# What's the psychology behind men wanting to feel a bit superior to female partners?



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

I know this is not true in all cases, but there seem to be a lot that fall into this category. How far do you think this is true? Is the male ego a kind of religious brain wash? Are a lot of guys secretly threatened by dominating, powerful and successful women? Are many guys never taught about gender equality? Because men are usually physically stronger, does that factor into it? Are there some evolutionary psychology factors involved? Any thoughts?

Edit: Please replace 'religious' with 'societal' in the above paragraph because I feel like people are misunderstanding the sentence because of it. Some of my bias must have unconsciously slipped in.


----------



## Abbaladon Arc V (Jan 16, 2018)

its true at 1000% 

""Is the male ego a kind of religious brain wash?"""

No its religion use male instinct to create a system social to have social peace.

If its real , so why at nature at so much different religion and system its always the same thing ? 

Because i man master self discipline and hormonal superiority. 

Are a lot of guys secretly threatened by dominating, powerful and successful women?

Not a lot , every guy is mastered by woman
A woman have power of beauty , a man of power , a girl with power always have less choices of man than a man with the same power lvl with girls 

Are many guys never taught about gender equality? 


What are you calling gender equality ? At the nature we are 50% woman and mans so we are equals in some ways 

Because men are usually physically stronger, does that factor into it? 

Not always but i think woman is less powerful and more attracted by money , social lvl , and what they feel protect and what they know they can have childs success.

psychology factors involved? 

Yeah but very slowly , we have the brain of our ancestours. 

And i believe in essentialism and different races and much more. 

For me a fat ugly man with money can impress a girl more easely than a fat ugly girl with a amazing car or bank account.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Dscross said:


> I know this is not true in all cases, but there seem to be a lot that falls into this category. How far do you think this is true?


How true this depends strongly on cultural differences, how they were raised, etc. The urge for dominance over the other gender can be seen in both males and females where I live.


> Is the male ego a kind of religious brainwash?


Though some religions may lead to males having this mindset, the male ego in itself is not some kind of "religious brainwash".



> Are a lot of guys secretly threatened by dominating, powerful and successful women?


No.



> Are many guys never taught about gender equality?


Most men in the west are taught about gender equality. For other countries(non-western), this may not be the case.



> Because men are usually physically stronger, does that factor into it? Are there some evolutionary psychology factors involved?


Men are physically stronger than females due to differences in muscle mass because they produce more testosterone. Testerone levels have been linked to dominance behaviour. I would guess that dominance behaviour may have a part to play in this, but that is just my guess...


* *





Testosterone: 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383914/


> For example, testosterone has been consistently shown to correlate with dominance behaviors (Archer, 2006a). Single measurements of basal testosterone have been found to predict ratings of dominance behavior in laboratory paradigms (Grant & France, 2001; van Honk et al., 1999) and among adolescents (Udry, 1988) and college roommates (Cashdan, 1995) in naturalistic settings. Basal testosterone has also been found to predict more extreme dominance behaviors: in a large prison study, male inmates with a history of violent interpersonal crimes had higher basal testosterone levels than did those with a history of property crimes. Moreover, basal testosterone levels predicted more rule-breaking within the prison setting, especially rules involving overt confrontation (Dabbs, Carr, Frady, & Riad, 1995). Just as high testosterone individuals display more dominance behaviors (i.e., behaviors aimed at achieving or maintaining power), low testosterone individuals appear motivated to maintain _low status_ (Mehta, Wuehrmann, & Josephs, 2009). For example, when experimentally placed into a high status position, individuals with low testosterone showed evidence of discomfort, including increases in emotional and autonomic arousal, poorer performance on complex cognitive tasks, and greater implicit attention to status.
> Some studies suggest that high testosterone is also related to aggressive behavior, defined by intent to inflict harm of a psychological, social, material, or physical nature (Mazur & Booth, 1998; Parrott & Giancola, 2007). Researchers have found that testosterone predicts a range of aggressive behaviors (Windle & Windle, 1995), including bullying in the work place (Parkins, Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2006), violence of men towards their wives (Booth, Mazur, & Dabbs, 1993), fighting and confrontations in prisons (Dabbs et al., 1995), and willingness to administer larger shocks to competitors in laboratory studies (Berman, Gladue, & Taylor, 1993). Nonetheless, findings of meta-analyses suggest that testosterone administration does not consistently increase aggressive behavior compared to placebo, and that naturalistically occurring testosterone levels are more robustly correlated with dominance traits than with aggressive personality traits (Archer, 2006a). Taken together, these findings suggest that the effects of testosterone on aggressive behavior may be mediated by dominance motivation (Archer, 2006a). Testosterone may predict the use of a range of dominance behaviors, both aggressive and non-aggressive, particularly when individuals with high dominance motivation experience challenges to power.
> Testosterone also appears to be related to self-perceived power and its behavioral concomitants. We noted earlier that power is related to greater reward sensitivity, more approach behavior, and higher levels of confidence. Consistent with this, higher testosterone levels have been found to predict greater confidence (Carré & McCormick, 2008; Cashdan, 1995), and a range of social approach behaviors in laboratory and naturalistic settings, including more forwardness in approaching an older person, greater speed in approaching a younger woman, a more relaxed and confident style during dyadic interactions, and greater sexual activity, including higher rates of heterosexual partners and sexual infidelity (Dabbs, Bernieri, Strong, Campo, & Milun, 2001; Dabbs & Morris, 1990; Daitzman & Zuckerman, 1980; Egan & Angus, 2004). Other studies suggest that high testosterone, like power, relates to diminished sensitivity to threat. For example, low testosterone is associated with potentiation of the startle response (Hermans, Putman, Baas, Koppeschaar, & van Honk, 2006), exaggerated skin conductance responses to negatively valenced stimuli (van Honk et al., 2004), and sensitivity to loss (van Honk et al., 2004). Also congruent with findings regarding power, high testosterone relates to lower interpersonal sensitivity, indexed by diminished tendencies to mimic others' facial expressions (Hermans, Putman, & van Honk, 2006) or attend to fearful faces (van Honk, Peper, & Schutter, 2005). Given these effects on interpersonal interactions, it is perhaps not surprising that high testosterone has also been related to less chance of becoming or staying married (Dabbs & Morris, 1990), and to poorer quality of marital and parental relationships (Booth et al., 1993; Gray, Kahlenberg, Barrett, Lipson, & Ellison, 2002; Julian & McKenry, 1989).
> Research on testosterone also provides insight into the reinforcing properties of dominance behavior. An increase in power often leads to an increase in testosterone (Archer, 2006a). Animal research suggests that increases in testosterone are highly reinforcing. For example, rodents will self-administer testosterone via oral, intravenous and intracerebroventricular routes, sometimes to the point of death (Wood, 2004). Testosterone has been shown to amplify activity of the nucleus accumbens, a key region in the approach system (Hermans et al., 2010). In humans, testosterone is a schedule III controlled substance because of the potential for abuse (US DEA, 2009).
> ...


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

men and women each have their superior traits... but as species go, our branch (apes) are typically dominated by males. some other species are dominated by the female. 

just the way the cookie crumbled.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Gender role brainwashing keeps both genders insecure.

And before anyone points to sex hormones, our closest primate relatives are bonobos. They exhibit a similar pattern of digit 2D:4D and yet, they don't exhibit a similar level of male insecurity in their societies.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Cal said:


> Though some religions may lead to males having this mindset, the male ego in itself is not some kind of "religious brainwash".


I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this because I suspect people are misunderstanding what I meant by this. Religion does not factor into what I meant to say. It was merely an analogy. Some of my atheism bias may have accidentally slipped in there. Remove the word religion and replace it with societal and then explain your reasoning.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Dscross said:


> I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this because I suspect people are misunderstanding what I meant by this. Religion does not factor into what I meant to say. It was merely an analogy. Some of my atheism bias may have accidentally slipped in there. Remove the word religion and replace it with societal and then explain your reasoning.


It would then be a mixture of biology and social pressure, though technically speaking the phrase "male ego" does not come with any clear definition, so what one refers too as "the male ego" is more or less subjective, despite its popularity in use(mainly with feminists, from what I have seen). With that in mind, explaining my reasoning may not work out well, due to the terms strong subjectivity and lack of a clear definition. I personally see the male ego as a group of attributes that are commonly seen and strived for by males, in terms of dominance, status, etc. Some of these attributes can be seen due to biology, such as the fact that males produce more testosterone for example, or through societal pressure surrounding around what men are supposed to be doing and acting, and the roles they were given.


----------



## Koniak (Apr 30, 2018)

Nature, probably.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Koniak said:


> Nature, probably.


Thanks for that detailed contribution. Lol.  Still, I suppose your opinion eliminates the nurture side.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Dscross said:


> Thanks for that detailed contribution. Lol.  Still, I suppose your opinion eliminates the nurture side.


If I state 'nurture, probably', would that eliminate the nature side? If not, why not?


