Latest / Honey Badger Radio / She’s Not Hypergamous, You Just Don’t Meet Her STANDARDS

Transcript

She’s Not Hypergamous, You Just Don’t Meet Her STANDARDS · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you may be,
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio. My name is Brian.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: I'm here with Allison, and this is Maintaining Frame. She's
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: not hypergamous. You just don't meet her standards, which is
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: completely different from hypergamy.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: Completely.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Completely different. And we're going to be talking a little
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: bit about the dating market. And there's a channel called
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: The Goodsome, I guess. who is going to debunk the
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: claims made by the Manosphere, and just like people that
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: have eyes, the claims that women are becoming overly picky
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: and that men cannot possibly live up to their standards.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: So I guess celebration, guys. You are wrong, and actually
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: things are fine. You just need to fix the problem
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: and don't ask women to do it. So before we
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: get started, I guess.
• 0:57
  Speaker 3: Get on that, guys.
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: Get on it. Do it.
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:02
  Speaker 3: Start fixing that.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: Stop complaining about women not fixing it and fix it. Yeah.
• 1:07
  Speaker 3: All of you guys need to get up in the
• 1:08
  Speaker 3: top 10%.
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: Yeah, just get in the top 10%. That's all you
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: got to do.
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:13
  Speaker 3: Don't give these excuses like that's a mathematical impossibility. And
• 1:17
  Speaker 3: that even if every man attained the same objective level
• 1:22
  Speaker 3: as a man in the top 10%, there would simply
• 1:23
  Speaker 3: be a new top 10%. And also it seems like
• 1:27
  Speaker 3: every time men feed this behavior in women, it gets worse.
• 1:31
  Speaker 3: So if men all got into the top 10%, not
• 1:34
  Speaker 3: only would women expect the top 10% of the new
• 1:36
  Speaker 3: top 10%, they would now increase their expectations to the
• 1:40
  Speaker 3: top 1% because of hedonic adaptation to how much men
• 1:44
  Speaker 3: have hustled in order to abide by their ridiculous standards.
• 1:49
  Speaker 3: But yeah, guys, do that mathematical impossibility thing. Women, you know,
• 1:54
  Speaker 3: you can't say that it's a mathematical impossibility. That's just whinging.
• 1:57
  Speaker 3: It's just, it's just being salty. It's being a salty man. Yeah.
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: That's not attractive.
• 2:03
  Speaker 3: You should be able to do the impossible.
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: That being salty about it, it takes you out of
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: the 10%. Drops you down a few steps. Instantly. Yeah.
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: Immediately.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: It's an ick giver. Yeah.
• 2:14
  Speaker 3: But also committing to a woman sort of is an
• 2:16
  Speaker 3: ick giver too. So don't do that while committing to her.
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 2:19
  Speaker 3: So it's very simple, guys. It's a very simple ask
• 2:23
  Speaker 3: women have. One, I'll be in the top 10%. And
• 2:27
  Speaker 3: you may say to a woman, that is mathematically impossible. Well,
• 2:32
  Speaker 3: that's just you mansplaining, right? And two, commit to her
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: without making her feel like you've committed to her.
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: Right?
• 2:42
  Speaker 3: We could do that, surely? These are some simple, simple,
• 2:45
  Speaker 3: minuscule asks. Any man worth his salt. could be able
• 2:49
  Speaker 3: to do it. Otherwise, he's a salty man. So there
• 2:52
  Speaker 3: you go. Okay, so if you didn't play throughout the show,
• 2:57
  Speaker 3: you would like to send us a message. You can
• 2:59
  Speaker 3: do so at feedthebadger.com slash justthetip. That is the very
• 3:03
  Speaker 3: best way for you to send us a tip, any
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: comment with that tip. As we get the full benefit
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: of the funds, YouTube doesn't take its giant cookie monster
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: bite out of them, and you get the full benefit
• 3:13
  Speaker 3: of not sending your comment through YouTube's running of the bulls,
• 3:18
  Speaker 3: running of the comments and uh yeah so win-win except
• 3:22
  Speaker 3: for youtube but you know youtube needs to lose sometimes
• 3:25
  Speaker 3: so feed the badger.com slash just the tip to send
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: in those tips or and comments and also feed the badger.com
• 3:33
  Speaker 3: slash support to support the show and make sure we
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: can bring you this content for the months because our
• 3:38
  Speaker 3: monthly fundraiser is live it is there and um it'd
• 3:44
  Speaker 3: be very much appreciated if you allow us to continue
• 3:47
  Speaker 3: to debunk this crap For the sake of humanity's future.
• 3:53
  Speaker 3: I'm just going to do a counter-argument here, Brian. What
• 3:57
  Speaker 3: if men can't actually do the mathematically impossible and can't
• 4:02
  Speaker 3: do the physically impossible task of both committing to women
• 4:07
  Speaker 3: but not making those women feel like they've been committed
• 4:09
  Speaker 3: to because that's an ick? What if men can't do
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: that and, in fact, women need to change and evolve
• 4:16
  Speaker 3: or improve or take accountability? What happens next? What happens then?
• 4:22
  Speaker 3: The problem just doesn't get solved and we just all
• 4:24
  Speaker 3: fall off a demographic cliff?
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: That sounds like a man problem and not at all
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: her responsibility. She can't be expected to do the labor
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: of addressing this.
• 4:34
  Speaker 3: It's emotional labor. Yeah, it's just labor. If you want
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: to support the cause of actually blaming women, go to feedthebadger.com
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: slash support. And put a few shekels in the hack.
• 4:46
  Speaker 3: We are pretty much the only ones who do it.
• 4:49
  Speaker 3: Us and other men's rights activists. Everybody else does some
• 4:52
  Speaker 3: weird shuck and jive about blaming ideologies. Like they want
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: to find the ideology that they can apply to men
• 4:57
  Speaker 3: that somehow changes women. Oh, it's weird. But anyway, feedthebadger.com
• 5:01
  Speaker 3: slash support to support us. I think we're necessary. Our
• 5:06
  Speaker 3: work is necessary. But it is not very much loved
• 5:09
  Speaker 3: by the mainstream. Let's put it that way. And if
• 5:12
  Speaker 3: you would like to join us in our... community took
• 5:17
  Speaker 3: me a moment cesspool was in the way of community
• 5:22
  Speaker 3: if you would like to join us in the way
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: in our community you can do so at badger nation
• 5:27
  Speaker 3: dot online you can join us for group game nights
• 5:32
  Speaker 3: and we're doing some kind of spookathon that's now going
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: into November because everybody wanted more movies than there are
• 5:39
  Speaker 3: days in October so if you want to join us
• 5:42
  Speaker 3: for those things and also watch me shamble through the
• 5:47
  Speaker 3: desert of feminist academia looking for a barest spot of
• 5:56
  Speaker 3: reason and accountability and any kind of proof for everything
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: that they have asserted over the last 60 years and
• 6:04
  Speaker 3: our society is now laboring under, then join us at badgernation.online.
• 6:09
  Speaker 3: I'm not sure if that's a really good pitch, but
• 6:12
  Speaker 3: you know, it's work that needs to get done. But anyway,
• 6:15
  Speaker 3: those Links are in the low bar, as is a
• 6:19
  Speaker 3: link to the source. So if you are an antagonistic
• 6:23
  Speaker 3: commentator who is yelling about us commenting on the source
• 6:31
  Speaker 3: and you want to watch it yourself, go to the
• 6:34
  Speaker 3: low bar and click it and watch it yourself. That's
• 6:36
  Speaker 3: what it's there for. We are going to continue to
• 6:40
  Speaker 3: comment on it. And I promise you, I'm going to
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: continue to comment on it at length. All right, so anyway,
• 6:48
  Speaker 3: all of the stuff is in the low bar. Go there,
• 6:50
  Speaker 3: pick your poison, enjoy. Okay, shall we begin?
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: Okay, so this is a video by The Goodsome entitled,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: What the Data Actually Says About the Dating Market. And
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: who is The Goodsome? I thought you'd never ask, I'm glad.
• 7:05
  Speaker 3: So....
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: The Goodsome describes herself, her channel, as exploring how humans
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: make decisions through the lens of money, class, culture, and psychology.
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: Let me read that again. I want you guys to
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: think about what's already been exposed there. Exploring how humans
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: make decisions through the lens of money, class, culture, and psychology.
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: About me. Hi, I'm Annie, fan of The Underdog. frameworks
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: for thinking clearly and seeing good people get ahead. Former
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: Stanford engineer, college NFL cheerleader, market research strategist. Yeah, go ahead.
• 7:46
  Speaker 3: I was muted, but God damn, did I do a guffaw?
• 7:49
  Speaker 3: I mean, even my dog looked up and was like,
• 7:50
  Speaker 3: are you joking?
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 7:54
  Speaker 3: Oh, good. Oh yeah, really? Uh-huh. Well that, uh, okay guys,
• 7:59
  Speaker 3: I guess this is more evidence of the worth of
• 8:01
  Speaker 3: a degree from Stanford.
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: Uh, yep.
• 8:03
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: Okay, so we're going to jump right in and jump
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: ahead a little bit because she has a little bit
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: of an intro. I don't know if we need to
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: do that, right? So we're going to go ahead to
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: 1 minute and 37 seconds, and I checked the time codes.
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: These should be good. I looked at them all.
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: Actually, if you would, I think we should go to
• 8:22
  Speaker 3: where she mocks the male blogger, if that's where that is.
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: No, this is... Where is that? Let me see. Okay,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: Cupid messaging behavior. There's no the first one is called
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: stated versus revealed preference. Or do you want me to
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: start it from the beginning? Yeah, I'll play it. I'll
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: play it from the beginning. Okay.
• 8:42
  Speaker 4: There's no question that modern dating feels like an absolute
• 8:44
  Speaker 4: mess to navigate. But how many of your dating beliefs
• 8:46
  Speaker 4: are actually real? And how much is just fiction? Today,
• 8:50
  Speaker 4: we are going to take a look and we'll see
• 8:51
  Speaker 4: what the data actually says about some of the most
• 8:54
  Speaker 4: common claims out there about modern love, money and attraction.
• 8:57
  Speaker 4: We'll look at questions like are women actually hypergamous? Does
• 9:00
  Speaker 4: social class change how people date? The data doesn't support her.
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, let's let her set the stage. Yeah, she's wrong.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: Before we get, but we should probably show why. But
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: we need to hear her side of things. But yeah,
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: she's wrong.
• 9:15
  Speaker 4: Is it true that women find 80% of men unattractive?
• 9:18
  Speaker 4: Why does it also seem like nobody wants to get
• 9:19
  Speaker 4: married these days? Is it just a bad deal? The
• 9:22
  Speaker 4: questions are all linked below in case you'd like to
• 9:24
  Speaker 4: jump around. But do make sure to watch the ending
• 9:26
  Speaker 4: if you want to learn about one of the biggest
• 9:27
  Speaker 4: myths about modern dating today. and the surprising backstory on
• 9:31
  Speaker 4: how it came to exist. Let's get into it. Starting with.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: Okay. So, uh, this is 39 seconds. Am I, uh,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: am I going to keep going? Let's just keep going.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: Women find 80% of men unattractive.
• 9:45
  Speaker 4: Number one, women find 80% of men unattractive.
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: Okay. But before she answers that, I just want to like,
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: I just wanted to go into this a little bit. Okay.
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: the women find 80% of men on attractive claim on
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: its face is something that can be argued against because
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: it seems so hyperbolic and it's really just a shorthand
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: for there was what was the website called the old
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: dating website not plenty of fish but there was the
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: other one I can't remember Maybe it was plenty of fish,
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: but it doesn't matter. There was an old website and
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: they did like a rating and women rated 80. OkCupid,
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: thank you. They rated 80% of the male members of OkCupid.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: So male members doesn't necessarily mean 80% of all men.
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: So this is why I think it's important. The people
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: on OkCupid, women rated them below average, 80%, right? Now
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: below average doesn't mean ugly either. It just means below average.
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: But what she's arguing against is a position that doesn't
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: really exist in the strict sense that women find 80%
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: of men ugly, okay? It means that on specifically men
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: on dating sites, 80% of those men that are on
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: dating sites are seen by the women on those dating
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: sites at the time as being below average. That's an
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: important distinction, okay? So she's about to shoot down a
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: position that nobody really holds. But the base claim that
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: the reason for the meme itself, the 80% meme, isn't
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: to necessarily make this argument, but it's rather to start
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: a conversation about where that disparity, specifically the fact that
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: the women on OKCupid found 80% of men below average,
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: while the men found women below. Average. Like they basically,
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: you know, it was a straight bell curve all the way.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: So men were more fair to women on OkCupid than
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: women were to men on OkCupid. Okay. And that's the
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: important distinction, but she's not going to, she's not going
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: to attack that. She's going to attack the straw man.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: You know, women everywhere find 80% of men unattractive. So,
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: but let's, let's see what she says.
• 12:10
  Speaker 4: So back in 2009, OkCupid shared this blog post called
• 12:13
  Speaker 4: your looks and your inbox. where they took the theory
• 12:15
  Speaker 4: that being attractive makes it easier to date, something you've
• 12:18
  Speaker 4: probably intuitively already felt. But they attempted to quantify this
• 12:22
  Speaker 4: using real data from their dating website. They ran a
• 12:24
  Speaker 4: survey asking men and women to rate the attractiveness of
• 12:27
  Speaker 4: profiles of the opposite sex, using a scale from zero,
• 12:29
  Speaker 4: meaning least attractive, to five, most attractive. And their results
• 12:33
  Speaker 4: looked like this. So they showed that while men rated
• 12:36
  Speaker 4: women's appearance on a fairly evenly distributed bell curve, women's
• 12:40
  Speaker 4: ratings were heavily skewed. So they categorized most men, the
• 12:43
  Speaker 4: study claims 80%, as below a medium level of attractiveness.
