Stressed men fancy bigger women....

I don't think I'm smart enough to understand this debate any more. :( So I'm out.

I'm confused by some points on this. I think the first two are from posters on this thread, and not from the actual article.

1. Men who are not in a stressful situation prefer baby faced women they can 'look after.' I thought evo psych people on MN kept saying men don't want to stay in relationships with women; they want to have sex and move on to somebody else. So why would they prefer women who look like they need somebody to 'look after' them?
2. Large women exist because men have selected them by having sex with large women. How much of women's size comes from their female ancestry? Surely a lot of women's size comes from the size of male ancestors? I had a tall maternal grandfather and a short maternal grandmother and my mother is tall. You don't get tall sons and short daughters if a tall man has sex with a little woman, and the same for a thin man and a fat woman.
3. Couldn't the reason for this study be that if a man finds himself under pressure, his own idea of his standing decrease, so he thinks that he may have to settle for a woman who is less desirable in his own culture. So in a culture where heavier people were desirable, unsuccessful people of both sexes would be attracted to the thin?

Ahhh now I see. You are wrong about me not being confused previously. You've cleared it up with this statement: "Liberal Feminists are dangerous because they are focussed more on educational, economic and reproductive equality, the lack of which arguably are as big a drawback for women as any male patriarchy. Heck, RadFems even hate competitive sport as it shows women can take initiative here, now"

You (unlike me) see educational and economic inequality as completely separate from male-dominance (in spite of Saudi/Afghan modern day examples?)and you (unlike me) see patriarchy as a reified and ossified 'structure'.
Also you have a strange assumption about radfems and sport.
I'm out and about using my smartphone so can't say much more now. But I would appreciate you elucidating the means by which women subvert things, you keep alluding to it and it seems that your beliefs rest upon it- and with that clarified this discussion could get a bit more traction and move on.

Why does 'motherly' equate to 'curvy'?

< de-lurks >

I'd say WhatMeWorry is putting up a bloody good defence of her views and perspectives in a very calm, well articulated and measured fashion. With some humour thrown in for good measure.

< re-lurks >

Lurking - IMO whatme is getting defensive because she was accused of having an allegiance to the patriarchy. A common theme from certain posters on here addressing people they don't think are proper feminists

What's with the attack on radfems on a thread called 'Stressed men prefer bigger women?'

Here you have lost me. How can research prove that patriarchy is not at the heart of women's oppression (is that what you mean by 'central structure'?). What do you mean by 'well established ways of defeating it'? Did Elizabeth Fritzl use these well established methods? Do all the women who are murdered by current or former partners use them? Did the Suffragettes being force-fed use them? I want to know what you mean.

I love this trick of saying you don't understand, and then going on to create an argument that shows you understand perfectly well what was being said :o

But I can see why you are lost, as you have a worldview that can't contemplate a state of being "other" than RadFem or Tool Of The Patriarchy (TOTP)/MRA etc.

Because the RadFem belief set is essentially based around one god - that "'male domination' is at the heart of those intersecting oppressions and radical feminism is the only feminism that actually puts women first", by definition it has to very threatened by any research/activity that would show that any of these apply:

(i) Male domination is not at the heart of the oppression, or is only one of the causes

(ii) Despite Male Domination being at the heart of all, women have evolved plenty of methods over time to subvert it, or

(iii) Violent Male Oppression is a paper tiger.

Liberal Feminists are dangerous because they are focussed more on educational, economic and reproductive equality, the lack of which arguably are as big a drawback for women as any male patriarchy. Heck, RadFems even hate competitive sport as it shows women can take initiative here, now

Evolution, and offshoots like Sociobiology and Evo Psych threaten (i) and (ii) as they increasingly come up with inconvenient truths about women actually having far more influence and power than is comfortavble within RadFemworld.

Any research into (iii), that directly contradicts the Viiolent Male patriarchy, is of course a knife in the heart of RadFemDom, so any statistics showing the relative rarity of Violent Men, and the even rarer likelihood that they will be violent to women (as a % of population and violence incidents). That Male violence to women is a paper tiger is easy to show, simply because the huuuge number of women who like men, have frequent sex with large numbers of them, and make all sorts of sacrifices to be around them.

My reasons for saying that your allegiance is to patriarchy, not feminism is because you seem to side with the patriarchal orthodoxy by assuming that biology drives men to 'claim' women and for women to 'fool' them - often the reasoning behind a huge percentage of violence against women. The slightly contemptuous tone seals it.

Because of your binary worldview - either you are a RadFem, or you are a TOTP/MRA, you can't comprehend a 3rd "not either of those" slot - especially a Liberal Feminist view that says you can be a Feminist and not buy into the view of of the All Powerful and Violent Patriarchy.

