women as resources

oh women trade sex to men for resources… why are men subjects that HAVE resources while women ARE the resource???

Maybe a different perspective on this is that men are disposable.. they HAVE valuable things while women ARE valuable.  Men unconsciously recognize this and therefore seek to control reproduction.

I bet this is “common knowledge” among evolutionary psychs but how can I think about this with a feminist framework? What feminist theory is there about this.   If it is common knowledge, is it tested? Can we test it? What about three studies… something qualitative about the content and meaning of this…the idea of it being a MASTER NARRATIVE or LEGITIMIZING MYTH… also Something about how it’s associated with negative things like redpill, negative relationship adjustment…and an experiment testing with subliminal priming like Jacque said, or with the passage primes in my political psych final paper.


Relating color blind racial attitudes, SDO, and JWB 2009 Dissertation

Empirical research found that just world beliefs predicted prejudiced attitudes towards a range of disadvantaged groups, including the poor (Furnham & Gunter, 1984), persons with AIDS (Connors & Heaven, 1990), the elderly (Lipkus & Siegler, 1993), the unemployed (Reichle, Schneider & Montada, 1998), and refugees (Montada, 1998). Therefore, despite many personally healthy functions related to beliefs about the world as just, these beliefs may also lead a person to deny or minimize inequality, and engage in victim derogation.

Lipkus, Dalbert & Siegler (1996) discovered that people believe the world is more just for them personally than in general.

Similar to general just world beliefs, color-blind racial attitudes and social dominance orientation are two constructs related to attitudes and behaviors that promote racism, discrimination and victim derogation. Color-blind racial attitudes, generally defined as “the belief that race should not and does not matter” (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee and Browne, 2000, p. 60), [CBRA] have been linked to racial prejudice and racist ideology (Carr, 1997; Neville et al., 2000). Like general beliefs in a just world, color-blind racial attitudes deny social inequalities. When a person denies the importance of race, a distortion and minimization of racism occurs leading to greater levels of racial prejudice (Neville, Coleman, Falcomer & Holmes, 2005). Social dominance orientation (SDO), or “the extent to which one desires that one’s in-group dominate and be superior to out-groups” (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and Malle, 1994, p.742), [SDO] predicts prejudice and discrimination against members of out-groups (Heaven, Greene, Stones, & Caputi, 2000). Just world beliefs and social dominance orientation both represent ideological beliefs about group inequality. Those who are relatively high in JWB are likely to be motivated to view social inequalities as fair and legitimate. Similarly, those with high SDO have generally positive attitudes towards group-based inequalities (Oldmeadow & Fiske, 2007). In sum, color-blind racial attitudes and social dominance orientation have been linked to negative social consequences similar to those that are associated with endorsing general just world beliefs. Therefore, the current study will examine the relationships between beliefs in a just world, color-blind racial attitudes, and social dominance orientation.

Worthington et al (2008) found moderate relationships between blatant racial issues and institutional discrimination subscales of color-blind racial attitudes and social dominance orientation, and concluded that SDO tends to reflect classic conceptions of overt racism. 

BJW serves an adaptive and protective function in terms of psychological well-being/coping mechanism so masculinity threat induces a protective or coping mechanism meant to restore the threatened gender identity.

whites (and sometimes males) are most likely to BJW relatively advantaged persons have a greater motivation to see the world as fair and just both to explain their own positions, and the positions of less privileged groups (Umberson, 1993)

“variables associated with discriminatory attitudes (SDO, CBRA) relate to JWB”

when an individual ascribes to this belief (CBRA), they are effectively denying the “individual, institutional and cultural manifestations of racism and believe that race has little meaning in people’s lives” (Burkard & Knox, 2004, p. 388).

Color-blind racial attitudes are described by Neville and colleagues (2000, 2001) as
consisting of three parts: (a) the denial of White privilege, (b) the denial of institutional
racism, and (c) the denial of discrimination

Whereas overt racism endorses beliefs about racial superiority and social inequality, color-blind attitudes represent a lack of awareness about racism. In fact, color-blind attitudes have been described as a reflection of contemporary racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Neville et al, 2000). This conceptualization states that believing that race does not matter is problematic because it ultimately perhaps inadvertently perpetuates racism.

