Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Hypergamy, Polyandry and Discussion

I was on NovaSeekers blog and found an interesting article. As we all know the family i.e. man, woman and child is dying. Fathers are dying and men being able to have a family is dying as well. It all does not look well. So here is my take on it. I wonder what you all have to say. I'd love to hear comments. I find the death of men husbands and fathers in our society very interesting, particularly since many of the sociological and judicial law changes that have taken place is second wave feminist or female driven. 70% of divorce is initiated by women as well along with our 40% single woman birth rate. The destruction of family, particularly our fatherless epidemic is very interesting.

"More than 79% of Americans feel the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home. Research shows that the lack of a father in the home correlates closely with crime, educational and emotional problems, teenage pregnancy, and drug and alcohol abuse."

Source: Ad Council United States


I find it interesting that of all the rest of divorces which are initiated by men (30%) only a fraction of those relationships involve children. In many cases men only initiate divorce when they have no children.

According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children."

My father is a dedicated, kind and loving man that would sneak up to see me every chance he got. He would drive an hour each way to visit me during Summer break from school while my mother was at work and I was home alone for the Summer. During the late 80's and 90's sociologist gave a name for these children, "latch key kids". I had to keep my fathers involvement in my life a secret from my mother though. I remember how special it was to see him and how I was kinda scared he would get caught being a father to me. The court says that only women can have children and fathers should only get "visitation" of 4 days a month. The law says that men must support a woman financially no matter what, even if she leaves you and takes your children. Should a man loose his job or is unable to pay he will face jail or interest payments payed directly to the woman as punishment when he is able to support her again. It was that way with my dad as well. I would visit him at his house 4 days a month (every other weekend). I remember how empty his apartment was and how little money he had. Most of it went to my mother and the mortgage on the house she took from him. I love my mother. He never once said anything bad about my mother. He spent quality time with me. I remember making a tent out of bed sheets.

There is an effort now to try and bring men back into the family, not by women but by government. I don't think the government knows all the causes. For now I guess we will just have to blame men for all this as the U.S. ad council does. It was not always like this. Our families were not always like this.
Men used to have families, children used to have fathers.

Ok on to the article:
Novaseeker says:


So here it is:

Age at first marriage:


Marriage Rates: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/marriage.html


Divorce Rate:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html
This one is interesting as you can see where divorce plateaued and appeared to decline but this was the critical mass point at which the decline of marriage started to catch up along with increasing preference for loose knit cohabitation and single woman births rather than marriage. I've always found the skyrocketing divorce rate and it's correlation with the date and time of second wave feminism and second wave feminist divorce laws very interesting.
PLEASE READ, DIVORCE DECLINING BUT SO IS MARRIAGE BY 50% IN FACT.
http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/03/divorce-declining-but-so-is-marriage-by.html


This is where men are going now. A 400% percent increase in incarceration rates.
A GOOD READ: http://www.boysproject.net/papers/The_State_of_American_Manhood.pdf


Female headed households single mother fatherless children: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/hhrace.html

I'm not sure if everyone knows so I have to repeat stats throughout my blog but single parent families in the U.S. is synonymous with fatherless families as 90% of men loose their children in divorce.


Single woman birth rate: This one is also very interesting. 1 in 4 women now carry a disease that is sexually transmitted. HPV and cervical cancer is on the rise. They have created a vaccine for certain types but disease among women is a major problem and part of our new family structure or rather a lack there of.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/fertunm.html


This graph is slightly dated, the single mother birth rate is now 40% of all births.
Feminists know that this is the result of their agenda. I believe that is why they are making more calculated implementation of laws in other countries that give women rights to male resources out of wedlock see: Anti Feminist Protests in Mali a few blog posts up:http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/08/anit-feminist-protests-in-mali.html


I like what the other commenter said:

"Pre-marital sex screwed up many things. It allowed the top 10-15% of men to lead on the top 50% of women, and the top 30% of men to lead on the top 70% of women. Porn, romance novels/chick flicks/prostitutes fill in the gaps so the existence isn't so unbearable and the years keep on flying by."

"Getting to have sex with men in the top 20% of attractiveness would be drug-like for a gal who is in only the top 40-50% of attractiveness, and it makes it hard for her to settle for a man who merely is like herself, right in the middle of the attractiveness scale."