----------



## Koniak (Apr 30, 2018)

Dscross said:


> Thanks for that detailed contribution. Lol.  Still, I suppose your opinion eliminates the nurture side.


Nature and nurture, probably.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Duo said:


> If I state 'nurture, probably', would that eliminate the nature side? If not, why not?



Haha - I was being facetious as well you know.


----------



## Sait (Jun 24, 2015)

If one defines superiority as having power over someone in a certain way (Power can be skill oriented, authority oriented and so on.), then females also want it, but in a different way if not the same. Its all about perception you see, your filter (perception) defines what you see in the world. 

Also it has a lot to do with the orientations of the people involved. Females tend to be more agreeable on average then males in the big 5. And being disagreeable tends to mean that person is more competitive, hence leads to wanting to surpass and be more dominant. I hope this helps shine some light to your question. 

Here is a graph:


----------



## Abbaladon Arc V (Jan 16, 2018)

I love this post.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Dscross said:


> I know this is not true in all cases, but there seem to be a lot that fall into this category. How far do you think this is true? Is the male ego a kind of religious brain wash? Are a lot of guys secretly threatened by dominating, powerful and successful women? Are many guys never taught about gender equality? Because men are usually physically stronger, does that factor into it? Are there some evolutionary psychology factors involved? Any thoughts?
> 
> Edit: Please replace 'religious' with 'societal' in the above paragraph because I feel like people are misunderstanding the sentence because of it. Some of my bias must have unconsciously slipped in.


It's because of the obsession with power in combination with the obsession in finding meaning in patterns of data. Power comes in many forms, but as far as the obvious in your face types of power which also happens to be the types of power that can be recorded as data, men are statistically stronger, faster, build more shit, and hold higher positions of power. Of course, the data used to draw such conclusions is inconclusive. That fact is easily ignored by the ego which loves feeling superior. I suppose at the very core of it is ignorance and the vacating of the driver's seat forcing the ego to take charge.

With the above foundations set in place. A powerful woman's presence shines a light on a weak man's inadequate status in society. An example of this type of phenomenon was found in my first secondary school. It was widely believed that black kids were innately stronger and more capable fighters than white kids with an exception made for the Irish. So if a black boy or an Irish boy lost a 1 on 1 fight against a white boy they would ridiculed for the fact. In other words, a powerful white boy's presence would shine a light on a weak black/Irish boy's inadequate status in society. Rinse and repeat.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

I don't want to feel superior or imply superiority over women. I can't deny the fact I almost never meet a woman who can challenge me physically. It becomes instinct and bias nonetheless having physical superiority most of the time.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

So many social science research on anthropology of known large civilization or even the most remote tribes will reveal that... psychology does related to biology thus evolution.

It's not a social construct. It's GENETIC. 

Whether it is still relevant or not in this safe modern environment where there are not so many life hazards anymore is entirely a different question. 





Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

contradictionary said:


> So many social science research on anthropology of known large civilization or even the most remote tribes will reveal that... psychology does related to biology thus evolution.
> 
> It's not a social construct. It's GENETIC.
> 
> Whether it is still relevant or not in this safe modern environment where there are not so many life hazards anymore is entirely a different question.


So, what's your point regarding the original question? Do you have an argument based on that premise?


----------



## Kaznos (May 3, 2018)

I think some of them are afraid that they would lose their partner's respect if they are not superior. But that's just a guess.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Dscross said:


> So, what's your point regarding the original question? Do you have an argument based on that premise?


Men will show their desire for it, whateveryoumaycallit, every now and then, consciously and unconsciously.

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Duo said:


> Gender role brainwashing keeps both genders insecure.
> 
> And before anyone points to sex hormones, our closest primate relatives are bonobos. They exhibit a similar pattern of digit 2D:4D and yet, they don't exhibit a similar level of male insecurity in their societies.


Are you idolizing bonobo way of life?

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

contradictionary said:


> Are you idolizing bonobo way of life?


Nope. I'm using our closest relative as an example of how gender roles are nurture, not nature.


----------



## Freedom Glider (May 12, 2018)

It's pretty simple really. Men want to be in the, "provider" role (probably due mainly to culture, but possibly also genetics) in a relationship. It's hard to feel like a provider when your girl is a more capable person than you are. Therefore men want someone slightly less capable than themselves so they can fill the provider and protector role.



Sait said:


> If one defines superiority as having power over someone in a certain way (Power can be skill oriented, authority oriented and so on.), then females also want it, but in a different way if not the same. Its all about perception you see, your filter (perception) defines what you see in the world.
> 
> Also it has a lot to do with the orientations of the people involved. Females tend to be more agreeable on average then males in the big 5. And being disagreeable tends to mean that person is more competitive, hence leads to wanting to surpass and be more dominant. I hope this helps shine some light to your question.
> 
> ...


It's silly how much emphasis some modern pseudo-scientists place on these traits like agreeableness. Sure the median man is SLIGHTLY higher than the median woman, but basically your median man is still more agreeable than 40% of women and your median woman is still less agreeable than 40% of men. Not like this is a black and white issue.


----------



## Restless Thinker (Apr 23, 2018)

Dscross said:


> How far do you think this is true?


It's true for the vast majority of cases just as the opposite is mostly true of women, on average, for the same underlying reasons, simply expressed in a different way.



> Is the male ego a kind of religious brain wash?


"Male ego," as you call it, can come into play, but only as a side effect of the evolutionary pressures taking place under the surface. 



> Are a lot of guys secretly threatened by dominating, powerful and successful women?


Threatened isn't quite the right word to use. A man who wants to have any kind of intimate relationship with a very successful and/or powerful woman understands intuitively that, in most cases, he will have to have an even higher "status" than her in order to attract her. It's more like avoiding highly probable failure than being threatened. It's also possible for a man to admire a successful woman while, at the same time, admitting to himself that he has little to no chance of even so much as having a date with her. Conversely, most successful women, if they wish to have a relationship with a man while maintaining that high status, limit their options via their own success while a man's options generally increase with his success (and decrease with failure/lack of success). There are many inverse relationships and correlations at play here, on average (again, for emphasis). This is also the same reason that stay-at-home dads are a lot less common than stay-at-home moms, in case you're curious. 



> Because men are usually physically stronger, does that factor into it?


Not inherently, no. The, on average, higher physical strength of males evolved for hunting to provide for females in the first place, so it's just another side effect of evolution really. 



> Are there some evolutionary psychology factors involved?


You could have cut down on the number of your questions by just asking that one since that's really all it is, quintessentially. Everything else is just a side effect or consequence of those evolutionary forces that influence and direct our behavior. Sorry if this was anticlimactic for you. The framing of your original post made it seem much more complicated than it really was, so I felt compelled to simplify it. Humans _are_ very complex (due to higher intelligence and self awareness than other species), but some of our _motivations_ are actually very simple when you look past all the fluff that surround them.


----------



## Sait (Jun 24, 2015)

Freedom Glider said:


> It's pretty simple really. Men want to be in the, "provider" role (probably due mainly to culture, but possibly also genetics) in a relationship. It's hard to feel like a provider when your girl is a more capable person than you are. Therefore men want someone slightly less capable than themselves so they can fill the provider and protector role.
> 
> 
> It's silly how much emphasis some modern pseudo-scientists place on these traits like agreeableness. Sure the median man is SLIGHTLY higher than the median woman, but basically your median man is still more agreeable than 40% of women and your median woman is still less agreeable than 40% of men. Not like this is a black and white issue.


I didn't claim it was. I just wanted to help explain to @Dscross why there appears to more men who are like this then woman. Also this is not the only variable at play of course. It is just one, one I thought was important.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Inept Hero said:


> You could have cut down on the number of your questions by just asking that one since that's really all it is, quintessentially. Everything else is just a side effect or consequence of those evolutionary forces that influence and direct our behavior. Sorry if this was anticlimactic for you. The framing of your original post made it seem much more complicated than it really was, so I felt compelled to simplify it. Humans _are_ very complex (due to higher intelligence and self awareness than other species), but some of our _motivations_ are actually very simple when you look past all the fluff that surround them.


You are basically saying it's pretty much all nature and not much nurture involved with this para. Not sure I can get on board with that 100%. I think you are trying to boil something quite complex down into something too simple. I see where you are coming from because I had a similar thought, but you also have to take society and upbringing into account. Also, we don't know enough about how our ancestors started out to boil it down to this. Not all of our closest animal relatives have the same attitude towards mating and hierarchy. They are all different if you study them.

Btw, all those questions were just supposed to spark people's imagination. The title question is all I'm interested in. How people answer it is up to them.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Despite what you may think when you see me, I'm pretty damn masculine. That energy is always underneath the surface (similar to an 8). As experience has shown and is showing, more so now than before, that masculine energy comes in real handy when interacting with the opposite sex. I exhibit that energy in a productive way and they match it with theirs to some degree, they take solace in it, they almost seem to crave it, the little details in behaviour give that away, regardless of how much of a feminist or liberal they claim to be, just like it's supposed to be. This applies to any man who has even a little bit of confidence and courage, you'll notice that around you right away once you understand this about women.

