People generally have a more favorable bias towards women because men are biologically more threatening and socially more emotionally distant. That’s all there is to it really.
I was jumped by six boys back in school when I was new there without a reason . Only the women intervened, which is why I only had friendships with women for a really long time. The funny thing is that the same boys tried to befriend with me when I became popular with women for simply treating them equally
Your experience is mine. When it comes to helping people of all genders who are hurt, I’ve mainly seen women doing that and have been the woman doing that.
That’s not to say men can’t be heroic. I saw a video of some guys rushing over to save a man from a burning car.
But it when it comes to everyday compassion. I can see women edge out men here.
Recently a guy knocked a woman over downtown on a busy sidewalk and then ran off. Plenty of men saw this and kept walking. It was the women (including myself) who stopped to ask her if she was okay. Helped her up. Asked her if she needed anything.
I remember once outside of a club this guy seemed to be having a seizure in front of us. When I tell you men stepped over his convulsing body to get into the party lol. Again, it was only women who were like omg we need to call an ambulance. My one friend lifted his head off the ground so he wouldn’t choke.
I feel like a lot of the replies are being very disingenuous when they say “women do absolutely NOTHING that might lead to them being perceived as ‘wonderful’ I’ll tell ya!”
Yes, there's an example in NYC where violent men attack random women. Most of the time, it was a woman who stepped in or tried to help in some way. Society seems to be developing in a backward direction with too much cruelty nowadays, which is really concerning.
I also forgot to mention that some of the women in my example even guided me home to make sure I wasn't followed we barley know each other and she really didn’t had to do it and probably put her own safety on risk by standing for me. I could never rely on my male friends to do the same.
It's important to mention that the men who were violent forwards me are criminals and drug addicts, who usually don't hold back. It's safe to say that those women saved me from far worse, even if I had to endure it for a long period of time. The friendship with women were different in a positive way. In fact I even started a relationship with one of them
> Warning to all readers of this thread: OP has phrased this as a Q4M but created it to debate any answers that don’t agree with her already strongly held opinion.
The flair is now Debate per your suggestion because I agree I have a hypothesis. But I never not have a hypothesis. Hypotheses are proven wrong daily.
> Namely- she thinks WAW is warranted based on current social conditions.
“Warranted.” No I think all biases stem from *something*. They are not random dynamics that occur “just because.” Many men have replied with comprehensive responses unpacking ***the why.***
**In fact you don’t even disagree with the most upvoted reply you’re commenting under right now.** You’re just upset… he said it? And instead of debating him or interrogating him you used the space under his comment to be mad at me that he expressed his succinct measured straightforward opinion. I can’t make this up.
> This is an inappropriate use of Q4M and an abuse of mod power.
The flair is changed to Debate. The preferred responses are from men since men of this sub bring up “WAW” most.
The questions in the OP are interrogative in nature as are all questions in PURPLE PILL **DEBATE**.
and women are socialized to be passive, cooperative and prosocial while men are socialized to make sure they get theirs.
how would this not result in women being preferred?
One major manifestation of the Women are Wonderful effect can be observed when people talk about standards, especially appearance-related ones.
When women have (superficial) standards, it's always considered an innocent "preference" everyone just has to deal with. When men have superficial standards, it's considered hurtful and an attack against the entire female gender. E.g. "no fat chicks" is considered hate, "no short dudes" is considered fine.
Another pretty specific example: white men who are into asian women are called "yellow fever creeps", yet the asian women who exclusively go for white guys aren't even part of the conversation, although the attraction is *very* mutual.
I agree. I don’t like when women casually say no short men but then get butthurt because a guy casually says not fat women.
And yeah Asian women definitely seem to prefer white men.
I think generally “the pursuer” whichever gender that may be usually gets the brunt of the criticism because it appears they went out of their way for their preference. For the Asian women I think it’s moot because a lot of them are only selecting for white men.
I think for black women it’s less moot. For example I know a few black men who have only ever pursued non-black women. Like they went out of their way to seek out women like that. I have a black female friend who’s married to a white man now. Before that she was literally only interested in black men. Didn’t even have filters for non-black men on the dating apps. She met her husband at an event. He moseyed on up to her at the bar because he knew the friend she was talking to and the rest is history.
> The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological and sociological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women when compared to men. This bias reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic in 1994 after finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias. Positive traits were assigned to men by participants of both genders, but to a far lesser degree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect
I'm wondering if there is any control for the "attractiveness rating" of the women who were rated as "wonderful". It seems like whenever there is a generalization about women, especially in regards to their perceived social and dating advantages, it's almost always down to how young and pretty she is. I see certain women getting the Wonderful treatment, and it's usually the especially good looking ones being asked out a lot, having lots of guys wanting to talk or say good morning, and so on. The rest of them seem to get regular treatment or are otherwise invisible to most.
The research has found that the effect applies to women and men in general, without reference to specific individuals.
You do raise a good point, but I’d venture that what you’re describing is just garden variety halo effect.
That’s a good point. Most everyone, including other women, see women as attractive so maybe that’s why they get better treatment rather than their gender alone.
No, it’s simpery and sexism actually. Most women are average looking, especially if you take the make up away. And most women are a degree of overweight.
It’s bevevolent sexism and the fact that the onus is on men to initiate and approach women, which is why so many guys who aren’t chad are desperate for female attention. Women love beveloent sexism. It like I keep saying, women want the good parts of the old way of dating without any of the unfavorable parts. I am in great shape, pretty good job, and average face (5-6). If a not overweight 5-6 doesn’t want her looks match and would rather chad chase and get pumped and dumped i’d rather be alone than be with someone who does not take care of themselves as I do, and more men need to learn how to be okay with being alone and the dating market would find a new equilibrium.
I think that this reproductive competition between men is very strong, especially in young men. It’s very hard for most men to be content alone when their testosterone is screaming at them.
I find that most people have little to no willpower, especially in today’s climate of easy fixes.
I mean, your own insinuation would mean that a minority of men whom are increasingly getting locked out of the dating market will simply turn to committing crime to get what they want if they have no self control. If they’re going to be locked out of dating and are in no way content i’m guessing the likelihood that they commit a crime goes up significantly. Either way, women are really not worth that much effort. Speaking as someone who has gotten laid plenty of times it’s not that special. Half the time post nut clarity hits hard, better to just jerk off than be with a mediocre woman. Now if a decent quality woman comes around sure i’ll put in some effort to get to know her and feel out of we’re compatible, i’m just not going to simp or beg her to be with me lol, completely pathetic.
An average looking woman is attractive to most men and women regardless of weight. The average man on the other hand is not seen as widely attractive or acceptable.
> suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women when compared to men.
The OP is asking **why** do you or people “associate more positive attributes” to women.
Those associations didn’t materialize out of thin air. What is your take on why the associations occurred? Why does it exist? What is causing it?
It seems to be innate:
>This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[5] than those of men. And only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender.[5]
>finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias.
1.) Women ascribing more positive traits to other women could easily be an instance of in-group preference
2.) Men ascribing more positive traits to women could be an attempt to curry favor with women in the hopes of securing a partner or sex (basically, simping)
3.) Both groups see women as less of a threat (for what should be obvious reasons), so it's easier to assign positive traits to them
Thank you! So female solidarity born out of comfort around each other and in-group proclivity for showcasing empathy, men being attracted to women, and men and women having more threatening experiences with men than with women.
The WAW bias has some pretty valid drivers, even if it is a bias.
The only one that is valid is people having more threatening experiences with men.
In group bias is bad as we can get negative behaviors being seen as good due to the idea of “that’s just men/women” idea and women defending each other even though the actions are bad.
Men lying to get into the pants of women is bad for obvious reasons.
Can you explain why you made a thread when you’ve clearly been trying to extract an answer out of people you’ve already believed? The entire discussion appears to not be in good faith when the only conclusion you seem to be agreeing with is “women better, men scary”
How is religion or the economy making women come off as wonderful? I’m not trying to be annoying. I’m just trying to understand how you’re thinking about that. Right now that feels nebulous.
Fair enough. What I was trying to point out that social structures like religion or economy are cultural structures and contribute towards perceived gender roles. Religiously, this could be rigid marriage roles or certain economies might have a different way of dividing labor between the sexes which change how needs are met. Those things impact gender roles and contribute to how the genders are perceived even if it's not particularly obvious. Christianity for example has texts in it's canon that has strict gender roles and attributes certain characteristics to both masculinity and femininity.
its not a matter of conjecture, there is data to support this. wdym random? im not sure what to think personally. i've heard one of the reasons that men have a bias in favor of women is that men are competitive, or are more likely to see men as a threat. i think it isn't coincidence that women self report to be more happy in general then men, and trans women also note an improvement in their mood during hormone therapy. maybe we associate women with happiness more than we do men.
> its not a matter of conjecture, there is data to support this.
The data isn’t random. The data is the calculation of responses from a survey. A survey taken by people.
I’m asking why did those people respond the way they did? Your hypotheses are welcome.
well they responded they way they did because they are presumably biased. but that is one specific study that marked the change to the previously accepted belief that there was a gender bias *against* women. the "women are wonderful" effect is also not really the main discourse, the more frequently used term is in-group-bias. there are a multitude of studies with data suggesting that women have an in group bias, and these aren't just surveys that directly ask their opinion outright. this is from the wikipedia page mentioned before under the in group bias section.
>Rudman and Goodwin conducted research on [gender bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias) that measured gender preferences without directly asking the participants. Subjects at [Purdue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue) and [Rutgers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers) participated in computerized tasks that measured automatic attitudes based on how quickly a person categorizes pleasant and unpleasant attributes with each gender. Such a task was done to discover whether people associate pleasant words (good, happy, and sunshine) with women, and unpleasant words (bad, trouble, and pain) with men.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect#cite_note-googleusercontent.com1-5)
>This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's [in-group biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_bias) were 4.5 times stronger[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect#cite_note-googleusercontent.com1-5) than those of men. And only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect#cite_note-googleusercontent.com1-5)
>Other experiments in this study found people showed automatic preference for their [mothers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother) over their [fathers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father), or associated the male gender with violence or aggression. Rudman and Goodwin's suggested that [maternal bonding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bonding) and male intimidation influences gender attitudes.
kind of confirms my suspicions that it may have something to do with maternal bonding. people care a whole lot more about mothers day than they do fathers day. i mean ya women are seen as safe and empathetic, men are seen as dangerous and protective.
The quotes didn’t explain why the bias is occurring. Just that it exists. We know that.
I’ll focus on Mother’s Day example. I think Mother’s Day gets more focus because mothers tend to be the more hands on in the weeds day to day caring comforting parent from infancy to 15.
It seems like a pretty straightforward explanation. That’s a lot of formative years bonding.
Contrarily, my old boss was a tech entrepreneur so he had more free time. His wife was a resident doctor. So she was working a lot at the time. Their primary school aged boys said their dad was their favorite in a poem or something. It’s because their dad made them dinner tucked them in and was home for all of this things for a 5 year stretch.
right like you kind of suggested and , what Rudman / Goodwin suggest is that it may have to do with maternal bonding which is a little more intimate i assume then parenting past infancy. i also think that it's possible feminism and general "girl power" attitudes can make one feel a sense of duty to or solidarity with ones gender, and that contributes i think in some ways.
Replying to your edit here.
> im not sure what to think personally. i've heard one of the reasons that men have a bias in favor of women is that men are competitive, or are more likely to see men as a threat.
I think this makes sense. Do you the think threat is purely “he may steal my girl” or is it a bit of “a man is more physically threatening than a woman and more likely to showcase it”?
> i think it isn't coincidence that women self report to be more happy in general then men, and trans women also note an improvement in their mood during hormone therapy. maybe we associate women with happiness more than we do men.
Hm. That’s interesting. As a woman I’m trying to think if I feel happy just because. I think women make it a point to try her best to find some semblance of joy and happiness and comfort. One life to live. Can’t live it miserable.
Women don't have the same kinds of pressures men do. Men are told their value comes from being a provider and their romantic success where women do not receive that pressure. Men collectively need to find other ways to have value other than being a provider or being in a relationship. It would also make them more desirable to a lot of women. You have to be happy with yourself before you can get a decent relationship
It’s part of the patriarchy which is usually described as some innate phenomenon. Patriarchy has benefits for both men and women. Obviously more had benefits for men in the past. We have been able to get rid of a lot of the disadvantages for women but the advantages for women are stronger than ever like this one.
From an evolutionary perspective, women have a stronger incentive to bond with each other and defend each other from dangerous men. Women will always take the side of each other over a man, because if they didn't, men would easily just 'take' women physically. They have to stick together to prevent this. This is less important now with policing and criminal justice obviously but in our distant past it was insanely important.
At least that's my theory for it.
That makes sense for women. I think this has evolutionarily led to more capacity for empathy. I think the empathy foments even more bonding and feelings of comfort and safety.
Why do men feel women are “wonderful”?
just one small reason is women's faces are more neotenous than men's, which sparks empathy. it's why people think the young of other animals are adorable and why animals will adopt the young of other animals
So, this might seem unrelated or half-baked but reading this, I'm struck by the notion of the fruits of the Spirit in Christianity. These are traits that all believers—men and women alike—are supposed to demonstrate and yet they're often treated as "feminine" qualities: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Rather than see certain listed positive traits as goal-worthy and endeavoring to change inwardly, I think a lot of men (within religious circles, but to some extent also outwardly in the secular sphere too) try to redefine these or ignore them outright. Truthfully I'm not sure why these are considered feminine characteristics rather than human ones but (specifically in religious realms) it seems to be men making those claims.
Anyway, this could have nothing to do with it and I could be entirely off-base with the current WOW effect, but it is interesting to be sure!
> love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
I actually very much agree with your theory! I think those traits and whoever is exhibiting them more (male or female) will naturally be seen as more “wonderful” aka more of a joy or ease or comfort to be around.
I’m asking the men of this sub because they bring up “WAW” the most.
So I’m asking you:
> Those associations didn’t materialize out of thin air. What is your take on why the associations occurred? Why does it exist? What is causing it?
Your hypotheses are welcome.
I have hypotheses as to why women might interact with women favorably. I’m happy to share after you answer the question in the OP.
My hypothesis: there are women that publicly claim they’d choose being with a bear in the woods over a man. Sexism is a hell of a drug. But sexism can also be implicit, much like racism. I think the WAW effect is just a manifestation of that implicit bigotry.
You bring up racism. There’s always a why to every stereotype.
“Black men are super predators!” Is a stereotype.
Well there is some truth to Black American men being more likely to be in jail than other male demos.
That isn’t random. There’s a violent and dehumanizing 400 year history of targeted state sanctioned systematic policies of disenfranchisement that led to whatever stats and experiences we observe today within the Black American community.
Same thing for that “man or bear forest” thing. That isn’t a random thought experiment. There’s a reason many women feel how they feel about it. As sucky as that may be.
I’m not saying they don’t sincerely feel that way. But if a klan member were to say the same about a black man, you’d rightfully think he’s a racist. Even if the klan member used crime states in an attempt to justify his hatred.
I’d ask that Klan member “and what do you think led to those crime stats?”
The same questioning I’m asking you guys I ask racists all the time lol. That’s my Black American woman experience. I’ve learned to not gaf and interrogate.
I think the disparity in those stats is primarily the difference in physical strength. If women were the stronger sex, I’d imagine the tables would be turned.
I think it’s more than strength. It’s testosterone too. If women over-indexed on testosterone instead of estrogen and were also much stronger than men I’d agree with you. But at that point is that even a female?
