New Reddit theory: Girls develop early in order to entrap guys and send them to prison
So someone on Reddit posted a video showing time-lapse video of a girl from infanthood to 12 years old. Naturally, Redditors responded with creepy pedophilia jokes, and one Redditor (speaking for many, judging by the numerous upvotes) took the opportunity to complain about just how hard it is for dudes to not have sex with underage girls. Apparently these girls deliberately develop earlier than boys as part of an elaborate plot to entrap guys and send them to jail.
Thanks to ShitRedditSays for pointing me to this latest bit of egregious Redditry.
Posted on April 23, 2012, in creepy, dozens of upvotes, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, oppressed men, pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 693 Comments.
You’re writing as though none of us know — or are — women.
Oh, did you pair bond with your husband after he increased his value to you? Was that before or after he negged you? This is cute.
Hey Ruby, I’d love to increase my apparently quantifiable sexiness in order to snag a provider who’s prolific enough to be able to shower me with bonbons all day every day. In pursuit of that, I was wondering how natural prettiness is weighed against artificial measures taken towards that (makeup, shaving, etc.)
Ruby, please tell us more about what women like. None of us could ever know.
Are women who don’t go for a man’s money defective or just stupid in your (limited) view?
Bee, if by cute you mean painful and pathetic!
Ruby, will he dump you when your looks fade, or will you just slink off to the woods to die of ugliness?
I wouldn’t say “we” since all the women here seem disagree with you. No one here felt attracted to their partners because they were “good providers”. Are they lying and not know how they really feel? If cis women are goldiggers and that how they just biologically are why do so many cis women not feel attracted to the biggest provider in the room?
But the real question is does he know that he married you because you were the “most attractive women he could afford”?
Oh and why do women need a man to provide for them? I mean you being a feminist and all surly you don’t think all women need a man to take care of them right? Right?
(I am still not even sure how your weirdass theory is suppose to apply to me as a bi dude or any other queer person. I guess we are like unicorns or some shit. XDXDD)
hehehe
I guess she didn’t think hard enough about trying to include her theory into her own life!
Ruby, as a gay/bi guy who’s just celebrated my 5 year anniversary (I’m 25 so this is pretty much my longest relationship) with my boyfriend what should I be most worried about losing? My provider-ness or my good looks-ness? Or have we bonded now and this is no longer an issue? How long does it take for this bonding to happen exactly?
Yes but how good a provider can he be if he can only afford pretty and not a beauty?
My boyfriend is richer than me, but he doesn’t provide much of anything. I’m still paying all my own bills.
Is he really a “provider” then?
Oh! Is it because I’m bi that I lack the fuck-a-provider gene?
I can absolutely understand it if someone has good reason to worry that they won’t be able to provide for their family – a chronic disability, for example – or if they just have a deep desire to stay home with the kids or pursue a particular career that doesn’t tend to pay well. It makes sense that someone in those circumstances might be more likely to rank “good provider” among important traits to look for in a partner. But, y’know, that’s entirely gender-neutral. Why on earth female millionaires are supposed to give a shit about their partners’ ability to earn piles of money (and poor men are not) is beyond me.
Ruby is totally impervious to both logic and facts. It would be impressive, if it weren’t so … NOT impressive.
People! We also know that Ruby will be traded in for a new model as soon as her looks fade, like Gawd intended.
(according to her model)
Seriously though Ruby, evolution is only a small part of choosing a mate. You also have nuture: your families values and culture: the dominant cultural values and where you fit in in terms of religion, socio economics. Then you have your personal values, beliefs and experiences. But whart really determines what you do? Now. Exactly where are you, how do you feel about the situation, who is around you, is this a good day or a bad one?
ALL of the previous experiences come together and influence the now, which is a very contextual and subjective and individual experience.
Your evo psych is just a very tiny piece of a very complex puzzle, as anyone in the field researching it will tell you.
They haven’t found that gene yet in queer people because I mean queer people are abnormal and can’t be considered in the worldwide explanation for attraction! They found the length ring/index finger queer gene though!!!