• 12:47
  Speaker 4: And this is where the belief comes from. Now, we
• 12:50
  Speaker 4: can clearly tell that there are differences between how men
• 12:52
  Speaker 4: and women rate the appearance of the opposite gender. That
• 12:55
  Speaker 4: much is easy to see. But what we're not given
• 12:57
  Speaker 4: is additional information, right? Context that we need to actually
• 13:00
  Speaker 4: make sense of this. The ratings are one source of information,
• 13:03
  Speaker 4: but how does this compare to behavior? In market research,
• 13:06
  Speaker 4: we often talk about stated versus revealed preferences. This is
• 13:08
  Speaker 4: the difference between what people say they value and then
• 13:11
  Speaker 4: what they actually choose to do. For example, if.
• 13:13
  Speaker 3: People say- Okay, stop for a second. Stop for a second.
• 13:16
  Speaker 3: All right. So what we're going to find, and this
• 13:18
  Speaker 3: is one of her biggest absolute boners as a so-called researcher,
• 13:25
  Speaker 3: which she isn't. She is going to use stated, revealed
• 13:31
  Speaker 3: preference or sorry, stated preference when it supports her conjecture.
• 13:36
  Speaker 3: And she's going to use revealed preference when it also
• 13:41
  Speaker 3: supports her conjecture, which it doesn't.
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 13:44
  Speaker 3: So she uses she has motivated reasoning when it comes
• 13:48
  Speaker 3: to how she judges for sources of information. And you're
• 13:51
  Speaker 3: going to see this very shortly. So I'm just I'm
• 13:54
  Speaker 3: giving you I know it's a bit of a spoiler, guys,
• 13:56
  Speaker 3: but I as you know, something of a researcher, I guess,
• 14:00
  Speaker 3: a lay researcher. You don't want to count my masters
• 14:04
  Speaker 3: from Podunk University, not Stanford. Stanford is very, very prestigious.
• 14:09
  Speaker 3: You have a.
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: Really high IQ to go to Stanford.
• 14:13
  Speaker 3: No, no doubt, right? Not really displaying her high IQ.
• 14:17
  Speaker 3: But yeah, there's a lot of motivated reasoning in this.
• 14:19
  Speaker 3: So when stated preference supports her conjecture, she uses it.
• 14:24
  Speaker 3: When it doesn't, she says, no, you can't use it.
• 14:27
  Speaker 3: Motivated reasoning, everyone. You're supposed to not do that as
• 14:31
  Speaker 3: a researcher, but let's continue.
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: All right, let's keep going.
• 14:35
  Speaker 4: Difference between what people say they value and then what
• 14:37
  Speaker 4: they actually choose to do. For example, if people say
• 14:40
  Speaker 4: they prefer an orange phone, but then they don't go
• 14:42
  Speaker 4: out and buy it, That reveals a gap between what
• 14:44
  Speaker 4: they say and then what they do. Preferences can be
• 14:47
  Speaker 4: a great starting point, but real life decisions show us
• 14:49
  Speaker 4: what people actually prioritize when they're forced to make choices
• 14:52
  Speaker 4: and trade-offs in reality. So going back to that study,
• 14:55
  Speaker 4: we see that women actually behave pretty differently than what
• 14:57
  Speaker 4: we might've guessed based on their evaluations. They talked to
• 15:00
  Speaker 4: men of all kinds, even the ones that weren't rated
• 15:03
  Speaker 4: as particularly attractive.
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: Okay. Attractiveness ratings is the dotted line, right? Female to
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: male messages. So like when women actually try to reach
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: out to men is the blue line. All right.
• 15:20
  Speaker 4: In fact, they were most frequently messaging men with below
• 15:23
  Speaker 4: medium looks and hardly messaging the most attractive ones. Men
• 15:26
  Speaker 4: also behaved quite differently than their ratings would suggest. They
• 15:29
  Speaker 4: focus their efforts disproportionately on the most attractive women.
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: Well, I mean, yeah, go ahead.
• 15:37
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: Well, but... I mean, if you don't know if you
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: have a chance anyway, why not shoot for the moon?
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's a male logic to it.
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: It's like, and again, it doesn't really matter because I
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: think that men are going to, they're more likely to
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: settle anyways, you know, in terms of like surface level stuff.
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: But go ahead.
• 16:00
  Speaker 3: But also this is contradicted by, I mean, the problem
• 16:04
  Speaker 3: with graphs is they can be misleading. What this isn't
• 16:07
  Speaker 3: actually showing is, is that attractive men got four to
• 16:13
  Speaker 3: five times the median men's messages against 2.53 times for
• 16:19
  Speaker 3: attractive women. All right, so this potentially is hiding the
• 16:25
  Speaker 3: fact that women are actually messaging attractive men substantially more.
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: Than median men.
• 16:32
  Speaker 3: The reason why this is hiding it is it's not
• 16:34
  Speaker 3: controlling for the population size, okay? So the population size,
• 16:41
  Speaker 3: first of all, if most women rank men as below average,
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: the population size of below average men is substantially larger
• 16:54
  Speaker 3: than the population size of below average women for men.
• 16:59
  Speaker 3: Do you see where the distortion is coming from? So
• 17:01
  Speaker 3: if you don't normalize it, the population size to what
• 17:05
  Speaker 3: these women are ranking, of course, women are going to
• 17:08
  Speaker 3: be sending more texts to what this woman calls unattractive
• 17:13
  Speaker 3: men or women call unattractive men because they've decided that
• 17:17
  Speaker 3: 80% of men are in that category. So it's an
• 17:20
  Speaker 3: overwhelmingly huge population relative to the size of the unattractive
• 17:26
  Speaker 3: women population, which men only rank like 40% of women in.
• 17:31
  Speaker 3: Do you see what I'm saying? So attractive and also
• 17:34
  Speaker 3: attractive women, which I presumably would be five plus for men,
• 17:39
  Speaker 3: is half the population of women. Whereas attractive men for
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: women is only 20% of the population. Okay, so this
• 17:49
  Speaker 3: is going to distort the messages, like the number of messages. Because,
• 17:53
  Speaker 3: of course, if you regard 20 or 80% of the
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: male population to be unattractive, 80% of the male population
• 18:01
  Speaker 3: is going to absorb a lot of messages. Right? Collectively,
• 18:07
  Speaker 3: they're going to be responsible for the vast majority of messages.
• 18:12
  Speaker 3: Just by probability. Yeah. Okay?
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 18:17
  Speaker 3: So her charts aren't saying what she says they're saying.
• 18:23
  Speaker 3: So if you just look at how many men are
• 18:26
  Speaker 3: messaging attractive women.
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: So if you're just looking at the lines, you're not
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: really getting the whole story, right?
• 18:31
  Speaker 3: Yeah, you're not getting the whole picture. You just look
• 18:33
  Speaker 3: at how many men message attractive women or women they
• 18:37
  Speaker 3: find attractive versus how many women. And you find that
• 18:42
  Speaker 3: women are substantially more likely to message men that they
• 18:46
  Speaker 3: find attractive. Okay, so I mean, that's one thing that
• 18:50
  Speaker 3: just pops out right out at me. Now, I would
• 18:53
  Speaker 3: have to drill down into all of this to double
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: confirm it. So take it with a grain of salt.
• 19:00
  Speaker 3: And I'll do that subsequently. But this is a problem, right?
• 19:03
  Speaker 3: If this is not normalized to the size of the
• 19:05
  Speaker 3: population of each of these categories, then what is she
• 19:09
  Speaker 3: actually saying?
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: Not much.
• 19:13
  Speaker 3: Okay, so let's continue.
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: All right. Uh, yeah, let's, I was going to say, oh,
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: you know, you know, it'd be really good for this
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: data wise. And I don't think we're going to get it,
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: but it'd be, it would be nice to be able
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: to compare, um, like what gay men think of other men,
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: how they rank them and what lesbians think of other
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: women and how they rank them. That would, that, I
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: don't know if that would be useful. Cause I know
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: it's like a much smaller sample size, but I'd be
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: curious about that. But let's, let's keep going in the meantime.
• 19:45
  Speaker 4: What happens with the least attractive within each group. So
• 19:47
  Speaker 4: what's interesting here is that men gave nearly zero attention
• 19:50
  Speaker 4: to these women, while the least attractive men still received
• 19:53
  Speaker 4: about 10% of the messages from the ladies.
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: This is also kind of a manipulative thing to say,
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: because she's basically cherry picking over here and saying, oh, look,
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: men are not really messaging these women, even though they
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: supposedly you know, see them as, like, I don't know,
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: average or whatever. They're ranking on a bell curve. But
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: even women are willing to talk to these men that
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: they find unattractive. It's like, that's not really helpful at all.
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: I think you're just trying to say, look, women are
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: much nicer than men on dating apps, I guess, even
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: though they're rejecting, like, the vast majority of them. So,
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: I don't know. Just kind of a manipulative thing to say. But, okay,
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: let's jump ahead to the next time code unless you
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: want to say something about this one because I just
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: finished it.
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: Allison?
• 20:44
  Speaker 3: No, that's okay. Actually, don't jump to the next time code.
• 20:47
  Speaker 3: Jump to the third time code that we have.
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: All right, third time. That is the next time code.
• 20:52
  Speaker 3: No, no, two is the next time code.
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: No, I've done. That was two. We just finished two.
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: This is three now. Yeah, one and two are like
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: butt to butt, right? They're basically connected. So the third one,
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: we're going to jump to 545. Let's see.
• 21:12
  Speaker 4: There's really interesting research out of Princeton that builds on
• 21:15
  Speaker 4: these results. And it finds that these preferences actually shrink
• 21:18
  Speaker 4: under two conditions. The first, when women have a high income.
• 21:21
  Speaker 4: And the second, when there is less income inequality between
• 21:24
  Speaker 4: men and women. In other words, as women earn more,
• 21:26
  Speaker 4: they adjust their preferences.
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: Okay, that was the time code. So this is a
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: Melbourne Hypothetical Society study stated preference, right? Did you want
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: to say anything to that?
• 21:41
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I did, because I want to describe what it is.
• 21:45
  Speaker 3: First of all, she describes it as research out of Princeton.
• 21:47
  Speaker 3: It's the University of Melbourne. It has 600 participants imagined
• 21:52
  Speaker 3: living in a made-up society, Stemola.
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: So it's hypothetical. It's not real.
• 21:57
  Speaker 3: It's hypothetical. So once again, do you remember what she
• 22:01
  Speaker 3: said about.
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: Stated preference versus actual real.
• 22:04
  Speaker 3: This isn't even just.
• 22:08
  Speaker 3: Revealed or sorry, stated preference in relation to real life.
• 22:12
  Speaker 3: It's a stated preference in relation to some imagined utopia.
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: So we're on. But because it supports your thesis is,
• 22:20
  Speaker 3: of course, OK. We're on like two levels of of
• 22:24
  Speaker 3: stated preference. One stated preference of the utopia you wanted
• 22:28
  Speaker 3: to live in. And two, your stated preferences in your
• 22:31
  Speaker 3: stated preference of utopia. So we're not like this is
• 22:34
  Speaker 3: this is stated preference inception. But I guess, according to
• 22:38
  Speaker 3: her logic, if you do a stated preference, if you
• 22:41
  Speaker 3: nest them, it no longer becomes a stated preference. It
• 22:44
  Speaker 3: becomes a revealed preference, which she considers to be more powerful. Because,
• 22:50
  Speaker 3: God forbid, she's actually being a gigantic freaking hypocrite here.
• 22:53
  Speaker 3: All right. All right. So 600 participants imagined living in
• 22:59
  Speaker 3: a made-up society, Stemola, with randomly assigned incomes and rated
• 23:03
  Speaker 3: what they'd want in a partner. Stated preference in a hypothetical.
• 23:07
  Speaker 3: The lead author himself flags the worry that it may
• 23:09
  Speaker 3: not reflect real world behavior. Spoiler guys, it doesn't. So
• 23:18
  Speaker 3: her evidence that women are not hypergamous is women imagining
• 23:23
  Speaker 3: a utopia and imagining their behavior in that utopia.
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: All right. Okay. All right.
• 23:34
  Speaker 3: Can we, I want to, I just want to, for
• 23:36
  Speaker 3: a moment, I want to go to her talk, her
• 23:42
  Speaker 3: referring to a man who talked about this in 2015.
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: When?
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: Of course, but I just don't know where it is.
• 23:50
  Speaker 3: 17, 17 minutes in and 30, 13 seconds.
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: Uh, okay.
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: This is her response to a male blogger talking about hypergamy, basically.
• 24:01
  Speaker 2: 17, 13.
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: Is that what you said?
• 24:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah, 1713. All right, here we go.
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: So she's basically a medium blog. It says Tinder experiments too. Guys,
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: unless you are really hot, you are probably better off
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: not wasting your time on Tinder. A quantitative socioeconomic study
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: by worst online dater, which he probably names himself that way, ironically,
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: because dating online sucks. And so like every man is
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: probably pretty bad at it, but it's not their fault.
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: It's the way it's set up. But anyway, let's go.
• 24:35
  Speaker 4: The origins of this figure come from a post dating
• 24:37
  Speaker 4: back to 2015 when one anonymous blogger who was having
• 24:40
  Speaker 4: trouble in the dating market wanted to, in his words,
• 24:43
  Speaker 4: justify his inability to score hot makeout sessions with cool babes.
• 24:47
  Speaker 4: By the way, this guy also dubs himself the worst
• 24:50
  Speaker 4: online dater.
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: All right. Let me just, let me just back up.
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: I want to put, you guys see the framing that's
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: happening already. So you, you're not allowed to give yourself
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: an ironic screen name anymore. If you're going to talk
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: about anything, because they're going to use it against you
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: and say, Oh, this is, You're revealing something about yourself.
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: The other thing is, you're not about to write in
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: a way that's creative or humorous. Like, oh, I want
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: to score hot dates with babes. You can't say stuff
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: like that because we're going to take you literally and
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: we're going to use it against you. Even though women
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: writing on these blogs are always fucking dramatic as hell.
