Pages

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

"Five Minutes" Theory Validated

Homewrecker
The David Petraeus / Paula Broadwell saga is Exhibit A evidence in support of hypergamy and Roissy's "five minutes" theory. Check out the background info on Paula Broadwell, the two-birds-with-one-stone homewrecker:
* She's a driven high-achiever: Broadwell was valedictorian of her high school class, a fitness champion at West Point with a graduate degree from Harvard and a model for a machine-gun manufacturer, according to a New York Times profile. She is now a research associate at Harvard's Center for Public Leadership and a PhD candidate in the Department of War Studies at King's College London. She met Petraeus in 2006 when he spoke at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, where she was a graduate student. When she told him about her research interests in counterterrorism and military intelligence, he handed her his card and offered his help. "He really cares about mentoring," she told the Charlotte Observer.

*She's a self-described "soccer mom": Broadwell, 40, lives in the upscale Dilworth neighborhood of Charlotte, N.C., with her radiologist husband and two young boys, according to the Daily Beast. Their five-bedroom, four-bathroom home is listed on the tax rolls as being worth $908,000.

*She had extensive access to Petraeus while writing "All In": Plugging her book on the "Daily Show" in January, Broadwell referred to Petraeus as her "mentor" and said she called him "Peaches." Broadwell visited Afghanistan six times to report the story, spending a total of three months there. While embedded with Petraeus in Afghanistan, Broadwell said, she often accompanied him on long, six-minute-mile runs.
Also a homewrecker
Ms. Broadwell is a high-achieving woman if there ever was one. West Pointer. Extensively schooled at prestigious institutions. Very fit. And she is married to a fellow who by all accounts is a high-achieving fellow himself, definitely alpha, at least in the resources / wealth / power department. Yet hypergamy is a fickle thing, a relative phenomenon. And it was likely hypergamy that led an assortatively paired Paula Broadwell to cheat on a man with whom she has had two children. In nearly every other context, Mr. Broadwell would outrank any fellow that comes along. Yet his wife, when presented with an even greater alpha in the form of a four-star flag officer, jumped ship. Three months of alpha was apparently worth several years of (relative) beta....even when said "beta" was alpha in his own right.

The media has rightly criticized General Petraeus for his homewrecking indiscretions, and thus far seems to be soft-pedalling Ms. Broadwell's role. This is not unusual; powerful men in contemporary culture are generally held more culpable for bouts of marital infidelity than the starstruck women with whom they cheat. This despite the fact that both in this case are fully fledged adults (she nearly 40, he old enough to be her father) with complete moral agency. Perhaps the reason why is nothing more than the "female sentencing discount", applied to infidelity--both sexes tend to kid-glove female misdeeds while dealing harshly with male misbehavior. Yet the biases of men and women cannot obscure the simple truth in this case: female hypergamy--serial polyandry--is a fact, morally no better and no worse than male polygyny (aka "oat sowing"). That and even high-ranking men apparently aren't immune to being "traded up" upon.

14 comments:

ray said...

Ms Broadbutt is married and guilty of infidelity just like Petraeus

yet the female is a hero, destined for more fame and wealth, and endless book-signings and appearances on oprah, while the male is evil, and deserves to be hounded and destroyed for his "crimes"

where's the Equality? there is no Equality, except when it empowers the Gynogulag

every week now in the Western Matriarchy a new male is paraded across the collective consciousness for Horrible Sex Crimes, all for the empowerment and enjoyment and profit of your sick, hymen-hypocritical k-k-kultures

it's nothing to do with "justice" -- it's just plain old cowardly scapegoating, and collective annihilation of masculinity, all under the cover of "morality"

men refuse to stand up for each other, and now it's Open Season on all of you, even the "powerful"

no individual male has ANY real power -- your nations are ruled by women, sick in mind and dark in heart

this nation is a rabid, ravening bitch, blood-slavering bitch, and should be put out of its misery

Stuki said...

Who cares about these backmarkers. Neither one of them is anything but simple trash.

I really wish I lived in a world where people would look at the real issue; this ape has for years been feeding off of other, some decent, people's taxes. And, scarily enough, many of the people being fed off, STILL thinks that the ragtag idiotocracy that would promote trash like that to a position where he has access to spend other people's money, and take other people's lives, is something worth preserving(!), out of all things.

"He protects me"....... That guy. Great protection, dude. Like he protected this whore's husband.

And now, tax payers are supposed to pay even more, "to get to the bottom of this...:, blah, blah. So that another batch of tax feeding rabble can attempt to advance their pathetic "careers."

Here's how civilized people would deal with this: Stone her, shoot him, shut down the CIA and those who funds it (that's be the Feds). Done. Cheap. Fast. Effective.

