Society/Culture BRIFFAULT’S LAW

Remove this Banner Ad

King Brown said:
Maybe, but in Sweden, which is one of the most gender equal countries, the observation holds:

Previous research has shown that highly educated men and women often partner with each other, and that college educated women preferred men with a high education. In Sweden today, there are nearly two women for every man among recent college graduates. According to demographic theories of the “marriage market,” the “demand” for highly educated men should have increased as women compete for highly educated male partners.

The actual trend is the opposite of what was expected—around 23% of men with a college degree remain childless, and this level has been consistent over the last decades. The majority of highly educated women in Sweden now instead have their first child with a man who has lower education – though the man still has a higher income. There is thus no evidence that there is more competition among women for highly educated male partners, says Margarita Chudnovskaya.​

http://www.suda.su.se/about-us/news...en-money-matters-more-than-education-1.359971
Click to expand...
To be honest, I don't know why any man would want to be with a girl who was status hungry.

It's not particularly difficult to find decent women.
 
herculez09 said:
To be honest, I don't know why any man would want to be with a girl who was status hungry.

It's not particularly difficult to find decent women.
Click to expand...
Those decent women still won't stay with a man who is much lower status (or lower income) than them.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

AM said:
My post was directed at the theme running through so many of your posts here which points to you having a major issue with the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

Any major issues I may have had went out the window when I went MGTOW.

AM said:
That said, Malifice fairly much put the position I would take. Transposing animal behaviour to humans is fraught with issues as the brain structure and functioning are quite different. Which is why the Briffault matriarchate hypothesis has been widely poo-poohed by contemporary anthropologists and certainly isn't my lived experience.
Click to expand...

Okay. Some academic rebuttal would have been nice.
 
King Brown said:
Those decent women still won't stay with a man who is much lower status (or lower income) than them.
Click to expand...


Hypergamy. Another defining anthropological factor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

The primary biological imperative of the female is to nest and breed, and the security of this imperative is reinforced with hypergamy.
 
Snake_Baker said:
Okay. Some academic rebuttal would have been nice.
Click to expand...
Your take on the matter is an interesting application of the word academic. More revealing of an obsession perhaps. But if some consider this 'academic' take on your broader obsession rates as significant and what to read some meaningful work on matriarchate, Google Scholar awaits you.
 
AM said:
Your take on the matter is an interesting application of the word academic. More revealing of an obsession perhaps. But if some consider this 'academic' take on your broader obsession rates as significant and what to read some meaningful work on matriarchate, Google Scholar awaits you.
Click to expand...

I can't understand why you are resorting to targeting me personally in a thread that deals with broad anthropological concepts.

Your analysis of the motivations of a single man is pointless. You are contributing nothing of value. If some of this subject content troubles you then I suggest you opt out of the discussion altogether. I won't be engaging this line of discussion any further.
 
Snake_Baker said:
I think it provides a good general understanding of women.

In light of this, what does it say about the likes of Harvey Weinstein (.."The female, not the male, determines all the conditions"...and...."Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place")?

Is he merely complying with Briffaults law in order to facilitate his own biological imperative?

Is modern feminism in denial of Briffaults law?
Click to expand...

Maybe I am misinterpreting something here - are you making the case that no woman can actually be raped or harassed (that they have created the conditions in which this takes place)?
 
RupieDupie said:
Maybe I am misinterpreting something here - are you making the case that no woman can actually be raped or harassed (that they have created the conditions in which this takes place)?
Click to expand...

No.
 
RupieDupie said:
But I can’t see it though, I can’t see what a Harvey viewpoint on this would be? How is he merely complying with Briffaults Law?
Click to expand...

Snake would say it's a corollary.

Harvey is offering power, fame and prestige (a career in Hollywood) to women who agree to bang him.

Ergo he's just following a 'biological imperative' implemented by women.

So it' really the woman's fault he's a sex predator.

It's **** shaming at its finest.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Agree with some. In that while men do the chasing it is nearly always the woman who makes the final choice.

As to the leaving part. That could apply to both genders equally. (Yes women tend to initiate a divorce but that may be due to a bias system. If a man is not worried/bothered by such constraints they too will be out like a shot).

herculez09 said:
I can't help but think this is becoming less prevalent with feminism becoming more important. Of course, there will always be exceptions but it's not so black and white now.
Click to expand...

Don't know if feminism will change biological instinct. Or maybe it can.

Women are attracted to status and resources. No question. But a woman can't know a man's bank balance just on initial impressions (where attraction is first developed) so looks for other queues that give the impression of the above traits. Now from there a woman will ask about a job/living arrangements etc to determine wealth but is that also to develop attraction or based on social conditioning?
 
Malifice said:
Snake would say it's a corollary.

