Blackpill 'Women have more empathy than men' is simplistic.

[veryrare]

'Women have more empathy than men' is simplistic.

TL;DR: The "women are more empathic" meta-analysis is statistical garbage because they mixed male and female targets. Women show high empathy for women. Men show high empathy for women and decreasing empathy for other men. The overall female advantage is driven primarily by men's low empathy for male targets.

As I was reading this Wikipedia article, I encountered a seemingly settled conclusion:

"Studies have consistently found that women report higher levels of empathy than men... Females also tend to score higher on 'theory of mind' assessments... From birth, male and female infants respond differently to emotional stimuli... Many studies show that females have an on-average advantage in empathic accuracy skills."

I dug into all the studies in that specific section called "Empathy in different genders"
The empathy gap, it turns out, depends critically on one question that massive, headline-grabbing meta-analyses conveniently collapse across:

Who is the target?

For example, the article references a massive 57-country study using the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test to claim a universal female empathy superiority. Yet, this specific study like all except one (which we will get to) collapsed its scores across ALL 36 faces, mixing male and female. It cannot tell us if the female "empathy advantage" is uniform or driven by a specific gender.

Only one study mentioned in the article empirically differentiated the sex of the target: Klein & Hodges (2001)

The key feature of this study that participants infer thoughts & feelings of REAL targets discussing real experiences. Basically no acting & no hypothetical scenarios. Real people, real emotions & real time tracking.

The female empathy only appeared when women inferred the thoughts of OTHER WOMEN. For men, the gender difference vanished. The authors themselves note:

"Yet we unexpectedly found a strong gender difference; women who inferred the thoughts and feelings of another woman were significantly more accurate in their empathic inferences than men. Interestingly, this effect held only for the female target; empathic accuracy toward a male target was lower overall but produced no gender difference. "

"To confirm the results of this study, we conducted a follow-up study (Klein & Hodges, 1999) employing the same methodology but using two different targets. We replicated the results of the first study, finding a gender difference in empathic accuracy toward the female target. "

Oh wait, there's more! Two preliminary studies "mentioned within" that Klein & Hodges paper (which is not referenced in that Wikipedia article) replicated this exact effect! The female "empathy advantage" was contingent, not universal!


Let's take a look at: Bryant, 1982 and Olweus & Endresen, 1998 and later Klein & Hodges again.

Bryant (1982)​

Bryant developed an Index of Empathy for children & adolescents with a clever design. Four pairs of items used identical wording, differing only in whether the target was a "boy" or a "girl." For example: "It makes me sad to see a girl/boy who can't find anyone to play with." This makes it possible to directly compare empathy toward men vs women across development.

Sample: 56 first graders, 115 fourth graders, and 87 seventh graders. 258 children across the critical developmental window from age 6 to 13.

The study reports a three-way interaction (Grade × Sex of Respondent × Sex of Stimulus) that reveals the critical pattern:

"The significant sex of stimulus × grade interaction can be attributed to the fact that, averaging across males and females, the same-sex scores are equal across the three grades, but the cross-sex scores show... fourth-grade scores are lower than the first-grade scores, and the cross-sex scores of the seventh graders are higher than those of both the fourth graders and first graders."

"The significant sex of respondent × sex of stimulus interaction can be attributed to the fact that, averaging across grades, males showed no significant differences between same- versus cross-sex stimuli scores, while females showed higher same-sex scores than cross-sex scores. "

"Finally, the significant three-way interaction can be attributed entirely to the fact that while both male and female cross-sex scores showed the same curvilinear U-shaped pattern across grades, the same-sex scores of the females were higher for the seventh graders as compared with first graders, while the same-sex scores [of males] were lower for the seventh graders as compared with the first graders. "

Basically, if you average the scores across all ages, Boys didn't show a clear preference for one gender over the other. Girls, on the other hand, consistently favored their own gender at every age.

Bryant asked the seventh-grade boys why they showed this pattern:

"In each of three seventh-grade classrooms included in this study, where the findings of this study were presented, several males indicated that empathic responsiveness to other males was a sign of homosexual tendencies and foreboded social ostracism. It appears, then, that males in their early adolescence tend to deny the legitimacy of sharing male affective experiences and that the basis of this affective taboo is fear regarding sexual identity and social rejection."

