals in biology, but we have far more ability to act against instinct and to create complex systems of socialization than any other animals right?

and if you study briffault's work, there is 0 reason to believe his law has any relevance to contemporary gender roles or behavior

because you'd then be aware that the law was specifically describing the behavior of non human animals and to a lesser extent early human tribes. he also goes on to argue that those systems were replaced by male dominated systems around the time we began cultivating crops for food and such

and you have to also ignore the majority of the last 4, 5 centuries or so

and what about rape?

you still want to argue women determine the conditions on which men and women associate sexually or romantically, then you'd have to show that no statistically significant number of women had ever been broken up with

women initiate divorce 2/3 of the time, but now we're not talking about some kind of hard social power imbalance... at most, it's a tendency. not to mention recently divorced women are more likely to live in poverty

and while i agree a woman would prefer association where she gains something (protection, your company, emotion, financial security, sex) ...you can say the same of men (sex, emotion, company, children, a maid, etc). most human relationships men or women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

research also strongly suggest women afflicted with a serious illness were at least 3 times as likely to become separated or divorced as men with similar health problems
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.24577/abstract
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/

In order for you to act against instinct you'd have to understand or be aware of subconscious desire or conditioning. Subconscious is wired to the emotions not the intellect, so what you know doesnt have as much bearing as what you feel.

There's plenty of reason to see correlation with Briffault's work and contemporary man. After all contemporary man is an invention of the industrial revolution. There is nothing that took place in the industrial revolution that conditioned humans to act against their base tribal instincts. In fact it exacerbated this instinct through basic competition for resources and need for man power. The agrarian age in regards to human history is relatively yesterday.

The development of male dominated societies does not negate the influence females have on mate selection. Unless you are about to argue that most breeding was a form of rape then you'd have to concede that females chose the highest caliber men available to them. Same as today. Women select or make themselves available to men who meet a certain standard. That's what you've been arguing in other threads and drawing as a conclusion as to why so many females are unmarried today.

 

[atribecalledgabi]

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.

Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.

It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.

It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.

Anyways. Happy turkey day nigga.

How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?

Or explicitly or implicitly offered pussy to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?

You are who you are.

If I said never, then what? Exactly.

But you probly don't believe it so....

Happy turkey day bro

Never believe anything a woman says. Believe her actions. You lie to yourself. And think its the truth. So you could never be honest.

Perhaps you don't do these things to the degree of the worst, but you still do them.

but if I said yes I do those things, you'd believe it straight away without knowing my actions to confirm or deny it, correct? Lmao yea exactly.

Would i believe that'd you conduct yourself according to your nature? Yes.

I'd believe a cat that meows or purrs. Wouldn't believe one that says it clucks.

I've never had a female admit to that question. Which is how i knew you wouldn't.

It's my nature to offer pussy to niggas who aren't interested in me? The fuck? Lol

It wouldn't have mattered how I answered the questions, you were gonna believe that I do regardless.

It was a two part question gabi

Questions is plural, zuko

 

[LordZuko]

Men and women break up for different reasons. So brifault's corollaries are not about women not being left.

No initial association begins where a female sees no benefit.

A man may break up with a woman but that doesn't mean she removes him from her orbit

e;g keeping his number, staying linked on social media. Even if he cuts off contact from her.

 

[LordZuko]

Women breaking up and living in poverty is a symptom of self delusion. Females are always looking to do better, to monkey branch.

In some of those instances it's more than likely she left her husband for a wealthier man that promised her a better life but was just finessing.

There are some instances where females think they will be awarded more alimony and child support than they received. Or they did receive adequate financing but the husband dipped out anyway.

Instances of women mismanaging their finances. I direct you again to my posts regarding females and consumer debt.

And millennial college women turning to prostitution to pay off loans.

You greatly overestimate the "trade" that men receive.

Everything a woman receives is a tangible and immediate benefit.

Sex is not a benefit, children are not benefits, a maid is not a benefit.

 

[LordZuko]

As for your study, this was a small study under 1000 people done over a decade ago.

I'm not biting. Even the related articles i googled refer to the same study that has not been duplicated.