I'm honestly not that enthusiastic about feminism tbh. Sure, confident women are fun but only as long as they stay within their gender boundaries and don't pretend to be someone they are not (men). Because that's exactly what feminism is trying to do - to turn women into men and because women are inferior to men in many aspects, just like men are inferior to women in many aspects, the women make rather mediocre men on average.

@Duo If gender roles are nurture then why is it that the largest gender differences exist in Scandinavia where everyone is essentially raised gender neutral and free to choose any profession they want? If gender is nurture, why are 98-99% of all people exhibiting the gender and gender role that traditionally applies to their biological sex? 

Back to the drawing board, _darling_, Marx was wrong, gender and sexual orientation is *defined* by biological sex with extreme statistical reliability. When talking about humans, try to stick to a broader view instead of this one example of one species of primate exhibiting this one behaviour that aligns with your point of view and prefer studies on traits that humans actually express when possible when you're talking about human behaviour because that way you avoid the transference error of going from one species to another.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Skeletalz said:


> Despite what you may think when you see me, I'm pretty damn masculine. That energy is always underneath the surface (similar to an 8). As experience has shown and is showing, more so now than before, that masculine energy comes in real handy when interacting with the opposite sex. I exhibit that energy in a productive way and they match it with theirs to some degree, they take solace in it, they almost seem to crave it, the little details in behaviour give that away, regardless of how much of a feminist or liberal they claim to be, just like it's supposed to be. This applies to any man who has even a little bit of confidence and courage, you'll notice that around you right away once you understand this about women.
> 
> I'm honestly not that enthusiastic about feminism tbh. Sure, confident women are fun but only as long as they stay within their gender boundaries and don't pretend to be someone they are not (men). Because that's exactly what feminism is trying to do - to turn women into men and because women are inferior to men in many aspects, just like men are inferior to women in many aspects, the women make rather mediocre men on average.
> 
> ...


So to try and summarise your thoughts - you feel like gender roles in and of themselves are natural. Following on from that, confidence and courage are natural males traits (which could potentially lend itself to men feeling superior to their female partners).

But the psychology of 'superiority' is a misassumption because each gender has their own strengths and weaknesses which are useful in different ways. So the social conditioning involved is that movements like feminism have inadvertently made humans think about equality incorrectly by getting females to take on males traits and vice versa.

Is this essentially the point you were making?


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Dscross said:


> So to try and summarise your thoughts - you feel like gender roles in and of themselves are natural. Following on from that, confidence and courage are natural males traits (which could potentially lend itself to men feeling superior to their female partners).
> 
> But the psychology of 'superiority' is a misassumption because each gender has their own strengths and weaknesses which are useful in different ways. So the social conditioning involved is that movements like feminism have inadvertently made humans think about equality incorrectly by getting females to take on males traits and vice versa.
> 
> Is this essentially the point you were making?


I suppose, yeah.

I was more getting at how I've found it to be like to interact with women and that dynamic I have noticed. 

I'm arguing the case for natural interactions between the sexes where either side embraces what they are, that sort of thing. There's no "I'm stronger than you which means you're beneath me or belong to me" kind of superiority involved, just healthy and natural interactions that aren't tainted by Marxist ideology. 

In general, I agree with what you're saying.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Duo said:


> Nope. I'm using our closest relative as an example of how gender roles are nurture, not nature.


The fact that every human tribes in this planet however remote and underdeveloped do have certain kind of clothing to at least cover their genetalias means that bonobos are not so close to us afterall.

Turned out also that we prefer oral greetings then sexual greetings.

A classic video from early life of youtube 






Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Restless Thinker (Apr 23, 2018)

Dscross said:


> You are basically saying it's pretty much all nature and not much nurture involved with this para. Not sure I can get on board with that 100%. I think you are trying to boil something quite complex down into something too simple. I see where you are coming from because I had a similar thought, but you also have to take society and upbringing into account. Also, we don't know enough about how our ancestors started out to boil it down to this. Not all of our closest animal relatives have the same attitude towards mating and hierarchy. They are all different if you study them.
> 
> Btw, all those questions were just supposed to spark people's imagination. The title question is all I'm interested in. How people answer it is up to them.


I see you've misunderstood my post. Evolutionary pressures help to _motivate_ human behavior. There are potentially millions of different ways to respond to those motivations and accomplish the goals laid out by them. Yes, environment plays a role. Yes, upbringing plays a role. Yes, personal experience plays a role. Yes, to every other variable I didn't cover plays a role. I'm talking about what's deep under the surface, the stuff many people would rather pretend isn't there, influencing their behavior. If this post is too simplistic for you, then I'm sorry, I can't help you. Good day to you.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Inept Hero said:


> I see you've misunderstood my post. Evolutionary pressures help to _motivate_ human behavior. There are potentially millions of different ways to respond to those motivations and accomplish the goals laid out by them. Yes, environment plays a role. Yes, upbringing plays a role. Yes, personal experience plays a role. Yes, to every other variable I didn't cover plays a role. I'm talking about what's deep under the surface, the stuff many people would rather pretend isn't there, influencing their behavior. If this post is too simplistic for you, then I'm sorry, I can't help you. Good day to you.


That was a very passive aggressive end to that paragraph dude. I apologise if you felt offended, I was only challenging your paragraph in an intellectual sense - I wasn't trying to be combative. I didn't mean it to come across that way.  I mean, I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say, but all we have is communication on a forum and, at the end of the day, it's a complex topic (which is kind of what I was pointing out). I am simply provoking discussion.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

contradictionary said:


> The fact that every human tribes in this planet however remote and underdeveloped do have certain kind of clothing to at least cover their genetalias means that bonobos are not so close to us afterall.
> 
> Turned out also that we prefer oral greetings then sexual greetings.
> 
> A classic video from early life of youtube


This completely and utterly misses my point.


----------



## starscream430 (Jan 14, 2014)

It could be due to Western gender philosophy, which deems that the male should feel a bit ahead than the female.

There are some cultures where that is contradicted, especially in those that are mainly matriarchal.


----------



## iNdependent (Jan 12, 2017)

starscream430 said:


> There are some cultures where that is contradicted, especially in those that are mainly matriarchal.


I took a few anthropology courses in college and from there I know that there are no matriarchal cultures and never were. There are/were cultures where the sexes are/were equal (each having some advantages and some disadvantages, but overall ending in an objectively equal situation), which led the scientists to name them matriarchal and beat the drum of "amazons" existing, because they perceived these cultures' women's position as abnormal due to their power compared to 19th-early20th century western world to which those scientists belonged, and so the myth was created. 



> It could be due to Western gender philosophy, which deems that the male should feel a bit ahead than the female


Umm... western? Not only western. Do you mean that in India or China men are supposed to be equal to their partners? In most parts of these countries there's no problem of gender equality because it's out of the question for a woman to be anything near to the position of a man. If anything, western society is the most accepting of equal positions for men and women.


----------



## flying_squirrel (Jun 27, 2016)

I've always thought that since women are more choosy than men, and tend to hold out for someone that's not "inferior" to them (or more equal to them), that most men are sensitive to that out of a fear of rejection and self-select themselves out of the process by staying away from successful women.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

flying_squirrel said:


> I've always thought that since women are more choosy than men, and tend to hold out for someone that's not "inferior" to them (or more equal to them), that most men are sensitive to that out of a fear of rejection and self-select themselves out of the process by staying away from successful women.


Good observational point. There's definitely some validity to this. I guess there's both a nature and nurture side to that point in that women are probably more choosey for evolutionary reasons, but it's a social psychological thing men not wanting to be rejected. What do you think?


----------



## Vivid Melody (Apr 25, 2011)

I think it often stems out of insecurity, feelings of powerlessness and basically narcissism. I think it can be present in women as well though. A person is influenced by their experiences but ultimately we have a choice in how we respond to and view our experiences. We can choose to be ruled by our egos and fear or we can learn how to transcend our egos/fear and learn to find true love of the self which would cause feelings of fear and viewing our fellow people in terms of power instead of love - to evaporate. I think realizing that power over others is basically an illusion would be a start. We are technically all one (equals). When we die, we don't take anything with us, only what we have learned.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

The reason is that sexually, women want strong men, and reject weak men. Women want a partner who is essentially better or higher status than they are. They might be fine with an "equal" (rarely are partners truly equal in all major respects), but they will not want a man who is weaker or lower status than they are.

Therefore, man will _naturally_ want a superior position in the relationship to keep the woman attracted to him. He knows if the woman thinks he is inferior to her, she will not want to continue being his sexual partner for long. She will move on to a more superior male. I think it has little to do with male narcissism, "toxic" gender roles, etc, and almost everything to do with the nature of sex and the sexes.


----------



## Luckyshot (Dec 13, 2016)

In the stone age, cave-women tended cave-babies when cave-men were out hunting mammoths. Biggest and strongest mammoth hunter was sought after by cave-women because he could provide for his cave-family.

