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.
Ruby, what about women who don’t want kids? Where do we fit in in your scheme? What makes us choose a mate?
I could give a fuck that you stayed home with your daughter, I just hope you’re not homeschooling.
Have you ever considered that because its a value society has placed and it’s not biological? Sort of like the idea that biologically black men are more violent, women are more empathetic, and ect.
Good for you but thats not what everyone else in the world wants. Maybe the father wanted to stay home and the mother provides. Maybe the two people don’t want kids at all so just one person being the provider for the entire family is not important. Maybe the people in the relationship are gay and there is no “father works/mother stays home” household. Maybe a poly family has one person staying home taking care of the kids while the others work. Maybe the kid stays with his grandparents while zir both his parents work. mean there are so many different kinds of family configurations in existence it’s really stupid to call one man providing one woman home/child sitting a biological necessity.
Good for you but no one gives a damn that you said home or not. It’s only problematic if you assert all women biologically just want men to provide for them and men should. The problem is you are putting cultural tropes and trying to say everyone here follows them at well when clearly they don’t. It’s damn offensive.
@ozy
we’re talking about ruby ‘the dirty thieving poors are destroying america’ hypatia. the classism is kind of a given at this point.
“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.”
THAT.
As an “extreme” feminist, I am 100% in support of stay at home parents. If we ever have kids, I suspect my husband will be the one to stay at home, since I’ll be the primary income earner. Right now, he’s supporting me while I finish medical school. Two years ago, I supported him for 6 months when he lost his job in the recession. When I graduate, I fully expect to financially support him again in whatever future endeavour he decides on, whether that being starting a home-based business, returning to school, or being a dad.
Feminism is about giving people the right to choose what’s best for them in the absence of forced gender roles. My mom was a feminist stay-at-home mom. My best friend is a feminist stay-at-home mom. If somebody wants to be a stay-at-home parent and the family has the financial means to do so, then I feel like they should have the right to do that without judgement, male or female. Sadly, in many parts of North America, it’s nearly impossible to maintain a standard of living for a family without a double income. Modern stay-at-home parenting now is either a luxury of the upper middle class and rural residents or a product of unemployment.
Ruby: 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.
I’m not “well to do”. I have, in fact, never earned more than 35,000 in a single year (and have only made more than about 24,000 in less than ten years of my adult life).
I have, for most of my adult life not had, “the good steady job”. I spent 10 years being a “Guard bum” and letting the army send me places, at random times of the year. So not only was I making not much money, I was also not locationally stable.
And I still had lots of female attention. I’ve had several women who established ongoing relationships with me.
I have a pension (one that you seem to think makes me a moocher) and a part time job. Annual income, about 24,000. I have a primary partner, and she doesn’t care. I have a non-primary partner, and she doesn’t care.
So the idea that being under, or even un, employed means not getting any female attention… not provable from my experience.
Disproven by science.
Believed by Ruby.
I know which I am going to go with.
Ruby:I suppose this is probably offensive for you extreme feminists.
Citation needed
Dracula: Nice of you come right out and admit to calling everyone here a liar, Ruby.
It’s not the first time she’s done it. She doesn’t like being disagreed with.
She really doesn’t like having facts used to counter her assertions.
She refuses to respond to people who answer her questions.
Then she wonders why people react badly to her pronouncements.
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.
Which is still different from her claim that women are genetically attracted to men who have more money than to men who have less.
*Maybe the kid stays with his grandparents while both zir parents work
I will say this; having Ruby around has an education. Up to this point I had no idea that believing women and men have individual preferences that aren’t determined by biology was an “extreme feminist” position.
I thought it was just a “feminist” one.
*has been
@Ruby: not that you’re reading….my partner and I were both employed when we met–at the same university!
SHE is a medieval historian. I am an English teacher. We bonded immediately through Star Trek (when she’s bored at ‘meet’n’greet’ or other social functions, she tosses out Star Trek and sees who jumps out of crowd–it was me). We met in the fall, moved in together in the summer, committed to mutual momship of cats and later dogs and got a mortgage together. The one thing we swore neither of us wanted was a baby human.