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

lol silly girl as a general rule men don't date down we fuck down No man really wants an emotionally unstable woman but we will have sex with one.

Younger women generally look better that's why many men prefer them...... also no man wants an old haggard bitch with a 100000 miles on her pussy.

Lol

Boy bye

See it every day

Looks are important yes

But there are a lot of men who like having the advantage when dating -whether it be financial, personality-based, or looks-wise

Rather then date the young girl with looks and drive they go after the young irresponsible girl with looks who needs saving... Who will put up with bullshit when her light bill needs to be paid

I know men who have a lot to offer a woman but prefer not to date 10s because they are "trouble"...aka they are intimidated by her looks... scared they can't keep her attention when they know other niggas are going to be getting at her

Theres the rkellys of the world who like young women not because of their looks but because they are easier to control

Or they prey on the women who are insecure or traditionally unattractive because they are "more grateful" , "less work"

Yall not just these simple creatures yall like to pretend to be

And its not always about control ...men in general like to feel needed

First of all r.kelly really wants girls not legal age women so leave him out of this

Those men you know that are intimidated by 'LOOKS" really just don't want to deal with all the possible personality flaws usually come with 10"S and has nothing to do with them wanting to be with a girl who need saving. if those men can find a young woman that is a 10 and doesn't have those flaws they will 90% of the time prefer her over an older woman that has hit the wall.

The only men who want women who need saving are " captain save a hoes" and other men despise these kinds of men because they are insecure weaklings

You and your girlfriends are probably guilty of doing what you accuse men of doing, you go after these weak insecure niggas of all stripes because you know that NO stable and mentally secure man will put up with your liberated woman feminist bullshit

women are guilty of there own shit

but there are lot of "captain save a hoes" out here

sometimes its just about the circles they run in and proximity...maybe its even just chemistry

but let's not act like the appeals of dating dating down goes beyond looks for a lot of men

my overall point being men, like women, struggle with insecurity, can be manipulative, can be exploitative, are self sabotaging, etc

*shrugs*

MEN don't date down we don't conceive of it that way. YOU are filtering your perspective through a female lens and apply the "up" or "down" hypergamous females instincts to male dating.

WHEN seriously looking for a mate no man looks around and says " let me find the most fucked up woman I can find so that I can control her" Why??? BECAUSE no matter the who is chosen MEN expect to be the heads of their households and leaders. SO my girlfriend could have a million and one degrees or she could be a check cashing girls it would make no difference to how I expect to be treated.

call it what u want

but dating someone who is substantially younger than you, earns less than you, less cultured, less read, etc that's traditionally referred to as dating down ....

the unwritten expectation is that the partner who dates up will adopt the values, tastes, ideologies of the person they are dating (most evident in class discrepancies)

that said, my point still stands. a lot of times ppl "date down" because it is easier to find someone, and also easier to keep them and get them to do what you want opposed to someone you are at least equally yoked

see the mail-order bride industry ....you even have some men flocking to poor countries like brazil looking for a wife...that is no coincidence. what is one of if not their main complaint? women in america don't know how to be submissive and treat a man...

..this isn't a novel idea...and I'm not trying to argue most men are out here seeking the most fucked up woman to take advantage of as some general rule

i don't even think at times its not about wanting to dominate over a person, but a way to cope/mitigate the risks and uncertainty that comes with relationships and life in general. or they could just be in love with how that person makes them feel, which isn't necessarily a bad thing

yes historically for men it was done out of necessity. but let's acknowledge how once women were systematically kept dependent upon a man's labor which justified in the eyes of many a man being head of house hold. and let's also acknowledge today traditionalism is no longer a necessity and less attractive for many women. we can, and have, and are, working like men and supporting ourselves.

no men dont care bout her job cultured etc... we care bout if she look good and is she down to earth and a good person.. the other shit u named is what career women use to choose men... not nan nigga ever said oh she cool cute and nice but i cant date her cuz we not equally yoked.

Women just don't seem to understand that men and women are wired differently.

The average man doesn't care about what college a chick went to, how many degrees she has, how educated she is, etc.