"That, with age, females apparently significantly increased their empathic responsiveness to their same sex, while males decreased their empathic responsiveness or comfort in reporting such responsiveness to their same sex, suggests a developmental inhibition about acknowledging emotional responsiveness to the affective experiences of males."

Yes, the overall scores showed girls scoring higher than boys. But that's only because those scores lumped all the targets together. Once you split things up by whether the target was a boy or a girl, the real pattern jumped out. The boys themselves admitted that they learn to hide caring feelings. While girls grow more open about caring for each other as they age.

"Note that seventh-grade females expressed more empathy for male stimuli than did seventh-grade males. This comparison did not hold for first or fourth graders."

By 7th grade, Girls actually showed more concern for boys than boys showed for each other. That wasn't true in 1st or 4th grade. Because boys are suppressing their empathy toward other males.

Let's move onto...

Olweus & Endresen (1998):​

This one has a massive sample of 2,286 Norwegian students aged 13 to 16 (1193 boys, 1093 girls). with a similar design aka parallel items with identical wording, differing only in whether the target was a boy or a girl, etc.

Now from the study the results as described by the authors, revealed four developmental trajectories:

Girls → Girl Stimuli: Linear increase with age (trend analysis: F = 2.48, df = 3,1089; p = .06, borderline significant)
Girls → Boy Stimuli: Linear increase with age (F = 11.68, df = 3,1085; p < .001)
Boys → Girl Stimuli: Linear increase with age (F = 6.31, df = 3,1185; p < .005)
Boys → Boy Stimuli: Linear decrease with age (F = 5.41, df = 3,1179; p < .005)

The authors summarize:

"The girls showed the most straightforward development, with an increase in empathic concern towards both girl and boy stimuli. The boys evinced a similar developmental pattern with regard to girls as stimuli but showed a clearly deviating, decreasing trend in empathic concern for other boys in distress. "

"It is worth emphasizing that the basic trend pattern identified for the two scales of empathic concern also was found for each of the individual items making up the scales. "

"Both girls and boys responded with more empathy towards a girl than towards a boy in distress. It is worth noting that these results represented opposite tendencies for boys and girls with regard to the sex of subjects with whom they empathized most: Girls were most empathic with stimuli of their own sex, whereas boys showed most empathy towards the opposite sex. "

The "Cootie Effect" and the Reversal​

This one is a bit funny but both studies identify something called the "cootie effect". a dip in cross-sex empathy around 4th grade (age 10). But you have to look at this with context:

"It appears that, for boys, there occurs a reversal in (average) degree of empathic concern for own-sex as contrasted with cross-sex stimulus objects some time between ages 10 and 13; from age 13 (or possibly somewhat earlier) and upwards, boys tend to express more empathic concern for girls than for boys in distress. "

"For girls, on the other hand, there are no indications of such reversals and, on average, they empathize most with other girls across the whole age span considered."

In plain English, Younger boys care most about other boys. Somewhere around ages 10 to 13, that flips: older teen boys care most about girls.

Sex Difference at the Extremes​

Olweus & Endresen also calculated the proportions of boys and girls at the extreme ends of the empathy distribution:

"For the whole sample, almost 95 percent of the subjects in the lowest part of the distribution (low in empathy) were boys, whereas 88 percent in the highest part were girls. For the higher grades, the differences were even more pronounced, with 97 percent boys at the low-empathy end and 95 percent girls in the high-empathy part of the distribution."

"These results thus imply relative constancy across grades of the proportions of boys and girls at the low-empathy end of the distribution—with a marked predominance of low-empathic boys—whereas the portion of highly empathic boys actually decreased with increasing age. "

Approximately 95% of individuals at the low end of the empathy distribution are male. If combined within the context of men's low empathy toward other men, We can note that the "female advantage" is not driven by women's high empathy.

Social Desirability?​

"Although the main differences reported in this study seem, by and large, to reflect real differences in empathic responsiveness... it is highly likely that a social desirability explanation, which is typically fairly general in nature, would be of only limited help in explaining the more complex, but quite distinct trend patterns identified in the present study."