Harvey is offering power, fame and prestige (a career in Hollywood) to women who agree to bang him.

Ergo he's just following a 'biological imperative' implemented by women.

So it' really the woman's fault he's a sex predator.

It's **** shaming at its finest.
Click to expand...

Yeah but technically, and I am unfortunately big on details, especially when it is a "physical law" he is discussing, this is not an example of Briffault's Law, which leads to the confusion, but he has subsequently answered as follows;

Snake_Baker said:
I am asking the question as to whether Briffaults law, taken to an extreme, shapes the likes of Weinsteins behavior.

How does this relate to Briffaults law?
Click to expand...

Once again, this is not Briffault's Law, if Weinstein wanted to form a relationship with each of the women he harassed and assaulted, he would have had to, according to Briffault's Law, have met the conditions that the female would have found appropriate to have a relationship, and subsequently, continued to provide such a condition until, as the law of diminishing returns states, the female was not satisfied with the relationship, and subsequently left him. Which means he was not after them for just sex, but for a long-lasting arrangement.

What you seem to be stating is because some women like money and fame and may be driven by this, that Weinstein decided to forgo meeting the condition of a relationship so he could get some sex or titillation at the expense of the other person, and this is ok, because if he had worked hard at forming a relationship with one (or all) of them he would have eventually been divorced and out of pocket. And therefore his behaviour was ok, because - Briffault's Law.
 
herculez09 said:
A lot of short guys that I know get very bitter and angry about women.
Click to expand...


I suspect biological factors would play a role in Briffaults law, but my experience with women is that physical determinants are not as significant to women as they are to men.
 
RupieDupie said:
Once again, this is not Briffault's Law, if Weinstein wanted to form a relationship with each of the women he harassed and assaulted, he would have had to, according to Briffault's Law, have met the conditions that the female would have found appropriate to have a relationship, and subsequently, continued to provide such a condition until, as the law of diminishing returns states, the female was not satisfied with the relationship, and subsequently left him.
Click to expand...

Hang on there a minute. There is an important set of data that is missing from any Weinstein analysis. How many times were his lurid advances actually successful in gaining sexual partners? I would assume from the volume and timeline of complaints that it would be significant.

RupieDupie said:
Which means he was not after them for just sex, but for a long-lasting arrangement.
Click to expand...

I cannot see how you came to that conclusion.

RupieDupie said:
What you seem to be stating is because some women like money and fame and may be driven by this, that Weinstein decided to forgo meeting the condition of a relationship so he could get some sex or titillation at the expense of the other person, and this is ok, because if he had worked hard at forming a relationship with one (or all) of them he would have eventually been divorced and out of pocket. And therefore his behaviour was ok, because - Briffault's Law.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. I am not stating that this is okay, nor am I in agreement with your conclusion.
 
Snake_Baker said:
I think it provides a good general understanding of women.

In light of this, what does it say about the likes of Harvey Weinstein (.."The female, not the male, determines all the conditions"...and...."Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place")?

Is he merely complying with Briffaults law in order to facilitate his own biological imperative?

Is modern feminism in denial of Briffaults law?
Click to expand...

That is a hell of a lot of mental gymnastics.

Weinstein simply used his power (allegedly) (like many others have done) to do whatever the * he wanted. Don't see how it relates.

As to the modern feminism question. Don't know. More like they want to turbo charge it to every aspect of life.

But not even sure I agree with it. Some parts are true but really is just an anthropological theory then an iron clad law of nature.
 
Snake_Baker said:
Hang on there a minute. There is an important set of data that is missing from any Weinstein analysis. How many times were his lurid advances actually successful in gaining sexual partners? I would assume from the volume and timeline of complaints that it would be significant.



I cannot see how you came to that conclusion.



No, no, no. I am not stating that this is okay, nor am I in agreement with your conclusion.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that you are discussing this in light of Briffault’s Law, so any successful partnerships he had would have had to have been terminated by the female, and also, according to the law, he would have to have continued at it until the female terminated the relationship (therefore he could only be thinking long term - regardless of what the female thought*).

What’s wrong with my conclusion? I didn’t make the premise?**

*if you feel Briffaults Law is wrong you can’t blame me for this
**see *
 
Snake_Baker said:
I can't understand why you are resorting to targeting me personally in a thread that deals with broad anthropological concepts.

Your analysis of the motivations of a single man is pointless. You are contributing nothing of value. If some of this subject content troubles you then I suggest you opt out of the discussion altogether. I won't be engaging this line of discussion any further.
Click to expand...
It's always Snakes' way, or the highway.
Darn't disagree with him.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
The rule of law & the ACT Government
Replies
0
Views
472
Kwality
K
Cap
New disinformation laws
2
Replies
25
Views
981
Northalives
Northalives

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top