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: And they're always writing like they're trying to become the
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: next great novelist. But okay... okay, lady, we'll go ahead
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: and let you just like, you know, nitpick this guy's
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: online identity, which is 11 years old. And God knows
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: how old he was when he wrote it, but it
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: doesn't matter because, you know, we're going to use this
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: against him, but okay.
• 25:43
  Speaker 4: To address the mystery of his disappointing performance, he ran
• 25:47
  Speaker 4: not an experiment, but a personal test in which he
• 25:50
  Speaker 4: made one fake profile of a man that he found attractive,
• 25:53
  Speaker 4: used that profile to match with women on Tinder. He
• 25:55
  Speaker 4: then interviewed 27 women, yep, just 27, who had matched
• 25:59
  Speaker 4: with that fake profile while still pretending to be the
• 26:01
  Speaker 4: character that they were interested in. This included somehow getting
• 26:04
  Speaker 4: them to share a self-reported estimate of the percentage of
• 26:07
  Speaker 4: men each woman typically liked or swiped right on. He
• 26:10
  Speaker 4: then took those percentages and treated them as a measure
• 26:12
  Speaker 4: of how attractive each woman was. The author later admits
• 26:15
  Speaker 4: that this is actually an incorrect representation and that pickiness,
• 26:19
  Speaker 4: or what we'll call selectiveness, might be a better word.
• 26:22
  Speaker 4: He then clarifies that male attractiveness is also not actually
• 26:25
  Speaker 4: attractiveness either, but how often a group of men could
• 26:28
  Speaker 4: expect to get a like from a woman with that
• 26:30
  Speaker 4: level of selectiveness.
• 26:31
  Speaker 3: Can we just pause it for a sec?
• 26:34
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 26:34
  Speaker 3: All right. So pickiness and selectivity are basically the same thing,
• 26:40
  Speaker 3: except pickiness has judgment to it. So you notice this
• 26:43
  Speaker 3: is once again an instance of a woman who's like,
• 26:45
  Speaker 3: I should be able to do this behavior and you
• 26:47
  Speaker 3: should not be able to judge it. Mm-hmm.
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 26:49
  Speaker 2: Yep.
• 26:50
  Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: Yep.
• 26:51
  Speaker 3: Uh-huh, uh-huh.
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: No, that's what it is. I mean, why would she?
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: And I don't know if you, are you guys catching
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: all the little microjabs in her supposedly like very neutral sounding? Like,
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: you want to hear that again? I want to hear
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: that again. I want you to listen to this. What
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: was it, 17? Where did you start it from? 1713
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: or something? 1713. Okay. Wow, this is actually kind of
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: a long clip here. But listen to this again. All
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: the little things that she says.
• 27:19
  Speaker 4: The origins of this figure come from a post dating
• 27:21
  Speaker 4: back to 2015 when one anonymous blogger who was having trouble.
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: So she first off points out that he's anonymous, which is,
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: I think that there's like a hidden implication. She's saying like, well,
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: you know, he doesn't put his name out there. So
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: why are we listening to him?
• 27:36
  Speaker 4: In the dating market wanted to, in his words, justify
• 27:39
  Speaker 4: his inability to score hot makeout sessions with cool babes.
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: So there again, taking his. like, and it was even
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: put in parentheses, like, it was a little bit of
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: a tongue-in-cheek thing, I assume. I mean, I'm the kind
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: of person that I try to be charitable when I
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: read what other people write, so I don't see anything
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: wrong here, but even though this blog is probably relatively long,
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe we can look it up and
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: find out, she cherry-picked this section because she thought it
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: would be useful for her, she's building a framework right
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: so first oh he's anonymous he said this thing about
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: makeout sessions with cool babes you know he objectifies women
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: i mean she doesn't say that explicitly because she can't
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: so she's not so stupid as to just point it
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: out but instead she'll imply it.
• 28:26
  Speaker 4: By the way this guy also dubs himself the worst
• 28:29
  Speaker 4: online dater.
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: So there's another one she's oh look at look at
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: that he even he knows what he is i'm pointing
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: it out for you guys.
• 28:36
  Speaker 4: To address the mystery of his disappointment The.
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: Mystery of his disappointment. So this is another sarcastic, well,
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: you don't know that you're just like a piece of
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: shit that's not attractive to women? Well, I guess I'm
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: going to have to spell it out for you, like
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: you're five.
• 28:49
  Speaker 4: Pointing performance, he ran not an experiment, but a personal test,
• 28:53
  Speaker 4: in which he made one fake profile of a man
• 28:55
  Speaker 4: that he found attractive.
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: So she's saying it's not an experiment, it's just a
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: personal test. Yeah, the guy's just a blogger. Why are you,
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: why are you like making this into a big old thing?
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: Because you don't like his findings.
• 29:06
  Speaker 3: Are we criticizing qualitative research now?
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, apparently.
• 29:14
  Speaker 3: That's a number of fields in the trash heap on
• 29:18
  Speaker 3: fire there, my dear. A number of them. And again,
• 29:23
  Speaker 3: qualitative research can be good to point in a direction
• 29:28
  Speaker 3: that we should go in terms of our research. So
• 29:32
  Speaker 3: you can dismiss it right off the bat. But it's
• 29:36
  Speaker 3: not meant to be a definitive answer. It's just meant
• 29:39
  Speaker 3: to be, hey, this is something we should investigate. Preliminary
• 29:42
  Speaker 3: findings suggest there is something interesting here.
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, how do you learn anything if you
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: don't start with someone asking, like, there is no data
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: that exists for things that we've never asked about, right?
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: So like, yeah, no one's ever brought this up. No
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: one ever thought to bring it up, especially from the
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: male perspective. Someone does. And they're like, well, this is
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: bad research. It's like, no, it's not even research. It's
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: a guy conducting a little test on his own profile,
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: which he even says. But she's like, well, this isn't data.
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: So why are we using it? Well, because there's no data, apparently. Like,
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: if you don't think that OKCupid's article or this guy's
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: blog is data then there's no data but you're what
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: you're doing instead you're just throwing it out like well
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: though that's not happening because there's no data it's not
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: happening at all there's no data all right anyway use that.
• 30:39
  Speaker 4: Profile to match with women on tinder he then interviewed
• 30:42
  Speaker 4: 27 women yep.
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: Just so he interviewed 27 women women which he's saying
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: yep just 27 can you believe it such a small
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: sample size What if 27 women were the only ones
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: willing to talk to him? Yeah.
• 30:59
  Speaker 3: I mean, again, this is a qualitative study.
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 31:01
  Speaker 3: And it's just suggestive. Like, you should look into this.
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I'm not saying it is or isn't.
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: But what if he reached out to everyone he got
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: a match with, asked to talk to them, and only
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: got 27 people to cut back to him? Like, what
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: if that's, I mean, I don't see how that's not possible.
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: And again, if that's the best he can do, it
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: actually supports his claim. Mm-hmm.
• 31:28
  Speaker 3: Well, again, like, I'm actually curious to find out the results.
• 31:32
  Speaker 3: I wonder if she actually relays them. Let's hear it.
• 31:36
  Speaker 4: Let's see. 27, who had matched with that fake profile,
• 31:38
  Speaker 4: while still pretending to be the character that they were
• 31:40
  Speaker 4: interested in. This included somehow getting them to share a
• 31:43
  Speaker 4: self-reported estimate of the percentage of men each woman typically
• 31:46
  Speaker 4: liked or swiped right on. He then took those percentages
• 31:50
  Speaker 4: and treated them as a measure of how attractive each
• 31:52
  Speaker 4: woman was. The author later admits that this is actually
• 31:54
  Speaker 4: an incorrect representation and that pickiness, or what we'll call selectiveness,
• 31:59
  Speaker 4: might be a better word. He then clarifies that male
• 32:01
  Speaker 4: attractiveness is also not actually attractiveness either, but how often
• 32:05
  Speaker 4: a group of men could expect to get a like
• 32:07
  Speaker 4: from a woman with that level of selectiveness.
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: It's true because women tend to like men that are
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: getting a lot of attention from other women. It's like
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: they see a man getting attention from women and the
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: woman might ask themselves, well, there must be something about him.
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: So I think that there's some truth to that as well.
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: There's another one of those things that women don't, for
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: whatever reason, don't want to admit.
• 32:33
  Speaker 4: He also notes that if you have further questions or
• 32:35
  Speaker 4: if you want to look at the data yourself, sorry,
• 32:37
  Speaker 4: you're out of luck. He doesn't have it. You're starting
• 32:39
  Speaker 4: to notice a problem with this, right? This is far
• 32:41
  Speaker 4: from a real study.
• 32:42
  Speaker 3: And there's a long list that the blogger... I'm seeing
• 32:43
  Speaker 3: a problem with... the fact that you are going after
• 32:48
  Speaker 3: some really low-hanging fruit when it comes to proving or
• 32:52
  Speaker 3: disproving hypergamy. I would honestly say that hypergamy doesn't capture
• 33:00
  Speaker 3: what's actually happening. I call it hyperbolicomy because it's hypergamy
• 33:05
  Speaker 3: gone hyperbolic. And I have done the work on the
• 33:10
  Speaker 3: various population data sets in the U.S., Brian has seen
• 33:15
  Speaker 3: some of it and other people who are supporting us
• 33:18
  Speaker 3: have seen some of it and I'm hoping to make
• 33:20
  Speaker 3: it public shortly. So you're going after the lowest hanging fruit.
• 33:26
  Speaker 3: Like literally she has used now a revealed preference study
• 33:31
  Speaker 3: to prove her point based on women imagining themselves in
• 33:34
  Speaker 3: a utopia and then imagining in that utopia what their
• 33:38
  Speaker 3: actual selection preferences would be. And now for the other side,
• 33:42
  Speaker 3: She's looking at a qualitative study where a man interviewed
• 33:46
  Speaker 3: women he matched with. And no, he doesn't have the data.
• 33:50
  Speaker 3: This is an online thing. She's avoiding all of the
• 33:58
  Speaker 3: credible research that challenged her point, starting with something that
• 34:02
  Speaker 3: actually came from Princeton, which was the Princeton 2011 study,
• 34:09
  Speaker 3: whose name, I should probably, just give me a second.
• 34:12
  Speaker 3: I'm terrible with names, and believe me, I'm going through
• 34:16
  Speaker 3: so much research, it's very difficult to remember the name
• 34:19
  Speaker 3: of every single damn study. But it was basically a
• 34:22
  Speaker 3: study on assortive mating based on the census data. And
• 34:31
  Speaker 3: it found that women are, over the decades, they're actually
• 34:38
  Speaker 3: getting pickier. And It's ascribed that to identity threat. So
• 34:43
  Speaker 3: men self-selecting out of dating because their identities are under
• 34:48
  Speaker 3: threat because women have lower standards and are selecting them,
• 34:53
  Speaker 3: but they don't feel like those women should select them
• 34:56
  Speaker 3: because they should be selecting better men or something. It's
• 34:59
  Speaker 3: basically like Munchausen by proxy. It's like hypergamy by proxmy.
• 35:03
  Speaker 3: So women are not responsible for putting this selection pressure
• 35:07
  Speaker 3: on men. The men are actually putting the selection pressure
• 35:10
  Speaker 3: on themselves. That's Princeton's absurdist, Princeton and Williams, sorry, Princeton
• 35:14
  Speaker 3: and Williams study. That's their absurdist take on the idea.
• 35:18
  Speaker 3: But it does actually show hypergamy. And it doesn't just
• 35:22
  Speaker 3: show hypergamy. It shows it's getting worse.
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: Mm-hmm.
• 35:26
  Speaker 3: Right? It's getting worse. Like, whole math chart, if I
• 35:31
  Speaker 3: was to criticize whole math chart, yeah, it doesn't capture
• 35:35
  Speaker 3: how bad the situation is.
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: There you go.
• 35:39
  Speaker 3: I'm going to be really, really freaking frank with you all.
• 35:42
  Speaker 3: Home math is way too optimistic for what's actually happening.
• 35:46
  Speaker 3: But regardless, this Princeton and Williams 2011 study. Let me
• 35:52
  Speaker 3: get quickly. What is the name of the Princeton and
• 35:58
  Speaker 3: Williams study?
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 36:01
  Speaker 3: I'll get that for you in a moment. You guys
• 36:03
  Speaker 3: can check it out for yourselves.
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 36:07
  Speaker 3: Let's hear a little bit more from her.
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, let's keep going. Okay.
• 36:11
  Speaker 4: That's wrong. For one, we have a incredibly low sample size,
• 36:15
  Speaker 4: 27 people. And that's saying nothing about the issues with
• 36:17
  Speaker 4: how these women were selected or sampled or interviewed.
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but these are interviews. So like it's not supposed
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: to be like a mass scale. And again, it could
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: have just been the 27 that he was able to
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: get an audience with. I mean, if the guy doesn't
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: have like a massive pedigree, you know, and he doesn't
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: have access to like a college or some kind of, other,
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: you know, organism that would allow him to interview lots
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: of people, well, that's the best he can do.
• 36:41
  Speaker 4: But he's also collecting data through a conversation in which
• 36:43
  Speaker 4: his unwitting participants.
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: Why did she put data in scare quotes? Why did
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: she do that?
• 36:47
  Speaker 4: Are trying to impress a guy that they might like,
• 36:50
  Speaker 4: which he also admits is both biased and unethical. We
• 36:53
  Speaker 4: also know that selectiveness is driven by many reasons and
• 36:56
  Speaker 4: not just looks. We saw that when it comes to
• 36:58
  Speaker 4: assortive mating, people who are educated or wealthy or.
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's also status and money as well, yes.