We’ve been together sixteen years.
We are both fully employed.
But I suppose that is offensive to you extreme essentialist!
And let’s fucking face it: the majority of women who work while having children (whether single or married) do it because they have to, because the majority of families in the US have not been able to have only one wage-earner for a large part of my life (I was born in 1955).
What offends me about you is not the life choices you make with your partner, but the misogyny you exhibit toward women and the evopsych bullshit you spout.
Ruby also shows the extreme cluenessness of many of my students who can only define “rich” by how much money one earns at a job: the basic fact is, the real rich in this country are totally unemployed because they are living off the income generated by whatever amount of capital their ancestors winkled out of the system. Their only ‘job’ is tracking their money.
The fact that investment income isn’t taxed like earned income is a fucking shell game.
I feel weird saying this, but I don’t think I’m going to bother engaging with Ruby anymore. It’s clear she’s just going to keep posting like 3 times a day so she doesn’t have to admit she’s ‘lost’, and she’s not going to leave on her own. At this point she’s been thoroughly disproven to any remotely rational observer, too, and I’d rather spend my free time playing games.
Also, Ruby, in addition to being a shitty person, you are also a shitty feminist. Your gender essentialist bullshit is one of the many obvious impediments to actual equality. I am an extremist feminist, but not for disagreeing with you on this pile of trivially disproven bullshit about genetic programming. This part is bog-fucking-standard. Go fuck off to some libertarian forums where you can be The Most Feminist One, rather than continuing to waste your time and our’s trying to do whatever asinine thing you’re trying to do here.
OMFG did you seriously pull out the “mommy wars” schtick?
Nobody gives a shit what you do. That’s part of the reason why your assertion that your own preferences = everybody’s biological programming is pissing people off. It’s not that people are pissed you made a choice to do motherhood in your own way, it’s that you’re assigning morals to your decisions and insisting that everybody must want to do it your way because “science”. You’re allowed your own preferences in terms of life, partners, whatever. But the minute you say your preferences are because of some evo psych bullshit, you splatter all the rest of us with your shit colored paint.
You chose a partner based on YOUR preferences. You chose a parenting style that worked for YOU. Not everybody is you. Period.
Jesus Jones, this isn’t rocket surgery.
I don’t find it offensive, because I myself am currently a stay at home mom, at least until both of my kids are old enough to attend school. I can’t make enough money to pay for daycare and taxes, so it’s more practical for me to be home with them. For our particular family, it works. I think the whole “mommy wars” thing is bullshit. It’s meant to keep women fighting each other for making different choices in life, rather than focusing their energy against a system that makes it very difficult to balance parenthood and work responsibilities. I also think it’s bullshit that a lot of people assume the father has to be a provider and a mother has to be the caregiver. It forces people into gender roles that might not work for them, and it ignores all the other forms of families that work just as well as the nuclear family.
Wait, I thought “mommy wars” refered to stay-at-home moms going at each other’s throats over different parent styles. It actually applies to all mothers? Great. If there’s one thing the world didn’t need more of…
Actually, I’m a good person. I just happen to have different views than you guys, which obviously you can’t handle. You can’t just disagree with someone without demonizing them? My opinions are hardly out there. After all, I gave evidence from three different universities.
I think the most common family structure globally/historically is “mom, aunts, older siblings, and grandparents share childcare and housework duties.”
The isolated nuclear family, with only two adults raising only their own children, is a pretty peculiar upper-class Western invention. I think you have to prove that our concept of a “family” is a hardcoded genetic thing (and obviously it’s not…) before you can start arguing for the hardcoding of particular roles within the family.
No one demonized you for disagreeing, Ruby.
You’re being demonized for NOT REAAAAADING the disagreements, or if you do, sure as hell acting like you don’t.
No, you don’t have to answer everything, but if you answered anything, (and I mean directly, not by saying “BUT UNIVERSITIES AND SCIENTISTS”) that would be a nice start.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! A WHOLE THREE UNIVERSITIES, YOU GUYS!
If you really think this is you being demonized and why, you really are a special snowflake, ain’tcha?