/mocking obvious double standard in evopsych
Nomless: I missed this: Like the butt ugly hairy mary’s @ radfem.
If you, and the MGTOWs are going your own way, what do you care what they look like.
Hell, even if you aren’t, what does it matter to you (or you to Hecuba)?
That’s the short of shit that makes us laugh at the idea that MGTOWs are going their own way. They still care about the people they claim to be, “leaving”.
Sexual assault really has nothing to do with entitlement. It has to do with a desire for power and dominance.
In your statement is the very thing you deny. Those men feel entitled to be dominant of, and to exercise power over women. They use sexual assault to make it easier.
@Pecunium: If you still think I’m an aspie poser, the shrink who gave me my diagnosis back in ’91 was Dr Alan Unis. You can google him; assuming you know how to use it.
Ooph. That hurt. Take a look above, or at the links in the ebonics thead. That you are all offended that I questioned your case zero level diagnosis bothers me not at all.
That you think accusing me of being unable to do research (even so basic as Google) is facile, and futile. As I tell others, you need to be able to make the point touch the target. That you may be able to research the name of an early proponent of the diagnosis doesn’t make the convenience of your claim, nor the problematic dating any more credible.
No Shaenon, the radfeminazi’s actually ARE bitter hairy mary’s and come to think of it, MGTOW are the male equivalent. I just think that this blog should try to balance out and give those radfeminazi’s their fare share of belittlement and mockery.
Why? Are the radfems being misogynist?
Are we mocking the MRM/MGTOWs/Misogynist for being ugly?
If they were, and we were, your complaint might have merit, but they aren’t, and we don’t so you are asking for an exception to policy.
One that would be predicate on Dave choosing to become as the people he mocks is.
In short, to betray the principle of the blog, just to make you happy; which would also give legitimate grievance to the people being justly mocked.
Nice try, we aren’t that stupid.
The people he mocks are.
Damn first draft writing.
@Smoker,
Pretty much those. I don’t give a shit about men (or women for that matter) who get “fooled”.
@ Ruby
That is the saddest thing I have ever heard. I feel bad for both of you.
Thanks David :)
This topic always gets me since I had a lot of experience with it, and saw such a dramatic change when I was finally “legal” despite now actually being in situations where I would interact with more adults.
For what it is worth, few states have laws about consent that make sex with all minors illegal for all adults. I don’t know the minutia of all of the laws, but most of the time there is a legal age range for teens that extends past 18 (it is often 4 years but sometimes more, so a 16 year old can legally date a 20 year old and so forth). Also many place have laws that make it legal with parent’s permission no matter what age (see child marriage laws).
The fact is, there are few places where a young man in his early twenties has sex with a 17 year old and risks going to jail (presuming full consent etc). Here is a list http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm
I do think that it would be beneficial to have a consolidated law taking into consideration the averages, 13/14 would be the age of limited consent with a 5 year limit and 17 would be the age of full consent (or something like that). Another thing to look at is the significant differences in punishments state by state. Some states give only 1-2 years for statutory rape (presuming it was not otherwise violent or under age 13) while other give 20 years to life. On these issues I don’t know if there is a one size works for all solution, but some consistency would be nice.
I think the variation in laws and punishments for the crime feeds the narrative that there is a lot of grey area and confusion about having sex with minors. It shouldn’t be a confusing topic morally, but legally it is. I also think that full and comprehensive sex education is key to
giving minors legal ability to consent to sex. They need to be educated about sex, their bodies, their rights, their choices and healthy relationships to be able to fully consent to sex imo.
But I don’t see that happening any time soon (I’m look at you Utah).
Soooooo … do people who aren’t PUAs talk about things like how the bonding phase comes after the initial attraction phase?
I have so many questions.
Despite the fact that her claims are theater-level projection, I think the comments on Ruby’s relationship with her husband are uncalled for.