Could people just be lying on surveys? The researchers say that might explain a piece of the puzzle but it completely fails to explain the complex pattern. like boys suddenly caring more about girls while caring less about guys as they age. A lie wouldn't zigzag like that.

The Effect Sizes​

"The effect size in the total sample was 1.00, which may be regarded as a quite large effect (above .8, see Cohen, 1977). When calculating effect sizes for the higher (Grades 8 and 9 combined) and the lower grades (Grades 6 and 7 combined) separately, the effect size values were 1.17 and .83, respectively."

A Cohen's d of 1.00 is considered huge, But also, the grade differences were negligible:

"For the lower versus higher grades (Grades 6 and 7 combined versus Grades 8 and 9 combined), the effect sizes for the Total Scale of Empathic Responsiveness were only .07 for boys and .22 for girls."

Now let's seal the deal on...

Klein & Hodges (2001)​

Returning to Klein & Hodges, Another interesting finding is that the female "empathy advantage" is not just gender-specific, it is also motivation-dependent.

Study 1 found that women seemed better than men at reading other people's emotions, BUT only if they filled out a sympathy survey first (Telling people the task was about 'empathy' versus 'cognitive ability' pointed in the same direction, but the effect wasn't strong enough to be conclusive). If they filled it out after, the difference disappeared.

"We hypothesized that women's advantage in empathic accuracy would hold only when they completed the sympathy questionnaire prior to the empathic accuracy task, and that when the sympathy questionnaire was completed afterward, women's accuracy would not differ from men's."

"As predicted, when completing the sympathy questionnaire after empathic accuracy was assessed, women (M = .45) and men (M = .42) did not differ in empathic accuracy... However, when sympathy was measured before empathic accuracy, there was a significant difference between men's (M = .40) and women's (M = .53) accuracy."

Study 2 found that women outperformed men when there was no reward. But when people were offered small cash payments for getting the answers right, men caught up and the gender gap vanished. Both men and women did better with the money, meaning the incentive motivated everyone, but it helped men especially close the gap.

"As predicted, women (M = .42) were more accurate than men (M = .28) in the control condition, d = .98... whereas no significant gender differences were found in the money condition."

"When provided monetary compensation for accurate inferences, both men and women demonstrated greater empathic accuracy than their counterparts who were not provided with this extrinsic motivator."

Basically it eviscerates the whole fixed, biological and arguably ideological 'women have more empathy' narrative.

Male Readability​

A critic might say: "Maybe men aren't less empathically accurate toward men; maybe men just express their emotions less clearly!"

It's true the authors coded the male targets as objectively less 'readable' than the female targets in these specific videos. Even if you account for that, Women were better at reading the female targets, while everyone read the male targets just as well.

Conclusion​

The Wikipedia article presents a clean, simple story: "Women are more empathic than men. Studies consistently show this. It's evident from birth."

That statement is not just simplistic as I said, It's scientifically misleading. It never shows you the thing we just find out after actually looking into the studies. Most of the large-scale studies make it impossible to know if the female "empathy advantage" is uniform or not.

The evidence highlighted in this post ironically posits a more "nuanced" picture as I said in the TL;DR at the top of the post: Women show high empathy for women. Men show high empathy for women and decreasing empathy for other men. The overall female advantage is driven primarily by men's low empathy for male targets.

Tags: @GeckoBus @The Notorious SLAV @Cybersex is our hope @AtrociousCitizen @deleted dude @St3v3Cel @Sergeant Kelly [USER=94356]@cathuluelitist [/USER] @Sir Silentium @RobertGarnicasAPedo @Balding Subhuman @SmhChan @tired as fuck

 

[Sir Silentium]

Great read!
Belongs in the Must Read Content section.

