Do you have a ‘type’ when it comes to relationships? What does the ‘man of your dreams’ look like? And what do you think the chances of finding him are? According to a new online tool, no matter what your preferences are, you’re delusional—down to a point where “you don’t even belong on this planet.” Ouch.
Creatively dubbed the ‘Female Delusion Calculator’ and hosted on the URL ‘igotstandardsbro.com’, the website invites heterosexual women to input specific choices for age, race, height, weight, income and marital status to calculate the probability of finding the ‘ideal man’ who fits the profile. Here, sliders let you choose between 18 to 85-year-old for age, “White,” “Black,” “Asian” and “Any color or shade” for race, maximum height up to seven feet—with an option to “exclude obese”—and minimum income ranging between “any” to $500,000.
Since the website throws much inclusivity out of the window, let’s sigh and analyse how it works. I tried entering my own quantitative preferences, or “standards” as the calculator deems it, to get a supposed reality check. For context, I’m a 22-year-old Indian who’s 5 feet 8 inches tall. And the metrics I went for are: age 22 to 27 (since the slider requires a minimum five-year range), exclude married, Asian, minimum height of 5 feet 9 inches and earning at least $20,000 per year. Not a wild reach for the stars, so there should be hundreds of options flooding my screen, right?
Apparently, the chances of finding such a man is a slim 1.7 per cent. “That is 24.9 per cent of all Asian men in that age range,” the website noted. Rubbing salt in the wound, accompanying the result is also a depressing probability table—visually highlighting the statistics among a data set of 1,000 men. The takeaways don’t end there either. Towards the end, you’re also hit up with a “delusion score” which is measured in… cat litter. Well, I bagged four out of five on the scale and the tool went on to label me a “cat enthusiast.” How original, indeed.
In a bid to test the calculator, I toyed around with the metrics—and the results were both surprising and questionable. For starters, the live search processes statistical data from two sources. While income and marital status are derived from the 2020 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey conducted by the Census Bureau of the United States, height and body mass index (BMI) are extracted from the 2017 to 2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. In short, the tool calculates your chances of finding the ideal man from the demographic based in the US alone.
Now, let’s look at how the “delusion score” aka cat-lady meter works. Courtesy of fellow coding enthusiasts on Reddit, I was able to get a rough numerical idea about the percentages which lead to the ratings. If less than 50 per cent of US men fall in your spectrum, you get one out of five cat litter bags and the label “easy to please.” Yes, you heard that right. Having an ‘average standard’ for your partner apparently means you’re easy. If you manage to pull less than 10 per cent of men, then you end up with two bags—automatically making you “down to earth.” Three bags (less than 2 per cent men) means you’re an “aspiring cat lady” and four (less than 0.1 per cent) makes you a full-blown “cat enthusiast.” Oh no, if it isn’t our worst nightmare!
If your dream man is practically non-existent in the US, then you’re hit up with “you don’t belong on this planet” with 5 bags on the scale. Okay, so what if you bump up the metrics to include every single man in the US? I’m talking ages 18 to 85 of any lineage, height and income. The verdict? Sounds like the person who made the calculator is a little delulu themselves:
If you head over to the ‘about’ section of the website, you’ll realise that the creator is, indeed, a man. The incel maths practically gave it away but, oh well. “During my ‘dating career’ as a man living in North America I couldn’t help noticing that women often have unrealistic expectations. They see themselves being passed around by those high quality men they feel entitled for, failing to realise those few men are in high demand,” the creator justifies, in terms of the motivation behind making the calculator. “Time passes, options shrink, their standards don’t change and they wonder why they are still single.”
According to him, the results of the Female Delusion Calculator can “prove there are not enough high quality men for every girl out there.” Therefore, the tool aims to help women “discern what is realistic from what is highly unlikely.”
Now, I’m not denying the possibility that this website could’ve been made as a joke. And there would be people out there thinking “Oh, ‘feminists’ get angry over everything nowadays.” I mean, that’s literally the type of comments several TikToks addressing the calculator are facing at the moment. In fact, the hashtag itself has amassed close to 2 million views on the platform.
When the website was introduced to Twitter in 2021, many users applauded the creator and called it a “great tool for perspective.” They also suggested tips to improve the statistics and recommended the addition of a metric for “the size a guy’s ‘packing’ in his pants.” Meanwhile, others admitted finding the tool helpful to stay away from women who are deemed delusional altogether. As for those raising their voice against the tool or expressing anything borderline-opinionated against men in general, enthusiasts would immediately link the website in the thread and comment “good luck.”
Taking all of that into consideration, is there a possibility of such websites making a real-time impact on someone? “Even though I’d see this as more of a joke website, a lot of women will come across this and allow it to affect them in a way where they’d feel even more hopeless about meeting ‘the one’ than they do now,” Trina Leckie, the relationship expert and breakup coach behind the breakup BOOST podcast, told SCREENSHOT. “And I think that is really damaging and not the message that should be sent out.”