*to clarify, I meant comments about how sad her relationship must be, which are only like two or three
it is kind of adorable that two complete tools managed to overcome their lameness and find love, i guess
i feel like what i said counts as one of those and i want to clarify that i was more talking about the fact that being the kind of flaming wingnut ruby is basically amounts to erasing everything worthwhile from humanity
it’s basically the same as being an mra, you turn into an obsessive little hate golem constantly blaming whatever problems you see in the world on other people’s perceived inadequacies. the fact that ruby doesn’t pick up on this is kind of hilarious.
Maybe it would be uncalled for be if she didn’t project her relationship standards onto everyone else. That’s seriously not ok to do.
Shadow, are you talking about what I’ve said? Because I do think the idea that women are only attracted to men for their money and men are only attracted to women for their physical looks, and that these two states are the only states that exist in terms of physical attraction of people to one another is indeed sad and pathetic. If that is uncalled for then I would ask you to explain all the other people in the universe for whom that is not the case which seems to be pretty much everyone.
@Sharculese
Personally, I don’t think your comment was attacking her relationship so much as it was attacking her worldview (like you said). I don’t have anything against calling her on/ laughing at her because of the many, many, MANY ridiculous things she said, I just felt like ridiculing her relationship was too personal an attack.
@jumbofish
Yeah, but she hasn’t ridiculed anyone’s relationship or claimed specific people were lying about their relationships. She’s just sat there saying the same thing over and over again like a really annoying parrot. But that’s just how I feel.
@Snowy
No, I was talking more about comments like Jean Renee’s. I also felt that the jokes about her husband divorcing her were a little mean, but she brought that on herself with her ridiculous essentialism. I just didn’t want my comment to be a call out, so I didn’t refer to specific comments.
Shadow, I don’t understand why holding someone to the same standard they seem to apply to everyone else in the world would be mean. I happen to agree that marrying someone for their ability to make money is a very sad thing to do. If you don’t want your comment to be a call out why would you make a vague call out the way you did? Either call out people comments or don’t. There’s nothing wrong in calling out something you thing is wrong. I call people out all the time.
@ Shadow,
Did you think I was being sarcastic? Ruby’s relationship with her husband may in fact be the happiest, most fulfilling relationship any two human beings have ever experienced and I would never begrudge them that. But the fact that the relationship appears to be dependent on one party’s ability to provide saddens me. That just doesn’t seem like a healthy mindset.
But she has even if it’s done in a passive way. She said all women and goldiggers and you know there is women here on the thread. She means them too. She is talking about their relationships. They aren’t magically excluded in her list of all women.
Shadow, pointing out to her the end logic of her own statements is a little mean? While it is true that if her husband bought the best pretty he could afford does not necessarily mean that he will divorce her the moment she turns thirty, I think that showing her where his supposed shallowness (as its her that came up with this nonsense) will land her is entirely fair. She has stated that men are only concerned about a womans looks, not say…men will put looks in the top five things they look for in a wife.
If she says “everyone wants a relationship like mine” and we say “your relationship sounds miserable,” that seems perfectly on-topic to me.
On the other hand, I’m sure we can all think of places and situations where a woman may need to rate a mans ability to provide much more highly.
I’ve seen nothing from Ruby, however, to give me reason to think this is the case. She speaks about meeting her husband at work, so she’s not as likely to be a member of a religious group that insists a womans proper sphere is in the home.
@Snowy
I do call things out if I think it’s wrong, and I’ve even called out comments here. In this case though, it’s just a vague feeling of some people crossing a line that I wouldn’t cross. Therefore it’s not something that I think deserves a call out, no one’s required to adhere to what I think is too mean. There’s also the fact that Ruby’s statements don’t affect me the way they affect others because a) I’m not in a relationship, so they don’t attack anything going on in my life right now and b) I’m not queer, so it’s not my sexuality that’s being erased by her comments.
