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.
Her credentials are impressive.
Most impressive. But she is not a Jedi yet.
No, it’s not. “Attractiveness” is generally understood as “physical attractiveness.” It is entirely possible for physical attractiveness to be less important to a person than a vast number of other traits in determining whether they are attracted to someone.
And speaking from my own experience? My partner of four years and I first met online. I had absolutely no idea what he looked like when I started developing a crush on him – I just knew he was smart and funny and kind and a pleasure to talk to. I don’t see how it would be a lie to say that those things were a great deal more relevant to my attraction to him than his looks, seeing as, y’know, they self-evidently were under the circumstances.
And honestly, I love him immensely and think he’s cute, but he’s not at all my usual physical “type.” Guess how much I care! (Hint: not very much.)
Oh great, no name is back. yeaaahhh.
You are aware, surely, that we haven’t found a gene for health, intelligence or talent? And that, contrary to health, beauty standards are very changing?
There are places and times when a fat woman was a sign of good health, other where the must was too be skinny and fragile. Sometimes and some places tan is better and seen as healthy, other it’s a mark of poverty.
And beauty standard is not just about the body. “Most” men like women who wear make-up, who have nice fitting clothes, who have pretty long blond hair. “Most” men like women who shave their armpit and their legs. “Most” men prefer a thin woman on diet than a fat one, even if she’s more healthy. “Most” men prefer a woman weaker and smaller than them.
None of that has anything to do with being healthy, intelligent, talented, making or raising healthy intelligent or talented babies. If you can’t see that then you’re a fool.
NWO: This is a hate site, you spend your time belittling, shaming and hating men. You enjoy the privilege of doing this while demanding no woman be shamed for her bad behavior.
Again with the lies and misunderstanding.
We are perfectly willing to shame women when they behave badly.
It’s just that you think women doing things you don’t like (such as having sex) is shameful, and we don’t.
That pisses you off. It offends your wa. It’s even harder for you that most people agree more with us, than with you.
Which is as it should be.
Ruby: 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.
But you haven’t referred to any actual science. Find something with data, a testable hypothesis; the subsequent testing, and the analsys of the results.
Otherwise, it’s not science, it’s you parroting just-so stories.
And Kipling did it better.
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.
Now that’s a strawman, an exemplary instance to boot, you have learned well.
No one is upset about you expressing your political views. They are annoyed at your inability to admit that what you are saying is shite. Not that it’s wrong, but that you aren’t supporting the claims you make with evidence. Yeah, it sucks to be at the receiving end of a lot of people telling you you’re wrong, but you keep asking for it.
All it takes to avoid this sort of thing is to cop to not having a solid basis for your belief. Because I, for one, don’t give a shit what you believe. You can think women are all gold-diggers, and men are all slavering idiots. No skin off my nose. But when you try to convince me it’s the “way things are,”, well then you have to put up or shut up.
When you do neither, you are going to get called on it, until you choose one of the options.
Falconer: I’m trying to think of someone we remember primarily because they embarrassed themselves, and failing.
Dan Quayle.
By “attractiveness” I meant looks and beauty and by “attracted” I meant interested in romantically. It’s not a contradiction unless you meant like “attractive” mental features or something which isn’t what I was talking about anyway (I am not interested in being with unpleasant people). Plenty of people fall in love with others despite looks so its not like its unusual for me to say that. I mean maybe you have a hard time comprehending loving someone regardless of appearance but don’t assume its impossible for others to.
Science doesn’t say that, though. Social science suggests that in unequal societies, women are more likely to seek out men of status, yes, but this is a trend that decreases with equality in the culture.
Oh. You were confusing evopsych with science.
http://www.endlessvideo.com/watch?v=gFmGNqji4u0&start=0m10s&end=0m12s
Triply fitting for being a (fictional) scientist.