Same applies today, women want strong and dominant men. Its all due to physical and psychological differences between men and women, and you can thank 14 million years of evolution for that.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Toru Okada said:


> The reason is that sexually, women want strong men, and reject weak men. Women want a partner who is essentially better or higher status than they are. They might be fine with an "equal" (rarely are partners truly equal in all major respects), but they will not want a man who is weaker or lower status than they are.
> 
> Therefore, man will _naturally_ want a superior position in the relationship to keep the woman attracted to him. He knows if the woman thinks he is inferior to her, she will not want to continue being his sexual partner for long. She will move on to a more superior male. I think it has little to do with male narcissism, "toxic" gender roles, etc, and almost everything to do with the nature of sex and the sexes.


Can you define 'better'? This matters.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

The psychology of two scenario(s) come to mind: 

_The female-humanoid feels like an inferior woman/low-self esteem deep down. (Strong men challenge the way she feels about herself; and thus, she aims to view them as competitors - rather than partners).

The man hates feminine women, because femininity highlights the feminine-traits in himself. Usually due to the ingrained-ritualized thinking that biological male-specimens are (incapable of harboring feminine traits). _

Anyhow, the dude can lift my couch if that's what he likes. With me on it. I am not complaining about it.


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

Dscross said:


> I know this is not true in all cases, but there seem to be a lot that fall into this category. How far do you think this is true? Is the male ego a kind of religious brain wash? Are a lot of guys secretly threatened by dominating, powerful and successful women? Are many guys never taught about gender equality? Because men are usually physically stronger, does that factor into it? Are there some evolutionary psychology factors involved? Any thoughts?
> 
> Edit: Please replace 'religious' with 'societal' in the above paragraph because I feel like people are misunderstanding the sentence because of it. Some of my bias must have unconsciously slipped in.


_I would argue it is mostly the other way around_ -- women have the tendency to go for _hypergamy_: they want a man that is stronger, more stable, has more money than themselves. Reason for it is very simple: security. Even if the woman does work herself, she wants, even if unconsciously, to be taken care for and provided during pregnancy and early childhood of the children.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

You want the "value" (as in, essentially, their "market value") of each person in a relationship to be equal. If there's a large discrepancy, then there is insecurity, because the higher value partner is motivated to get someone more on their level. Because men understand that women have inherently more sexual value than them (to the extent that they can make a living off selling sex much easier than men), they must feel as if they have more value in other areas, to feel like there is an equilibrium in value overall.


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

dizzycactus said:


> You want the "value" (as in, essentially, their "market value") of each person in a relationship to be equal. If there's a large discrepancy, then there is insecurity, because the higher value partner is motivated to get someone more on their level. Because men understand that women have inherently more sexual value than them (to the extent that they can make a living off selling sex much easier than men), they must feel as if they have more value in other areas, to feel like there is an equilibrium in value overall.


Just compare how much money a woman exotic dancer makes in an hour and compare that with a man; also prostitutes and it becomes obvious that women's sexual value is _way_ higher than men's.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Rventurelli said:


> Just compare how much money a woman exotic dancer makes in an hour and compare that with a man; also prostitutes and it becomes obvious that women's sexual value is _way_ higher than men's.


It's interesting, because sex is essentially a "false value" these days. We're still primed on some emotional level to view it practically as if a woman having sex with us is like committing her reproductive capacity to us for the foreseeable future, when in reality it is now a brief act of little consequence materially, unless you're too stupid to operate birth control.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Not interesting actually cuz it's clearly depict men's weaknesses since forever. We already knew that men does not have the last words in mating decision, be it permanent or event temporary. He must have 'enough' resources both tangible and intangible to have better 'bargaining position'.

Accept it, men's strenght is a myth and in this gynocentrist world men fare even worse than ever. The adversary knew men are also weak in seeing 'injustice' and allure them to curb and kill its own kind if necessary. Men whiteknighting to kill men. With men going down society will be dragged along.

Like a dying star, gravity pull getting stronger everyday crushing into its collapsing core. Until one day it erupts as a avery loud bang.

Supernova is coming. But it won't be pretty.


Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Duo said:


> Can you define 'better'? This matters.


Just better in the major indicators of being a sexually valuable man. Things like but not limited to, social status/social skill, income/provisions, physical fitness/masculine musculature, overall attractiveness, strong mental resilience, perseverance, independence, and so on. Having high marks in all of these will give a man the most options, and the best options, because women in general have a strong (and totally normal and necessary) preference to "date up".

The only one on this list a man should not need to be better in is overall physical attractiveness, but he shouldn't be too much worse looking either. Honestly being an average looking guy who lifts or stays fit is probably good enough.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Rventurelli said:


> Just compare how much money a woman exotic dancer makes in an hour and compare that with a man; also prostitutes and it becomes obvious that women's sexual value is _way_ higher than men's.


Yes, in most cases a woman needs only to be physically attractive to have high sexual value. Even if they are lacking in many other areas, so long as they are not insufferable to be around or otherwise come with a heavy cost they can do fine with good looks. If they are ugly they are pretty much screwed though, and no job title, college degree, personal achievements, sense of humor, intellect, and so on will help them. Whereas if a man is in the same boat, he at least has a shot by increasing his sexual value elsewhere. And some of that seems to just come with time, like advancing in a career, [hopefully] getting wiser in relations with women, and such.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Toru Okada said:


> Just better in the major indicators of being a sexually valuable man. Things like but not limited to, social status/social skill, income/provisions, physical fitness/masculine musculature, overall attractiveness, strong mental resilience, perseverance, independence, and so on. Having high marks in all of these will give a man the most options, and the best options, because women in general have a strong (and totally normal and necessary) preference to "date up".
> 
> The only one on this list a man should not need to be better in is overall physical attractiveness, but he shouldn't be too much worse looking either. Honestly being an average looking guy who lifts or stays fit is probably good enough.


If that were true, why are there so many average and below average guys dating, in relationships or married?


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

iNdependent said:


> I took a few anthropology courses in college and from there I know that there are no matriarchal cultures and never were. There are/were cultures where the sexes are/were equal (each having some advantages and some disadvantages, but overall ending in an objectively equal situation), which led the scientists to name them matriarchal and beat the drum of "amazons" existing, because they perceived these cultures' women's position as abnormal due to their power compared to 19th-early20th century western world to which those scientists belonged, and so the myth was created.
> 
> 
> Umm... western? Not only western. Do you mean that in India or China men are supposed to be equal to their partners? In most parts of these countries there's no problem of gender equality because it's out of the question for a woman to be anything near to the position of a man. If anything, western society is the most accepting of equal positions for men and women.


Actually there is a person who lived in the Eastern Bloc from here and he mentions an account how there was little to no competitive or 'strong independent' culture for men under those countries. But the moment Capitalism came in macho male culture started to be introduced for some unknown reason. So yeah it is something to do with western culture.

Why are there no 'dominant aggressive men' in countries like the DPRK, Iran or Japan? Joseph Stalin was one of the first leaders in history to conscript women into combat roles and drafted people from both genders equally too on the Eastern Front talking other cultures.

And why was it that in medieval times 'weak/lower status men' were seen as not capable of being the provider/protector with that responsibility only being allowed to be held by upper class men/women in high positions with lots of resources? And if a male in a high position proved a 'weak leader' sometimes they were removed with support of men/women alike who felt insecure with them in power?

Wenceslaus was abducted then removed from his position by Sigismund of Hungary who as more brutal, aggressive, assertive than him etc because of the fact men/women saw him as a 'weak leader'.



contradictionary said:


> Not interesting actually cuz it's clearly depict men's weaknesses since forever. We already knew that men does not have the last words in mating decision, be it permanent or event temporary. He must have 'enough' resources both tangible and intangible to have better 'bargaining position'.
> 
> Accept it, men's strenght is a myth and in this gynocentrist world men fare even worse than ever. The adversary knew men are also weak in seeing 'injustice' and allure them to curb and kill its own kind if necessary. Men whiteknighting to kill men. With men going down society will be dragged along.
> 
> ...


I see more 'whiteknighting' from the right than the left in reality. When progressives say that women and men should be equally drafted people on the right are outraged, claiming 'but thats cruel!'

I still don't see a Sigismund of Hungary removing Wenceslaus (a government or leader seen as 'weak') situation to form a 'chad dictatorship'. The state has more 'manpower' than any one person or 'strong warlord' can privately hire. Its all somebody on the right's fantasy.


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

dizzycactus said:


> It's interesting, because sex is essentially a "false value" these days. We're still primed on some emotional level to view it practically as if a woman having sex with us is like committing her reproductive capacity to us for the foreseeable future, when in reality it is now a brief act of little consequence materially, unless you're too stupid to operate birth control.


_Not necessarily_, you see. Not everyone sees sex as something without meaning, me for example, _I cannot really enjoy sex unless I have a deeper emotional connection with the woman_. Also, bear in mind, that every time you are having sex with a stranger, you are risking catching a sexually transmitted disease, _even if you are wearing a condom_.