As well as inevitable, in the longer run; since those who refuse to throw out the trash, eventually gets infected and/or eaten by rats. Most of us may not be around to watch the comeuppance, unfortunately. But for all that is good and decent, at least don't pretend that exterminating these vermins, and everything they do and stand for, is somehow anything less than 100% positive, in every conceivable way.

wanderling said...

so adultery is a sin but murder and violence is okay, got it. I'd like to know if the husband was also an adulterer and whether she had sex dwith jon stewart. I.d also like to know if every other woman in the world including myself is also constantly having sex with higher status males, because there is always going to be some guy who has more status than another. What prevented her from having sex with every other male she.s ever met who has more status than her husband? Theory is bogus. It has more to do with common interests, attraction and opportunity than just because someone earns more money and has greater influence in a particular area. This whole alpha\beta dichotomy is stupid.

Elusive Wapiti said...

ray wrote:

"yet the female is a hero, destined for more fame and wealth, and endless book-signings and appearances on oprah, while the male is evil, and deserves to be hounded and destroyed for his "crimes""

Gen Petraeus will be undone by his infidelity, something that he deserves. I'm convinced Ms. Broadwell would get off with much less, despite her status as a reserve military officer, were it not for the sheer embarassment she's caused. Oh and for all that classified it appears she had at her house. Oops.

Then again, stuffing classfied docs into his pants didn't impact Sandy Berger all that much, so maybe not.

"Here's how civilized people would deal with this: Stone her, shoot him, shut down the CIA and those who funds it (that's be the Feds). Done. Cheap. Fast. Effective."

Given the violence that is done to the social fabric from adultery, there may be something to Mosaic Law.

Moreover, that we tolerate infidelity by either sex--let alone give Ms. Broadwell a pass--speaks volumes about our priorities as a "civilization".

Elusive Wapiti said...

"so adultery is a sin but murder and violence is okay, got it."

You are completely missing the point Stuki made. And what pray tell, is morally wrong with violence per se?

" It has more to do with...interests, attraction and opportunity... "

Again, you are missing the point. Hypergamy is precisely about the mechanism of attraction. Granted, some Game theorists can be a bit reductionist in their application of the theory, but I'm not one of those types.

You may note that I squarely lay responsibility for the choices to cheat on their respective spouses on the adulterers themselves. They were "attracted" to the other (her via hypergamy, him by what I call koreogamy). The theory explains the attraction mechanism, it says next to nothing about giving into the tingle.

wanderling said...

If you.re suggesting that it.s ok to bash or stone adulterers then we may as well do away with all assaults as a criminal offense in each criminal code because if its ok in one context then it must b ok in any. Murder is routinely downgraded to manslaughter on the defense of provocation. Many men in western countries have either done no time or received a reduced sentence for killing their wife, on the basis that she provoked him by hurting his ego and causing him to lose control, pathetic, thisdefense has got to go and it will. So violence actually already is condoned to a great extent and its disgusting.

Christina said...

Murder is routinely downgraded to manslaughter on the defense of provocation. Many men in western countries have either done no time or received a reduced sentence for killing their wife, on the basis that she provoked him by hurting his ego and causing him to lose control

Can you provide statistics to this end? Seems to me that our highly feminized culture and 50+ years of educating our governors of dv put an end to such pandering to men a couple decades ago.

You are so content living in a world that revolves around you that you don't care about how such actions have an affect on the people around them.

Violence for the sake of violence is not and never has been acceptable. Using violence to discipline (as slapping and spanking are actually, technically, violent) is something entirely different.

Where God offers mercy for the sinner, there are laws put in place to maintain order among a people who greatly love to create chaos. Adultery is one of the #1 instigators of chaos, as you can see by this episode or any episode of Jerry Springer. Its harm touches those responsible all the way down to a child that may not even "exist" yet. Hence why it was punished in such a violent way.

What is so frustrating is that it is quite clear that people don't give a damn how their choices affect them without a direct and obvious consequence, much less care how it affects any one else their mire of hedonism touches. If people actually cared enough to keep their legs crossed instead of putting a stamp of approval (whether it be on one half or both parties) on the act, then no one would be sitting here saying there may be something to Mosaic Law.

Its very difficult to reason with people who think they did nothing wrong even when their entire life is crumbling around them. Heck, most people just think the world crumbling around them is someone else's fault. Perhaps we should have more direct consequences in our lives.

wanderling said...

I always love it when a complete stranger presumes to know me.
What I'm defending against here is violent retribution, not the adultery itself. I dislike adulterers as much as the next person, possibly more but doesn't mean I wish to take on Islamic custom to deal with them. That would be quite an ironic and backwards step and in many cases which just be his word against hers, let's stone her!!
Yet again I am not surprised at all to see so called Christians advocating stoning. Once again it takes a "heathen" to remind you that stoning women isn't OK and maybe you should consider bashing in your own head if you are less than perfect as well. JHC said as much.

