How the Other Half Lives, according to dudes who have no fucking idea how the other half lives
Remember, T-Shirts are available!
It’s always handy when one of the MGTOW brethren sums up one of the tribe’s beliefs in a handy little post. The following is what every single MRTOWer out there (not to mention many MRAs and PUAs and even some non-acronymified misogynists) seems to believe about how women live their lives today. When I say “every single MGTOWer” I’m not really exaggerating for impact – well, maybe a teensy bit. But I don’t think I’ve ever run across an MGTOWer who doesn’t take all of the following on faith.
Like many manosphere beliefs about women – like the whole “women only fuck the top 20% of men” thing – there is of course not a shred of evidence for any of this. It’s an essentially religious belief, accepted on faith. MGTOWers are like monks in the douchiest religion ever.
Anyway, fresh from a post by “Rogue” on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, here’s how all you ladies are living your lives:
The modern woman’s life plan goes like this:
Step 1) From first sexual awakening throughout her twenties, fuck as many Alpha Asshole men (hereafter referred to as AA) as she can in a quest of sheer narcissistic hedonism. May give birth to an AA spawn during this time; party lifestyle and general female educative path (elementary teacher, social worker) results in shaky finances.
[citation needed]
Step 2) Oops, getting close to or past age 30? Find a Nice Guy Beta (hereafter referred to as NGB), dupe him into marriage with sex (he’s generally grateful for the attention, having had less than stellar success with women throughout his twenties), use his money to stabilize shaky finances. Strong likelihood of having another child or two; may again be AA spawn due to affairs. Pack on 30 pounds of fat (at least!). Cut off sex with NGB since she now has him over a barrel and was never really attracted to him in the first place. Get steadily angrier and more dissatisfied.
[citation needed]
Step 3) Divorce at or slightly before age 40; attempt to remount AA cock carousel, this time as a cougar. Fail miserably because no AA wants an old, fat female body and a loose pussy that looks like a hunk of roast beef that’s been worked over with a dozen ball-peen hammers for a month. Said failure twists her mind until her only remaining pleasure in life is to fuck with ex-NGB in various ways such as taking him back to court to raise CS payments, or denying him visitation rights to his children.
[citation needed]
Step 4) Accept that she’s past her time for the AA cock carousel; become a companion to many cats.
[citation needed]
And what’s with all the cat-hatred, anyway? Cats are adorable, endlessly fascinating little monsters who do no harm to anyone, unless you count all the times my cat has attacked me without provocation and the fact that she just threw up her dinner and is now insistently demanding a second dinner. To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson’s character in Jackie Brown, you can trust cats to be cats.
Anyway, back to the sermon:
The marriage strike is just an attempt to short-circuit steps 2 and 3, and force women to ride step 1 as long as they can, then transition directly to step 4. Will women like the result if, instead of rushing to save them at age 30, men just shake their heads and walk away? I think it’s an experiment worth trying.
Once again: please, please, please walk away. Walk far away. Become monks in your douchy religion. Just remember that most monks who take a vow of chastity don’t spend the rest of their lives whining about how women are a bunch of filthy bitches.
Oh, and before anyone pops in with a “why do you pick on the outliers, this guy doesn’t represent bla bla bla,” the post (which naturally got nothing but huzzahs on NiceGuy’s forum) was also highlighted on the MRA blog What Men Are Saying About Women as an example of “superb” discussion of the Woman Question. This bullshit is Manosphere-Approved bullshit.
Posted on June 21, 2011, in alpha males, bad boys, beta males, evil women, kitties, marriage strike, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, vaginas. Bookmark the permalink. 902 Comments.
I studied at DLI. My grammar is so-so, my vocab both rusty, and oddly skewed (want to talk about airplane wrecks, machine gun platoons and train crashes, I’m your guy… otherwise… not quite so much).
I have all the tools, what I don’t have is practice. If I got Rosetta Stone, or found a way to make myself study, instead of just working on not forgetting, I’d be a lot better. He knows his Pension won’t come for another 20+ years after he retires, right? Though is recruiting duty is adding points to the dollar value, reserve component types get screwed.
I think of this with practically every post on Manboobz, but it’s not even a question of whether all women are like this… it’s whether any women are like this at all. Seriously, does any of the OP bear any resemblance to any people or relationships out in the real world?
I mean, for all I know there may be a woman out there who spent her teenage years sleeping with hundreds of handsome rich guys who abused her, had kids out of wedlock with her hundreds of paramours while working as an elementary-school teacher, then married an ugly guy with no money just so she could have more kids and divorce him for the fat chid-support payments (why didn’t she seek child support from the rich “alphas”?), then magically made all those kids vanish so she could be a 40-year-old spinster in a house full of cats, but somehow I’ve missed meeting her.
It’s like the hilarious idea about 80% of men being dateless virgins for life, which can be easily discounted by, I don’t know, walking outside.
Pecunium- I don’t discuss his pension with him too much- It’ll be his money whenever he gets it. But with Russian- taking it at a state college, I learned a disproportionate amount about clothing, food, and location/destinations. But I’ve forgotten a great deal of it by now. But then, learning German in high school and throughout college, was much the same way. the basics were clothes, food, places, then we moved on to abstracts and complex literature. If you want to practice without spend the, what, 400 or more on RS, I recommend reading Russian news online, and watching Russian films, while you parrot what they say on the screen. S’how I’ve retained so much German, even though I dropped out of college in 07.
Marc says: “No matter what insane beliefs you hold, whether you are creationist or a climate change denier, there’s no “David” making a blog about you and your ilk, collecting your forum posts or your comments on articles.”
