Alpha Mail: 10 percent

That is what one woman, who considers herself to have a mild case of hybristophilia, calculates based on the employment statistics:

Regarding the "bad boys" post at AG today, I found a Canadian article stating that 33% of U.S. prison workers are women, but they account for 70% of the sexual misconduct cases. So, the extrapolated number for the percentage of women affected by hybristophilia is about 10%.

This topic interests me, because I would categorize myself as having a mild case of hybristophilia. One of the things that attracted me to [REDACTED]... he is just bad enough to be appealing without any significant drawbacks. I don't understand it, because I consider myself a highly refined, moral, and gentle woman, but I am very attracted to violent men.

Interestingly, some of my female colleagues go out of their way to [help out in] prisons in their spare time. It seems rather noble at first, but now that you've posted this article, I wonder if some of them aren't motivated by feelings of attraction for the inmates.

Being a less-than-entirely nonviolent man myself - I spent six years doing MMA-style martial arts - I've noticed that more than a few women get more than a little bright-eyed when they find out about the fact that you beat the hell out of someone. Or better yet, several someones. I also knew one woman who would get visibly excited about the possibility of being struck.

This is an aspect of female nature that those of you who pride yourself on being gentlemanly and non-violent and "I would never hit a woman" need to keep in mind. People are what they are, not what you imagine them to be, and women are much more likely to fantasize about being tied up and ravished by Nazis than having gentlemen tip their fedoras to them.

Sailer's Law: literary edition

Sailer's Law of Female Journalism: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

The literary version:

Put Fat Girls in Your SFF YA

So you read all these books, as many as you can, and it becomes difficult not to notice a pattern. You realize all the girls in all the books are just different kinds of skinny. You can’t for the life of you find a girl that looks like you. Books are supposed to help us dream and dream big but you’re starting to feel like you’re just too big to dream. You’ve read a couple books where fat girls get to be loved in the real world, and that’s wonderful, but fat girls don’t get whisked away into alternate worlds and told they’re a long lost princess. Fat girls don’t get to see the magical underside of New York City. Fat girls don’t save planets.

It's not about being too big to dream, it's about being too fat to do anything active. Unless a writer is sufficiently inventive to come up with a plot that concerns saving the planet through the heroic act of finishing off four large bags of Doritos at a sitting, how exactly are these fat girls going to actually do anything?

Anyhow, it's a little ironic, given that there are not exactly a dearth of fat women writing SFF YA, as this portrait of 2014 Nebula winners demonstrates. Forget saving planets, that pair of superchubs look like they could devour planets.

The dearth of female accomplishment

Displayed in one chart. Read the rest of the article.

Delta Man: Rise of the bots

Retrenched asked “If sexbots ever become available it will be interesting to see how they affect the average delta guys…?”

 

 

You can’t answer that question meaningfully by isolating the sexbots (and VR) from the culture at large. They are ultimately an extension of the sexual revolution and pornography in a new more powerful form. Our culture is pornographic at a low level all of the time. We see it on the magazines in the checkout line, advertising, and nearly every show with the “base line” moving upward every year. Sexbots and VR will be incorporated into society and be accepted at by many people as other sexual toys and pornography are accepted now. 

So I'd suspect that Deltas will make use of them, but to a lesser degree than Gammas and Omegas, with the highest use being Gammas. The wide spread use of them will likely create even more Gammas as actually meeting and copulating with a real, live, woman is a powerful incentive to leave Gammahood. Once this incentive is removed there will be little motivation to ever leave the house to actually meet a woman.

I think VR has a much greater chance of acceptance and be more of a temptation as one will be able to upgrade the system much easier and change out the women at will rather than a large, expensive, robot-doll to replace and maintain. The most expensive systems will probably incorporate both to some degree until fully automated robots are affordable. I'm sure there are people already working on some sort of VR and device combination right now, if it doesn't already exist. (I have no interesting in googling that.)

So what does this mean for Game, and even society at large? Gammas who can afford it will completely check out of dating, probably permanently, never reproduce, socialize outside of their male friends, and bother with women at all. The precedent is already there with the herbivores in Japan, and hundreds of thousands of single men currently spend their weekends in games, watching sports, and porn. Single Deltas who struggle with women will probably use VR/bots like they do porn now, which isn't healthy and doesn't help them any.