_My piece of advice_ is to either only have meaningful sex or never have sex without a condom -- after you try it without one it is impossible to go back wearing them because _the difference is really night and day_.


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

Toru Okada said:


> Yes, in most cases a woman needs only to be physically attractive to have high sexual value. Even if they are lacking in many other areas, so long as they are not insufferable to be around or otherwise come with a heavy cost they can do fine with good looks. If they are ugly they are pretty much screwed though, and no job title, college degree, personal achievements, sense of humor, intellect, and so on will help them. Whereas if a man is in the same boat, he at least has a shot by increasing his sexual value elsewhere. And some of that seems to just come with time, like advancing in a career, [hopefully] getting wiser in relations with women, and such.


Another interesting aspect of the sex differences is how their lives have _opposite structures_; the "difficulty pyramid" is inverted.

_If you are a man_, the first 30 years of your life are the _most difficult ones_ because it is when you have to_ build a basis to add value to yourself_. By the time you are 30, either you are a failure or you at least completed some achievements, like having a stable and decently paying job, having a car that you did not find in the junkyard, have your own house and so on and so forth; so around 30 things start to get easier because you life is already set in place and well defined, you only add to the solid structure.

_For women_, like you said, unless you are ugly, just by the fact you have a cat (grab'em by the cat, would say Donald Trump), you already have value, in fact, _up until around 30, you are at your peak value!_ So of course, women can study, work and do whatever they like, however, in those 30 years of peak beauty is when they can find the best one to marry with the least amount of effort, now, if they use this 30 years where they have the _ultimate power over men_ to just get free drinks and cigarettes at bars and sleep around they are pretty much screwed. That is why you see so many women that were just playing around until their late 30s getting absolutely desperate to marry and often times marrying betas that would have way less value than what they could have gotten earlier in their lives.


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

Reign of Order said:


> Actually there is a person who lived in the Eastern Bloc from here and he mentions an account how there was little to no competitive or 'strong independent' culture for men under those countries. But the moment Capitalism came in macho male culture started to be introduced for some unknown reason. So yeah it is something to do with western culture.
> 
> Why are there no 'dominant aggressive men' in countries like the DPRK, Iran or Japan? Joseph Stalin was one of the first leaders in history to conscript women into combat roles and drafted people from both genders equally too on the Eastern Front talking other cultures.
> 
> ...


_Men and women were not drafted in combat roles not anywhere near in the same proportions!_ The _only reason_ they really used women in combat roles in large extents (they had some divisions that were entirely or nearly entirely made up of women) is because they had so many deaths during the war. You are talking about a country that was so desperate in the war that they were drafting people from 12-17 years old and 40-60 years old, the invalid, the ill, everything! The_ more recent estimates place the number of deaths in World War II for the Soviet Union around 35 million people._[1]

Another reason why there was no "macho culture" and why it is impossible that they drafted the sexes in the same proportion was the _insane sex gap that happened after the war_: you had entire villages or even small and mid-size cities where so many men died that there would be five women for each man in between the ages groups of 15-40[1], so obviously _with a situation like that_ women will be more empowered just _by the sheer amount of their numbers and by the proportion of those surviving men suffering of post-traumatic stress disorder._

Take a look at the population pyramid of Russia in the 1950s by the official number and take into consideration that those numbers can be vary widely from region to region so, for example, look at the age group 35-39, 2.8 percent of men and 4.5 percent of women[2], a difference of 62.22 percent in the sex gap. Due to concentration, it was very well possible that smaller places like villages and small towns would have situations where there were so many men killed that possibly there would be no men of this age group or there would be more than five women for each one.

[1] John Mousier - Deathride
[2] https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/1950/


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Reign of Order said:


> Actually there is a person who lived in the Eastern Bloc from here and he mentions an account how there was little to no competitive or 'strong independent' culture for men under those countries. But the moment Capitalism came in macho male culture started to be introduced for some unknown reason. So yeah it is something to do with western culture.
> 
> Why are there no 'dominant aggressive men' in countries like the DPRK, Iran or Japan? Joseph Stalin was one of the first leaders in history to conscript women into combat roles and drafted people from both genders equally too on the Eastern Front talking other cultures.
> 
> And why was it that in medieval times 'weak/lower status men' were seen as not capable of being the provider/protector with that responsibility only being allowed to be held by upper class men/women in high positions with lots of resources? And if a male in a high position proved a 'weak leader' sometimes they were removed with support of men/women alike who felt insecure with them in power?


If you were a tyrant, what kind of subjects would you prefer? Mike Tysons or soy boys? The only tough guy in a totalitarian state can be THE LEADER.

But if you compare modern men with men of past societies, I think modern Western guys are cowards and weaklings in comparison to Zulu warriors who spent their lives fighting and hunting, or even to 19th century British adventurers like Livingstone.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Reign of Order said:


> I see more 'whiteknighting' from the right than the left in reality. When progressives say that women and men should be equally drafted people on the right are outraged, claiming 'but thats cruel!'


Did they? I don't buy that except imho that in army the cruellest moment happened when you can't rely on your comrade on arms and you died because of their inreliability.



Reign of Order said:


> Wenceslaus was abducted then removed from his position by Sigismund of Hungary who as more brutal, aggressive, assertive than him etc because of the fact men/women saw him as a 'weak leader'.
> 
> I still don't see a Sigismund of Hungary removing Wenceslaus (a government or leader seen as 'weak') situation to form a 'chad dictatorship'. The state has more 'manpower' than any one person or 'strong warlord' can privately hire. Its all somebody on the right's fantasy.


Every monarchs in this planet would have their era of inept and ill-equpped kings (or queens). History tell us some of them end up as severed heads display in public fences. And your points are?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

I think you can conflate superior in a lot of ways. So many things factor into how 'men' feel about 'women'. The gender identity issue is there, societal/cultural role indoctrination, raw biology in terms of both sex and just exactly what your body does, produces, and wants, and then of course the overlay of personality which despite all these wonderful forums the truth remains, people know themselves quite poorly. 

Is superior in the sense of physical strength, cognition, emotive intelligence, financial wherewithal, some combination, or all of the above, or even something else? Superior is a relational word. Superior in what sense?

Controlling enneatype 8s like me, male or female, are protective of their partners. Loyal enneatype 6s are demanding and tie-in. Insinuative enneatype 2s defend the desire space of their partners. We could go on an on. Dominants like to call the shots. In most societies a man is denigrated if he is not the caller of the shots. Small surprise he would wish to be 'superior' in that way. Duh, is what I say. Women do not, in general, suffer that trouble socially or not to the same degree. The natural order of things is male competition for the female resource. If a female is 'superior' then she might be inclined towards hypergamy. Again, small surprise the male would seek to be/feel superior. Posters here speak of male insecurity often enough and often they are not male. 

I ask in all candor, as a secure male who simply tries to be the best he can be, 'Do you think it is wise to let so many males feel insecure?' What is the fallout of that? Who cares whether they are 'superior' or trying to be in that sense. Some competition is healthy. The men that are trying are ok, mostly. It's the one's who think they have arrived, or who are all too often catered to, that you should really worry about. The indulged are much more likely to be immoral by intent. 

So worry about the men (and women) that no longer want to be superior, but consider themselves already superior.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

contradictionary said:


> Did they? I don't buy that except imho that in army the cruellest moment happened when you can't rely on your comrade on arms and you died because of their inreliability.
> 
> 
> 
> Every monarchs in this planet would have their era of inept and ill-equpped kings (or queens). History tell us some of them end up as severed heads display in public fences. And your points are?


No they literally claimed it was ‘cruel for women’ and ‘they cant do it’. Just pointing out the hypocrisy here for ehat ‘whiteknighting’ part.

You mentioned something about all women for some reason wanting the west and especially its ‘weak leaders’ to be overtaken by a ‘chad’. 

And the only example I know of this happening was when people got Sigismund of Hungary to abduct and use aggression to dominate. Other time was when warlords banded together with loyal men/women who they provided security to form societies after the Roman Empire or ‘West’ collapsed long ago. So why is there still no ‘Sigismund’ if people or women want a ‘strong aggressive chad dictator/warlord’ to lead them?

Even if they paid for their own armies if those people exist the army of the state is too big for them?


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Reign of Order said:


> No they literally claimed it was ‘cruel for women’ and ‘they cant do it’. Just pointing out the hypocrisy here for ehat ‘whiteknighting’ part.


I cannot speak on behalf of those people who said so. But I *may* understand their distrust based on competence. It is a very dangerous game the army is doing, if you are a soldier you practically bet your life on your comrade-in-arms ability to judge situation swiftly and act properly, just in time. You must cover each other asses or you are doomed. Losing trusts then no asses will be covered and dysfunctional defeat (and death) is looming, you are also doomed.

There are many examples why incompetence could be dangerous in real life. This is one of the recent example, beware of getting triggered:






What will happen if this guy is really lethal? Some of the officers must already been dead, including several bystanders.