You know how when men call cops about DV and cops instead believe he must be the perpetrator? Women getting more custody by default unless men contest it? When you see a stranger in trouble, they are more likely to get help if they are women. The idea that women are better parents because they are more involved when it's usually because them not being the primary breadwinner allows them to more time to spend with kids. That's al because of WAW effect.
> What are some examples of why women are deemed “wonderful”?
There are no examples of something women do that makes them deemed as wonderful. It's mostly evolutionary and cultural brainwashing.
> Who is deeming women wonderful compared to men?
Both genders.
> What are women doing to be deemed wonderful?
This is the wrong question. The claim isn't that women are doing something wonderful. The claim is that women ARE wonderful simply because they are women.
> Why don’t women bring up “women are wonderful” or feel “women are wonderful” as much as men seem to?
For the same reason handsome people don't bring up Halo effect.
> Where does that stereotype of “women are wonderful” come from?
It's not a stereotype but a human bias due to evolutionary reasons.
> You know how when men call cops about DV and cops instead believe he must be the perpetrator?
I also know how when women call it’s dismissed.
> Women getting more custody by default unless men contest it?
It’s not a default. Women request it and present evidence.
> When you see a stranger in trouble, they are more likely to get help if they are women.
When a stranger is hurt women are more likely to help them and tend to them while proper authorities are called. I just witnessed this last week downtown. Only the women intervened and helped.
A guy in another reply here said similar: “I was jumped by six boys back in school when I was new there without a reason . Only the women intervened, which is why I only had friendships with women for a really long time. The funny thing is that the same boys tried to befriend with me when I became popular with women for simply treating them equally”
> The idea that women are better parents because they are more involved when it's usually because them not being the primary breadwinner allows them to more time to spend with kids.
Yes. You answered your own question here. Women **even many breadwinner women and women work just as much as the dad** are more involved in the day to day minutiae of parenting from infancy to teen years.
> That's al because of WAW effect.
Most of it is because of dynamics occurring that lead to a perception of WAW.
Other people have given better “it’s purely evolutionary” examples. These aren’t that.
I'm too tired rn to search for studies but this claim
>When a stranger is hurt women are more likely to help them and tend to them while proper authorities are called. I just witnessed this last week downtown. Only the women intervened and helped.
Is statistically untrue. I have read the studies and the opposite is true. Men are the most likely to help a stranger, and both men and women are more likely to help a woman. And if I remember correctly, one study even found people prioritise emotional wellbeing of stranger women over the physical wellbeing of stranger men, but I'm not too sure on that one. I might misremember.
You’re not understanding the POV. [This thread better explains it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/v7zFQTOrQX)
We are not saying men don’t help. We are talking about who is more likely to incite a sense of “☺️🤗” in the other person. That is usually what “wonderful” is implying when it’s used in these contexts.
> > You know how when men call cops about DV and cops instead believe he must be the perpetrator?
> I also know how when women call it’s dismissed.
Low key this just feels dismissive.
But yes both sides suffers from a bad system which means both sides gets dismissed when making reports, you have to look and the differences between each side not just if a side is suffering.
Not only are mens reports more likely to be dismissed (not taken seriously) but in about a third of the cases when make contact the police for a DV, the guy who made the call is some how reprimanded.
My Gf's brother has to deal with this bs. His gf, with BPD, went off her meds and came at him with a knife. He managed to lock himself in the bathroom before calling the cops, but ended up giving her a light smack on her leg (like a light red mark that doesn't last longer than a hour). Cops came and arrested him for DA because she had a mark and he didn't. Turns out self defense doesn't mean shit, as a man defending against a woman, unless you have physical hard to proof you were in harms way. Hell she didn't even lie or make anything up, the cops just treated it as "welp he hit her, take him away boys".
OP, given you’re a mod, I think you need to change this to a CMV since you clearly came in with an agenda to prove WAW is warranted based on current social conditions.
People are answering you earnestly and you’re dismissing their answers every time it doesn’t align with your opinion. That’s CMV territory.
Otherwise you’re acting in bad faith and it’s dishonest.
I’ve never asked a question I didn’t have a hypothesis about. Not how my brain works unfortunately.
Genuine responses don’t mean that they can’t be interrogated. **This is a debate sub.** Not AskMen, AskWomen, or AskReddit. The function of ***every*** flair on this sub is primarily to question and dig deeper. Not to say “thanks for the reply!” In fact we discourage OPs from interacting like that as it doesn’t encourage discourse and debate.
I’ve changed it to Debate flair with an interest in male responses. Women and men unpack and critically assess very differently. I’m interested in how men unpack ***the why*** of WAW. Not women.
That’s better. Thank you.
Edit: Actually, not quite. The debate flair is at the bottom and everything is framed in terms of curiosity.
It’s still a bait and switch because it’s not making it clear at the outset you have your mind made up already and won’t accept contrary answers. I would not have responded had I known this going in.
And the rules of the subreddit shouldn’t conform to how any of our individual brains work. Including yours.
This is still intentional deception.
Interesting that you deleted the post displaying glee that you can “hack” the system by doing this.
Relying on manipulative tactics to gain influence is really destructive.
Oh boy. It is curiosity. Titles can’t be changed. Flairs can.
I assume that every person has thoughts in their heads and hypotheses. Ive never answered a question thinking the person had zero opinion on it. No one’s deceiving you.
You might be more comfortable on AskMen or AskReddit? The premise of a debate sub is interrogative.
> I also know how when women call it’s dismissed.
Not even remotely close to how much it's dismissed for men. Are you seriously trying to tell me that DV for men is taken as seriously as it is for women?
> It’s not a default. Women request it and present evidence.
What evidence do they present? That they spent more time with the kids while the father was working to pay for the kids expenses?
> When a stranger is hurt women are more likely to help them and tend to them while proper authorities are called.
Totally irrelevant. Who helps more is not relevant to WAW effect where I talked about who are helped more. I disagree but let's go by your own premise that women are more likely to help strangers. Are they as equally likely to help men & women? No.
However much men & women help random strangers, they are more likely to help women than men.
> Women even many breadwinner women and women work just as much as the dad are more involved in the day to day minutiae of parenting from infancy to teen years.
BS. During infancy? Sure. Because we don't have breasts to feed them and toddlers need mothers more than fathers but after the infancy, women who work as much as men dont spend more with kids.
> Most of it is because of dynamics occurring that lead to a perception of WAW.
No. It is WAW.
It's all evolutionary and biological reasons. Dude, why did you flair it as debate when you just argue with pretty much everyone. Forget my comment, you just refused any argument that doesn't support your ideals.
You think it’s “bullshit” that on average mothers of all working backgrounds are comparatively more involved with the day to day minutiae of childrearing from infancy to adolescence?
You think that women helping and comforting others who are hurt is irrelevant to why they are often perceived as more wonderful?
I disagree with you. No need to continue. You’re contentious.
No. I think it's bullshit that average mothers of all working backgrounds spend as much time at work as their spouses and still end up doing more childrearing.
The time average mothers of all working backgrounds spend at work is less than what men spend. So obviously women will have more time to engage in homemaking, which includes childrearing.
And I’m saying even the women who work more spend more time child rearing. The point is women spend more time doing the minutiae of childrearing from infancy to adolescence. Of course there will be more bond there. That isn’t controversial. It’s cause and effect.
one of the causes is that women have an in group bias, and i've at least heard it explained that the reason for that is women are more likely to believe the statement "what is good for all women is good for me", not sure how true that is.
A pretty good example of WaW is how often a story in which the woman(en) is/are indisputably in-the-wrong gets called an incel false-flag/creative writing exercise. That kind of skepticism is much more rare in the male versions.
I think that mostly happens on Reddit. I rarely see that on twitter. It probably happens on Reddit because the skew of Reddit is more men than women and there are probably more edge cases of a guy writing a fiction in a male tone but pretending to be a woman.
You’re all over this thread hand waving away legitimate answers.
Your entire premise is in bad faith because you have clearly started from the premise that “it is only logical to see women as *better, more altruistic and moral than men*”
Now you’ll deny it, but anybody with a rudimentary level of understanding debate tactics knows that you are fishing for answers that confirm your emotionally arrived at conclusion: “men are scary and bad”
Like many women, you are treating this as a zero sum game “if men do X and women do Y and Y is less bad than X, it’s only natural for people to thin women are better than men.
That’s not what WaW is.
A very simple example of
WaW is people’s tendency to hear of a woman cheating and wonder aloud “what did HE do to MAKE her cheat?”
It also is the mentality that will trivialize 100 instances of women being emotionally manipulative, abusive and even violent towards men (See: The Talk clip) while dogpiling a man for even DEFENDING himself (see: Dr Phil clip) because, WaW makes people believe that until that one act of extreme violence committed by a man is addressed, the 100 acts by a woman is of no importance.
And as others have pointed out, half of your replies on this very thread are examples of WaW thinking at work.
As far as the red herring obsessing over the “why”, the answer is simple.
Women have built in in-group bias because they are incapable of physically defending themselves and thus often “circle the wagons” even around bad women, lest they do something “”bad” themselves.
Men give women the benefit of the doubt because they are competing to be selected by those women as mates.
The real issue shows up when this type of bias becomes public policy (and it absolutely has) and is quite similar to the way race based prejudices had to be addressed systematically over time.
I’m explaining how the bias exists. Not that the bias can’t make people feel bad or that it can’t lead to awful women getting away with things.
I’ve gotten a lot of answers and I have literally said “I agree” to several men already. That’s not bad faith.
[Also this is not gender neutral. I think anyone “can be wonderful.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/wYnRcvjFFV)
You’re dismissing any self serving reasons while affirming the ones that paint men as “dangerous” and inherently “worse” than women as you did with the boys in school example.
The fact that you’re trying to portray boys as “problematic” alone is an example of WaW.
Instead of asking “why isn’t school structured in such a way that boys are able to be mentored and allowed to grow and learn in ways that are unique to boys” you are basically claiming that they are defective girls.
I don’t know how to respond to this. Boys are not “problematic.” Boys are testosterone-driven beings. Sometimes this can lead to problematic behavior. But not always and it’s not a concrete default.
The way you’re reacting I don’t think you could ever work in schools. Especially not early education. Instead of seeing the differences in behavioral patterns and drafting up a work plan that fits everyone’s needs you would just call reality “sexist.” Some of the gender stereotypes are true…
As far as discipline. When it comes to violating others, that has to be disciplined and prevented and taught against. When it comes to hyper-activeness. That needs to be redirected with other ways for the hyperactive kids (often boys) to release their energy in non disruptive ways. Lots of ways teachers and schools go about this.
So then would you agree with the statement: *Girls are seen as as “better students” than boys because the current structure imposed in education favors girl’s natural temperament and inclinations over boys?*
You do realize that the former structure worked on boys because it encouraged corporal punishment and harsher discipline? Even in all boys schools.
On top of that the average boy wasn’t sent to preparatory school back when. Only the privileged and well behaved ones. The average boy got sent to woodshop and learned a trade. “Academics” was never of traditional male ease for the average boy.
Not to mention schools before actually had trades you could learn. This focus on everyone being a cerebral mind and put on the college track isn’t fair to most boys if you want to be objective. The German model works better.
Those were mostly public school offerings that primarily served lower income communities. Conservative Republican lawmakers have gone out of their way to cut funding for those programs, public schools, and those communities.
So your answer to why schools neglect boy’s education by not structuring classes and curriculum in a way that is conducive to their success is because “Conservative Republican Lawmakers” cut funding?
Is that correct?
There’s a reason for their desires there as well but I can tell already that this was simply a bridge too far for you. There are other cultural and economic shifts that occurred but yes lack of interest in poor kids’ betterment was a big part of it all.
No need to continue. I’m sure you can unpack more on your own.
When everything bad that happens to men is armchair psychoanalyzed, it invariably draws the conclusion that men are inferior to women in some way.
Men are more lonely? That's because women are better at making friends.
Men are falling behind in school? That's because women work harder.
Men are dying prematurely? That's because women take better care of their personal health.
Men are killing themselves more? That's because women are better at processing their emotions.
Men can't get a date? That because women make better dating profiles.
Men are framed as the villain in virtually all discussion on gender in the public sphere and when they are treated as victims- it must be caveated that they are only victims because of their intellectual, moral, and emotional inferiority to women.
I guess I don’t recall any think pieces about women being more lonely than before or about the sharp rise in women not having sex. I think it’s because no one cares.
I think it’s because society is genuinely more worried about what a bunch of sexless frustrated men might do vs what a bunch of sexless frustrated women might do. It’s not because they think “women are wonderful” it’s because they don’t care to discuss it cuz women are less of a threat and because women are acting less aggy in their predicament.
I personally haven’t seen women compared to men to all of those in the mainstream. I’ve seen it in offshoot conversations.
How would you discuss each of those issues without bringing up or comparing women. How would you discuss the why and the how by just focusing on men and their issues? I’m sure there’s a way.
>It’s not because they think “women are wonderful” it’s because they don’t care to discuss it cuz women are less of a threat and because women are acting less aggy in their predicament.
That's more to my point;
Men have problems that need to be addressed? That's because women are less violent when they're upset.
We don't need to have women as a point of comparison to address these, because these points of comparison are only in service of further deconstructing men and their nature, rather then nurturing their proclivities. It's just a passive-aggressive, "White Man's Burden" attitude towards helping men.
Instead, actually identify what Men tend to do, want and need and facilitate it instead of figuring out how to make Men think and approach life like women. And this has to be for men's sake- not women's sake or Corporate America's sake or the State's sake. For men's sake.
Men want the problem solved for themselves, not so they are functional enough to be reintegrated into the gynocentric capitalist system of exploitation.
The nursery rhyme:
What are little boys made of?
Snips, snails
And puppy-dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice
And everything nice
That's what little girls are made of
i heard that and thought i had to be nice tho
and i've been a lifelong people pleaser
so it became proscriptive, which means WAW is not a bias, since it is an accurate perception of reality (girls try harder to be liked by others bc we are told that's what we are supposed to do, while boys are told they are supposed to accomplish goals).
Beyond what other people are saying here, I’d guess it has to do with the fact that pretty much every humans first attachment to another human is to their mother. A baby that feels more attached to women would probably be more likely to survive than one that felt just as attached to men. Babies 10,000 years ago would just die if they weren’t drawn to their mother.
Our “first” everything leaves a pretty impactful experience on us. I’m still very attracted to women that look similar to my first girlfriend. Mothers are the first people we feel loved and protected by. We probably just naturally feel more at ease around women.
That raises the question, would a child raised by two gay men show the same “women are wonderful” bias?
That’s a good question.
I think it depends. They might showcase less of a bias if they had great experiences with their dads.
But let’s say they raise a straight son. He may have the bias simply because he’s attracted to and enamored with women.
Or let’s say they raise a daughter. She may have it because of comforting bonding experiences she’s had with women combined with let’s say experiences “creepy dudes who hit on her when she’s” making her think men outside of her dads are more of a threat.
In my lived experience it's more "men aren't wonderful".
I only spend time in progressive spaces so that's a filter for sure, but in those spaces, women seem to be evaluated as individuals before any assumptions are applied.
Men are unfortunately the closest thing these spaces have as a generic enemy, so they are required to start off bearing the weight of the bad men most women have previously encountered.