• 37:05
  Speaker 4: Have particular values, tend to be with similar people. But
• 37:07
  Speaker 4: his analysis also assumes that women are all interested in
• 37:10
  Speaker 4: the same type of guy, which is inaccurate. Even if
• 37:13
  Speaker 4: we forget about things like personality, achievement, or values, studies
• 37:16
  Speaker 4: have shown that women actually have less consensus on what
• 37:18
  Speaker 4: they find physically attractive than men do. To top it off,
• 37:21
  Speaker 4: he also admits to going into this fake experiment with
• 37:24
  Speaker 4: an agenda already set. Now let's talk about what he
• 37:26
  Speaker 4: doesn't do at all.
• 37:27
  Speaker 3: All right, I can't find her research onto this. So...
• 37:32
  Speaker 3: What do you mean, her research?
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: I can.
• 37:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah, whatever she's basing these assertions on. So far, I
• 37:38
  Speaker 3: can't find it.
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: Well, I think that she's just taking, oh, you mean
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: like the stuff that she quotes here?
• 37:45
  Speaker 3: Yes, the stuff that she's quoting, the research that she's
• 37:49
  Speaker 3: quoting here. What's she saying? I can't find it. Also,
• 37:54
  Speaker 3: it's not really relevant to whether or not women are hypergamous,
• 37:58
  Speaker 3: that high status women want high status men. I think
• 38:02
  Speaker 3: it's a sort of mating thing. Um, the point is
• 38:05
  Speaker 3: that women don't date down. Yeah. So saying that high
• 38:10
  Speaker 3: status women select high status men, which is not actually true.
• 38:14
  Speaker 3: I mean, what, what does she mean by high status here?
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I mean, she's not, she's, she's saying that
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: women are actually, it sounds like a defense of women
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: in the abstract. Like women are naturally more open-minded. Women
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: are naturally more forgiving of men's failures. Women are looking
• 38:30
  Speaker 1: for men who share their values. Um, this is just,
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: not what's happening on the ground, but this is like
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: what she wants to assert because she needs to, I guess. Yeah.
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: So yeah.
• 38:43
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: That's basically what I wanted to say about that, but
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: should I keep going or do you want to get
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: back to the time? Well, she's saying, let's see what
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: he does wrong. So let's see.
• 38:51
  Speaker 4: What's missing from this test. He doesn't actually measure women's
• 38:54
  Speaker 4: attractiveness as an independent variable, just how selective they are.
• 38:57
  Speaker 4: He also doesn't actually measure men's attractiveness either. He just
• 39:00
  Speaker 4: uses a few women's self-reported like rates, and then uses
• 39:04
  Speaker 4: it as a substitute for attractiveness for both genders. Of course,
• 39:07
  Speaker 4: you know that being selective isn't the same thing as
• 39:09
  Speaker 4: being attractive. But he also doesn't run his test with
• 39:11
  Speaker 4: a woman's profile to at least get a comparable reference
• 39:14
  Speaker 4: set for men.
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: So she's now saying that he should, he's not getting
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: enough information because he's not, he didn't create a female
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: profile to see if men are the same way. But
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: I mean, I don't see why that matters. I think
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: that she's just trying to discredit this, I don't know,
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: this guy's blog post. Which is, again, it's old. It
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: came out 11 years ago. Men.
• 39:45
  Speaker 4: He ignores men.
• 39:45
  Speaker 3: And again, this is very low-hanging fruit.
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, yeah, I mean, like, just based on how
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: it was put together, it was just some guy's blog somewhere.
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: And I'm not really sure that that's exactly where it
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: came from. She's saying that this is the source of
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: the 80% claim that, you know, women find 80% of men.
• 40:05
  Speaker 2: No, it isn't.
• 40:05
  Speaker 3: It's the OKCupid.
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: The OKCupid?
• 40:09
  Speaker 3: Yes, but also there was an additional 76-country survey. Okay,
• 40:13
  Speaker 3: so it is.
• 40:19
  Speaker 3: Oh, God, these names. Wasil... Wasil... No, no, just wait.
• 40:25
  Speaker 3: I'm going to give you the 76 country attractiveness meta-analysis.
• 40:30
  Speaker 2: Right?
• 40:31
  Speaker 3: They found... Okay, it's Wasil... Oh, God. Wasilwizki, Zetsic, Klensner,
• 40:40
  Speaker 3: and Uhlen. 2026, The Gender Attractiveness Gap. Published in the
• 40:46
  Speaker 3: Proceedings of the Royal Society... in May, 2026. I don't
• 40:51
  Speaker 3: even know if she mentions this. No. More than 28,500
• 40:56
  Speaker 3: participants and over 1.5 million ratings of faces across many countries.
• 41:03
  Speaker 3: The Gap, women's faces are rated more attractive than men's
• 41:06
  Speaker 3: on average across ages, cultures, and regions. Who rates whom?
• 41:11
  Speaker 3: Women rate other women as significantly more attractive than men do,
• 41:14
  Speaker 3: and both sexes rate men's faces lower. Men are slightly
• 41:18
  Speaker 3: stricter raters overall, but that effect is much smaller than
• 41:20
  Speaker 3: the gap. Self-ratings. The gap disappears when people rate themselves.
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 41:30
  Speaker 3: Her point is that women rating most men below average
• 41:33
  Speaker 3: isn't women being picky because men rate men low too. Yeah,
• 41:37
  Speaker 3: but men... That doesn't... Okay, but we're not looking at
• 41:41
  Speaker 3: how men rate men or women rate women. We could
• 41:45
  Speaker 3: equally say that women are a bunch, as a collective,
• 41:47
  Speaker 3: a bunch of narcissists because they rate other women high.
• 41:51
  Speaker 3: We're looking at how women rate men and how men
• 41:55
  Speaker 3: rate women. And men rate women as more attractive than
• 41:59
  Speaker 3: women rating men. Anyway, so basically this is confirmation of
• 42:07
  Speaker 3: the OKCupid's that we do indeed, women do indeed find
• 42:12
  Speaker 3: men less attractive than men find women. I guess that's
• 42:15
  Speaker 3: not too surprising. But she doesn't really go into it.
• 42:20
  Speaker 3: And she discredits it on the most ridiculous level, which
• 42:23
  Speaker 3: is that men rate other men less attractive. But that's
• 42:29
  Speaker 3: not the point. The point is comparing how men rate
• 42:31
  Speaker 3: women versus how women rate men. But anyway, let's... So
• 42:37
  Speaker 3: she doesn't really engage with that. So she dismisses that.
• 42:40
  Speaker 3: And she doesn't dismiss it. She can't dismiss it on
• 42:43
  Speaker 3: the size of the... The sample size, because you're looking
• 42:46
  Speaker 3: at tens of thousands or probably the research methods. So
• 42:50
  Speaker 3: she just dismisses it based on nonsense she invented.
• 42:54
  Speaker 4: Yep.
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 42:57
  Speaker 3: Also, I want to correct something. I was incorrect about
• 43:01
  Speaker 3: the relative rate of in the OKCupid study, attractive men
• 43:06
  Speaker 3: getting messages versus attractive women. Most attractive men get about
• 43:09
  Speaker 3: 11 times the message of the lowest rated men. And
• 43:13
  Speaker 3: the highest attracted women get 28 times what the lowest
• 43:20
  Speaker 3: rated women get. So about almost twice. But on the
• 43:23
  Speaker 3: other hand, I think it's pretty much what Brian says.
• 43:25
  Speaker 3: You might as well just shoot your shot, right? As
• 43:28
  Speaker 3: a man.
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that men, well, men are more likely
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: to try and talk to women that are way out
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: of their league because they figure like there's no, Right.
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: Like there's like the worst they can, she can do
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: is say no. And I don't agree that that's the
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: worst that could happen, but I think that's how, what,
• 43:45
  Speaker 1: what most men operate on it. They're like, well, I
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: might as well shoot for the moon. But they, they
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: likely don't expect a lot. So, okay.
• 43:53
  Speaker 3: So to bring this back onto track, I think we
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: need to go to 2016. I'm hoping that's where she
• 43:58
  Speaker 3: actually addresses. Yeah, 2016. It shouldn't be that much further
• 44:03
  Speaker 3: than 17, right?
• 44:05
  Speaker 1: Right here. All right, here we go.
• 44:07
  Speaker 4: This experiment wouldn't even pass a fifth grade science fair.
• 44:10
  Speaker 4: And yet somehow, there's one anonymous blogger who.
• 44:13
  Speaker 3: Okay, wait, wait, wait. And yet, qualitative studies that are
• 44:16
  Speaker 3: even worse than these form the basis of feminist academia
• 44:20
  Speaker 3: and a good amount of sociology and all of pretty
• 44:23
  Speaker 3: much queer, lesbian, whatever studies. Right? And they are worse
• 44:27
  Speaker 3: than this qualitative study that this man pursued. Absolutely worse. Like,
• 44:32
  Speaker 3: their qualitative studies, like... Ladies, would you like just imagine
• 44:38
  Speaker 3: the worst thing that men could possibly be? And then
• 44:42
  Speaker 3: we're going to use your imaginings to create how we
• 44:46
  Speaker 3: decide to treat men in the psychology industry. Like that's
• 44:50
  Speaker 3: the crap. That's the qualitative crap you see in sociology
• 44:54
  Speaker 3: and women's studies in gender studies. So if you're going
• 44:58
  Speaker 3: to go there, then don't go after this guy who's
• 45:02
  Speaker 3: just doing a interview. Interview of women who matched with him.
• 45:07
  Speaker 3: Because I don't think he's presenting this like anything but a, hmm,
• 45:11
  Speaker 3: that's interesting. Maybe we should do more research. And yet
• 45:15
  Speaker 3: we have qualitative studies being used to inform domestic violence
• 45:21
  Speaker 3: policy coming out of feminism. If you want to look
• 45:25
  Speaker 3: at a damage assessment, there's one that's doing a hell
• 45:28
  Speaker 3: of a lot more damage. And of course, you dismiss
• 45:31
  Speaker 3: this entirely. But anyway, I just find it fascinating that
• 45:34
  Speaker 3: she's going after the lowest hanging fruit here.
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 45:37
  Speaker 3: All right, let's keep going. All right.
• 45:39
  Speaker 4: Who is evidently bad at both dating and logic, was
• 45:42
  Speaker 4: able to conduct a poorly run pseudo-experiment to validate his
• 45:45
  Speaker 4: lackluster performance. What?
• 45:47
  Speaker 3: Was able to conduct? She's so freaking snide. Let's continue.
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 45:57
  Speaker 4: A poorly run pseudo-experiment to validate his lackluster performance on Tinder,
• 46:01
  Speaker 4: and then intentionally misrepresent the results. And it ended up
• 46:05
  Speaker 4: going viral anyway, all because he.
• 46:06
  Speaker 3: Packaged it to- And what the author did, her study
• 46:26
  Speaker 3: structure was she gave, she basically had men and women
• 46:29
  Speaker 3: carry their toddlers over like a kilometer. And then because
• 46:37
  Speaker 3: women and men were both able to do it, she
• 46:40
  Speaker 3: said that women have an advantage. I'm like, well, did you,
• 46:44
  Speaker 3: and if you want to know what speed men and
• 46:46
  Speaker 3: women did this through, I was like some sort of
• 46:49
  Speaker 3: caloric thing. a caloric estimate of how much calories they
• 46:54
  Speaker 3: expended over that kilometer. But the question is how fast
• 46:58
  Speaker 3: did they go over that kilometer? Oh, Hey, that information
• 47:01
  Speaker 3: you have to actually ask her for, right? You have
• 47:04
  Speaker 3: to ask her for that information. She didn't put it
• 47:06
  Speaker 3: in her study. Like it wasn't even important. Don't you
• 47:09
  Speaker 3: think it's important to determine how much energy is spent
• 47:12
  Speaker 3: over a kilometer? You need to know how fast people
• 47:15
  Speaker 3: are going over that kilometer. Like if the men are
• 47:17
  Speaker 3: taking their toddlers and sprinting that freaking kilometer, And the
• 47:22
  Speaker 3: women are just taking them and taking like three hours
• 47:24
  Speaker 3: to go that kilometer. And the women spend less calories.
• 47:27
  Speaker 3: That means nothing if you don't control for the speed.
• 47:31
  Speaker 3: But all of that data is behind her request wall. Oh,
• 47:35
  Speaker 3: you have to request it. Bitch, I'm not doing your
• 47:37
  Speaker 3: experiment for you. I'm like looking at this and I'm
• 47:41
  Speaker 3: seeing the error propagate too. Because there's now a study on...
• 47:49
  Speaker 3: On the pelvis, the evolved pelvis, so the human male
• 47:52
  Speaker 3: pelvis is different than women's pelvis, but it's also different
• 47:56
  Speaker 3: than Neanderthal pelvises, which means the women's pelvis is actually
• 48:01
  Speaker 3: the archaic one. It's the one that our previous hominid
• 48:04
  Speaker 3: ancestors had. So the men's one is specifically evolved. And
• 48:09
  Speaker 3: they're trying to figure out, well, what is this pelvis
• 48:11
  Speaker 3: evolved for? And they're actually excluding the possibility that it's
• 48:17
  Speaker 3: evolved for carrying, specifically offspring, because of this woman's crap science.
• 48:23
  Speaker 3: So I'm watching this freaking error propagate in anthropology. I'm like,
• 48:29
  Speaker 3: I'm tearing my hair out over it. She has the
• 48:32
  Speaker 3: fucking audacity, the fucking audacity to get upset over a
• 48:37
  Speaker 3: blogger's freaking interview experiment. Oh, he could actually conduct, like
• 48:43
  Speaker 3: he had institutional support. Like this bitch and her stupid
• 48:46
  Speaker 3: Carrie study. No doubt she's still paid. Crap researcher, crap science.
• 48:53
  Speaker 3: It's going on to corrupt science that follows it down
• 48:57
  Speaker 3: the stream, right? This woman is bitching about a goddamn
• 49:01
  Speaker 3: blogger's freaking survey. Like, what the, what are you on, lady?
• 49:10
  Speaker 3: All right, let's keep going. Sorry, I just, impuriating.
