The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon that people associate more positive attributes with women than with men. The phrase was coined by researcher Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic in 1994 after finding that both male and especially female participants tend to assign positive traits to women. Women themselves find women even more wonderful than do men, in fact, the tendency to give members of one's own sex more positive evaluations, i.e. in-group preference, is 4.5 times higher in women.
Women are worse in almost any regard[edit | edit source]
Women are frequently regarded as more empathetic, less violent etc., even though they are in truth more likely than men to initiate intimate partner violence, are less cooperative with their own sex, are less generous in high-status positions, report more same-sex conflicts and take longer for conflict resolution, more often than men slut-shame other women, have a stronger anti-female bias in peer review, are more interrupted by other women than by men, more likely to socially exclude. Female gossip has also been a concern throughout history. Throughout history, queens were more likely to wage war than kings, and women are thought to be less loyal to their own group, as evidenced by French women adoring German soldiers. Most women also love criminals and fantasize being raped. Women lose their love a lot sooner in terms of wanting sex pointing to a less intense, more extractive/utilitarian and fleeting love style, and yield nearly the same rate of affairs as men. What's worse, an affair for women more often means actually falling in love with the new partner. In fact, biochemical research points to a natural four-year sexual cycle for the human female. A woman’s natural tendency is to “liberate” herself from her mate after that point. This is in line with divorce statistics where women are the initiator 75% of the time. Overall, this points to a female sexuality that appears to be stuck in a more r-selected past despite being more coy and choosy during the initiation of a relationship. Women also have a slightly lower IQ, are less emotionally stable and more childish, physically weak (bad hunters and fighters) and have historically always been dependent on men.
In short, women are on average worse than men in almost any regard, especially in their completely useless intrasexual competition which only produces drama and competition in looks, whereas men's competition has brought us science and civilization. It's only that women have a lower activity level and thus get less things done and thus do less of the bad things, leading to the apex fallacy that men are worse. Since these are just averages, this does not mean that all women are worse than all men.
Evolution[edit | edit source]
The authors suggested that the bias comes from the association between women and nurturing characteristics, that their women's nurturing is seen as inherently positive and indulgent.
The in-group bias, i.e. women regarding each other as (a lot) more wonderful than men, may derive from female neoteny, namely their childishness evoking mothering adaptations in other women.
It may also come from men having selected women who stick to themselves (and stick fingers into each other) and find other men uninteresting. This helps men to avoid getting cuckolded. This is why women are seen to form flocks and spend time with each other on the toilet etc.
The women-are-wonderful effect might also be related to women's tendency to rate men's physical attractiveness as worse, which might be born from an inclination to avoid initiating a relationship and hence bearing the responsibility, making it extraordinarily easy to squash unwanted sexual approaches.
With runaway virtue signaling due to the prevalence of feminism lots of men are pressured to be nice to women which possibly only increases their sexual frustration, making them virtue signal about women's superiority even more.
An evolutionary explanation for women being actually worse in almost all regards may stem from the fact that they have reproduced twice as reliably, so they have been subject to less evolutionary pressure, so women are in that sense more inbred, less honed by nature. Men are nature's experiments, women are mere selectors. This might explain why women's sexuality also seems to be stuck in a more feral past. It has not evolved much since then as most women have reproduced no matter how they acted.
References[edit | edit source]
- Eagly AH, Mladinic A. 1994. Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. [Abstract]
- Eagly AH, Mladinic A. 1989. Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Women and Men. [Abstract]
- Eagly AH, Mladinic A. 1991. Are women evaluated more favorably than men? An analysis of attitudes, beliefs and emotions. [Abstract]
- https://toqonline.com/archives/v7n2/v7no2_Devlin.pdf (Langley 2005)