We can keep this non-political if we're careful...

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Let's not. Plenty of misogyny floating around this thread already.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

That's because that's what movie stars were like 200 years ago. 

Duh.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

Ive got #1 on the first list and #2 on the second.  I'm going to go remind my wife how lucky she is!

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

1) In this market? 

2) In this economy?

3) How 'bout mulish stubbornness? Best I can do. 

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

I forgot where I read it but a long time ago fatness was also a sign of wealth.

"Check out that guy, he eats even when he doesn't need to. And he never has to run."

j_tso said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

I forgot where I read it but a long time ago fatness was also a sign of wealth.

"Check out that guy, he eats even when he doesn't need to. And he never has to run."

 

Until, if I had to WAG, the proliferation of refrigeration and trust fund somethings. Your standard serf wasn't going to get fat on their allotted, after tax food. The nobility though... If you're of the sort to enjoy the content, Tasting History with Max Miller is a good YT channel for action recipes and history snippets. Basically, being fat was a sign that you could afford to over eat and that you didn't have to worry about earning your living through physical labor when your bloodline guaranteed you a spot at the top of the socioeconomic food chain. (Some things never change)  Now we have the reverse, being fat is easy with calorically dense, hormone pumped, as cheap as we can mass produce it for shareholder value "food"(TM) while being skinny is often a sign that you have time in your workday to workout as well as the financial security to buy healthy food at ridiculous prices and the time to prepare a meal or afford a stay-at-home spouse to prepare healthy, nutriious, appropriate meals for you on the daily. Being skinny/fit/attractive/not having juvenile diabetes can be as much a luxury as a string of Porsches in the driveway.

logdog (Forum Supporter) said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

Ive got #1 on the first list and #2 on the second.  I'm going to go remind my wife how lucky she is!

Me too.  But when mom and dad kick the bucket I'll have about 250 acres.  Then I'm just two mules away from certain success.

ralleah said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Let's not. Plenty of misogyny floating around this thread already.

And that's how the discussion ends. Call it a name.

Misogyny refers to a hatred of women. Discussing biological programming, nature vs nurture, etc in regards to differences in the sexes is not misogyny. 

Men and women are different. Their brains work differently, they think differently, and their biological imperatives for survival from the stone age still factor in, though with less significance. Dismiss it at the peril of your relationships.

The one thing I took away from my hobby study of the topic is that women think and act ways we men find puzzling, but they aren't doing it intentionally. It's software running in the background. We have our own software running in the background, but it's a different version, which is why women become exasperated with us (and we with them).

Biology isn't misogynistic. It has to love women for the species to survive.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

People didn't like my Andrew tate/Jordan Petersen. Hits too close to home. Hahaha. 

That's because I neither know nor care who those people are.

I found Esther Perel, an actual psychotherapist and a female, to be FAR better than the list of women hating men who write "self help" relationship books.  They use sales tactics to beat women into submission, usually by mentally abusing them. 
 

Heres a lil secret, its YOU, not them. 

ddavidv said:

ralleah said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Let's not. Plenty of misogyny floating around this thread already.

And that's how the discussion ends. Call it a name.

Misogyny refers to a hatred of women. Discussing biological programming, nature vs nurture, etc in regards to differences in the sexes is not misogyny. 

Men and women are different. Their brains work differently, they think differently, and their biological imperatives for survival from the stone age still factor in, though with less significance. Dismiss it at the peril of your relationships.

The one thing I took away from my hobby study of the topic is that women think and act ways we men find puzzling, but they aren't doing it intentionally. It's software running in the background. We have our own software running in the background, but it's a different version, which is why women become exasperated with us (and we with them).

Biology isn't misogynistic. It has to love women for the species to survive.

Just ignore them. They can't or won't add to the discussion and are lashing out. 

Fueled by Caffeine said:

People didn't like my Andrew tate/Jordan Petersen. Hits too close to home. Hahaha. 
 

Imagine If I brough up Rogan. 

It's not a case of didn't like, it was a comment thrown out to entice a reaction and it added nothing to the discussion. Are you surprised it was mostly ignored? 

In reply to ddavidv :

I suggest amending your statement with the qualified "tend to be" rather than the absolute "are".

I'm sure that's what you mean. But it is good to be clear that we're not talking about absolutes in order to avoid confusion. Also to remind ourselves that we're talking about individuals that vary rather than a monolithic group.

Sideways on the topic to my personal issues again, but also touching a bit on the nature/nurture issue.

I think what's going on with my wife needing to be comforted when I express anxiety may be two separate things working together. The first "nature" and the second "nurture".

I think women tend to react more empathetically where men tend to react more sympathetically. Those words often get interchanged, and they're similar, but different. Sympathy is feeling *for* someone else's emotional state. Empathy is feeling *with* someone else's emotional state.