This will have a deleterious effect on women as well, and millions who currently getting some attention from men will suddenly get little to no attention at all. There will be a lot of outrage and moves to ban the bots will be made, but it won't work. The demand for them will be too high. Don't think men will be alone in using them, especially VR, as 1/3 of all porn viewers right now are women. I suspect there will be a variant for them. I suppose with some dark humor I can chuckle at the thought of all of the porn stars who will be out of work as the 3D models and bots will take their place. 

The outcome of this will be lonely people unable to make real connections with other human beings while spending their lives in childless self absorption. Push back will come from devout, traditional Christians and other religious groups, but it's a grim future of millions of people living sitting in a darkened room with a robot or a VR helmet on while masturbating.

....

I see there are several sexbots stories popping up and I am highly amused at the two complaints made by the same groups of busy bodies: 1) Sexbots will hurt women 2) Thank goodness the men who will use them will leave real women alone.

Can't face competition

Feminists are responding precisely as expected to sex robots:

A campaign has been launched to try and ban the development of ultra-realistic sex robots.

Using sophisticated robotics to develop realistic human dolls capable of performing sex acts is "very disturbing indeed," said campaign leader Dr Kathleen Richardson. Dr Richardson believes humanoid sex robots reinforce traditional and damaging stereotypes of women.

More likely she's upset at the looming end of female influence over men. This isn't to say sex robots will have a positive effect on human society, indeed, those societies that don't ban them may well find themselves failing.

Monsters without conscience

Needless to say, any woman who has had an abortion is right out as far as relationships are concerned. If she doesn't regret murdering her own child, you can be certain that she won't regret blowing up her marriage at any point either:

Despite the concern for what the pope calls an “agonizing and painful decision,” research shows that a vast majority of women who terminate pregnancies in the United States don’t actually feel bad about it. In surveys, nearly all say it was the right thing to do, and positive feelings of relief or happiness outweigh negative feelings of regret or guilt for more than nine in 10 women, even years after the procedure.

Don't get me wrong. Not all women are monsters without conscience. But 90 percent of those who have had abortions are.

The power of Alpha

This shouldn't surprise anyone:

In terms of demographics, Trump’s supporters are a bit older, less educated and earn less than the average Republican. Slightly over half are women. About half are between 45 and 64 years of age, with another 34 percent over 65 years old and less than 2 percent younger than 30. One half of his voters have a high school education or less, compared to 19 percent with a college or post-graduate degree. Slightly over a third of his supporters earn less than $50,000 per year, while 11 percent earn over $100,000 per year. Definitely not country club Republicans, but not terribly unusual either.

Of course, it's more than the Alpha. It's also the security issue. Women are finally beginning to feel threatened by the mass migrations.

The outrageous idea of female agency

Chrissie Hynde is the latest feminist punching bag:

Chrissie Hynde has committed the ultimate sin for a former feminist icon: she has offended the Sisterhood. The Pretenders singer, whose sultry looks graced a million teenagers’ bedroom walls in the 1980s, has perpetrated the terrible crime of speaking her mind about rape and sexual assualt.

For that she must now pay the price and be cast out of the Sisterhood.

The exact details of her transgression have been angrily spelt out by professional feministas who lined up to attack Miss Hynde for daring to talk about her own personal experience of sexual violence.

So what did the 63-year-old say that was so wrong?

Miss Hynde said that she took "full responsibility" for being sexually assaulted by an Ohio biker gang when she was 21, while she was drunk, high on drugs and had chosen to get on the back of a gang member’s motorcycle.

She then compounded her sin by saying that women who dress provocatively while walking down the street while drunk were also to blame if they were attacked. “If I’m walking around in my underwear and I’m drunk? Who else’s fault can it be?” she said. "You know if you don't want to entice a rapist, don't wear high heels so you can't run from him.”

Interesting, is it not, that feminists won't even hesitate to go after a rape victim who dares to defy their Narrative. Keep that in mind in the unlikely event you ever find yourself inclined to show them any mercy.

Not born that way

Unless, of course, you count being born ugly and female:

According to new research presented to the American Sociological Association this week, female sexuality is more likely to be influenced by a woman’s surroundings and romantic opportunities than is the case with men.

The study’s author, Elizabeth Aura McClintock, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, said "This indicates that women's sexuality may be more flexible and adaptive than men's".