@Jean Renee
Fair enough
@everyone
Fair enough. Like I said, it felt a little too mean to me. On reading your responses I get what you mean, and it doesn’t feel as uncalled for
Well Shadow, my remarks have been mean. And you know what? Living and working with people who think this way is pretty shitty. I personally am beyond tired of being told I’m only worth the amount I approach the beauty ideal and I’m furious with the number of times I’ve been explicitly or implicity told I’m shit because I’m a single mom. I’m considered a very attractive woman/employee/tenant, right up until I mention I have a daughter. Because women need good providers for their children/goldigger and that child going to cut into my rightful time/money.
Given that Ruby’s premise implies that any woman who doesn’t admit that she’s a golddigger is lying, I can’t say that I feel too bad about people sniping back at her in return.
@Cassandra and pillowinhell
Yeah, I can understand that. That was actually the third reason I didn’t think I had cause for a callout. Telling me that I’m going to go for the prettiest face around is nowhere near as offensive as saying that women are going to go for the richest dude around (with a side helping of “women can’t provide for themselves” being intimated).
ronalon42 I think it’s important that we all keep in mind that in the US, parents are legally responsible for minors, usually until 18, generally. That means that we parents need to have a measure of control if we’re to be held responsible. If my minor has a child, guess who will be responsible? Me. That’s the first part of what I want to lay as groundwork. The second is that police and the state are not out hunting for relationships between 17yr olds and 19 years olds to bust, and I’m not sure the penalty is that large. When you’re in front of a judge, they have discretion. The larger penalties would be for circumstances where it wasn’t a good situation, and likely the age difference and nature of the relationship is all considered.
Having said that, my point is that these laws are so parents have recourse IF NEED BE. They’re not laws used to proactively sweep the community. If someone imposes on my teenager, do I, as a parent have legal recourse. Yes, I do. And the penalties likely aren’t that severe, and sometimes, I would guess are referred to civil litigation. In the case of a man that I knew that left child and pregnant wife to be with a 16 year old girl, her mother should have but did not pursue any legal charges. Her schooling was messed up and he was abusive. The police dealt with them on a trespassing issue and found bruises on her, just like on the ex wife. The age of consent law comes in handy when you’re protecting your child form someone like that. And like I said, I’ll bet the judges take the entire nature of the relationship into consideration come sentencing, and level appropriate penalties.
The other side of this, is how put out are people over 18 to mind their P’s and Q’s. Not that put out, simply put. So this is not some horrid injustice anyone needs to spend any amount of time on. There are ways to improve things here and there, but remember that minors are the legal responsibility of their parents.
Ruby: Just because women are attracted to men who make good providers
Citations needed.
I am so confused. I’m attracted to people who are neither conventionally attractive (I like ‘em chubby and geeky) nor good providers (I like ‘em poor and artistic).
Kyrie: Yeah, classist. :)
Plato was very feminist for his time: he believed that although most women were inferior to men some weren’t and should be educated equally to men and given equal rights to participate in politics. Given that he lived in a society in which citizen women were often kept isolated indoors and not taught much beyond how to do common household chores, I think he gets points.
I am about to run out the door, so I don’t have time to read through all the comments, but somehow I get the feeling that Ruby has been evopsyching again. So Ruby, if you’re reading this: I seem to recall that the first time you started in with this biologically determined gender essentialism schtick, people suggested a number of excellent books and articles that you should read. In fact, I recommended a couple myself. PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF CTHULHU’S BETENTACLED MAW, GO BACK TO THAT THREAD, FIND THE STUFF PEOPLE SAID YOU SHOULD READ, AND READ IT.
indifferentsky – I totally agree that the laws are very useful for getting bad people locked up. Rape charges are so hard to successfully prosecute, statutory rape charges are usually the only thing that a parent/ minor can use to get justice. I think the laws are important and necessary. I just wish they weren’t so different from state to state, as it makes it seem like only some 15 year olds are illegal for 26 year olds to have sex with (if that makes sense).
Also some places have statutory laws that are gender specific (Idaho says it is rape against a female under 18 for instance), or otherwise not covering enough, like Colorado which allows for a 10 year difference from 13 to 17 (I have a hard time comprehending a 13 year old consenting to sex with a 20 year old). That actually prevented me from being able to press charges against my rapist at 15 because there wasn’t enough evidence and he was only 9 years older.
