merc

Even if the democrats weren't actually holding their members accountable, it should be done. So what if dozens of politicians, both R and D get expelled as a result. Nobody should be upset that people who had bad ethics reports get expelled.

If you did it in the olde fashioneded way with a manual hammer, manually stoking the forge with a bellows, etc., then sure. But AFAIK modern blacksmithing is pretty similar to modern carpentry or welding or any other hobby where the machines do most of the work. It's still a somewhat active hobby, compared to doing something with a computer. But, I don't think a modern blacksmith is going to get huge arms from doing it.

A leather shop as in fetish gear, or a leather shop as in a place for leatherworking hobbyists?

Does listening to something count as reading? Hmm... I'm going to have to go with a no here.

A lot of these hobbies are wealth-adjacent.

Playing an instrument: a good instrument isn't cheap, and music lessons can be pretty expensive.

Woodworking requires a lot of fairly expensive tools, and a space to do it. You can't really have woodworking as a hobby if you live in a small studio apartment. You basically need a house, either one with a basement, a shed or a garage.

Gardening: requires a garden, something you're unlikely to have unless you have your own house.

Photography: I don't know anybody who is into photography who hasn't sunk a lot of money into the hobby. There's the cameras, the lenses, and even the software these days.

Astronomy: see above.

Hiking: not expensive on its own, but in North America it means being able to drive to a wilderness spot outside the city, so you pretty much require your own car.

Archery and blacksmithing: again, requires a specialized space

Now, I know that there are cheap options for a lot of these. A musician could be someone drumming on an upside-down pail. Someone who only has access to a hotplate could still experiment with food. Woodworking could be just whittling sticks found in the park. Gardening could just be tending to a small houseplant. But, are these the version of the hobbies the women are picturing when they're imagining a potential mate doing the activity? Probably not.

Meanwhile, a lot of the stuff at the bottom of the list are very cheap hobbies. Like being influenced by the "Manosphere" just requires access to social media, same with porn and "arguing online".

Honestly, it looks to me like if you sorted the list by "dollars per hour someone invested in that hobby is likely to spend" you'd get many of the same things at the top and many of the same ones at the bottom. Some of the few exceptions are writing and reading, which can be pretty cheap hobbies, but are still apparently very attractive.

Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson. Basically online misogyny. People who blame women for everything, or think that there's such a thing as an "alpha" man, or who use the word "cuck". Basically incels, supposed "men's rights activists", date rapists and date rapists in training, etc.

There are plenty of people who go out for a drink after work. I don't think they'd describe it as a hobby though, and if they did they probably wouldn't just call it "Drinking".

I like that Debating is rated at 30.?% but there's a separate category for "Arguing Online".

I guess that being a Master Debater who comments on people's posts "Debate Me Bro!" doesn't count for the slightly more preferred category?

It's probably too rare. Like, woodworking is somewhat rare, but to do that you just need a basement or a shed or a garage or something. Blacksmithing actually requires a forge, so I'm assuming that far fewer people actually do it.

With it being so rare, I bet that the women who don't have any experience with a man who's into blacksmithing don't think to mention it, or haven't really thought of it. And the ones who do have experience have had a mixed experience. Blacksmithing is loud and dirty so I bet the charm wears off quickly.

* you're

I don't know how you managed to use it twice in the same way in the same sentence, and only get one of them right.

The Nazis based a lot of their racial laws on what was being done in the US, especially the south. Sure, the Allies included a diverse set of nations, but those nations were often incredibly racist too.

If Germany hadn't turned on the Russians it would have won the war. If they'd managed to get access to the French Navy after invading France, they probably would have won the war.