Just adding and reinforcing your claim on social desirability;
a lot of this evidence comes from 'self report' questionnaires. So if social norms encourage women to report empathy more openly, whilst discouraging men from expressing empathy toward other men, then those measures may be capturing gender norms instead of the true result around empathy. Behavioural measures and target specific analyses seem much more informative like you mentioned.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Good thread and a lot of good sources, one corral or thing I would find interesting is how women would repspond to transexual stimuli, since if a woman doesn't perceive a male to female transexual as genuinely female, she'll never perceive it as genuinely deserving of their own immensely high social status thus always in their hearts perceive it as a low status male regardless but we can definitely measure the effect social desirability has on this through that since it's technically a man but they'd probably have to do standalone testing or smth? So they should get a bunch of women from different sides of the political spectrum and test them for emotional responses there. It would expose a lot.

 

[veryrare]

Great read!
Belongs in the Must Read Content section.

Just adding and reinforcing your claim on social desirability;
a lot of this evidence comes from 'self report' questionnaires. So if social norms encourage women to report empathy more openly, whilst discouraging men from expressing empathy toward other men, then those measures may be capturing gender norms instead of the true result around empathy. Behavioural measures and target specific analyses seem much more informative like you mentioned.

Thank you. Also thank you for actually reading and making a very smart meta critque. You are right on the self-report issue. No doubt. Here's the thing though, Klein & Hodges (2001) used a behavioral measure. Participants had to infer real targets' thoughts from videos.

Men still showed low empathy toward male targets. But and this is important, When they were offered money for accurate guesses, they caught up to women immediately.

So the gap isn't about men "lying" on surveys and it's not about biological or whatever. It's about motivation and social cost. They can read other men just fine they just don't bother unless there's a good reason. And the reason they don't bother? That social suppression the 7th graders described.

Good thread and a lot of good sources, one corral or thing I would find interesting is how women would repspond to transexual stimuli, since if a woman doesn't perceive a male to female transexual as genuinely female, she'll never perceive it as genuinely deserving of their own immensely high social status thus always in their hearts perceive it as a low status male regardless but we can definitely measure the effect social desirability has on this through that since it's technically a man but they'd probably have to do standalone testing or smth? So they should get a bunch of women from different sides of the political spectrum and test them for emotional responses there. It would expose a lot.

Thank you for reading as well as being high effort.

That's very interesting and I wish someone could do it. It's the perfect stress test. I would probably guess that If it's clearly visible, or if they are explicitly told the target is transgender, then empathy would track closer to how participants respond to male targets regardless of what they think politically or whatever.

 

[SmhChan]

Foids have zero empathy, even for their "sisters." Grade-A narcissism and empathy mix just about as well as oil and water. "Tests" and "Surveys" are always manipulated to make foids look better.

 

[Sir Silentium]

Thank you. Also thank you for actually reading and making a very smart meta critque. You are right on the self-report issue. No doubt. Here's the thing though, Klein & Hodges (2001) used a behavioral measure. Participants had to infer real targets' thoughts from videos.

Men still showed low empathy toward male targets. But and this is important, When they were offered money for accurate guesses, they caught up to women immediately.

So the gap isn't about men "lying" on surveys and it's not about biological or whatever. It's about motivation and social cost. They can read other men just fine they just don't bother unless there's a good reason. And the reason they don't bother? That social suppression the 7th graders described.

Very true.
Also goes to show how money/compensation in surveys may vastly change the outcomes as well

 

[veryrare]

Foids have zero empathy, even for their "sisters." Grade-A narcissism and empathy mix just about as well as oil and water. "Tests" and "Surveys" are always manipulated to make foids look better.

Nigga that's a psychopath. I would say they're even worse. They have empathy for their own group but see men as an outgroup. Those 3 studies just point towards an idea that foids might have slightly higher empathy for men than men do for themselves. It doesn't disprove that both genders love women (and women have high ingroup bias which other studies confirm) or that both genders see men as the outgroup.

This is a good thread on Narcissism since you mentioned it.

 

[veryrare]

Very true.
Also goes to show how money/compensation in surveys may vastly change the outcomes as well

In the specific localized experiment yes but honestly if you look at it from a birds eye view both genders hate men and both genders love & protect women.

 

[Sir Silentium]

In the specific localized experiment yes but honestly if you look at it from a birds eye view both genders hate men and both genders love & protect women.