I know I ramble, I’m sorry. I just want to be clear. I think statutory rape laws are very necessary. I think that they are more often not strict enough rather than too severe, except where they try to outlaw any sex between minors which is ridiculous even if it isn’t enforced often. My only other issue with the way they are handled is that the apparent legal confusion of the subject depending on what state you live in gives people the idea that there are circumstances when it is okay, and that is the opposite of what I want.
It is also definitely on the older person to be sure they are not raping a child. FFS I hate when people expect us to believe that teens purposefully get older men to have sex with them for the fun of pressing rape charges and going to court and everything that entails just for shits and giggles. If we (society) can expect a 14 year old to know recognize creepy men that will try to rape them, we can certainly expect that supposed nice guys in their 20s will recognize that the girl they are trying to sleep with is underage.
@ Dvärghundspossen Studies such as brain scans to determine the function of the brains of people as they develop which have backed up what was thought all along. It shows which parts of the brain develop at which rates, and those parts that develop last are the ones which control the abilities of one to make reasonable, informed decisions, understand the gravity of situations, etc. While I don’t think there is a clear cut age at this point, it is not really up to me to figure that out as I am not a scientist. But the research thus far has determined that children most certainly can’t consent to sex, as well as into their early teens.
http://www.act4jj.org/media/factsheets/factsheet_12.pdf
@Monsieur sans Nom I have no problem with a misogynist going his own way. What I have a problem with is him continuing to perpetuate that misogyny online. If he just up and decided he was done with women, fine. I’m not knocking down his door looking for him. But to continue to be bitter and purposely spiteful about your own choice to go your own way, well, that just hurts everybody. Honestly, I’m happy with the idea of misogynists taking themselves off the market. It means I won’t accidentally wind up on a date with one. Just keep your resentment to yourself.
Thanks Jessay.
Some people in the discussion have suggested that one should ask to see an ID if one wants to sleep with a young-looking person. I don’t think that’s reasonable. Not becuase the “risk of not getting laid” but because it’s RUDE to more or less accuse people of lying if you have no particular reason to believe they do. If you don’t have a particular reason to assume that a particular person is lying to you, the default position should be to accept what the person says as true.
I actually met a boy who was sixteen when I was eighteen, on a political youth organisation camp. We started talking, and somehow I came to mention my age. He was surprised and said “Oh, so you’re actually older than me! You look so young, I thought you were like fourteen or something!”. Later that night we had sex. He didn’t ask for an ID, he just accepted my claim of being eighteen. And I think that was entirely reasonable of him.
But I don’t think people HAVE to check out ID:s to avoid getting into jail or avoid ruining somebody’s life. Just stick to the simply rule of only having sex when there’s enthusiastic consent from everyone involved.
If one follows this rule it MIGHT still happen that, say, a grown-up had sex with a seventeen-year-old in an american state where the age of consent is eighteen, because she got into a bar with a fake ID, or that a fifteen-year-old says she’s seventeen because she think it’s cool to be a bit older, and then end up having sex with a guy who really is seventeen in a state where seventeen or sixteen is the age of consent. That might happen. But there’s really NO REASON in these situations for the girl to run to the police and yell “rape”. That idea is just absurd. And nobody will have their life ruined either by having sex if they really wanted to, even if they happen to be slightly underaged according to the law where they live.
In situations where a thirty-year-old bangs a fifteen-year-old, I think the chances of there actually being enthusiastic consent are close to nil.
The thing is, Bee? I grew up with people that thought like this.
The thing that Ruby has going on, where someone isn’t boyfriend material unless they have a job, was pretty much what I was taught growing up. Even after the recession happened and I spent two years mostly unemployed, I *still* sometimes come across traces of this attitude in my own brain. I went on a date with a dude who lived in a communal house and did dumpster diving, and when he was telling me about his background I was like, “This person is struggling financially” and that made me wary. Then I remembered that I, with my mid-level job, had been in a position very similar to his only a handful of months ago and was ashamed.