As for the stats, there is thing called google. May I suggest you use it if you don't believe me.
Not all of us live in a feminist's wet dream wonderland. Some of us live in so called first world nations where misogynistic laws still exist in large measure and we can clearly see exactly what feminists have fought for elsewhere and why they did.

And you don't even appreciate it. Typical.

wanderling said...

Rather than stats, I suggest you read these submissions. This defense has had it's day, and it's had a bloody good run.
What have we learned from this? Simple. The male ego is more important than a woman's life.

wanderling said...

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/V3ListSubmissions?open&ParentUNID=78B96853E8FC1F2DCA257A22001D0442

wanderling said...

One more thing, I suggest you never accept an invitation from your husband to take a trip to Australia or Canada. It's well known that foreigners like to bring their wive's to Australia just so they can kill them, knowing that the laws will protect the husband in large part. The most common way the man likes to kill the wife is either by pushing her off a cliff when bush-walking or drowing her while scuba-diving.
Don't believe me? Google it.
Canada is just as pathetic as Australia at punishing men so it's no doubt a popular holiday locale for disgruntled husbands. Grizzly bears are probably blamed in most cases.

wanderling said...

Looks like you're wrong about US governers only pandering to women.
You've got provocation as a defense as well, just another another name.
I used this thing called google to find out, it's just amazeballs, you should try it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_%28legal%29

Elusive Wapiti said...

"If you.re suggesting that it.s ok to bash or stone adulterers then we may as well do away with all assaults as a criminal offense in each criminal code because if its ok in one context then it must b ok in any. "

Let's try a thought experiment. Let's assume that you support so-called "child support". That being true, then we may as well do away with all laws against human trafficking, and while we're at it, repeal the 13th Amendment (I realize you're not American, but bear with me), since we permit State-assisted selling of legally innocent men and women for the personal benefit of another. It is after all, as you say, okay in one context, it must be okay in all, right?

"Murder is routinely downgraded to manslaughter on the defense of provocation. Many men in western countries have either done no time or received a reduced sentence for killing their wife, on the basis that she provoked him by hurting his ego and causing him to lose control"

Nice weasel words. How does one quantify "routinely" and "many men"? I could just as easily write that "women routinely get off scot free or with a greatly reduced sentence than men for the same crime, that is, if they are ever prosecuted at all, resulting in many violent women and child rapists going free" and I would not only be factually true but likely more accurate than your unsubstantiated assertions that Australia, with a radfem PM, turns a blind eye to Aussie men slaying their mates. Furthermore, linking to a collection of amicus briefs by anti-violence-against-women activists in support of a law in NSW is not convincing in and of itself.

Where are the anti-violence-against-men activists in NSW, BTW?

wanderling said...

The radfem PM doesn't concern herself with State parliamentary inquiries, considering she's you know, a Fed.
Provocation is state based legislation.
Routinely used is not weasal words. It is the first and only line of defense for weasal barristers defending spousal murderers.
Here's a quick search on a local NSW paper on provocation. If you care to scroll through the results you will see that men murder their wives and use the defense of provocation on a regular basis.
http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?page=1&sy=smh&sp=nrm&so=relevance&dt=selectRange&kw=provocation&dr=1month&pb=all_ffx&rc=10&sfx=headline&sfx=text&submit=Search
Just another article appeared in the paper this morning. Take a gander.
http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=smh&kw=provocation&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=SMH121116AP7LI7C15BJ

As for the submissions. If you cared to read them, and I know you didn't, you would know that some are for retaining the defense on the basis that it will protect women and homosexuals who kill in self-defense, because for some reason the defense of self-defense isn't something lawyers like to use. I guess it would take up more of their precious time when they could making money on another case.
You might also care to read the submission made by Mrs Jaspreet Kaur who was the sister of the woman murdered recently, where the husband received a reduced sentence of six years.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/6851B796B7EFA65DCA257A5D0010BC02

Very interesting reading. It reveals exactly how interested the Crown is in bringing male murderers to justice. And they're not very interested at all.

The Australian legal system does not give a stuff about people's lives or justice, regardless of gender, but men seem to get off on charges just as easily, if not more easily than women. The government's only interest is saving money, whether that be by having half-assed legal legwork done by the police or Crown to reduce costs or reducing sentences so less is spent on inmates.

As for the anti-violent male activists, interesting you say that. Recently a young female stabbed her boyfriend to death and claimed provocation, and wouldn't you know, she was tarred by the media, a full scale public smear campaign, an interview on Sixty Minutes (yes we have 60 minutes program here too) and she was vilified as a liar. Yet this never occurs when men use the defense, which suggests that most people do actually believe that women bring their deaths upon themselves. Victim blaming at its finest.