Post: #1

MarketWatch came out with this story a few days ago, and it's now the lead story on their front page for the weekend.

But it doesn't concern me much what MarketWatch is doing. It concerns me what they're *not* doing. And what they didn't do while they were researching this biased piece of feminist crap is what they're supposed to do: Watch the market.

Over the past two weeks, the price of gold has spiked considerably. Had I gotten some warning about this, I could have added to my position in several gold-related stocks and made a considerable amount of money. I rely on Web sites like MarketWatch to warn me about these things. They didn't. They were busy, I guess.

Why am I telling you this? Because besides being a (shitty) reality, it's also a metaphor. When you see companies spewing out the latest in vagina-vomit, wonder instead what they might be missing while they're pandering to pussy.

I can't be bothered to comment on this cliche-fest of an article. You all "interpret" it if you want. I'm too busy trying to figure out which sector of the market might spike next, since MarketWatch clearly isn't in the business of market watching anymore.

***

A new study suggests men might not want to date women who are smarter than them

By Catey Hill

Men, do smart women threaten your masculinity? A new study suggests they might — and that you might not want to date them because of it.

While men say they like the idea of dating a woman who’s smarter than they are, when it comes time to meet her, they’re less keen on the brainy lady, a study that will be published in the November journal “Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin” reveals.

In the first part of the study, researchers had 105 male participants read a hypothetical scenario about a woman who, among other traits, had either outperformed the male subject or underperformed him in a math or English course; the men were then asked to imagine how desirable that person might be as a romantic partner.

In this scenario, “men formed favorable impressions and showed greater interest in women who displayed more (versus less) intelligence than themselves.” (Research out this year supports the notion that men say intelligence is very important to them in a romantic partner.)

But in the second part of the study — where the men were told they would meet a woman in person — a woman’s intelligence worked against her. The participants took what they thought was an intelligence test, and were told that they would soon be meeting someone who had either scored better or worse than them on the test.

Faced with actually meeting a female who was smarter than they were, the men “distanced themselves more from her, tended to rate her as less attractive, and showed less desire to exchange contact information or plan a date with her,” the study revealed. (Similarly, a study published in the “Quarterly Journal of Economics,” which looked at people who were speed dating, found that “men do not value women’s intelligence or ambition when it exceeds their own,” though in this case it was ambition that significantly turned them off from a woman.)

Put simply: In a hypothetical scenario (one in which the man will never meet the woman), men showed greater attraction toward a woman who was smarter than them, but when they are faced with actually meeting a more intelligent woman, they showed less attraction and desire to date her.

The reason, the researchers conclude, has to do with threats to masculinity (which are far more acute when the man actually has to meet the woman versus when this woman is merely a hypothetical concept). “Feelings of diminished masculinity accounted for men’s decreased attraction toward women who outperformed them in the live interaction context,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers (as they often do in these kinds of studies) cautioned that more research was needed to further confirm that conclusion. And, of course, this preference for less-intelligent women in real life could be due to other factors. As the authors in the study published in “Quarterly Journal of Economics” note, “men’s avoidance of more intelligent or ambitious women could be due to fear of rejection by these higher quality women.”

Plenty of men aren’t threatened by a woman’s intelligence, and this study didn’t look at what would happen if a man was in a relationship with a woman more intelligent than he was.

MarketWatch asked psychologists about how men can overcome bias (if they have it) against smart women.

First, “remember that each of you has many positive attributes,” says psychologist Elizabeth Lombardo, author of Better Than Perfect: 7 Strategies to Crush your Inner Critic and Create a Life You Love. “Focus on appreciating her strengths, including her intelligence [and] stop comparing yourself to her.” Furthermore, you should “realize that this is an issue with your own self-esteem, not the fact that she is smart.”

Psychology professor Lora Park, one of the co-authors of the study, says that men who are threatened by a woman’s intelligence may want to improve their own performance in the future (in other words, work on boosting their intelligence) or “focus on other areas of your self-concept that may be important to you.” Lombardo agrees: “Take steps to boost your self-worth by focusing on your own values, strengths and contributions to others.”