• 49:14
  Speaker 1: That's all right. That's okay. I get it. All right.
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: So we're going to.
• 49:10
  Speaker 3: Anyway, all because he packaged it to look like a study.
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: And very few people online thought to question what they
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: were being told. Alright, that was it, 2039.
• 49:36
  Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Well, that looks a lot better than
• 49:38
  Speaker 3: we don't get to hear what the actual results so
• 49:40
  Speaker 3: we can determine for ourselves. So this is the, this
• 49:43
  Speaker 3: is her, her information. And play the file about how
• 49:49
  Speaker 3: she's mocking men who assert hypergamy, who say that this
• 49:53
  Speaker 3: is something that's happening to them. This is how she
• 49:56
  Speaker 3: treats them.
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 49:57
  Speaker 3: This is how she's treating men. She's so freaking calm. Right.
• 50:01
  Speaker 3: And so serene.
• 50:04
  Speaker 1: Well, yeah, she's coming across as really academic and like
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: thoughtful and not emotional. And it's all very like, like
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: I said, she's like a kindergarten teacher. Right. Very gentle.
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: But there is something really like snide.
• 50:21
  Speaker 3: Sinister.
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: Underneath that.
• 50:23
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: It's like, you know, but OK, let's.
• 50:27
  Speaker 3: Let me give you some context for this. These are
• 50:29
  Speaker 3: some of the comments that she got, that she responded to.
• 50:32
  Speaker 1: Under this video. Under the video.
• 50:34
  Speaker 3: Under this video that are basically mocking men who are
• 50:37
  Speaker 3: experiencing this. This disease of society and of women. They're
• 50:42
  Speaker 3: experiencing the consequences of it. And again, this is about
• 50:47
  Speaker 3: proving or disproving hypergamy.
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 50:50
  Speaker 3: And this definitely proves she has some serious motivated reasoning.
• 50:53
  Speaker 3: So let's look at these comments.
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: All right, here we go. It's going to read them out.
• 50:57
  Speaker 3: MimiHuang968 opines.
• 51:00
  Speaker 2: You are great at communicating. So succinct. So chef's kiss.
• 51:05
  Speaker 2: I'm humored.
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: The human means amused.
• 51:08
  Speaker 2: By the salty men in the comments section.
• 51:11
  Speaker 1: The Goodsome replies.
• 51:13
  Speaker 2: So much salt. LSKDJF3000.
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 51:19
  Speaker 3: No, this will go for too long, so let's just
• 51:21
  Speaker 3: keep going.
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: I know, it's only 30 seconds. It's only 30 seconds.
• 51:23
  Speaker 3: Yeah, this is our unbiased kindergarten teacher, our researcher here, guys.
• 51:30
  Speaker 3: She's calling you salty for recognizing reality. And honestly, even
• 51:36
  Speaker 3: she knows that this is the reality. And the next segment,
• 51:40
  Speaker 3: after we listen to these comments, will prove that she
• 51:42
  Speaker 3: knows that this is reality.
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's go.
• 51:45
  Speaker 2: L-O-L at the salty and sell-down boats. Cry laugh, cry laugh.
• 51:51
  Speaker 2: You corrected them on their preferred misreading of everything, crashing
• 51:55
  Speaker 2: their silly little circle jerk. Well done.
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: And notice she gave a heart to this comment. Yeah,
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: she liked it. Yeah. Liked by the good some. Yeah,
• 52:08
  Speaker 1: go ahead.
• 52:09
  Speaker 3: All right, so this is a punished Claude reading out
• 52:12
  Speaker 3: these stupid comments. But yeah, motivated reasoning, guys, right? She
• 52:16
  Speaker 3: is trying to discredit the concept of hypergamy. But yeah,
• 52:21
  Speaker 3: and she uses this blogger who she insults for not
• 52:24
  Speaker 3: having the terminity to have multiple dates without faking another
• 52:32
  Speaker 3: profile that's more attractive, right? And then he does his
• 52:35
  Speaker 3: interview of the women who he matched with, okay?
• 52:37
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 52:38
  Speaker 3: She mocks him. Now we're going to go to another
• 52:43
  Speaker 3: time code.
• 52:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 52:46
  Speaker 3: 20. Oh, like 20. 20 minutes. Exactly. Flat. 20 minutes.
• 52:50
  Speaker 1: Flat. All right. Well, wait, we just listened. Okay. I'll
• 52:54
  Speaker 1: just go to 20.
• 52:58
  Speaker 4: And use that to craft an entire worldview about modern dating.
• 53:02
  Speaker 4: But even if we ignore all these huge errors and
• 53:04
  Speaker 4: adjust for what he actually did, what we're left with
• 53:07
  Speaker 4: is this corrected chart. Basically, it tells us.
• 53:09
  Speaker 3: Okay, so this is probably a time code error.
• 53:15
  Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, that's not on the list of time codes
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: you gave me. Unless it's her own app month. You're
• 53:23
  Speaker 1: talking about when she's talking about her own experience? That's
• 53:26
  Speaker 1: 21 minutes in, that's why.
• 53:28
  Speaker 3: Okay, actually, no, I gave you the wrong time code.
• 53:31
  Speaker 4: Sorry.
• 53:32
  Speaker 3: That was my error.
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's fine. 21 minutes in. Okay. So she went on,
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: and this one I was interested in when I first
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: watched this video. I was like, oh, really? So, yeah,
• 53:43
  Speaker 1: now she created her own profile on Tinder, I think.
• 53:46
  Speaker 4: Yeah, it was last year for the first time.
• 53:47
  Speaker 3: But this is totally scientific, guys, right?
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah, totally.
• 53:50
  Speaker 3: His doing, creating the profile. But this is totally scientific
• 53:54
  Speaker 3: when she does it.
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 53:56
  Speaker 4: No longer applies. I actually tried out the apps last
• 53:58
  Speaker 4: year for the first time in my early 30s, and
• 54:01
  Speaker 4: I could only do it for a month. So I
• 54:02
  Speaker 4: went in wanting to date seriously, and I put together
• 54:05
  Speaker 4: a list of requirements that was built entirely around that.
• 54:07
  Speaker 4: It was very intentional, not a single filter for height
• 54:11
  Speaker 4: or anything like that. Scouts Honor. But even with the
• 54:13
  Speaker 4: best of intentions, the design and experience of many of
• 54:16
  Speaker 4: the apps out there today force you to make very
• 54:18
  Speaker 4: surface level evaluations. And you can feel it as you're
• 54:21
  Speaker 4: using the platform, right? They don't give you the info
• 54:23
  Speaker 4: or the time to do it any other way. Just
• 54:25
  Speaker 4: as an example, you know, say you're a woman getting
• 54:26
  Speaker 4: even five likes a day, which is 25 likes during
• 54:28
  Speaker 4: the week. It is impossible to get to know each
• 54:30
  Speaker 4: of these matches well enough to decide if there's enough
• 54:33
  Speaker 4: there between you to move on to a first date
• 54:35
  Speaker 4: for that weekend. You have to filter down somehow, whether
• 54:37
  Speaker 4: that's through someone's first message or their photos or something else.
• 54:41
  Speaker 4: It's ineffective on both sides. And social media now has
• 54:44
  Speaker 4: also wildly skewed what each gender thinks the other is
• 54:47
  Speaker 4: looking for.
• 54:49
  Speaker 1: So she basically says, I had to trim it down
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: because I didn't have a lot of info to work with.
• 54:54
  Speaker 3: I was getting so much attention.
• 54:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah, she was getting so much. And that's the thing, right?
• 55:00
  Speaker 1: Women on dating apps, they get men, you know, they
• 55:05
  Speaker 1: get matches constantly. Men are like constantly... Men are just
• 55:08
  Speaker 1: getting to the point where they're just treating it like
• 55:10
  Speaker 1: a numbers game. I just swipe right on everything that's not,
• 55:13
  Speaker 1: you know, a Lovecraftian cosmic horror. And then I'll hopefully
• 55:17
  Speaker 1: get a date. And because of that, women are being
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: very selective because they're like, well, I got to filter
• 55:23
  Speaker 1: this down to just a few people. So it's already
• 55:26
  Speaker 1: playing out, but she's pretending like it's not playing out. So.
• 55:31
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I can. I actually this is. This is the
• 55:35
  Speaker 3: most this is very destructive. because I can tell you
• 55:41
  Speaker 3: that this entire process is not going to get you,
• 55:44
  Speaker 3: it's not going to get, well, it's certainly not going
• 55:46
  Speaker 3: to get dates or relationships at volume. Right. It's, it's
• 55:52
  Speaker 3: just not, it's, you might as well call these apps
• 55:55
  Speaker 3: dating destruction apps.
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 55:57
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 55:58
  Speaker 1: They're totally behavior. Not good. Yeah.
• 56:01
  Speaker 3: It's yeah. But, but on the other hand, like my statistics,
• 56:04
  Speaker 3: like the work that I've done, shows that this behavior
• 56:07
  Speaker 3: in women well predates the dating apps.
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but I wonder if the dating apps make it worse.
• 56:14
  Speaker 3: I'm not even sure it makes it worse. It just
• 56:17
  Speaker 3: destroys what's left of our ability to form relationships.
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: What I'm saying is a woman who doesn't get five
• 56:26
  Speaker 1: matches a day because she's not on a dating app
• 56:31
  Speaker 1: might not have the same opinion of herself as a
• 56:33
  Speaker 1: woman who does. That's what I'm thinking about, right?
• 56:38
  Speaker 3: Well, yeah, that's entirely possible. Yeah, that's entirely possible. But
• 56:43
  Speaker 3: the point here is that she is experiencing this in
• 56:46
  Speaker 3: real time. She is experiencing the effect of hypergamy. And
• 56:52
  Speaker 3: she's blaming it on men. Although, honestly, men are probably just,
• 56:56
  Speaker 3: like you said, they're just playing a numbers game.
• 56:59
  Speaker 2: Which.
• 57:00
  Speaker 3: Unfortunately, if you're on the dating apps, you are destroying
• 57:03
  Speaker 3: your potential. You're destroying any potential for you to get
• 57:07
  Speaker 3: in a relationship at this point.
• 57:09
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 57:10
  Speaker 3: Because you're feeding the problem.
• 57:13
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 57:14
  Speaker 3: Right? You're feeding the problem. And the only way forward
• 57:22
  Speaker 3: is for men to starve the dating apps.
• 57:25
  Speaker 1: Just get the fuck off the dating apps. Agreed, 100%.
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: I don't think they should be on there anyways. I
• 57:30
  Speaker 1: don't think they're good.
• 57:31
  Speaker 3: And if you are, never, never give them a bit
• 57:34
  Speaker 3: of money. Because you're paying for the destruction of the
• 57:39
  Speaker 3: marriage market in the West. And I understand, like, it's
• 57:41
  Speaker 3: like getting off the dating apps is like giving up, right?
• 57:45
  Speaker 3: For men. But if you want to stay on the
• 57:48
  Speaker 3: dating apps, be more selective.
• 57:51
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 57:53
  Speaker 3: Don't gap max. Don't hunch down. Only go after women
• 57:58
  Speaker 3: who are within your level of attractiveness. But also the
• 58:05
  Speaker 3: dating apps by definition are going to be skewed because
• 58:08
  Speaker 3: men don't select as much on material income for women.
• 58:17
  Speaker 3: It's not like women are less picky about looks. It's
• 58:21
  Speaker 3: that they have more criteria to be picky about. Looks
• 58:25
  Speaker 3: is one of them. Income is another. And actually, it's
• 58:29
  Speaker 3: not even income. It's relative rank. So you're rank relative
• 58:33
  Speaker 3: to other men, which isn't even something you can really
• 58:36
  Speaker 3: display on a dating app. But anyway, it just the
• 58:41
  Speaker 3: entire structure of the I would agree with her here.
• 58:43
  Speaker 3: Dating apps do not make this better. However, she has experienced.
• 58:49
  Speaker 3: exactly what these men are experienced like she's experienced the
• 58:51
  Speaker 3: other half she gets way too much attention to the
• 58:56
  Speaker 3: point where a dating app is useless for her right
• 59:01
  Speaker 3: and um but on the other hand there are women
• 59:04
  Speaker 3: who say they have good experiences with dating apps, just
• 59:06
  Speaker 3: specifically women, when they go in with a mind to
• 59:09
  Speaker 3: actually date for a relationship. So I don't know. Maybe
• 59:14
  Speaker 3: she might be telling some porcupines about how she actually
• 59:17
  Speaker 3: structured her endeavor in the dating apps. But regardless, she
• 59:22
  Speaker 3: has proven what these men in the comments are saying.
• 59:25
  Speaker 3: They get nothing and women get too much. And part
• 59:31
  Speaker 3: of the reason is because of hypergamy. Men do not,
• 59:36
  Speaker 3: I mean, men aren't even, no longer even hypergamous when
• 59:38
  Speaker 3: it comes to women's looks. I don't think they ever were.
• 59:41
  Speaker 3: I think men expected to get a woman about as
• 59:43
  Speaker 3: attractive as they are, and they're fine with that, right?
• 59:48
  Speaker 3: And women want a man who is more attractive. They
• 59:51
  Speaker 3: want a man who's more accomplished. They want a man
• 59:53
  Speaker 3: who ranks higher relative to other men, right? They have
• 59:56
  Speaker 3: all of these criteria, which means they put less effort
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 3: into Into the average man. And that means relationships aren't forming.
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 3: But she has experienced this in her own life. And
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 3: then she turns around and says, no, it doesn't exist. Okay,
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 3: let's keep going.
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: All right. So that was the end of that time code,
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: I think. I want to say there's more. Do you
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: want to play more of this? Or go to the
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 1: next time code?
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 3: No, it's... No, I mean, I just want to point out, like,
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 3: it's just outrageous.
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, no, it's crazy.
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 3: The experience is exactly what these men are saying, and
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 3: then she turns around and mocks them for saying it.