Have you never read/heard of STFUconservatives? I’m sure there’s a whole slew of sites dedicated to mocking EVERYONE.
Tiredofitall:
“So, the MGTOWs know nothing about what life is like for women, and thus should shut up. Yet somehow the female commenters here know everything about what life is like for men and what they are doing wrong.
I smell a double standard.”
We’re not speculating as to what life is like for men. We’re looking at this charted out life path and essentially saying, “That’s funny, this does not match my life experience at all.”
Quite honestly, I’m sure that there are some women out there for whom this post may match up to. But to try to apply such an idea to an entire gender…well, it’s as silly as trying to develop just one format for how men’s lives are supposed to go.
Also, I’m sorry that you were bullied. Nobody deserves to be treated that way. However, congratulations on your fifteen years’ experience in martial arts. I know very few people who have practiced it for that long (save for the handful of people whom I’ve trained under).
@Shaenon: He’s not saying that.
AA = Alpha Assholes != rich guys
“then married an ugly guy with no money just so she could have more kids and divorce him for the fat chid-support payments”
“No money?” No, beta, as I understood that term is just a nice, a little awkward guy with a good income (but not rich).
Btw, isn’t there such a thing “alimony without children”?
“(why didn’t she seek child support from the rich “alphas”?)”
As I understood that, these alphas aren’t sexually frustrated, so they don’t need to enter a relationship.
“It’s like the hilarious idea about 80% of men being dateless virgins for life, which can be easily discounted by, I don’t know, walking outside.”
What about: 80% of the men don’t get the sex they want? ;-)
Crap… This time without the open tag.
Marc: At the other end (someone who vastly understated partner numbers) the variance would have to be widespread (and one sided) to not be lost into the median.”
What’s the point in making a study if you magically know what the outcome should be?
We have proven some of the men and women lie, a priori we don’t know who lies.
Maybe the big percentage of men who say they had 1-3 sex partners in their life, lie (in a huge part of them didn’t have any), maybe the small number of men who say they had sex with many women lie. We don’t know!
Sigh… more innumeracy.
If there are X quantity of people having sex, then the number of total partners (Men with women, and women with men) has to come out equal.
Lets say there are 10 men, and 10 women.
The MGTOW model has 2 men having sex. Each of them says they have 1 partner, for a total of 20 acts of women having sex.
If each woman says she has had sex with one man, then there are 20 acts of women having sex and the numbers are right.
Now… lets say one of the women says she has had sex 20 times. The men’s sex = 20, and the women’s sex = 40.
The numbers are wrong. It’s not a case of we know what the answer is, it’s that the answers aren’t possible.
When a regression is done, and the outliers (like the person in my example) are controlled for (by doing some analysis of the errors), then what we get is a much more reliable number.
So, what does Occam’s Razor tell us
It posits that the answer with the least comlex explantation is probabaly correct. When it would take 2 guys to skew a survey one way (and such a skew is visible… in that most men report similar numbers over a similar period of time, hence the term outliers) and 2 times the difference understating by the same percentage (that is if 20 guys padded the numbers by 100, it would take 20 understating by 50 percent [because it’s a ratio problem) to hide them.
Since we have a controlling factor (we are trying to norm two halves of an equation that must balance) we can look for the anomalies and remove them.
WHen we do that, the numbers are in keeping. To get the MGTOW scenario to work, 80 percent of men would have to be lying, in a way which balanced out all the women. That is a condition which is, to be blunt, practically impossible. All the guys who aren’t getting any would have to know what the number are; for women having sex, and have to know what their, “fair share” of that would be if they were getting laid. Enough so that when all the guys who aren’t getting sex (but decided to lie on the survey) were collated, it matched the number the women were getting; That would have to be balanced by the alphas telling just the right sort of fibs (shading down) to hide the disprportionate numbers they are getting.
Becase (to forestall you saying the outliers are the only one’s getting sex) if you take the average guys out of the equation… then there aren’t enough sexual encounters on the part of the braggarts to match the numbers the women are providing.
But with a 50% chance that’s the X chromosome the gay guy got from his grandfather.
No. XY = Male. For someone to be a male homosexual require that they be male. That means the sex determining Chromosome they got from their grandfater is Y.
No. XY = Male. For someone to be a male homosexual require that they be male. That means the sex determining Chromosome they got from their grandfater is Y.
You have two grandfathers :P
Tired– Have you ever seen the documentary “Crumb,” about the great underground cartoonist Robert Crumb? He complains constantly about how much he got picked on in high school, although as far as I can tell he didn’t get picked on so much as ignored; the one who got picked on was his brother Charles, mostly because Charles insisted on going to school dressed as a pirate because he was sexually fixated on the movie “Treasure Island.” (To say the Crumb family was odd would be an understatement.)
One scene that’s stuck with me is Crumb going through his high-school yearbook, drawing sketches of girls he had crushes on. One girl was called “The Shelf” because she had a butt that stuck out like a shelf. Another got picked on for wearing handmade clothes. Crumb casually mentions that of course he would never dream of talking to any of these girls, or being nice to them, because they weren’t considered “cool” girls and the other guys would have made fun of him.
What interests me about this scene is that Crumb shows no empathy for the bullying these girls went through. The fact that this girl got picked on and called “The Shelf” only matters insofar as it made it unthinkable for the young Bob Crumb to try to date her. Meanwhile, the bullying the Crumb brothers went through is, of course, the greatest injustice imaginable.
Crumb then brags about how he was able to get tons of girls with big butts once he became famous.