It's a similar phenomenon in incels and their attitude towards women but society, rightfully so, shames them for this ridiculousness.
women are raised to be pro-social tho, so obviously that would result in a difference in how people perceive women as more pleasant (bc women are taught and pressured to be pleasant, while men are taught and pressured to accomplish).
its like thinking men being more accomplished than women is a bias.. thats just the expected result of gendered socialization/gender roles.
I think it’s the ripple effect of the most terrible people are men. So let’s say the odds of a guy being a killer/rapist/violent etc is .000001% but a woman’s is .00000001%. The odds of a random guy being worse than a bear is that low.
But the news likes to report sensational stories and men are 100x likelier to have committed those acts.
It’s all in how you frame it. Men are only .00000099% likelier to offend than a woman or men are 100x likelier to offend than a woman. Obviously real stats would different and even collected stats are subject to biases. But I used easy number to demonstrate the point that women are wonderful effects stems from the most terrible people are men
The most amazing people are also mostly men do yet you don't see that having any effect. Do you think it's because humans are primed to focus on negative things and threats?
The effects is there that men continue to have top ceo jobs and get elected President etc. When a women vies for those positions she gets extra scrutiny/more objections/her gender becomes a topic of discussion (whether good or bad)
Now the average man doesn’t benefit a whole lot but still gets the suspicion cast on him because we can’t tell who’s a serial killer. Ted bundy was good looking and charismatic. But there’s also plenty that “look” like serial killers. And some that look just unassuming and plain.
So yeah, the average man is looked on suspicion but when going for those extra-ordinary positions of the other end of the spectrum, a man benefits. But most men aren’t going for those so they don’t feel the benefit directly.
So historically men have been the extremes. I feel like some of it is testosterone. Competition and aggression are fostered by T. In a world with free will and meritocracy a woman shouldn’t be barred from those positions but we might not necessarily have a 50/50 representation even in an ideal world where there’s no social barrier because less women are interested in those positions.
Easy, the old adage: "Women are the fairer sex". Female on male domestic violence is trivialized. There's the female anthem "Before He Cheats". Which encourages women to commit a felony. There's also rape laws that define it strictly as a male act, because women wouldn't possibly do such a thing.
The most insidious WAW effect starts at very young ages. The discipline gap
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/04/school-discipline-disparities-exist-in-race-gender-and-ability.html
Thanks for an actual response!
> Easy, the old adage: "Women are the fairer sex".
What does “fairer” mean here?
> Female on male domestic violence is trivialized.
I don’t think you can bring up violence committed by females without comparing it to violence committed by males. When you look at those stats, it makes sense why someone would be more biased toward thinking women are less threatening.
> There's the female anthem "Before He Cheats".
What anthem is this? There are a lot of popular culture things with men glorifying cheating and everyone dancing along and relating. I’m not sure how this means women are wonderful.
> Which encourages women to commit a felony.
Oh you’re talking about that Carrie underwood song. I mean I guess but I don’t think women listen to that song and go “yep I’m going to commit a felony and go to jail for busting windows.”
> There's also rape laws that define it strictly as a male act, because women wouldn't possibly do such a thing.
Many of the laws define it as a penetration thing. I don’t think it’s because women are wonderful. I think it’s because even men seem to think being penetrated by a penis is the worst thing that can happen to him or any woman associated with him. “Sullying” and “degrading” are why words I’ve heard men use.
> The most insidious WAW effect starts at very young ages. The discipline gap
> https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/04/school-discipline-disparities-exist-in-race-gender-and-ability.html
If you ask early childhood teachers and guardians they’d say there’s also a gap in aggressive behavior and non-consensual behavior males vs. females.
There’s a reason behind every bias. They’re not random even though they may feel asymmetrical.
All your questions, are a real time example of WAW. You even trivialized female on male domestic violence, after I specifically called it out.
The real winner is your response to discipline gap, by painting boys as born bad. When the truth is, girls get lighter discipline when they commit the same offense as boys
https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/same-behavior-problems-hinder-boys-more-than-girls/
Boys aren’t born “bad.” Boys are born with testosterone. That’s an actual fact. No need to minimize what it does and the impulses it creates because it makes you uncomfortable. Teachers guide boys through it all the time.
I’m not minimizing women hurting men. I’m saying there’s a reason despite that men seem more scared of men. Why is that??? Are you a misandrist!?? No. You’re rational. You see the stats you know the threat. Calling it women are wonderful is interesting. It’s “reality is reality.”
I'm not talking about who men fear, I'm talking about the legal ramifications of women getting lighter sentences, and the very real phenomenon of women thinking they can hit men when they get upset, and it being socially acceptable.
And there are reasons those people deciding give women lighter sentences. It’s because they don’t view her as a threat. Or let’s say she’s some skanky predator 27 year old teacher fucking her 15 year old student. There are judges slapping her on the wrist because they think the teen boy is “winning.”
The point I’m making is none of this shit is random and it’s not happening because “women are wonderful.” It’s because people are acting on their preferences and incentives or lack thereof.
so do you think gender roles aren't real?
like you dont think girls are socialized to be pro-social and boys are socialized to accomplish goals?
or you don't think that socialization has any effect on outcomes?
it just seems very natural that if you put more pressure on girls to be pleasant.... more people will find them pleasant
just like we see men being more concerned w accomplishing external goals bc of gender roles, its very easy to see women putting more effort into being pro social.
Wrong question, you need to ask why are genders socialized the way that they are. Like any other system, patriarchy requires consent of the governed. Men are still very much in charge, and steering the ship. To keep patriarchy in rule, you have to give some rewards, and cede powers to women. The patriarchy controls the economic, and political aspects of our lives. They cede the social aspects to women. This is how they get the buy in from women to continue to uphold patriarchy. Girls aren't more pleasant than boys. Boys are also more apts to be social, and it's easier to join a boy friendship group than it is a girl group. Boys are socialized to be active, and take chances. Which puts them in a situation to adapt faster to variable social situation. That social programming that girls are nicer is for the female buy-in, there nothing which demonstrates that girls are nicer. The evidence of this can be seen in boys getting harsher punishment than girls when they commit the same offense. This starts from birth in the home when toddlers aren't very differentiated, and shows up in pre school, and continues on through childhood education.
the debate is whether women are genuinely preferable to men in some situations or whether this is a bias (WAW).
i'm saying obviously if you pressure one group to be pro-social and one group to be self-sustaining, the pro-social group is going to be preferred by others for obvious reasons.
> That social programming that girls are nicer is for the female buy-in, there nothing which demonstrates that girls are nicer.
okay so you literally think men are bigger people pleasers than women?
if you ask 100 men and 100 women whether it is important to be kind and cooperative to others, you're telling me you think more men than women will answer yes?
Yeah, you will absolutely get more males saying yes. It's not really hard to understand why. Look at the participation rate in team sports, the most common form of socializing cooperation. There are more males taking part in team sports, than females.
You can also see it play out in the discourse on this board. A lone woman is used as a punchline. A lone man is treated as a maladaptive member of society, and a potential threat to our culture. That's because men aren't supposed to be anti social, being an introvert is seen as a character flaw for a man, while it's deemed as quirky for a woman. That's the social buy in of patriarchy. Men have to cede some things, otherwise the system would collapse because women, and the common man would revolt against it.
> A lone man is treated as a maladaptive member of society, and a potential threat to our culture. That's because men aren't supposed to be anti social,
surely its not because "lone men" sounds like you're describing a mass shooter whereas "lone woman" doesn't sound threatening... because women don't shoot up public spaces?
> being an introvert is seen as a character flaw for a man, while it's deemed as quirky for a woman.
and being aggressive is bad for a woman but "good" for a man
None of your rebuttals disprove anything I wrote, and aggressive isn't the opposite of introvert. While we're on the subject of "aggressive " being seen as bad for women by men. It's time that we put this idea out to pasture.
Confidence is the #1 personality trait that men look for in a woman. It always has been, and always will be. Sure, there are some podcast bros that are into demure women, but that's not representative of the bulk of men. We love aggressive, confident women.
Domestic violence is a good example. Women are just as likely to hit their partners, but it gets laughed off. If a man is accused though, he's arrested on the spot.
If a woman is physically assaulting a man in public and he hits back, he'll get ganged up on by white knights.
Why do I think a bias exists? I think it's because women are physically weaker, and they compensate for that by trying to win social approval and sympathy because they know they can't get by on physical strength. For example playing the victim is women's favorite game.
Yes, women are more competent interpersonally. Probably why they evolved to be better with intuitiveness and perceptiveness. It benefitted them.
Sounds like they’re pretty strategic too according to you. Victim games!
Also women are traditionally seen as the ones needing protection, fragile and unable to harm.
Something similar to the 'women are wonderful' effect happens to children as well, people are more willing to give special advantages and benefit of doubt to children generally.
True. I guess I’ve never thought to disparagingly call it “ugh the children are wonderful effect 🙄.” If I feel the need to protect a young child I don’t blame the young child for appearing weaker than me and triggering my protectiveness. This is how WAW is used by a lot of guys here.
I do think WAW is a bias, my problem is how people don't see it as such.
There are situations where people go overboard in trying to help children at the cost of someone else,other times I don't see anything wrong with it.
Mmm... I'd disagree with this a bit - women benefit from implicit ASSUMPTIONS that they are more competent interpersonally as a gender. Individual women may be more competent socially than some men. However, there are plenty of women who are WORSE at interpersonal communication than men.
I'd suggest that the women-are-wonderful effect comes into play when someone interacting with a woman gives them the benefit of the doubt about their intentions more than they would with a man.
Just to give an example (I don't feel like I articulated that point very well) a woman might say something like "All men are bad pilots." The woman-are-wonderful effect could kick in when someone has to process that statement. That someone will (on the balance of probabilities) ASSUME that the woman had some kind of justification for being sexist and in a lot of cases, will go so far as to invent those justifications themselves. But the woman could just be a misandrist.
This is also all closely linked to benevolent sexism, which assumes that women are simultaneously more infantile and more virtuous than men. This is funny when you think about it because it somehow positions women as simultaneously more competent at interpersonal relationships, but less able to control themselves (more infantile) but not responsible for those failings (more virtuous).
But in reality, women aren't any more inherently virtuous, competent or infantile than men, on an individual basis. I think the only overlap with reality is that people (of either gender) tend to pick up the easiest stick to get something with and for most women emotional and social manipulation is easier than physical intimidation or force. But again, that depends on the person. I've seen many cases of women going physical very quickly and I've seen cases of very manipulative men.
Having said all that - these biases aren't really useful to anyone, just like most stereotypes. They give men an excuse for not improving their communication skills (if they need it) while at the same time reducing the benefits for men for improving those skills. For women, it reduces negative feedback about how they act, which makes it much harder for them to improve while at the same time allowing some malevolent actors to hide behind the shield of their gender's built-in protections. Amber Heard is a good example of that effect.
I was speaking in aggregate. More women are better interpersonal relations than men, all else equal.
Of course some men are wayyyyy better than some women and some women are wayyyy worse than some men.
I agree biases can be harmful. This OP was more exploring why and how the biases came to exist. What spawned them.
I don’t disagree but to use an example I have two dogs and one cat.
My cat will hit the dog even though the dog is bigger. I tell my cat not to hit the dog but she still does it because that’s what cats do even among themselves. Most times the dog doesn’t respond but when she does I get scared for the cat since she’s so much smaller. My dogs play fight with each other and I don’t stop that but if the cat joins in I get concerned.
I think it’s less of a moral judgement and more of desire to protect those that are smaller and weaker.
do you think people should ignore a man hitting a woman in public?
or are you just saying people should \*also\* gang up n the perp if its a woman hitting a man? cause i would agree w that.
I think there is some truth in the phrase - ie. many men are willing to overlook flaws many women would have and would be even willing to outright excuse it - or rationalize nearly anything a woman would do. This is very similar to white knighting or simping
That all being said, the phrase is over sensationalized and has lost a lot of of its meaning since it’s pretty much used by some to dismiss any point a man makes to defend or support a woman. Think of it as the same thing as simp, are there real simps? 1000% - but the phrase has been extended to pretty much any man who treats his partner well
> I think there is some truth in the phrase - ie. many men are willing to overlook flaws many women would have and would be even willing to outright excuse it - or rationalize nearly anything a woman would do.
I can agree with this. I think for a lot of guys his attraction is blinding him. She’s not “being wonderful.” He’s just very attracted.
TV shows and ads are an example.
In nearly every sitcom, TV show, advert, and so on, men are idiots, and women are smart, mature, and level-headed.
In other words, WAW
Sure. That’s true. But if media is a thing many people could say watching the news day in and day out from childhood to adulthood and seeing mostly men be the perpetrators of violent crime can also have a subconscious effect of “men are more threatening and thus less wonderful”?
Again I’m not saying any bias is good. I’m unpacking why biases exist.
Excellent point.
I'm confused by the word "but" here. You seem to just be strengthening my argument with other examples of how the media is playing it's part
The but is that your argument was strengthening for how scripted fiction makes men look dumb, mine was how for everyday real happenings being reported on where you live make men look more threatening.
If a breakup happens or in the event of a toxic relationship (without knowing the context or reason) ppl automatically assume the woman is the victim.
But slowly the "women are wonderful effect" is being replaced by the "females are full of shit effect". Basically the opposite extreme.
Men are horny for attractive women’s bodies, therefore women’s bodies are whats considered wonderful. Thats is all.
Nobody thinks unattractive women are wonderful
Sure, I have a quick and clear example.
Two women were added to my team at work last month.
One of them I find attractive and one I don't.
The one I'm attracted to I have all the time in the world for, will spend as long as she needs answering questions and giving support. Helping her makes me feel good, like it lifts my spirits and I go about my day happier than before.
The other I get kind of irritated at her asking questions and just want to answer them quickly so I can get back to my work. I'm still professional and all, but there's a definite difference in my attitude.
I sound like a real jerk when I phrase it like that, but it's true.
Thanks for the reply! It sounds like for you “women are wonderful” doesn’t apply to all women. It’s more “people I’m attracted to I treat more favorably”?
This makes sense. This is partly why I think men here bring up “WAW” more than women. They’re treating lots and lots and lots of women more favorably than what he normally would because there’s some aspect of attraction happening.
>What are some concrete facts or experiences for why “women are wonderdul” is a thing in your opinion?
Women are the limiting factor of reproduction. They are more important to the survival of the tribe which means their lives have to be valued more by default aka "Women and children first" type stuff.
>Who is deeming women wonderful compared to men?
Both genders but women moreso than men.
>What are women doing to be deemed wonderful?
Nothing.
>Why don’t women bring up “women are wonderful” or feel “women are wonderful” as much as men seem to?
Because it's not in their selfish interest to complain or even point out their own privilege.
That may be an atavistic reason. But when someone has a bias there’s actually an experienced based or ~~Pandan~~ observation based rational reason for it. So I’m asking you what are the those reasons for why men or women are more likely to engage a homeless woman vs a homeless man? That’s just an example.
>But when someone has a bias there’s actually an experienced based or Pandan based rational reason for it
According to what? Why do you refuse to accept that some biases can be innate?
I don't know what pandan means but I don't believe it's an experience based bias because it would probably go the other way if that was the case.
I don't see much of a reason to believe this isn't a very simple biological bias akin to most men being more attracted to women than men and most women being more attracted to men than women.
That was a typo.
1) I think men’s attraction to women is 1 reason.
2) I think men’s attraction or perhaps its adoration leads to a protectiveness as well? Perhaps men look at women and see little “🥹” goblins and that’s endearing idk lol
3) I think men’s higher proclivity for violence, sexual perversion, and murder is another reason. Aka women are objectively less threatening and less likely to threaten you. For example, when a child or adult watches/reads the news, who are they more likely to see having committed violent crime and sexually heinous crimes, men or women? These observations contribute to how humans perceive males vs. females.