 

[SmhChan]

Nigga that's a psychopath. I would say they're even worse. They have empathy for their own group but see men as an outgroup. Those 3 studies just point towards an idea that foids might have slightly higher empathy for men than men do for themselves. It doesn't disprove that both genders love women (and women have high ingroup bias which other studies confirm) or that both genders see men as the outgroup.

This is a good thread on Narcissism since you mentioned it.

The in-group bias has been mentioned over a million times, but what everyone overlooks is that a country's economic status heavily influences the in-group bias of foids from that country. First-world whores have a much higher in-group bias compared to foids from other countries. Their in-group bias isn't very organic. Neither is their empathy. Their empathy is performative.

There's a reason why dykes have such a high divorce rate.

 

[GeckoBus]

'Women have more empathy than men' is simplistic.

TL;DR: The "women are more empathic" meta-analysis is statistical garbage because they mixed male and female targets. Women show high empathy for women. Men show high empathy for women and decreasing empathy for other men. The overall female advantage is driven primarily by men's low empathy for male targets.

As I was reading this Wikipedia article, I encountered a seemingly settled conclusion:



I dug into all the studies in that specific section called "Empathy in different genders"
The empathy gap, it turns out, depends critically on one question that massive, headline-grabbing meta-analyses conveniently collapse across:

Who is the target?

For example, the article references a massive 57-country study using the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test to claim a universal female empathy superiority. Yet, this specific study like all except one (which we will get to) collapsed its scores across ALL 36 faces, mixing male and female. It cannot tell us if the female "empathy advantage" is uniform or driven by a specific gender.

Only one study mentioned in the article empirically differentiated the sex of the target: Klein & Hodges (2001)

The key feature of this study that participants infer thoughts & feelings of REAL targets discussing real experiences. Basically no acting & no hypothetical scenarios. Real people, real emotions & real time tracking.

The female empathy only appeared when women inferred the thoughts of OTHER WOMEN. For men, the gender difference vanished. The authors themselves note:





Oh wait, there's more! Two preliminary studies "mentioned within" that Klein & Hodges paper (which is not referenced in that Wikipedia article) replicated this exact effect! The female "empathy advantage" was contingent, not universal!


Let's take a look at: Bryant, 1982 and Olweus & Endresen, 1998 and later Klein & Hodges again.

Bryant (1982)​

Bryant developed an Index of Empathy for children & adolescents with a clever design. Four pairs of items used identical wording, differing only in whether the target was a "boy" or a "girl." For example: "It makes me sad to see a girl/boy who can't find anyone to play with." This makes it possible to directly compare empathy toward men vs women across development.

Sample: 56 first graders, 115 fourth graders, and 87 seventh graders. 258 children across the critical developmental window from age 6 to 13.

The study reports a three-way interaction (Grade × Sex of Respondent × Sex of Stimulus) that reveals the critical pattern:







Basically, if you average the scores across all ages, Boys didn't show a clear preference for one gender over the other. Girls, on the other hand, consistently favored their own gender at every age.

Bryant asked the seventh-grade boys why they showed this pattern:





Yes, the overall scores showed girls scoring higher than boys. But that's only because those scores lumped all the targets together. Once you split things up by whether the target was a boy or a girl, the real pattern jumped out. The boys themselves admitted that they learn to hide caring feelings. While girls grow more open about caring for each other as they age.



By 7th grade, Girls actually showed more concern for boys than boys showed for each other. That wasn't true in 1st or 4th grade. Because boys are suppressing their empathy toward other males.

Let's move onto...

Olweus & Endresen (1998):​

This one has a massive sample of 2,286 Norwegian students aged 13 to 16 (1193 boys, 1093 girls). with a similar design aka parallel items with identical wording, differing only in whether the target was a boy or a girl, etc.

Now from the study the results as described by the authors, revealed four developmental trajectories:

Girls → Girl Stimuli: Linear increase with age (trend analysis: F = 2.48, df = 3,1089; p = .06, borderline significant)
Girls → Boy Stimuli: Linear increase with age (F = 11.68, df = 3,1085; p < .001)
Boys → Girl Stimuli: Linear increase with age (F = 6.31, df = 3,1185; p < .005)
Boys → Boy Stimuli: Linear decrease with age (F = 5.41, df = 3,1179; p < .005)

The authors summarize:

The "Cootie Effect" and the Reversal​

This one is a bit funny but both studies identify something called the "cootie effect". a dip in cross-sex empathy around 4th grade (age 10). But you have to look at this with context:





In plain English, Younger boys care most about other boys. Somewhere around ages 10 to 13, that flips: older teen boys care most about girls.