Main thing we care about are looks, common sense, trust, and whether or not she can cook.

And they say that we're the superficial ones.

any man or woman who enters into an relationship with anyone with zero expectations of something back is not a wise person

but is sounds like we all have preferences/requirements...while different, they are preferences/requirements nonetheless

and if the main requirements for men is that his wife or girl be 'fine' , 'a good homemaker', and 'have a good attitude'

while he always expects to be the leader and head of household, which typically requires she puts hers wants and needs on the back burner to take care of your children and household

sounds like you all just want a maid who is pleasant to be around

which speaks to how you some of men don't view women as potential partners, opposed to someone who exist to please and submit to you in return for your labor...

if that is the terms you agree to with ur girl, fine... but to expect or ask of that of every woman is not realistic or fair ...especially in 2017

there are ppl like me who believe both men and women have equal responsibility and right to govern and manage every aspect of the home...same as i'm sure a lot of u disagree with... and unlike the past women like me aren't guaranteed to a life of poverty

so yea yall are kind of proving my point

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

briffault law?

while humans are animals in biology, but we have far more ability to act against instinct and to create complex systems of socialization than any other animals right?

and if you study briffault's work, there is 0 reason to believe his law has any relevance to contemporary gender roles or behavior

because you'd then be aware that the law was specifically describing the behavior of non human animals and to a lesser extent early human tribes. he also goes on to argue that those systems were replaced by male dominated systems around the time we began cultivating crops for food and such

and you have to also ignore the majority of the last 4, 5 centuries or so

and what about rape?

you still want to argue women determine the conditions on which men and women associate sexually or romantically, then you'd have to show that no statistically significant number of women had ever been broken up with

women initiate divorce 2/3 of the time, but now we're not talking about some kind of hard social power imbalance... at most, it's a tendency. not to mention recently divorced women are more likely to live in poverty

and while i agree a woman would prefer association where she gains something (protection, your company, emotion, financial security, sex) ...you can say the same of men (sex, emotion, company, children, a maid, etc). most human relationships men or women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

research also strongly suggest women afflicted with a serious illness were at least 3 times as likely to become separated or divorced as men with similar health problems
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.24577/abstract
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/

In order for you to act against instinct you'd have to understand or be aware of subconscious desire or conditioning. Subconscious is wired to the emotions not the intellect, so what you know doesnt have as much bearing as what you feel.

There's plenty of reason to see correlation with Briffault's work and contemporary man. After all contemporary man is an invention of the industrial revolution. There is nothing that took place in the industrial revolution that conditioned humans to act against their base tribal instincts. In fact it exacerbated this instinct through basic competition for resources and need for man power. The agrarian age in regards to human history is relatively yesterday.

The development of male dominated societies does not negate the influence females have on mate selection. Unless you are about to argue that most breeding was a form of rape then you'd have to concede that females chose the highest caliber men available to them. Same as today. Women select or make themselves available to men who meet a certain standard. That's what you've been arguing in other threads and drawing as a conclusion as to why so many females are unmarried today.

my biggest contention is that only women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

and this suggestion women show no gratitude, appreciation nor reciprocation for the past, and always look to the future for their behavior does not jive with my reality

also the link to the research about women than men being more likely to stay with spouse diagnosed with terminal illness or similarly disabled runs counter to what you would expect

what about the efforts to police women's sexuality, romantic relationships and autonomy period via the church or man made laws/policies that made women the legal property of men; gave women little to no legal existence apart from her husband/father

prior to maybe 40, 50 years ago the systematic effort to keep women from higher education and a living wage

that had no impact on male and female relations...mate selection.... or nah?

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

As for your study, this was a small study under 1000 people done over a decade ago.

I'm not biting. Even the related articles i googled refer to the same study that has not been duplicated.

*shrugs*

it was interesting nonetheless .... more research is needed...haven't been able to find a study that counters the findings

and all you've been to provide really is anecdotal evidence, pseudoscience and you own presumptions / biases

women initiate divorce more, sure....but what about non martial relationships?

you got any other numbers or data?