+- clovenhooves (https://clovenhooves.org)
+-- Forum: The Personal Is Political (https://clovenhooves.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Women's Rights (https://clovenhooves.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=57)
+---- Forum: Female Separatism (https://clovenhooves.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=72)
+---- Thread: Discussion Moids Prefer Stupid Women (/showthread.php?tid=1633)
Moids Prefer Stupid Women - Impress Polly - Oct 17 2025
54% of single men in the U.S. right now are looking for a partner, but only 34% of American single women are. A growing number of women today are finding that they are happier single. Men, tending to have fewer friends and other social connections, not so much. Men need you more than you need them, in other words. Marriage tends to add years to a man's life, but reduces a woman's. That's in no small part because men fail to prioritize friendships the way women do and instead lean on women to solve all their problems. A woman, especially today, is expected to be her man's unpaid therapist, in addition to other things. Being here on Cloven Hooves, you probably knew all of this, but did you also know that intelligence makes you unattractive to men?
This is something I found years ago back on the Black Pill Feminism sub on Said It.
Quote:In the study a high IQ hampered a woman's chance of getting married, with a 40 per cent drop in marital prospects for every 16-point rise. The opposite was true for their male class-mates, whose equivalent chance of being married rose by 35 per cent for a 16-point rise in IQ. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/23/gender.comment
In other words, women prefer smart men but men prefer dumb women. Consider this evidence that you, presumably female separatist woman reading this post here in the Female Separtism subforum, are in fact smarter than most women. And will be wiser to stay single anyway (or embrace your lesbian side). It's statistically better for your health and happiness. Hell, sapphic relationships are even better for your sex life as a woman for that matter!
What exactly is the reason for putting up with moids again? The case against even bothering with them seems completely overwhelming to me, seriously.
RE: Moids Prefer Stupid Women - YesYourNigel - Oct 19 2025
Wow, this is one of the worst articles I've made myself read. It talks about some study that it never links to or summarises, merely mentions, then extrapolates evopsych bullshit from it which it then passes of as science, and then gives women tradwife-style advice on how to keep themselves looking dumb to keep the monkey-brained man around (and ofc you want to keep the man around, because you yourself evolved to be a monkey-brained sex slave to him).
Quote:Men don't choose wives on the basis of their high IQs. We're starting to learn why
Through someone's think piece that doesn't even link to the actual study?
Quote:If gender skirmishes continue at their current rate, my partner glumly observed, men will fade into extinction and women will manage fine without them.
Hey can you tell your schlubby smelly piece of shit Nigel with a great personality to stop having his dick-crisis for five seconds while we're talking? K thanks
Quote:What with test-tube babies, cloning, a falling birth-rate, have-it-all career women prevailing like never before, it seems as if good, old-fashioned, instinct-driven sexual selection - falling in love across a crowded room, fools give you reasons, wise men never try, all that - was totally passe.
Straight women love to think that when men talk about evopscyh, they're validating their romcom heartthrob as being perfectly designed through millennia of evolution instead of, ya know, rape culture.
Quote:How interesting that we automatically assume that men are put off by cleverness in women. Perhaps the brainy women did not want to get married. Possibly they could not find men clever enough to satisfy them.
You know, two of these things can be true at the same time. More educated women can be more empowered to not date men, and men can be less attracted to smart women. But ofc, your Nigel likes it more if you word it not as "smarter women are telling men to fuck off", but rather as "Men are turning away from empowered women!!! Women in shambles! Anarchy! Take that, feminazis!". Let me guess, we're all gonna regret it once we end up single old cat ladies?
Quote:But these interpretations hardly merit more than a passing thought because this study simply reinforces what we know to be broadly true
WHAT STUDY? SOURCE???
Also, yes, please don't think about any corroborating factors, let me tell you the much more convenient evopsych explanation that all those clever men have come up with.
Quote:that most women do want a committed partner and that most stable marriages occur on a power gradient, with the man being - metaphorically - on top.
Stable marriages where women get beaten and raped and are unable to escape? Maybe women might want more out of life than that?
Quote:On the question of attracting a mate, women think men are so lucky.
If you mean women uneducated in feminism who don't have the most basic understanding of the patriarchy...then, sure...I guess it's "just luck", much how it's "just luck" that children of rich people also happen to be rich. Very consistent things in the world sure can feel like luck or hand of god when you intentionally make yourself stupid or in denial.