Post: #2

A bit of spin and engineering going on in the article, in my opinion.

For one thing, the author equates "intelligence" in a woman with "higher value." Not necessarily so.

RVF readers will recognize instantly that men have rarely (if ever) been attracted to erudition in a female. Rather, men are attracted to feminine qualities.

Men do not want to marry bookworms or lab experts. No amount of media spin will change this. Men want feminine women who will fulfill the tasks of child bearing, rearing, and nurturing that their gender mandates.

Since there are so few of such women left in America, the propaganda offensive is now focusing on trying to trick men into loving fat, ugly bookworms, dorky lab rats, and maladjusted, tattooed female freaks.

Caveat emptor.

Post: #3

Quote:By Catey Hill

Stopped reading after that.



Would Bang While Ignoring Article

Post: #4

Erudition/education is one positive attribute, but not the most important one. Character and physical attraction are more important.

Post: #5

Author's first name is Catey. That's all you should have needed to realize the article wasn't worth reading.

That's pretty much my default. Doesn't matter the topic, once I see it was written by a bitch I move on. Sure, there must be some female journalist worth reading but the probability of any random female-written article being worth reading is so low that it's not worth the effort.

Post: #6

(10-17-2015 05:29 PM)TheNookieMonster Wrote:  Author's first name is Catey. That's all you should have needed to realize the article wasn't worth reading.

That's pretty much my default. Doesn't matter the topic, once I see it was written by a bitch I move on. Sure, there must be some female journalist worth reading but the probability of any random female-written article being worth reading is so low that it's not worth the effort.

Post: #7

False conclusion in the first sentence, followed by venting of stock standard feminist spew.

The sensation isn't one of threat, its one of non-attraction. Its a relay of being discerning, not afraid.

A woman can be smart, that makes her potentially a good employee, but means nothing in terms of a mating option.

Then when said smart woman has forfeited charm, femininity and social skills acquiring 'smarts', she then becomes a negative in terms of mate selection.

So in terms of a successful male who is a law of finance partner, she's the sort you leave in the office until 11pm night after night to do work on your clients needs.

The thin 22 yo waitress is what you opt to work on the needs of your cock.

"..blah, blah, blah.. threat...", no you just don't bring anything to the table, not what we want anyway.

This article brings to light two feminist mantras and a biological reality.

The first mantra is the falsehood of gender equality. Feminists believe that as we are entirely equal, that we must have the same desires and mating signals. The narcissism of feminism also means any deviation from equal desires is a culturally conditioned defect in the part of men.

The second mantra is that it implants the theme that men are in constant fear of women, and shapes the inverse, when men are afraid of women it's because they're smart.

So when a repulsive typist like Lindy West senselessly abuses the English language with idiotic conclusions, juvenile syntax and caps galore, the cultural zeitgeist plants the narrative is that we're afraid of her intelligence. The onus is then on others to dispel this.

The biological reality relates back to attraction. Get a room full of adolescent boys and ask them how many aspire to create so much wealth that they can have their spouse not work. Nearly every boy will say yes, they think this is a noble outcome.

Ask the same question of girls, and they will recoil in horror. They are repulsed by being a provider.

Both genders instinctively know this, there's no point in desiring a female provider as she hates being one. Hence back to men and their attraction. We never evolved into desiring provision from women when it would have been maladjusted to do so.

Yet this shows the anti-nature views of feminists. The default view of attraction should be attraction to a provider, they are attracted to it and equality hey, men should be too. As I said before, if men deviate from this, its something defective in them.

Point and laugh. Real misogyny is rare, misandry us what us widespread. Men's views and desires are dismissed so often that they have no inkling what men desire, or dismiss it as illegitimate or decadent if they don't agree with it

Post: #8

I've been on dates with women who hold degrees and in certain cases, Masters and PHDs. Under no condition was I there for her brain or knowledge. I found it slightly interesting we could discuss things but really they're just regular girls with a really high opinion of themselves.