When I talked about this with a friend of mine later, they were like “OF COURSE you felt wary! You deserve someone with their act together!” and I realized that, even when they knew I’d been struggling for years and jobs are still hard to come by, the idea that someone with a low-level job isn’t a good person has yet to die.
Wait, I’m not attracted to anything, including wealth. What does that mean for me in Rubyland? Do I not exist, or am I a robot wearing lady skin or something?
I am in two long-term relationships currently, one with a man and one with a woman. Does this mean I am attracted to my female partner’s looks and my male partner’s net wealth? Even if she makes more money than he does, and owns a house? And also, given that I am average-looking, poorly dressed, kinda overweight, and unemployed, what are the reasons these conventionally attractive, successful people could possibly have for dating ME?
Ruby, please explain, using your Theory of All Relationships Ever — so far, everyone who has posted in this thread is an outlier except you. Surely that can’t be right.
Molly: Yep, that’s my background too. Well, actually, they’re supposed to have good earning potential and be hardworking and have few debts– my parents are fully willing to accept that someone might be unemployed or not working a good job NOW, as long as they are going to be working a good job at some point. (I’m not sure what their position is on people working shit jobs by choice– probably that they make okay partners as long as they’re fulfilled, hardworking, and financially solvent.)
You people are lying to yourselves if you believe an unemployed man is going to attract nearly as many women as the guy with the good, steady job. If I’m ready to settle down and have a couple of kids, I want them to have a father who will provide for them. BTW, I stayed home with my daughter for the first several years of her life before I went back to work. I suppose this is probably offensive for you extreme feminists.
Ruby, why would we dignify that with a response, since we know you won’t read it anyway?
Jesus, Ruby, of course it isn’t. If that was a choice you and your partner made because it was the best thing for your family, why would anybody have a problem with that? And what does that have to do with the fact that you’re projecting your own preferences on to every single other woman in existence, claiming that they are biologically determined when there’s no evidence to support that claim, and simultaneously erasing queer people and poly people entirely out of existence?
Nice of you come right out and admit to calling everyone here a liar, Ruby.
All things being equal, an unemployed man will attract fewer people than an employed man. Of course, all things being equal, an unemployed woman will probably attract fewer people than an employed woman. And some of the whole men-must-be-employed thing is cultural, as Molly and I said. AND in real life all things are never equal and I can totally have a thing for a hot, kind, interesting, geeky man who also happens to live in his mom’s house sometimes.
WEll ruby, if that’s what works for you and your partner that’s fine. Just don’t apply that thinking to everyone. I was raised middle class and taught to have those values, but I don’t work middle class jobs and don’t make middleclass incomes.
I think the best person to look after my financial interests and daughter is me. Now if Beloved wanted to help me with that, then great. Buit I don’t demand of my partners what I can do for myself. I chose jobs that were flexible enough for me to be with my daughter when she needed it and screened her babysitters carefully. At my income level, there isn’t a choice with only having one person working, unless you don’t mind not eating. And with as many hobbies and projects as I have, I really can’t justify sitting on my ass most of the day doing them since house keeping at the 1900’s level would only keep me busy until maybe noon. I like to work, I like knowing I can count on myself to support my family.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your lifestyle, or staying at home with your children, but that was a choice you had and I didn’t. My mother made the same choice as you and I’ve always respected her for it. She stayed at home because she felt that it would be less stressful and tiring for the family as a whole.
And really, preferring that your partner has a job is hardly the same thing as insisting they be able to provide for you. Some folks just want their partner to provide for themselves. Whereas others don’t care.
And you do know not every woman wants to have children, right? So the ability to support kids is completely irrelevant for some?
Eh, sure. I was talking specifically about the idea of breaking up the relationship into the “initial attraction” period and the “bonding” period. Which is something PUAs do a lot; although to be fair, so do a fair number of relationship-book-writers (“How to Win Your Mate in 30 Days or Less,” or whatever).
Just commenting on the fact that I’ve never heard an actual person describe their actual relationship using those terms (though I suspect I might if I hung around more people who bought into either of those things).