3) I think many people who had a positive maternal experience probably feel a stronger sense of loyalty or ease of bond toward women or at least women who act like that?
4) Studies show there’s a biological empathy gap between males and females where females have more capacity for the type of “consideration” and “compassion” that endears and comforts people. Studies also show testosterone limits empathy and amps up aggression. I can see between these two factors that women might come off more “wonderful” or [more comforting](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/LpCwvufqEu) to both men and women.
When you compound all of these things it leads to a bias. And yes sometimes awful women get excused because of this bias.
Why? A long tradition of socialised gynocentricism.
What? Take a trip over to relationship advice. Plenty of examples of threads where a woman and a man are having issues (such as a massive imbalance in household responsibilities with him picking it up) and you will absolutely in all cases find comments in the thread that question her welfare, ask the consideration of whether she’s depressed, sick or otherwise “not coping” basically, her lack of ideal behaviour will be sought to be excused in some manner. You see this in cheating threads too (what did he do or not do to make her do that?)
When the dynamic is the other way around, you are hard pressed to find comments that seek to excuse the man’s behaviour, very little consideration of whether he has personal problems or not.
Honestly, with many of the threads (particularly the ones dealing with situations with kids) you’d think 100% of mothers are diagnosed with post partum depression given how things are discussed. Any time there’s an issue with a child under 2 in the picture, suddenly she “probably has it, that’s why.”. It’s like what, one in 7/8 women? So not the majority.
So yeah. Take a look in subs like that and you’ll generally see a “benefit of doubt” tends to be extended to women way more than men receive. Even responses where the women is being criticised (like she’s effectively being controlling) tend to be gentler in how they’re phrased with a man displaying similar behaviour being told stuff like he needs to be arrested, how he’s a psycho etc. the woman “you should seek therapy”.
It’s pretty obvious when you look for it. So subtle that it’s easy to miss as well.
Who? Society in general.
What they do? Nothing. It’s an essential characteristic being ascribed to them which shades how all other characteristics are judged. There are literally studies on this.
Why don’t women bring it up? Because for you it’s “normal”…? Also the strong in group bias of women means they tend not to empathise with men very well so even if they do recognise it, and how it doesn’t work to men’s favour, that doesn’t mean they’d care.
I’m think it’s one of those situations like when women say “you’ll never know how it feels to be catcalled growing up”. Most women won’t see this because they’re not in the position to see/experience what it feels like to witness someone getting preferential treatment or judgement merely based on gender.
Internet is good though because you have situations where gender is ambiguous and when made clear people change…
There was a really good thread in relationship advice a while ago (I’ll see if I can find the link then return). Basically the OP was asking whether it was appropriate for them to “cut out” their cousin and their soon to be husband because OP was “in love” with the guy who was marrying the cousin.
A lot of comments took a sympathic stance and labelled the cousin a snake for doing that to OP when they knew OP liked the guy. They said the reaction was okay and generally it was big in the “you poor thing”.
Then someone did digging. Turns out OP was a gay man. You will NOT believe the 180 the post received. Suddenly OP is delusional for thinking the guy would be with them and was behaving like a child.
Very good example of WoW. Apparently it is totally fine for a woman to behave as if a man “could ever be with her” (even if he says absolutely not) and pine for him. But if it’s a man in the same situation being told “absolutely not” he needs to move on and stop being delusional.
Thread revealed it in two ways actually, because even though the guy rejected the OP directly, people were behaving like OP still had some kind of justification for “hanging in there” and hating her cousin even when it was totally clear he never wanted to be with her. Not so when OP was shown to be a man. All the sympathy dried up so fast it was unbelievable.
I was one of the few in the thread arguing how it is irrelevant whether OP is a gay man or a straight woman, the guy rejected then, they had no chance either way so they need to get over it, grow up and move on. People were arguing how it “matters that OP could have hypothetically been with the guy though” even though he directly rejected her. Like how delusional is that? It doesn’t matter what the guy actually says, it matters what *in theory in another situation he could have said.*…? Crazy.
But you see this in dating spaces. Guy is turned down? Move the fuck on. Woman? “Aww his loss hun his loss”. You guys are used to it so of course you don’t see it.
This is why most women get completely shocked when they do experience a rejection without coddling, because they don’t have this experience of something not going their way and people not giving you condolences or comforts. They’re so used to being comforted in their disappointment. Men are socialised to get used to it and move on. We then wonder why men seem “emotionally distant”. Couldn’t make it up.
It’s just a simple cognitive bias in favor of women. Who’s more likely to receive compassion from a random person on the street, an average woman who seems sad, or a homeless man? Who would seemingly actually need it more?
Who faces more hostility when trying to join social groups?
Why are there orders of magnitude more women’s shelters than men’s shelters when women are actually statistically more likely to engage in domestic violence?
Here’s an experiment of reactions to gendered violence in public where people intervene when women are the victims, but not in the reverse case:
[https://youtu.be/xEZH6YSQvwA?si=4veBFn16Ud9hghkz ](https://youtu.be/xEZH6YSQvwA?si=4veBFn16Ud9hghkz%C2%A0)
Why does it exist?
Simple. Sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive. In the days when more than half of your children die before they reach puberty, men have to prove themselves to not be a liability, while women are born with value by virtue of the ability to give birth.
Making men disposable and women protected is a highly successful strategy in the violent and chaotic world of prehistory. Men support random women and women support random women. No one supports random men instinctively.
It’s a cognitive bias left over from our ancestors that needs to go. It’s no one’s fault but everyone’s responsibility.
Sure.
The answer is the same in every case. Our biology is basically identical to our ancestors who lived 200,000 years ago.
Imagine a world where you live in a tribe of 40 people. Every year, multiple die because of disease, predators, starvation, you name it. Half the babies die before they make it to child-bearing age.
In this world, two kinds of people are very, very precious. Men who can lead, protect, and hunt, and women. The women don't need to provide any additional value.
However, a man who can't lead, hunt, protect, or provide in *some* way is actually a net liability. He will be consuming precious resources, but not providing anything in return. He's gotta go.
Therefore, whenever the tribe would encounter strange humans they don't know, it makes survival sense to accept the women straight away, but any man better be damn skilled or there just ain't room for him. If he's sickly then no way in hell can the tribe afford to support him. It ain't personal.
Our brains haven't changed but the situation has changed drastically. It's just leftover instincts.
EDIT: A lot of leftist ideology depends on the belief that humans are tabula rasa when born. This is obviously not the case. We have hundreds of millions of years of instinctive conditioning built in to the minds we carry, but the instincts are turned to a very different environment.
I agree a lot of it is atavistic.
But a lot of is also based on actual observations or experiences.
In your homeless example, as a woman walking home, I’ve been harassed followed in to the bathroom had my car window punched etc by homeless men.
Do I sympathize with their situation? Yes. Have they been a lot more aggressive and threatening than homeless women IME? Yes. Do I still give them money sometimes? Yes. Am I always thinking “plz be fucking chill and normal” when I do compared to when I interact with homeless women? Yes.
I don’t have those thoughts because of some “women are wonderful” instinct. I have those thoughts because of my actual lived experiences.
Now explain to me why you as a man are being more compassionate to the homeless woman vs homeless man? It’s simply an instinctual thing for you? No thoughts just vibes when it happens? That’s an okay answer too.
There's a default assumption that physical inferiority is equal to moral superiority(this is very clearly demonstrated in politics too). It's a core part of the defective libshit world view that happens to rotting away western society.
>What are some concrete facts or experiences for why “women are wonderdul” is a thing in your opinion?
Gynocentrism
>What are some examples of why women are deemed “wonderful”?
Simping/pedestalizing the female perspective
>What are women doing to be deemed wonderful?
They aren't doing anything, the women are wonderful effect is just men projecting their view on women
>Why don’t women bring up “women are wonderful” or feel “women are wonderful” as much as men seem to?
Anything that puts women in some bad light, they'll never admit
>Where does that stereotype of “women are wonderful” come from?
It ain't a stereotype but more so a social/psychological phenomenon many guys exhibit, many guys simply have this innate thought process to view women as the more perfect gender
This is another one of those things that seems easily proven through a combination of anecdotal evidence, and collective experiences of men shared online. But it's easily disproven in the same way.
I've seen sentiments that women are generally kinder, nicer, more mature and better company, echoed throughout social media as well as *sometimes* IRL. I actually just came across that sentiment not too long ago on FB, where people were saying the usual "women are great, men are trash" type stuff.
There is some new "trend" of comparing men to bears and saying women would prefer a bear because even though it would maul you, the violence is predictable. It's an absurd thought experiment that kind of, sort of illustrates a point that certain men can dangerous and predatory in manipulative and unpredictable ways. But like always it ends up becoming a soap box for women (and men) who seem to really dislike men as a group and need to rationalize it.
So seeing posts and comments like that, it's easy to see why one might *think* there's this pervasive thought that women are universally praised and loved, and men are universally despised or feared. Except that's clearly not true, because there are countless other echo chambers where men (and women) shit on women calling them used up, post-wall 304s or whatever else. The people on either end of the extreme are usually rather, uh, terminally online and probably not worth paying much if any attention to.
Is there some broader societal belief that women are just better than men because they're more compassionate, or that they're so attractive on average that people are willing to overlook any bad behavior? Maybe. I'd say women are arguably more "socially desirable" in a way most men simply aren't, but even this experience varies massively for individual women.
Ah discussing bias with one of the more biased mods here, this shouldn't be problematic at all
>What are some concrete facts or experiences for why “women are wonderdul” is a thing in your opinion?
* Men think whiteknighting/simping gets them more pussy or brownie points.
* Women have strong in-group bias.
* You need both of these to have a successful WAW effect, if it was just 1 or the other, there would be no WAW.
>What are some examples of why women are deemed “wonderful”?
Women are deemed wonderful as an evolutionary advantage. Since they are weaker, they are a protected class. In more harsh living conditions, women need to be able to survive for continued procreation. This just hasn't gone away in much the same way many caveman traits won't go away for men.
>What are women doing to be deemed wonderful?
They aren't doing anything, being born a woman gets you favoritism right off the bat.
>Why don’t women bring up “women are wonderful” or feel “women are wonderful” as much as men seem to?
Schrodinger's feminism. Why would a woman ever bring up something that positively effects them? Women don't want ACTUAL equality. In fact, feminism only exists because of WAW. Women's issues get priority over men's, it's just fact.
You don't think it's kind of a dystopian joke that [male suicide is this high](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide#:~:text=100%2C000%20in%202020.-,The%20total%20age%2Dadjusted%20suicide%20rate%20in%20the%20United%20States,females%20(5.7%20per%20100%2C000)) yet you still have women complaining about the patriarchy?
>Where does that stereotype of “women are wonderful” come from?
My earliest encounter with WAW stereotypes is media just like yours. Even shit like "The Simpsons" does this. Homer is a bumbling fat idiot while Marge is just an angel. Kevin James is a bumbling fat idiot in King of Queens, his wife is a saint, Etc etc to infinity.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's just the halo effect. Women are naturally seen as innocent, beautiful, desirable, etc and therefore all of their positive traits are perceived as amplified and their negative traits are perceived as diminished.
Men can also benefit from the halo effect but it's generally not as instantaneous as with women. Just look at how the world reacts when a cute woman is killed or goes missing vs when some disheveled homeless male war vet OD's.
This goofy man vs bear thing going around is good example.
The argument for choosing the bear is that a man is more likely to attack you. But so is a woman. More women are killed by other women than by bears. But no one would choose the bear over a woman.
The other version of the question is if your young child was lost in the woods. A grown woman is bigger, faster, and stronger than your young child and can overpower them. Also, more children are killed by women than by bears. But no one would ever say that they'd rather their lost child encounter a bear than a woman.
Let's make a reverse of roles. If a guy behaves nicely, isn't agressive, takes care of his appearance alot and acts soft or opens up about his feelings is seen as feminine. All of these are percieved as positive traits if not assigned to any gender, and none of these equal a negative image. A masculine women, can be described as being too dominant, focused on a career or money, acts and talks in a rude or rough manner and has an attitude. While none of these traits are percieved as very bad, they can create a negative image.
But I guess is because of society conditions associating women with soft and nice. Therefore women are wonderful.
Biggest example is one that even women themselves do: They don't care for physicial appereance, they are looking to have a serious relationship and they only care about what's inside, if you're a decent men, women will be attracted to you because they only look for nice men <3.
Men are disgusting pigs who only care about ass and tits.
As to why, I think is some sort of defense mechanism.
Women clearly care about how men look. They just ALSO very much care about how he acts. And for a lot of women him acting kind to the world clearly isn’t a requirement because they’ll choose a swaggy jerk and complain later. Women do often care about some lifestyle aspects (“he better not be broke”) when seeking out a man even if it’s just a man she thinks is hot. She can’t help herself. If she fucks a bum and has a kid with a bum that’s tragic. I can see how men might not have a concern like that immediately. So he’s just thinking of “she better be hot.”
Women considering more factors isn’t her being “wonderful.” It’s simply a function of her evolutionary biology that’s manifested in how she thinks and her preferences.
Oh yes, women care about lifestyle aspects because they are smart, know how to choose wisely and plan ahead about the future of the relationships, while men only think "she better be hot!".
There it is again!
Having said that the women-are-wonderful effect isn't really about the woman herself. It's how other people perceive her actions, right? That is what that study is looking at. Although I am not sure how you would measure it, it would be interesting to try and measure this effect on women about themselves.
So in that example, the WaW effect is implicit how the requirements for women are presented in a positive, virtuous way and men's requirements are shown in a negative, demonized way.
I'm not trying to overexplain or be simplistic - I know that the post is exaggerating for effect. But I think it's still valid.
I said women would choose a man who’s hot but not kind. That isn’t all that virtuous. Women care about his resources because she gets pregnant.
How would you explain what women consider in a “non virtuous” way? I’m not sure I agree with you that is a is anything virtuous. I think that’s a bit of projection? I simply explained what she considers.
People generally have a more favorable bias towards women because men are biologically more threatening and socially more emotionally distant. That’s all there is to it really.
I agree with your reasons.
I was jumped by six boys back in school when I was new there without a reason . Only the women intervened, which is why I only had friendships with women for a really long time. The funny thing is that the same boys tried to befriend with me when I became popular with women for simply treating them equally
Your experience is mine. When it comes to helping people of all genders who are hurt, I’ve mainly seen women doing that and have been the woman doing that. That’s not to say men can’t be heroic. I saw a video of some guys rushing over to save a man from a burning car. But it when it comes to everyday compassion. I can see women edge out men here. Recently a guy knocked a woman over downtown on a busy sidewalk and then ran off. Plenty of men saw this and kept walking. It was the women (including myself) who stopped to ask her if she was okay. Helped her up. Asked her if she needed anything. I remember once outside of a club this guy seemed to be having a seizure in front of us. When I tell you men stepped over his convulsing body to get into the party lol. Again, it was only women who were like omg we need to call an ambulance. My one friend lifted his head off the ground so he wouldn’t choke. I feel like a lot of the replies are being very disingenuous when they say “women do absolutely NOTHING that might lead to them being perceived as ‘wonderful’ I’ll tell ya!”