Go back to wherever you think you can be Boss Feminist. It’s not here.
There comes a point when saying “pot calling the kettle black” just doesn’t cover it anymore.
Yeah sorry I just can’t agree with your opinion that I don’t exist. I guess I can’t handle my lack of existence.
What we say: Your theory doesn’t explain my personal experiences. It doesn’t account for queer people or people in non-nuclear families. It confuses cultural factors with biological ones. It implies beauty is objective and it cheapens love and affection. And it’s just the same argument as the misogynists use to justify calling women manipulative gold-diggers who only suffer from a wage gap because we want men to earn more.
What Ruby hears: Blah blah blah RUBY SUCKS blah blah LET’S BE MEAN TO RUBY blah blah.
A friend on Facebook who likes to post what he calls the “crazy and stupid” just posted this gem by an obviously scientific minded MRA. Behold this brave warrior as he links research studies that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that “Sluts Don’t Deserve To Be Loved.”
http://dicipres.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/sluts-dont-deserve-to-be-loved/
Perhaps another one for the Boob Roll?
Ummm…Ruby? What HAVE you read and agreed with about feminism? From what you’ve written, I can’t see the difference between you and the avarage sexist, comfortable sexist woman.
actually…
I’M NOT SORRY I WILL NOT BE OK WITH BEING ERASED. I FUCKING EXIST AND YOUR STUPID EVOPSYCH CRAP THAT PRETENDS QUEER PEOPLE DON’T EXIST IS SHIT. YOU CAN IGNORE ME BUT I WILL NOT SHUT UP.
See, here’s what you’re not getting, Ruby: These views of yours not only erase the experience of many people here, they erase the fucking existence of many people here. That is not being a good person. It’s being a massive jerk.
Lady Zombie, dicipres has come over here and shit on the rug already.
You really need to get through your head that this shit in not impersonal.
Hellkell, where? I’ve been a long time lurker only recently started posting so I’ve probably missed quite a bit of the various rug shitters.
*is not*
Ruby:
Actually, I’m a good person. I just happen to have different views than you guys, which obviously you can’t handle. You can’t just disagree with someone without demonizing them? My opinions are hardly out there. After all, I gave evidence from three different universities.
Maybe you are a good person.
You are not an honest one. It’s not that you have different views* it’s that you lie about what has been said, both by yourself, and by us.
You have not “given evidence from three universities”. You referred to academics from two, who were quoted by Discovery TV, and you cited one study.
You called us liars for telling you that referring to a TV show wasn’t citing actual evidence. You lied about how we disagred with you, and why.
You have ignored, wilfully, and repeatedly, people who cited studies which disagreed with yours, and continue to pretend that your assertions are the same as proof.
Your opinions may be perfectly common. So too is the belief that any sex outside of marriage is a terrible thing, or that evolution is a myth, or the idea that women don’t need to earn as much as men; for the same work, because men need to be able to provide for a family.
Argument ad populam is the fallacy of thinking one is right, because, “lots of people think so, fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.”
They can, and you are.
But you don’t seem to be able to handle that. Evidence which is presented… you ignore. You lie about it, and then lie about what we have said.
So, you may be a decent person, but you are still a liar.
*Contra your claims, we are not monolithic. We have lots of different views.
Statement assumes facts not in evidence.
You have childish views that demean most of humanity, whether on grounds of social class, race, or gender, when it manages to take them into account at all.
I didn’t call you a monster or hitler. I said you were a terrible person, and you are; you have spouted sexist, classist, racist things, and most of those were worse than what I could expect from the average person. You persist in these sexist, classist, and racist beliefs despite clear evidence to the contrary.
…Which we shot full of numerous holes, because your studies didn’t say what you wanted them to say or were terribly conducted.
Actually, I’m a good person.
function SetGoodPersonValue(byval statement as string) as boolean
if statement=”I’m a good person” then
return 1
else
return 0
end if
end function
Not how it works, Ruby.
