The Misogyny Album
Tired of reading long, rambling, barely coherent misogynist tirades? Would you prefer misogyny in convenient, e-z to understand chart form? Well, you’re in luck, because a Redditor calling himself firstEncounter has assembled a handy imgur album of “women logic” graphics and comics. Here’s one of them:
Oh, let’s do one more:
Oh, let’s make it an even three:
If you enjoyed these, there are 29 more for you here.
Why, you ask, has firstEncounter gone to the trouble of assembling such a giant stinky pile of misogyny? It’s not why you think! He just likes to put things in categories! As he explains:
I actually have entire imgur albums categorized by content. …
I don’t hate women, seriously. Nor do I believe the images within the album are accurate depictions of standard women behavior. I simply found them entertaining to some extent.
So there you have it!
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, firstEncounter’s little collection received (let’s all say it together) DOZENS OF UPVOTES on Reddit.
And thanks, ShitRedditSays, for pointing me to this.
Posted on March 29, 2012, in $MONEY$, antifeminism, chivalry, creepy, dozens of upvotes, evil women, misogyny, nice guys, oppressed men, reddit, shit that never happened, sluts, the enigma that is ladies. Bookmark the permalink. 234 Comments.
I heartily approve of parties that involve quoting T.S. Eliot.
bah… you’re totally right it is… I always think it’s latin ’cause my latin teacher is the first one I heard read it (not suprising that he spoke many of the “romantic” languages fluently I guess) and make it seem not dull/stilted/tacked on.
Can I blame the fact that it’s Friday for my brain fail?
The thing with Pratchett and Adams is that you have to enjoy both the absurd AND be able to suspend disbelief at the same which can be tricky because it is so absurd. For some reason it’s easier to suspend disbelief for the absurd when you are watching it on TV or a movie (Red Dwarf or Monty Python and the Holy Grail for examples with similar humor) than when we’re reading it.
Isn’t the eternal footman Death and is snickering at Prufrock because Death knows Prufrock will likely die soon and that’s why Prufrock is afraid?
evo psych??? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHaHa did you learn that on faux news?
Men go after big tits+skinny+white+feminine women because that = healthy baby?
Women are attracted to money because in even mammoth days babies costed money……?
…..you know sexism?
Also you are forgetting about the GLTB and asexuals. They don’t fit into your evo psych crap or is this like mras world views were they forget them or they are conveniently not part of it?
Yes, I agree that the eternal Footman is Death or some attendant angel, but I read his snicker as not so much fear of death as fear of public humiliation and gaining a poor reputation that would be all that is remembered of him.
I’m trying to think of someone we remember primarily because they embarrassed themselves, and failing. Doesn’t stop people from being afraid of it, though.
That “Leave Britney Alone” guy?
Hypotheses. Not facts. Seriously contested in the literature.
Until someone can give me solid evidence for the gene–>nervous system–>behavior link one of those traits, I am skeptical.
Human behavior arises out of an organ that is highly sensitive to the environment, particularly during development. While it’s likely that there is some relationship between genetics and behavior in humans, we practically have no idea what it is. The science is not there yet – in fact, the science is very far away from there. We have some hypotheses that have bits and pieces of evidence, but nothing is anywhere near conclusive. Statements like “Men are genetically programmed to desire attractive women” are based on speculation more than evidence.
Okay, there’s him.
I try to think of things and many times my mind just goes blank even though I know the answer.
Prufrock doesn’t strike me as an MRA so much as the sort of person who becomes an MRA. He’s whiny, depressed, and sexually frustrated; if he were to decide that it’s all the fault of those evil women, then he’d be an MRA. But maybe he’ll find another way to deal.
Falconer: The point remains that unless you make a video of yourself doing a stupid thing and it goes viral, no one will remember all the stupid and embarrassing things you do.
I know it sound shallow, but we women are attracted more to wealthier men. For men, their shallowness is in being attracted to the more gorgeous women.
Are the scientists wrong?
I think he does porn now…link totally NSFW http://thechriscrocker.tumblr.com/
Don’t project your shallow capitalist shithead nonsense onto all women, Ruby. That’s just you.
Yes because that video link is dead.
So therefore you have no idea what you are blathering about. Again.
wooo that secret cabal known only as THE SCIENTISTS, handing down their unanimous decrees from on high. “Women are gold-digging whores.” So let it be written, so let it be done!
Ya know, Ruby, I actually look at a lot of stuff that’s usually labeled “porn for women”. I’ve read books by Carol Queen (she wrote The Leather Daddy and the Femme) and got a lot of issues of Filament Magazine and for a while was really active on a Star Trek slash forum and read all of Violet Blue’s books (The Smart Girl’s Guide to Porn is a fave.) Also look at a lot of Supernatural stuff on Tumblr.