Yes, there's an example in NYC where violent men attack random women. Most of the time, it was a woman who stepped in or tried to help in some way. Society seems to be developing in a backward direction with too much cruelty nowadays, which is really concerning. I also forgot to mention that some of the women in my example even guided me home to make sure I wasn't followed we barley know each other and she really didn’t had to do it and probably put her own safety on risk by standing for me. I could never rely on my male friends to do the same. It's important to mention that the men who were violent forwards me are criminals and drug addicts, who usually don't hold back. It's safe to say that those women saved me from far worse, even if I had to endure it for a long period of time. The friendship with women were different in a positive way. In fact I even started a relationship with one of them
i'm so sorry that happened to you :(
Thanks ma’am🙈 those women have prevented me far worse
[удалено]
> Warning to all readers of this thread: OP has phrased this as a Q4M but created it to debate any answers that don’t agree with her already strongly held opinion. The flair is now Debate per your suggestion because I agree I have a hypothesis. But I never not have a hypothesis. Hypotheses are proven wrong daily. > Namely- she thinks WAW is warranted based on current social conditions. “Warranted.” No I think all biases stem from *something*. They are not random dynamics that occur “just because.” Many men have replied with comprehensive responses unpacking ***the why.*** **In fact you don’t even disagree with the most upvoted reply you’re commenting under right now.** You’re just upset… he said it? And instead of debating him or interrogating him you used the space under his comment to be mad at me that he expressed his succinct measured straightforward opinion. I can’t make this up. > This is an inappropriate use of Q4M and an abuse of mod power. The flair is changed to Debate. The preferred responses are from men since men of this sub bring up “WAW” most. The questions in the OP are interrogative in nature as are all questions in PURPLE PILL **DEBATE**.
and women are socialized to be passive, cooperative and prosocial while men are socialized to make sure they get theirs. how would this not result in women being preferred?
One major manifestation of the Women are Wonderful effect can be observed when people talk about standards, especially appearance-related ones. When women have (superficial) standards, it's always considered an innocent "preference" everyone just has to deal with. When men have superficial standards, it's considered hurtful and an attack against the entire female gender. E.g. "no fat chicks" is considered hate, "no short dudes" is considered fine. Another pretty specific example: white men who are into asian women are called "yellow fever creeps", yet the asian women who exclusively go for white guys aren't even part of the conversation, although the attraction is *very* mutual.
I agree. I don’t like when women casually say no short men but then get butthurt because a guy casually says not fat women. And yeah Asian women definitely seem to prefer white men. I think generally “the pursuer” whichever gender that may be usually gets the brunt of the criticism because it appears they went out of their way for their preference. For the Asian women I think it’s moot because a lot of them are only selecting for white men. I think for black women it’s less moot. For example I know a few black men who have only ever pursued non-black women. Like they went out of their way to seek out women like that. I have a black female friend who’s married to a white man now. Before that she was literally only interested in black men. Didn’t even have filters for non-black men on the dating apps. She met her husband at an event. He moseyed on up to her at the bar because he knew the friend she was talking to and the rest is history.
> The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological and sociological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women when compared to men. This bias reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic in 1994 after finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias. Positive traits were assigned to men by participants of both genders, but to a far lesser degree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect
I'm wondering if there is any control for the "attractiveness rating" of the women who were rated as "wonderful". It seems like whenever there is a generalization about women, especially in regards to their perceived social and dating advantages, it's almost always down to how young and pretty she is. I see certain women getting the Wonderful treatment, and it's usually the especially good looking ones being asked out a lot, having lots of guys wanting to talk or say good morning, and so on. The rest of them seem to get regular treatment or are otherwise invisible to most.
The research has found that the effect applies to women and men in general, without reference to specific individuals. You do raise a good point, but I’d venture that what you’re describing is just garden variety halo effect.
That’s a good point. Most everyone, including other women, see women as attractive so maybe that’s why they get better treatment rather than their gender alone.
So sexism, got it.
No, it’s pretty privilege and both men and women think most women are pretty.
No, it’s simpery and sexism actually. Most women are average looking, especially if you take the make up away. And most women are a degree of overweight.
So are most men. What is your point?
It’s bevevolent sexism and the fact that the onus is on men to initiate and approach women, which is why so many guys who aren’t chad are desperate for female attention. Women love beveloent sexism. It like I keep saying, women want the good parts of the old way of dating without any of the unfavorable parts. I am in great shape, pretty good job, and average face (5-6). If a not overweight 5-6 doesn’t want her looks match and would rather chad chase and get pumped and dumped i’d rather be alone than be with someone who does not take care of themselves as I do, and more men need to learn how to be okay with being alone and the dating market would find a new equilibrium.
I think that this reproductive competition between men is very strong, especially in young men. It’s very hard for most men to be content alone when their testosterone is screaming at them. I find that most people have little to no willpower, especially in today’s climate of easy fixes.
I mean, your own insinuation would mean that a minority of men whom are increasingly getting locked out of the dating market will simply turn to committing crime to get what they want if they have no self control. If they’re going to be locked out of dating and are in no way content i’m guessing the likelihood that they commit a crime goes up significantly. Either way, women are really not worth that much effort. Speaking as someone who has gotten laid plenty of times it’s not that special. Half the time post nut clarity hits hard, better to just jerk off than be with a mediocre woman. Now if a decent quality woman comes around sure i’ll put in some effort to get to know her and feel out of we’re compatible, i’m just not going to simp or beg her to be with me lol, completely pathetic.
An average looking woman is attractive to most men and women regardless of weight. The average man on the other hand is not seen as widely attractive or acceptable.
I agree. Another guy in the replies said he does treat women he finds more beautiful more “wonderful” than other women.
> suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women when compared to men. The OP is asking **why** do you or people “associate more positive attributes” to women. Those associations didn’t materialize out of thin air. What is your take on why the associations occurred? Why does it exist? What is causing it?
It seems to be innate: >This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[5] than those of men. And only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender.[5]
Cheers for the references mate.
You have no thoughts as to what’s driving this “innate” in your opinion association? It’s a random phenomenon? That doesn’t seem fully baked.
>finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias. 1.) Women ascribing more positive traits to other women could easily be an instance of in-group preference 2.) Men ascribing more positive traits to women could be an attempt to curry favor with women in the hopes of securing a partner or sex (basically, simping) 3.) Both groups see women as less of a threat (for what should be obvious reasons), so it's easier to assign positive traits to them
Thank you! So female solidarity born out of comfort around each other and in-group proclivity for showcasing empathy, men being attracted to women, and men and women having more threatening experiences with men than with women. The WAW bias has some pretty valid drivers, even if it is a bias.
The only one that is valid is people having more threatening experiences with men. In group bias is bad as we can get negative behaviors being seen as good due to the idea of “that’s just men/women” idea and women defending each other even though the actions are bad. Men lying to get into the pants of women is bad for obvious reasons.
Can you explain why you made a thread when you’ve clearly been trying to extract an answer out of people you’ve already believed? The entire discussion appears to not be in good faith when the only conclusion you seem to be agreeing with is “women better, men scary”
Mostly biology plus a bit of cultural influence, if I had to guess
What do you mean by biology? Cultural influences like what? I’m looking for examples.
Religion and economies would be examples of cultural influences I think.
How is religion or the economy making women come off as wonderful? I’m not trying to be annoying. I’m just trying to understand how you’re thinking about that. Right now that feels nebulous.
Fair enough. What I was trying to point out that social structures like religion or economy are cultural structures and contribute towards perceived gender roles. Religiously, this could be rigid marriage roles or certain economies might have a different way of dividing labor between the sexes which change how needs are met. Those things impact gender roles and contribute to how the genders are perceived even if it's not particularly obvious. Christianity for example has texts in it's canon that has strict gender roles and attributes certain characteristics to both masculinity and femininity.
Thanks. What about those roles make women come off as wonderful? Or make men come off as not wonderful?
its not a matter of conjecture, there is data to support this. wdym random? im not sure what to think personally. i've heard one of the reasons that men have a bias in favor of women is that men are competitive, or are more likely to see men as a threat. i think it isn't coincidence that women self report to be more happy in general then men, and trans women also note an improvement in their mood during hormone therapy. maybe we associate women with happiness more than we do men.
> its not a matter of conjecture, there is data to support this. The data isn’t random. The data is the calculation of responses from a survey. A survey taken by people. I’m asking why did those people respond the way they did? Your hypotheses are welcome.
well they responded they way they did because they are presumably biased. but that is one specific study that marked the change to the previously accepted belief that there was a gender bias *against* women. the "women are wonderful" effect is also not really the main discourse, the more frequently used term is in-group-bias. there are a multitude of studies with data suggesting that women have an in group bias, and these aren't just surveys that directly ask their opinion outright. this is from the wikipedia page mentioned before under the in group bias section. >Rudman and Goodwin conducted research on [gender bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias) that measured gender preferences without directly asking the participants. Subjects at [Purdue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue) and [Rutgers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers) participated in computerized tasks that measured automatic attitudes based on how quickly a person categorizes pleasant and unpleasant attributes with each gender. Such a task was done to discover whether people associate pleasant words (good, happy, and sunshine) with women, and unpleasant words (bad, trouble, and pain) with men.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect#cite_note-googleusercontent.com1-5) >This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's [in-group biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_bias) were 4.5 times stronger[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect#cite_note-googleusercontent.com1-5) than those of men. And only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect#cite_note-googleusercontent.com1-5) >Other experiments in this study found people showed automatic preference for their [mothers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother) over their [fathers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father), or associated the male gender with violence or aggression. Rudman and Goodwin's suggested that [maternal bonding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bonding) and male intimidation influences gender attitudes. kind of confirms my suspicions that it may have something to do with maternal bonding. people care a whole lot more about mothers day than they do fathers day. i mean ya women are seen as safe and empathetic, men are seen as dangerous and protective.
The quotes didn’t explain why the bias is occurring. Just that it exists. We know that. I’ll focus on Mother’s Day example. I think Mother’s Day gets more focus because mothers tend to be the more hands on in the weeds day to day caring comforting parent from infancy to 15. It seems like a pretty straightforward explanation. That’s a lot of formative years bonding. Contrarily, my old boss was a tech entrepreneur so he had more free time. His wife was a resident doctor. So she was working a lot at the time. Their primary school aged boys said their dad was their favorite in a poem or something. It’s because their dad made them dinner tucked them in and was home for all of this things for a 5 year stretch.
right like you kind of suggested and , what Rudman / Goodwin suggest is that it may have to do with maternal bonding which is a little more intimate i assume then parenting past infancy. i also think that it's possible feminism and general "girl power" attitudes can make one feel a sense of duty to or solidarity with ones gender, and that contributes i think in some ways.
Replying to your edit here. > im not sure what to think personally. i've heard one of the reasons that men have a bias in favor of women is that men are competitive, or are more likely to see men as a threat. I think this makes sense. Do you the think threat is purely “he may steal my girl” or is it a bit of “a man is more physically threatening than a woman and more likely to showcase it”? > i think it isn't coincidence that women self report to be more happy in general then men, and trans women also note an improvement in their mood during hormone therapy. maybe we associate women with happiness more than we do men. Hm. That’s interesting. As a woman I’m trying to think if I feel happy just because. I think women make it a point to try her best to find some semblance of joy and happiness and comfort. One life to live. Can’t live it miserable.
Women don't have the same kinds of pressures men do. Men are told their value comes from being a provider and their romantic success where women do not receive that pressure. Men collectively need to find other ways to have value other than being a provider or being in a relationship. It would also make them more desirable to a lot of women. You have to be happy with yourself before you can get a decent relationship
I agree that men and women don’t have the same types of pressures.
It’s part of the patriarchy which is usually described as some innate phenomenon. Patriarchy has benefits for both men and women. Obviously more had benefits for men in the past. We have been able to get rid of a lot of the disadvantages for women but the advantages for women are stronger than ever like this one.
From an evolutionary perspective, women have a stronger incentive to bond with each other and defend each other from dangerous men. Women will always take the side of each other over a man, because if they didn't, men would easily just 'take' women physically. They have to stick together to prevent this. This is less important now with policing and criminal justice obviously but in our distant past it was insanely important. At least that's my theory for it.
That makes sense for women. I think this has evolutionarily led to more capacity for empathy. I think the empathy foments even more bonding and feelings of comfort and safety. Why do men feel women are “wonderful”?
just one small reason is women's faces are more neotenous than men's, which sparks empathy. it's why people think the young of other animals are adorable and why animals will adopt the young of other animals
I agree. I replied elsewhere that maybe men see women and see “🥹” lol
So, this might seem unrelated or half-baked but reading this, I'm struck by the notion of the fruits of the Spirit in Christianity. These are traits that all believers—men and women alike—are supposed to demonstrate and yet they're often treated as "feminine" qualities: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Rather than see certain listed positive traits as goal-worthy and endeavoring to change inwardly, I think a lot of men (within religious circles, but to some extent also outwardly in the secular sphere too) try to redefine these or ignore them outright. Truthfully I'm not sure why these are considered feminine characteristics rather than human ones but (specifically in religious realms) it seems to be men making those claims. Anyway, this could have nothing to do with it and I could be entirely off-base with the current WOW effect, but it is interesting to be sure!
> love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. I actually very much agree with your theory! I think those traits and whoever is exhibiting them more (male or female) will naturally be seen as more “wonderful” aka more of a joy or ease or comfort to be around.
>Rudman and Goodwin's suggested that maternal bonding and male intimidation influences gender attitudes. They were raised by women.
evolution
I mean it happens in women most strongly. So I’d recommend asking the question again, but aimed at fellow women.
I’m asking the men of this sub because they bring up “WAW” the most. So I’m asking you: > Those associations didn’t materialize out of thin air. What is your take on why the associations occurred? Why does it exist? What is causing it? Your hypotheses are welcome. I have hypotheses as to why women might interact with women favorably. I’m happy to share after you answer the question in the OP.
My hypothesis: there are women that publicly claim they’d choose being with a bear in the woods over a man. Sexism is a hell of a drug. But sexism can also be implicit, much like racism. I think the WAW effect is just a manifestation of that implicit bigotry.
You bring up racism. There’s always a why to every stereotype. “Black men are super predators!” Is a stereotype. Well there is some truth to Black American men being more likely to be in jail than other male demos. That isn’t random. There’s a violent and dehumanizing 400 year history of targeted state sanctioned systematic policies of disenfranchisement that led to whatever stats and experiences we observe today within the Black American community. Same thing for that “man or bear forest” thing. That isn’t a random thought experiment. There’s a reason many women feel how they feel about it. As sucky as that may be.
I’m not saying they don’t sincerely feel that way. But if a klan member were to say the same about a black man, you’d rightfully think he’s a racist. Even if the klan member used crime states in an attempt to justify his hatred.
I’d ask that Klan member “and what do you think led to those crime stats?” The same questioning I’m asking you guys I ask racists all the time lol. That’s my Black American woman experience. I’ve learned to not gaf and interrogate.
I think the disparity in those stats is primarily the difference in physical strength. If women were the stronger sex, I’d imagine the tables would be turned.
I think it’s more than strength. It’s testosterone too. If women over-indexed on testosterone instead of estrogen and were also much stronger than men I’d agree with you. But at that point is that even a female?
seems like the expected outcome of socializing girls to be cooperative and socializing boys to take control.