What i respect about science is that it looks at what is, rather than what one wants it to be. So you can say with certainty that women have evolved to fool men about when they are fertile, whose child they are carrying etc (if you don't like the word Fool, a Thesaurus is your friend). Evolution has given them the power to mate select, despite the best efforts of this Violent Patriarchy to enforce its choices. And in fact, science shows that the Violent Patriarchy is not that violent to women compared to violent to itself (statistics are your friend here), and has in fact invented a whole lot of tools of seduction that are mutually pleasurable (wit, music, poetry, wine....etc).

My contempt is for a mindset that automatically assumes that anything that contradicts the RadFem worldiew must therefore be siding with Patriarchal Orthodoxy, and brooks no other point of view. Its a very limited way of looking at the world.

"Radical Femism argues that a repressive patriarchy is the central structure of social dynamics, all other forms of feminism argue its just one of the structures."

Okay. When I said "radical feminism (arguing that patriarchy is central to social dynamics)" I did not mean that there is no social dynamic outside patriarchy (eg- me breastfeeding my daughter) or that there are not other intersecting class oppressions at work, but yes indeed radical feminism argues that 'male domination' is at the heart of those intersecting oppressions and radical feminism is the only feminism that actually puts women first.

"Thus, if any research proves the patriarchy is not the central structure, or if women have well established ways of defeating it, Radical Feminsm is a busted flush."

Here you have lost me. How can research prove that patriarchy is not at the heart of women's oppression (is that what you mean by 'central structure'?). What do you mean by 'well established ways of defeating it'? Did Elizabeth Fritzl use these well established methods? Do all the women who are murdered by current or former partners use them? Did the Suffragettes being force-fed use them? I want to know what you mean.

My reasons for saying that your allegiance is to patriarchy, not feminism is because you seem to side with the patriarchal orthodoxy by assuming that biology drives men to 'claim' women and for women to 'fool' them - often the reasoning behind a huge percentage of violence against women. The slightly contemptuous tone seals it.

As for 'dear departed poster', I do tend to dip in and out of MN and haven't been for a while, but I have no recollection of your name before this thread, so I doubt I 'am she'.

2. You don't understand what radical feminism is, and your allegiance is clearly to patriarchy, not any form of feminism by your description

Of course, of course. We've been here before...if you're not a paid up MN RadFeminist you are by definitiion a Tool of the Patriarchy. Why don't you call me an MRA while you are at it and save time?

You do remind me so much of a dear departed poster whose name cannot be mentioned. Are you she?

And do tell me what is wrong with my definition of Radical Feminsim then, given that I used yours nearly verbatim....

Two points whatme

1. the 'gang-bang' scenario is a pornographic interpretation of biology - which is just the opposite side of the coin of the monogamous 'guaranteed fatherhood' ie the madonna/whore dichotomy. Outside of that patriarchal filter the biology can be explained in many other ways... which don't include women 'fooling' people as part of their biology - such as being openly promiscuous, and might even include lesbianism for example.

2. You don't understand what radical feminism is, and your allegiance is clearly to patriarchy, not any form of feminism by your description

I never described 'cuckolding' behaviour, whatme, and frankly if you don't know what it means, instead of asking me you should look it up.

You also could do with looking up what radical feminism is, and what science is.

Clue: it isn't wikipedia plus 'what whatme thinks when she is struggling to form an argument'.

Sorry, you have to qualify that one... Are you saying that radical feminism (arguing that patriarchy is central to social dynamics) is not based in reality?

Radical Femism argues that a repressive patriarchy is the central structure of social dynamics, all other forms of feminism argue its just one of the structures.

Thus, if any research proves the patriarchy is not the central structure, or if women have well established ways of defeating it, Radical Feminsm is a busted flush. (Actually IMO it was a busted flush 30 years ago for just these reasons, but on it soldiers...)

Science is pretty neutral. So loading any piece of scientific work with the epithet "had its patriarchal nature exposed" is part of the defense mechanism Radical Feminists have to use here, it just means "science that threatens my beliefs"

And by 'feminism' you must mean 'fun' feminism - which you believe to be the 'real' feminism because it is more welcoming of science that has not had its patriarchal prejudice exposed?

No, any branch of Feminism that does not hold the Patriarchy as the central cause of all women's ills is not particulalrly threatened by this stuff.

I never described 'cuckolding behaviour', whatme, that's rubbish

No, FoodUnit did and you agreed with her. Do you know what cuckolding means btw?