Reign of Order said:


> You mentioned something about all women for some reason wanting the west and especially its ‘weak leaders’ to be overtaken by a ‘chad’.
> And the only example I know of this happening was when people got Sigismund of Hungary to abduct and use aggression to dominate. Other time was when warlords banded together with loyal men/women who they provided security to form societies after the Roman Empire or ‘West’ collapsed long ago. So why is there still no ‘Sigismund’ if people or women want a ‘strong aggressive chad dictator/warlord’ to lead them?


I don't mean that, infact i said men are 'weak'.

Are you discounting Putin, Trump, Kim Jong Un, etc, and so on? There are collective unconsciousness that in this era of turmoil resulting from transnationalism, people are seeking 'order' through 'assertive' leader. Whatever that means.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

You're right. Those ladies commenting are very incompetent. 


contradictionary said:


> What will happen if this guy is really lethal? Some of the officers must already been dead, including several bystanders.


And I got triggered by the vid due to the commentators incompetence.

If that guy was deemed a credible threat to the people nearby he would be dead. 
Why not use spray? Spray works both ways.

Why not use the gun? A gun is NOT an arms length weapon of choice. It's too easy to have it taken from your hand at close range.

Why not use batons? I think they KNOW they're being filmed. Swedish police is self-conscious about their overall image as people in general screams "over voilence" for getting touched by an officer.

Tazers? Not issued at the time. Swedish police do have it now.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

pwowq said:


> You're right. Those ladies commenting are very incompetent.
> 
> And I got triggered by the vid due to the commentators incompetence.
> 
> If that guy was really lethal he would be dead.


Be careful there, are you saying women couldn't be competent commentators? LoL.

Really i could like to give the actual video footage and the associated news coverage, but i was about to have some fun.

Here, you may translate it:

https://nyheteridag.se/startade-bra...torde-polisbil-vid-asylboende-han-blev-galen/


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

contradictionary said:


> Here, you may translate it:
> 
> https://nyheteridag.se/startade-bra...torde-polisbil-vid-asylboende-han-blev-galen/


From the article:
Three female and one male doorkeeper, couldn't arrest him. Later two male police officers couldn't arrest him. 

Male police officers suck at their job too? 


Sorry for going off topic. I did get triggered by the loud commentators screaming confidently about a situation they know nothing about.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

pwowq said:


> From the article:
> Three female and one male doorkeeper, couldn't arrest him. Later two male police officers couldn't arrest him.
> 
> Male police officers suck at their job too?
> ...


Good, translated. That's the point, incompetence know no gender BUT it's now begging the question. Could it then be structural, i.e: if male can't even do brute physical action then how to expect to settle with less? When the male officer fight the guy why the other 3 just 'sitting the fence'?

Weaponry aside, initially, 3 officer against 1 unarmed man is already too much. Not to mention that in earlier phase there is one male bystander who actually tackle this guy down effectively but one of the officer instead push the bystander outside without ensuring the perpetrator properly cuffed first. What kind of misleading judgement drive that action?

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

RoseTylerFan said:


> If you were a tyrant, what kind of subjects would you prefer? Mike Tysons or soy boys? The only tough guy in a totalitarian state can be THE LEADER.
> 
> But if you compare modern men with men of past societies, I think modern Western guys are cowards and weaklings in comparison to Zulu warriors who spent their lives fighting and hunting, or even to 19th century British adventurers like Livingstone.


Not sure if I agree... _The entire idea of the Third Reich was to bring about the Übermensch_ (superior men, super-men), so physical activity was encourage in all levels of society; _in communist countries there was also a big encouragement for sports_ and incentives like receiving the honour of being a "hero of socialism"...

My understanding is that in_ totalitarian regimes_ there is a _more clear-cut caste system_ whereby the _predators stay on top and the "weaklings" stay below_. _As long_ as you are seen as useful or not an obstruction to the regime, totalitarian regimes are very much interested in having armies of Rocky Marcianos.

In many ways, _democracies are kind of "soft tyrannies"_ in the sense that there are always the excluded and those deemed too dangerous can also be imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed if they are deemed to be enough of a threat for national security, _it all just happens under the radar and you have the illusion of freedom_, while in a dictatorship the aims of the state are more well defined and right at your face.

The truth is that _in any sort of State there is coercion_: essentially speaking,_ the State owns all the land and law enforcement_. Try not to pay your taxes to see what happens.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Well, human nature always find a way to surprise me.

Try gggl : *batikhaxor* to see (possible) reverse phenomenon.










Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

For me it is totally a kind of social product. The way it has been for many hundred years in many regions of the world.

That men are supposed to be decisive, strong, providing, taking care of things, etc. And even women can have this expectation of men, that if men are not, then it will be all confusing and uncomfortable for some women. 
Maybe they could feel like their with a kid, and they became a mom... maybe feel less feminin. 


For me it is all just very silly, it makes for so many unnecessary tense moments for men, and women. 
Just do your things and get on with it, there wont ever be perfect 50/50 balance either.


Haha, I am not sure if this qualifies, but not long ago I was on a date, and I had more cloths on than her or something, and I joke "What kind of viking am I?, needing more cloth"


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Rventurelli said:


> Not sure if I agree... _The entire idea of the Third Reich was to bring about the Übermensch_ (superior men, super-men), so physical activity was encourage in all levels of society; _in communist countries there was also a big encouragement for sports_ and incentives like receiving the honour of being a "hero of socialism"...
> 
> My understanding is that in_ totalitarian regimes_ there is a _more clear-cut caste system_ whereby the _predators stay on top and the "weaklings" stay below_. _As long_ as you are seen as useful or not an obstruction to the regime, totalitarian regimes are very much interested in having armies of Rocky Marcianos.
> 
> ...


Before public services/'modern democracy' existed we had feudalism where law enforcement, armies and governance were privately managed/owned (Or done by volunteers) plus didn't exactly extend beyond a landowner's property? 

The taxes exist because you are using the services of their society though? Sark Island the last 'feudal' society (It was privately owned by someone) had 0 taxes (Including for inheritance, and unless you decided to request to pay for an optional service) basically until the modern 'democratic' system was implemented with corporations lobbying in support.

How is what we have a 'democracy' if politics are decided or dictated by people who own territory (formal property) against the interests of those who depend on them for jobs/living and lack the freedom to live their own way independently? In the private domain or sphere its still mainly largely a collection of micro-dictatorships where rights to freedom do not apply except to be a micro-dictator over others? If the means of make a living were socially owned (Meaning no dictator, or private entity) that might be real democracy.

Even in flawed attempts at socialist societies/cultures atleast competing was not necessary to stay alive though? You could still receive the most basic of basic needs just enough to stay alive till you die of old age. It is like in old societies where the poorest of the poor talking 99?% of them all lived in houses or shelters. We can be motivated to achieve better if we live with basic needs that are 'nothing fancy' or 'bad quality' but atleast give us the ability to do so.


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

They can't compete with the men around them, so they take it out on the women closest to them. This social construct isn't benefiting them as much anymore, so *some* of these guys are acting out as menimsts, MGTOWs, incels, etc. 

All this "she don't make me feel like a _maaaaaaaannn_" is a bunch of malarkey. Who the fuck are you if you need someone else to validate your existence?


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

Reign of Order said:


> Before public services/'modern democracy' existed we had feudalism where law enforcement, armies and governance were privately managed/owned (Or done by volunteers) plus didn't exactly extend beyond a landowner's property?
> 
> The taxes exist because you are using the services of their society though? Sark Island the last 'feudal' society (It was privately owned by someone) had 0 taxes (Including for inheritance, and unless you decided to request to pay for an optional service) basically until the modern 'democratic' system was implemented with corporations lobbying in support.
> 
> ...


_I am sorry_, however, _I do not understand what your point is_. Are you telling me that if there is no competition people are more motivated?

Yes, in Feudalism if you went outside the feuds you were _pretty much on your own against all sorts of bandits_.

Yes, _the price of civilization is paid in form of taxes as the state owns the land, writes the laws and enforces them_. Thing is that we do not really have a choice, pretty much every land in this planet is own by some form of government and _what distinguishes a government from other is the balance between freedom and security_, none giving you complete freedom (otherwise there would be no government)


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Duo said:


> If that were true, why are there so many average and below average guys dating, in relationships or married?


Well, that doesn't contradict what I am saying. Men who are not at the top of the sexual food chain can still date and marry. But there is still an exchange of value. The man must be bringing something to the table for his partner to stay with him, at least until a better alternative comes along. Women won't just hook up with, date, or marry any loser. They have a vetting process to secure the best possible mate they can, according to their own sexual value and needs at that specific time in their life. 

For instance, there's nothing stopping a woman who is attractive to date and fornicate with high-value man (mostly based on the traits I listed in my previous post) in her teens and 20s, and then settle for an average male provider type in her 30s and 40s because she can no longer attract the men she would actually prefer to be with, or because they have too much baggage they bring to the table. Like I mentioned, a woman's primary asset is her looks when it comes to dating and sex, it is known. When the looks fade, it will become more difficult for her to get the men she once attracted en mass. Just as it would for a man who becomes unambitious, lazy, overweight, addicted to drugs and video games, has financial problems, poor social skills, and so on.