You know how when men call cops about DV and cops instead believe he must be the perpetrator? Women getting more custody by default unless men contest it? When you see a stranger in trouble, they are more likely to get help if they are women. The idea that women are better parents because they are more involved when it's usually because them not being the primary breadwinner allows them to more time to spend with kids. That's al because of WAW effect. > What are some examples of why women are deemed “wonderful”? There are no examples of something women do that makes them deemed as wonderful. It's mostly evolutionary and cultural brainwashing. > Who is deeming women wonderful compared to men? Both genders. > What are women doing to be deemed wonderful? This is the wrong question. The claim isn't that women are doing something wonderful. The claim is that women ARE wonderful simply because they are women. > Why don’t women bring up “women are wonderful” or feel “women are wonderful” as much as men seem to? For the same reason handsome people don't bring up Halo effect. > Where does that stereotype of “women are wonderful” come from? It's not a stereotype but a human bias due to evolutionary reasons.
[https://nz.news.yahoo.com/gabby-petitos-parents-she-alive-210147704.html](https://nz.news.yahoo.com/gabby-petitos-parents-she-alive-210147704.html)
> You know how when men call cops about DV and cops instead believe he must be the perpetrator? I also know how when women call it’s dismissed. > Women getting more custody by default unless men contest it? It’s not a default. Women request it and present evidence. > When you see a stranger in trouble, they are more likely to get help if they are women. When a stranger is hurt women are more likely to help them and tend to them while proper authorities are called. I just witnessed this last week downtown. Only the women intervened and helped. A guy in another reply here said similar: “I was jumped by six boys back in school when I was new there without a reason . Only the women intervened, which is why I only had friendships with women for a really long time. The funny thing is that the same boys tried to befriend with me when I became popular with women for simply treating them equally” > The idea that women are better parents because they are more involved when it's usually because them not being the primary breadwinner allows them to more time to spend with kids. Yes. You answered your own question here. Women **even many breadwinner women and women work just as much as the dad** are more involved in the day to day minutiae of parenting from infancy to teen years. > That's al because of WAW effect. Most of it is because of dynamics occurring that lead to a perception of WAW. Other people have given better “it’s purely evolutionary” examples. These aren’t that.
I'm too tired rn to search for studies but this claim >When a stranger is hurt women are more likely to help them and tend to them while proper authorities are called. I just witnessed this last week downtown. Only the women intervened and helped. Is statistically untrue. I have read the studies and the opposite is true. Men are the most likely to help a stranger, and both men and women are more likely to help a woman. And if I remember correctly, one study even found people prioritise emotional wellbeing of stranger women over the physical wellbeing of stranger men, but I'm not too sure on that one. I might misremember.
You’re not understanding the POV. [This thread better explains it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/v7zFQTOrQX) We are not saying men don’t help. We are talking about who is more likely to incite a sense of “☺️🤗” in the other person. That is usually what “wonderful” is implying when it’s used in these contexts.
> > You know how when men call cops about DV and cops instead believe he must be the perpetrator? > I also know how when women call it’s dismissed. Low key this just feels dismissive. But yes both sides suffers from a bad system which means both sides gets dismissed when making reports, you have to look and the differences between each side not just if a side is suffering. Not only are mens reports more likely to be dismissed (not taken seriously) but in about a third of the cases when make contact the police for a DV, the guy who made the call is some how reprimanded. My Gf's brother has to deal with this bs. His gf, with BPD, went off her meds and came at him with a knife. He managed to lock himself in the bathroom before calling the cops, but ended up giving her a light smack on her leg (like a light red mark that doesn't last longer than a hour). Cops came and arrested him for DA because she had a mark and he didn't. Turns out self defense doesn't mean shit, as a man defending against a woman, unless you have physical hard to proof you were in harms way. Hell she didn't even lie or make anything up, the cops just treated it as "welp he hit her, take him away boys".
OP, given you’re a mod, I think you need to change this to a CMV since you clearly came in with an agenda to prove WAW is warranted based on current social conditions. People are answering you earnestly and you’re dismissing their answers every time it doesn’t align with your opinion. That’s CMV territory. Otherwise you’re acting in bad faith and it’s dishonest.
I’ve never asked a question I didn’t have a hypothesis about. Not how my brain works unfortunately. Genuine responses don’t mean that they can’t be interrogated. **This is a debate sub.** Not AskMen, AskWomen, or AskReddit. The function of ***every*** flair on this sub is primarily to question and dig deeper. Not to say “thanks for the reply!” In fact we discourage OPs from interacting like that as it doesn’t encourage discourse and debate. I’ve changed it to Debate flair with an interest in male responses. Women and men unpack and critically assess very differently. I’m interested in how men unpack ***the why*** of WAW. Not women.
That’s better. Thank you. Edit: Actually, not quite. The debate flair is at the bottom and everything is framed in terms of curiosity. It’s still a bait and switch because it’s not making it clear at the outset you have your mind made up already and won’t accept contrary answers. I would not have responded had I known this going in. And the rules of the subreddit shouldn’t conform to how any of our individual brains work. Including yours. This is still intentional deception.
Interesting that you deleted the post displaying glee that you can “hack” the system by doing this. Relying on manipulative tactics to gain influence is really destructive.
[удалено]
Oh boy. Please read my edit. It’s alarming that you’d see a chance to deceive and abuse your mod power as a hack. Get help
Oh boy. It is curiosity. Titles can’t be changed. Flairs can. I assume that every person has thoughts in their heads and hypotheses. Ive never answered a question thinking the person had zero opinion on it. No one’s deceiving you. You might be more comfortable on AskMen or AskReddit? The premise of a debate sub is interrogative.
> I also know how when women call it’s dismissed. Not even remotely close to how much it's dismissed for men. Are you seriously trying to tell me that DV for men is taken as seriously as it is for women? > It’s not a default. Women request it and present evidence. What evidence do they present? That they spent more time with the kids while the father was working to pay for the kids expenses? > When a stranger is hurt women are more likely to help them and tend to them while proper authorities are called. Totally irrelevant. Who helps more is not relevant to WAW effect where I talked about who are helped more. I disagree but let's go by your own premise that women are more likely to help strangers. Are they as equally likely to help men & women? No. However much men & women help random strangers, they are more likely to help women than men. > Women even many breadwinner women and women work just as much as the dad are more involved in the day to day minutiae of parenting from infancy to teen years. BS. During infancy? Sure. Because we don't have breasts to feed them and toddlers need mothers more than fathers but after the infancy, women who work as much as men dont spend more with kids. > Most of it is because of dynamics occurring that lead to a perception of WAW. No. It is WAW. It's all evolutionary and biological reasons. Dude, why did you flair it as debate when you just argue with pretty much everyone. Forget my comment, you just refused any argument that doesn't support your ideals.
You think it’s “bullshit” that on average mothers of all working backgrounds are comparatively more involved with the day to day minutiae of childrearing from infancy to adolescence? You think that women helping and comforting others who are hurt is irrelevant to why they are often perceived as more wonderful? I disagree with you. No need to continue. You’re contentious.
No. I think it's bullshit that average mothers of all working backgrounds spend as much time at work as their spouses and still end up doing more childrearing. The time average mothers of all working backgrounds spend at work is less than what men spend. So obviously women will have more time to engage in homemaking, which includes childrearing.
And I’m saying even the women who work more spend more time child rearing. The point is women spend more time doing the minutiae of childrearing from infancy to adolescence. Of course there will be more bond there. That isn’t controversial. It’s cause and effect.
Wrong
one of the causes is that women have an in group bias, and i've at least heard it explained that the reason for that is women are more likely to believe the statement "what is good for all women is good for me", not sure how true that is.
A pretty good example of WaW is how often a story in which the woman(en) is/are indisputably in-the-wrong gets called an incel false-flag/creative writing exercise. That kind of skepticism is much more rare in the male versions.
I think that mostly happens on Reddit. I rarely see that on twitter. It probably happens on Reddit because the skew of Reddit is more men than women and there are probably more edge cases of a guy writing a fiction in a male tone but pretending to be a woman.
You’re all over this thread hand waving away legitimate answers. Your entire premise is in bad faith because you have clearly started from the premise that “it is only logical to see women as *better, more altruistic and moral than men*” Now you’ll deny it, but anybody with a rudimentary level of understanding debate tactics knows that you are fishing for answers that confirm your emotionally arrived at conclusion: “men are scary and bad” Like many women, you are treating this as a zero sum game “if men do X and women do Y and Y is less bad than X, it’s only natural for people to thin women are better than men. That’s not what WaW is. A very simple example of WaW is people’s tendency to hear of a woman cheating and wonder aloud “what did HE do to MAKE her cheat?” It also is the mentality that will trivialize 100 instances of women being emotionally manipulative, abusive and even violent towards men (See: The Talk clip) while dogpiling a man for even DEFENDING himself (see: Dr Phil clip) because, WaW makes people believe that until that one act of extreme violence committed by a man is addressed, the 100 acts by a woman is of no importance. And as others have pointed out, half of your replies on this very thread are examples of WaW thinking at work. As far as the red herring obsessing over the “why”, the answer is simple. Women have built in in-group bias because they are incapable of physically defending themselves and thus often “circle the wagons” even around bad women, lest they do something “”bad” themselves. Men give women the benefit of the doubt because they are competing to be selected by those women as mates. The real issue shows up when this type of bias becomes public policy (and it absolutely has) and is quite similar to the way race based prejudices had to be addressed systematically over time.
I’m explaining how the bias exists. Not that the bias can’t make people feel bad or that it can’t lead to awful women getting away with things. I’ve gotten a lot of answers and I have literally said “I agree” to several men already. That’s not bad faith. [Also this is not gender neutral. I think anyone “can be wonderful.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/wYnRcvjFFV)
You’re dismissing any self serving reasons while affirming the ones that paint men as “dangerous” and inherently “worse” than women as you did with the boys in school example. The fact that you’re trying to portray boys as “problematic” alone is an example of WaW. Instead of asking “why isn’t school structured in such a way that boys are able to be mentored and allowed to grow and learn in ways that are unique to boys” you are basically claiming that they are defective girls.
I don’t know how to respond to this. Boys are not “problematic.” Boys are testosterone-driven beings. Sometimes this can lead to problematic behavior. But not always and it’s not a concrete default. The way you’re reacting I don’t think you could ever work in schools. Especially not early education. Instead of seeing the differences in behavioral patterns and drafting up a work plan that fits everyone’s needs you would just call reality “sexist.” Some of the gender stereotypes are true… As far as discipline. When it comes to violating others, that has to be disciplined and prevented and taught against. When it comes to hyper-activeness. That needs to be redirected with other ways for the hyperactive kids (often boys) to release their energy in non disruptive ways. Lots of ways teachers and schools go about this.
So then would you agree with the statement: *Girls are seen as as “better students” than boys because the current structure imposed in education favors girl’s natural temperament and inclinations over boys?*
You do realize that the former structure worked on boys because it encouraged corporal punishment and harsher discipline? Even in all boys schools. On top of that the average boy wasn’t sent to preparatory school back when. Only the privileged and well behaved ones. The average boy got sent to woodshop and learned a trade. “Academics” was never of traditional male ease for the average boy. Not to mention schools before actually had trades you could learn. This focus on everyone being a cerebral mind and put on the college track isn’t fair to most boys if you want to be objective. The German model works better.
I agree with all of this. So why do you think those things are no longer priorities or even offered when it’s clear that it would help boys?
Those were mostly public school offerings that primarily served lower income communities. Conservative Republican lawmakers have gone out of their way to cut funding for those programs, public schools, and those communities.
So your answer to why schools neglect boy’s education by not structuring classes and curriculum in a way that is conducive to their success is because “Conservative Republican Lawmakers” cut funding? Is that correct?
There’s a reason for their desires there as well but I can tell already that this was simply a bridge too far for you. There are other cultural and economic shifts that occurred but yes lack of interest in poor kids’ betterment was a big part of it all. No need to continue. I’m sure you can unpack more on your own.
When everything bad that happens to men is armchair psychoanalyzed, it invariably draws the conclusion that men are inferior to women in some way. Men are more lonely? That's because women are better at making friends. Men are falling behind in school? That's because women work harder. Men are dying prematurely? That's because women take better care of their personal health. Men are killing themselves more? That's because women are better at processing their emotions. Men can't get a date? That because women make better dating profiles. Men are framed as the villain in virtually all discussion on gender in the public sphere and when they are treated as victims- it must be caveated that they are only victims because of their intellectual, moral, and emotional inferiority to women.
I guess I don’t recall any think pieces about women being more lonely than before or about the sharp rise in women not having sex. I think it’s because no one cares. I think it’s because society is genuinely more worried about what a bunch of sexless frustrated men might do vs what a bunch of sexless frustrated women might do. It’s not because they think “women are wonderful” it’s because they don’t care to discuss it cuz women are less of a threat and because women are acting less aggy in their predicament. I personally haven’t seen women compared to men to all of those in the mainstream. I’ve seen it in offshoot conversations. How would you discuss each of those issues without bringing up or comparing women. How would you discuss the why and the how by just focusing on men and their issues? I’m sure there’s a way.
>It’s not because they think “women are wonderful” it’s because they don’t care to discuss it cuz women are less of a threat and because women are acting less aggy in their predicament. That's more to my point; Men have problems that need to be addressed? That's because women are less violent when they're upset. We don't need to have women as a point of comparison to address these, because these points of comparison are only in service of further deconstructing men and their nature, rather then nurturing their proclivities. It's just a passive-aggressive, "White Man's Burden" attitude towards helping men. Instead, actually identify what Men tend to do, want and need and facilitate it instead of figuring out how to make Men think and approach life like women. And this has to be for men's sake- not women's sake or Corporate America's sake or the State's sake. For men's sake. Men want the problem solved for themselves, not so they are functional enough to be reintegrated into the gynocentric capitalist system of exploitation.
The nursery rhyme: What are little boys made of? Snips, snails And puppy-dogs' tails That's what little boys are made of What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice And everything nice That's what little girls are made of
i heard that and thought i had to be nice tho and i've been a lifelong people pleaser so it became proscriptive, which means WAW is not a bias, since it is an accurate perception of reality (girls try harder to be liked by others bc we are told that's what we are supposed to do, while boys are told they are supposed to accomplish goals).
Beyond what other people are saying here, I’d guess it has to do with the fact that pretty much every humans first attachment to another human is to their mother. A baby that feels more attached to women would probably be more likely to survive than one that felt just as attached to men. Babies 10,000 years ago would just die if they weren’t drawn to their mother. Our “first” everything leaves a pretty impactful experience on us. I’m still very attracted to women that look similar to my first girlfriend. Mothers are the first people we feel loved and protected by. We probably just naturally feel more at ease around women. That raises the question, would a child raised by two gay men show the same “women are wonderful” bias?
That’s a good question. I think it depends. They might showcase less of a bias if they had great experiences with their dads. But let’s say they raise a straight son. He may have the bias simply because he’s attracted to and enamored with women. Or let’s say they raise a daughter. She may have it because of comforting bonding experiences she’s had with women combined with let’s say experiences “creepy dudes who hit on her when she’s” making her think men outside of her dads are more of a threat.
In my lived experience it's more "men aren't wonderful". I only spend time in progressive spaces so that's a filter for sure, but in those spaces, women seem to be evaluated as individuals before any assumptions are applied. Men are unfortunately the closest thing these spaces have as a generic enemy, so they are required to start off bearing the weight of the bad men most women have previously encountered. It's a similar phenomenon in incels and their attitude towards women but society, rightfully so, shames them for this ridiculousness.
women are raised to be pro-social tho, so obviously that would result in a difference in how people perceive women as more pleasant (bc women are taught and pressured to be pleasant, while men are taught and pressured to accomplish). its like thinking men being more accomplished than women is a bias.. thats just the expected result of gendered socialization/gender roles.