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 1: Yep. All right, we're going to go to 545. I'm sorry,
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 1: go ahead.
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 3: No, no, take it away.
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 4: There's really interesting research out of Princeton that builds on
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 4: these results. And it finds that these preferences actually shrink.
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 3: Under two conditions.
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: Did we go through this one already? I think we did.
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah, we did. I did go through this. This is
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 3: actually a Melbourne study. And it's the hypothetical society survey.
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 3: We can do it again. I just jumped around a
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 3: bit with my sources.
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 1: I think we already covered it. So I'm going to
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: jump ahead of this bit here. Okay. So let's see.
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 1: I'll just go there.
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 4: Mary, the results paint a similarly forgiving picture. In 45%
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 4: of marriages, so nearly half, wives are now earning just
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 4: as much or more than their husbands. The share of
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 4: breadwinner husbands has declined from 85% in 1972 to 55% today.
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 4: So we see that while women say they prefer to
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 4: have a partner who earns more than they do, these
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 4: preferences shrink as they start to earn more money. In practice,
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 4: women are increasingly marrying men who don't make more than
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 4: they do. Important clarification here.
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 3: No, that's true. That is 100% true. But the thing
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 3: is that, and again, this is what goes back to
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 3: my criticism of Home Math's chart being optimistic. It isn't,
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 3: and why I call this Hyperbolegomy. Women are earning more,
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 3: but their expectation that men rank relative to other men
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 3: higher is increasing. This isn't resulting in men earning more.
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 3: In fact, it's resulting in men's wages stagnating. So it's
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 3: not actually, it's not improving quote unquote men. It's not
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 3: improving society, but it's still an expectation that women have.
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 3: So women are choosing a society in which they work
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 3: more and even work more than their partner or at
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 3: least earn more than their partner in order to pursue
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 3: this status game. If you can believe it. Right. But
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 3: they are still marrying men who have or have a
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 3: higher relative income rank relative to the men around them.
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 3: And this is making our society worse. And it's making
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 3: it's not improving men. It's not creating a situation where
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 3: women get to stay at home or whatever else, or
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 3: the men are primary providers. It's just making everybody worse off.
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 3: I don't know if I conveyed this accurately, but she's right.
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 3: It's not income, guys. It's your income relative to the
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 3: men around you. which in the end of the day
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 3: has nothing to do with the benefit for the material,
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 3: her own material benefit, ironically, has nothing to do with
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 3: her own material benefit, the material benefit of household, the
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 3: material benefit of potential children, which, you know, that's not
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 3: going to happen, whatever, right? It has nothing to do
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 3: with that. It is a zero sum, even a negative
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 3: sum game between women in which they are fighting over
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 3: the highest ranking men or a relative ranking men To
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 3: the detriment of everyone. Including themselves. And their own households.
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 3: And their own children if they have them.
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 3: This is basically our society. We're watching women destroy society.
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 3: And make everything worse. And even their own lives worse.
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 3: Because they can't stand the thought. That another woman gets
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 3: something they didn't. So yeah. She's right. It's not about income.
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 3: It's about. Men's relative rank. And because it's about men's
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 3: relative rank, it improves nothing. You could say that hypergamy
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 3: is a spur for men to earn more, right?
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 1: Maybe.
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 4: You know?
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 3: But this is not a spur. Because there's no way
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 3: all men can be the top 10% of men. And
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 3: even if men get worse, like if men earn less,
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 3: progressively less, over time, there still remains a top 10%, Brian.
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 3: Even if in 2050, that top 10% of men, you're
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 3: fighting over men who have almost no income because of
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 3: the degradation of society as a result of this competition
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 3: between women. Doesn't matter. You're just after the top 10%.
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 3: Whether or not the top 10% is measured in... I
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 3: don't know. Top 10% is measured in rocks or convertibles.
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 3: It doesn't matter. Because of that, you're destroying society for
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 3: this conflict. I don't know if this is coming through. No,
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 3: it is. Basically, what I'm saying is hypergamy is probably
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 3: more social than what women are actually doing.
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:05:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 1: I see.
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 3: Which is destroying everything because they can't stand the thought
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 3: of a woman getting more, another woman getting more than
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 3: they did. All right, let's keep going.
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 1: All right. So this is the immigrant sex ratio study.
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 1: So she's going to talk about.
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 4: Anyway, right. If these claims were true, it would also
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 4: mean that when there were more men available in the
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 4: dating pool. that we'd expect to see higher rates of
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 4: switching and more fragile relationships. An excess of men means
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 4: more potential encounters with men more attractive than someone a
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 4: woman might be with, and therefore more chances for her
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 4: to trade up. And there's a great study that tracked
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 4: exactly this. So it looked at the relationship and financial
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 4: outcomes of various immigrant groups as they settled in America
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 4: based on their male to female ratios, which changed as
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 4: more people immigrated to the States. And their idea was
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 4: that since these groups usually marry within their own ethnic communities,
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 4: these ratios will affect the availability of partners and how
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 4: easy it is for people to leave and start new relationships.
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 4: And what they actually saw in this data was the
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 4: opposite of what the social media theory of hypergamy would
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 4: have predicted. What this research found was that when there
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 4: were more men than women, marriages were more common, more stable,
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 4: and families made more money. On the flip side, when
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 4: there were fewer men and more women, marriages were less likely,
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 4: the ones that happened were more likely to end in divorce,
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 4: and families earned less.
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 1: And since Is she implying that men are to blame
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 1: for that? Of course so. All right. There's another minute
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 1: left in this clip.
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 3: Do you want me to respond to this?
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 1: Let's finish. Do you want to say something now?
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 3: Yes, I can say something now.
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 3: Because if she moves off the immigrant sex ratio study,
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 3: first of all, what she means is that women had
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 3: basically their pick of the litter. And this doesn't discredit hypergamy.
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 3: Because if you're allowing every woman to indulge in hypergamy,
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 3: because every woman has her pick of a litter, and
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 3: you get more stable marriages, that's almost proof, or at
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 3: least suggestive, of hypergamy being a force that reflects in
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 3: women's choices. So I'm not even sure what she thinks
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 3: this immigrant study really shows, but it certainly doesn't support
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 3: her point. So continue. That's all I wanted to say.
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 4: These ratios were naturally changing within the same communities, The
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 4: researchers were able to establish a causal link between gender
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 4: ratios and relationship outcomes. They explained the differences through this
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 4: idea of bargaining power. When men had more potential partners available,
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 4: they held more bargaining power and then were less likely
• 1:08:10
  Speaker 4: to invest in long-term marriages and family. When the opposite
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 4: was true, when women had more options, they were more
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 4: likely to maintain long-term stable relationships. So the verdict here is.
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 3: That women do prefer- Are you, are you, okay, what
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 3: the hell?
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 1: Oh God.
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 3: Motivated reasoning, everyone. Because when- Marriage was supposedly easier for
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 3: men to end. Like when divorce was supposedly easier for
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 3: men to get, divorce was at 1%. And then when
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 3: it became easier for women to get, it's at like 50, right?
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 3: So the assumption here is that women create stable partnerships, right?
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 3: And men don't. Whereas consider the societies that have fewer men.
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 3: and what usually happens in them and why. like when
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 3: there's a substantial deficit of men i can tell you
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 3: the particular context that that occurs in for example in
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 3: the 1860s the 80s onward a little bit onward in
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 3: southern states there was a deficit of men you want
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 3: to know why because they died as a result of
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 3: civil war If you're going to then look at that
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 3: and say, oh, society was less stable. Marriages were less stable. Well,
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 3: what about the context? You're recovering after a war. You know,
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 3: another time there was a deficit of men. I believe
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 3: there was one post-World War I. It was pretty significant
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 3: in Russia. And then post-World War II in Europe. You
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 3: know why? Because a bunch of men died in war.
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 3: And then these researchers are like, oh, this must mean
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 3: that women make things. No. Like when women have more choices,
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 3: things become stable. No, because there's a strong correlation between
• 1:09:53
  Speaker 3: low populations of men and post-war societies where everything is unstable. Now,
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 3: did these researchers actually control for that? I would have
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 3: to look. But this would be my concern. And I'm
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 3: putting it out there without having looked. because I've seen
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 3: this over and over and over again. Researchers have a
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 3: bias to make everything men's fault and women blameless and
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 3: a benefit to everyone for existing. I'm just going to
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 3: lay that out there. And that blind spot occurs over
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 3: and over and over and over again in the research
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 3: and corrupts it. And it corrupts it. Like I remember
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 3: a while back, Brian, you saying that, that feminism, you know,
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 3: people will reference feminist stuff and feminists aren't just Don't
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 3: just keep themselves to feminism. They leak out everywhere. It's
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 3: like a slow toxin in your groundwater. They leak out everywhere.
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 3: They get into everything. And they corrupt everything with their nonsense.
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 3: But yeah, you mentioned that other scientists would rely on
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 3: feminist conjecture. They do that, yes. I've seen this. I've
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 3: witnessed this. But the other scientists not only just rely
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 3: on feminist conjecture, they have their own biases for women.
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 3: They might be unborn, like the gamma bias. The idea
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 3: that if a study shows men in a positive light,
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 3: researchers downplay it. And people don't like it and they
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 3: think it's biased. But if it shows women in a
• 1:11:29
  Speaker 3: positive light, oh, ho, ho, you're going to get plenty
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 3: of grants and accolades and articles in the media. Because
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 3: everybody wants to see women in a positive light. Because
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 3: they're so wonderful. Except for me, apparently. I see them
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 3: as they are. And I'm not impressed. Okay, let's keep going.
• 1:11:54
  Speaker 1: Let's keep going. So there's still, this is 856, there's
• 1:11:57
  Speaker 1: still another 30 seconds left.
• 1:11:59
  Speaker 4: Refer to date men with greater financial potential. These preferences
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 4: decrease when they start to earn more and are in
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 4: environments with higher income equality. Marriage data backs this trend
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 4: up and shows that women are more flexible about finances
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 4: than they've ever been. When it comes to the social
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 4: media definition of hypergamy, the data doesn't support this theory
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 4: at all. It actually shows that when women have more
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 4: options in the dating market, we see couples forming more stable,
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 4: long-term relationships than when the opposite is true. More competition
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 4: among men tends to lead.
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 3: To stronger and more stable marriage. So when hypergamy is satisfied,
• 1:12:30
  Speaker 3: women form... And again, this is about immigrant communities in
• 1:12:34
  Speaker 3: the 1900s, like the early 20th century. The conditions that
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 3: apply then are not the conditions that apply now, my dear.
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 3: And I can show you the, I mean, it would
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 3: be a little bit awkward for me to give you
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 3: the graphs, but we had a fairly stable band of
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 3: marriages from about 1880 to 1980. In other words, men
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 3: and women married about 77 to 84% were married, currently married. Right.
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 3: Ever married is higher, but there's divorce and whatever. So
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 3: currently married hovered between 77 to 84 percent. That is
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 3: post-Civil War. That is post-Depression, post-crisis, like 1890, post-World War I,
• 1:13:20
  Speaker 3: the Depression, the post-World War II, even post-pill, post the
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 3: increase of women into the workplace. Even during the time
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 3: when women were like 40 percent of educated people, it
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 3: still sustained. And then something happened between 1975 and 1985,
• 1:13:35
  Speaker 3: and then we all went to hell. I'll leave it
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 3: as a conjecture of what actually happened, but that is
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 3: when you can date it, when everything changed. So if
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 3: you're talking about the immigration, the pairing of immigrant couples
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 3: in the early 20th century, that has nothing to do
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 3: with now. One, It doesn't prove what you're saying it proves.
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 3: If women have, well, immigrant women in the early 20th
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 3: century had access to many, many men, right? They had
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 3: their whatever desires fulfilled, they got a good deal, and
• 1:14:16
  Speaker 3: that resulted in some very stable marriages. Okay, that's great.
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 3: That's for immigrants in the early 20th century. That doesn't
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 3: hold now. That doesn't reflect women's behavior now, by definition.
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 3: If it did... women would still have the same rate
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 3: of marriage as they did in the early 20th century,
• 1:14:33
  Speaker 3: which they do not by definition. So everything she's saying here,
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 3: guess what, guys? It's wrong. It's not supported by her sources. Okay,
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 3: let's go. Let's do some more.
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 1: This is the next time code. Yeah, I know. It's painful.
• 1:14:51
  Speaker 1: This is about women initiating divorce 69% of the time.
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 4: After a researcher at Stanford found that 69% of divorces
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 4: are initiated by women, he pointed back to these imbalances
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 4: in household contributions as a likely contributor.
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 1: No.
• 1:15:07
  Speaker 4: Divorce is no joy, right?
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 2: No, no.
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: Of course, yeah. Are you white?
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 3: Yeah, a likely contributor.
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 1: They're just, okay, so divorce rates are high. Some guy says, oh,
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 1: this is because men aren't doing enough around the house.
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 1: And they're just like, yep, that's good enough. We're just
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 1: going to go with that. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Alison.
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 1: The unpaid labor of women, right?
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the unpaid labor of women. Yeah, that's not it.
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 3: I've done that particular research. I can't cite you studies
• 1:15:40
  Speaker 3: off the top of my head, but there is no
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 3: support for this claim. There's no support for this claim
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 3: that women doing more household chores causes more divorce. It's
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 3: once again a stated preference. It is a stated preference
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 3: that women want men to do more household chores.
• 1:15:57
  Speaker 1: Well, here, I'll just read this little. Let me finish. Oh,
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 2: Go ahead.
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 3: Let me finish. That is a stated preference, right? The
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 3: revealed preference is that if men take on more household chores,
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 3: that results in divorce and more likely divorce. Now, this
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 3: is in like the Nordic countries. And there's like there
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 3: are some studies that show no effect. But there's no
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 3: study that actually confirms, based on women's own behavior, that
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 3: increased chore load leads to divorce for women. That doesn't hold.
• 1:16:32
  Speaker 3: But go ahead, Brian.