Sex Difference at the Extremes​

Olweus & Endresen also calculated the proportions of boys and girls at the extreme ends of the empathy distribution:





Approximately 95% of individuals at the low end of the empathy distribution are male. If combined within the context of men's low empathy toward other men, We can note that the "female advantage" is not driven by women's high empathy.

Social Desirability?​

Could people just be lying on surveys? The researchers say that might explain a piece of the puzzle but it completely fails to explain the complex pattern. like boys suddenly caring more about girls while caring less about guys as they age. A lie wouldn't zigzag like that.

The Effect Sizes​

A Cohen's d of 1.00 is considered huge, But also, the grade differences were negligible:



Now let's seal the deal on...

Klein & Hodges (2001)​

Returning to Klein & Hodges, Another interesting finding is that the female "empathy advantage" is not just gender-specific, it is also motivation-dependent.

Study 1 found that women seemed better than men at reading other people's emotions, BUT only if they filled out a sympathy survey first (Telling people the task was about 'empathy' versus 'cognitive ability' pointed in the same direction, but the effect wasn't strong enough to be conclusive). If they filled it out after, the difference disappeared.





Study 2 found that women outperformed men when there was no reward. But when people were offered small cash payments for getting the answers right, men caught up and the gender gap vanished. Both men and women did better with the money, meaning the incentive motivated everyone, but it helped men especially close the gap.





Basically it eviscerates the whole fixed, biological and arguably ideological 'women have more empathy' narrative.

Male Readability​

A critic might say: "Maybe men aren't less empathically accurate toward men; maybe men just express their emotions less clearly!"

It's true the authors coded the male targets as objectively less 'readable' than the female targets in these specific videos. Even if you account for that, Women were better at reading the female targets, while everyone read the male targets just as well.

Conclusion​

The Wikipedia article presents a clean, simple story: "Women are more empathic than men. Studies consistently show this. It's evident from birth."

That statement is not just simplistic as I said, It's scientifically misleading. It never shows you the thing we just find out after actually looking into the studies. Most of the large-scale studies make it impossible to know if the female "empathy advantage" is uniform or not.

The evidence highlighted in this post ironically posits a more "nuanced" picture as I said in the TL;DR at the top of the post: Women show high empathy for women. Men show high empathy for women and decreasing empathy for other men. The overall female advantage is driven primarily by men's low empathy for male targets.

Tags: @GeckoBus @The Notorious SLAV @Cybersex is our hope @AtrociousCitizen @deleted dude @St3v3Cel @Sergeant Kelly [USER=94356]@cathuluelitist [/USER] @Sir Silentium @RobertGarnicasAPedo @Balding Subhuman @SmhChan @tired as fuck

giga iq, divine iq and effort for reading through all these studies

must-read

its funny cuz my social worker told me last time I saw her that women are more empathetic and thats why I like female family members more. Idk how she concluded that. Bitch, I literally wrote down what women in my family did to me as it was happening. I have journal entries from half a decade ago that I wrote minutes after they did shit to me, they are not empathetic. For example I found this text I wrote on my old laptop where I said my sister just called me an impotent faggot and screamed that im disgusting, that I stink and that I should go away.

I also find it interesting in your data that young boys are still more egalitarian on gender but then it turns around in puberty. Many men experience this, your male friends become complete retards in puberty and it becomes a brutal battle royal for female validation, whereas for women the opposite happens, their in-group strengthens in puberty.

A critic might say: "Maybe men aren't less empathically accurate toward men; maybe men just express their emotions less clearly!"

I think the ultimate litmus test for empathy is always behavior. Behavior is costly and demanding, it shows where peoples actual priorities are. Women talk mad shit about how nice and kind women are all day, but we know from behavior data that they are racist as fuck and very ruthless. Men do the same by constantly larping as tough guys but then begging women on their knees to love them.