Specifically, Neville et al.’s (2000) validation study of the CoBRAS found that participants denied that racism and White privilege exists, as well as rejected
the belief that social policies should be created to eradicate consequences of institutional racism. Furthermore, they reported that the CoBRAS showed good concurrent validity with two measures of racial prejudice. The authors concluded that although color-blind racial attitudes are not the same as racism per se, color-blind racial attitudes imply that one embraces an inaccurate or distorted view of racial and ethnic minorities and race relations. Therefore, similar to racism, the consequences of color-blind racial attitudes may unwittingly promote racial discrimination (Jones, 1997).

With the position that race does not and should not matter, color-blind racial attitudes make more of an implicit statement about White supremacy. Although it does not appear to produce the same level of oppression and negativity as overt racism, this perspective maintains a belief that people have equal access to resources regardless of race (Frankenberg, 1993), denying that racism benefits White individuals (Neville et al, 2001).

As explained by Gushue and Constantine (2007), color-blind racial attitudes act as modern forms of racism by obscuring the impact of White privilege and relate to prejudiced attitudes that rationalize oppression. Essentially, by denying the importance of race, color-blind racial attitudes encourage the status quo and minimize efforts at social change (Gushue & Constantine, 2007).

For whites, adopting a color-blind perspective and refusing to acknowledge racial inequalities in society serves to protect their afforded privileges.  This denial of systemic racism may contribute to a “blame the victim” mentality, which helps to preserve the status quo.

Beliefs about inequality and superiority are termed “hierarchy-legitimizing myths” (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle, 1994). Examples of this ideology include ethnocentrism, racism, and sexism. Hierarchy legitimizing myths serve to justify discrimination and oppression because they allow individuals and social institutions to make determinations about social allocation, thus creating and ultimately maintaining inequalities in societies (Pratto et al., 1994). This group-based hierarchy leads to at least one group that is dominant over others and gains a disproportionate amount of privilege, while other groups are assigned an inferior position.

Essentially, it is the approval of hierarchical relationships between social groups. Social dominance orientation has been described as the single most important variable in accounting for the acceptance or rejection of beliefs that promote inequality  Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov & Duarte, 2003). SDO, therefore, acts as a motivating factor that rationalizes social inequalities, and it has been found to predict prejudice towards out-groups and justify discrimination against members of these groups (Heaven, Greene, Stones, & Caputi, 2000)

Specifically, social dominance orientation had a negative relationship with concern for others, communality, tolerance, beliefs about sharing resources, and altruism. Secondly, it was strongly and consistently related to several hierarchy-legitimizing myths, including anti-Black racism, nationalism, sexism, denying equal opportunities, patriotism, cultural elitism, conservatism, and beliefs in a just worldOther researchers have confirmed these initial findings, particularly in relation to showing that SDO predicts prejudiced attitudes (Altemeyer, 1998; Esses, Jackson & Armstrong, 1998; McFarland, 1999; Michinov, Dambrun, Guimond & Meot, 2005).

The GSM model confirmed predictions that people in a dominant position (a) score
higher on SDO than people in lower social positions, and (b) display higher levels of
prejudice than others. In their explanation of SDO as a mediator, Guimond et al. (2003)
stated that acquiring a position in the social structure generates higher levels of prejudice, based on the extent to which their new position increases or decreases social dominance orientation. These researchers concluded that a dominant social position has an effect on  prejudice, and SDO (as a measure of ideological beliefs) is the mechanism accounting for this effect.

In addition, Sidanius & Pratto (1999) reported a number of studies showing that Whites have higher scores on SDO than Blacks. Overall, White people benefit the most economically and politically from social hierarchies, which would lead them to be more likely to endorse SDO than minority status groups.