The study tracked 5,018 women and 4,191 men as they progressed from adolescence to young adulthood and asked them to identify as 100 per cent heterosexual, mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly homosexual, or 100 percent homosexual at four different stages of their life. Dr McClintock insists she does not believe same sex relationships are considered 'less than' heterosexual ones- just that sexual identity is not fixed

Dr McClintock said certain factors such as greater education, physical attractiveness and delaying childbirth until later in life made women more likely to report being completely heterosexual because they received more romantic attention from men.

It builds on previous research that suggested women are more likely to report being bisexual and were more likely to change their sexual identity in later life.

TL;DR: The Wall turns women gay.

Barbie doesn't like math

A study indicates that it's not male oppression keeping women out of STEM:

A new study into causes of the scarcity of women in technical and scientific fields says that it is not discrimination by men in the field keeping the ladies away. Nor is it a repugnance felt by women for possibly dishevelled or unhygienic male nerds.

No, the reason that young women don't train in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) areas - and thus, don't find themselves with jobs at tech companies, in IT etc - is quite simply that they mostly don't know enough maths to do those courses.

"It is all about the mathematical content of the field. Girls not taking math coursework early on in middle school and high school are set on a different college trajectory than boys,” says economics prof Donna Ginther.

Ginther and a colleague, Shulamit Kahn, examined statistics on young women's maths qualifications and mathematical requirements for college courses in America. Put simply, they found that absence of women studying a given course can be accounted for simply by the fact that most young women don't know much maths.

It's also why they don't write hard science fiction. As I pointed out ten years ago.

The unimaginable consequences

And yet, they come to pass whether they are foreseen or not:

At 31, my circle of friends ranges from those in their early 20s to early 40s; people I’ve known since nursery, from work or met out and about. A few are married. Many are single and want a relationship. Most are in a relationship but don’t want to get married. Several have babies and have no intention of leaving their partner, but have no desire to get hitched, either.

It’s a fact our mothers can’t fathom. Even mine, a staunch feminist who pushed me to get a degree over a boyfriend, still worries about my future security because although her generation had Gloria Steinem as a role model, getting married was still The Norm.

In other words, her daughter is doing what was expected of her, and now her staunch feminist mother is beginning to realize that she may have inadvertently ended her line by indoctrinating her daughter. Oopsy!

Chloe, 24, says, “I usually end it with a guy when he gets too serious, but I also think it’s down to the individual and if the right guy came along, that could all change. As for marriage and babies, that couldn’t be further from my mind.” 

And they wonder why the players play? That's the treatment that women like Chloe merit.

He's not your girlfriend

Camille Paglia posits that the the unhappiness of successful women is unrealistic expectations of men:

Wherever I go to speak, whether it’s Brazil or Italy or Norway, I find that upper-middle-class professional women are very unhappy. This is a global problem! And it’s coming from the fact that women are expecting men to provide them with the same kind of emotional and conversational support and intimacy that they get from their women friends.  And when they don’t get it, they’re full of resentment and bitterness.  It’s tragic!

Women are blaming men for a genuine problem that I say is systemic.  It has to do with the transition from the old, agrarian culture to this urban professional culture, where women don’t have that big support network that they had in the countryside.  All four of my grandparents and my mother were born in Italy.  In the small country towns they came from, the extended family was the rule, and the women were a force unto themselves.  Women had a chatty group solidarity as they did chores all day and took care of children and the elderly.  Men and women never had that much to do with each other over history!  There was the world of men and the world of women.  Now we’re working side-by-side in offices at the same job.  Women want to leave at the end of the day and have a happy marriage at home, but then they put all this pressure on men because they expect them to be exactly like their female friends.  If they feel restlessness or misery or malaise, they automatically blame it on men.  Men are not doing enough; men aren’t sharing enough.  But it’s not the fault of men that we have this crazy and rather neurotic system where women are now functioning like men in the workplace, with all its material rewards.

Of course, having been deprived of their traditional world, men have built a virtual one in which most women are not comfortable. I'm not sure I agree with her, although it would explain why so many women seem determined to transform men into women, as well as why so many of the losers appear willing to oblige.

Why normal men hate strong women

I don't at all agree with Donovan Sharpe that American women are only good for one thing, but he is correct about the massive turnoff that is a "strong woman":

The definition of a “strong woman” varies from person to person but in 2015 a strong woman is basically a female who runs off at the mouth, posts memes about how strong she is as a woman, and has a jaded disposition—a direct result of being fucked and chucked on the regular.

