- cross-posted to:
- 4chan@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- 4chan@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Also, this is just plain wrong.
Some women are attracted to intellectual minds.
Some women are attracted to physical strength, some women are attracted to maternal instincts, so on and so forth.
The problem is this question is usually being asked by someone who thinks that responding to every factual statement with an inflammatory counterpoint qualifies as intelligence.
Also, this is just plain wrong.
A greentext that’s wrong? Highly unlikely.
Allow me to make an inflammatory counterpoint to demonstrate my intelligence: this text isn’t green YOU BUFFOON!
Got em
😰
Not on this Internet!
We need a new internet
Is it still under warranty?
Ah, damn, we might have to ask the US military…
or worse…
T H E F R E N C H
It would be like claiming it contained misleading statements and was not heteronormative.
wrong and homosexual, as per usual
Chance in a million!
Now I don’t know if that means it has to happen (if it’s exactly 1000000:1, according to Pratchett) or if the front fell off.
Well, I was thinking more about the other ones.
Incelligence is a heck of a term.
Should be word of the decade.
!brandnewsentence or however to link a community
Kinda bordering a strawman here, but if I said
why are men attracted into the airhead type?
there would be bunch of dudes saying they are into intelligent women, and that it’s just hollywood.
(Sidenote props to the artist for drawing all those people one by one)
Is this an egg meme?
Men are attracted to the “airhead type” because those women are good at making men feel good about themselves and keeping up lively conversation; and though people usually prioritise companions who have the same interests as them, they enjoy talking also to a lively conversation partner, perhaps someone as-different-from-themselves as possible: someone who surprises them.
Many men feel that all women have the “airhead” quality - no, not as in they’re all stupid, but as in they’re lively and conversational in that stereotypical way that disrupts the man-to-man conversation; and though they do not speak to men as equals (preferring to talk over them or jerk the conversation off on some other tangent, perhaps, or dwell on uniquely feminine topics which baffle/disinterest the male listener), this is seen as no big loss, really. For women are different to men, and their presence in our lives is welcome precisely because of that rather than in spite of it.
The important thing to remember is that people change overtime and every person is more multifaceted than massive media would have us believe - so yes, that is “just Hollywood.” Who’s to say why a man likes an “airhead,” she probably has more depth to her than you know about.
Edited to change one comma into a colon, and formalise grammar in final sentence
At least OP said women and not “females”.
At least OP said women and not “females”
Weaponised schizophrenia
So success in life means actual intelligence? I disagree with that.
Success ≠ actual intelligence.
Plenty of very successful people who are complete morons.
Women are attracted to success, regardless of actual intelligence.
And of course this is a generalization. Women are not a monolith.
It’s just correct enough for the tiny quipy descriptor to get to the real takedown after.
Also this is 4chan, grade on a curve.
What is success? Being surrounded by people you love and trust? Living life without regret? Sitting on hoards and hoards of money? Planting an endangered tree?
Speaking of juicy mammoths, who’s the lady in the picture?
Asking the important questions.
Some thirst trap which is ironic since she’s holding a drink
iidazsofia
Probably what he considers his bottom in terms of women he’d date.
Why are dudes like this.
Women are individuals who’s preferences differ from person to person. But forget all that for a second. Women are just not attracted to men who are DUMPY RUDE ASSHOLES. NOBODY IS. These dudes make so many excuses to not work on themselves.
why are dudes like this
Dudes are individuals whose personalities differ from person to person.
I’m guessing that was the joke
I always assumed “dude” is gender-neutral word. We even have a saying “dūdiņa” in my language which is like sweet-talking “dude” word meant towards women.
It depends on context. It gets used gender neutral sometimes, but it also gets used as a masculine descriptor too.
women are people with choices
they make different choices
Impossible. If women had choices, then they’d have a diversity of off-spring with a wide spectrum of forms, traits, and behaviors.
We know that can’t be the case, because all men are identical and perfectly interchangeable, except for a tiny variance in peak performance which they use to sort themselves from Sigma to Omega for the purpose of obtaining Da Big Sequesy to produce more Sigma clones.
😭😭😭
Ah yes, how to succeed in life in a fundamentally broken society that values exploitation over everything else. Couldn’t think of a better metric for choosing a partner.
Ffs, you were so quick with the snarky remark that you dont even understand that suceeding in life means a lot of different things to a lot of diferent People.
The definition you gave is your own and for me it reveals a skweded perspective of what means sucess, adaptation or intelligence.
Fair point :D but succeeding in life without succeeding in society is pretty difficult since as you said it means a lot of different things for different people but is still one of the biggest influence on their situation
Yes, it is. Someone who can do well in society and their lives while being generally good to those around them is often considered a good catch.
Thinking that anyone who succeeds in life in our society must be one of the like, less than 10% who are ghouls is odd.
Beeing generally happy and doing well while simultaneously profiting from a society that is build on genocide, exploitation of natural resources and imperialism is such a twisted concept. Even if not part of the 10%.
Gotcha. So would you rank yourself as mostly unhappy, destitute and unwell?
Can you think of anyone in our society who’s doing alright within the confines of a broken system, or do you think that everyone’s existence is inseperable from the context of that existence, even if the means of changing it or it’s impact are outside of their reach? Somewhere in the middle?