This may threaten notions of 'virtuous purity', but it does not threaten pornography - which is much more important to patriarchy these days than religion. Any discovery that could be framed as 'women are untrustworthy bitches on heat that want multiple penetrations in a big gang bang, by various random men' is actually welcome and no longer threatens the establishment at all, but validates it

I'd agree that research that says the above would probably be welcomed, but research that said those women are very good at doing all that gang bangin' with other men while fooling their partners, or that women are very good at fooling their partners as to whose child they are carrying, is deeply threatening to the patriarchal structure.

That is when biological amorality (Seeking the best/a variety of genes) becomes immorality in the eyes of the patriarchical belief structure.

I'd dispute porn is more important to the patriarchy that virtuos purity (ie guaranteed paternity), but thats another debate.

"That is it exactly - the cuckolding behaviour you describe is biologically (and scientifically) amoral, (and not even that common in humans by all accounts) but it so deeply threatens male primageniture belief structures so they all see it as "immoral", use words like "untrustoworthy" (rather than genetically efficient ) etc etc, and try desperately to curtail it."

This may threaten notions of 'virtuous purity', but it does not threaten pornography - which is much more important to patriarchy these days than religion. Any discovery that could be framed as 'women are untrustworthy bitches on heat that want multiple penetrations in a big gang bang, by various random men' is actually welcome and no longer threatens the establishment at all, but validates it. It helps to confirm the rape myths that we say no when we mean yes, etc.

I never described 'cuckolding behaviour', whatme, that's rubbish.

"What they do hurt more is Radical Feminism, which has all its philosophical eggs in one belief basket, and if that is seen to be holed the whole thing collapses in a holy mess. Hence the fierce resistance here."

Sorry, you have to qualify that one... Are you saying that radical feminism (arguing that patriarchy is central to social dynamics) is not based in reality?

And by 'feminism' you must mean 'fun' feminism - which you believe to be the 'real' feminism because it is more welcoming of science that has not had its patriarchal prejudice exposed?

I really need to understand what you mean by 'philosophical eggs in one belief basket'...

Yes, exactly! A proper scientist would not use terms like 'untrustworthy'. It's absolute bollocks. And yet, you can bet that when studies come out, this is how they get reported in the press.

That is it exactly - the cuckolding behaviour you describe is biologically (and scientifically) amoral, (and not even that common in humans by all accounts) but it so deeply threatens male primageniture belief structures so they all see it as "immoral", use words like "untrustoworthy" (ratger than genetically efficient :o) etc etc, and try desperately to curtail it.

Um.... if you meant it in that sense, I think you mean 'immoral'?

'Amoral' means without regard to a moral system. 'Immoral' means in contradiction to/thread against an established moral authority.

I've just realized, does whatme mean 'immoral' or 'amoral'? They are different

I meant Amoral - it is tautological I suppose, in respect to biology - but I mean it in the sense of threatening the moral authorities a number of belief sets base themselves on.

Yes the patriarchal paradigm.....has not shifted yet.

Also, what I find really annoying is that so many of the findings are at odds with my empirical knowledge.... I wonder if that's because....I'm.....a woman?

the nurture brigade'? what does this mean? Sociobiology has pretty much been anti-feminism dressed as science, and 'nurture brigade' a slur for those who prioritise a huge importance for socialisation in forming the person - a slur which is also antifeminist

Clearly you know exactly what I mean therefore :)

Yes, its all about the Olde Nature vs Nurture issue, still red in tooth and claw.

Actually, I don't think the Nature arguments hurt Feminsism overall, in fact many help it.

What they do hurt more is Radical Feminism, which has all its philosophical eggs in one belief basket, and if that is seen to be holed the whole thing collapses in a holy mess. Hence the fierce resistance here.

Yes, exactly! A proper scientist would not use terms like 'untrustworthy'. It's absolute bollocks. And yet, you can bet that when studies come out, this is how they get reported in the press. It's as hoop says.

I find it so odd that when we look at men, people are quite happy to say the characteristic features that make males of any species attractive to mates - such as obvious good health, good genetic material, etc. - might easily be translated into more modern social concepts such as wealth, intelligence, etc.

People bend over backwards to explain why 'biology' would explain a woman choosing a man who might be able to provide - but who is a lousy genetic risk. I've actually seen people justify Hugh Hefner this way! I mean, let's not be unfair, but the chances of a man his age fathering a healthy child are not high!

Yet when it's women we focus on - why, of course, men choose pretty women because pretty women have good genes.

Yes - patriarchy exposed: "women are biologically driven to be untrustworthy".... and we all know what that sounds like - misogyny justified by science, now that religious ideas of 'Eve persuading Adam to eat the apple' have been discredited.