Quote:Health and fitness are vital, but by far the most irresistible trait is power. For the modern man, there are myriad ways this can be displayed:
Actually men aren't drawn to power as much as they're drawn to primitive hierarchies. If they were all equally power-hungry, they wouldn't be able to organise their hierarchies, but men are actually very good at submitting to other men, which is why they revel in hierarchies like the army, and are consistently drawn to fascist ideologies where they get to worship their great leaders.
Quote:For the modern man, there are myriad ways this can be displayed: conspicuous wealth, a flashy car, a yacht, extravagant dressing, champagne, cigars, caviar; gambling extravagantly and flamboyantly; ostentatious risk-taking; a high-powered job such as a politician's; preferably being famous, one's face flashed up frequently on TV screens.
LMAO freakin' straight women...You could sell them sand in a desert, as long as the seller was a man.
No, your Nigel wanting to earn tons of money and boss people around for his ego trip does not mean he's doing it for you! Women are an accessory, a prize for being successful. They're just another thing that money and control get you. He's not getting yachts and fancy cars and champagne for you, he's getting them because that's what makes him look cool TO OTHER MEN! You're a sex and heir dispenser that he can profit off of and show off as a sign of status, that's it.
Why do you think all the despots who had harems still amassed all that wealth? They sure didn't do it for the women who had 0 choice or opinion in the matter. Isn't it funny how all these things that men do to supposedly impress women just happen to be tied exclusively to their masculine interests, wellbeing and approval? Damn it's so easy to be self-sacrificial and emphatic when it nets you tons of money and power!
Quote:You do not need to be handsome and brawny if you are a Yasser Arafat, a Bernie Ecclestone, a Stephen Hawking.
I sure as hell don't see any women fawning over these and keeping their posters on their walls. In fact I very consistently see women fawn over what men characterise as "gay" "effeminate" men, and men complaining that these aren't Real Men because they're not what other men are attracted to. Women settling in an androcentric society that tells them they don't deserve any better is not evidence that this is their natural calling. It's like a rich fatcat giving someone the choice between eating shit and eating plain porridge, and then saying the preference for porridge validates the rich person hogging all the best food.
Quote:The rapid evolutionary enlargement of the human brain has vexed scientists for decades. Why did it happen? One of the theories is that this is the ultimate winning ticket in the sexual selection stakes, with the human mind going into a frenzied serial expansion for no better reason than that 'wit, virtuosity, inventiveness and individuality turn other people on'
Literally starting from the assumption that women found ugly men attractive because "they make them laugh", and assuming that this is an evolved thing because...well women are just turned on by that! Little circular, don't you think?
Quote:But unfortunately for us women, it is uni-directional, for if we get too bright it can be a turn-off.
What is "unidirectional" supposed to mean here? Isn't that supposed to imply that there's a 1:1 relationship between smarts and attraction?
And oh, the tragedy, women getting smart and men not finding that as attractive as mere tits and ass! However shall women survive?
Quote:Thus, in Love Actually, Hugh Grant's suave prime minister finds a soulmate in Martine McCutcheon's comely tea-lady, while Colin Firth plays a writer who falls for a Portuguese woman. Knowing no English she cannot answer back.
Yes, don't support your statement with studies, support them with a fucking romcom written and directed by men.
Quote:Our signals are the age-old ones of health, symmetry, beauty (as perceived in your own particular ethnic group and culture)
Yes I forgot that heels and lipstick are also a product of millions of years of evolution.
Quote:For Darwinian evolution is not about survival but about reproduction of the fittest.
This kills me about how people misunderstand evolution. It's really only about survival of the most sucessful reproductive strategy, not of you. Evolution doesn't actually give a damn about your quality of life, despite what your Nigel's podcaster influencers might make you believe. That's why evolution often evolves strategies where the animal straight up dies upon reproducing successfully. If you die a slow and painful death the moment you reach maturity, but your corpse gets used to feed the most amount of babies that survive until their own reproduction, then congrats, you've officially won evolution!
Evolution is not your friend, nor your guardian angel. It will straight up work against your personal interests and well-being if it means it maximisises the amount of progeny coming out of you.
Quote:For those who dismiss this as sci-psychobabble, remember that all this happens well below conscious level.