So I think what we are looking at here is an artificially created sexual selective dynamic which has a tight threshold of males able to mate or females that will mate with them. The only place I've seen such a threshold is in nature where the male is not needed to provide resources and multiple females are able to mate with the alpha male as in deer and many other animals.

The one defining factor is the lack of need for a male to a mated pair bond to provide resources. We humans have created this systemically as we have extremely long gestation periods for our offspring and in actuality a male is needed to stay in the pair bond to ensure survival. The difference being is that we do this through alimony, child support, government husbandry and president placed on female independence and resource acquisition by herself.

With the male nullified I see it is increasingly the case that we will have fatherless children and many men who will not be able to have a family. Those that do are subject to forced systemic resource transference outside the mated pair bond after divorce. The female is also able to increase her genetic fitness in this model as she is able to mate again after divorce where as the males are left without a family and rights to their own resources to start another family or support another family.

I imagine this dynamic will create quite a few men who do not find incentive to produce and will increasingly become more predatory upon society rather than provisionary.

The current dynamic aligns with all the male health indicators. Male suicide has tippled since 1970, particularly among boys and men ages 15-27. Some of these boys have decided to kill others before killing themselves. School shootings, mass shootings and murder suicides began to present itself among men and boys in the 1990's. Those of you old enough to remember know that men and boys did not always kill themselves and others in such proportions in the past it was unheard of. Males have been dropping out of colleges and now only acquire 40% of all degrees. This does not include the policies enacted to force males out of college such as Title IX, Affirmative Action and women only loans and scholarships. The decline of men from the public sphere and the effect on the forced marginalization of men and boys is evident. In 1964, 72 percent of men voted for president, while that number today has dropped to 53 percent today.

The effect is compounded by female privileged laws designed to accelerate and facilitate this as well as no-fault divorce that feminists successfully tied to default awards of alimony, child support and default female child custody.

I think the key for feminists would be to close the raw wage gap or surpass the aggregate of male monetary productive capacity at all costs. I think this is why they are speaking of extending Title IX to all science, technical and engineering departments. At this point females have a 60% of college degrees. I think the goal is to get them to 70-100% of college degrees. This is important as it will serve to marginalize men out of the family as planned. See the below study extract:

-- Education and Hypergamy, and the “Success Gap” by Prof. Elaina Rose * Department of Economics University of Washington contact email erose@u.washington.edu
http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2005/0109_1300_0701.pdf

Here: The more educated or "independent" a female is, the less likely she will find a mate she sees as adequate and the less likely she will mate and have children.



Thus the lower the chances she will ever become a mother.


The reverse it true for men: The more education and resources the man has the more likely he will find a mate. This is hypergamy in action. I think perhaps that hypergamy is female driven and the dissolution of family is exacerbated by female instinct for "successful" males. The more educated and independent a woman is, the more resourcefully successful she is, the less adequate the males around her seem to be.





Though at all levels men are increasingly turning away from marriage. Some sociologists refer to this as the "marriage strike" among men. Perhaps it is because men don't have any rights in marriage. Perhaps it is because sex is widely and easily available to men out side marriage and with many different women. Perhaps hypergamous preferences in females slow down female mate selection as females become more educated. I suspect all three factors.
A GOOD READ: http://www.boysproject.net/papers/The_State_of_American_Manhood.pdf


In her report Prof. Rose states:

"“Hypergamy” is the tendency for women to marry up with respect to education or other characteristics associated with economic well-being. For a given level of hypergamy, an increase in the education of women relative to men will tend to increase the “success gap” (i.e., the disadvantage faced by successful women in the marriage market). I track the success gap with U.S. Census data and find that the success gap declined between 1980 and 2000 – when women’s education increased with respect to men’s. This is because hypergamy was not constant – it also declined. Similarly, we would expect marriage rates to fall for men at the bottom of the distribution. This was consistent with the data. The decline in hypergamy was concentrated at the top of the distribution. Over the period, hypergamy increased at the bottom of the distribution. (The author is demonstrating the increased marginalization of males from mating, marriage and the opportunity to have a family leading to an over all decline of marriage) She states "Changes in family policy such as the
liberalization of divorce laws, as well as shifts in social norms, have reinforced these trends."

"Patterns in education have changed considerably as well. Overall, the population of both men and women in the U.S. has become more educated, and women have become more educated relative to men."

