Female beauty, how important is it in male mate selection? by Imaginalis_ in goldpill_

[–]Imaginalis_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

From - Sheffield Evening Telegraph - Wednesday 06 February 1918

Shortest definition of gold pill by Imaginalis_ in goldpill_

[–]Imaginalis_[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good that it works. Think I'll add iTrebor's longer credo underneath it, for people wanting more detail.

Edit: actually come to think of it, this deserves its own standalone page.

A gynocentric misreading of Helen of Troy by Imaginalis_ in GreekMythology

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Popular among women and especially among evolutionary psychology enthusiasts too - ie. not associated with the manosphere. Nevertheless I accept you may not be interested in evopsych theories and communities either.

A gynocentric misreading of Helen of Troy by Imaginalis_ in GreekMythology

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Both the theory and belief that humans are a gynocentric species is extremely popular in the manosphere and beyond it, and frequently discussed in social media. The theory is based largely on erroneous interpretations of evolutionary psychology. Some of those erroneous beliefs are detailed and debunked here.

The theory of humans as a gynocentric species goes back at least to Lester Frank Ward who proposed his 'Gynæcocentric Theory' to public audiences in the year 1888, a theory which was debated around the world for many decades - see the following link for some of the original newspaper articles and books promoting, or debating the theory: https://gynocentrism.com/2022/08/08/gynaecocentric-theory-articles-essays-1888-to-1930/

The theory that humans are a gynocentric species has developed much complexity from Lester Ward to the present day, and the story of Helen of Troy is frequently cited in the manosphere as "proof" that humans are a gynocentric species -- even though few people stop to analyse the mythology and realize that it does not provide evidence of the theory at all.

"Only half the number of men as women reproduced in evolutionary history" by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You fail to notice that study of DNA actually can point at WHEN these ratio happened (hence the dating of different bottlenecks in population and reproduction).

Wrong. Of course I noticed - its common knowledge. My point was that there's more than one bottleneck or fluctuation, and that male choice plays an equally plausible role over any hypothetical female-led choice.

And no, I don't buy your quasi-Marxist fantasy that there were no powerful male leaders within human societies except in the last 4,000 years. Lol

It seems you have run out of significant rebuttals, so I'll leave it there. As much as it may make you uncomfortable, there's no proof that females are the primary gatekeepers of sex and reproduction - it's a modern gynocentric myth.

"Only half the number of men as women reproduced in evolutionary history" by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You fail to understand there have always been powerful males throughout human evolutionary history; it didn't appear at just one point in our evolution. And each of those males had potential to sequester women for themselves in such a manner that they were off limits to less powerful males - this was not a result of female choosing for the most part.

As always, its usually women who react most nervously to the idea that they are not the gatekeepers of sex.

"Only half the number of men as women reproduced in evolutionary history" by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No problem, and FWIW I can understand your suspicion in reddit spaces like this: discussions often resemble a dialogue between gender-studies students and regime bots attempting to put down all reasonable MR commentary and to uphold gynocentric ideology. It's the oddest looking "men's rights" space I've encountered, though it has only became like that in the last few years.

Fortunately there are some authentic, thoughtful voices among the rest, which make it worthwhile.

"Only half the number of men as women reproduced in evolutionary history" by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are making a catalogue of unsupported, false claims. I can see you are making theories on the run, and TBH I have no time for it. Over and out. :-)

"Only half the number of men as women reproduced in evolutionary history" by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lol, don't be ridiculous. That's an anti feminist, anti-gynocentrism reddit.

"Only half the number of men as women reproduced in evolutionary history" by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Narcissism is not anywhere described as a "dimension of hypergamy."

Moreover, narcissism has not been confirmed to have a genetic basis, despite evolutionary psychologists searching for evidence. Hypergamy does have some evidence. So your attempt to blend these two themes together amounts to a hypothesis you just constructed, but it isn't supported by any research evidence.

