@Twistiewistie
I think that’s rubbish But even IF it were true it really means nothing
im disengaging with you
Pathetic. When presented with reason and facts contradicting your opinion, you can't just say 'Well, I disagree.' An unsupported opinion is no better than blind faith.
@CheekyHobson
The actual problem here is that you insist on taking a general statement (Know your own value and hold your own beliefs) and twisting it into a much more specific statement (only accept a man with a university degree) that you can then hold up as a straw man to shoot down.
The first statement has to be made more specific in order to evaluate it because we can't measure the first statement. We can evaluate a statement like 'Women only date at their own educational level or higher.' My contention is not that 100% of them do, despite a lot of people in this thread providing anecdotes as if they are some sort of evidence against a trend, but a substantial majority will and even in those open to dating men from lower educational backgrounds it will compound with other factors ie. A 6ft athlete with no degree is date-able, but our 5ft 7 guy with no degree is a hard no. The link between educational level and mate preference is very well established.
You are a lone voice on this thread insisting that all women looking for a “decent man” are only considering high-earning, university-educated, 6 foot plus-ers with no kids, as this is wildly outside the reality of what women in their 40s are actually open to.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2057150X20957422#bibr1-2057150X20957422
"Research on educational assortative mating has shown that people tend to marry someone of the same educational level (Blossfeld, 2009; Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013)"
"Traditional meeting venues, such as workplaces and neighborhoods, where individuals are often sorted by education, can also lead to educationally homogamous partnerships (England, 2004; McClendon et al., 2014)."
"In addition, changes in mate selection do not correspond to structural changes in men’s and women’s educational attainment such that women still tend to marry someone who is more educated than themselves (Qian and Qian, 2014)."
I could go on. And this is the very first link I clicked on google scholar - I'm sure there are more quantitative studies around (the study linked is qualitative). More importantly, at no point do the authors of this study even hint that these assertions are somehow contested or controversial - these are well researched and established characteristics of the dating market. The link between height and attractiveness is also very well established in research.
I am not suggesting that all mid forties women are only targetting those characteristics. Ironically, that's a strawman argument of your own. My argument has always been that women, on average, have an inaccurate / distorted / inflated (depending on how nice you want to phrase it) view of what they are matched or entitled to in the dating market. Some posts back I used the example of a 6ft, 50k/yr+ earning man with no kids as a match for a woman who had just hit 30 and decided she wanted to settle down. The mid 40s woman knows she can't demand this man from the market, but still has proportionally distorted views from there. Lets not conflate my arguments please.
@supercali77
You are insane if you think the only reason men are recorded as far more likely to commit acts of rape is purely because its defined as penetrative sex. There isn't a dirge of women going round raping people with non-penis based objects. Stop trying to gaslight the entire thread.
I literally just told you that there was a crime written such that only men can be charged with it and your response was to brush it off and not acknowledge the obvious inequality present in that wording. Who is trying to gaslight who?
Its not 'penetrative sex' by the way, its 'penetration with a penis.' Thus the only way a woman can be charged with rape is by joint enterprise, so 98% of rapes are men. Again, given how the crime is worded, if you are trying to use this as evidence against men its backwards reasoning and just really really bad statistics.
@EarthSight
The more I read your posts @SittingCat , the more I'm convinced you have listened to Jordan Peterson podcasts and videos so many times that you have memorised the information very well and can parrot it. I'm not knocking Peterson, but you might want to take a break from him for a while and go explore other other thinkers.
I have listened to Peterson, but if you think I am parroting his views you are very much mistaken. I am capable of thinking from first principles and dismissing everything that an academic from UoT, not some tin pot institution, has put out there regarding studies on psychology (kinda his field) because you don't like some of his comments on other subjects or heard an incel cite him is just poor reasoning. He's an academic; when he says something is 'well established,' its because there are at least tens of studies confirming the findings.
There are plenty of female psychologists working in this area, more than men actually. Can you cite any studies that disprove my assertions? Where are the hundreds of studies showing that height and educational attainment have no statistically significant correlation to mate preference? If this were actually true you could make a big name for yourself by going out and showing it and reproducing it. That's how academia works; Einstein was a nobody until he published his papers in 1905 and everyone realised he was right.
Kevin Samuels was a d**k and mainly just being mean to women. He took a well reasoned argument and used it to knock women down in public for click bait.