So Ruby, my friends, is a lackwit
Pretending that we never say shit
Her arguments frisky
Should be taken with whisky
Be certain you’ve more than a wee bit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/18/do-women-want-rich-men_n_879760.html
Dr. Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist at Rutgers University who has studied romantic love extensively, said studies have widely shown that women like men with resources: They have since the beginning of time because they need someone to help take care of their young.
Men with lots of fancy cars who live in the right part of town are sending an evolutionary message that they can provide. And while this study showed that the conspicuous spenders didn’t have a long-term advantage, Fisher argued they weren’t at a disadvantage either.
“The bottom line is when you take a look around the world, women — if they can win over the Porsche guy — they’d rather have the Porsche guy,” Fisher said.
But LadyZombie, he has charts and everything! See:
http://dicipres.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/the-dominant-gender-is-the-gender-facing-more-reproductive-inequality/
Don’t pay any attention to how he misspells monogamous, even great scientists make mistakes sometimes. Also don’t pay attention to his lack of sources. Or his lack of explanation as to how he ranks lions, hyenas, and wolves on the same 1-10 point scale. He LINKS to STUDIES, it’s SCIENCE!!!11oneuno
I think we should exercise self-control and not respond to her until she reads something someone else has said somewhere in this thread.
Rubes, I noticed you didn’t grab this from that article:
You are so full of shit.
Honestly people, try to have more tolerance for those with different opinions. It’s not like my views are based in hatred like the MRA idiots. I’m a Feminist. I want to see more women in government, scientific fields, business, wherever their passion leads them.
Lady Zombie, I can’t remember the thread he was on, sorry.
That’s what I’ve been trying to do more recently, though I admit sometimes I’ve had to walk away from my computer to stop myself. I suspect I would succumb pretty quickly to my need to respond if the rest of you weren’t doing such a good job of it. :-)
If at any point you can ACTUALLY ADDRESS ANY OF THE POINTS PEOPLE HAVE RAISED, INSTEAD OF JUST REPEATING YOURSELF, then maybe we can talk here. Until then Ruby, just fucking knock it off. You’re barely even saying anything anymore.
Ruby, your views are based on what you can see from having your head crammed up your ass. They are essentialist, erasing, lazy, and poorly thought out.
I’m starting to change my mind about that whole banning thing.
Ruby still hasn’t refuted the damning study done by the Prestigious Journal of Scientific Psychology, either.
Damn, Katz, you’re good. I almost choked on my water.
HEY RUBY MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ THIS IT DOES NOT DEMONIZE YOU:
Sometimes things happen that are not genetically programmed.
I don’t have a fancy degree from a fancy university, but I’m pretty sure my kindergarten diploma qualifies me to assert that I was not genetically predestined to type these words. I’m not wearing shoes because shoes are genetic. I had noodles for dinner and I don’t think they were Genetically Destined Noodles.
So you need more evidence than “women marry rich men” to prove that women are biologically programmed to marry rich men.
@Lady Zombie & hellkell, dicipres appeared here: manboobz.com/2012/02/17/do-you-want-semen-on-that-how-law-order-svu-imperils-innocent-penises/
And maybe more places, but that’s where a google search for site:manboobz.com dicipres found him. I’m not sure Google is indexing all of the comments.
hellkell, women knew those guys were only after a fling. Personally, I wouldn’t take a chance on them. I would never think I was so wonderful that I could turn a womanizer into a family man. I would go for the guy with the Honda Civic.
You want more women in field supposedly but with their biological urges and all to not work and go find the man with the most cash it seems sort of pointless to say that. Your views may not be from hatred but they are from ignorance and upkeeping the status quo that holds women down.
Cloudiah, thanks!
@katz, I really want that to be a real journal. Can you start by running that article that Ruby found on oprah.com? Instant academic street cred ‘R’ us!
On the contrary, jumbofish, I cited scientists from four different universities now.
What kind of feminists asserts is women’s biological destiny to be a housewife only?
Ruby: The Univeristy of HuffPo?
How about these Three studies, which all contradict the articles you keep telling us are, “science”.
Or This study which also says your theory isn’t supported by research in the real world.
It’s no skin off my nose if you keep ingoring me. I have an advantage (and no, it’s not that I can craft a limerick).