I met a guy who helps manage a homeless shelter and food bank. Stand-up guy. Makes ends meet, is doing what he can where he can. Generally happy guy with a family. Pretty twisted right? Or my former coworker who let his gardening hobby get out of hand and ended up running a community garden that retrofitted two houses to donate to families in need.
People exist in their circumstances, but they’re not defined by them. How you react to those circumstances speaks to your character, not that you exist in them.
How you react to those circumstances speaks for your character
Being able to ignore the bigger picture because you can change your own privileged surroundings IS the problematic reaction that speaks for your character
Gotcha, so doing good where you can makes you evil unless you’re mired in torment over things beyond your control? By that metric everyone in the world is evil.
I can’t fathom an ethical system that requires you to be unhappy about things beyond your control once you’ve done the good that you can.
What constitutes “good character” to you? What constitutes “success”?
Yes it is called empathy, it’s nothing you can buy yourself out of by doing good things. If you are somehow interested in the well being of the people it just doesn’t magically disappear after helping some of them. It doesn’t make you evil but it’s certainly not a good sign to weigh these things against each other. The ability to feel good while seeing the world suffer seems to me problematic.
Gotcha. So when was the last time you were happy? I take it you simply do not do things you enjoy?
And when did I say anything even remotely like not feeling empathy for suffering, or that caring for people disappears after doing a good deed? Empathy isn’t an ethical system.
I’m actually curious what behavior you think would be non-problematic, and if any human actually does that.
And for the protocol, i don’t give a shit about that incel bullshit, I just hate people that try to make complex problems look simple because of their particular privileged situation
If you love your wife and you are broke, you won’t make her your wife.
They are just avoiding selfish people who will drag them down.
Ah yes avoid being dragged down by choosing somebody who just drags other people down but not you. So they have a shitty character in general but behave differently toward you. Never heard that this went wrong.
I was reffering to myself, I am a man. I will not be cursing anyone else with myself.
I’m really sorry for this view on yourself. I don’t know how to change this since the default variants that I have been told didn’t work out for me either but I am really sure that prioritizing somebody else over yourself or as you said protecting somebody from getting cursed with one self is one of the most harmful ways to see things. It makes it a lot harder to come close to somebody since you are framing the avoidance as something helpful for them
User name checks out
Dude lamenting women not being attracted to intelligence checks out as he use a picture that clearly focuses on a woman’s intelligence.
The intelligence is stored in the boobs.
I mean, that’s a fun take but realistically there are plenty of women who put a lot more stock in looks (just as men do) an immediate financial ability.
That jock who got a job that’s physically demanding might be making more out of high school, but the IT nerd who went for they education and got a good tech job was likely on a slower burn path to self-improvement with better pay, possibly improving looks over time (or at least less of a beer belly). At least before AI started killing the tech sector again, so maybe the jocks will be coming out ahead for awhile.
Also, there’s also nothing wrong with being a good dude with average intelligence who works hard. Just don’t pick an red-hatred idiot. And intelligent nerds who don’t learn social skills can absolutely still become nasty incels.
“Just don’t pick an red-hatred idiot” took me a sec to parse.
It’s a typo but the intended group still fits! Love it.
Yeah I meant to your red-hatted but hatred seems to come with that package too so…
Women like beer bellies, and big forearms.
Everything men hate, women like.
The thing there is that when people say “people are attracted to intelligence” the intelligence people think of is different than the type people are generally attracted to.
Highly analytical intelligence is a type of intelligence. So is the ability to make correct choices in a variety of situations.
Almost every athletic endeavor entails being able to assess situations quickly and accurately, and know how to respond. Team sports require group coordination, training and predicting teammates behavior.
That’s intelligence, but it’s often considered a lesser sort than the analytical sort.It’s why people see the people doing work that requires the type of less prestigious intelligence as less intelligent, and see people being drawn to them as proof that people aren’t really drawn to intelligence.
To be blunt: it doesn’t matter how strong you are if can’t read or get confused by the garage door opener every day.
It’s the same as saying that people aren’t attracted to appearance because plenty of people are drawn to normal attractiveness people.
That’s actually a good point about sports intelligence. Pro athletes likely have a certain almost instinctual grasp of certain physics even if they aren’t running the actual numbers in their heads.
You can take away the qualifiers. :) and it’s not instinctual, just practiced.
The notion that athletics doesn’t require intelligence draws away from the understanding of exactly how much practice it takes to hone the skills to that level.And, for a fun reference, the typical NFL player has significantly more traditional education than the average person.
What about the women that is into pepe lore or WW2 theory?
I cant decide if there’s more or less of them than the ones that’s into 4chan incels?
What about the women that is into pepe lore or WW2 theory?
They are irrelevant, because they are both Fake and Gay
They don’t exist. If women get into pepe lore or WW2 they grow male genitalia. It’s not well documented but it happens quite a lot. The body starts producing massive amounts of testosterone and the stress ages and disfigures the women and also effects their memory. Most of the male incels on 4chan are former super models who got exposed to pepe lore or WW2.
Taking a wild guess: I feel like there may be a few more women into history than sexism.
Hey… my Pepe folder has been collected and curated carefully for decades
“That’s a suspiciously long reply about how Hitler could have succeeded with dates and sub plans. This is all hypothetical right. Just a thought experiment?”
If you can give kindness to strangers: you are successful