"Marriage has changed substantially in the last several decades. The most notable change is the overall decline. At any given age, individuals are less likely to be, or have ever been, married. According to Becker’s [1977] work, the decline can be explained by the increase in women’s labor supply and market human capital which has reduced the gains from specialization and exchange in marriage. Other explanations include the improvement in birth control technology (Akerloff et al [1995] and Goldin and Katz [2002]) and the increase in welfare generosity (government husbandry taking the place of husbands and fathers for resource provision to the family) (Murray, 1984) 1 . Grossbard-Schechtman [1993] relates the decline in women’s propensity to marry"

(I note that: Further more the tendency for women to not stay married and initiate divorce do to feminist implementation of no fault divorce, default female child custody and forced male resource provision while remaining in isolation from the female and child with alimony and child support further exacerbates the problem. Divorce is 70% female initiated and the out of wedlock birth rate of 40% of all births is female driven.

"If women tend to marry up with respect to, say, education, and if education is
distributed similarly by sex, (which it is not as women earn 60% of all college degrees which further exacerbates the issue) women at the top of the distribution will have more limited options,and a negative relationship between education and marriage will emerge."

However the author states that though net hypergamy has declined it has only done so at the top of the educational distribution. In other words when the most highly of educated women do marry, there is little disparity between a top producing career woman and a top producing career man. Overall though becoming a highly educated career woman comes at a cost as seen in the rapid decline in the probability of marriage for these women as well as the probability of having children as is evidenced by the graphs above.

Anyway, I'm quite interested in the sociology of the black community because they have surpassed 70% single woman birth rates and their fatherless rate is very high along with educational disparity between black men and women. Net hypergamy has also decreased for black women. Though the author did not publish that data for black "% mothers" I suspect that it is incorporated in graph above though the author did not specify. The black community is an interesting model to demonstrate where we are headed with the increase in the hypergamic indicators noted above. So I think white males and the rest of society will see a clear decline in the majority of male place in society and male behavior.. Increase in crime, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, lower educational achievement, fatherless families etc etc etc. The black community serves as a perfect construct to illustrate the changes that are to come given the same variables present in their community.

In fact all of these indicators are increasing in males in our society at the moment and sociological behavior of males in society by enlarge is starting to align with male behavior under the same factors as black males have been exposed to. I don't see a stop to it any time soon. All health indicators for males point to a severe decline and I am concerned about the family structure as the graphs I've pointed out above show significant momentum. I don't think they will decline anytime soon...Too many single mothers has created a legacy of young men without the knowledge of how to be fathers as fathers are increasingly pushed out of their homes and from the lives of their children. Even the young fathers who are present often have little knowledge of fathering, having been denied the benefit of a father themselves.
I think people are starting to realize what is happening but I think it is to late to fix it and it will take a lot of time to repair.

The only solution AS THE LAWS CURRENTLY STAND and as men are not valued or needed as fathers and husbands men should not be required to support a female and child with alimony and child support. When males are not needed in nature and monogamous pair bonds are not formed the males mate and go their own way... In my mind anything less than complete independence for men is unacceptable. Males must withdraw completely. Men must become "independent" as women have. Female "independence" as it is called is actually another name for "not needing a man" as a husband or a father to children. Men need to respond to this accordingly. I think it is the men who want a family, a wife and child the most that are most passionate and resentful of our current situation.

Chivalry and other elements of male connection to women and "their" children needs to decline. Men have increasingly dissconnected from commitment, protection, provision and chivalry to women but it needs to continue. Black males have adapted well and I admire their response of independence. I believe men and women are indeed going our separate ways as women wanted but the last of male ties to protection and provision to women MUST BE ELIMINATED for equality to exists as women want. We must not have mutual dependence, need or obligation to one another or to a family. The collective statement of women as is seen from the graphs above, is the divorce of males in general at a societal level. Now that this is occurring it is important we arbitrate the terms of the death of marriage and family.. Men should not be left with nothing while footing the bill as is currently the case. Make no mistake, WOMEN WANT "INDEPENDENCE" and we must free ourselves from them as well. We have no choice now...

I want men to have families though, I want men to have children...I don't want this to happen to us but it is, and as such, at an alarming rate.... There is no turning back men, you must fight for your rights in this new order! Stand together and fight for Men's and Father's Rights! If not your dignity or rights to your own working labor and forced servitude to financially support a woman that divorced you, AT LEAST YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE LIFE OF YOUR CHILDREN, TO BE A FATHER. It is a hard and uphill battle. I don't blame you from withdrawing from commitment to women, marriage and to your estranged children. I respect your decision of independence from your disposability and the hypocrisy you face.