Women are mentally fragile. If someone hurts her feelings, she either cries or has a breakdown on the spot. And of course they’re the smaller, weaker sex. Any “strength” they have is because of their ability to quickly recruit white knights to defend them.

Even if women had the strength they pretend to have, it’s not what men are looking for. Girls don’t want weak men so what makes them think we want “strong” women?

As men, we have all the physical strength and cerebral brawn we need (more on this in a bit). We want women who add to our lives and bring something to the table we don’t currently have. We don’t want or need a surplus of a fraudulent commodity women claim to have that turns out to be more of a headache than an asset—especially when they’re trying to prove it to you, themselves, and everyone around them all the time.

When people say that men "can't handle" strong women, they're half-missing the point. It's not that men can't do it, it's that they don't want to do it. When I hear "strong" or "intelligent" woman, my first thought is "ah, she's a constant pain in the ass to everyone around her".

Because, rightly or wrongly, they feel inferior, that sort of woman is constantly trying to prove she is "strong enough" or "smart enough". And try-hard women aren't any more attractive or pleasant to be around than try-hard men. My reaction to a try-hard woman trying to prove herself is usually to ask "for what?" Strong enough for what? Smart enough for what?

I mean, statistically speaking, she's never going to be smarter than me. Once you mature and max it out, strength and intelligence aren't going to change except for the worse. And if a woman doesn't worry about being tall enough, why would she worry about being smart enough or strong enough?

Be the best you can be. That's the most you can hope for and it's more than you'll likely manage. The main thing is to stop annoying everyone you meet by trying to compare yourself to them.

A feminist hits the wall

And finds she misses that sweet ego boost of misogynous and unwanted attention:

Being on the subways and streets of New York while female used to mean walking through a veritable gauntlet of harassment and catcalls. But lately, a curious thing has happened – my world is a much quieter place. The comments and lascivious stares from men have faded away the older I’ve gotten, leaving an understandable sense of relief. But alongside that is a slightly embarrassing feeling of insecurity that, with every year that goes by, I become more and more invisible to men.

From the time I was 11 or 12 years old – when I began taking the train to school – I’ve been on the receiving end of some of the worst things men say to girls and young women. There was the man in a business suit who told me to “take care of those titties for me”; the man who – when I was in seventh grade – masturbated in front of me on the subway platform near my home; the man who walked by me in the street, leaned in close, and whispered “I want to lick you” so close to my ear that I could feel his hot breath.

It was miserable. But still, as much as I wish it didn’t, the thought of not being worth men’s notice bothers me. To my great shame, I assume I must look particularly good on the rarer days that I do get catcalled.

Congratulations, Jessica. No man wants you anymore. Welcome to the rest of your life.

I remember the wry look on my mother's face when a girl in her twenties with a very hot body was complaining about how she couldn't go anywhere without attracting attention. "Just enjoy it while it lasts, honey," she said. "It will stop soon enough."

Your safety is not our problem

Frankly, I'm a little shocked that this strong independent feminist woman should expect evil straight white males to do anything except perhaps try to rape her:

I was in a window seat on the Blue Line, en route to meet friends for dinner. One teenage girl sat down next to a man in front of me; another sat beside me. They began by asking what kind of phone I had. The girl next to me patted down my pockets and, finding nothing, grabbed my coffee mug out of my hands. The girl in front put her finger in my face, getting as close as she could without touching me. They grabbed my legs. They threatened to rape me until I bled. One opened the other’s coat jacket, feigning—or not—that she had a weapon....

Trying to get the attention of other passengers, I shouted at the top of my lungs, “Leave me alone!” and “Stop touching me!” I tried to flee when the train stopped, but they boxed me in and shoved me back down into my seat. The man sitting in front of me, next to one of the girls who attacked me, never turned around. He rode the train for a few stops, while the assault was going on, and then departed. The only person to come to my defense was a petite twentysomething woman who told the girls to cut it out. The girls briefly yelled at her—which filled me with both gratitude and, on her behalf, regret—but then turned their attention back to me.

On my second attempt to escape, I took several punches but managed to shove past them. The girls chased me off the train, then back on it, then off again. The chase dragged on across two stops. I was finally able to hit the emergency button and alert the conductor. Later that day, bruised but not otherwise hurt, I identified the girls for the police.

