You're not approaching this rationally, but rather rationalizing why the data doesn't fit your world view. Bring up evidence to support in a way that encompasses large groups of people (non-anecdotal evidence). Because of this, Im going to have to reduce the amount of time you put into it until it becomes an argument and not a venting platform.

And the couples that never divorce? About half of them? The female's loyalty in that relationship counts for nothing, then.

Moving goal posts: This tangent was because you wanted a quantification of loyalty in women versus men and I presented one. The female's loyalty counts for no more than the male's. So we have less than half of all marriages ending in death; draw. Of the majority of marriages, the majority are ended by the women. Conclusion: Men are more loyal to continuing the marriage than women. I don't see what's complicated or inflammatory about this.

I think your school of thought sees the initiation of divorce solely as a lack of loyalty, and I think you all fail to take into account that there are often good reasons--abuse, alcoholism, abandonment, infidelity, etc.

Rationalizing the facts; would you be putting the same thought forward if divorce was more often initiated by men? No, because it would fit your worldview. Why am I saying that's your worldview? Because you're using it to rationalize why women divorce more, when all of those are performed by both sexes. Like I said in the first post, back your thoughts up with facts. How you feel about the implications of the facts are irrelevant.

I think they're going to go out and see women as less than them.

And you feel that is an incorrect strategy, when we're saying it is the successful one. Im not here to discuss the morality of it, only the success of it. I can't think of any way to back it up with numbers, but Id love to hear ideas on how we could check the 'aloof vs respectful' strategies. The best I have off hand is the logic about why it works. A man who is aloof has sexual options; he didn't invest heavily in a relationship. A man who has sexual options is a man of value and a higher value catch than one who doesn't. Therefore, more attractive. Clinton was on the phone with a diplomat for his BJ; do you think he treated the intern like an equal? Does Tommy Lee treat the hot n cold running floozies in his house as equals? Did Arnold treat his maid as an equal? If one of your hottest celebrity crushes showed up on your doorstep and said 'Do me.' would you insist on having him meet your parents first?

That makes sense in terms of bees, but women have more to offer than our biologically purpose. There is more to us than that. I fail to see how saying that someone is less loyal, smart, or honorable in terms of men isn't degrading.

Again, no one cares if you find it degrading. We care if it's accurate. Saying women arent like bees is silly; Im trying to prove a point that it's the height of arrogance for anyone to try and force the facts to fit an ideal that men and women are equal, equivalent, and interchangable. I still haven't heard a reason WHY they have to be or why you expect them to be. If you agree that there is no reason for any kind of cosmic equivalence between the bee castes, a vastly simpler organism, then how can you expect there to be such a thing in humans?

I'd like to believe that you all are looking out for yourselves, and there is not a damn thing wrong with that, but there's a way to go about that without degrading women and looking down on them for having sex (which so many of the guys on this sub seem to be after).

I'm ignoring your irrelevant negativity; it wasn't me and I don't care. You're jumping again away from the point and making a whole lot of assumptions. You're making the assumption that not treating a woman with the same respect we default to in men is degrading. You're also making the assumption that degrading women is bad. Both assumptions are wrong. Both may offend your notions of morality, but that's irrelevant. I care about what works and why. You're telling me what you don't like, when I asked you to tell us how we are incorrect. - As for the sex comment, yes, women with a long history of many varied partners are less suitable for having children with than those will few. There are physical health reasons for this conclusion, there are psychological reasons for this conclusion, and there are genetic behaviors that reinforce this, so the same thought worked for our ancestors. All else being equal, I'd mate with the women who has had two partners over the one who has had 200 partners, in the blink of an eye. I simply do not understand why this would be a sticking point for you. It seems obvious and instinctive to me. For just sex with no children, who cares, just double wrap it if her number is too intimidating.

If a woman wants to be a lawyer, why can't she? Because it makes her less feminine? Maybe she doesn't care. Maybe she's just as 'enlightened' as everyone else in a different way.

She can be a lawyer, and we encourage her to do so. But it makes her less desirable a woman to have children with, and it has to be made clear to her the simple fact of life that responsibility has consequences. She can try to have a career and a family, but both will suffer because of the split focus, just like working two jobs and full time schooling will probably affect your grades. Because of her biological imperative to reproduce, we want to warn women that her own biology may end up making her miserable if she doesn't have children. As long as she accepts this, its her life. We just wish there wasn't so much pressure on women to try and do the full career because it lessens the number of optimal mates to raise children. Given the choice, I'd rather my kids had a full time mother in a classic nuclear family scenario. But that's too much of a risk nowadays.

But one is not more important than the other. That's the crux of my argument.

I'll happily agree that it takes two to make a baby. But other than that, you haven't shown anything to back that up. You acknowledge that men and women are different, and since you haven't refuted it, Im assuming you agree that those differences include behavioral differences and mating strategies. If I'm wrong on that assumption, say so and we can clear out this cruft and get to the heard of the matter and build up from there. You refuse to acknowledge that those differences in behavior can result in a man's view of women's standards and behaviors by a man's measure, or vice versa, could cause them to not meet up to their expectations of their own sex. Let's work on that point and build from there.

Two hypothetical religions; Group A believes that pigs are sacred and loves hamburgers. Group B believe cows are sacred and love bacon. Everything else, they agree on. Does it not make perfect sense that these two groups would believe that the other aren't as good and noble and spiritual as the others? These are two exceptionally minor differences in the context of religion, superficial really, but they differences exist and they both feel the others dont meet up to their standards. If physical strength was the only criteria that mattered, how could you not agree that men are better than women? Men are on average, bigger and strong. If mamary size was the only criteria, we'd have no problem saying women are better. If we assume that men are stronger on average, and women are more socially adept on average, and that men believe strength to be far more important than social skills and women believe social skills to be far more important than physical strength, how could you not accept a man believing a women is inferior and the woman believing a man is inferior? Different traits, different criteria.