And you know what? Nowhere, in any of that stuff, do people ever mention how much the guys make. It’s all about tight buns and abs and making out and passionate buttsecks! And finding your fetish! And guys actually listening when you talk to them or being in love with another dude! HOW CAN THIS BE? Sam and Dean live out of a car, for God’s sake!
@Ruby
You’ve certainly convinced me, since it’s common knowledge that middling-income folks like firefighters, scientists, teachers, and other public servants are widely considered to be utterly undateable compared to their stock-trading bretheren.
Also when you reference “the scientists” (those unloveable louts) and their research I trust you’re also planning on providing peer-reviewed research rather than pop evopsych biotruths as presented by a middlebrow documentary, right?
Sorry you don’t speak for me and anyone else, attractiveness barely comes into consideration when I am attracted to someone. And for a lot of other people money and looks is not that important. Not everyone is as shallow as you and only cares about those things.
Also for christ’s sake not all men like women and not all women like men.
“I know it sound shallow, but we women are attracted more to wealthier men.”
No, honey, that’s just you. Perhaps the women you get along with well enough to know their preferences are similar, birds of a feather and all that.
No, Ruby, that’s just you. Please write when an original thought gets through your layer of stupid.
RE: Ruby
You still haven’t explained how the scientists explain that I like a man as poor as me who I can’t have babies with. :( You have a very bad habit of not addressing my concerns.
@ LBT
Every time you ask her something I get a mental image of her brain going blue screen. Does not compute!
LBT: Ruby doesn’t read or answer questions. She simply regurgitates her lame talking points. I agree with Cassandra–anything else would short her out.
Actually, Ruby, all the cool scientists agree that everyone is mostly just attracted to Jennifer Aniston. Get it right, dude.
I AM AN EVOLUTIONARY FRAUD!
Every time I bone my husband, a bad evolutionary psychologist cries.
My husband and I are both scientists and we both think Ruby should go boil her head. ARE THE SCIENTISTS WRONG?
Not unless they work for the tobacco industry!
Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi – “A Shore Thing”
Wow, some of you people sure do love your strawmen. LOL! If science can’t convince you that women are genetically programmed to go for men of means, then nothing can. Do you also reject the science that show men and women’s brains are different?
No because your claim is wrong.
I think you misunderstood this study.
“I know it sound shallow, but we women are attracted more to wealthier men.”
1. “This trait exists in a population” and “this trait is genetically programmed” are two separate statements. It is much easier to show the former than the latter. It is also very possible for the former to exist without the latter. Please go learn some developmental neuropsychology.
2. That is a pop-media documentary, not a scientific paper. Getting two scientists to give soundbites and summarizing a couple studies (which the media is NOTORIOUSLY bad at, and tends to oversimplify and sensationalize) is not the same as actually reviewing the literature. As I stated above, if you do that, if you actually look at these studies, you will find that we are not anywhere near getting clear, solid answers. As referenced in #1, that documentary also said nothing about genetics.
3. More reading assignments: “Delusions of Gender” by Cordelia Fine, one of the best critiques of gender-related psychology studies I have ever read. Also extremely clear and well-cited, so if you disagree on any particular point you are welcome to track down the individual study for yourself and see if her critique holds up. The classic “Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould, which looks in-depth at how a lot of the early neuroscientists looking for neural “reasons” for their assumption that different races had different fixed intelligences misinterpreted and mishandled data (sometimes through what we can attribute to unconscious error, such as tended to round up for one group and down for another, and others that are hard to believe were anything but intentional falsification).
4. LOL, if you want to make a case that teh SCIENCE says women are GENETICALLY PROGRAMMED to prefer wealthy men, please give me a list of references from peer-reviewed journals that I can take a look at to see if your argument actually has solid evidence behind it, or if it’s just another fad theory to explain a behavioral phenomenon that we do not know the origins of.
Ruby, do you reject the science that shows that conservatives are stupid?
Are the scientists wrong?
What “science”? The “science” that doesn’t work cross culturally, and has been debunked numerous times (See, for example, this entire book http://www.amazon.com/Pink-Brain-Blue-Differences-Troublesome/dp/0618393110)? And there’s no history at all of “science” pathologizing oppressed groups and being molded to fit the views of privileged groups at all, right (http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/scientific-racism)?
Also, “it’s science!!!!” isn’t a fucking citation.
For real? I require a little more convincing than “a video told me so”. I mean, my standards are low enough that I’ll accept “my professor said”, but I’m easy to please.
Please go learn some developmental neuropsychology.
Dude, she thinks “science” is an entity. I wouldn’t hold your breath.
I’m genuinely curious as to why Ruby thinks that the video she posted counts as “science”.
It probably says “research shows” in there somewhere. FACTS.
Does faux news count as science? XD
RE: Ruby
Do you also reject the science that show men and women’s brains are different?