TOTALLY shouting into the wind here, but (1) you are lying to yourself if you think that the reason a particular woman might prefer a particular employed man over a particular unemployed man is IT JUST MAKES GOOD SENSE BECAUSE GENES AND PROGRAMMING, SEE? and (2) I suspect most commenters here support the right of a mother (or father) to stay at home with the kids, if that’s what xie wants to do. Again, totally awesome of you, a feminist, to misrepresent the feminists who post here as people who are “offended” by stay at home mothers.
I take it back, no parrot can be this annoying. You realise that men who don’t make enough to support two people also tend to look for employment in their prospective long term partners. You realise that, in communities that share resources, most people don’t tend to take a partner’s ability to provide into consideration. You realise that there are SAHPs that post here, so it’s unbelievably stupid to think that anyone here would have a problem with you staying at home. I just realised I’m stupid enough to keep making points when responding to you. And finally, bababooey bababooey bababooey!
@Molly, @Ozy — it’s not really my background, but the question “How do you plan to support my daughter?” has made it into my consciousness somehow.
I always thought it was kind of an unfair question. It implies to me not only a filter for well-paying jobs but also an ideological filter.
Like, “I’m working my way up in a Fortune 500 company” is a much better answer than “I’m a long-haul truck driver” because even though truck drivers make mad bank they’re not Our Sort of People, and it’s a waaay better answer than “I’m a political philosophy professor at Local University” because he might as well have said “I’m a communist and I’m going to support your daughter with your money and everybody else’s.”
Yeah, it’s insidious! The nutty thing is that my brain still does this even when I don’t want kids or to live at home, so how much my partner makes should be a non-issue. It makes even less sense when the other message I got the most at home was “Learn to take care of YOURSELF, because no one else will do it for you.”
No one has argued that. I don’t doubt for a second that, all else being equal, a guy with a good job is likely to attract more people than a guy without a job. What I doubt is that, all else being equal, a woman with a good job wouldn’t attract more people than a woman without a job. What else I doubt is that, all else being equal, a physically attractive man wouldn’t attract more people than a physically unattractive man. There is a world of difference between the statement “people with traits that our society values are likely to attract more potential partners than people without those traits” and “all women want the richest man they can get, and all men want the prettiest woman they can get.” Among other things, my version doesn’t completely erase queer people’s existence, and it’s not completely stupid!
Oh, come on. No one here is likely to be offended by your personal preferences. You can absolutely choose your partner(s) based on any criterion you like, whether it be income or attractiveness or favorite color or nose size. And it’s great that you stayed home with your kid if that was what you wanted to do – more power to you! The problem is not “Ruby has preferences.” The problem is “Ruby keeps insisting that her preferences are everybody’s preferences and if you disagree with her you are lying.”
Falconer: Yep. It’s very much an ideology thing too. My parents would consider an adjunct professor a Good Job and a long-haul truck driver a Bad Job, even though long-haul truck drivers probably make more money than adjunct professors. I think it’s a coded version of “we want someone of our class,” which is related to but distinct from money.
Also, have I pointed out that the “good provider” thing is way classist? It is WAY classist. SO MUCH CLASSISM. Also ableist– there are a lot of people who can’t work through no fault of their own! And probably given the race wage gap racist too.
I was actually about to mention the fact that the “Man as provider, woman as stay-at-home caretaker.” has never even been a viable option for the vast majority of people throughout history, and as such is extremely unlikely to a genetically programmed trait.
*to be
By the way, I include SRS in “the dregs of reddit” because of pervasive misandry, not because they “call out” people. Much like r/beatingwomen is misogynist. Not THAT bad, but they compound things by being self-righteous pricks. At least r/beatingwomen is upfront about it.
nobody said that, dummy, but i love how when people presented you with stories that flatly contradict your petty determinist fairy-tale the best you can come up with is ‘nuh uh, your lying’. real winning argument there, champ
lol, and now youre going right to the corny strawfeminists. you seriously sound more like an mra with every post.