♡Science♡ Shows That Women Prefer SEXIST Men...[NSFW]

Note: This editorial is a generalization clearly exceptions exist

SO MUCH FOR #METOO..

Women are more attracted to men who are sexist because they think they are more willing to protect them, provide for them and commit to a relationship, scientists say.

Men who are considered to be sexist in a well-meaning way – for example if they are chivalrous or think women need a man to protect them – may be more attractive.

Even though women find these men patronising and can feel undermined by them, they are more likely to want to couple up with them than with men who don't give them special treatment.

Researchers say women may be hard-wired to think the benefits of being with a kind but sexist man outweigh the downsides.

The scientists maintain that, despite romantic and flattering elements of the relationship, even well-meaning sexism reinforces the idea women are inferior.

And even women who consider themselves strong feminists showed the same preferences in the study by British and US researchers.

The Boomer generation may find this hard to believe (perhaps not), however the Millennials and Generation Z(yklon) know this fact to be very self-evident in personal interactions with women. The irony about the MeToo movement is the utter hypocrisy of it. A minority of women say one thing and clearly do another--Mothers with daughters are all too aware of this when their daughters bring home a less than congenial man to the house.

Case in Point: 

Click the photo to enlarge

And yes, those are 100% real interactions albeit "Ray's" account was a hoax created to prove that women don't care about what a man stands for as long as he is good looking (read: feminists don't exist). 

Scientists from the University of Kent and Iowa State University carried out five tests to explore the theory that women are more attracted to what they call 'benevolent sexists'.

Benevolent means well-meaning or kind, and experts define the sexism as men who, for example, think women are more delicate or should be cherished or looked after by a man.

This is different to hostile sexism in which women are degraded, such as saying a woman's place is in the kitchen.

Sexist attitudes were the norm for decades, particularly after the Second World War, and saw men as breadwinners and women as homemakers.

But this has shifted in recent years as gender attitudes change, more women focus on their careers, and couples increasingly share their parenting duties.

However, this study suggests heterosexual women's preferences for partners may not be moving on as quickly.

I've had a lot of relationship discussions with ladies and (while subjective) every single woman I have ever interacted with wanted to start a family and not go into a career. In fact, I have not met a single young woman who in a moment of candor actually ENJOYED WORKING. The MSM propaganda of course convinces them that their natural urge to have a safe family and be provided for is sexist--just as me writing about this is considered 'sexist.' None-the-less, the ♡science♡ again shows that women aren't satisfied working a career job:

Daily Mail:

Stay-at-home mothers are more likely to think their lives are worthwhile than women who go to work, a study of national happiness suggests.

They tend not to suffer from boredom, frustration or feelings of worthlessness, according to the research on Britain’s wellbeing.

Full-time mothers gave the value of their lives a score of eight out of ten, compared to 7.8 for people in work.

Data also revealed that married people are significantly more contented than cohabitees and much happier than single or divorced people.[...]

But the findings do show that married people and cohabitees are much happier than single people – which suggests that married or cohabiting stay-at-home mothers feel their lives are more worthwhile than working people.

Married people were also found to be more satisfied and less anxious than cohabitees.

But...But "Daily Mail!" You may write in the comments and to my email at powreport@gmail.com

The paradox of declining female happiness:

The lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years by many objective measures, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. This decline in relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, demographic groups, and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging—one with higher subjective well-being for men.

Trends in self-reported subjective well-being indicate that happiness has shifted toward men and away from women. This shift holds across industrialized countries regardless of whether the aggregate trend in happiness for both genders is flat, rising, or falling. In all of these cases, we see happiness rebalancing to reflect greater happiness for men relative to women.

Now, I could simply make a quip about it being clear common sense that the disintegration of family and the social propaganda pressure to shack up and have as many one-night stands as possible is a major factor in the decline of female happiness, but I won't do that...I'll let the ♡science♡ speak for itself.

Social and legal changes have given individuals more autonomy over individual and family decision making, including rights over marriage, children born out of wedlock, the use of birth control, abortion, and divorce (Stevenson and Wolfers, 2007). Once again, men may have been able to disproportionately benefit from these increased opportunities: Akerlof, Yellen, and Katz (1996) argue that sexual freedom offered by the birth control pill resulted in women being pressured into having sex outside of marriage and no bargaining power to force a shotgun marriage in the face of an unwanted pregnancy. During this period there have also been large changes in family life. Divorce rates doubled between the mid‐1960s and the mid‐1970s, and while they have been falling since the late 1970s, the stock of divorced people has continued to grow (Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008). In addition to divorce, there has been an increase in the rate of children born out of wedlock that was concentrated in the 1960s and early 1990s. As a result of increases in both divorce and out‐of‐wedlock childbearing by age 15 about half of all children in the US are no longer living with both biological parents (Elwood and Jencks 2001). These changes have, however, disproportionately impacted non‐white women and white women with less education (Elwood and Jencks 2001; Isen and Stevenson 2008)

Here's the golden ticket:

Even if women were made unambiguously better off throughout this period, a richer consideration of the psychology behind happiness might suggest that greater gender equality may lead to a fall in measured well‐being. For example, if happiness is assessed relative to outcomes for one’s reference group, then greater equality may have led more women to compare their outcomes to those of the men around them. In turn, women might find their relative position lower than when their reference group included only women. This change in the reference group may make women worse off or it may simply represent a change in their reporting behavior. An alternative form of reference‐dependent preferences relates well‐being to whether or not expectations are met. If the women's movement raised women's expectations faster than society was able to meet them, they would be more likely to be disappointed by their actual experienced lives. As women's expectations move into alignment with their experiences this decline in happiness may reverse. A further alternative suggests that happiness may be driven by good news about lifetime utility (Kimball and Willis 2006) . Under this view, the salience of the women’s movement fuelled elation in the 1970s that has dissipated in the ensuing years.

In other words, the younger generations have been duped  into the false assumption "that men and women are exactly the same and can do everything exactly the same, and think exactly the same way."

This false idea clearly isn't true in the real world and instead of teaching our sons and daughters that they are biologically different and that it's ok to not go to college and it's equally acceptable to start a family and be a stay at home mother. "Society" has pushed women into the work force at a young age that unfortunately makes them miserable and by the time they hit their late 20's--single and alone--they realize that everything that they have been taught by their parent's generation is wrong. This also, in part, explains the resentment between the Boomers and the Millennials...Generation Zyklon has no resentment because they see the world for what it is.

To tie this back up

We wrongly assume that just because we have smart phones, netflix, 4-stroke engines, and space ships that some how humans aren't immune to biology. Humans (that's us!) are animals. We evolved for hundreds of thousands of years with certain biological traits and there is no amount of technology or propaganda that will change this.

• Men enjoy working and providing a safe home for their family and 

• Women enjoy providing a family and children for men who they feel safe with and whom care about them. 

This is why 'sexism' is a non-sense word. The notion that a man who wants to start a family and keep his significant other safe and a female wanting a strong male in her life is somehow considered sexist in 2018...

 How our Grandparents would weep for our backwards logic.....

PS: A Tale of Two Brains