(Worthington, Navarro, Loewy, & Hart, 2008). Specifically, they found that social dominance orientation was moderately correlated with the blatant racial issues and institutional discrimination subscales of the CoBRAS, but not the racial privilege subscale. They concluded that these results indicated that SDO tends to reflect “classic conceptions of overt racism” (p.17).

conclusions drawn by research from Worthington et al. (2008) about the
relationship between SDO-CoBRAS may indicate that aspects of these two variables
could factor together as a racism factor. Specifically, these researchers stated that the
moderate correlation between social dominance orientation with the blatant racial issues and institutional discrimination subscales of the CoBRAS indicated that SDO tends to reflect classic conceptions of overt racism. Given that researchers (i.e. Neville et al., 2000, 2001) maintain that color-blind racial attitudes are actually a reflection of “modern racism” rather than overt racism, it would be relevant to empirically test the factor structure of these variables.

Results: three different factors that are related (BJW, SDO, CBRA)

Social dominance orientation is an ideology that promotes hierarchy-legitimizing myths, and individuals with a high level of social dominance orientation may become members of institutions that maintain or increase social inequality (Pratto et al., 1994). It is not surprising then that Institutional Discrimination, the color-blind facet that taps into an unawareness of the implications of institutional discrimination, crossloaded with social dominance orientation.

Worthington et al. (2008), who found a correlation between social dominance orientation and the Institutional Discrimination and Blatant Racial Issues of color-blind racial attitudes, concluded that social dominance  orientation reflects “classic” conceptions of overt racism. In addition, Pratto et al. (1994) found that social dominance orientation was correlated with anti Black racism, anti-Arab racism, and “modern” racism, concluding that social dominance orientation is related to ethnic prejudice. It may be argued then that social dominance orientation is a hierarchy-legitimizing ideology that reflects racism.

The difference between SDO and CBRA exists because, unlike social dominance
orientation, the color-blind perspective does not necessarily make overt claims about
White superiority and instead holds the view that race does not and should not matter
(Gushue & Constantine, 2007)


female sexual agency

#metoo #azizansari

i dont think the conditions of our society and the sexual domain are such that women can freely excercize their agency. what can we do about that?

Sam bee 1/18/18:

Sam: It doesn’t have to be rape to ruin your life, and it doesn’t have to ruin your life to be worth speaking out about

We know the difference between a rapist, a workplace harasser, and an aziz Ansari. That doesn’t mean ANY of them are okay or we have ot accept any of them.

Welcome to 2018, we get to have a higher standard for sex than just “not rape” and women get to talk about it if men don’t live up to those standards.

If you don’t want to tune into your partners feelings throughout sex, you shouldn’t be fucking a person at all. May I suggest a ziplock bag full of grape jelly.

Gender Roles; Sheryl Sandburg; Have it All



From the first article- there are a couple paragraphs about how women feel and are perceived as selfish for choosing career over family, while men feel and are perceived as selfish for choosing family over career. Men = public, macro, large scale, societal; women = private, personal, individual. What if those roles/characteristics were flipped and we had a public sphere that was feminine, or woman-run? I mean, at least lets balance it out and make it so its not this rigid binary at the end of the day. How long will it take to override this long cultivated heuristic?

Masculinity is founded on…

the idea that men are rights-bearing persons and women are second-class citizens only fit to be protected by men or subordinate to them.

Feminist philosopher Sandra Bartky says the difference is between healthy eroticism and rituals rooted in toxic ideas about masculinity.

They ultimately see femininity as “in need of domination”


Having social power inhibits empathy

“Our lab has found that high-power people (say, the president or members of the numerical majority) are more likely to misinterpret nonverbal behavior. The experience of having power makes us less accurate in reading suffering on the faces of strangers and emotions in static photos of facial expressions. Powerful people are less able to take the perspective of others; they’re quicker to confuse friendliness with flirtatiousness. This is the empathy deficit of people in power, one found in many kinds of studies.”

