Good job Jow Forums
You all wonder why you can't lift yourself into a relationship, because of shit like this
yourtango.com
Good job Jow Forums
You all wonder why you can't lift yourself into a relationship, because of shit like this
yourtango.com
Other urls found in this thread:
yourtango.com
emilkirkegaard.dk
pdfs.semanticscholar.org
twitter.com
I'll tell you what this actually means
>Muscular men have the best sense of self worth, therefore won't take as much shit as guys who have been conditioned to believe that they should be infinitely grateful to any woman who gives them pussy
Girls know muscular guys make bad boyfriends.
That's why they fuck them but don't want to date them.
"according to science" articles piss me the fuck off, 99% of the time it's a complete opinion or cherrypicked/ made up (((evidence))) and half the population believes it
>According To Science
Where did science actually say that, though? First of all, the survey asked questions and the scientists themselves set the determinants for what qualifies as "muscular" and what qualifies as "sexist."
Secondly, the author of this blog then makes the jump from "sexist beliefs" (as determined by the researchers) to "bad at being a boyfriend" and acts as if SCIENCE said anything about relationship quality being linked to "sexist beliefs."
Lol, this bullshit journalism/blogging is ridiculous.
Very well written
>muscular men don't like me, according to science
>20 something blogger living in brooklyn
Oh god
roasties on suicide watch
>according to science
the same science that tells us weak men are actually stronger than pro bodybuilders?
the same science that tells women not to have kids?
the same science that says that we are entering a global ice age?
Nice.
Well if science says so.
The whole article is saying they're more likely to have sexist tendencies
That has nothing to do with being a boyfriend
Also 96% chance she's either single or is with a scrawny dude and she wrote this so her friends would stop picking on her about him
>The surveys gauged participants' desire for a more muscular body — for example, asking how often they think "I wish that I were more muscular" — and their attitudes toward women. Examples of items in the sexist beliefs portion of the survey included: "I feel that many times women flirt with men just to tease them"
What the fuck.
Ms. Hitt ovulated as she selected that picture for article. As much as these wymen deny it they lust for the most attractive mates.
this actually hurts to read
You're just a science denier drumpftard
Hecking lol, none of that cookie cutter garbage
Kek is that a tranny?
I see the golem is a man of culture and taste.
not to btfo Jow Forums or anything, but it could also be due to them being extremely vain.
muscular men make bad boyfriends
but they're great fucks
Can you imagine the reaction you'd get if you submitted an essay with "science" as a citation?
>Basically, men who are around women in power tend to feel threatened and display this through gaining muscle.
Oh no no no no
>So before you dismiss the next scrawny guy who approaches you, consider that science thinkshe'd make a betterboyfriend.
Perfect
>yourtango.com
>doesnt link to the abstract
DROPPED
God damn it, Lenny
>third wave feminist propaganda disguised as scientific fact
>gender roles are bad
>patriarchal
>Basically, men who are around women in power tend to feel threatened and display this through gaining muscle.
Why are you ripped guys acting so defensive and insecure? Afraid I might.........take yo' power........?
>www.stronkwymmin.vagene
Did anybody read the study? Does anyone know if the study's results were replicated, debunked by successive or previous studies? Can any of you faggots even read?
how is that sexist? that's just a fucking fact of life. What a poorly written study
Touché you trifling bitch!
>Although the study was not conducted internationally and the number of men surveyed was rather low, on face, it does seem to hold true.
It’s a shit study with a low amount of participants and the article doesn’t even link to the study. People who write shit popsci articles should kill themselves.
Yes women are pretty vain
Here is the study if anyone wants to read:
Mah fucking nigga.
>Hostility Toward Women Scale (HTWS;
Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995). The HTWS
is a 10-item measure of explicit hostility toward
women (sample item: “I feel that many times
women flirt with men just to tease them or hurt
them”). Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type
scale (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly
agree), and an overall HTWS score is computed
by taking the mean of all 10 items following
reverse coding of two items. Higher scores on
this scale represent more hostile attitudes toward
women. The HTWS has been shown to
have acceptable reliability and good construct
validity in that it was associated with adversarial
sexual beliefs, tolerance of interpersonal
violence, and gender role stereotyping (Lonsway
& Fitzgerald, 1995), and in the present
study, Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .83.
>social "science"
you can say a lot of things about lenny, but he certainly isn't a cookie cutter
Muscular men have options.
>Online First Publication, May 28, 2012
>april 6 2018
Jow Forums men are literally rapists
>the url: muscular men are sexist bad boyfriends
>implying sexism is wrong
I can tell the articles is shit without even reading it but I am anyway for laughs.