And then of course there are women who aren't very attractive, are mentally ill, in debt, have children from previous partners/marriages, and so on. These women will take to the average and below-average men, because they simply don't have the options that are available to women of higher sexual value, but if they could, they would. The worst thing a woman can do for her happiness in this regard is wait too long to find a good partner, and then have to take whatever's leftover because she just doesn't have the pull she once did.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Toru Okada said:


> Well, that doesn't contradict what I am saying. Men who are not at the top of the sexual food chain can still date and marry. But there is still an exchange of value. The man must be bringing something to the table for his partner to stay with him, at least until a better alternative comes along. Women won't just hook up with, date, or marry any loser. They have a vetting process to secure the best possible mate they can, according to their own sexual value and needs at that specific time in their life.
> 
> For instance, there's nothing stopping a woman who is attractive to date and fornicate with high-value man (mostly based on the traits I listed in my previous post) in her teens and 20s, and then settle for an average male provider type in her 30s and 40s because she can no longer attract the men she would actually prefer to be with, or because they have too much baggage they bring to the table. Like I mentioned, a woman's primary asset is her looks when it comes to dating and sex, it is known. When the looks fade, it will become more difficult for her to get the men she once attracted en mass. Just as it would for a man who becomes unambitious, lazy, overweight, addicted to drugs and video games, has financial problems, poor social skills, and so on.
> 
> And then of course there are women who aren't very attractive, are mentally ill, in debt, have children from previous partners/marriages, and so on. These women will take to the average and below-average men, because they simply don't have the options that are available to women of higher sexual value, but if they could, they would. The worst thing a woman can do for her happiness in this regard is wait too long to find a good partner, and then have to take whatever's leftover because she just doesn't have the pull she once did.


And yet, some of the most beautiful women I know, have dated and married men while in their twenties, who didn't fit your model.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

There are exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions.

You can also stay with someone you hate. Jon lajoie said it best, comically






Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Conformism, fear of depreciation and isolation, need for sensorial identification.


----------



## great_pudgy_owl (Apr 20, 2015)

Everybody likes to feel superior, and (most) everyone likes to have their ego stroked, it's just that men can get away with it more.

If you grew up in a world where you're bigger that at least half the population, and because of that could physically command someone into silence and submission when you don't like what they say, you might actually believe you're smarter, funnier, and *better* than that person. That's not to say it's totally normal and healthy, but if you're lazy minded or just want to get what you want without reciprocation or guilt, you might just go with that. That's compounded when you're born in a society that's been that way for centuries, after all, if that segment of the population had any intelligence, they would've rebelled long ago. 

Plus, group think and fear. The dark ages was a time when the Catholic church encouraged husbands to beat their wives, and said it was good for the both of them. I doubt all men did this or thought it was OK, and I doubt all believed God has created men inherently better than women. 

*The result would've been the same if females were the stronger sex instead.* And actually, there's a fairly strong possibility that the world would be even more skewed than it is today if women could both give birth AND maintain twice the upper body strength as a guy. Just think of the ant world, or most insect populations. The Queen produces all the ants, the workers and soldiers are all females - the males just mate with the Queen and _die_. As it is, humans have a fairly even trade-off, you get more fat/energy storage for future babies, or a more testosterone to act as protector. Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but we're learning that men and women think more alike than society expects, which makes a lot of our differences largely physical.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

great_pudgy_owl said:


> Everybody likes to feel superior, and (most) everyone likes to have their ego stroked, it's just that men can get away with it more.
> 
> If you grew up in a world where you're bigger that at least half the population, and because of that could physically command someone into silence and submission when you don't like what they say, you might actually believe you're smarter, funnier, and *better* than that person. That's not to say it's totally normal and healthy, but if you're lazy minded or just want to get what you want without reciprocation or guilt, you might just go with that. That's compounded when you're born in a society that's been that way for centuries, after all, if that segment of the population had any intelligence, they would've rebelled long ago.
> 
> ...


Interesting take. So to oversimplify, do you believe it's mostly social conditioning (nurture) over natural predisposed differences in the sexes (nature)?


----------



## joup (Oct 5, 2014)

A Ugandan woman told me, she wants her King, who leads her. Not controlling her. She doesn't believe in 50/50, the man must lead, so there is a difference between superiority, is it by leading or controlling?

Because she doesn't want to dominate the man, she doesn't want two Queens in the house either.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Men want to feel and be superior to women because women have selected for that in evolutionary history.

Same reason why women are often much more knowledgeable and self conscious about fashion and appearance in general. Men have selected women for their beauty over evolutionary history.


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Because men are stronger because of testosterone which makes the narcissistic/psychopathic left-hand path more easily accessible. On top of that, empathy is not as valuable a trait for males evolutionary speaking because the sperm donors don't carry the responsibility of nurturing the babies. (People say it's cultural sexism that men go to work while women raise the kids but then are all the other species affected by this "culture" too?) 
Though, it needs to be said that testosterone is not all negative. Depending on the personality it can also express itself in a positive way instead, like for example desiring to protect instead of intimidate. So people here need to stop rationalizing men's bad qualities on nature. Nature doesn't give men this superiority complex. It gives you a sword in the sense of testosterone but what you do with that sword is completely your own choice and responsibility...


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Denature said:


> Men want to feel and be superior to women because women have selected for that in evolutionary history.
> 
> Same reason why women are often much more knowledgeable and self conscious about fashion and appearance in general. Men have selected women for their beauty over evolutionary history.


Idiot... Women have not selected anything. Women have not selected the so-called "alpha males". The alpha males selected the women, especially in the old days (less so now because you can't just cut people's heads off anymore). You think women are "selecting" when they're being chosen for sexy time? :laughing:


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Zidane said:


> Because men are stronger because of testosterone which makes the narcissistic/psychopathic left-hand path more easily accessible. On top of that, empathy is not as valuable a trait for males evolutionary speaking because the sperm donors don't carry the responsibility of nurturing the babies. (People say it's cultural sexism that men go to work while women raise the kids but then are all the other species affected by this "culture" too?)
> Though, it needs to be said that testosterone is not all negative. Depending on the personality it can also express itself in a positive way instead, like for example desiring to protect instead of intimidate. So people here need to stop rationalizing men's bad qualities on nature. Nature doesn't give men this superiority complex. It gives you a sword in the sense of testosterone but what you do with that sword is completely your own choice and responsibility...


To think. To rationalize. To be responsible with the strength and power. Is to suffer.

Men are hardwired to suffer throughout their life. They die much too early in conflict time and they still die earlier in peace time.

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

Duo said:


> You're disregarding studied impacts, in order to align with your internal bias.


and? so? are you surprised i trust Ti over Te? cmon... this is perC... i know what im doing, dont need you to point it out for me. thanks tho  

in other words, bonobos dont have the same ratio of male insecurity because theyre socially allowed to beat each other. human males are taught we have to put up with 'that crazy bullshit'.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Duo said:


> Nope. I'm using our closest relative as an example of how gender roles are nurture, not nature.





nablur said:


> and? so? are you surprised i trust Ti over Te? cmon... this is perC... i know what im doing, dont need you to point it out for me. thanks tho
> 
> in other words, bonobos dont have the same ratio of male insecurity because theyre socially allowed to beat each other. human males are taught we have to put up with 'that crazy bullshit'.


Refer to above which was my point in mentioning bonobos, the closest primate to humans.


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

youre all over the place. im out.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Duo said:


> Bonobos are closer, as recently clarified through this study of musculature.
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00548-3


*Musculature*. If that so then it is clear that bonobos can never be human. 
If human ancestors do not split into constrasting behaviors from chimps and bonobos, then there will be no human today. And this will be planet of ap... i mean... chimps / bonobos....

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

Lack of a secure identity.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

I dunno. I don't need to feel superior. But I need to be the leader. It's just the way I'm built.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

I don't really enjoy leading, but I can and do a damn good job of it (past work experience), I really dislike following and am really bad at actually doing this. I much prefer being on level ground as equals moving forward together. 

As a kid I wanted to be a pirate and go on adventures more than anything else. Not much has changed. When the "rules of the game" are pointless and tradition lasts for it's own sake instead of utility I get rid of it.

I married someone that doesn't have some weird desire to be in charge or to be told what to do. Personal autonomy matters to both of us so it works.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Insecurity.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I don't really enjoy leading, but I can and do a damn good job of it (past work experience), I really dislike following and am really bad at actually doing this. I much prefer being on level ground as equals moving forward together.


There is being equals and there is equal ground. The former is obvious. The latter revolves around circumstance and capability.

I ain't a BDSM guy, but I've noticed that the bondage lot have a very good understanding of this distinction. :wink:

Couples who are on equal ground all of the time are egoists for dating themselves. :laughing:


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Bastard said:


> Couples who are on equal ground all of the time are egoists for dating themselves. :laughing:


Yeah I'm good with that. I'm an entp who married an intp. We have a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses as is.