A good read:
http://biblicalmanhood.blogspot.com/2009/08/delay-of-marriage-men-are-not-problem.html

Excerpts: The Cinderella Paradox

"I've blogged about this one, and it's related to the "Cosmo Complex." Women tend to be hypergamous. The "Paradox" is that as women increase their social status, the ability of men to be desirable mates for these women decreases. The pyramid narrows at the top, but don't tell this to the modern woman. She has conned herself into believing that their are enough men of high status to go around who are, at the same time, serious about marriage."

"We can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, tell women to stop seeking prestigious jobs, or tell them to get back into the kitchen and bake some pie. But the doesn't stop many so-called liberated women from confining men to the old, stereotyped role of being "the main earner" does it? The reason there is a delay in marriages is because a critical mass of women show they are clueless about this matter."

Sooo, will women change, will they allow men to be freed from our oppressive role as provider now that women are independent? Or will they continue to be our foes, or competitors and demonstrate the hypocrisy of feminism. Will they continue to blame men for this?

Men, I to am becoming a hardened shell unto myself. I desire a wife, a child a family but I know in an instant, if she decides, it can all be taken away from me. I will never marry in the legal sense and am afraid of being a heartless shadow in the life of my child as I know that at any moment a woman can take my child away from me. I am afraid to commit to a woman or get to close to my prospectful children.

In exploring my feelings I found the below:

"Sonja Hastings of Fathers-4-Equality says that “no matter how decent, hardworking, and caring you may be as a father, that in the event of separation, you will more than likely not get custody of your child, you will lose up to 80% of all of your assets, you will have to pay up to five times the cost of raising a child, (in alimony and child support) and most importantly you could never see your child again.” In Britain a fathers’ rights group tours university campuses warning young men not to start families. Even one attorney writes a book concluding that the only effective protection for men to avoid losing their children is not to start a family in the first place."

As a young man in college, I was red in the face at what they were telling me in my Women's Studies class. So I sought out resources to understand what is happening and how I can adapt accordingly. At this point it seems I need to think about disconnecting from paternal investment in my offspring or support of a family in marriage and move on to something that allows me independence. I don't want to get my cell phone bill, electric bill, child support bill and woman support bill and have that be my existence. I think detaching from women and fatherhood is a rather smart strategy.

Novaseeker has written an excellent paper which Men's Rights groups are discussing to figure out where the movement needs to go. The paper helps young men understand the new mating model and to help them adapt accordingly. The rise of the "hook up" culture, "The Game" and PUA's or "pick up artists" and the "playa" or "player" is a growing phenomenon as well. Courtship towards the ends of marriage is not so much the case or an ideal and healthy choice for men. These adaptations have rightfully spread from the ostracized males of the black community to the rest of society. Women and feminists seek such ends (perhaps unknown to themselves) as to the wide spread sexualization and devaluation of women as something to commit to.

Males are adapting to optimize for little commitment and short term mating opportunities that females now present to them. Sex is now widely available from women as well as rampant disease (1 in 4 women carry a disease that is sexually transmitted)Sex being as separated from reproduction has opened the door to a new mating dynamic that has assisted, along with other feminist laws to destroy the monogamous pair bond structure of marriage.

Novaseeker
http://novaresources.blogspot.com/2009/04/general-theory-of-human-mating.html

12 comments:

BeltainAmerica said...

Nice work, very informative!!!

BlackNDecker said...

"I think people are starting to realize what is happening but I think it is to late to fix it and it will take a lot of time to repair. "

I hope by "people" you don't mean politicians. They're despicable charlatans. As a Black Man, I'm resentful that I've ben locked out of the "Huxtable"-game. My women are crazed currently and there's no getting around it. Just the time we were born in I guess. One consolation is that ultimately women WILL be eaten by the monster they've created and enabled. Because ultimately, those kids don't belong to them either, they belong to the State. Once this is realized, protection will be sought. And men will show ambivalence or laugh, if they aren't already dead. There's no saving this, just adaptation. This will fall.

"In my mind anything less than complete independence for men is unacceptable. Males must withdraw completely. Men must become "independent" as women have. Female "independence" as it is called is actually another name for "not needing a man" as a husband or a father to children. Men need to respond to this accordingly."