>Results showed that the regression was significant
>R2 = .31
I haven't had to use stats in awhile, but isn't an R2 of .31 REALLY low?
any suggestion that women sometimes act selfishly is sexist
any suggestion that women aren't flawless is sexist
Yes, not what I would call a strong correlation, but more of a "hey this is strong enough to say there is a correlation"
you forgot
>any suggestion that this isn't scientific is sexist
Also from the same author...
Fugg, whenever I think it's not the Jews.
Pure coincidence.
>radical acceptance
Jow Forums is always right.
Beauty isn't skin deep, but that's where it starts. That's where it'll always start.
Same science that says global warming is real
you're all literally rapists just stfu my ex just showed me this and its totally right
Cohencidence
Too bad none of you loosers can get laid
t. DYEL with social skills
Have six million pizzas sent to her home immediately, and see to it personally. Do not fail me, Jow Forums.
(((science)))
>but don't want to date them.
yes they do
ahahahahahahaha
WHOA! LOOK AT THAT FREAK!
goddamn, i used to deny Jow Forums but they are consistently correct
To be honest, Jow Forums is wrong about a lot of things, but this is one thing they seem to be right about on a consistent basis.
>British men
theres the problem
they're huge cunts to begin with.
good lord.
>Also 96% chance she got fucked by a buff dude and freaked out when he didn't want to date her, so she wrote an article about how she TOTALLY DOESN'T CARE AT ALL because he'd OBVIOUSLY BE A BAD BOYFRIEND ANYWAY, SO THERE!
Fixed that for you. You had the right idea, but it needed more refinement.
Wew
>The absolute state of the social """"sciences""""
pol is always right and is constantly proven so.
they are dumping chemicals in the water making frogs gay
plastic really does create have harmful effects
seth rich was murdered
the jews really do run the show
I actually watched that video, I couldn’t look at porn for a week. I finally forgot it but now because of that picture the haunted memory is back
Yo dudes can't post shit like that without sauce.
Damn it more pics of the army trap? I can't believe she's an 11b and not cav lol
Your reading comprehension absolutely horrible
Significance and correlation are different things. Correlation is the strength of the relationship between the variables while significance is the probability that's said observed relationship is not due to chance usually signified by a p value.
But yeah social sciences can draw relationships between completely unrelated factors and say it's causative, which is why they are taken as a joke in the academic world but surprisingly normal people fall for their bullshit
Search for "BIG LENNY Backpage Transexual" on pornhub.
The authors religion/ethnicity is tangential to the quality of the article she wrote and the study she referenced. Plenty of other web sites with dissimilar backgrounds to hers have referenced this study to the same end as hers. The study has nothing to do with politics, but sure enough Jow Forums will try to inject their delusional-tier faggotry into it because WE WUZ RIGHT N SHEIT.
Hello JIDF, how's those American tax payers shekels treating you?
Oy vey.
>The study has nothing to do with politics,
FPBP
>Jacked guys are assholes because they don't feel the need to put up with bullshit when they have other options.
this guy understands
Go home, Chaim.
>It has been them all along
>Basically, men who are around women in power tend to feel threatened and display this through gaining muscle.
fucking kek
In case anyone was curious about what else is in the scale
>if you think some women behave deceptively
then you're hostile to all women
By that logic if you think some Jew behaves deceptively you're an anti-semite. Finally it all makes sense.
According to """"science""""
crappy science is the new appeal to authority, it's gay af honestly.
yes
>cookie cutters
>fake scientists do a study that finds that the people who are not stereotypically scientist-like are not as good as people who are like scientists
Who could have seen this coming. I bet they've also done studies that say that people who are like scientists have sex the best and are the most attractive.
The science isn't even bad, the author just paraded one of many possibilities as fact. This is just irresponsible journalism.
Developing muscle mass may allow some
men to feel more valuable or powerful, particularly
in postindustrial societies in which the
body remains a primary site for distinguishing
gendered experiences. That is to say, faced with
threats to their masculinity as a function of
changing gender roles or gender relations, some
men may seek to emphasize their masculinity
through gaining muscle mass. In so doing, they
may be seeking to differentiate themselves as
much as possible from women and the latter’s
perceived lower status (see Connell, 1995;
Courtenay, 2000).
Nevertheless, our results should be interpreted
in the light of a number of limitations of
our design. First, although we recruited a community
sample of men, the opportunistic nature
of our recruitment means that our results should
be generalized to the wider population with
caution.
The cross-sectional nature of our
survey does not allow us to disentangle whether
6 SWAMI AND VORACEK
effects on oppressive beliefs (and drive for muscularity
itself) reflect within-person change
(e.g., life span or developmental effects) or real
differences between birth cohorts. In a similar
vein, the correlational design of our study
means that the direction of causation may be
open to question and that we are not able to rule
out the possibility that greater drive for muscularity
results in stronger endorsement of oppressive
beliefs.
She should be fired.