Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Foaming feminists

Roissy on feminism, anger, and how off-putting both are in a woman:
When was the last time you saw a happy feminist? Never. Anger and feminism are so inextricable that the phrase “angry feminist” has become redundant.
Though it's gathered some dust, having only been asked in 1996, the GSS queried respondents on whether or not they considered themselves feminists (one-fourth of women did, three-fourths did not). The survey also probed them on how often they'd felt angry at another person in the last week, as well as regularly asking participants to self-describe their levels of personal happiness. The percentages of (female) feminists and non-feminists who reported having been anger-free in the previous seven days and the percentages of women who reported having been angry at someone for more than half of the days in the last week:

No anger in last week30.1%37.3%
Angry 4+ days in last week13.9%12.0%

Of course, the screeching harpies whose opinions are open books no one wants to read are angry bitterness personified, but even among the rank-and-file, a tendency towards anger is evident. Hyperbolic, sure, but the stereotype Roissy's invoking is grounded in reality.

Parenthetically, one-in-nine men (N = 648) self-identified as feminists. There are more male feminists than there are male lefties?! Yikes.

GSS variables used: SEX(1)(2), FEMINIST, ANGRY(0)(4-7)


Anonymous said...

Audacious Epigone,

Game is largely a myth – a popular fiction synthesized to embellish male success with a basis in real quantities of evolutionary value. Trivial observations that seemingly confirm ‘game’, are observing nothing more than spurious correlations. The quest for a practically learned skill that can ‘bend’ female choice is a fools errand, because in order for evolution to work opportunistically, it must cull (in particular) male frequencies every generation.

1)A signal “honestly” conveys fitness, then, simply because it is not in the interest of individuals of lower quality to “cheat” and develop a larger signal; the viability costs they would suffer exceed the fertility benefits they would derive from the increased signal size. Individuals with strong preferences for a signal of a certain size may delay mating and hence lose valuable time reproducing In this model, one sex has a bias to prefer individuals of particular qualities because that bias has advantages in realms other than mating.

So, a problem occurs in the observation of ‘naturals’(an accepted premise of game convention) – demonstrating game as a behavioral phenomenon of ‘handicapping’ load(via the handicap principle), rather than some cryptic fitness indicator.

From that perspective, ‘game’ doesn’t sound very flattering. To elaborate – in applying the ‘handicap principle’, it tells us that those whose success threshold is lower in terms of ‘game’, are displaying greater indications of genetic fitness, given that this greater effort will allude to a fitness handicap.

This is because fitness signals have evolved to be energetically costly to display, where the quality of signals are handicap limited – where these handicaps can be manifest through differentials in observable ‘effort’(or any other kind of relative energetic liability).

2) Women aren’t that different than men with respect to their short-term mating criteria, in that their choices are strongly weighted for physical morphology (ie. physical attractiveness). Despite what many would have us believe, mere words and body-language(or other absurd contrivances) are rarely the determinate factor(when removed from other variables).Females aren’t any more susceptible to cryptic seduction techniques, than are males.

There are only two quantities of value females consider in mate choice, genetic benefits (indicated in physical attractiveness), and direct benefits (indicated in investment strategies with respect to material resources, and paternal investment). So, the onus is upon the ‘game’ community to unify agreement with either of these quantities(beyond a circular argument).

And there are obvious reasons why physical traits are an obvious confounder of ‘seduction’ competencies (ie. because relative deviations in physical characters can reliably signal developmental incompetence, from which sensory biases become fixed by evolutionary success).

Anonymous said...

In order to advance a similar argument (unified in a broad evolutionary synthesis) for vague(independent) seduction competencies(ie. ‘game’), you would have to show their basis in evolutionary success beyond a circular argument(ie. how did female bias for these seduction systems *evolve* – what advantages did they confer *before* they became correlated with male reproductive success). Until gamers can show this, they are leaning on naive premises (and, dare I say, unmitigated bullshit). Game’s core premise relies upon ‘confidence’ (given the ‘congruence’ apology that is regularly appealed to when game techniques/methods are demonstrated falsified).

The parsimonious interpretation is that ‘confidence’ is a dependent variable, adapted from justified expectations (with a basis in some history of prior outcomes). In other words: confidence is the subjective consequence of an ‘expected value’ – derived of an obligate heuristic motif. But, correlation does not imply causation.

So, ‘confidence’ doesn’t just spontaneously organize within an empirical vacuum, and thus cannot be trivially acquired outside of ‘experience’. So, what gamers (and their apologists) are truly observing (but apparently not intelligent enough to infer), is not that women are attracted to ‘confidence’ per se(as an independent variable). But, rather that the men who tend to be successful with women in the first place (for whatever reason), also have a high confidence (justified expectation) of future (continued) success.

Furthermore, where mate access is no longer a function of subordinate status concessions in prevailing human populations(compared to the way it works in smaller populations typical of early hominid ‘troops’, and those of other primates), dominance can say nothing about its distribution (given that density dependence means large populations have marginalized Mating concessions to a negligible quantity).

JayMan said...


Great points.

I will add that a lot of how game is taught is Malcolm Gladwellian; it uses the logic of his "10,000 hours rule": you too can be an expert if you just put in your extended periods of training and practice. Never is innate "talent" (and other biological quantities) entered into the equation.

For obvious reasons this type of research has never been done, but I wonder what you would see if one did a simply observational study of those who enter "game" and those who become successful at it. What traits would the successful gamers possess? If one could do that, it stands to reason one could use those traits to predict who would be successful beforehand. This would save a lot of guys money and time, and probably make a lot of the game gurus pissed... ;)

Furthermore, of those who claim to be successful at game, it would be very interesting to profile the women who they are successful with. How are these women different, if at all, from the general population?

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Jayman: "Furthermore, of those who claim to be successful at game, it would be very interesting to profile the women who they are successful with. How are these women different, if at all, from the general population?"


As to anger and feminism, angry people in general gravitate to the nearest acceptable rationalization. So it may not be the feminism, but the (recursive) popularity of the the cultural slot. Anger grabs whatever is at hand.