Yes. Because I’m trans and multi and highly doubt our brain chemistry radically changes every time we switch. And if you want to claim my gender doesn’t exist, you’re a douche.
Also, I’m a poor man married to a poor man. EXPLAIN ME WITH SCIENCE DAMMIT. I keep asking you to and you keep FAILING.
A couple more entries on the list of Things That Ruby Really Should Read:
Rebecca Jordan Young, Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Difference
Donald W. Pfaff, Man and Woman: An Inside Story
I will confess that I’d be pretty surprised if all of the average behavioral differences observed between men and women were purely the product of cultural conditioning, but evpsych (particularly at the pop level) is so massively wrongheaded that I can’t decide whether to laugh at it or just scream until my lungs implode.
Given the extent to which we treat boys and girls differently from the cradle onward (and sometimes even before, what with ultrasound), and the extreme plasticity of the human brain, I’d be very surprised if there weren’t some observable differences between the brains of male-assigned vs. female-assigned people as of adulthood. Whether those differences have anything to do with innate aptitudes is, of course, much more in doubt.
Ruby, the only person loving strawmen is you.
Why should you guys be so offended that women are genetically programmed to go for men of means?
BTW, here’s information about the doctor associated with that study:
http://www.anthropology.at/people/eoberzaucher
Her credentials are impressive.
Ruby, I think if we’re offended by anything, it’s your amazing inability to know when you’ve been proven wrong again and again. You either don’t read or don’t care. You’re not nearly as smart as you think you are, and you should probably go troll elsewhere.
1. Speaking for myself (a woman who lives with another woman and has for going on 20 years now), I don’t think most of us are “offended that women are genetically programmed to go for men of means?”
My offense comes at your: lack of clear citation, your (probably) misreading of fairly complex academic arguments, and your ignorance about the varying debates in the field concerning issues of “average differences” and genetic vs. cultural issues. I don’t consider either GENETIC or SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS to be “programming,” either btw–and I doubt that’s language used by the experts. Probably more of us are offended by your earlier horrific willingness to blame poor people for their lack of health and money.
2. Reading about her won’t do as much good as actually reading her studies, and all the stuff around it. You’re not the first MRA troll to claim that an academic study says X, and then when people more informed in the discipline read it they find out it actually says “not really X, more like Q, but’s it’s complicated by C.” Basically, her credentials have nothing to do with the quality of her work: there are lots of highly credentialed people whose work is flawed by methodological or ideological assumptions.
Erm, above comment by me is directed at Ruby
What study are you referring to Ruby?
I wonder how Ruby thinks poor people reproduce (and matriarchies must have had no births at all). Then again, she probably thinks we shouldn’t and therefore are not worthy of consideration.
Ruby is on a feminist-aligned website and wondering why we might object to the idea that women are naturally inclined to be gold diggers?
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/131/351/eb6.jpg?1307463786
Ruby, if I were genetically programmed to desire something, I wouldn’t need you to tell me about it. I’m genetically programmed to desire salty fatty foods, and I can FEEL it. I have no corresponding inner craving for rich men.
“Women don’t know what they want; scientists who study women know what women want!” is an inherently antifeminist idea, but also simply an ILLOGICAL one.
The earth is hollow – IT’S SCIENCE I DON’T HAVE TO PROVE IT.
Hey Ruby, I’m not attracted to anything at all! What does your “science” say about that?
You don’t get how this whole SCIENCE thing works do you? We don’t care about the good doctor’s credentials, we care about her methodology, her sample size, her results, whether she interpreted her data correctly, whether she accounted for any confounding variables etc etc And, I find it highly unlikely that any scientist/anthropologist would claim that women are genetically PROGRAMMED to go for men of means. At best they can show a genetic PREDISPOSITION to go for men of means, but again, we’d need to see the actual study to believe that.
And even then, they’d have to show a genetic difference between het women and non-het women (non-heterosexual women are a confounding variable for this study.. SCIENCE)
“Why should you guys be so offended that women are genetically programmed to go for men of means?
BTW, here’s information about the doctor associated with that study:
http://www.anthropology.at/people/eoberzaucher
Her credentials are impressive.”
Did you actually read what I, or anyone else wrote? That is just one doctor. Go look in the literature. The hypothesis is controversial and not accepted as fact. The evidence, if you actually look at it, is not strong enough to draw firm conclusions.
Also, I’m not offended at the idea that genetics play a role in human behavior. I said above that it’s likely they do. I’m offended by the abuse of science. Seriously, give me some citations from peer-reviewed journals that support your claim. I expect to see: 1) Behavioral data, 2) Genetic data, 3) Neuroanatomical data, 4) Molecular data linking the genetic data to the neuroanatomical and/or neurophysiological data, 5) and finally, some good ol’ neuroimaging studies linking the neuroantatomical/physiological data to behavior. Then we can talk about what people are or aren’t genetically programmed to do.
