The director of the first Human Centipede film – the one about a psychopathic doctor who sews three unwilling and unwitting captives together mouth-to-anus to make a sort of “centipede” — proudly declared that his film was “100% medically accurate.” That is, he found a doctor who was willing to say that if one were indeed to create such a centipede, the second and third segments (i.e., people) would be able to survive, provided that you supplemented their rather dismal diet with IV drips to give them the nutrition they were lacking.
This dubious claim to 100% accuracy came to mind today as I perused a post by the blogger who calls himself Dalrock, a manospherian nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny. In a post with the whimsical title “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan,” Dalrock argues that the best “solution” to out-of-wedlock births is some good old-fashioned slut shaming.
Here’s how he breaks down the (imaginary) numbers in a post that is “100% mathematically accurate” – which is to say, not accurate at all:
Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players. The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel. Now we introduce slut shaming. It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all. This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage. This directly translates into fewer fatherless children. This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier. Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her. After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on. This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel. You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.
Why not shame the fathers as well, while we’re at it? Dalrock explains that this just doesn’t make good mathematical sense:
Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players. Now apply shame to the players. Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them. No problem!, says the Gilligan [the social conservative], at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts! But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts. They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation. Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first. This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business. This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.
Well, there’s no arguing with that!
Seriously, there’s no arguing with that, because it is an imaginary construct with only the most tenuous connection with how things work in the real world. “But … MATH!” doesn’t really work as an argument here, since human beings don’t actually behave according to simplistic mathematical formulas.
Film critic note: While the first Human Centipede film offered little more than a workmanlike treatment of a fantastical idea, the recently released sequel, which details the attempts of a deranged Human Centipede superfan to take human-centipeding to the next level, is actually sort of brilliant. If you like that sort of thing.
Are women inferior at everything NWO?
NWO, do you actually like anything? Puppies? Turtles? Star Wars? Cookies?
All right, MRA’s. Make up your mind. When you’re discussing domestic violence, you’ll claim women are equally as big and strong as men, and beat men up just as often as men beat up women. When you talk about jobs involving physical strength, though, you’ll say women are generally weaker than men and not cut out for those jobs. Do women have the magic ability to amp up their size and strength in the home, but become smaller and weaker again outside the home?
There’s gotta be SOMETHING that Slavey doesn’t hate….wait minute, maybe not……
As far as I can tell, the only thing he doesn’t hate is statutory rape.
Granted. Men in general are physical stronger then woman. Generally. That is not to say that there are not women who are tanks. Those women who can pull their physical weight and meet the standards that a particular field demands should be able to do so.
“These are just physical attributes, there are mental ones as well.”
Can you name a few? I’ve read studies that say outright that women and men’s brains function pretty much the same. The only difference I can see between them is hormonal, which accounts for differences in mood, and not much else. There are gender differences in terms of susceptibility to certain mental disorders, but I don’t think that can be blamed on anyone.
“…but 50% of the class must be women.”
According to whom?
“Tell me? How long, in centuries, will men need to be punished for killing and dying to protect women and children at your behest?”
Nobody is going to war at my behest.
“I mean a coupla hundred years ago the jobs were farmers, miners, shipbuilders, pretty much all manual labor jobs where women simply couldn’t compete with the best of men.”
According to what I have read, women would work alongside men quite often before the industrial revolution, depending on their social class.
“How long will men be punished with the term, “sexism” for doing all those jobs.”
They aren’t. Men are being called out on sexism when they refuse capable women based on their own prejudices.
“…you routinely mock men for…”
I don’t routinely mock men. I routinely mock sexist attitudes that are long outdated.
Sorry for the Wall of Text.
Oh, and out-of-date encyclopedias. He loves those.
He does apparently like Star Wars novels. I remember him saying that they were so good, it ruined him for all other literature. He’s read the best, so what’s the point in reading anything else?
Hell, never mind fluoride paranoia.
When did NWO ever learn–and accept the knowledge even though he didn’t know it before–that there is fluoride in drinking water?
Maybe that’s the real conspiracy! Maybe the government has been cheating us out of fluoride and our teeth are all going to rot while the fluoride magnates scam billions! How do you know it isn’t true? Have you tested your water yourself? We are being robbed of vital fluoride!
It’s okay, Holly, we can always get “flouride” injections at the doctor’s.