Other people can read. They will follow the arguments. They may follow the links. Encouraging them to do so is why I write the limericks; so people will wonder why it is I am making fun of you.
I can do things you can’t. I can seperate the insults, the mockery and the personal comments/attacks from the merits of the arguments.
I am sure the things people say stings. You have options.
1: You could read what they say, and compare their arguments to yours; then respond. You could make new arguments. You could try to shoot holes in their arguments. You could go for the gusto and do both.
2: You can keep doing what you are doing.
3: You can leave.
4: You can stop trying to defend yourself.
The reason you are in the present pickle is you were an asshole. Happens to all of us sometimes.
But you aren’t willing to move on. You aren’t willing to accept that people might have reasons for thinking you were an asshole. No, you want to ignore the comments in reply to the bad arguments you made, and you want us to pretend you weren’t an asshole.
Ain’t Gonna Happen.
Not with me, in any case. You have called me a liar. You have said I am intelectually dishonest.
All the while you have pretended I wasn’t engaging with you at all. Even Brandon wasn’t that much of an asshole.
I don’t want an apology. Honestly, I don’t think you can make one. I don’t even want amends (though I think you owe them to me, and to others).
I’ll settle for you not treating us as if we were too stupid to see that you are treating us as if we were stupid.
BUt I’m not going to hold my breath.
this is fucking rich coming from you. but seriously, i think your opinions are cruel, hateful, and destructive. why should i tolerate them?
your view are totally based in hatred. i know you want to believe your different from an mra, but you’re really not. it’s just a different breed of irrational hatred.
well, i guess if we water down the definition of feminsim to where it’s basically pro-cotton candy and rainbows then lots of people are feminists, but why should we do that?
Who would therefore not be rich, so you would be going against your genetic programming, according to you, and the quote you just posted.
Are you starting to see why you may be thought of as full of shit?
Wut.
You aren’t even reading what I am saying now are you because your response makes no sense unless random sources are suppose to disprove that you as a person want to hold women down.
On the contrary I am a very large fish! haha eat that!!
i don’t think we can really appreciate the delicate conundrum ruby is is. she’s too certain that women are people for the manosphere, but not certain enough for sane people. what is a bigot to do?
RUby: hellkell, women knew those guys were only after a fling
Citation needed.
I’m using big letters so maybe Ruby will read them:
PROVING A THING HAPPENS DOES NOT PROVE IT IS GENETIC.
You have cited studies proving that Western women are attracted to rich men. This makes sense, because Western society values wealth, and it impairs women’s abilities to earn their own wealth, meaning that finding a rich mate is the only way for many women to guarantee a decent standard of living.
THIS HAS FUCK-ALL TO DO WITH BIOLOGICAL DESTINY.
Oh wow people! Ruby has just scientifically proven that I’m not a woman. I’m not sure what that makes me, since I’ve kinda been thinking I was for decades…
Also, all of my experiences and preferences simply don’t exist! Thanks science!!!
Ruby: And yet I fell in love with a broke geek who wouldn’t be able to work until he got a major organ hacked out. Explain this, please. I’m all ears. (until the rain makes my hip go huts and I’m forced to lie on a heating pad for awhile, at least)
Prest. J. Sci. Psych. is also accepting submissions (it’s peer-reviewed).
pro-cotton candy and rainbows
That’s not feminism?
I…have been sorely mislead.
Ruby: Honestly people, try to have more tolerance for those with different opinions. It’s not like my views are based in hatred like the MRA idiots.
We do tolerate you. Have you been banned?
Have you been shunned?
Have people refused to respond to your arguments with reasoned responses?
No, across the board.
We tolerate you. What we don’t do is agree. It’s not incumbent upon me to say, “that’s cool” when someone says something patently absurd. I don’t have to be polite to misogynists. They dislike this. The come here and tell me that makes me intolerant.
I tolerate their presence, AND I laugh at their arguments.
Oh, God, Ruby is at it again?
…did she even read my response about “moochers” and General Relief programs? If not, she has obviously changed topics just to save face.
nope she never reads anything red_locker XD
You should know this by now!