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.
Please go learn some developmental neuropsychology.
Dude, she thinks “science” is an entity. I wouldn’t hold your breath.
I’m genuinely curious as to why Ruby thinks that the video she posted counts as “science”.
It probably says “research shows” in there somewhere. FACTS.
Does faux news count as science? XD
RE: Ruby
Do you also reject the science that show men and women’s brains are different?
Yes. Because I’m trans and multi and highly doubt our brain chemistry radically changes every time we switch. And if you want to claim my gender doesn’t exist, you’re a douche.
Also, I’m a poor man married to a poor man. EXPLAIN ME WITH SCIENCE DAMMIT. I keep asking you to and you keep FAILING.
A couple more entries on the list of Things That Ruby Really Should Read:
Rebecca Jordan Young, Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Difference
Donald W. Pfaff, Man and Woman: An Inside Story
I will confess that I’d be pretty surprised if all of the average behavioral differences observed between men and women were purely the product of cultural conditioning, but evpsych (particularly at the pop level) is so massively wrongheaded that I can’t decide whether to laugh at it or just scream until my lungs implode.
Given the extent to which we treat boys and girls differently from the cradle onward (and sometimes even before, what with ultrasound), and the extreme plasticity of the human brain, I’d be very surprised if there weren’t some observable differences between the brains of male-assigned vs. female-assigned people as of adulthood. Whether those differences have anything to do with innate aptitudes is, of course, much more in doubt.
Ruby, the only person loving strawmen is you.
Why should you guys be so offended that women are genetically programmed to go for men of means?
BTW, here’s information about the doctor associated with that study:
http://www.anthropology.at/people/eoberzaucher
Her credentials are impressive.
Ruby, I think if we’re offended by anything, it’s your amazing inability to know when you’ve been proven wrong again and again. You either don’t read or don’t care. You’re not nearly as smart as you think you are, and you should probably go troll elsewhere.
1. Speaking for myself (a woman who lives with another woman and has for going on 20 years now), I don’t think most of us are “offended that women are genetically programmed to go for men of means?”
My offense comes at your: lack of clear citation, your (probably) misreading of fairly complex academic arguments, and your ignorance about the varying debates in the field concerning issues of “average differences” and genetic vs. cultural issues. I don’t consider either GENETIC or SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS to be “programming,” either btw–and I doubt that’s language used by the experts. Probably more of us are offended by your earlier horrific willingness to blame poor people for their lack of health and money.
2. Reading about her won’t do as much good as actually reading her studies, and all the stuff around it. You’re not the first MRA troll to claim that an academic study says X, and then when people more informed in the discipline read it they find out it actually says “not really X, more like Q, but’s it’s complicated by C.” Basically, her credentials have nothing to do with the quality of her work: there are lots of highly credentialed people whose work is flawed by methodological or ideological assumptions.
Erm, above comment by me is directed at Ruby
What study are you referring to Ruby?
I wonder how Ruby thinks poor people reproduce (and matriarchies must have had no births at all). Then again, she probably thinks we shouldn’t and therefore are not worthy of consideration.
Ruby is on a feminist-aligned website and wondering why we might object to the idea that women are naturally inclined to be gold diggers?
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/131/351/eb6.jpg?1307463786
Ruby, if I were genetically programmed to desire something, I wouldn’t need you to tell me about it. I’m genetically programmed to desire salty fatty foods, and I can FEEL it. I have no corresponding inner craving for rich men.
“Women don’t know what they want; scientists who study women know what women want!” is an inherently antifeminist idea, but also simply an ILLOGICAL one.
The earth is hollow – IT’S SCIENCE I DON’T HAVE TO PROVE IT.
Hey Ruby, I’m not attracted to anything at all! What does your “science” say about that?
You don’t get how this whole SCIENCE thing works do you? We don’t care about the good doctor’s credentials, we care about her methodology, her sample size, her results, whether she interpreted her data correctly, whether she accounted for any confounding variables etc etc And, I find it highly unlikely that any scientist/anthropologist would claim that women are genetically PROGRAMMED to go for men of means. At best they can show a genetic PREDISPOSITION to go for men of means, but again, we’d need to see the actual study to believe that.
And even then, they’d have to show a genetic difference between het women and non-het women (non-heterosexual women are a confounding variable for this study.. SCIENCE)
“Why should you guys be so offended that women are genetically programmed to go for men of means?
BTW, here’s information about the doctor associated with that study:
http://www.anthropology.at/people/eoberzaucher
Her credentials are impressive.”
Did you actually read what I, or anyone else wrote? That is just one doctor. Go look in the literature. The hypothesis is controversial and not accepted as fact. The evidence, if you actually look at it, is not strong enough to draw firm conclusions.
Also, I’m not offended at the idea that genetics play a role in human behavior. I said above that it’s likely they do. I’m offended by the abuse of science. Seriously, give me some citations from peer-reviewed journals that support your claim. I expect to see: 1) Behavioral data, 2) Genetic data, 3) Neuroanatomical data, 4) Molecular data linking the genetic data to the neuroanatomical and/or neurophysiological data, 5) and finally, some good ol’ neuroimaging studies linking the neuroantatomical/physiological data to behavior. Then we can talk about what people are or aren’t genetically programmed to do.
It’s not about being offended. It’s about doing good science and using evidence to support your hypothesis.
Also, Ruby? I’m really fucking sick of people thinking that the speculation they heard about data from a sensationalized popular press article is fact. If the headlines were true, we would have cured cancer and HIV, and have a perfect understanding of how the brain produces behavior. I’m sick of shitty science reporting, and I’m sick of people shouting that their political agenda Wields the Power of Science when they can’t even give you a goddamn citation, let alone explain the mechanism they are proposing exists.
And again, “this trait is genetically programmed” DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW from “this trait exists in a population we tested.”
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.
I’ll gladly accept being called a Radical Feminist if this means we can reclaim the term from the current Gender Essentialist Feminists who have decided to call themselves Radical Feminists.
Ruby, READ the posts disagreeing with you. They contain content and reasoning.
I get the feeling that all you get out of dissenting posts is “disagree disagree disagree,” but there’s more words there. Read and think about them.
@Ruby –
I’m going to speak as someone who has a Masters degree in Psychology. The reason why Evo-Psych is getting sneered at is because, unlike in biology, there is no empirical data that supports the “just-so” stories that Evo-Psych pushers come up with. These “just-so” stories are just that. Stories.
This is not to say that human behavior has not been shaped by evolution. No one argues that the “fight or flight” response didn’t aid in the species survival.
When people hear “Women prefer men with lots of money” presumably because money = resources needed to survive, it sound perfectly reasonable. After all, if you have a lot of money, you’ll be able to provide for your mate and your offspring. But here’s where evo-psych falls short; it fails to take culture and other variables into consideration. In many cases (if not the majority) cultural norms hold primacy in the way members of that culture behave and conduct themselves. A good example of this is how in some Asian cultures, a sense of community is valued over an independent spirit, whereas here in the USA, we admire people who we consider self-reliant and boot-strap pullers.
Beware of Evo-Psych to explain individual behavior.