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 1: Well, I was just going to read a little bit
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 1: from the study. She highlighted a couple of excerpts, but
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 1: I'll read a little bit more of it. As part
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 1: of the analysis, Rosenfeld, the person who, I guess, conducted this,
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 1: found that women initiated 69% of all divorces compared to
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 1: 31% for men. In contrast, there was not a statistically
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 1: significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by unmarried
• 1:16:57
  Speaker 1: women and men, regardless of whether they had been cohabitating
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 1: with their partner. So the difference in breakups is the same,
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 1: I guess, as divorces, right?
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 3: No, the difference in breakups... If you're going through the
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 3: family court, women are more likely.
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 1: To initiate a breakup. Yeah. So if it's just breakups. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, okay.
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: And then the difference here.
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 3: If you want me to interpret that, if you want
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 3: me to interpret that, the difference here is the presence
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 3: or absence of the government in the relationship. So if
• 1:17:35
  Speaker 3: the government is going to enforce not no fault divorce,
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 3: but let's face it, let's call it what it is,
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 3: man at fault divorce. If they're going to enforce it,
• 1:17:43
  Speaker 3: then women feel freer to end the relationship. But if
• 1:17:47
  Speaker 3: the relationship is not dictated by government terms, then both
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 3: parties end it at the same frequency. So that means that,
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 3: get this, family law is the distinguisher between these two behaviors.
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 3: All right, go ahead, Glenn.
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah. All right. This is quoting again from the... the
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 1: guy who conducted, or whoever conducted the study, Rosenfeld, women
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 1: seem to have a predominant role in initiating divorces in
• 1:18:16
  Speaker 1: the U.S., as far back as there is data from
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 1: a variety of sources. Back to the 1940s, Rosenfeld said,
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 1: I assumed, and I think other scholars assumed, that women's
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 1: role in breakups was an essential attribute of heterosexual relationships,
• 1:18:29
  Speaker 1: but it turns out that women's role in initiated breakups
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 1: is unique to heterosexual marriage. Perhaps women were more likely
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 1: to initiate divorces because, as Rosenfeld found, married women reported
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 1: lower levels of relationship quality than married men. In contrast,
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 1: women and men in non-marital relationships reported equal levels of
• 1:18:48
  Speaker 1: relationship quality. Rosenfeld said his results support the feminist assertion
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 1: that some women experience heterosexual marriage as oppressive or uncomfortable.
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 1: I think that marriage... Yeah, I think that marriage as an.
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 3: I'm just throwing that out there.
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah, just throwing that out there. Just throwing that out there.
• 1:19:05
  Speaker 3: Yep.
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 1: I think that marriage as an institution has been a
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: little bit slow to catch up with expectations for gender equality,
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 1: Rosenfeld said. Wives still take their husbands' surnames and are
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 1: sometimes pressured to do so. Husbands still expect their wives
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 1: to do the bulk of the housework and the bulk
• 1:19:22
  Speaker 1: of the childcare. On the other hand, I think that
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 1: non-marital relationships lack the historical baggage and expectations of marriage,
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 1: which makes the non-marital relationships more flexible and therefore more adaptable,
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 1: to modern expectations, including women's expectations for more gender equality.
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 1: So that's where, that's the, she doesn't say all that,
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 1: but this is, yes. And it also, again, there's a
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 1: lot of stuff baked, a lot of assumptions baked into this,
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: into this. So she's not going to address these things. Yeah,
• 1:19:53
  Speaker 1: go ahead.
• 1:19:55
  Speaker 3: Assumptions that are not likely actually supported. That's what I've noticed.
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 3: A lot of conclusions that a lot of these there,
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 3: they're basically just worth nothing. Yeah.
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 1: And he literally started by saying, I think that marriage,
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 1: you know, that's what he started with.
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 3: Everything after that, you can disregard. It doesn't matter what
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 3: he thinks. It doesn't matter what he's concluded. What matters
• 1:20:19
  Speaker 3: is what he's proven. Yeah.
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 1: I mean, assuming it's a man, I'm not sure this
• 1:20:23
  Speaker 1: is a man.
• 1:20:23
  Speaker 3: It's just, what she or he has proven is that
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 3: when the state gets involved female women feel more empowered
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 3: and relationships and also apparently when they have any kind
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 3: of expectation of commitments they feel less satisfied or something
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 3: i don't know if men were less satisfied in marriage
• 1:20:47
  Speaker 3: would we be like oh well that justifies them getting
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 3: divorced i don't think so okay let's let's go to
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 3: the next thing All right.
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 1: The next, well, I'm going to play the rest of
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 1: this thing. So, oh no, this is it. No, no,
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 1: it's not.
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 3: 30 seconds.
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 4: Yeah, but that's only because the men are told by
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 4: their lawyers not to bother fighting because they're not going
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 4: to win. So they don't because it would cost them
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 4: more money to fight for their kids.
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 1: And most of the time, men can't do it. So
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 1: they just don't. So this is not because men don't
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 1: want to raise children. But of course, she's not going
• 1:21:33
  Speaker 1: to say that. She's just going to say, well, they
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 1: work it out on their own time. So I guess
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: it's fine. Yeah, because of divorce lawyers, they're going to
• 1:21:42
  Speaker 1: tell the men, you know, if they're serving them, look, dude,
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 1: you're not going to get the kids. Just, I would
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 1: settle this out of court if possible. Because if you
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: get the court involved... You know, it might turn out
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: worse for you, but more than that, it's going to
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 1: cost you a shit ton of money. So.
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 4: In America, an astonishing 90% of parents settle without getting
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 4: the courts involved. Unfortunately, there isn't great data about what
• 1:22:04
  Speaker 4: happens in cases that are brought to a judge, though
• 1:22:07
  Speaker 4: a few findings suggest that men are more likely to
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 4: get custody in these kinds of scenarios.
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 3: No, they are not. What the hell are you talking about, lady?
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 1: Well, she said it suggests, Allison. She used the word suggests.
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 1: That means you can't question her because she's already said suggests, okay?
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 1: Plausible deniability is indestructible. You're just going to have to
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 1: accept it. She said suggests.
• 1:22:32
  Speaker 3: Okay. I'm going to have to pull from the general
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 3: pool of my research, guys. So don't expect quoted studies,
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 3: but you can find them based on the relative information. Okay.
• 1:22:43
  Speaker 3: The studies that I've seen that show that men... get custody,
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 3: and it is not more custody, it's about 50-50, first
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 3: of all, they are self-selected. So these are men who
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 3: generally have the resources to fight. Because if you're a man,
• 1:23:00
  Speaker 3: you're going to have to spend probably about $ 100, 000 to
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 3: get shared custody of your children. And if you aren't
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 3: prepared to spend that, if you aren't prepared to just
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 3: throw it down a hole, you're probably just going to
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 3: settle for what you can get. And incidentally, if you're
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 3: a guy who's in this position, there is one kind
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 3: of devilish trick that I have heard at least one
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 3: man pursue. Go for absolute full custody for your wife.
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 3: In other words, the children go to her full time
• 1:23:34
  Speaker 3: with no break. And the reason why he said do
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 3: this is because his ultimate aim was to get shared
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 3: custody If you make sure she has to take the
• 1:23:44
  Speaker 3: children 24-7, you prevent her from getting the option that
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 3: she does want, which is a babysitter every other weekend
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 3: and on Wednesdays. So if she has forced to take
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 3: the kids the entire time, eventually she will want to
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 3: get a relief from it. So if you force the
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 3: entire responsibility of children on your ex-wife, There's a good
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 3: possibility that she'll come to the table and say, hey,
• 1:24:14
  Speaker 3: can we get 50-50 just so I can get rid
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 3: of them before I strangle them with exercise cords? That
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 3: kind of thing. And you'll probably have a better deal
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 3: than giving her what she wants, which is a babysitter
• 1:24:27
  Speaker 3: every couple weeks instead. So that's just a little trick
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 3: you might want to try if you're dealing with that.
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 3: If you've got the balls to do it, because that
• 1:24:36
  Speaker 3: takes a lot of cojones. But anyway. But when you
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 3: actually look at the study, you look at the studies,
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 3: men who are seeking custody and gain it are self-selecting.
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 3: They have the resources. Or in another alternative situation, they
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 3: are often men who have been approached by Child Protective Services.
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 3: And Child Protective Services has essentially said, your ex is
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 3: going to kill her children. You need to pursue custody.
• 1:25:05
  Speaker 3: These are very different populations of men than the average
• 1:25:10
  Speaker 3: man who is in family court. Very different. On one hand,
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 3: they are populations that have significant resources, so they can
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 3: invest in getting custody. And on the other hand, they
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 3: are a population who are up against basically swamp witches. Right?
• 1:25:29
  Speaker 3: You know, women who CPS, which is like the bastion
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 3: of feminism, so you know it's got to be bad.
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 3: Like every time the childcare worker goes over, they see
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 3: the woman sharpening the knife over the crib.
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 3: And they're like, oh, we got to get this kid
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 3: to the father. And then the father goes to the
• 1:25:47
  Speaker 3: family court and goes in front of the judge. And
• 1:25:50
  Speaker 3: the judge says, maybe. And in that case, the father
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 3: is 50-50 likely to get custody. Because the judge is like, yeah,
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 3: I don't know if I want to get this away
• 1:26:01
  Speaker 3: from the mother.
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 2: Maybe.
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 3: So coin toss, he might get it 50% of the time.
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 3: That's when men get custody. And here's the other big
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 3: study or big evidence base that discredits her. If it
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 3: was men not fighting for their children, like men not
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 3: wanting their children, that leads to the outcomes. In shared
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 3: custody states, you wouldn't see a change. So there are
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 3: now more and more states that are enforcing shared custody
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 3: in family court. So if you go to, there's going
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 3: to be a presumption that both the man and the
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 3: woman are going to share custody, which is what it
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 3: should be right off the bat. But in those states,
• 1:26:52
  Speaker 3: there hasn't, like there has been an increase in men's custody.
• 1:26:57
  Speaker 3: They have almost equal custody in those states as per
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 3: If it was really men who didn't want custody of
• 1:27:07
  Speaker 3: their children that was driving the result in non-shared custody states,
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 3: then nothing would have changed by creating shared custody. The
• 1:27:16
  Speaker 3: men would have gone in and said, hey, I just
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 3: want every other weekend and Wednesdays. That's fine. And nothing
• 1:27:22
  Speaker 3: would have changed. But because the policy changed, there was
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 3: a huge change in outcomes.
• 1:27:27
  Speaker 2: Why?
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 3: Because it was never about what men wanted. It was
• 1:27:31
  Speaker 3: about what men could get, which this woman does not understand,
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 3: either when it comes to family court outcomes or the
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 3: dating market. All right, let's continue.
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 1: All right, this is the next time code. Let's see,
• 1:27:46
  Speaker 1: this is about marriage is getting harder to achieve. She's
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 1: trying to debunk that, okay?
• 1:27:53
  Speaker 4: The takeaway here is that marriage is still a goal
• 1:27:55
  Speaker 4: for many people, but it is getting harder to achieve.
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 4: And people are taking longer to do it. Women are
• 1:27:59
  Speaker 4: more hesitant of having kids than men are, likely driven
• 1:28:02
  Speaker 4: by a gap in caregiving expectations. But even after divorce, people... Oh, a.
• 1:28:06
  Speaker 1: Gap in caregiving expectations. So you see how she just
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 1: throws that in there? Like, oh yeah, women are hesitant
• 1:28:12
  Speaker 1: because men aren't stepping up. That's like, that's the implication.
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 1: Like just calling it a gap. Like that doesn't mean
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 1: that the woman's not stepping up. That means the man's
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 1: not stepping up, according to her anyways.
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 3: Or maybe women don't want children. They just want a
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 3: lifetime of fun and games.
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 2: Men?
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 3: Men are more inclined. No, women. Women.
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
• 1:28:34
  Speaker 3: No, no.
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 3: Is that left to their own devices? Women don't want children.
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 3: They just want to live in a perpetual Petropan utopia
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 3: where they have no obligations to anyone but themselves. That's
• 1:28:49
  Speaker 3: entirely possible too. Why take on responsibility for another living
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 3: being when you can just continue to play the field
• 1:28:58
  Speaker 3: go on coffee dates with your friends, enjoy your avocado
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 3: toast job, right? Maybe that's what's happening. Right? Women saw
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 3: an opportunity to shuck their responsibility to civilization and children,
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 3: and they took it. Like, it's always on men because
• 1:29:14
  Speaker 3: of this gap, right?
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, this is the Puella Eterna, which is a
• 1:29:24
  Speaker 1: Jungian term for A woman that refuses to mature. It's
• 1:29:30
  Speaker 1: basically like Peter Pan syndrome. Princess Pan is what they
• 1:29:34
  Speaker 1: call it.
• 1:29:34
  Speaker 3: Princess Pan syndrome.
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 1: Princess Pan syndrome.
• 1:29:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 1: It's Peter Pan for women.
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 3: So.
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 1:29:42
  Speaker 1: Okay. Let's keep going. Let me see. 1444. Okay. This is.
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 4: Shot and most end up getting married again.
• 1:29:49
  Speaker 1: Okay. This is the end of that clip. So let's do.
• 1:29:51
  Speaker 1: 16 to 25, two out of three men walk away
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 1: without a match. So here we go.
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 4: They can. Even in a world with absolutely perfect pairing,
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 4: two out of every three men on the apps would
• 1:30:04
  Speaker 4: still walk away without a match. That's 66%.
• 1:30:06
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's not even.
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 1: And of course. Yeah, go ahead.
• 1:30:09
  Speaker 3: That's not even, we're not even seeing that.
• 1:30:12
  Speaker 1: No, we're not even seeing that.
• 1:30:15
  Speaker 3: Most people now meet on apps, but apps are responsible
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 3: for a fraction, like a, They're not responsible for the
• 1:30:22
  Speaker 3: proportion of relationships they should be responsible for.