I guess what I’m saying is, everyone was an asshole in high school. You can bitch about it, or you can move on to the happier world of adulthood. I recommend the latter, because nobody likes a rage-filled STEM major except other rage-filled STEM majors.
an open tag too
FoS: I’ve managed to retain a fair bit of my Russian (it was ’93/’94 when I as at DLI). DLI is an intense place. A college quarter of Russian (or whatever one’s language is) every 9 days. I was there for a year.
I will ask if you’ve ever watched Russian News? The go a mile a minute. I read, I listen to tapes. I don’t own a television, so I get films on occasion. I read Russian websites. It’s work, but I do it.
Just not enough.
Sorry… I made an arithmetic error. If one woman says she has sex 20 times, it’s 39-20 =19 too many, not 40 -20.
Evidence for a single “gay gene” is iffy, and we certainly don’t know if it’s sex-linked or if it’s dominant.
Homosexuality could be the result of a combination of genes that are inherited from multiple ancestors. Or it could be a gene that’s only expressed sometimes, under certain circumstances.
Genetics isn’t always as simple as “gay dad has gay son.”
Marc: No matter what insane beliefs you hold, whether you are creationist or a climate change denier, there’s no “David” making a blog about you and your ilk, collecting your forum posts or your comments on articles.”
Have you looked at the internet?
Try climaterealists.com
Try Pharyngula for smackdowns (often with ridicule) of creationism.
I really like Stonekettle Station for more generic mockery, but I’d wouldn’t recommend going in there and trying to defend Creationism/Climate Change Denial/Sexism/Racism or other forms of stupidity. Jim is a retired Navy Master Chief… he takes no nonsense, and no prisoners.
Sigh… more innumeracy.
Beware, I studied math.
“WHen we do that, the numbers are in keeping. To get the MGTOW scenario to work, 80 percent of men would have to be lying, in a way which balanced out all the women.”
Ok, if that’s the MGTOW-scenario, that’s too extreme, that’s really unreasonable.
I’m just saying that there could be much more “male virgins” than this study suggests. Especially if there is such a strong stigma against it.
So, what does Occam’s Razor tell us
I knew somebody would come with this one.
I already said that it is easier to believe that few people lie than many.
I also said, that this is a weak argument.
In general, Occam’s Razor is a weak argument. Every internet-know-it-all uses it and nearly always the wrong way. Very annoying.
Marc: I have two grandfathers. Ok, so there is some chance that I got an X from my mother’s father… that would be the gay one? :)
There is a lot in the ways the genetics of homosexuality are mentioned which is problematic. And… I don’t care. If it were 100 percent choice I wouldn’t care. So long as people aren’t exploiting each other, I don’t care.
Have you never read/heard of STFUconservatives? I’m sure there’s a whole slew of sites dedicated to mocking EVERYONE.
Yes, but it’s very different.
No blog on the internet cares that much about the comments of anonymous people. It’s really unique. David writes a long article about every *** he finds somewhere.
And pharyngula etc. those sites don’t bother with forum posts or comments. If you mock the stuff William Dembski writes on his blog that’s a much higher standard. Also, they don’t cherry pick ALL THE TIME!!!
AA = Alpha Assholes != rich guys
No, beta, as I understood that term is just a nice, a little awkward guy with a good income (but not rich).
Oh, dear, the “who’s an alpha?” game again. Didn’t you spend the entire first part of this thread arguing that women are irresistibly attracted to successful men? Then “alphas” would be rich, successful guys, right? Now you’re saying they’re poor guys, and the successful guys are “betas”? I’m completely confused.
“(why didn’t she seek child support from the rich “alphas”?)”
As I understood that, these alphas aren’t sexually frustrated, so they don’t need to enter a relationship.
But in this fantasy scenario, she had kids with the alphas. Even the kids she had during her marriage to her poor beta husband (you can tell he’s a beta because he had to have sex with a woman in her THIRTIES! EWWW!) are actually the products of affairs with alphas. Why doesn’t she get some DNA tests and hit those guys up for child support? You don’t need to have been in a relationship with someone to get child support.
“It’s like the hilarious idea about 80% of men being dateless virgins for life, which can be easily discounted by, I don’t know, walking outside.”
What about: 80% of the men don’t get the sex they want?
I dunno. Maybe. So?
Oh, hey! Trojan reports that sexual satisfaction is on the rise, but they would, wouldn’t they? According to the annual Trojan-sponsored sex census, 76% of Americans report high levels of sexual satisfaction.
http://www.ramanmedianetwork.com/sexual-satisfaction-on-the-rise-survey/
There is a lot in the ways the genetics of homosexuality are mentioned which is problematic. And… I don’t care. If it were 100 percent choice I wouldn’t care. So long as people aren’t exploiting each other, I don’t care.
If there’s a “gay gene” on the X-chromosome and homosexuality is maladaptive, natural selection would have gotten rid of it.
And goodbye for now, you’re all posting way too fast.
Pecunium- I meant reading the news :) I do that with der Spiegel for German. My Russian class, when compared to the speed in my German class, was about one HS year per 18 week semester.
Shaenon – “Hypergamy” seems to have two different meanings, which can be switched between as necessary:
1) Women all want a rich man who can support them as bon-bon eating housewives.
2) Women all want a swaggering, hyperconfident, hypermacho bad boy who can melt their panties with a single smoldering glance.
The first definition is visibly less true as women become more able to support our own bon-bon habits, so the second one is taking hold. And although I think the second one sorely misconstrues what’s attractive to women (I’m a lifetime nerd groupie and quite happy about it), there’s part of me that just want to say “so what?” Yes, women are attracted to men who are attractive. What would you expect?