It’s not about being offended. It’s about doing good science and using evidence to support your hypothesis.
Also, Ruby? I’m really fucking sick of people thinking that the speculation they heard about data from a sensationalized popular press article is fact. If the headlines were true, we would have cured cancer and HIV, and have a perfect understanding of how the brain produces behavior. I’m sick of shitty science reporting, and I’m sick of people shouting that their political agenda Wields the Power of Science when they can’t even give you a goddamn citation, let alone explain the mechanism they are proposing exists.
And again, “this trait is genetically programmed” DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW from “this trait exists in a population we tested.”
I came to this web site to vent about all the MRA’s I kept seeing around the internet spewing their hatred. I didn’t realize that expressing my political views and what I’ve learned about Evolutionary Psychology would garner so much hatred. Radical Feminists and MRA’s, I hate both extremes.
I’ll gladly accept being called a Radical Feminist if this means we can reclaim the term from the current Gender Essentialist Feminists who have decided to call themselves Radical Feminists.
Ruby, READ the posts disagreeing with you. They contain content and reasoning.
I get the feeling that all you get out of dissenting posts is “disagree disagree disagree,” but there’s more words there. Read and think about them.
@Ruby –
I’m going to speak as someone who has a Masters degree in Psychology. The reason why Evo-Psych is getting sneered at is because, unlike in biology, there is no empirical data that supports the “just-so” stories that Evo-Psych pushers come up with. These “just-so” stories are just that. Stories.
This is not to say that human behavior has not been shaped by evolution. No one argues that the “fight or flight” response didn’t aid in the species survival.
When people hear “Women prefer men with lots of money” presumably because money = resources needed to survive, it sound perfectly reasonable. After all, if you have a lot of money, you’ll be able to provide for your mate and your offspring. But here’s where evo-psych falls short; it fails to take culture and other variables into consideration. In many cases (if not the majority) cultural norms hold primacy in the way members of that culture behave and conduct themselves. A good example of this is how in some Asian cultures, a sense of community is valued over an independent spirit, whereas here in the USA, we admire people who we consider self-reliant and boot-strap pullers.
Beware of Evo-Psych to explain individual behavior.
And Ruby: realize that MRAs generally tend, to varying degrees, to pimp the Evo-Psych dogma quite often (even if they don’t know the terminology for it), so claiming to want to vent about MRAs when you spout a lot of the same shit they do is just……..well. It’s weird.
WHAT about MRAs do you want to vent about, given that you share some of their major world views?
Ruby’s trying essentialist lines in an argument where at least two of the opponents are trans, and we’re the radfems? Oh, I get it, it’s because we don’t like sexism?
“I came to this web site to vent about all the MRA’s I kept seeing around the internet spewing their hatred. I didn’t realize that expressing my political views and what I’ve learned about Evolutionary Psychology would garner so much hatred. Radical Feminists and MRA’s, I hate both extremes.”
…have you read any of the posts in this thread? I can’t speak about your political views as I have not followed any of those conversations, but regarding evolutionary psychology this is what I saw happen:
1) You made an evo psych claim.
2) A bunch of people jumped in to point out that claim was unsubstantiated.
3) Instead of actually responding to any of the points other posters made, you basically said “LOL but this is true!”
4) People explain why just saying something is true doesn’t make it so, and specifically state what kind of evidence they would accept for your claims.
5) You get all huffy about getting attacked for “what [you've] learning about Evolutionary Psychology” rather than either a) realizing that maybe some of the criticisms directed at your views had merit or b) providing solid evidence for your claims.
Seriously. Please. Take Holly’s advice, READ, and think about it.
Ruby, explain how all the porn I cited earlier can exist if your hypothesis is true.
Really??? Not because you’re an MRA troll who wants a laff?
Hm.
I don’t know about anyone else, Ruby, but you’re not offending me, you’re just boring me. And amusing me a little with your lack of understanding of how science works. Hint – just saying “X says Y and she seems to have impressive credentials” does not a theory prove.
Also I don’t think you know what “radical feminist” means. Professor Google should be able to help you with that.
Ruby, the reason feminists hate evo-psych is because they believe that the punchline of the disciplne is gender essentialism. Now, they have no problem being gender essentialists when talking about domestic violence, but gender essentialism contradicts central tenets of feminist ideology. And therefore, it must be destroyed as “wrong think.” Hope that helps.
Which feminist told you that, Magz?
The one’s who puth forth and support the Duluth Method. – you know, the domestic violence industry that has sprung up.
The main problem with the whole “men like pretty because babies and women like rich because babies” is that there’s no reason it shouldn’t work the other way around. Unless you expect us to believe that a man’s appearance has nothing to say about his health and wealth owned by a woman is useless for supporting kids.