Gynosympathy transforms scientific research into a hate myth factory

The Feminists at Mic are once again spreading pseudoscience, this time with the help of a laughably slanted social study.

The headline of the piece, scribbled out by white knight Nicolas DiDomizio in the typical smug style of Feminist relational aggression propaganda, reads: “Apparently, Men Are Threatened by Smart Women, Because of Course They Are.

“Of course they are.” Because women are the superior sex and pleeeease favor me for my loyalty, Mistress, among us fragile, inferior menz. Frankly, the shucking and jiving obsequiousness of male Feminists is repulsive. Further self-flagellating servility? DiDomizio’s opening paragraph:

Today in “Studies That Might As Well Have Been Conducted in 1955,” we have a soon-to-be-published report from the November issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin concluding that when it comes to dating, men have a little bit of an issue with dating intelligent women.

Those familiar with Feminist science reporting might suspect that the actual study is significantly different from how anyone writing for Mic might portray it, but the study itself is problematic beyond the slimy tone taken by DiDomizio. The intent of the study’s authors starts out reasonably enough:

Interpersonal attraction may be shaped by (a) one’s psychological distance from a target (the subjective experience that a target is close to or far from the self) and (b) the perceived standing of a target on a trait relative to the self (as better or worse than the self). We propose that when evaluating a psychologically distant target, individuals may rely on abstract schemas (e.g., the desirability of a partner’s traits) and prefer targets who possess more (vs. less) desirable qualities than themselves. However, when evaluating psychologically near targets, concrete contextual details of the environment (e.g., how a target’s behavior affects self-evaluations in the moment) may determine individuals’ attraction toward targets…

Nice, thorough, and gender-balanced scientific approach, right? And, of course, this interpretation seems to completely undermine DiDomizio’s ant-male rant, doesn’t it? It’s not about men and women, it’s about shifting human priorities based on the increased influence of self-evaluation during psychologically near encounters. Nothing gender-specific there.

But then the study goes right down the rabbit-hole:

… Six studies revealed that when evaluating psychologically distant targets, men showed greater attraction toward women who displayed more (vs. less) intelligence than themselves. In contrast, when targets were psychologically near, men showed less attraction toward women who outsmarted them.

If you didn’t facepalm or headdesk at that rapid change in focus, you should have.

It’s a little hard to get to the substance of the problem here without commenting on that remarkably unprofessional last phrase. Men showed less attraction to women who “outsmarted” them? Not women who “scored higher on assessments of intelligence” or women who “outperformed them at a cognitive task” or some similar, far more neutral and scientific language?

No, these lousy mugs were outsmarted by dames, see? No, not dames, outsmarted by ladies with more class than skid row bums like them ever set their peepers on. Outsmarted like two-bit crooks in a pulp crime novel from, I don’t know, let’s say 1955. (DiDomizio seems to like that year, anyway.)

Outsmarted? Talk about the mask of professional objectivity cracking!

But, more to the scientific point, why the sudden shift from “one’s psychological distance” and “individuals may rely on abstract schemas” to men feeling “outsmarted” by women? The arbitrary cherry-picking and drastic erosion in professional tone at the end of the abstract sound more like a parody of politically motivated science than a genuine study.

And, considering how saturating in gender-equality virtue-signalling he is, it’s remarkable that Mic’s white knight DiDomizio doesn’t once wonder why the researchers only studied the attraction of men toward women, and not attraction of women toward men, or for that matter gay men toward other men and lesbians toward other women.

The arbitrary narrowness of the study suppresses multiple alternatives that could explain the observed phenomenon, including that:

  • it applies to the attraction of both men and women toward the opposite sex
  • it applies not just to the attractiveness of potential mates, but also same sex competitors
  • it applies to men’s attitudes toward anyone, not just their sexual attraction toward women
  • it applies to any human being’s attitudes toward women, even the attitudes of other women
  • it applies to any human’s attitude toward any other human, regardless of sex or sexual intent

In other words, even this short list of alternative explanations—which were categorically omitted from the research by sex-specific cherry-picking—far outnumber the supposed “conclusion.”

So, why would the researchers not research the sexes equally?

Anyone familiar with the damsel bias that drive’s Feminism’s fraudulent threat narrative understands full well why a more complete, egalitarian, and properly scientific study of all gender dynamics wasn’t done. By emphasizing men as agents and women as mere objects of male agency, the study only allowed for the possibility of male villains and female victims, which is exactly what the standard, gynosympathetic threat narrative wants to find.

To believe that this study proves men are threatened by intelligent women is brazen, pseudoscientific confirmation bias in service to a supremacist hate myth.

And, it is also a demonstration that Feminism is threatened by thoroughly done science and honest science reporting, so much so that they wallow in triumphalist noise every time a badly done study seems to prop up their pseudoscience.

-CP (edited by Sam and Joy)

This entry was posted in News, Research. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.