The expert preaches how there’s so much more to a person than just checking off particular boxes. “If an inch of height, for example, is enough for a woman to say she is not interested in a man, then she is clearly looking for someone to ‘check off a box’ versus the ‘right’ one,” she said, adding how the former majorly involves impressing family, friends and strangers on social media.
In the latter case, however, Leckie believes more emphasis should be placed on income than other factors. For instance, women are socially expected to have babies, so they might look for a man with a steady income to support the household financially in the long run. “When someone is just getting by or can barely pay the bills, it’s not ‘shallow’ to not be attracted to that. It’s being smart,” Leckie noted. According to the coach, financial instability is one of the top reasons for breakups—given the stress it induces on everyone involved. Aside from the monetary aspect, she also believes the factor is reflective of one’s mindset, from complacency to lack of ambition.
“A difference of $75,000 to $80,000 isn’t a big deal. But a difference of $35,000 to $75,000 is. If you want to have an enjoyable life and relationship, you can’t be broke. It’s not realistic.”
Leckie went on to explain that when a man has his life together, a respectable income and you are attracted to him, all of these factors usually make the baseline from which you have something to work with. “What makes someone the ‘man of your dreams’ needs to build on that,” she continued, prompting women to ask themselves the following set of questions: Are you compatible? Is there chemistry? How do they treat you? Are they supportive, encouraging and a good listener? Do you feel as though you can grow together as a team? Do you share common goals? Are you on the same page in terms of having kids, how to raise them, religion, politics and others?
“There is so much more to having a solid and healthy relationship than focusing on height and income”
In Leckie’s experience, some of the other things that women typically look for in their partners include a decent level of effort, thoughtfulness, humour and respect. “A woman also likes to see how he interacts with kids to get a sense of how he would be as a father,” the expert added. Compatible interest is another one on the list. “For example, he only likes camping and she likes vacationing in big cities… that can cause friction down the road.” I hope you’re taking notes, Mister North American with an ex-dating career.
I believe the internet is a game of risky Whack-A-Mole which can’t really be gatekept or censored completely. Therefore, humanity is also graced with a website targeted towards men who want to calculate the chances of finding their ‘dream woman’.
Lo and behold, the ‘Male Reality Calculator’—because men have realistic standards while women are plainly delusional, am I right? Here, the ages range between 18 to 85, but you have the additional option to exclude mothers other than a separate option for married women. Hold up, doesn’t this perpetuate the narrative that women are more invested in their children than fathers? Maybe I’m thinking too much into it. Wait, but the minimum income here is $0 and the maximum the slider goes up to is $275,000. The male metrics on the other calculator lets you choose up to $500,000…
Apparently, the Male Reality Calculator also believes women automatically stunt their growth at 6 feet 7 inches. Nevertheless, the website clearly states that it’s “inspired by its female equivalent at igotstandardsbro.com.” That being said, Leckie claimed that it’s never good to deduce things. “Where one might see this as assuming mothers are more invested than fathers, to me, that would ring more true if these calculators were both created by the same person. Because then, it would be perceived as more ‘offensive’. But seeing as they were created by two different people, it could’ve possibly been an oversight.”
On these terms, the expert explained how dating people with kids is hinged on certain preferences. “It goes without saying that when someone has kids—men or women—it impacts relationships in a significant way,” she said. The factors that come into play here include questions like: How old are the kids? Do they see them just on weekends or are they one-week-on or one-week-off? Who houses them during the holidays? Do the parents even live in the same city?
“Dating someone with kids when you are used to ‘freedom’, so to speak, is not appealing to a lot of people. There’s also drama that usually comes into the mix from exes that others would rather not be a part of.”
On the other hand, however, Leckie continued by mentioning how those with children may prefer dating others who also have offsprings of their own. “Do I think it’s more challenging for a woman who has kids and houses them the majority of the time and is wanting to date again? Yes. You can’t just come and go as you please, there’s a lot more responsibility and financial stress.”
In order to get her expert thoughts on both the calculators in question, I urged Leckie to visit both the websites and share the insights from her results. On the Female Delusion Calculator, Leckie ended up with “aspiring cat lady.”
“That, in itself, carries a negative undertone,” she admitted. “Not just because of the ‘cat lady’ sentiment, but also because it rules out the fact that there are women who actually enjoy being single and don’t feel that they are any less without a man.” Leckie also pondered on whether the online tool was created with bitterness by someone who encountered a lot of rejection, be it justified or not. “There’s a way to do this type of thing that doesn’t aim to take digs or make jabs,” she summed up.