So, my wife sees me in a state of anxiety, and empathetically feels those same emotions and enters a similar state of anxiety.

This isn't a problem by itself. Our front-of-house manager does the same thing. She has commented about "taking on" the emotions of people around her. But when she does, she is still able to be supportive and helpful instead of needing support herself.

With my wife, I think we're running into an only child thing and/or just being someone with lower emotional energy reserves. She feels those emotions, but she's not able to set her feelings aside. So she needs to process the emotions she's feel empathetically before helping me process my emotions. Which of course frustrates me.

In any case...

With the stuff I've been dealing with lately, I've been thinking I should find a therapist to help me out for a bit. Thinking through this frustration with my wife, I think I should probably also find one that also does couple's therapy to help us find tools so that my wife is able to provide the support I'm looking for when I'm anxious without becoming anxious and needing support herself first.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

Some of my rancher relatives own donkeys. Does that count?

Mules are cheap. Feeding them and paying for vet care, not so much.

Beer Baron said:

In reply to ddavidv :

I suggest amending your statement with the qualified "tend to be" rather than the absolute "are".

I'm sure that's what you mean. But it is good to be clear that we're not talking about absolutes in order to avoid confusion. Also to remind ourselves that we're talking about individuals that vary rather than a monolithic group.

Correct. There are no absolutes, but there are majorities that support points of study. Never 'all', but frequently 'most'.

j_tso said:

Anyone who wants to face a camera ranting and yelling for a solid half hour is just looking for help.

My .02

Beer Baron said:

Sideways on the topic to my personal issues again, but also touching a bit on the nature/nurture issue.

I think what's going on with my wife needing to be comforted when I express anxiety may be two separate things working together. The first "nature" and the second "nurture".

I think women tend to react more empathetically where men tend to react more sympathetically. Those words often get interchanged, and they're similar, but different. Sympathy is feeling *for* someone else's emotional state. Empathy is feeling *with* someone else's emotional state.

So, my wife sees me in a state of anxiety, and empathetically feels those same emotions and enters a similar state of anxiety.

This isn't a problem by itself. Our front-of-house manager does the same thing. She has commented about "taking on" the emotions of people around her. But when she does, she is still able to be supportive and helpful instead of needing support herself.

With my wife, I think we're running into an only child thing and/or just being someone with lower emotional energy reserves. She feels those emotions, but she's not able to set her feelings aside. So she needs to process the emotions she's feel empathetically before helping me process my emotions. Which of course frustrates me.

In any case...

With the stuff I've been dealing with lately, I've been thinking I should find a therapist to help me out for a bit. Thinking through this frustration with my wife, I think I should probably also find one that also does couple's therapy to help us find tools so that my wife is able to provide the support I'm looking for when I'm anxious without becoming anxious and needing support herself first.

It will come as no surprise to anyone who's seen my post in similar threads that I encourage you to find a therapist to help you for a bit.  I have a similar situation in that my wife takes on any anxiety that I'm feeling so it's challenging to go to her for support.  My therapist both gives me someone else to go to for support and has helped my wife and I come up with ways that she can be a resource for me when I need support.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

If you consider it in terms of the times, the lists are pretty much the same.  In broader terms, healthy, wealthy, and of good genetic stock.  

In reply to APEowner :

I went to one many years ago, and it wasn't a positive experience.

First I ended up paying a bunch of money because my insurance didn't pick up the tab.

Then talking about someone who was dealing with apparently being hit by his wife, the therapist commented something to the effect of him deserving to get hit or hitting him being an understandable response to the guy being a bit of an ass. I 'Noped!' right out of talking to someone who thought abuse may be justified.

I'm sure this is not typical. But it wasn't positive.

I saw a therapist when I was a teenager, but he quickly realized the problem was that my stepmother and my dad needed therapy.

volvoclearinghouse said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

If you consider it in terms of the times, the lists are pretty much the same.  In broader terms, healthy, wealthy, and of good genetic stock.  

Chances are if you are short, fat and poor you are not going to be dating a fashion model or a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader no matter how much you jump up and down and scream about it on youtube. It might be easier to set your sites a little lower and spend more time where women at your level hang out, rather than waste your time commiserating with other poor short dudes on Men's Rights Forums and yakking on about the red pill.

There really is life outside of the Internet and the fake world the Ad Agencies present to us.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Toyman! said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

People didn't like my Andrew tate/Jordan Petersen. Hits too close to home. Hahaha. 
 

Imagine If I brough up Rogan. 

It's not a case of didn't like, it was a comment thrown out to entice a reaction and it added nothing to the discussion. Are you surprised it was mostly ignored? 

 

 

You downvoted it.  So it wasn't ignored.   
 

I'm here all week people  

 

and we are glad you're here.  i bolded the keyword "mostly" since you seem to have missed it before.