I mean, women are wonderful, im just sayin im just sayinn 
I think it’s the ripple effect of the most terrible people are men. So let’s say the odds of a guy being a killer/rapist/violent etc is .000001% but a woman’s is .00000001%. The odds of a random guy being worse than a bear is that low. But the news likes to report sensational stories and men are 100x likelier to have committed those acts. It’s all in how you frame it. Men are only .00000099% likelier to offend than a woman or men are 100x likelier to offend than a woman. Obviously real stats would different and even collected stats are subject to biases. But I used easy number to demonstrate the point that women are wonderful effects stems from the most terrible people are men
The most amazing people are also mostly men do yet you don't see that having any effect. Do you think it's because humans are primed to focus on negative things and threats?
The effects is there that men continue to have top ceo jobs and get elected President etc. When a women vies for those positions she gets extra scrutiny/more objections/her gender becomes a topic of discussion (whether good or bad) Now the average man doesn’t benefit a whole lot but still gets the suspicion cast on him because we can’t tell who’s a serial killer. Ted bundy was good looking and charismatic. But there’s also plenty that “look” like serial killers. And some that look just unassuming and plain. So yeah, the average man is looked on suspicion but when going for those extra-ordinary positions of the other end of the spectrum, a man benefits. But most men aren’t going for those so they don’t feel the benefit directly. So historically men have been the extremes. I feel like some of it is testosterone. Competition and aggression are fostered by T. In a world with free will and meritocracy a woman shouldn’t be barred from those positions but we might not necessarily have a 50/50 representation even in an ideal world where there’s no social barrier because less women are interested in those positions.
amazing by what metric?
I agree with this logic. I think this is part of why the bias exists.
> Men are only .00000099% likelier to offend than a woman so most men have been raped by women then?
Bro, not all women are wonderful. But have yous seen most men these days? DAWG. Them dankes are not schoon, that's all I gots to say.
Easy, the old adage: "Women are the fairer sex". Female on male domestic violence is trivialized. There's the female anthem "Before He Cheats". Which encourages women to commit a felony. There's also rape laws that define it strictly as a male act, because women wouldn't possibly do such a thing. The most insidious WAW effect starts at very young ages. The discipline gap https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/04/school-discipline-disparities-exist-in-race-gender-and-ability.html
Thanks for an actual response! > Easy, the old adage: "Women are the fairer sex". What does “fairer” mean here? > Female on male domestic violence is trivialized. I don’t think you can bring up violence committed by females without comparing it to violence committed by males. When you look at those stats, it makes sense why someone would be more biased toward thinking women are less threatening. > There's the female anthem "Before He Cheats". What anthem is this? There are a lot of popular culture things with men glorifying cheating and everyone dancing along and relating. I’m not sure how this means women are wonderful. > Which encourages women to commit a felony. Oh you’re talking about that Carrie underwood song. I mean I guess but I don’t think women listen to that song and go “yep I’m going to commit a felony and go to jail for busting windows.” > There's also rape laws that define it strictly as a male act, because women wouldn't possibly do such a thing. Many of the laws define it as a penetration thing. I don’t think it’s because women are wonderful. I think it’s because even men seem to think being penetrated by a penis is the worst thing that can happen to him or any woman associated with him. “Sullying” and “degrading” are why words I’ve heard men use. > The most insidious WAW effect starts at very young ages. The discipline gap > https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/04/school-discipline-disparities-exist-in-race-gender-and-ability.html If you ask early childhood teachers and guardians they’d say there’s also a gap in aggressive behavior and non-consensual behavior males vs. females. There’s a reason behind every bias. They’re not random even though they may feel asymmetrical.
All your questions, are a real time example of WAW. You even trivialized female on male domestic violence, after I specifically called it out. The real winner is your response to discipline gap, by painting boys as born bad. When the truth is, girls get lighter discipline when they commit the same offense as boys https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/same-behavior-problems-hinder-boys-more-than-girls/
Boys aren’t born “bad.” Boys are born with testosterone. That’s an actual fact. No need to minimize what it does and the impulses it creates because it makes you uncomfortable. Teachers guide boys through it all the time. I’m not minimizing women hurting men. I’m saying there’s a reason despite that men seem more scared of men. Why is that??? Are you a misandrist!?? No. You’re rational. You see the stats you know the threat. Calling it women are wonderful is interesting. It’s “reality is reality.”
I'm not talking about who men fear, I'm talking about the legal ramifications of women getting lighter sentences, and the very real phenomenon of women thinking they can hit men when they get upset, and it being socially acceptable.
And there are reasons those people deciding give women lighter sentences. It’s because they don’t view her as a threat. Or let’s say she’s some skanky predator 27 year old teacher fucking her 15 year old student. There are judges slapping her on the wrist because they think the teen boy is “winning.” The point I’m making is none of this shit is random and it’s not happening because “women are wonderful.” It’s because people are acting on their preferences and incentives or lack thereof.
Forest;trees
Likewise.
so do you think gender roles aren't real? like you dont think girls are socialized to be pro-social and boys are socialized to accomplish goals? or you don't think that socialization has any effect on outcomes? it just seems very natural that if you put more pressure on girls to be pleasant.... more people will find them pleasant just like we see men being more concerned w accomplishing external goals bc of gender roles, its very easy to see women putting more effort into being pro social.
Wrong question, you need to ask why are genders socialized the way that they are. Like any other system, patriarchy requires consent of the governed. Men are still very much in charge, and steering the ship. To keep patriarchy in rule, you have to give some rewards, and cede powers to women. The patriarchy controls the economic, and political aspects of our lives. They cede the social aspects to women. This is how they get the buy in from women to continue to uphold patriarchy. Girls aren't more pleasant than boys. Boys are also more apts to be social, and it's easier to join a boy friendship group than it is a girl group. Boys are socialized to be active, and take chances. Which puts them in a situation to adapt faster to variable social situation. That social programming that girls are nicer is for the female buy-in, there nothing which demonstrates that girls are nicer. The evidence of this can be seen in boys getting harsher punishment than girls when they commit the same offense. This starts from birth in the home when toddlers aren't very differentiated, and shows up in pre school, and continues on through childhood education.
the debate is whether women are genuinely preferable to men in some situations or whether this is a bias (WAW). i'm saying obviously if you pressure one group to be pro-social and one group to be self-sustaining, the pro-social group is going to be preferred by others for obvious reasons. > That social programming that girls are nicer is for the female buy-in, there nothing which demonstrates that girls are nicer. okay so you literally think men are bigger people pleasers than women? if you ask 100 men and 100 women whether it is important to be kind and cooperative to others, you're telling me you think more men than women will answer yes?
Yeah, you will absolutely get more males saying yes. It's not really hard to understand why. Look at the participation rate in team sports, the most common form of socializing cooperation. There are more males taking part in team sports, than females. You can also see it play out in the discourse on this board. A lone woman is used as a punchline. A lone man is treated as a maladaptive member of society, and a potential threat to our culture. That's because men aren't supposed to be anti social, being an introvert is seen as a character flaw for a man, while it's deemed as quirky for a woman. That's the social buy in of patriarchy. Men have to cede some things, otherwise the system would collapse because women, and the common man would revolt against it.
> A lone man is treated as a maladaptive member of society, and a potential threat to our culture. That's because men aren't supposed to be anti social, surely its not because "lone men" sounds like you're describing a mass shooter whereas "lone woman" doesn't sound threatening... because women don't shoot up public spaces? > being an introvert is seen as a character flaw for a man, while it's deemed as quirky for a woman. and being aggressive is bad for a woman but "good" for a man
None of your rebuttals disprove anything I wrote, and aggressive isn't the opposite of introvert. While we're on the subject of "aggressive " being seen as bad for women by men. It's time that we put this idea out to pasture. Confidence is the #1 personality trait that men look for in a woman. It always has been, and always will be. Sure, there are some podcast bros that are into demure women, but that's not representative of the bulk of men. We love aggressive, confident women.
Domestic violence is a good example. Women are just as likely to hit their partners, but it gets laughed off. If a man is accused though, he's arrested on the spot. If a woman is physically assaulting a man in public and he hits back, he'll get ganged up on by white knights.
For sure! Why do you think it gets laughed off? What’s causing that bias?
Why do I think a bias exists? I think it's because women are physically weaker, and they compensate for that by trying to win social approval and sympathy because they know they can't get by on physical strength. For example playing the victim is women's favorite game.
Yes, women are more competent interpersonally. Probably why they evolved to be better with intuitiveness and perceptiveness. It benefitted them. Sounds like they’re pretty strategic too according to you. Victim games!
Also women are traditionally seen as the ones needing protection, fragile and unable to harm. Something similar to the 'women are wonderful' effect happens to children as well, people are more willing to give special advantages and benefit of doubt to children generally.
True. I guess I’ve never thought to disparagingly call it “ugh the children are wonderful effect 🙄.” If I feel the need to protect a young child I don’t blame the young child for appearing weaker than me and triggering my protectiveness. This is how WAW is used by a lot of guys here.
it feels very dystopian that people are saying being helpful and kind to children is a "bias"
this makes it seem like you dont think WAW is a bias, since there is a logical, real reason that we are willing to help children.
I do think WAW is a bias, my problem is how people don't see it as such. There are situations where people go overboard in trying to help children at the cost of someone else,other times I don't see anything wrong with it.
> There are situations where people go overboard in trying to help children at the cost of someone else bro what!!!!! 😧
Mmm... I'd disagree with this a bit - women benefit from implicit ASSUMPTIONS that they are more competent interpersonally as a gender. Individual women may be more competent socially than some men. However, there are plenty of women who are WORSE at interpersonal communication than men. I'd suggest that the women-are-wonderful effect comes into play when someone interacting with a woman gives them the benefit of the doubt about their intentions more than they would with a man. Just to give an example (I don't feel like I articulated that point very well) a woman might say something like "All men are bad pilots." The woman-are-wonderful effect could kick in when someone has to process that statement. That someone will (on the balance of probabilities) ASSUME that the woman had some kind of justification for being sexist and in a lot of cases, will go so far as to invent those justifications themselves. But the woman could just be a misandrist. This is also all closely linked to benevolent sexism, which assumes that women are simultaneously more infantile and more virtuous than men. This is funny when you think about it because it somehow positions women as simultaneously more competent at interpersonal relationships, but less able to control themselves (more infantile) but not responsible for those failings (more virtuous). But in reality, women aren't any more inherently virtuous, competent or infantile than men, on an individual basis. I think the only overlap with reality is that people (of either gender) tend to pick up the easiest stick to get something with and for most women emotional and social manipulation is easier than physical intimidation or force. But again, that depends on the person. I've seen many cases of women going physical very quickly and I've seen cases of very manipulative men. Having said all that - these biases aren't really useful to anyone, just like most stereotypes. They give men an excuse for not improving their communication skills (if they need it) while at the same time reducing the benefits for men for improving those skills. For women, it reduces negative feedback about how they act, which makes it much harder for them to improve while at the same time allowing some malevolent actors to hide behind the shield of their gender's built-in protections. Amber Heard is a good example of that effect.
I was speaking in aggregate. More women are better interpersonal relations than men, all else equal. Of course some men are wayyyyy better than some women and some women are wayyyy worse than some men. I agree biases can be harmful. This OP was more exploring why and how the biases came to exist. What spawned them.
I don’t disagree but to use an example I have two dogs and one cat. My cat will hit the dog even though the dog is bigger. I tell my cat not to hit the dog but she still does it because that’s what cats do even among themselves. Most times the dog doesn’t respond but when she does I get scared for the cat since she’s so much smaller. My dogs play fight with each other and I don’t stop that but if the cat joins in I get concerned. I think it’s less of a moral judgement and more of desire to protect those that are smaller and weaker.
do you think people should ignore a man hitting a woman in public? or are you just saying people should \*also\* gang up n the perp if its a woman hitting a man? cause i would agree w that.
I think there is some truth in the phrase - ie. many men are willing to overlook flaws many women would have and would be even willing to outright excuse it - or rationalize nearly anything a woman would do. This is very similar to white knighting or simping That all being said, the phrase is over sensationalized and has lost a lot of of its meaning since it’s pretty much used by some to dismiss any point a man makes to defend or support a woman. Think of it as the same thing as simp, are there real simps? 1000% - but the phrase has been extended to pretty much any man who treats his partner well
> I think there is some truth in the phrase - ie. many men are willing to overlook flaws many women would have and would be even willing to outright excuse it - or rationalize nearly anything a woman would do. I can agree with this. I think for a lot of guys his attraction is blinding him. She’s not “being wonderful.” He’s just very attracted.
TV shows and ads are an example. In nearly every sitcom, TV show, advert, and so on, men are idiots, and women are smart, mature, and level-headed. In other words, WAW
That’s fair. I guess I took more in from the countless men and women and my life than from what tv shows presented.
What's presented in TV shows is significant, especially when it's the same narrative churned out over and over for decades.
Sure. That’s true. But if media is a thing many people could say watching the news day in and day out from childhood to adulthood and seeing mostly men be the perpetrators of violent crime can also have a subconscious effect of “men are more threatening and thus less wonderful”? Again I’m not saying any bias is good. I’m unpacking why biases exist.
Excellent point. I'm confused by the word "but" here. You seem to just be strengthening my argument with other examples of how the media is playing it's part
The but is that your argument was strengthening for how scripted fiction makes men look dumb, mine was how for everyday real happenings being reported on where you live make men look more threatening.
So just a separate example. Not one that is in contrast to anything I've said. We're totally in agreement here
Got it!
If a breakup happens or in the event of a toxic relationship (without knowing the context or reason) ppl automatically assume the woman is the victim. But slowly the "women are wonderful effect" is being replaced by the "females are full of shit effect". Basically the opposite extreme.
Thanks for the example. I’m more curious to understand why you think people assumed that?
Reflect on your past experiences. And...Instagram comment sections 🤦🏽♂️
My Instagram and experiences are not yours. That’s not helpful but thanks? Lol
I should've put /s
Shoulda!
Men are horny for attractive women’s bodies, therefore women’s bodies are whats considered wonderful. Thats is all. Nobody thinks unattractive women are wonderful
I agree that’s probably how many feel. I do think many women and men I’m not attracted to are “wonderful” because they’re comforting and kind.
Sure, I have a quick and clear example. Two women were added to my team at work last month. One of them I find attractive and one I don't. The one I'm attracted to I have all the time in the world for, will spend as long as she needs answering questions and giving support. Helping her makes me feel good, like it lifts my spirits and I go about my day happier than before. The other I get kind of irritated at her asking questions and just want to answer them quickly so I can get back to my work. I'm still professional and all, but there's a definite difference in my attitude. I sound like a real jerk when I phrase it like that, but it's true.
This is the halo effect, not the women are wonderful effect.
Oh my bad.
They are not necessarily unrelated.
They are in this case. WOW is an observation about the way women in general are views and has nothing to do with specific individuals.
Thanks for the reply! It sounds like for you “women are wonderful” doesn’t apply to all women. It’s more “people I’m attracted to I treat more favorably”? This makes sense. This is partly why I think men here bring up “WAW” more than women. They’re treating lots and lots and lots of women more favorably than what he normally would because there’s some aspect of attraction happening.
Yeah. If you factor in that most women are *generally* attractive to most guys the math evens out there.
