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.
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.