Stressed men fancy bigger women....

[SardineQueen]

Can anyone explain to me what a useful purpose of this study might be?

BBC

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, 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'.

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

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....

"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'.

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.

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

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

< 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 >

Why does 'motherly' equate to 'curvy'?

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.

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?

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

I don't understand it either. Either a lot of it is speculation, or there have been big jumps made to reach various conclusions.

?the RadFem belief set is essentially based around one god - that "'male domination' is at the heart of those intersecting oppressions?

Let?s be clear. By ?oppression? I am speaking about ?women?s? oppression. So, yes I would agree that male domination is at the heart of women?s oppression as a class irrespective of the other oppressions intersecting for each individual woman within that female class. Having established that (here?s where it gets confusing) I can?t see what you are driving at here:

?by definition [radical feminism] has to [be] 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?

What ?oppression? are you speaking about here? Are you speaking about ?women?s oppression as a class? or some other 'generalised oppression of people'?

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

Surely if the ?mode? is the male or the ?norm? is male domination, and for women having to ?subvert? (or fool) ? that is a sign of women?s being oppressed? In all cases of gross power differential (up to the extreme of master and slave) the powerful are able to be open and free in their choices, but the less powerful, in order to have any self-determination have to deceive, fool or subvert. I find it weird to say ?women have evolved plenty of methods? to subvert, when that could be said of any movement towards emancipation ? not just women.

?(iii) Violent Male Oppression is a paper tiger.?
I find it astonishing that you could say this. Are the women buried up to the neck and stoned to death for being raped actually a bit deluded, because it is only a paper tiger not violent male oppression? The same could be asked of the women who virtually live in hiding for fear that their ex is going to come along and kill them, and all other women who are totally controlled by the fear of, and actual male violence in the world.

?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.?

This is the kind of thing I need you to clarify.

?Any research into (iii), that directly contradicts the Violent 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).?

This bit is weird, are you denying the prevalence of male-violence and its impact here? Or are you setting up a straw woman ? saying that rad fems believe that because a) the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by men b) the consequent trauma and fear of that violence has a lasting and wider impact on women than the specific act or perpetrator then c) radfems believe all men are violent?

?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.?

This does not logically follow. Because many women don?t experience male violence, doesn?t mean that male violence is not a real threat. Eg- even if you make sacrifices to live with a man you love, doesn?t mean his best mate isn?t going to rape you and leave you to deal with the fall-out.

?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?

I wouldn?t say I?ve a binary world view. I just find your perspective of inevitable male-dominance where female autonomy is expressed only by subversion is a view prejudiced by patriarchy. I believe that other ways are possible.

?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 hasgiven 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).?

This statement is more along the assumption of male ownership, female deceit. Human promiscuity ?as testified by size of human testes- is a bit closer to that of the bonobo than the gorilla. Female bonobos (or chimps ? even though bonobos like us humans have sexual interaction outside oestrus) do not ?fool? or ?subvert? males who believe the female is carrying their genetic material. They all openly shag whoever they want (unlike gorillas with the dominant male). When you start talking about guaranteed fatherhood or fooling males into believing they are the father, you have brought inevitable male dominance into the biological equation. I am simply pointing out your prejudice in this case.

?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.?

SO this statement is you getting the wrong end of the stick.

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

I know this conversation has been derailed and apologies. It is not supposed to be about the nature of radical feminism - the disjointed lurches in thinking are what's confusing you, not because you are not smart!

I know this conversation has been derailed and apologies. It is not supposed to be about the nature of radical feminism

Well, next time don't accuse others of Workin' For The Patriarchy when they say things you don't like.

I have also noticed another classic gambit by our MN Radfems friends is to claim a thread is "derailed" if stuff they don't agree with is being said :o

Food Unit, IMO your worldview, by putting all its eggs into a Single Simple Answer box, faces the problem of not describing the true complexity of women's reality.

Life is way too short to respond to all your demands for clarifications, details, data, etc. This is a chat group not a PhD viva (If you're genuinely interested, Google is your friend), but two responses:

You focus on the very small number of women stoned and in hiding as a rock to build a worldview around, but that view means you cannot grasp that the very,very,very much larger number of women not stoned is it's invalidation. (Not that stoning women isn't a terrible thing, and it should be fought, but it's really not not the vast majority of womens' reality)

Or, to take another example from above, you see that evolution places Humans somewhere between Patriarchical Gorillas and Free Lovin' Bonobos, but then you pick the one that fits your worldview (Bonobos) to base your view around - but you can't admit the any lessons from Gorilladom, or from (Far-Closer-To-Us-And- Not-Free-Lovin) Chimps as that is of course out-of-worldview.

And so, back on the rails to the OP's original question.

IMO you can predict that anyone who is interested in how men and women behave in (a complex) reality would find the research interesting, but anyone whose worldview is threatened by it will be very defensive.

And so it has turned out....

And IMO everything that can be said on this thread has been said, so by your leaves I take mine....

Whatme a clarification is needed to this wrong end of stick: " (Far-Closer-To-Us-And- Not-Free-Lovin) Chimps"

We are in many ways closer to Bonobos than chimps (eg shagging outside oestrus) and chimps also have massive testes because they are 'free lovin'. Its the gorillas we are not like.

Anyway I find it frustrating speaking to you, because of annoying errors like these in your arguments.

Clearly you love the idea of being 'sneaky women' for some reason. For me I see that as unnecessary to explain the biology. Lets leave it there.

For the benefit of the lurkers, if you haven't been bored to tears.

"You focus on the very small number of women stoned and in hiding as a rock to build a worldview around, but that view means you cannot grasp that the very,very,very much larger number of women not stoned is it's invalidation. (Not that stoning women isn't a terrible thing, and it should be fought, but it's really not not the vast majority of womens' reality)"

There are two aspects of violence. The violence itself and the fear of that violence. You can control (oppress) others with both violence and fear of violence - think of 'show trials' and how they immediately terrorise a population, very effectively making them compliant, without having to publicly execute all of them on spurious charges. So all the women in Saudi do not have to be stoned to death, for all the women in Saudi to fear being stoned to death, which alters their behaviour.

I just had to clarify that one.

Sorry, can't let it lay.
"don't accuse others of Workin' For The Patriarchy"

What do you mean by this? Do you think 'The Patriarchy' are like a civil service of grey men in bowler hats, with secret handshakes and employment contracts? Because I have been clear I do not.

'Inevitable male dominance' is a patriarchal idea, since alternatives are not just possible, but do happen. If your allegiance is to this patriarchal assumption contradicting the evidence, and I point out your patriarchal bias, I am not saying you are employed by this organisation, I am saying that you have a patriarchal bias.

Elsewhere when I said you weren't feminist, was because you seem to put forward antifeminist arguments.

FoodUnit, I'm loving your posts!

(Getting it now )

thank you lurking glad to have you back

Awww shucks! It's very early here, have some

schluuurp mmm thanks, I do love a cuppa!

Thanks, FoodUnit.

On the original topic, the PP who hypothesed men under pressure might think less of themselves (and their own attractiveness) and hence be more attracted to those outside the "norm" of attractiveness makes sense. I vaguely remember an article from when I was younger about how it's pretty common for people of "equal" attractiveness to end up together (ie a man and a woman each with an average rank of attractiveness of a seven when assessed by groups of other people would be more likely to be together than a seven and a three)