And what would you like us to do–distribute our affections randomly?
Marc – You do know there’s 22 other chromosomes, right? And that not all genes present in a person’s genome are necessarily expressed as traits? And that homosexuality is not necessarily maladaptive because it can increase the fitness of someone’s other family members?
…oh, never mind, he flounced. Phooey.
I’ve tried figuring out what the fuck and “alpha” is from this and other blogs. As near as I can tell, an “alpha” is any man a woman you desire is having sex with instead of you.
That’s all I got.
Actually, forget whether the OP describes any real women; does it describe any real men? I don’t know any men my age who got married because it was the only way they could have sex.* I don’t personally know any men who have slept with hundreds of women, nor do I know any men who had no sex at all until some random floozy suddenly whisked them off to the altar. I don’t know any men who have seen a vagina and think it looks like “a hunk of roast beef that’s been worked over with a dozen ball-peen hammers for a month,” but maybe I’m just sheltered. I know a lot of nerdy “beta” guys who get laid like whoa, mainly by sleeping with nerdy “beta” girls. Right now a lot of my male friends are getting married, and they all seem pretty happy to have found someone they love and want to spend their lives with. Maybe they’re just really good actors.
Meanwhile, I’m still laughing at the elementary school teacher party lifestyle. Those fingerpainting instructors know how to get down!
*If you read the old Hite Report on Male Sexuality, which was done in the ’70s and thus deals mostly with men who came of age in the ’50s and ’60s, you do see a lot of men saying they got married because they were just so damn horny; when “good girls” didn’t have sex until marriage, men had limited options. Thank goodness for feminism and the sexual revolution, huh?
Didn’t you spend the entire first part of this thread arguing that women are irresistibly attracted to successful men?
I never ever said such a thing and I really don’t have any time for such games.
Marc: If there’s a “gay gene” on the X-chromosome and homosexuality is maladaptive, natural selection would have gotten rid of it.
I’m not sure what you are saying here? That homosexuality isn’t maladaptive? Maybe that there is no genetic component?
In either case, you seem to misunderstand both evolution, and what I was saying.
Is it possible that on the X chromosome there is an allele which has an effect on the likelihood of a person being homosexual? Yes.
Is it is sex-linked, like hemophilia? Obviously not. Is is possible that like Cystic Fibrosis, or color in snakes and horses, it’s a mulivariate expression which causes it’s manifestation? Almost certainly. Will a culture’s attitude will affect the ways in which it is expressed (take Rome and Greece, it was just fine for a man to penetrate another, that didn’t make him,”gay”, it made him virile. To be penetrated [contra Plato] was to be emasculated, less than a man. To enjoy being penetrated was even worse than that. Want to bet there were a whole lot o homosexual men who repressed aspects of their desires?)
Sigh… more innumeracy.
Beware, I studied math.
Then why did you bring this inane argument that the statistical tools to correct for outliers invalidated the studies?
The problem isn’t that the study suggests a shortage of male virgins. The study was about male virgins, it was about the ability of a small number of overreporters to skew the math in a survey. What I introduced it to show is that the converse (as posited by the MGTOW crowd) that the vast majority of men are getting barely any (if any) sex, requires a set of complex events
1: Alphas get the vast majority of sex.
2: women correctly report this amount.
3: Alphas correctly report this amount [and are lost as outliers]
4: The vast majority of men [getting either little, or no, sex] overreport the amount of sex they get.
5: That number is correspondent to the number provided by women.
6: This pattern is consistent in several countries, all of which have different attitudes toward sex).
Or… consistent with the use of statistical tools (for dealing with outliers), we can say, “some people brag. There are these really out of norm (by a couple of standard deviations) guys. If we remove them from the equation how do the numbers look…? Pretty good. Ok, how many men under-reporting by that ratio would it take to keep those in the equation? That many? So either there are more female sexual partners for men than there are male sexual partners for women, or someone is lying. If someone is lying, is it a few guys saying they had lots of partners, or a whole lot of guys saying they had a whole lot fewer partners?… which is more likely?
Care to explain to me how I (and the researchers) have failed to use the principle of “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” (Things should not be needlessly multiplied)? Or the rule Newton used, “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”
But the stripped down version is probably the best: If you have two theories that give the same results… the simpler one is the more likely.
How did I use that incorrectly? (see above the differences in the complexity of the respective theories which make the studies [which applies to more than just reports of sex... the sex report was illustrative of how one can correct for it, when the end-state balancing of the equation can be known... as a way to make a tool to correct for probably errors in calculations where such an answer can't be verified because there is no correlative other side to the equation] comprehensible).
If you want to say I’ve used some tool incorrectly… show how I’ve done it. Don’t just say, “every internet know it all has heard of it, but most (implying; in this case I) don’t know what it means.
Marc – You do know there’s 22 other chromosomes, right? And that not all genes present in a person’s genome are necessarily expressed as traits? And that homosexuality is not necessarily maladaptive because it can increase the fitness of someone’s other family members?
…oh, never mind, he flounced. Phooey.
Again, I never ever would say such a stupid thing. I wasn’t me who came up with this stupid idea, it was Pecunium. A single gene that makes you gay is such a ridiculous idea. I just kept arguing because I find it very funny that Pecunium doesn’t even seem to know, that X-Chromosomes are also inherited by males (to their daughters).
And I never said that homosexuality is maladaptive, never said that, i said “if it were maladaptive”, you know the word “if”??