So, because it's subconscious you can spew out any degree of bullshit and claim it's legit and scientific while also being conveniently unproveable?
Quote:Our hominid ancestry certainly included a protracted phase when the males competed for the alpha role, in which the top male took all the advantages, all the dictatorial powers, and most of the group matings.
I honestly don't know where this is coming from, except projections from chimps? Which ignores the peaceful, "matriarchal" bonobo, which are equally closely related to us. Yes, early hominins tended to have stronger sexual dimorphism, but that varied and also became significantly reduced in modern humans. Our relatively low sexual dimorphism is actually kind of unprecedented in great apes.
Quote:Small wonder, then, that the male progeny, generations on, still like to rule the roost in their home patches. Most men I know nurse secret dreams of being 'benign' dictators.
Can we just apply Occam's razor here and instead of assuming that every single thing our society does exists because our monkey ancestors willed it down to our Pepsi vs Cola preferences, maybe people raised with main character syndrome who are told they deserve a bangmaid who's dumber and less important that them end up acting like entitled supremacist brats? Kinda like how certain races end up with a racial superiority complex due to similar messaging, and maybe we don't need white supremacist genes in chimps to explain how that could possibly happen?
Quote:We see how fragile are the marriages of those in which the female has the whip hand of power in the shape of fame, success, wealth, royalty. In contrast, marriages where the female status is unequivocally inferior, including arranged marriages, there is a greater stability.
Ah yes, the very "stable" marriages where women are trapped and sexually enslaved. I guess that's stable in the same way that it's more stable for your business to have slaves than workers with wages and rights.
Also, this is measuring the success of a marriage by how much men throw tantrums and how willing they are to use threats, manipulation and violence to preserve the "stable" marriage. Women don't actually want to sexually enslave men, or be abused by their partner. Sorry that this leads to divorce, I guess? I'm sure we're somehow violating thousands of years of evolution giving us the insitution of marriage by merely looking after our own interests.
Quote:In the age-old pattern of female infidelity, we can usually commandeer a man's sperm without marrying him.
Wut? Can someone translate this incel-esque word salad to me?
Quote:I am not making judgments here; but women have to accept that coming in to our own and achieving the full potential of our (seemingly superior) capacity to use education will undoubtedly make us more inaccessible as partners. More choosy, and therefore not always successful.
From what I'm seeing, women have done a pretty good job adapting. They have friends, communities, hobbies, volunteering, extended families...Men are the ones creating terrorist cells because some girl in high school didn't notice them.
So, what I'm getting here is that men are stupid vile misogynists who never evolved past chimp level and women need to avoid them like the plague. Done article, yes?
Quote:Many of us would settle for that.
But not the resident Nigel ass-kisser!
Quote:But if we want a partner, we can also use our brains creatively.
Oh god, no...please not the "you can guide your adorably misogynistic Nigel behind the scenes 😊🙏" shit!
Quote:We don't have to let on how clever we are: our species has supreme skills at dissembling. Many women in the Victorian era, when they were definitely second-class citizens, learned how to manipulate their husbands, to get their own way by making themselves indispensable and powerful.
Hey, dipstick, disenfranchised enslaved women were doing this BECAUSE THEY LITERALLY HAD NO OTHER CHOICE! This is not because "hyuck, those women with their feminine viles and their cliquey personalities, using their womanly pink brains to play the best support role that women evolved to play", it's because this is literally the only way women could do anything.
So, okay, women used to be slaves to men, now they are not and they have no reason to keep playing these stupid games around their Nigel's chimp feelings. Can we end the article on that note?
Quote:Many a famous man has had a silent female prompt at his elbow, and women have been happy to shine in reflected glory. This, as much as innate male behaviour, explains the glass ceiling.
Oh for fuck's sake....
Yes, the glass ceiling isn't just because of men's abusive misogynistic behaviour, it's actually because women are so happy to eat men's scraps because their pink brains evolved to want nothing else. The centuries of violence and objectification that women have endured at the hands of men are only a small part of the explanation. I'm not sure how that supposed natural deeply-evolved female complacency explains the mass popularity of feminism, but ok.
Quote:Because a big-brained species has infants born too soon and therefore unusually helpless, a woman needs to keep her man around her as long as possible to help nurture the children.
lol oh this shit.