You got to ask yourself if dealing with a woman who can become an insta-cunt over any subject is worth your time. They become incredibly hard-bitten and manlike as time goes on I find. Look at smart women who are average looking at best and talk with them for an extended amount of time but then imagine yourself in a relationship. No thanks.

Post: #9

My masculinity isn't threatened by 'intelligent' women in the slightest.

I see it as pure risk assessment. The 'Intelligent' women I've crossed paths with all have these factors in common:

- a lessened interest in children or motherhood; <- correlates with intelligence
- a youthful lust for personal power followed by desperate late-30's / early-40's baby rabies;
- a greater chance of raising dysfunctional children through progressive ideas;
- an increased likelihood of justifying aborting our child in the womb.

So all they're offering is:

- indifference to children in the name of personal power;
- the heartbreak, expense and drama of IVF treatment; <- I'm at that age where all women my age do is share their horror stories
- the likelihood of a special needs child due to advanced maternal age;
- a rampaging sloot of a daughter or an effeminate, sexually-confused son; <- this is the progressive norm. I have the sloot notches to prove it
- at worst, murder

I'll pass.

Post: #10

It's a clever reframe on their part.

The truth is, being smart is not an attractive feature in women. The smarter a woman gets, the more she talks, thinks, and oftentimes acts like a man. Intelligence is predominantly a masculine trait.

If this article is urging women not to marry men who are dumber than they are it can't be too terribly difficult considering smart men (+2 SD above mean in IQ) outnumber smart women something like six to one.

Post: #11

The men and women were different in both trials correct? Why was there no mention of how attractive they were. They could have out 7 and up in the first with 5 and below in the second to skew the results quite easily.

Post: #12

(10-17-2015 07:02 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  The men and women were different in both trials correct? Why was there no mention of how attractive they were. They could have out 7 and up in the first with 5 and below in the second to skew the results quite easily.

My thoughts exactly. It would have to be the exact same woman every time, same outfit, same makeup, same mood she's in etc to even remotely resemble a scientific study.

Post: #13

Science says:
Intelligence is positively correlated with earnings potential. (Smart people make more money.)
Relationships in which the woman earns more money are more likely to end up in divorce.
Divorce means you're likely to have fewer kids, and the kids you do have will be less successful.
Because you're having fewer and less successful kids, your genetic line is more likely to die out.

Ergo, natural selection says that men should not date women who are smarter than them. If you disagree you hate science.

Post: #14

(10-17-2015 06:46 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  My masculinity isn't threatened by 'intelligent' women in the slightest.
I see it as pure risk assessment. The 'Intelligent' women I've crossed paths with all have these factors in common:

Ill give you mine, as having spent an inordinate amount of time(years) with these types of woman.

In short: these girls just have a fantasy of wearing the pants. Most likely due to divorce, a successful dad who left an insufferable mother. That's what I am 'intimidated' by, a walking unfeminine train wreck trying to live out her revenge scenario against her weak mother. The mother likely a victim of 60's & 70's you go-girlism.

They fall in love hard just like any other girl, maybe harder. And are highly receptive to game. As if they have never seen it before. Truthfully they are good for sex. Hotel bar sex could easily replace Tinder for many of you.

They have the cuck fantasy played out in their heads, since their teenage anti-nuke rally's they organized while working at the school newspaper. They want cucks, dumb men, "men good with their hands", potential stay at home dads, and men in general they will out-earn or easily manipulate and control. Men who fantasize about marriage and 'the one'. These are the easiest marks.

The other day I realized I got with most of these women because it impressed my friends at the time. It wasn't about what made me happy. I bought in to a lot of it.

Post: #15

Vaun, welcome to the fold brother. You never have to go back.

Post: #16

You look to Marketwatch to tell you when gold is going to spike?

Post: #17

(10-17-2015 05:22 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  A bit of spin and engineering going on in the article, in my opinion.

For one thing, the author equates "intelligence" in a woman with "higher value." Not necessarily so.

Well stated. I learned the hard way in my early years that it's great for her if a woman is "intelligent" (I prefer it in fact), but it also doesn't mean jack shit if she doesn't have a pleasant, compassionate personality to go along with it.