“There is some evidence from Princeton’s Susan Fiske and Penn State’s Theresa Vescio that high-power people, in not attending carefully to others, are more likely to stereotype others, and more likely to miss individual nuances in behavior. This means that some white-majority football fans may be falling victim to the stereotype of African Americans—particularly large, well-muscled, pro football players—as violent and aggressive. In fact, as we’ve discussed, kneeling is actually the opposite of an aggressive signal.”



quick thought

a girl on tinder flaunting that she’s available but WONT sleep with YOU cause she’s out of your league. man takes that as a slight and wants to reassert his worth by taking her down a peg. sending something aggressive and objectifying. what is that imperative? I am admitting that i thought about wanting to take down what you can’t have, like a tiger… what, stalking and catching? idk why i imagined oh- wait its p much gone. anyways, i thought of like, what if in “ancestral times” men chased and caught and raped women as default and that’s that imperative. i forgot the little connection in between. something along the notion of “taming the wild beast” being something primal…

okay. so buss and baumeister are rooting in sexual economics as their social theory to why our brains would do things like rape.

Toxic Masculinity

Wah wah what about toxic femininity?

Okay but seriously. The first violent act society asks men to do is to severe themselves from their emotions and vulnerability, that’s toxic masculinity. What would toxic femininity look like? Participating in one’s own dehumanization based on gender. The forced performance of femininity? But I definitely think participating in one’s own dehumanization, including self martyrdom for maleness, valuing yourself only for your sex appeal- excesses of “female ego” as described by RB in “competing for love” paper. I agree that the eating disorders women suffer are a result of their competition. But not evolutionary competition, societal competition. Patriarchy tells women their primary value is sex appeal, their use for men. Women operate within that ideology, and yes, compete using cultural shit like makeup and fashion to decorate themselves and diet extremely to meet “perfection” which is waht we demand from women in our societies.


Sex Economics


The idea that we predominantly treat sex as though it’s a marketplace is just a theoretical construct, an assumption.

Their theory of economics and transactions within a sexual marketplace doesn’t parallel the theory of the labor market. The fact that both parties are at least somewhat motivated by sexual desire, that mutuality, doesn’t fit in with how exchanges and transactions are usually conceptualized.

In sex, both parties are demanding and supplying at the same time. In economic transactions those are mutually exclusive, independent positions.

It’s quite telling that Baumeister and Vohs use the idea of men having higher sex drives as what puts men and women on different sides of the bargaining table of sex transactions. If you’re going to think about people’s costs and benefits for a sex transaction, the difference in COST of production of sex for women is a major factor. But they say the difference is in the DEMAND being stronger for the product than the demand the “producers” have for their own product? Stupid.

It’s like, yes, cultural practices and ideologies are what has spread through generations. But that’s cultural evolution, social forces. Our genetic code would not have changed quickly enough to account for humans in the past several centuries. Millions and millions of years would be needed and i just don’t buy that those “ancient” things are more responsible than historical sociocultural things.

ALSO. Evolutionarily… men didn’t have viagra. They had a childbearing wall too, just with more flexibility and sure, later in life deadline. So this complicates the investment thing.

Sexual strategies related to investment? Yes, that’s D Bss. Baumeister describes evo psych’s approach to sexuality as resting on “reproductive contingencies.” (Competing for love paper)

The focus of sexual economics theory applies the logic and principles of economic marketplaces to the onset of sexual intercourse among heterosexual couples. The core idea is that women are the sellers and men are the buyers. This starts with the abundant evidence that ‘‘everywhere sex is understood to be something females have that males want” (Symons, 1979, p. 253).”

BUT that rests on the assumption that women DON’T want the sex men have, and that’s patently false. Just because men want what women have more than women want what men have, doesn’t mean the “buyers and sellers” are so easily determined, black and white like that.

Hence sexual economics theory begins with the assumption that female sexuality has exchange value, whereas male sexuality does not.

IDK about this. Male sexuality has zero exchange value to heterosexual women? Sex is a domain of life, it’s part of biology, sociology… something LIFE AND SOCIAL. It’s the 3rd part of the human condition– basic survival needs, love, and sex. All three include the body, mind, soul. Spirit. Whatever makes us human.