Marc: I really don’t have any time for such games. A real flounce. Since earlier you said we were posting to fast and you had to go.
Now… about the cherry picking canard.
Prove it. Show the posts which aren’t like the one’s Dave chooses. Show that the foolish things we are mocking are outliers.
It’s a simple thing, any one of you could do it. Why don’t you?
Prove us wrong. Wouldn’t it feel GOOD to stick it in our eye? To show us all up? To be the one dude who managed (finally) to show the world what pathetic little morons we actually are? That we are actually cheating to make the MRA community look bad?
Wouldn’t it?
Go ahead.
We’ll wait.
Marc: I what? I never said any such thing.
It was a response to someone upthread. If you look I was saying it was nonsense.
SoF What I got, when I went to take a college Russian class as refresher was about 9 days for that college semester. I wish reading Russian news was as useful as reading French (which I can still do). But the writing style for Russian is a lot different to the spoken. Moreso than English. A much higher use of passive structures and participles; in ways that sound really stilted and strange to speak.
In terms of genes and behavior (any behavior not just sexuality), there is little evidence to link any specific gene or interactions between genes to a specific behavior. There are a fair amount of studies that show correlations in human family lines to a behavior such as sexuality. That’s it, a small correlation typically from a small sample size. This is a start, but not definitive. At this time, it has been extremely difficult to link a single gene in Drosophila melanogaster (fruitflies) to a specific behavior. There are a few examples that are not that clear cut. You can inbreed D. melan lines to the point that you have more or less a population of genetic clones yet still get variation in behavioral and physiological responses. Most studies have a G x E (gene by environment) interaction component. I study life history, specifically metabolic rates and lipid storage in D.melanogster and am working on relating genes to physiological functions such as lipid storage patterns. Most of the research relating genes and behavior in any species (even those we can easily mutate) is correlative and quite frankly iffy. We are not at the technological stage to explain the link between genes and behavior. Someday, but right now any genetic explanation of behavior does not have a good scientific mechanism. There is a huge difference between a logical and plausible explanation and a demonstrated mechanism.
And correlation does not imply causation.
True. All this is making me dread going back to an academic setting >.<
Marc: The question is not if women value status and men don’t… the question is if they value it more
So you (and with other comments about how you equated status with power) you didn’t say was true, you just implied it.
You followed with The world certainly doesn’t look that way. And the argument that this is only because there are more “successful” (in the sense of rich) men than women is just to weak. Then only the proportions should be different, like there are more women chasing rich men than men chasing rich women.
So, yeah, you are arguing that women are hot for “status” as a class. You never said it was irresistable but you sure as hell said it was widespread.
I second Pecunium’s challenge to Marc. Where are the effing links to these wonderful, sensibly written articles?
This cherry-picking argument also amuses me in light of the fact that “mockery” is right in the stated purpose of this blog. This is like “Failbook” for misogyny. You can see less severe (though usually not MRA-affiliated) examples of crappy gender-related decisions linked on the more hardcore feminist blogs, but the comment sections don’t seem to be having nearly as much fun.
Marc: I never said that, and I admitted that I wasn’t looking back far enough. What more did you want? It sure wasn’t going to be that I don’t understand the basics of genetics. I bred mice, and snakes; for color. I can do a four allele punnet square in my sleep.
I made a depth of field error, based on the idea that someone who was having sex with women (and so not gay) wouldn’t be passing on this “gay gene” that auto-expresses as a sex-linked characteristic like hemophilia.
That is, if being gay were so strongly predispostive that one gene = gay 1: there would be no way for someone to get it, and the distribution would be less for women than men (since it would take a pair for them to express it).
But then again, you thought I had introduced it, so perhaps it was more about how you feel about me, than it was the actual content.
Nobinayamu: “As near as I can tell, an “alpha” is any man a woman you desire is having sex with instead of you.”
Although sometimes that’s called a “thug boy.” It depends what jeans he’s wearing, I guess.
Bee – I’m pretty sure “thug boy” is just code for “black.”
@Shaenon The Crumb story is kind of amazing to me. I haven’t read much about his life, but I always enjoyed looking at his work because there was a kind of body-positiveness to it that I haven’t seen a lot of places: he draws large footed, thick calved women like they were goddesses. I guess it was just wank material. :P
If you want to say I’ve used some tool incorrectly… show how I’ve done it. Don’t just say, “every internet know it all has heard of it, but most (implying; in this case I) don’t know what it means.
Occam’s Razor isn’t a logical rule. It’s not always true, that the simpler explanation is the right one. Also, you can only apply it, if all other factors are accounted for.
Here you don’t have a finite numbers of options, that are all supported by the evidence and the only thing they differ is their complexity!
Instead you have infinite many possibilities, it could be a mix of a significant minority of virgin lying and a few braggers or any other possibility.
The evidence is very poor, you have a study where you know that people lie and you have to find out who the liars are.
And the possibilities differ in other details, you ignore: For example that there’s a strong stigma against male virgins.
This cherry-picking argument also amuses me in light of the fact that “mockery” is right in the stated purpose of this blog.
Come on people, I’m getting to old for this sh*t.
It’s not the cherry-picking itself, it’s the cherry-picking in combination with the generalizing.
So where are the worthwhile examples that we’re missing, Marc? You can link us.
“Marc: I really don’t have any time for such games. A real flounce. Since earlier you said we were posting to fast and you had to go.”
for some time!
Prove us wrong. Wouldn’t it feel GOOD to stick it in our eye? To show us all up? To be the one dude who managed (finally) to show the world what pathetic little morons we actually are? That we are actually cheating to make the MRA community look bad? David provides broken links, what more do I have to say.