In terms of male-on-male empathy, just look at war, fiction media etc - there is a constant pattern of male on male violence that is not only seen as entertaining but even desirable by men. "Bring back bullying" - shit like that. Another aspect of that which is never addressed is that men have intense self hatred, which is then projected onto other men. Only mommy can fill the Milf shaped hole in mans heart sniff sniff

Nigga that's a psychopath. I would say they're even worse. They have empathy for their own group but see men as an outgroup. Those 3 studies just point towards an idea that foids might have slightly higher empathy for men than men do for themselves. It doesn't disprove that both genders love women (and women have high ingroup bias which other studies confirm) or that both genders see men as the outgroup.

This is a good thread on Narcissism since you mentioned it.

nigga what is this adlib

anyway, this also supports it:

MisogynyMyth_edited_RG2.pdf

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343253834. The Myth of Pervasive Misogyny Article · July 2020. CITATION. READS. 1. 6,104. 2 authors: Cory Clark. Bo Winegard. University of Pennsylvania. Independent Scholar. 97...

www.docdroid.net

Basically, as you said, if you look at big picture, its just overwhelmingly one sided in favor of both genders disliking men and liking women.

Another thing I want to address is that many men have this insane cope belief that women actually hate each other. Nigga if women hate each other why arent they fucking you? you retard? In their delusional mind they actually think that intra-group competition is a sign that women lack in-group bias. Thats like seeing bunch of lions fight over dead carcass and concluding that lions prefer company of monkeys to other lions. This is of course bullshit. A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of monkeys. When the tree falls, the monkeys scatter.

Another one is that "men are walking away from society" or that "men have quit dating and women are starting to feel the consequences" - I get recommended content like that frequently. It is total bullshit. Idk if @veryrare has looked into this, but men desire relationships way more than women in research + breakups and divorce hit men way harder than women.

Divorce massively increases male suicide rate for instance. Women do not suffer from lack of male company. In fact women cope better with being alone than men, because they have support from both men and women. When men claim that women are somehow affected by men ignoring them, they are projecting male experience onto women.

Since men have no in-group, social isolation is a real threat for men. From male perspective, women leaving men behind is death sentence. Men then project this onto women. Women pick up on men being retarded and projecting onto them and then psychopathically mirror this back to men by making videos claiming to be lonely, isolated, unable to get a date. They are basically loosh farming coping men. Another cope is that promiscuous women will struggle to get a partner or are universally hated. This is also bananas and has never been true. I wrote about it here:

I always cringe at normies who think women care about being "cat ladies"

I came across this video on kikestagram upon opening the site. The woman above has freed herself from a betabuxx relationship with a cuck she never desired, and is now free to sleep around with Chads at 33. But I wasn't fixiated on the video more than I was the comment section. These are...

incels.is

Suffice to say, as a man you actually can be socially ostracized, so the whole idea that women can destroy their life by being whores is actually another male projection. It does not apply to women. Kim Kardashion sucked dick on camera, so did paris hilton. Since the 2000s, like 1000s of celebrities nudes and sex videos have been leaked, like during the "fappening" many years ago. There are videos of many actresses out there, pictures, with them covered in cum from their boyfriend. Nobody cares. They dont get fired from their jobs, there is no public outrage.

In the mean time, there have been tons of male celebrities destroyed through shit like #metoo and pedo-hunters exposing them for fucking 17.99999999 year old children that were literally still in crib sucking on milky bottle going waa waaa because in america, due to local radiation of the land, humans mature at 1/10 the speed as they do in other countries. This is the truth and everyone knows it and if you disagree you are a pedophile.


Anyway thats my two cents to this thread, which is a banger thread, its 100% must-read worthy for effort alone. IT will not touch this, none of them will touch this, but as jesus said, those who can receive will receive and those who can not, well pearls before swine what can I say.

 

[NickelodeonCel]

We have many charity organizations that post videos of wealthy people helping others in my EE shithole and in 90% of cases it's a man building a house for a poor or homeless person, buying them food and so on.

I have no idea where this phrase came from. Women may be better at virtue signaling but it's men that actually help others.