They go on to say “Men cannot trade sex for other benefits” so is this something that uniquely women can do? I feel like this is a reasonable argument. I need evidence of the contrary! I somehow feel this is related to the assumption that “women have the power” (Because the man typically wants sex more than the woman, she has a power advantage. According to the ‘‘principle of least interest,” the person who desires something less has greater control and can demand that the other (more desirous) person sweeten the deal by offering additional incentives or concessions (Waller & Hill, 1951).) But I’m not sure how. I just feel like these assumptions rest on the fact that we live in an even playing field, where women have as much opportunity to be buyers or demanders. I feel like that patriarchy means women have been subjugated, and therefore never allowed the chance to help shape the marketplace? Not sure.

Also, women have learned through culture that their value to men is their sex. Does the current sexual landscape have more to do with the fact that men’s sexuality doesn’t have exchange value the way women’s does, or that men have valued women for their sex only and men, being the owners and operators of society, have always been valued as full human people to women. If our society tells us men do things and women are looked at, and have a primary purpose to please men, then of course we have a sexual “marketplace” if that’s what you want to call it. I call if a sexual landscape that is the product of a long running, deeply rooted patriarchal society in which women have only recently (relatively speaking) begun scratching and clawing to gain equal footing. 

RB would probably say that if women NATURALLY had stronger sex drives, maybe they would have started to run society. Idk. Based on the book that the link above reviews.

i just dont view sex as a [limited] resource. maybe i do view it as a resource but a renewable one- like energy, love, creativity, art….

“Evidence suggests that many women’s sexual desire is limited to begin with and drops off sharply as soon as she settles into a committed relationship (e.g., Arndt, 2009; Baumeister et al., 2001; Hakim, 2015; Kontula, 2015). We shall return to this problem later.”

you’re fucking blind. sorry your masculinity so fragile

“It should hardly be controversial that women compete to look sexually attractive to men. Women have long sought to use clothing, jewelry, and makeup to enhance their attractiveness. They also select clothing that shows off their bodies, in order to attract men. In a field study at a disco, Grammer, Renninger, and Fischer (2004) found that the more motivated women were in terms of seeking sexual partners, the more skin they displayed. They noted that women were aware of altering their garb for purposes of attracting men. Durante, Li, and Haselton (2008) found that women showed up to the laboratory wearing more sexually revealing clothing when they were close to the most fertile segment of the menstrual cycle (when presumably the biological impetus to compete for”

Okay but we live in a society in which women are primarily valued for and judged by their sexual appeal based on hetero male criteria. ANd you’re forgetting all about the sociocultural norms that come from patriarchal capitalism for these things. Of course they would probaby take the view that the norms we have must be here for a “naturally occuring reason” a la, if things were meant to be different, they would be. Ugh. Power corrupts what is the natural. There is no such thing as inherent or the default. Everyhting is shaped socioculturally.


“Here’s the invisible elephant in Baumeister and Vohs’s world:  The fact that women give birth to children.   The piece I write about in this series almost pretends that children don’t exist.  No, they are not one possible consequence of intercourse, and no, they in no way ever handicapped women who wanted to be artists, composers, generals or stateswomen.  It’s mind-boggling when you think about it, that omission.

Yet the fact that women are the sex which gives birth, combined with no good access to contraception, is probably the most significant historical reason why women have not participated in the public sphere to the same extent as men have.  It is also one of the central reasons for the exclusion of women from many public sector institutions:  The desire to guarantee that the reproduction of the next generation would take place, together with traditional views on how to accomplish that task.”

bold mine.

More from after talking with MeKenna about asexuality & intimacy

SET starts from the assumption that sex is a resource, a good, and also from basic assumptions about economic marketplaces, such as supply & demand.

What is my assumption about sex from the perspective of “sex as a musical jam”? What do we call the music, art, products of creative collaboration? Under what field do art, music, dance, improv comedy all reside? Idk. They’re all creative collaborations that mutually constitute or create something organic and intimate… I was talking with Kenna about the intimate sphere or domain. If there is a mutual motivation or shared goal? Idk, that seems reductive. Shared responsibility in supply and demand?