Wouldn’t it?
Go ahead.
We’ll wait.
Why should I do that? That’s absolutely not my intention. I just wanted to HELP you, see that as a compliment, I still hope that you can be cured.
To help you doing something more productive with your life than bothering what some people somewhere on the Internet writes.
(all that on a site that prides itself to do be against sexism but who’s very name is sexist.)
@filetofswedishfish: Sorry. It can be fun to develop complex, logical, plausible arguments then completely undo them as you discover the mechanism.
“So where are the worthwhile examples that we’re missing, Marc? You can link us.”
Lol, just one questions: what would you do if all the MRAs would suddenly heavily moderate their forums and comment sections? Commit suicide because your life has no meaning anymore?
So what exactly is your point, Marc?
I’ve combed through your comments, and your arguments seem as insubstantial and formless as half-done Jell-O. The most I can tell is that you somehow object to the existence of this blog, because you feel that MRA/MGTOW/PUA should be immune from mockery… but beyond that, even as to why they should be so immune, I’m stumped.
what would you do if all the MRAs would suddenly heavily moderate their forums and comment sections? Commit suicide because your life has no meaning anymore?
I don’t know about moderation, but if all the MRAs would suddenly stop talking like women were a malevolent alien species and mean it, I would throw a goddamn party. I would like people to stop hating and misunderstanding us–but I’m not going to shut up about it until they do.
what would you do if all the MRAs would suddenly heavily moderate their forums and comment sections? Commit suicide because your life has no meaning anymore?
I can’t speak for everyone else on this blog, but I’d probably play more Star Trek: Online.
You followed with The world certainly doesn’t look that way. And the argument that this is only because there are more “successful” (in the sense of rich) men than women is just to weak. Then only the proportions should be different, like there are more women chasing rich men than men chasing rich women.So, yeah, you are arguing that women are hot for “status” as a class. You never said it was irresistable but you sure as hell said it was widespread.
No, I didn’t say that. I said, at a first glance, it looks women on the average value status more than men, but I don’t know for sure.
No, I didn’t say that. I said, at a first glance, it looks women on the average value status more than men, but I don’t know for sure.
I’d say that, on average, more people are killed per year in garden gnome attacks than die from falling frozen blocks of urine.
But I don’t know for sure.
Here’s a hint: If you don’t know for sure, then do some research before spouting off in public. You’ll learn something, and will likely save yourself from looking like a jackass.
Marc: “Lol, just one questions: what would you do if all the MRAs would suddenly heavily moderate their forums and comment sections? Commit suicide because your life has no meaning anymore?”
Lol, that’s not something you should worry about, Marc. In any event, it’s not like MRA’s sit there all day spewing misogyny and rationalizing it as a favor to us, girls, to give us a reason to live. They give us plenty of giggles, though.
“So where are the worthwhile examples that we’re missing, Marc? You can link us.”
Lol, just one questions: what would you do if all the MRAs would suddenly heavily moderate their forums and comment sections? Commit suicide because your life has no meaning anymore?
Translation: I can’t prove my point, so I’ll try a weak insult instead.
Thank god you’re not a guy who gets bothered by what people say on the internet, Marc.
Damn, this thread moves fast.
Marc | June 22, 2011 at 12:29 pm
And goodbye for now, you’re all posting way too fast.
Marc | June 22, 2011 at 1:04 pm
I never ever said such a thing and I really don’t have any time for such games.
(time gap… 35 minutes)
Marc | June 22, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Time gap… four minutes
Marc | June 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Time gap 33 minutes
So now we know that 35 minutes = a gap long enough to need an announced exit…. that, or maybe it’s four minutes.
Marc: Occams razor isn’t a logical rule, it’s a logical principle. Have some pointers: How Stuff Works: Occam’s Razor and Princpia Cybernetica
The PC piece is on point:
For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam’s razor would in this case guide you in choosing the “straight” (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution.
So… do as is done with other (provably valid statistical models) and toss the outliers, or…throw up one’s hands and say.. there are so many ways to interpret the data that it can’t be done…. (and this is where the MGTOWs, and you, screw up) so the really complicated special pleadings are probably right.
So yeah, the authors of that (peer reviewed) study applied Occam’s Razor, and I correctly referenced it.
(care to show me… with math the errors in statistical methodology in that paper? I’ll settle for some symbolic logic showing errors in underlying structure too. I’ll accept a logical fallacy as disproving it too).
*yawns* Wow the comments rly moved xD We have a new a new blog fertilizer xD
And now he’s become a concern troll who flounces, then realizes ppl are still talking about him and just has to come back cuz he can’t let it go XD
Also guyz, we’re the WORST MOST UNIQUE SNARK SITE ON THE INTERNET? xD rly? I think we need that on the blog now: #1 SITE OF ASSHOLES, DIFFERENT THAN EVERYTHING ELSE!!!
Ah <3
Hey Holly! You're around! Yay! I was trying to make your card last night and I came up w/ 4 pictures but you weren't on to look at them and ppl are split on what they are… so I'll leave it up to you! :D (will split the links into 2 parts b/c otherwise it gets caught int he spam filter)
@Holly
These are the other 2 :D
http://s749.photobucket.com/albums/xx134/ami_angelwings/Magyc%20Cards/
And here’s the album for the whole set so far :3 (if nebody missed it last night)
The second one has a dragon! I want the second one!
And those cards are awesome, Ami.
Marc: Why should I do that? That’s absolutely not my intention. I just wanted to HELP you, see that as a compliment, I still hope that you can be cured.
