David over at Manboobz posted a typical MRA rant on his site today. Check it out after reading the rest of this post for more LOLZ. Here’s an MRA on AVFM dispensing with ole folky wisdom about how women think and behave.
February 17, 2014 at 10:39 PM
Darwin always argued that sexual selection is a much more dynamic mechanism than natural selection.
Taller woman/shorter man is rare. Woman restrict their potential mate choice to the sub-set of partners taller than themselves. Tall women’s restricted mate choice places them at a competitive disadvantage.
If it’s so dynamic then why in the hell would women restrict potential mates by fucking height? You just bloodly contradicted yourseld once sentence after the other!
Higher academic achievement in women restricts potential mate choice to a sub-set of the total available pool.
Not intelligence, just academic achievement.
Well dude, the more educated a woman is the less likely she’ll go out with your sorry arse. Women who go to University tend to be intelligent dude by ummm, getting into University.
Human dynamics stipulates that there is room in a relationship for one ‘go-getter’, and one nurturer (JudgyBitch found a Nash Equilibrium only possible under an earlier set of assumptions).
Well mentioning the fact that bitchgirl’s relationship doesn’t conform to your anally produced ‘theory’ isn’t exactly helping your ‘argument.’ If people are wondering wtf a Nash Equilibrium is it’s ‘a stable state of a system involving the interaction of different participants, in which no participant can gain by a unilateral change of strategy if the strategies of the others remain unchanged.’ What he’s moaning about is the MRA need to control women and put them in a single role in a relationship that she can’t ever change and cannot leave him. The roles he’s thinking about are traditional nuclear family roles.
Sexual dimorphism is innately asymmetrical, because it is a product of reproductive roles and strategies. The same objective behaviours in males and females serves distinct purposes, has different functions, and are not equivalent.
For males, the disproportionate reproductive benefits of high risk-tolerance outweigh the cost of failure (many children or death). For females, risk carries no advantage, and caution carries no disadvantage – cautious women pass on more genes than rash women (life expectancy).
Well who woulda thunk it? Risk taking has an effect on life expectancy. That’s brilliant. Next.
I can articulate the asymetry no more poignantly than the American Philosopher N.J. Baker, who observed that “A woman being pretty is like a man being rich. It isn’t the only thing, but it really helps.”
You know it really pisses me off that these guys expound on life when they obviously haven’t spent enough time in the world. They have this black and white simplistic view of relationships as if the only way a woman will date a man is if he has lots of money. I know women who are married to men who make less money and come from less fortunate families. Meh. I know most of my readership understands this and I’m preaching to the choir. MRA’s are the online village idiots.