Being such an open-minded guy, I’ve decided to go to the science link provided. Here are the headlines.
“Women Aren’t Becoming Engineers Because of Confidence Issues, Study Suggests”
“Females Are Equal to Males in Math Skills, Large Study Shows”
“Few Gender Differences in Math Abilities, Worldwide Study Finds”
“Implicit Stereotypes And Gender Identification May Affect Female Math Performance”
“Work Climate the Main Reason Women Leave Engineering, Survey Suggests”
“Women’s Choices, Not Abilities, Keep Them out of Math-Intensive Fields, Experts Argue”
“Women Subject to Objectifying Gazes Show Decreased Math Ability”
“Higher Education Playing Bigger Role In Gender Wage Gap, Study Finds”
“Women Opt Out Of Math/Science Careers Because Of Family Demands”
So according to science, well not really, but it is called science, it seems women are as good in math, and when they’re not it’s because of stereotypes, or choices, or possibly mens evil objectifying gaze.
Sometimes women choose to not enter math intensive fields, never because of a lack of ability. Sometimes they leave because of family demands.
Strange, but I seem to notice a recurring theme in this science site you’ve provided. And it goes like this, women are always as good at everything, because of science? If they’re not as good, well men, ya know. Evil gaze, steroetype and that sorta stuff. Let’s just cut to the chase and call it patriarchy.
I’ll be sure to return to the all pro woman science site for any of my purely scientific needs.
Is everything on sciencenewsdaily about women? I’ll bet the LGBT also has lotsa science stuff on that site as well.
Aw, NWO, thanks for the concern, but it’s OK BECAUSE I’M NOT ON ANY PEDESTAL. Women really aren’t as rule, unless some dude with lots of “ideas” about how women should behave puts us there. Sound familiar?
Do you like kittens? Pies? Cakes? Sunsets? Long walks on the beach? C’mon, Slave, just name one (1) thing you like.
Sigh. So NWO’s ruling is “this Science says things that don’t fit with what I already know! Clearly it’s lies!”
I really wonder sometimes how the guy learned 1+1=2.
Hey, NWOslave, do you read any comic books?
NWO, did you do a keyword search? You must have, because the Science Daily site I’m on doesn’t show those articles on the front page.
Liar.
@hellkell
I clicked on the link that was provided. That’s what popped up. It’s all scientific fact.
My apologies to NWO–he followed the link. NWO if you look on the homepage, there’s hardly any articles on women.
Once again, NWO demonstrates his inability to distinguish between “Women are as likely to be [blank], all things being equal.” vs. “Women are always [blank], no matter what.”
NWO, name one thing you like.
@hellkell–I’ve got it, Slavey likes CAKE! Everybody likes cake!
NWO, by the way, do you have any conception of the difference between science and opinion? It’s not “one is more official-like” or “one uses bigger words and more fanciness,” or anything like that.
An opinion is something you just make up. You might incorporate your knowledge and experiences, but informally; the opinion just comes off the top of your head.
Science is not just the opinion of people in white coats. Science is the results of something they did. They performed an experiment, observed a phenomenon, surveyed people, and then they reported the results that they got. They didn’t know what the results would be until after that observation.
What I’m getting at here is that science is news about something that actually happened. It’s not about beliefs.
I think you think that science is nothing more than the glorified opinion of Designated Scientists, and I hope you can understand from this that it’s not. It’s reporting on what the scientists actually observed.
WOMEN SOMETIMES BAKE CAKE! INFERIOR CAKE!
NWO, what do you like? Do you like ice cream? How about candles? Or flowers? Tea? Poetry? Latin literature? Magic: the Gathering? The color blue?
What makes you happy?
Why do you get out of bed in the morning?
@Dracula
No. no. noooooo, dracula.
I now know for a scientific fact, the evil male gaze causes poor math skills in women.
Women are as good in math unless they don’t wanna be.
Or they’re leaving engineering because of the man climate. They should be coddled while engineering and they aren’t.
They need more confidence, which explains any sub-par performance as opposed to men.
Patriarchy pretty much covers the list of anything I haven’t mentioned. It’s science!
What are your opinions on the cute dog videos upthread, NWO? Did you say “Aw, so cute” or did it send you into a rage spiral, because they showed spoiled (literal) bitches indirectly sponging off of Big Daddy, because we women wouldn’t have money to keep dogs if it hadn’t been stolen from you first?