But Marc… I’m asking for your help. I’ve not found any of these non-cherry picked sites. I’ve been looking at MRA/PUA sites for a long time. I’ve followed there links, I’ve read their manifestos. I’ve seen the comments they leave on my blog when I make comments about stupid shit.
Help a guy out here, show me some who aren’t batshit stupid and misogynistic
To help you doing something more productive with your life than bothering what some people somewhere on the Internet writes.
Well, yes, Someone iS WRONG on the internet. But you know what, this isn’t the be all and end all of my existence. This is what I do to relax. I’m a cook, a photographer, an instructor. I garden, ride motorcycles, hike, camp, write the odd poem, play the pennywhistle.
I’m a retired army interrogator, I’ve been a machinist, an actor (and I still dabble in that), modeled for video game covers, bred snakes and mice and chickens and guinea pigs.
So you aren’t actually likely to be able, from writing the sorts of weak-tea arguments you’ve been showing here, to help me do anything more meaningful, and productive than that, certainly not with my spare time.
What you think of me is based on what you see here. It hurts me, wounds me to the very soul, that you think me mean-spirited and small-minded because people who think women aren’t people, are dirtbags and morons.
For hero cards: David Futrelle, Eoghan, MRAL, Plymouth all got cards xD David’s card helped me clarify the story and the design to me. xD Feminists will be evil and represented by black, MRAs are good and are represented by white :] I’m making the feminists here kinda like the forsaken in WoT, w/ them being fallen former upstanding citizens who joined the Darknyss (I considered calling it the Pinkness/Pinknyss xD) for petty reasons (or in Plymouth’s case cuz she was experimenting on humans xD )
@Pecunium speak for yourself, this is actually all I do xD I am actually a sentient computer virus! (an incredibly cute one :3 ) XD
@Holly ty! :3 And the Dragon one was the first one I saw to pick for you but then I got indecisive xD But the dragon one is rly great :3
“Lol, just one questions: what would you do if all the MRAs would suddenly heavily moderate their forums and comment sections? Commit suicide because your life has no meaning anymore?”
There’s always Tumblr. And Failbook. And Cute Overload. And Everyday Cute. And…
Marc: Own your words. You said we can make assumptions, “a priori”, then when we pointed out what your a priori assumptions mean… you try to weasel, and say, “Well, it could be, but we don’t know”.
Mind you, “it could be, we don’t know’ is how you try to discount the stats in that study, then you try to say, “it could be (that men are afraid in an anonymous survey of saying they are virgins… a vast number, who then make up just the right numbers to make it all work if the Alphas are getting all the sex; in different countriess) and say we ought to accept that as a real possibility.
So… who needs the help here?
“I am actually a sentient computer virus! (an incredibly cute one :3 )”
If only all viruses were so adorable. You could come shut down my PC anytime. :P
So what exactly is your point, Marc?
I’ve combed through your comments, and your arguments seem as insubstantial and formless as half-done Jell-O. The most I can tell is that you somehow object to the existence of this blog, because you feel that MRA/MGTOW/PUA should be immune from mockery… but beyond that, even as to why they should be so immune, I’m stumped.
They shouldn’t be immune, of course not!
Honestly, I am jealous of David’s success… there are so many good blogs, entertaining, intelligent, well-written where the bloggers really make an effort to deliver high quality content and they don’t get a fraction of attention he gets.
All he does is to browse the internet, the bottom of the pile, cherry-picks the worst of the worst, posts that here mocks it and tries to depict himself as the defender of common sense.
He only argues against something, not against the reasonable stuff MRAs write, he’s only into mocking, of course we’re not allowed to complain, that’s the purpose of this site. He himself has no standpoint, never revealing his standpoint, never arguing for something.
So to argue against him would mean to defend the ridiculous stuff he mocks, which is clearly impossible. He has made himself pretty immune from any critique and that’s always a good recipe to be boring.
Also the stuff from the MRAs may be funny for a while but it’s getting old so soon, it just repeats itself again and again and again…
I am not against this blog per se, but the attention he gets makes me a cultural pessimist.
Marc: If they were to moderate the fora to eliminate the comments… We’d just have to do what this post did: Most the top posts.
It’s not like comments are all that get mocked… hell, it’s not even half of what Dave mocks. The subject matter is right there for everyone to see.
What the comments show is the broad sweep of the “movement”. They make it possible to do a sounding of the depths. Places like AVM and the Spearhead are kind enough to have up/down votes so one can measure the way the community as a whole views things.
But the comments… not needed to engage in mockery. The big-boys on the top of the bill are capable of providing more than enough red meat to keep us busy.
Most of David’s success is because, as Ami pointed out, the trolls that come here are like comment fertilizer. The posts are one thing, but if you actually read what goes on in this comment section, it’s that a troll will show up and instigate a massive derailing. Then the rest of us will make fun of that troll in real-time, for things they are saying in the moment. Without the trolls to feed, this blog would be like a sparsely stocked petting zoo. People would still show up to pet a goat or lamb, but it’s the drama llamas that make it really fun.
And David argues for quite a bit – rape is wrong, women should not be harassed, women should not be made to feel inferior to men because of their gender, women are not psychotic sperm-stealers. And men who think that women are inferior, psychotic sperm-stealers are worthy of mockery.
And please, where are these reasonable, non-misogynist, non-sexist MRA blogs and articles? Because I occasionally read some of the stuff on the Boob Roll, and it’s pretty much guaranteed to be way more hateful than anything David posts here – in large part because David is pointing to an individual person, and those posters and commentors want to condemn whole swathes of people they’ve never met or encounters.