My other consolation. I give no attention or consideration to any outside of those very elderly women. It's freed up alot of mental energy I must say. I wasted alot of time. But it's far better realizing the environment your in as opposed to experiencing contradictory hints and cues and stumbling along.

Anonymous said...

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso has told the nation’s youth that they shouldn’t marry if they have no money, and that they can’t expect any respect from their partner if they have no money.
In remarks to a gathering of students, he had this to say about marriage at a (relatively) young age, in response to the question “Many young people can’t afford to get married, isn’t this contributing to the low birth rate?”:
“If you have no money it is best not to marry. I feel it’d be pretty hard to get any respect as a marriage partner if you have no income.”
Japanese demographers predict a population collapse if another generation puts off having children.
Aso is famous for putting his foot in his mouth unusually often even for one of Japan’s worthless politicians, but in this case his comments appear quite deliberate.
For a man who is supposed to be tackling the issue of Japan’s ongoing demographic collapse, his words certainly seem ill considered…

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/08/24/aso-poor-people-shouldnt-marry

Arthur said...

I used to teach Academic Writing at a major university in the southern US--a school in the top 10% academically. As my students were Health Science majors these classes should have been a good cross section of the college. My classes were consistently 80% female. I kept thinking, 'who are they going to marry?', that is considering that hypergamy is the usual rule in the US. About 2 months ago scientists successfully used stem bone marrow cells to create surrogate sperm cells. Considering the inevitable takeover of females in tertiary education, it seems to me that when bone marrow sperm becomes affordable that US women will simply start marrying other women in non-lesbian pairs. Male problem solved: the genetic diversity problems of cloning are avoided, since the state will raise these children then both women will have careers and not be burdened with childcare, and since both will work then money will not be an issue. Tactically, the feminists were brilliant to attack the foundation of US culture, the k-12 educational system. I am old enough to have seen what once was very sound schooling in America and am appalled to see its shocking decline with apparently no one at the wheel, but this of course was the goal of radical feminism--put girls first, make everything pink and easy, eliminate competition and meaningful grades, and eliminate anything male. It worked; as a college professor and an extremely well educated man who really values hard work, resourcefullness, critical thinking, and independence, I am deeply disturbed by the lack of thinking skills even university trained students and professional display in the US. Another thing that absolutely floors me is how US women continue to deny that all of this is happening. In negotiation theory, one way to win is to attack your opponent's fundamental character and this is how women respond in the US to anyone pointing out that men and boys are suffering from the depraved indifference of women and court systems. Women have been well trained to attack, attack, attack, and indeed drive most men away so that the status quo is maintained. I see the US breaking up in 30 to 50 years because women will never be able to put anything ahead of 'winning' and at some point be so poorly educated by our increasingly impotent (no pun) educational system that they will actually join the Mexicans, Chinese, Russians, and other opportunistic groups who will use US women who believe in a borderless society as dups as they simple take over the US. I live in the Middle East now, but is pains me to see my own country fall into a cesspool of money, sex, political correctness, and greed. Unfortunately I have to agree with assessment that feminism is equivalent to Nazi-ism. My only hope is that like the Nazis, radical feminism will end up consuming itself.

Anonymous said...

Excellent work.

Novaseeker said...

Good stuff :)

Sociopathic Revelation said...

Outstanding work, indeed.

Anonymous said...

No!

Have an *offshore family*. Guys are doing this. You have a wife and children in a nearby, poorer nation.

You meet a nice, pretty girl overseas. Have children with her, put her up in a house (over there). This can be done for far less than it costs in the West. An average Western man can afford to do this, with an attractive woman overseas.

It's far easier to support them financially by keeping them offshore. You fly out and see them when you can, hopefully spending months with them a year if possible. You also have your independence when you're away from them (some won't like this aspect).

You - the man - keeping working at whatever you do in the West, where the money from your Western job, no matter how ordinary back home, has a far larger purchasing power when you spend it in aid of your offshore family - in their country.

Importantly, offshore families exist in a completely different legal jurisdiction. You keep it off 'the books' - keep it off the government records back home.

For extra security (be smart), you keep the existence of your offshore family a secret from people in your country. Possibly don't even get legally married in her country - just come to a private understanding between each other. Guys do this, it works fine.

And Voila!! There are rarely divorces with an offshore family. Yes - you actually get to keep your family - I know, it's crazy!

You should write a post about this option!!

figleaf said...