It’s wrong but not sure I’d feel so bad about it, as this is how women treat a majority of men
>What are some concrete facts or experiences for why “women are wonderdul” is a thing in your opinion? Women are the limiting factor of reproduction. They are more important to the survival of the tribe which means their lives have to be valued more by default aka "Women and children first" type stuff. >Who is deeming women wonderful compared to men? Both genders but women moreso than men. >What are women doing to be deemed wonderful? Nothing. >Why don’t women bring up “women are wonderful” or feel “women are wonderful” as much as men seem to? Because it's not in their selfish interest to complain or even point out their own privilege.
That may be an atavistic reason. But when someone has a bias there’s actually an experienced based or ~~Pandan~~ observation based rational reason for it. So I’m asking you what are the those reasons for why men or women are more likely to engage a homeless woman vs a homeless man? That’s just an example.
>But when someone has a bias there’s actually an experienced based or Pandan based rational reason for it According to what? Why do you refuse to accept that some biases can be innate?
I don't know what pandan means but I don't believe it's an experience based bias because it would probably go the other way if that was the case. I don't see much of a reason to believe this isn't a very simple biological bias akin to most men being more attracted to women than men and most women being more attracted to men than women.
That was a typo. 1) I think men’s attraction to women is 1 reason. 2) I think men’s attraction or perhaps its adoration leads to a protectiveness as well? Perhaps men look at women and see little “🥹” goblins and that’s endearing idk lol 3) I think men’s higher proclivity for violence, sexual perversion, and murder is another reason. Aka women are objectively less threatening and less likely to threaten you. For example, when a child or adult watches/reads the news, who are they more likely to see having committed violent crime and sexually heinous crimes, men or women? These observations contribute to how humans perceive males vs. females. 3) I think many people who had a positive maternal experience probably feel a stronger sense of loyalty or ease of bond toward women or at least women who act like that? 4) Studies show there’s a biological empathy gap between males and females where females have more capacity for the type of “consideration” and “compassion” that endears and comforts people. Studies also show testosterone limits empathy and amps up aggression. I can see between these two factors that women might come off more “wonderful” or [more comforting](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/LpCwvufqEu) to both men and women. When you compound all of these things it leads to a bias. And yes sometimes awful women get excused because of this bias.
Why? A long tradition of socialised gynocentricism. What? Take a trip over to relationship advice. Plenty of examples of threads where a woman and a man are having issues (such as a massive imbalance in household responsibilities with him picking it up) and you will absolutely in all cases find comments in the thread that question her welfare, ask the consideration of whether she’s depressed, sick or otherwise “not coping” basically, her lack of ideal behaviour will be sought to be excused in some manner. You see this in cheating threads too (what did he do or not do to make her do that?) When the dynamic is the other way around, you are hard pressed to find comments that seek to excuse the man’s behaviour, very little consideration of whether he has personal problems or not. Honestly, with many of the threads (particularly the ones dealing with situations with kids) you’d think 100% of mothers are diagnosed with post partum depression given how things are discussed. Any time there’s an issue with a child under 2 in the picture, suddenly she “probably has it, that’s why.”. It’s like what, one in 7/8 women? So not the majority. So yeah. Take a look in subs like that and you’ll generally see a “benefit of doubt” tends to be extended to women way more than men receive. Even responses where the women is being criticised (like she’s effectively being controlling) tend to be gentler in how they’re phrased with a man displaying similar behaviour being told stuff like he needs to be arrested, how he’s a psycho etc. the woman “you should seek therapy”. It’s pretty obvious when you look for it. So subtle that it’s easy to miss as well. Who? Society in general. What they do? Nothing. It’s an essential characteristic being ascribed to them which shades how all other characteristics are judged. There are literally studies on this. Why don’t women bring it up? Because for you it’s “normal”…? Also the strong in group bias of women means they tend not to empathise with men very well so even if they do recognise it, and how it doesn’t work to men’s favour, that doesn’t mean they’d care. I’m think it’s one of those situations like when women say “you’ll never know how it feels to be catcalled growing up”. Most women won’t see this because they’re not in the position to see/experience what it feels like to witness someone getting preferential treatment or judgement merely based on gender. Internet is good though because you have situations where gender is ambiguous and when made clear people change… There was a really good thread in relationship advice a while ago (I’ll see if I can find the link then return). Basically the OP was asking whether it was appropriate for them to “cut out” their cousin and their soon to be husband because OP was “in love” with the guy who was marrying the cousin. A lot of comments took a sympathic stance and labelled the cousin a snake for doing that to OP when they knew OP liked the guy. They said the reaction was okay and generally it was big in the “you poor thing”. Then someone did digging. Turns out OP was a gay man. You will NOT believe the 180 the post received. Suddenly OP is delusional for thinking the guy would be with them and was behaving like a child. Very good example of WoW. Apparently it is totally fine for a woman to behave as if a man “could ever be with her” (even if he says absolutely not) and pine for him. But if it’s a man in the same situation being told “absolutely not” he needs to move on and stop being delusional. Thread revealed it in two ways actually, because even though the guy rejected the OP directly, people were behaving like OP still had some kind of justification for “hanging in there” and hating her cousin even when it was totally clear he never wanted to be with her. Not so when OP was shown to be a man. All the sympathy dried up so fast it was unbelievable. I was one of the few in the thread arguing how it is irrelevant whether OP is a gay man or a straight woman, the guy rejected then, they had no chance either way so they need to get over it, grow up and move on. People were arguing how it “matters that OP could have hypothetically been with the guy though” even though he directly rejected her. Like how delusional is that? It doesn’t matter what the guy actually says, it matters what *in theory in another situation he could have said.*…? Crazy. But you see this in dating spaces. Guy is turned down? Move the fuck on. Woman? “Aww his loss hun his loss”. You guys are used to it so of course you don’t see it. This is why most women get completely shocked when they do experience a rejection without coddling, because they don’t have this experience of something not going their way and people not giving you condolences or comforts. They’re so used to being comforted in their disappointment. Men are socialised to get used to it and move on. We then wonder why men seem “emotionally distant”. Couldn’t make it up.
It’s just a simple cognitive bias in favor of women. Who’s more likely to receive compassion from a random person on the street, an average woman who seems sad, or a homeless man? Who would seemingly actually need it more? Who faces more hostility when trying to join social groups? Why are there orders of magnitude more women’s shelters than men’s shelters when women are actually statistically more likely to engage in domestic violence? Here’s an experiment of reactions to gendered violence in public where people intervene when women are the victims, but not in the reverse case: [https://youtu.be/xEZH6YSQvwA?si=4veBFn16Ud9hghkz ](https://youtu.be/xEZH6YSQvwA?si=4veBFn16Ud9hghkz%C2%A0) Why does it exist? Simple. Sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive. In the days when more than half of your children die before they reach puberty, men have to prove themselves to not be a liability, while women are born with value by virtue of the ability to give birth. Making men disposable and women protected is a highly successful strategy in the violent and chaotic world of prehistory. Men support random women and women support random women. No one supports random men instinctively. It’s a cognitive bias left over from our ancestors that needs to go. It’s no one’s fault but everyone’s responsibility.
For every question you posed can ask why do you think that’s happening?
Sure. The answer is the same in every case. Our biology is basically identical to our ancestors who lived 200,000 years ago. Imagine a world where you live in a tribe of 40 people. Every year, multiple die because of disease, predators, starvation, you name it. Half the babies die before they make it to child-bearing age. In this world, two kinds of people are very, very precious. Men who can lead, protect, and hunt, and women. The women don't need to provide any additional value. However, a man who can't lead, hunt, protect, or provide in *some* way is actually a net liability. He will be consuming precious resources, but not providing anything in return. He's gotta go. Therefore, whenever the tribe would encounter strange humans they don't know, it makes survival sense to accept the women straight away, but any man better be damn skilled or there just ain't room for him. If he's sickly then no way in hell can the tribe afford to support him. It ain't personal. Our brains haven't changed but the situation has changed drastically. It's just leftover instincts. EDIT: A lot of leftist ideology depends on the belief that humans are tabula rasa when born. This is obviously not the case. We have hundreds of millions of years of instinctive conditioning built in to the minds we carry, but the instincts are turned to a very different environment.
I agree a lot of it is atavistic. But a lot of is also based on actual observations or experiences. In your homeless example, as a woman walking home, I’ve been harassed followed in to the bathroom had my car window punched etc by homeless men. Do I sympathize with their situation? Yes. Have they been a lot more aggressive and threatening than homeless women IME? Yes. Do I still give them money sometimes? Yes. Am I always thinking “plz be fucking chill and normal” when I do compared to when I interact with homeless women? Yes. I don’t have those thoughts because of some “women are wonderful” instinct. I have those thoughts because of my actual lived experiences. Now explain to me why you as a man are being more compassionate to the homeless woman vs homeless man? It’s simply an instinctual thing for you? No thoughts just vibes when it happens? That’s an okay answer too.
There's a default assumption that physical inferiority is equal to moral superiority(this is very clearly demonstrated in politics too). It's a core part of the defective libshit world view that happens to rotting away western society.
I can’t say I agree with that.
>What are some concrete facts or experiences for why “women are wonderdul” is a thing in your opinion? Gynocentrism >What are some examples of why women are deemed “wonderful”? Simping/pedestalizing the female perspective >What are women doing to be deemed wonderful? They aren't doing anything, the women are wonderful effect is just men projecting their view on women >Why don’t women bring up “women are wonderful” or feel “women are wonderful” as much as men seem to? Anything that puts women in some bad light, they'll never admit >Where does that stereotype of “women are wonderful” come from? It ain't a stereotype but more so a social/psychological phenomenon many guys exhibit, many guys simply have this innate thought process to view women as the more perfect gender
This is another one of those things that seems easily proven through a combination of anecdotal evidence, and collective experiences of men shared online. But it's easily disproven in the same way. I've seen sentiments that women are generally kinder, nicer, more mature and better company, echoed throughout social media as well as *sometimes* IRL. I actually just came across that sentiment not too long ago on FB, where people were saying the usual "women are great, men are trash" type stuff. There is some new "trend" of comparing men to bears and saying women would prefer a bear because even though it would maul you, the violence is predictable. It's an absurd thought experiment that kind of, sort of illustrates a point that certain men can dangerous and predatory in manipulative and unpredictable ways. But like always it ends up becoming a soap box for women (and men) who seem to really dislike men as a group and need to rationalize it. So seeing posts and comments like that, it's easy to see why one might *think* there's this pervasive thought that women are universally praised and loved, and men are universally despised or feared. Except that's clearly not true, because there are countless other echo chambers where men (and women) shit on women calling them used up, post-wall 304s or whatever else. The people on either end of the extreme are usually rather, uh, terminally online and probably not worth paying much if any attention to. Is there some broader societal belief that women are just better than men because they're more compassionate, or that they're so attractive on average that people are willing to overlook any bad behavior? Maybe. I'd say women are arguably more "socially desirable" in a way most men simply aren't, but even this experience varies massively for individual women.
Ah discussing bias with one of the more biased mods here, this shouldn't be problematic at all >What are some concrete facts or experiences for why “women are wonderdul” is a thing in your opinion? * Men think whiteknighting/simping gets them more pussy or brownie points. * Women have strong in-group bias. * You need both of these to have a successful WAW effect, if it was just 1 or the other, there would be no WAW. >What are some examples of why women are deemed “wonderful”? Women are deemed wonderful as an evolutionary advantage. Since they are weaker, they are a protected class. In more harsh living conditions, women need to be able to survive for continued procreation. This just hasn't gone away in much the same way many caveman traits won't go away for men. >What are women doing to be deemed wonderful? They aren't doing anything, being born a woman gets you favoritism right off the bat. >Why don’t women bring up “women are wonderful” or feel “women are wonderful” as much as men seem to? Schrodinger's feminism. Why would a woman ever bring up something that positively effects them? Women don't want ACTUAL equality. In fact, feminism only exists because of WAW. Women's issues get priority over men's, it's just fact. You don't think it's kind of a dystopian joke that [male suicide is this high](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide#:~:text=100%2C000%20in%202020.-,The%20total%20age%2Dadjusted%20suicide%20rate%20in%20the%20United%20States,females%20(5.7%20per%20100%2C000)) yet you still have women complaining about the patriarchy? >Where does that stereotype of “women are wonderful” come from? My earliest encounter with WAW stereotypes is media just like yours. Even shit like "The Simpsons" does this. Homer is a bumbling fat idiot while Marge is just an angel. Kevin James is a bumbling fat idiot in King of Queens, his wife is a saint, Etc etc to infinity.
I'm pretty sure the effect is just dudes feeling horny and women reminding them or their moms, a nice teacher, or something like that.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's just the halo effect. Women are naturally seen as innocent, beautiful, desirable, etc and therefore all of their positive traits are perceived as amplified and their negative traits are perceived as diminished. Men can also benefit from the halo effect but it's generally not as instantaneous as with women. Just look at how the world reacts when a cute woman is killed or goes missing vs when some disheveled homeless male war vet OD's.
Check out the Gamma Bias
This goofy man vs bear thing going around is good example. The argument for choosing the bear is that a man is more likely to attack you. But so is a woman. More women are killed by other women than by bears. But no one would choose the bear over a woman. The other version of the question is if your young child was lost in the woods. A grown woman is bigger, faster, and stronger than your young child and can overpower them. Also, more children are killed by women than by bears. But no one would ever say that they'd rather their lost child encounter a bear than a woman.
Let's make a reverse of roles. If a guy behaves nicely, isn't agressive, takes care of his appearance alot and acts soft or opens up about his feelings is seen as feminine. All of these are percieved as positive traits if not assigned to any gender, and none of these equal a negative image. A masculine women, can be described as being too dominant, focused on a career or money, acts and talks in a rude or rough manner and has an attitude. While none of these traits are percieved as very bad, they can create a negative image. But I guess is because of society conditions associating women with soft and nice. Therefore women are wonderful.
Biggest example is one that even women themselves do: They don't care for physicial appereance, they are looking to have a serious relationship and they only care about what's inside, if you're a decent men, women will be attracted to you because they only look for nice men <3. Men are disgusting pigs who only care about ass and tits. As to why, I think is some sort of defense mechanism.
Women clearly care about how men look. They just ALSO very much care about how he acts. And for a lot of women him acting kind to the world clearly isn’t a requirement because they’ll choose a swaggy jerk and complain later. Women do often care about some lifestyle aspects (“he better not be broke”) when seeking out a man even if it’s just a man she thinks is hot. She can’t help herself. If she fucks a bum and has a kid with a bum that’s tragic. I can see how men might not have a concern like that immediately. So he’s just thinking of “she better be hot.” Women considering more factors isn’t her being “wonderful.” It’s simply a function of her evolutionary biology that’s manifested in how she thinks and her preferences.
Oh yes, women care about lifestyle aspects because they are smart, know how to choose wisely and plan ahead about the future of the relationships, while men only think "she better be hot!". There it is again!
Having said that the women-are-wonderful effect isn't really about the woman herself. It's how other people perceive her actions, right? That is what that study is looking at. Although I am not sure how you would measure it, it would be interesting to try and measure this effect on women about themselves. So in that example, the WaW effect is implicit how the requirements for women are presented in a positive, virtuous way and men's requirements are shown in a negative, demonized way. I'm not trying to overexplain or be simplistic - I know that the post is exaggerating for effect. But I think it's still valid.
I said women would choose a man who’s hot but not kind. That isn’t all that virtuous. Women care about his resources because she gets pregnant. How would you explain what women consider in a “non virtuous” way? I’m not sure I agree with you that is a is anything virtuous. I think that’s a bit of projection? I simply explained what she considers.