Did you ever think that maybe some of the attention that David gets is because some of us are sick to death of MRAs whining about how they can’t have what they want just for the asking anymore, and we like this place as a way to escape all that?
Marc: not against the reasonable stuff MRAs write,
Where is it? You (and all the rest of the MRA apologists) keep talking about it. But you don’t have the time to show it to us. You are trying to help us, but how? By telling us we’re wrong, but we have to find the answers ourselves? What sort of help is that?
And, contra your posistion, Dave is arguing for something. He’s arguing that the people who spew crap like the stuff he highlights, deserve to be mocked. That what they believe ought to be laughed off the stage. I’m going to quote Jim Wright, of Stonekettle Station, and at length:
You’re sitting on a bench, reading a book, enjoying the sun, poisoning the pigeons in the park. Whatever it is that you do in the half hour when you’re not pestering me here. This strange old dude with a funny walk and bleached hair comes mooching up. He asks if he can sit down. He seems harmless enough, so you nod to the empty half of the bench, and raise your eyebrow so he knows not to start anything. He sits down in sort of a weird space alien sort of way, and after a minute says: “Say listen, after work a bunch of us are going down to Mexico for margaritas and to have our funberries hacked off by a drug lord’s plastic surgeon, then we’re going to dress up in purple capes and white sneakers and drink the strychnine Kool-Aid and put plastic bags over our faces. We’re doing this because Zombie-Jesus-who-lives-in-my-head says the Earth is about to be destroyed by aliens but we’re going to abandon our bodies and go live on the comet with the comet people. We’ve got an extra seat, you interested?”
To which you reply, (a) “Whoa Doggies, count me in!” or (b) “Piss off you creepy little eunuch or I will snatch you up by the top of your pointy bald grape and jam my Thick Tip Sharpie into your eye so deep that I’ll be able to write Fuck You on the inside of your skull in four inch high indelible ink.”
The correct answer seems obvious doesn’t it? (it also explains why I always carry a Sharpie, just in case you were wondering)
But, see, here’s the thing: thirty nine people chose option (a).
It wasn’t a secret. They told people. They put out movies. They had a website – they still have a website. And nobody said to them, listen here, you stupid silly bastards… Everybody just sort of said, well, they’re a little odd.
And it happens all of the time. Jonestown. The Branch Davidians. That bunch in France what burned themselves up along with their kids. Those obnoxious goofs who like to wave their bibles in your face while you’re waiting for the light to change. Creationists. Tom Cruise.
And people shake their heads and say “how could this happen?”
How could it happen?
It happens because nobody told these deluded idiots to shut up and stop acting like fucking retards – until it was too late (Note: about the use of the term “retards,” yes I know it’s offensive to some people. It is however an accurate description in certain cases. I don’t use it lightly. Further explanation in the comments section). It happens because we are far too indulgent when it comes to this kind of nonsense. It happens because when somebody looks you in the eye and says with a straight face, “I believe Jennifer Love Hewitt really does talk to ghosts, it’s totally true,” you don’t immediately break into gales of taunting laughter and follow them about for the rest of the day ridiculing their stupidity with sarcastic barbed wit in front of their friends and co-workers.
Look, if you tell people you hear voices in your head commanding you to kill the President because Jodie Foster will dig it and want to have your babies, we lock your silly ass up and make fun of you on TV. But if you tell people you hear a voice in your head and he’s telling you the president is a space alien in a rubber human suit, the TEA Party of Nevada will ask you to be their Senator – as long as you say the voice in your head sounds like Jesus.
Sure, Jim, OK, but that’s not the same as creationism, or holocaust denial, or moon landing hoaxers, or the Anti-LHC crowd, or Neo-conservatism.
Yes it is, it is exactly the same.
Look, I’m not talking about restricting the freedom of speech or freedom to worship – what I’m talking about is intervention. I’m talking about cranking the public bullshit filter up to 11.
If somebody tells you that that the magical science fiction power of L. Ron Hubbard gives them the ability to fly, are you denying them their 1st Amendment rights when you prevent them from stepping off the roof? Or, in my case, not. Because to be perfectly honest, personally, I don’t really give a fig if they jump off that roof or not. Stupid is a terminal disease, it’s going to get you sooner or later – hopefully before somebody convinces you to cut your balls off. And, hey, you know, if they do fly well maybe I’ll go pick up a copy of Dianetics, and if they go bounce bounce squish well that’s just one less moron in the gene pool as far as I’m concerned – speaking of Scientology, hopefully it’s Vinnie Barbarino, that way I don’t ever have to watch another one of his shitty movies, I’ve never forgiven that hammy bastard for Battlefield Earth.
But what about the people on the sidewalk below? Don’t we have a moral obligation to keep those poor bastards from getting crushed by falling idiots?
Yes. Damn it.
We do.
But you can’t do that by debate.
Debating them only rewards their bad behavior. Debating them only encourages them more. Having a real scientist like Plait engage them in debate automatically elevates their nonsense to legitimacy. When PZ Myers goes after creationists, he gives them equal footing with science. Again, don’t get me wrong here, those scientists are professionals and I have nothing but respect for people like Michael Shermer – but they should come with the same warning as those Mythbuster Guys, i.e. don’t try this at home. Ever.
And it wouldn’t be necessary if more people would tell these idiots to step off.
The proper response to crazy is: Shut the fuck up.
It’s not for the government to tell people their beliefs have jumped the sharktopus, it’s up to us. Each and every one of us.
That’s why I do it.