----------



## Solrac026 (Mar 6, 2012)

Ummm, hypergamy.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Dscross said:


> I know this is not true in all cases, but there seem to be a lot that fall into this category. How far do you think this is true? Is the male ego a kind of religious brain wash? Are a lot of guys secretly threatened by dominating, powerful and successful women? Are many guys never taught about gender equality? Because men are usually physically stronger, does that factor into it? Are there some evolutionary psychology factors involved? Any thoughts?
> 
> Edit: Please replace 'religious' with 'societal' in the above paragraph because I feel like people are misunderstanding the sentence because of it. Some of my bias must have unconsciously slipped in.


Men throughout history had no choice but to succeed, out compete others and put others on his back thus it is evolutionary that on average men would want to feel superior as he is expected to achieve to a higher standard and carry his family on his back while the wife commits to a supportive role.

Women through the behavior of hypergamy has reinforced the need for males to compete harder and thus today you're still feeling the need to feel superior similarly to how most women like to have her guy taller, stronger, smarter and earning more money that she else hes probably either a creep or a loser.

As the years went on this dynamic has slowly changed and today this may seem outdated to many however, majority of people are still hard wired to behave and think this way.

For instance, I know I need to succeed or be stuck below middle class for the rest of my life coz I got no one else to turn to but myself and thus I would prioritize my career above all else. 

All my life I've learnt the notion of there is no privilege for men in the west, and every man must fight to succeed, if you fail then down to the bottom of the pyramid you go where you will be stuck in debt, there is no easy way out. It is extremely unlikely that you could marry your way up, turn to prostitution for a quick buck or rely on a woman who wholeheartedly is happy to carry you on her back.

Now that my mentality is explained, if I did one day decide to get married and start a family, it would be obvious that I would end up the bread winner due to my priorities in life and because of my priorities I would value the ability to earn $ above whatever else my hypothetical wife would be doing (assuming she isn't out earning me). 

Although I fully understand the flaws, arrogance and ignorance of this mentality, it is what keeps me motivated to strife and succeed. Otherwise I'd just be a free soul doing whatever amuses me while bringing no contribution to society and forever stuck in debt.

TL;DR:
Man forced to succeed, no alternative options for him -> Tries hard to succeed -> Eventually succeeds and gains confidence and a sense of self worth every time he is successful -> Accumulation of being forced to succeed, trying hard to succeed and succeeding causes excess confidence and a grandiose sense of self worth -> Assumes that everyone wants to succeed too and categorizes them based on level of success -> When said man is > than whoever is being compared to him, he feels superior -> Women like successful men -> Breeds more men with similar mentality.


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

ENTJudgement said:


> Men throughout history had no choice but to succeed, out compete others and put others on his back thus it is evolutionary that on average men would want to feel superior as he is expected to achieve to a higher standard and carry his family on his back while the wife commits to a supportive role.
> 
> Women through the behavior of hypergamy has reinforced the need for males to compete harder and thus today you're still feeling the need to feel superior similarly to how most women like to have her guy taller, stronger, smarter and earning more money that she else hes probably either a creep or a loser.
> 
> ...


_Problem now is that all the incentives for women to marry, have a family and stay married have been completely demolished and perverted to the point that to marry now comes with none of the benefits and all of the risks and worries if you are a man._

Previously, if a woman decided to have sex with a handsome jerk of questionable values, she would end up pregnant and her life was ruined. That was a huge incentive for women to instead control their libido and choose a man who might not be "hot" but was a reliable provider with a stable and somewhat predictable personality -- your average Joe, if you will.

Now there is birth control, there are family courts, alimony, abortion on demand, welfare, more women working, no real stigma of being a single mother anymore...

There is no need, no incentive, no attraction that the average man can give a woman anymore. Unless you are handsome, rich, popular or really intelligent with at least some decent height, there is no chance for you anymore.

It used to be for a while after all of those had kicked in (family courts, abortion on demand, welfare...) that there was still the "aging" factor. After "peak beauty" in their 20s, women start losing their edge around 30, where the younger ones start to increasingly take the attention away from her; that was when they decided "play time" was over and it was time to marry, perhaps for companionship and the physical pleasure aspect of sex (as again, the woman can easily be a mother now without being married and still not starve and have a normal life). That was probably during the 1990s and 2000s.

Now (2010s) with the somewhat normalization and even incentive of homosexuality or bisexuality for women, also the sex toys and shit, not even that is still standing.

On top of all that we men are scared of a divorce or a fake rape/violence accusation ruining our lives forever... _I really think the future is doom and gloom between the sexes with people growing farther apart from each other until there are only casual sex between the sexes occasionally and nothing else really._

_Of course eventually society will collapse, but that is another tangent._


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Rventurelli said:


> _Problem now is that all the incentives for women to marry, have a family and stay married have been completely demolished and perverted to the point that to marry now comes with none of the benefits and all of the risks and worries if you are a man._
> 
> Previously, if a woman decided to have sex with a handsome jerk of questionable values, she would end up pregnant and her life was ruined. That was a huge incentive for women to instead control their libido and choose a man who might not be "hot" but was a reliable provider with a stable and somewhat predictable personality -- your average Joe, if you will.
> 
> ...


Where have i seen those phenomena, i wonder. Oh, in the infampus john calhoun's mice utopia experiment where people, layman and scientiest together, tried really hard to debunk for it's imperfection in truly mimicking human behaviors in certain space.

They forgot that the reason there was such experiment was for human to learn things however small can be derived, with some caveats. Turned out, they don't learn a fricking single thing at all, but rather swam in the caveats.

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Dscross said:


> I know this is not true in all cases, but there seem to be a lot that fall into this category. How far do you think this is true? Is the male ego a kind of religious brain wash? Are a lot of guys secretly threatened by dominating, powerful and successful women? Are many guys never taught about gender equality? Because men are usually physically stronger, does that factor into it? Are there some evolutionary psychology factors involved? Any thoughts?
> 
> Edit: Please replace 'religious' with 'societal' in the above paragraph because I feel like people are misunderstanding the sentence because of it. Some of my bias must have unconsciously slipped in.


That's just not true. At all. 
Most of my exgfs were girls who made at least 1000 euros more than me. Never felt inferior or superior in any sense. It was just a fact to look at. 
Now ofc there are some relationships like there are some friendships where you both get a bit sparky and competitive. There's nothing else to talk about. Case closed.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

So the gender pay gap is true...?

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> Where have i seen those phenomena, i wonder. Oh, in the infampus john calhoun's mice utopia experiment where people, layman and scientiest together, tried really hard to debunk for it's imperfection in truly mimicking human behaviors in certain space.
> 
> They forgot that the reason there was such experiment was for human to learn things however small can be derived, with some caveats. Turned out, they don't learn a fricking single thing at all, but rather swam in the caveats.
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk


Are you talking about the experiment where they just gave rats unlimited food and water to see what happened as their population grew and there were no predators or challenges around?


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

VoodooDolls said:


> That's just not true. At all.
> Most of my exgfs were girls who made at least 1000 euros more than me. Never felt inferior or superior in any sense. It was just a fact to look at.
> Now ofc there are some relationships like there are some friendships where you both get a bit sparky and competitive. There's nothing else to talk about. Case closed.


_Anecdotes at most illustrate a point_. By themselves they mean _nothing_.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Rventurelli said:


> Are you talking about the experiment where they just gave rats unlimited food and water to see what happened as their population grew and there were no predators or challenges around?


Yes. As we are currently practically living in the society where there are no more serious challenges such as wars, famines, deathly plagues, etc. We no longer spend so much time and effort just to survive and stay alive as we were in the past, almost for granted, as we are also practically a more urban society.

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Rventurelli (Jan 7, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> Yes. As we are currently practically living in the society where there are no more serious challenges such as wars, famines, deathly plagues, etc. We no longer spend so much time and effort just to survive and stay alive as we were in the past, almost for granted, as we are also practically a more urban society.
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk


In more homogeneous countries like Japan, China and Poland things seen to be not anywhere near as decadent. I do know about Otakus and what not, however, it seems that with age those things correct themselves in the Orient, while in the West if you go to any comic convention the vast majority of people are 40+.


----------



## Sour Roses (Dec 30, 2015)

Nature.

Nurture serves as an (often necessary) control over natural impulses. 
There's nothing wrong with it provided context - appropriate time, place, & other person.


----------



## Lucan1010 (Jul 23, 2018)

While I imagine differing testosterone levels may have some influence, it's largely a cultural difference and depends on how an individual is socialized. Not every culture in the world is patriarchal. Some are egalitarian, and a few are even matriarchal.


----------



## angrymobfunrun (Aug 28, 2018)

Men are socialized to conquer women. The conqueror is not supposed to be inferior to the conquered.


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out in 5-10 years when people born in this century are young adults and are the main dating core. Older folks like myself who were born in the last century (for me, early 80s) have different values growing up than today's generation does.

Maybe this kind of thing won't always hold so true once the current older generation moves out of the way. Hmmm.


----------

