Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "PsycHacks"
channel.
-
23
-
" romance is actually a poor man's game "
Is is really true, though? The premise presented here is that a woman should always prefer a "Salomon", because he's got resources. That would be the case, if she could get a fair chunk of those, but realistically all she can expect is 1/700th part of those, and she'd need to fight for every little scrap of those too!
Suddenly a dedicated startup dude does not look all that bad, does he?
It's like, what is better? Owning a minuscule share of a big successful company, or having a small company of your own? Which one is actually yours?
" invented by [poor] men FOR [poor] men "
So, even according to this dude, who invented romance? The highest status men of the era. The knights, the courtiers, the creme de la creme elites.
If there was anybody in the whole state who could pick and choose the absolute best females, if were them.
" only recently in modern times been sold as something for women "
Recently? Even he talks about a thousand years old tradition, and I believe romance is much older than that. It simply makes evolutionary sense for a woman to demand early investment, because if she's pump-and-dumped, she will risk childbirth (the main female killer), then even if she survives, she might be stuck with trying to raise the child alone.
That's why they are choosy. That's why they demand dedication. That's why we fall in love and are (un)willing to do it all. It's for her, not for us.
21
-
7
-
" desire for chivalry is but a modern day manifestation of entitlement "
That's not true. Women desire chivalry in men, because they desire actual men. Whether they know it or not, whether they feel guilty for it or not, they still do desire that. And that's very simply because, being in presence of such a man makes them happy.
And they want to be happy.
I mean, how can I hold it against them, if I also want to be in company of chivalrous men. They are calmly confident, courageous, compassionate, socially skilled, effortlessly well mannered, yet you are sure that if you overstep your boundaries, they will confront you.
Everybody likes such men. Women, other men, children and even pets.
Now, compare it with the soyboys of today. Emotionally unstable, physically weak, vulnerable, egoistical, unwilling to take responsibility and so forth. Women may be willing to say that's what they want, but that's where it ends.
BTW - his "reason" for chivalry is false. If it was true, the less rights women had, the more chivalrous the society would be. That's not the case, for absolutely sure , if you look at more than one culture at one specific time. Which is what he did.
6
-
6
-
2
-
2
-
Your model, while compelling on the surface, is simply not very accurate. I'll give you an example from a book I'm reading. So, in XVIIth century Poland women were well respected, considering the historical context. All the traditional chivalrous behaviors were upheld, yet they held all the necessary rights. They could own property, sign contracts, were equal in courts, the lot.
In contrast, in XVIIth century Muscovy they had none of those rights and were treated as property.
So, maybe that's an outlier? How about we look at the current situation, where certain major monotheistic religion treats their women as property and displays none of the chivalrous behaviors we used to take for granted.
In summary, chivalry is a culture , which values women for their contribution to society. If it's declining in the West, it's because we/you no longer believe in it. It's that simple.
BTW - effortless good manners are an absolute killer. Biology does not change. Women want to feel protected and respected, even if they are told to feel otherwise.
1
-
I tried to search for what is the "consensus" on narcissism among genders. So apparently, there are many more narcissists among men than women, and the article (in Psychology Today ) that starts with this premise states the following:
"People who are high on the trait of narcissism tend to be self-focused, exploitative of others, low in empathy, and in need of attention."
Self-focus - I've never had a male friend who tried to c*k-block me. It's *always the case with the female friends of the woman I'm after.
exploitative of others - So, who's expected to pay on a date? And later in life?
low in empathy - That one rings true. Men are lower on empathy.
need of attention - no need for a comment.
Further they say:
"a person high on narcissism is likely to expend a great deal of energy on looking good to others, which, in turn, requires a certain amount of preening and prepping. Narcissists, indeed, do like to look at themselves in the mirror and invest excessive amounts of time and money on their appearance."
That's an obviously female trait. Later they realize how it looks like, so they try to smear the picture with focusing on men buying shoes... I mean, seriously? Like, women don't buy shoes all of a sudden?
Something's fishy here...
Now you tell me that it's common for women to not apologize, which means they feel no guilt for the wrongs they've done.
Something does not add up here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@captainvanisher988 " Paris was conquered by raiders and Vikings "
I know they paid them off once, but conquered? Let me check...
It seems I was correct. Paris was not taken.
" China "
I'll let it be. It kinda looks to me like they were conquered often, then the new dynasty ruled and was conquered again, but I'm not in the mood to fight over this.
" Byzantium "
The Franks conquered and ruled Constantinople for 60 years or so. The Byzantines never posed any threat to the Franks. Be it in Fance, in Sicily, in Calabria or even in Outremer.
" Ottomans "
The Franks beaten them twice during the First Crusade alone. With absolutely ridiculous odds.
" Huns "
The Romans have beaten them. By the time we can speak about Francia, they are long gone.
" definitely not the top males. Maybe the most educated ones "
They were the top fighters. Likely the top f***ers too.
" status, wealth and power. Education sometimes coincided with wealth but the others didn't usually line up "
That's incorrect. Whether we are talking about secular rulers or about clergy, they were all nobles, they were the best educated people in the society and they enjoyed the highest social status of all classes.
It took a lot of money for a merchant to contest a wealthy noble. Once they got that much money, they could and usually would get into the nobility themselves, so it's a bit of a moot distinction anyway.
" coping "
About what? How was I hurt, in order to come to terms with this unfortunate event?
Anyway, it was just an idea which would explain how an intelligent man would come up with an absolutely ridiculous concept, like the one we were presented here.
It doesn't work in the historical context mentioned here, and it even doesn't work in the broader, evolutionary context.
It's just silly.
1