It took a month before I rode the train by myself again. I still feel uncomfortable riding it alone at night. My dad, back in Kansas, sent me what seemed like every pepper sprayer available on Amazon. I bought myself a comically oversized pepper-spray fogger that my boyfriend calls the “criminal extinguisher.” I use earbuds more sparingly now. I rarely sit down on the train—that way I can’t be cornered.

After the incident, I felt angry at all the people on the crowded train car—there must have been 30 adults—who did nothing. When I screamed, no one tried to intervene. They didn’t hit the emergency call button. They didn’t even acknowledge that anything was happening. They just averted their eyes and let it continue.... I am still angry that no one really helped me.

Whatever, lady. Defend yourself. Your safety is not our problem. Or, you know, call the police if you like. Since people like her try to prevent us from being able to carry weapons to defend ourselves, why on Earth should we lift a finger to defend her?

I can't help but notice that she doesn't say anything about the color of her attackers. And it's telling that she's not upset with them for attacking her, she's upset because nobody protected her against them. Apparently some people are literally too stupid to learn from their experiences.

They're not all whores

But a surprising number of them are at heart. And it's always amusing to see how angry some women get when they find out how much their bodies are actually worth in the real world markets:

Grisha Mamurin, the grandson of one of Russia’s richest oligarchs, Igor Nekludov, has been the subject of online rage for posting videos of women kissing him and showing their breasts for money. Various outlets, decidedly or implicitly feminist, or just covering the regular news cycle, have described the different scenarios as “degrading” or “humiliating”.

Virtually no mainstream commentators, unless you count members of the public in discussion sections, have sought to hold the girls accountable for their conscious choice to strip naked for or kiss Mamurin in view of perhaps hundreds of fellow Russians.

Because Mamurin’s asking price was only the equivalent of $120 (a larger sum in Russia but by no means massive), the scenes raise alarming questions about the extent to which many women will perform certain sexual acts for money. In addition, there has been a subsequent and all-encompassing infantilization of these girls by feminists.

These compulsive SJWs, unsurprisingly, solely blame the male offering the financial incentive for the perceived degradation and humiliation. The logically pervasive theme of their explanations, though they would deny it, is that large numbers of women cannot control themselves when asked to perform for only a moderate sum of money. So imagine the lack of self-control and self-determination if that figure were $12,000 or $120,000, not $120.

At the end of the day, if you're going to look at things from a material perspective, it's all supply and demand. And the thing about attractive young women is that they are literally making more of them every single day. The supply is far from infinite, of course, but there are no involuntary monopolies.

Ironically enough, it's the very women who are most angered by those whose equalitarian policies are to blame for reducing young women to valuing themselves, and being valued, for nothing more than what they bring to the sexual table.

The mystery of credit card debt

Who could possibly fathom the mystery?

A 2015 National Debt Relief survey of 1,107 adults with credit card debt revealed some interesting differences between the sexes. In the survey, the main difference between men and women was the amount of credit card debt they carried.

For instance, 63 percent of women ages 18 to 24 carried some credit card debt, but only 36 percent of men in that age category had any debt. Similarly, 66 percent of women ages 55 to 64 carried credit card debt, but only 33 percent of men in that age bracket had credit card debt.

So why the split, and what can women do about these troubling statistics?

Adam Tijerina, consumer advocate for National Debt Relief, says several potential reasons for this gender gap exist. However, he speculates that the most likely culprit is that women are still paid less than men.

The reason is obvious. Women have a not entirely unreasonable expectation that they can expected to have their debt paid off by a man at some point in the future, so their risk tolerance is higher in this regard.

Which, of course, is exactly why men need to make it clear that they will not involve themselves with women who are heavily indebted.

Alpha Mail: the slut/prude dilemma

A reader faces a choice:

When picking a woman for the long haul, which is more important: (1) that you have high sexual rapport with her, or (2), that she does not have a significant sexual history?

I initially chose my girlfriend for a LTR (in part) because of her tame sexual history. We broke up over her not wanting kids. She has since changed her mind, and we are now back together. However, in the interim, I had a couple of sexual experiences at festivals that were more enjoyable than I ever had with my girlfriend. She claims she is "not like those girls", but that she could act like that if she felt more secure about the relationship.

I know her pretty well and I think it is true that she is "not like those girls", in the sense that her personality is more apprehensive, anxious and self-conscious. I think that having a more secure relationship won't change these traits significantly, but it may make her invested enough to do things that make her uncomfortable, which isn't really what I want.