Comparing both the websites at hand, the coach also highlighted how the Male Reality Calculator has an option for “Hispanic” people under preferences for race. Here, they are also presented as checkboxes rather than ‘yes’ or ‘no’ radio buttons that only let you choose one out of all the options—like in the case of the Female Delusion Calculator. “These things are automatically lowering the result,” Leckie added.
Given how she believes there are numerous other factors at play when it comes to relationship preferences, the expert admitted to perceiving both websites as ‘entertainment’. “I definitely wouldn’t allow it to affect me in a negative way,” she said. However, that’s not the case for everyone.
For the past few years, we’ve been hearing about an online movement consisting of participants who have embarked on violent shooting sprees and banned from every platform they visit. Termed as an “emerging domestic terrorism threat” by several authorities, the manosphere consists of men’s rights activists (MRAs), men going their own way (MGTOW), pick-up artists (PUAs) and incels. Demonstrating violence as a coping mechanism for their ‘social grievance’, several studies have claimed how this concerning space is evolving rapidly.
Why’d I mention the manosphere here, you ask? We’re talking about an online website with common hatred for women on all platforms that it’s being promoted on. Take a wild guess. “The irony of the Female Delusion Calculator is that if you only focus on height, race and income. That is what is delusional, in terms of having a happy and healthy life,” Leckie noted, outlining how there’s a difference between having standards with regards to what a person likes and wants in their life and being desperate for any type of relationship.
“Not every woman only focuses on race, height and income. And not every woman needs a man to complete her.” Look at it this way, even if you only have 1.7 per cent of finding your ‘ideal man’ in the US, that’s still over 5.6 million people we’re talking about in 2022. Delulu cat ladies, assemble!
With the internet and the proliferation of social media, there’s no denying that there’s been a growing concern over gender-based harassment online. More recently, there’s been an increase in reports of online abuse from young girls and women, members of the LGBTQ+ community and people who identify as nonbinary as well as other marginalised groups.
It’s challenging to determine the exact reason for this dramatic increase in reports, but one possibility is the COVID-19 pandemic. More people spending time indoors means they’re likely turning to the internet for ‘entertainment’.
Stories about online harassment have dominated headlines in recent years, and it’s tough to point the finger of blame. Are online platforms responsible for allowing this type of malicious online behaviour? What laws are in place to efficiently protect women from being verbally abused online?
There are a few different types of online gender-based violence (GBV). Here are some common definitions to help you, in case we refer to them:
– Cyberbullying: Bullying using digital technologies.
– Cyberstalking: Using the internet to engage in non-consensual communication with another person.
– Trolling: Intentionally upsetting someone by posting inflammatory content.
– Doxxing: Posting private information about a person online.
– Non-consensual pornography: Distributing pornographic material online without consent.
About 51 per cent of girls have personally experienced some form of online GBV, and 85 per cent of these girls have experienced multiple forms of online harassment. There’s no question that girls and women face a disproportionate chance of being victims of online abuse.
Take the wildly popular streaming platform Twitch, for example. Some female streamers think that dealing with online harassment “comes with the job,” as stated by The Huffington Post. It’s gotten to the point that this type of online behaviour has become common, but it’s highly unacceptable.
However, the important question to ask is, what are tech companies doing to combat it?
Google, for example, has a harassment reporting tool in place. Still, some argue that the threshold is too low, and nothing will be done if the harassment doesn’t meet certain requirements.
Other entities, like Twitter, Facebook and TikTok, have been specifically called out by a group of 200 prominent women to level up their harassment mitigation strategies. Because there are so many instances of online harassment being directed towards women, it’s clear that tech giants need to do a better job at protecting their users.
Unless you’ve lived under a rock, you know how prevalent technology is in today’s increasingly digital world. However, the law has been slow to adapt to new technologies. While there are some ways for victims to address their attackers, they often are costly and invasive. Often, victims don’t find the justice they were searching for.
Some legal scholars say that attackers could be brought to justice if the law is used right. The justice system has two options for victims—to file a civil or criminal lawsuit. Victims can use the tort law through a civil case, sometimes referred to as a civil wrong.
While it may be possible, unless the victim has stellar lawyers and some extra money in their savings, filing a case like this is often time-consuming and expensive. Additionally, cases such as these often bring unwanted attention to the victim, which can cause even more emotional damage.
Until then, more girls and women will be subjected to harassment which can lead to low self-esteem, depression or worse. There have been reports of young people committing suicide due to developing depression after being a victim of online abuse.
In one case, ‘Kate’, a 23-year old Queensland woman, is very wary of posting on social media out of fear that she would be targeted and harassed. Kate wants tech leaders to do more to protect all users on their platform, and she makes a compelling case.
Governments, organisations and the tech companies behind these digital platforms owe it to women to implement strategic methods to combat online GBV. It’s up to these entities to cover their bases and do the right thing—not to tolerate any form of online harassment. It’s time for big tech to step up and take actionable steps to mitigate this ongoing issue.