Post: #18

(10-17-2015 09:11 PM)TornadoByProxy Wrote:  You look to Marketwatch to tell you when gold is going to spike?

Good point.

You SHOULD be looking to hear it from the one forecaster who accurately predicted that it would fall below 1200

Post: #19

Men don't mind smart women. Plenty of smart men out there who would appreciate having a life partner who could keep up with them in a conversation.

Unfortunately, most women are, at best, stupid-smart.

Smart enough to have an opinion, too stupid to realize how dumb it sounds.

Smart women are simply less willing to accept rational critiques of their emotion driven behavior masquerading as intelligent thought.

Post: #20

Newsflash is that the smart women notice their value early and lock down a successful man and have kids as soon as they can. They are not in the labour pen rotting away like the rest. The establishment igonres these women and femensits shun them for making their own choice to go the route of the classic traditional ways.

The common theme with young mothers I know who built a family young is that all are well off for the most part now, all are very plesent, great mothers, and nice. Though none have more than a 2-year diploma, none, of them seem any less smart then any other women I encounter who come from more "successful" settings with full education, legit jobs, etc.

If these girls cares they could memorize the same junk for whatever lofty program women like to take in school, but to them there is no point. All that time takes them away from thier kids and they would rather just work part-time and do stuff like sell Avon or some shit and be at home.

Post: #21

(10-18-2015 12:46 AM)kosko Wrote:  Newsflash is that the smart women notice their value early and lock down a successful man and have kids as soon as they can. They are not in the labour pen rotting away like the rest. The establishment igonres these women and femensits shun them for making their own choice to go the route of the classic traditional ways.

Yeah the smartest thing a woman can do is lock down a quality man when they're at their most youthful and hottest. Whether or not that correlates to IQ or whatever is up for debate but it's pretty hard to argue against it in terms of an "investment strategy".

Post: #22

They mislead from the headline by equating credentials with smart.

These women are not smart. They are incredibly stupid. As noted above, if they were smart, they would've invested early in a solid man and bore children with him. They are the equivalent of a guy who got a 10 million dollars inheritance when he was young and gambled it all away by 30 years of age with nothing to show for it.

You'd think MarketWatch, with all their knowledge of a market economy, would figure this out...

Post: #23

(10-18-2015 02:38 AM)StrikeBack Wrote:  They mislead from the headline by equating credentials with smart.

These women are not smart. They are incredibly stupid. As noted above, if they were smart, they would've invested early in a solid man and bore children with him. They are the equivalent of a guy who got a 10 million dollars inheritance when he was young and gambled it all away by 30 years of age with nothing to show for it.

You'd think MarketWatch, with all their knowledge of a market economy, would figure this out...

Women lack the introspection to realise that letters after one's name does not equal intelligence.

Would any woman be self aware enough to have said "I know I know nothing" (Socrates)?

Nah.

Post: #24

Goddamnit, I thought Market Watch was a strictly business website!

Post: #25

To have true two way communication with a woman as my genuine self, with her understanding both my language and thought abstracts, I need to find a woman to the right of the '2' in this bell curve. You can see how small my dating pool would be. There might be 8 women in the entire town I'm currently in of my intelligence or higher. How many of those are dating age?

To have increasingly-reduced communication with a woman as my genuine self, where she is often confused about what I am saying, I need to find a woman between the '1' and the '2' in this bell curve.

Everything to the left of the '1', unless I affect greatly-reduced intelligence, she will think my speech, logic and reasoning to be that of an insane person, as she's simply-incapable of understanding my abstract thought processes, and will actively-fight my reasoning, even if it leads to her screwing her life up. Even if I perform lower intelligence, her logic and thought will always strike me as utterly-retarded.

Everything to the left of the '1' would include most Gender Studies Tumbrlinas and any Female Typists employed by a 'journalism' outfit.

So, given the choice between a beautiful and pleasant family-orientated 100 IQ woman, and an argumentative, career-orientated 120 IQ woman - whom always vastly-overestimate their own intelligence - I'm going with the dumb chick. They're both retarded either way.

God's got a strange sense of humour.