• 1:30:25
  Speaker 1: No, that's just on the dating apps. It's not really
• 1:30:30
  Speaker 1: reflective of reality. All right. So next, that was that one. 2040.
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 1: I think we did that one. Men are competing amongst themselves.
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 1: Rita won. Well, there's just one left. So let's do
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 1: that one. Because we already talked about her own app experience.
• 1:30:49
  Speaker 1: So 2214. Uh, this is, let's see, it's towards the end. Um, yeah,
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 1: here we go. And this is, uh, you'll exhaust yourself
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 1: looking in the wrong place. So this basically means men
• 1:31:04
  Speaker 1: have to adapt, right?
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 4: Especially true for men because the numbers, the design of
• 1:31:08
  Speaker 4: the apps, they do not work in your favor. There's
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 4: so many great people out there, men and women, but
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 4: all the noise really does make it harder to find.
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 3: It's not just the apps. The apps don't make it better.
• 1:31:18
  Speaker 3: In fact, they're probably like nails in the coffin. But
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 3: this behavior in women did not start in 2007 or
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 3: whenever the app started, or even with social media. It
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 3: started in the 80s. And it started in the 70s,
• 1:31:34
  Speaker 3: if you just look at people on the left. That's
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 3: when they got hit with whatever cancer this is. So
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 3: you can't explain the first 30 years of this monstrosity, lady.
• 1:31:50
  Speaker 3: by the apps, by the dating apps or social media.
• 1:31:55
  Speaker 3: So you're absolutely right, Brian, by saying, no, we should
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 3: not blame. They don't help, right? They seriously don't help.
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 3: They're probably contributing to the continuation of this problem.
• 1:32:07
  Speaker 1: Yes. Or they're skewing people's perception of things, right? I
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 1: think they're having more of a negative effect on women
• 1:32:16
  Speaker 1: because I think it's giving them an inflated sense of
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 1: their self-worth. I think that dating apps are a big
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: part of that.
• 1:32:24
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Anyway.
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 4: And you'll exhaust yourself looking in the wrong places and
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 4: in the wrong ways. So that was all for today.
• 1:32:32
  Speaker 4: Five theories.
• 1:32:32
  Speaker 1: Okay. So yeah, she's basically saying men are looking in
• 1:32:35
  Speaker 1: the wrong places or whatever. Yeah.
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 3: Men have to adapt. So women, women want the top
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 3: 10% of men. Men have to adapt. Okay. So I'm
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 3: going to just go through specifically the sources that contradict her. Okay,
• 1:32:52
  Speaker 3: so Zen Lee et al. 2019. Are sex differences and
• 1:32:55
  Speaker 3: preferences for physical attractiveness and good earning capacity and potential
• 1:32:59
  Speaker 3: mates smaller in countries with greater gender equality? All right,
• 1:33:03
  Speaker 3: the conclusion without the jargon is if a country pursues
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 3: quote-unquote gender equality, does it reduce the norms around a
• 1:33:12
  Speaker 3: relationship formation? Do women no longer want rich, attractive men?
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 3: And the answer is no. No, they still continue to
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 3: want them. 36 countries. Little evidence that the sex difference
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 3: shrinks with gender equality. The one suggestive earning capacity result
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 3: wasn't significant after controlling for a problem of that or
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 3: correcting for multiple comparisons. Directly contradicts the cultural literature that
• 1:33:40
  Speaker 3: Murphy et al., which is one of her sources, leans on.
• 1:33:44
  Speaker 3: The Institute for Family Studies. Women still marry up, but
• 1:33:47
  Speaker 3: the income gap is narrowing. Now, the answer to this
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 3: is my research, because they are noticing this contradiction. Women
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 3: are earning more, right? But they're even pickier.
• 1:33:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah, their standards are only going up because of it.
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 3: Their standards are only going up. However, what isn't happening
• 1:34:07
  Speaker 3: is that they're getting access to more men with greater incomes.
• 1:34:12
  Speaker 3: So the question is, what is actually happening? So they're
• 1:34:16
  Speaker 3: getting pickier. But the situation isn't improving in terms of
• 1:34:20
  Speaker 3: men's income. Well, because men earn, you know, like the
• 1:34:26
  Speaker 3: top 10 percentile of men is always the top 10 percentile.
• 1:34:30
  Speaker 3: So what's actually happening is women aren't selecting on income.
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 3: They're selecting on relative rank. That's where my research sort
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 3: of fills in the gap. So and again, it's not
• 1:34:41
  Speaker 3: women marrying up because like plain hypergamy wouldn't be this
• 1:34:46
  Speaker 3: big of a problem. Because a woman wanting a man
• 1:34:50
  Speaker 3: who earns more, well, that's a huge pool of men.
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 3: So if she's actually looking for a man who's better
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 3: than she is, that's a huge pool of men. Should
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 3: be easily satisfied, right, guys? That's not what's happening. She
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 3: wants a man who is better than other men. Her
• 1:35:09
  Speaker 3: reference point is not herself. It's other men. Your rank
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 3: relative to other men. That is not exactly hypergamy. It's
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 3: something like it, but worse. All right, so women still
• 1:35:24
  Speaker 3: marry up, but the income gap is narrowing. 63% of
• 1:35:28
  Speaker 3: recently married young women were out-earned by their husbands in 2023,
• 1:35:33
  Speaker 3: but this has barely changed from 66% in 2009. So yes,
• 1:35:39
  Speaker 3: they're narrowing, but women are still expecting men to earn more.
• 1:35:46
  Speaker 3: it's not changing that much.
• 1:35:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 3: They're expecting men to earn more than themselves. And they're
• 1:35:51
  Speaker 3: expecting men to earn more than the other men around them.
• 1:35:54
  Speaker 3: All right. Quan 2016 journal of marriage and family. Women
• 1:35:58
  Speaker 3: kept marrying up and income, even as they overtook men
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 3: in education. Strongest where the wife had more education. Golden
• 1:36:07
  Speaker 3: pastorman 2002 waiting for Mr. Right rising inequality and declining
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 3: marriage rates. Women search longer for a husband in cities
• 1:36:14
  Speaker 3: with higher male wage inequality. Rising male inequality explains about
• 1:36:19
  Speaker 3: 30% of the decline in women's marriage rates. And that
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 3: fits my rank argument. Because when there's more spread among men,
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 3: there are fewer eligible men. Because again, it's not about income.
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 3: It's about a man who earns more If you're a
• 1:36:37
  Speaker 3: liberal woman in an urban center, you want a man
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 3: who earns more than 76% of the other men around him.
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 1:36:46
  Speaker 3: That's not about his income because it doesn't matter. It
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 3: doesn't like if you are in Missouri and that man earns,
• 1:36:56
  Speaker 3: I don't know, 80,000 and that puts him above like
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 3: 76% of other men. That's fine. That's good. If you're
• 1:37:05
  Speaker 3: in Seattle and controlling for cost of living, that man
• 1:37:09
  Speaker 3: has to earn $ 120, 000 to be above 76% of the
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 3: men around him. But it doesn't matter. The relative income
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 3: and what you can earn doesn't matter. Sorry, the amount,
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 3: the absolute amount of income and what the man earns
• 1:37:24
  Speaker 3: is not the dividing point. It's the fact that he's
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 3: at 76%. And that man in Missouri will marry at 80,000,
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 3: will marry at the same rate as the man at
• 1:37:37
  Speaker 3: Seattle at 120,000 and both in the control for cost
• 1:37:41
  Speaker 3: of living. So their income control for cost of living,
• 1:37:44
  Speaker 3: it is rank. Women are somehow figuring out how good
• 1:37:51
  Speaker 3: you are relative to other men around you. And they're
• 1:37:53
  Speaker 3: selecting based on that. And every year after year after year,
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 3: they're selecting higher. So for in, I don't know, the 70s,
• 1:38:02
  Speaker 3: a liberal woman might expect you to a liberal man
• 1:38:05
  Speaker 3: to out earn 32 percent of every man around him.
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 3: Now it's 76 percent. It just keeps going up every year.
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 3: It just keeps marching up until nobody is married. Like
• 1:38:19
  Speaker 3: I've done the projection in like 2070. The average man
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 3: today making 600,000, so in the 99th percentile, will not
• 1:38:30
  Speaker 3: be married in 2070. His marriage rate will be something
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 3: like 25%. Think about that. In 2070, the top 1%
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 3: of men will not be sufficient because of this disease
• 1:38:46
  Speaker 3: in women. I call it a disease because it is destroyed.
• 1:38:53
  Speaker 3: Like if you had a female animal that had something
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 3: wrong with it to the point where it was no
• 1:38:58
  Speaker 3: longer pairing up and mating and producing children, there's something
• 1:39:04
  Speaker 3: going on that is symptomatic of some devastating disease, devastating problem.
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 3: It could be a illness induced by the environment. It
• 1:39:15
  Speaker 3: could be like a virus caught, whatever. There is a problem.
• 1:39:19
  Speaker 3: And it is in women. If this problem had cropped up,
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 3: if this had burst out of any other civilization, possibly
• 1:39:30
  Speaker 3: maybe it happened in the Bronze Age. If it had burst,
• 1:39:33
  Speaker 3: like this disease had burst up in any other civilization,
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 3: at any point throughout our evolutionary history, we wouldn't be here.
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:39:43
  Speaker 3: And it's coming from women. All right.
• 1:39:48
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:39:48
  Speaker 3: Literature and price census, 20 million married couples. Unmarried women
• 1:39:54
  Speaker 3: are looking for husbands with incomes roughly two thirds higher
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 3: than the available men offer. And again, this is focusing
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 3: on income. I guarantee that it would fit a lot
• 1:40:03
  Speaker 3: more solidly if these people looked at rank. And a
• 1:40:10
  Speaker 3: lot of the question over this would be would be
• 1:40:12
  Speaker 3: resolved by looking at rank instead of income. All right,
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 3: so yeah. I just wanted to say that this woman
• 1:40:22
  Speaker 3: is full of shit. She's not a researcher. She's not informed.
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 3: There was all kinds of evidence to counter her hypothesis
• 1:40:31
  Speaker 3: other than the stuff that she chose, which was cherry
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 3: picked to present the strongest case she could. And the absurdity,
• 1:40:40
  Speaker 3: the absolute absurdity is to take a qualitative study done
• 1:40:46
  Speaker 3: by a lay researcher, a blogger, in 2015, and used
• 1:40:53
  Speaker 3: that as the seminal work to discredit on the issue
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 3: of women marrying up. When you could look at all
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 3: of the studies, all of the demographic studies on women's
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 3: behavior throughout the world, the fact that the number one
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 3: predictor of divorce is a man losing his job. All
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 3: of this discredits her. Or could falsify her hypothesis. But
• 1:41:21
  Speaker 3: notice she didn't engage with it. Yeah. Not to mention, like, she's... Well,
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 3: let's just say that she's not on the level of
• 1:41:30
  Speaker 3: doing regression analysis, the GSS, the ACS, IPUMES, the census, microdata,
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 3: and all that other crap that I'm doing. Get on
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 3: my level, scrub. All right. That's all I have to say.
• 1:41:44
  Speaker 1: All right. Well, we should, I mean, that's it. That's
• 1:41:47
  Speaker 1: the video. So we should probably wrap.
• 1:41:49
  Speaker 3: It up then.
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 3: Indeed. And look at this. Precisely on time. Yeah. Slide
• 1:41:56
  Speaker 3: in right under the gate. Okay. So if you would
• 1:42:00
  Speaker 3: like to send us a message, I'm probably going to
• 1:42:04
  Speaker 3: post my resource, my resource, my citation in the discord
• 1:42:11
  Speaker 3: at badger nation dot online, which, which you can find
• 1:42:15
  Speaker 3: all of my references there too. If you'd like to
• 1:42:19
  Speaker 3: join us, that's badgernation.online. If you would like to send
• 1:42:22
  Speaker 3: us a comment, that's feedthebadger.com slash justthetip. Very much appreciated
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 3: if you would do so. I'd like to hear your
• 1:42:30
  Speaker 3: comments on this. Guy's got really feisty in her comments,
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 3: but perhaps you have something to tell us as well.
• 1:42:38
  Speaker 3: That's feedthebadger.com slash justthetip. Do we not get any comments?
• 1:42:41
  Speaker 1: No, no super chats or anything. No, no. I mean,
• 1:42:44
  Speaker 1: there's people watching.
• 1:42:45
  Speaker 3: What are you guys doing?
• 1:42:47
  Speaker 1: They're watching, but yeah.
• 1:42:49
  Speaker 3: Okay, feedthebadger.com slash just the tip. Send something in. Is
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 3: this an issue with the blog?
• 1:42:56
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 3: Are the voles stuck in the tubes?
• 1:43:00
  Speaker 1: I don't know, but I got to go. So I'm
• 1:43:04
  Speaker 1: going to end it here. We'll follow up. I guess
• 1:43:08
  Speaker 1: we're doing something on Sunday, maybe. but uh we're gonna
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 1: head out yeah oh i thought you did okay go
• 1:43:15
  Speaker 1: ahead no no i.
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 3: Just said okay send all your comments to feed the badger.com
• 1:43:18
  Speaker 3: slash just the tip and if you'd like to support
• 1:43:21
  Speaker 3: the show it's feed the badger.com uh slash support it's
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 3: also you can also get there by feed the badger.com
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 3: and yeah handing it to you brian to.
• 1:43:31
  Speaker 1: Take all right well if you guys like this video
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 1: please hit like subscribe if you're not already subscribed Hit
• 1:43:36
  Speaker 1: the bell for notifications. Leave us a comment. Let us
• 1:43:38
  Speaker 1: know what you guys think about what we talked about
• 1:43:39
  Speaker 1: on the show today and share the video because sharing
• 1:43:41
  Speaker 1: is caring. Thanks so much for coming on this episode
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 1: of Maintaining Frame and we'll talk to you guys in
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 1: the next one. Have a good weekend, everybody.