How are men helping? They are selfish, psychically abusive and prone to rape, including of underage girls who are at a higher risk of dying from pregnancy and their own family members. Raising children used to be much more communal because men are so dysfunctional and useless. We literally have archeological records of patriarchal development because we start seeing men hog all the resources away from women and children, making them sickly and undeveloped, which is reflected in their bones. "Providers" my ass.
This is why I can't stand evopsych horseshit. There are only two ways in which this article could've been written:
Men find women less attractive the smarter they are because the patriarchy has spent millennia objectifying women. This needs to change on a societal level, sth sth feminism
OR
Men find women less attractive the smarter they are because men are dumbass monkeys who are incapable of functioning in a civilised society and this is why women need to stay far, far away from them and avoid them like the plague. sth sth separatism
Instead it pulls a Female Dating Strategy where, sure, men suck and they hate women and they're all stupid chimps and it's all evolution so they're a lost cause...but we'll continue to date them anyway so here's our guide on how to not make a romance novel heartthrob think you're a sl*t, or how to find the "high quality man" who'll pay for your dinner and buy you flowers. Doesn't matter how much he hates women as long as you train him to treat you like a princess 😊 These women think they're gaming the system with their feminine viles by letting men hog all the money and power, but hey, they're doing it all for them because that's the men's equivalent of a peacock's tail! Cope harder, sis.
Why do women need men even if you accept the premise that they're biologically predisposed to hate, exploit and abuse them? According to this article, it's to do our duty of preserving some abstract institution of marriage and to fulfill the divine will of evolution. Which I guess goes to show why stupid women indeed are more likely to be in "stable relationships" with men, because you can sell them evopsych snake oil like this and they'll never think to turn their brains on and think it through.
(for record I don't think susceptibility to patriarchal brainwashing is something only stupid women are predisposed to. Societal pressures run much far deeper than that and are not something a big IQ can save you from nor does a big IQ mean you will question societal norms. I'm just running with the writer's dumbass premise)
RE: Moids Prefer Stupid Women - VerdantHorizon - Oct 19 2025
(Oct 19 2025, 11:32 AM)YesYourNigelQuote:In the age-old pattern of female infidelity, we can usually commandeer a man's sperm without marrying him.
Wut? Can someone translate this incel-esque word salad to me?
"Women are cheating sluts conniving to steal sperm," I think. As if women want babies from random men
RE: Moids Prefer Stupid Women - YesYourNigel - Oct 20 2025
(Oct 19 2025, 9:36 PM)VerdantHorizonI love how women are simultaneously these asexual motherly Madonna creatures who are happy dating schlubby men because they only get spiritual and recreational value out of relationships, but also they're Whores who wants to have sex with as many men as possible just out of spite for some poor Nice Guy.(Oct 19 2025, 11:32 AM)YesYourNigelQuote:In the age-old pattern of female infidelity, we can usually commandeer a man's sperm without marrying him.
Wut? Can someone translate this incel-esque word salad to me?
"Women are cheating sluts conniving to steal sperm," I think. As if women want babies from random men
RE: Moids Prefer Stupid Women - Impress Polly - Oct 21 2025
...Er thanks for the engagement!
While the factoids concerning the relationship between a woman's IQ and marriage rates are really more the point here than Margaret Cook's commentary on them in the Guardian was (and also was only part of the larger picture I was seeking to paint in the OP), I've nonetheless found the responses to interesting and sometimes fun and satisfying to read (especially the point that evolution isn't necessarily our friend). I will say this though: if you look at the article's date, you'll notice that it's from 2005, which would be back in the days of the old internet before it was common practice for writers to link directly to their sources (which often weren't online sources back then). You can be assured though that the study being referenced was very real.Personally, I find that Cook's article contains many interesting thoughts about the history of the relationship between women and men, but fails to piece these disparate thoughts together in a coherent way that leads anywhere other than patronizing misogyny, I agree. It's one thing to suggest that women are, on average, smarter than men. It's entirely another to use this assertion as an asinine justification for female subservience. 'After all, with our great emotional intelligence, we can work around second-class citizenship!'
Pff. Spoken exactly like someone who spent her whole life trying to do exactly that until her husband ditched her for his secretary. Oh wait.Patriarchy is a losing game for women. Don't be dumb enough to play it.