What I really want is to fuck "those girls", because they are more sexually generous and receptive, whom I have previously disqualified for relationships... for (essentially) the same reasons.  I don't know whether I am sabotaging a perfectly good relationship to indulge a fleeting sexual impulse or robbing myself of more compatible and loving long term partners. Either way it seems like I am my own worst enemy. 

(2) is more important because a relationship is about considerably more than sex and sexual rapport fades over time. That being said, the ex-girlfriend's claim is totally false. She is what she is. In fact, women in secure relationships almost always get MORE prudish; in most cases, the best sex with a woman a man will ever have comes at the beginning of the relationship.

That's precisely why men so often make absolutely terrible decisions about women.

It is also why players tend to move on to new women after a relatively short time. They're not only looking for different sex, they're looking for that high-quality, do-whatever-you-want-to-me sex that is most often found in casual encounters. The idea that sex improves with trust or time or whatever is not true, as is the idea that women get more sexual as they age. They don't. They just get desperate enough to abandon their usual limits if they're single; how else can they compete with younger, hotter rivals?

Women are at their most sexually free when they don't know the man at all and they don't expect to see him again. I don't know of a single player, current or retired, who would disagree.

After sending him an email to that effect, he replied as follows:

This matches both festival experiences. Before sex, #1 was saying how we'd definitely see each other again, I gave a noncommittal 'yeahhhh...'. She said us meeting each other was like 1/1000, I said it was more like 1/10. The few times #2 talked to me I wandered off without explanation, eventually thought 'fuck it, she's hot', and got her friend to take me to her on the dance floor, where she practically jumped on me. This is why I've been calling bullshit on my girlfriend's insistence for security. Neither of those girls needed it.

I thought it might have been the case that only a woman who was sexually free would feel comfortable enough to have sex with a man they didn't expect to see again. It seems I had it backwards: having sex with a man they didn't expect to see again makes a woman sexually free.

That's exactly correct. Women in relationships tend to be concerned about creating expectations. Therefore, they try to minimize them. The fear is that if they do X once, the man may start to expect it on a regular basis. Better, therefore, to keep the sexual excitement to a minimum and dole it out sparingly as need be.

There are many good reasons to pursue a relationship with a woman. High-quality sex is not one of them. At the same time, never forget that basing a relationship on the quality of the sex is a reliable recipe for disaster.

80 percent liars

Some have criticized me for telling men not to take what women say overly seriously. Obviously, that criticism was misplaced.

It was reported this week that women fib more than men. Four out of five females said they lied every day compared to two out of five men, and some women said they lied up to 30 times a day.

If 80 percent of women lie every day, then you'd have to be an idiot to have "she said it so I believe it" as your default position. This, of course, is why women are so much better at seeing through other women than men are. Being liars themselves, they know when other women are lying.

Even those who aren't habitual liars are surrounded by them and are aware, as few men are, that dishonesty is the default position. The important thing to remember is that it's not really whether she lies or not that is the issue, but rather, how she lies. The way in which a woman lies can, in many cases, be more informative than the simple truth.

This also means it is foolish to get upset with a woman about lying. Try to think of it as "defensive communication" rather than shameless dishonesty. At an instinctual level, women are afraid of men, and when they are worried that they will make a man angry, their instinct is to lie in order to avoid trouble.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, although obviously it can be tremendously abused. Only a fool or a madman wants to know the complete truth about another individual, of either sex, anyhow.

Bitches be literally crazy

Women are more likely to have mental health issues:

Women in every age group in the United States were more likely than men to have serious mental health problems, according to federal health statistics released Thursday.... Pratt said she could not explain why women have higher rates of serious psychological distress. “As I’m sure you are aware, we see this in major depression as well, but I don’t know that anyone has ever come up with a definitive answer of why that is,” she said.

Of particular interest is the fact that one in 28 women between 18-44 have "serious psychological distress". Think about it. In a room of 100 women, about four are complete whack jobs. And another 21 are on anti-depressants.

I would suggest looking at the fact that women are being brainwashed into rejecting their primary material purpose in life being a contributing factor, if not the causal factor, in this. After all, pregnancy is essentially a nine-month hormone bath. Perhaps women need it in order to stay sane.

It would be interesting to learn if women who have born children experience lower rates of serious psychological distress or are less inclined to use anti-depressants.