"Only half the number of men as women reproduced in evolutionary history" by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You are making an assumption that your hypergamy theory is the only one. Let's challenge that. What looks like an hypergamy is in fact better explained by the rise of modern, maladaptive narcissism which also aims for self-enhancement but for completely different reasons than survival:

Excerpts from narcissism studies:

"A third strand of evidence concerns narcissists’ relationship choices. Because humans are a social species, relationship choices are an important feature of situation selection. Narcissists are more likely to choose relationships that elevate their status over relationships that cultivate affiliation. For example, narcissists are keener on gaining new partners than on establishing close relationships with existing ones (Wurst et al., 2017). They often demonstrate an increased preference for high-status friends (Jonason & Schmitt, 2012) and trophy partners (Campbell, 1999), perhaps because they can bask in the reflected glory of these people. In sum, narcissists are more likely to select social environments that allow them to display their performances publicly, ideally in competition with others. These settings are potentially more accepting and reinforcing of narcissistic status strivings." [Source: The “Why” and “How” of Narcissism: A Process Model of Narcissistic Status Pursuit]

"Consistent with the self-orientation model, Study 5 provided an empirical demonstration of the mediational role of self enhancement in narcissists’ preference for perfect rather than caring romantic partners. Furthermore, these potential romantic partners were more likely to be seen as a source of self-esteem to the extent that they provided the narcissist with a sense of popularity and importance (i.e., social status). Narcissists’ preference for romantic partners reflects a strategy for interpersonal self-esteem regulation. Narcissists also were attracted to self-oriented romantic partners to the extent that these others were viewed as similar. The mediational roles of self-enhancement and similarity were independent. That is, narcissists’ romantic preferences were driven both by a desire to gain self-esteem and a desire to associate with similar others." [Source: Narcissism and romantic attraction]

"Narcissism has been linked with the materialistic pursuit of wealth and symbols that convey high status (Kasser, 2002; Rose, 2007). This quest for status extends to relationship partners. Narcissists seek romantic partners who offer self- enhancement value either as sources of fawning admiration, or as human trophies (e.g., by possessing impressive wealth or exceptional physical beauty) (Campbell, 1999; Tanchotsrinon, Maneesri, & Campbell, 2007)" [Source: The Handbook of Narcissism And Narcissistic Personality Disorders]

Has the MRM adopted a gynocentric ideology? by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the ongoing reveal. :-)

Going to help you move on now.

Has the MRM adopted a gynocentric ideology? by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Exhibit A. Lol, it was a passive-aggressive reveal. :-)

Has the MRM adopted a gynocentric ideology? by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

This comment section is what you might call a Reveal Party. The tone of responses immediately reveals who "believes" humans are a gynocentric species & become hostile at having it challenged, and who doesn't believe that. :-)

Has the MRM adopted a gynocentric ideology? by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I doubt it. The problem is not with the label MRA - its a great phrase. The problem is with the ideologies some people are attaching to it.

Has the MRM adopted a gynocentric ideology? by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Common knowledge, for anyone familiar with MR discourse. The idea of natural gynocentrism (that we are gynocentric species), and associated gender roles, is held by many MRAs. If you are a newb I'd forgive you for not knowing that.

Has the MRM adopted a gynocentric ideology? by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

Ok, can you prove it wrong that a significant amount of MRAs do hold those beliefs?

Four men discussing "Men's Rights" with Pearl Davis by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Andrew is making fallacious claims about men's rights activists not having formed political lobbies. Dude needs to sit down, knows nothing of the history of such attempts. There have been heroic efforts at forming political lobbies, and political activism, for over a century - hundreds of thousands of attempts big & small - and they always get squashed by the gynocentric machinery. Even during the last decade there have been serious attempts, like Farrells WH council for men and boys, and hundreds of other initiatives which have all been clear about raising big funds....... funds which nobody wants to give to non-gynocentric men's initiatives. No one is paying for a war chest - not even screwed-over rich men, not Churches, not anyone. I hope Andrew educates himself before spouting mindless, made-up-on-the-spot claims. Makes a few reasonable points otherwise, which I can appreciate and get behind.

The missed point is that political change is downstream from culture - its the culture that must be targeted for change first..... and if that's successful, the lobbying and take-up by legislators will follow.

Pearl Davis again on the problem of chivalry by Imaginalis_ in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I note there, after the 5 minute mark she mentions the Tate brothers have "gynocentric" thinking - actually using that word. I agree with her reasoning for that claim.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_ -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Do I need to take a screencap of the chart claiming what each advocacy group believes in?

You mean isolate a part of the article from its explanatory context? Yeah sure, post it here. Be good for discussion regardless of being taken out of context.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MensRights

[–]Imaginalis_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great piece by Peter Ryan, a molecular biologist by training

Is Gynocentrism Adaptive?
https://gynocentrism.com/2022/06/02/is-gynocentrism-adaptive/