Did you read that "hypergamy" paper by Elaina Rose you cited it in a response to me at Misandry Review?

She mentions that "high-status" families in India solve the "hypergamy" problem by... murdering their infant daughters. That... doesn't sound like feminism is the problem there does it? It's not infant girls who are deciding they'd rather be dead than to marry "down." It's their parents.

She also says "As
the source of gains from marriage shifts from specialization and exchange to production and
consumption of public goods, hypergamy, and the associated success gap, would be expected to
decline. Moreover, transformation of social norms from those that encourage hypergamy towards
those favoring more symmetric matchings will tend to reduce hypergamy, and the success gap, as
well."

Which kind of throws sand in the eyes of the assertion that as feminism has increased women have wanted more hypergamy.

In other words you're sitting around arguing for the perpetuation of a system that makes men's life a miserable hell (check out Anonymous's idea of "offshore" marriages to women and children you'll basically never see!) And arguing against a system that reduces hypergamy by allowing women to marry for love instead of material necessity.

That's certainly what I've seen over the years. Most women I know aren't very enthusiastic about marrying "up." They much prefer to marry "across" to someone their own age, education, and interest levels. And, having wound up being a stay-at-home dad when my children were young (I was semi-retired and she went back to work) the reason most women aren't interested is that raising children by yourself is b.o.r.i.n.g! Fulfilling, yes, rewarding, yes, heartwarming, yes. Intellectually stimulating?

No. Another thing, by the way: being a stay-at-home dad meant I spent a lot of time hanging with stay-at-home moms. Believe me they're no more "naturally" able to handle it than men are. They've done it historically only because they had no choice. But trust me, no human being should have to do it all by themselves with an absentee partner. It's gotta be done and in my first, second, and third-hand experience it works out best for all parties when you share both the work and child rearing as close to equally as possible.

Anyway, just so you know, I still think someone's steering you wrong about how men and women ought to live. I agree 100% with you that the traditional man-die-young, woman-stuck-at-home status quo sucks. I just disagree that the solution is more of the status quo. Or, worse, as in India parents killing some of their daughters to get a better price for the surviving ones.

figleaf

Bwec said...

---"Moreover, transformation of social norms from those that encourage hypergamy towards
those favoring more symmetric matchings will tend to reduce hypergamy, and the success gap, as
well."---

Time will tell but I will tell you that female resource acquisition has not lowered proportionally to hypergamy. The curve does not match the increase in female resource acquisition.

Not only that but the male increase in mating opportunity with females are diametrically, oppositionally proportionate and symmetrically increase for males and decreases for females...

I will make the point again sir. The hypergamic indicators are not in line proportionately with the variables in which Prof. Elaina Rose sites they should be...i.e. female resource acquisition equality.

Further this dichotomy has a third supporting factor and that would be "negatively symmetric matchings" or the measurement of how many females "mate down", Virtually 0.

She postulates that with resource acquisition equality between men and women, at very most, human mated pair bonds would be symmetrical. I can demonstrate to you that men will "marry down".

Males will actually mate with a female that is negatively symmetrically matched in terms of her resource potential.

Bwec said...

So again there is overwhelming evidence that females have a stronger preference than to males for a mate that is resourcefully successful..

Some of the tension involved in the "battle of the sexes", the gender war is that females are now in competition with males for the vary resources that garners males mating opportunity...

It would be one thing if we were placed on an equal playing field for such things but unfortunately the male has been personified in government and has become so chivalrous in providing to women it has been so gracious as to disenfranchise males with "women first" laws like Title IX and Affirmative Action, women only scholarships and loans, hiring freezes, male expendability through "resource provision transferability" in alimony and child support.

MEN DO NOT OWN THE RIGHTS TO OUR OWN BODIES AND THE FRUITS OF ITS LABOR. MEN ARE NOT GIVEN EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES TO COMPETE WITH FEMALES FOR THE RESOURCES THEY DEMAND FROM US.......

Anonymous said...

Outstanding!

With the advent of Male Studies, a new academic discipline, the Men's Movement will continue to articulate our position and coalesce into a formidable political force.

We must do this because women will not. Male health, wellbeing and enfranchisement as part of the family is inconsequential to women....at least at first...The elimination of marriage and men from the family and the lives of our children is quickly catching up to us as a society.


We must make the family and the lives of our children a worthwhile endeavor for men and a source of empowering enfranchisement.