I'm really not sure what's so controversial.

That demographically women are less intelligent than men, with less variation (glass ceiling, dirt floor)?

That women - being beautiful and loved by default - have less need to act responsibility, in the modern world or the ancestral environment?

That women are more emotional and prone to manufacturing drama in relationships? 'Shit tests' as the PUAs say.

That women are evolutionarily programmed to seek out dominant men?

That some women repeatedly date domestic abusers, and appear to enjoy it?

The stereotype of the nagging wife didn't arise ex-nihilo; women are very prone to verbal abuse, often continuing an argument long after their man has conceded. When a woman natters, natters, natters, then yes - as Sean Connery said - an open handed slap is justified (though ill advised in the present legal climate).

To clarify, I'm not trolling; I'm being quite sincere. I have an opinion based upon evidence and theoretical constructs, and furthermore (in my experience) it works when the rubber hits the road.

Reread what I wrote; I never said I hit my women, or any woman for that matter. Quite frankly, even if a woman deserves a slap (as Sean Connery advocated, calling this DV is ridiculous), I'll just kick her out of my life - the present legal climate ignores female-on-male violence, and loves prosecuting the male. No woman is worth it, even if she enjoys it.

I said I laid down the law with women. When they're being bratty or rude, I inform them that such behaviour is unnacceptable. I'm not going to tolerate it, and the door's right over there if they don't like it. Refusing to take abuse from somebody is not being abusive oneself.

Furthermore, I said that women appreciate a man who won't put up with their hysterics. Women seek out that sort of calming influence for the maelstrom of emotions they have flowing through their veins.

Suppose there's a research project to do something important, say cure cancer, build FAI, etc. You will agree that it's best for everyone if it's staffed by the best people, even though it's in some sense "unfair" to the people who will be denied the chance to participate in such a prestigious project because of their genes and/or upbringing.

The same principal applies to other projects where for the same reason it makes sense to assign people based to their comparative advantage. Now you may be asking, "Who decides what someone's comparative advantage is and what about their biases?" Turns out there is a system that does a reasonably good job allocating people base on their comparative advantage and also avoids the problem of having a central judge of people's value. It's called the free market.

Just as an experiment I challenge the reader to consider the well know trolley problem. Be honest to yourself. Make up a random man on the street. Name him Joe. Joe can save plenty of other people if you push him on the track. Imagine average Joe. Now wait 10 minutes, by the clock. Now imagine a random woman. Lets call her Jane.

Are you really going to tell me you aren't seeing it there? Scurrying about in the dark back of your mind, registering on your warm fuzzy evaluation function, before you suppress it in shame or to win an argument. You would spend more time before pushing Jane compared to Joe and you know it. Ceteris paribus for some values of numbers of lives saved you might push Joe but not Jane.

This is a disturbingly effective demonstration.

The truth is that sometimes it’s best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave

I fully endorse this sentence because I see it not as advice but as stating whether something is or isn't a fact. In a thread about ugly truths!

What are the circumstances in which you think it is best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave?

Please stop being so disingenious and twisting your allies' words to give a likeable pseudo-summary. You aren't dumb, so you must be doing it on purpose. To quote my other comment:

My whole motherfucking problem with the whole thing is that Aurini holds men to be a superior species: i.e. they can't be disciplined by women when they act stupidly or rashly, they aren't said to be largely stupid while women are actually less likely to have an IQ below the mean (and defining "stupid" as just 100 IQ or above is pretty damn unjustified), etc. He completely avoids criticizing his own gender, but seizes upon every opportunity to insult the other one. And by the looks of it you're acting in the same hypocritical and unfair manner.

For example:

most women are incredibly stupid, and quite useless

Most people are incredibly stupid, and quite useless. Women are people. QED.

See how coy you're being? Aurini specifically excluded men from his comment; in his thinking, much less men must be "incredibly stupid" than women. And as that's absurd for any reasonable value of "incredibly stupid" (men of IQ>140 might indeed far outnumber women, but, had he meant that, he would probably be calling himself, most of LW and most scientists stupid) - why, it must've been meant solely as a mean-spirited, irresponsible insult.

Likewise, if women always physically assaulted men when they considered it to be reasonable self-defense, and so did men when they felt that they're defending themselves fron an aggressive woman, much more men would get hit by women than vice versa. But that's unacceptable, he'd say; bitches can't do this to me whenever something gets into their brain tubes!

Are you really going to tell me you aren't seeing it there? Scurrying about in the dark back of your mind, registering on your warm fuzzy evaluation function, before you suppress it in shame or to win an argument. You would spend more time before pushing Jane compared to Joe and you know it. Ceteris paribus for some values of numbers of lives saved you might push Joe but not Jane.

Actually, my System 1 feelings wouldn't push either of them (I guess -- I've never been in such a situation before with System 1 being aware of it; I think the Implicit Association Test would be a better test of what you're trying to test).

(FWIW, my System 2 reasoning wouldn't either, for TDT reasons -- if the answer to “If someone is offered $10,000 to murder someone, should they accept and then give the proceeds to AMF thereby saving five lives?” were “Yes”, I would have to be more careful about not displeasing rich people, for example.)

Most people are incredibly stupid, and quite useless. Women are people. QED.

Most people are incredibly stupid, and quite useless. Nobel laureates are people.