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.
And Ruby: realize that MRAs generally tend, to varying degrees, to pimp the Evo-Psych dogma quite often (even if they don’t know the terminology for it), so claiming to want to vent about MRAs when you spout a lot of the same shit they do is just……..well. It’s weird.
WHAT about MRAs do you want to vent about, given that you share some of their major world views?
Ruby’s trying essentialist lines in an argument where at least two of the opponents are trans, and we’re the radfems? Oh, I get it, it’s because we don’t like sexism?
“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.”
…have you read any of the posts in this thread? I can’t speak about your political views as I have not followed any of those conversations, but regarding evolutionary psychology this is what I saw happen:
1) You made an evo psych claim.
2) A bunch of people jumped in to point out that claim was unsubstantiated.
3) Instead of actually responding to any of the points other posters made, you basically said “LOL but this is true!”
4) People explain why just saying something is true doesn’t make it so, and specifically state what kind of evidence they would accept for your claims.
5) You get all huffy about getting attacked for “what [you’ve] learning about Evolutionary Psychology” rather than either a) realizing that maybe some of the criticisms directed at your views had merit or b) providing solid evidence for your claims.
Seriously. Please. Take Holly’s advice, READ, and think about it.
Ruby, explain how all the porn I cited earlier can exist if your hypothesis is true.
Really??? Not because you’re an MRA troll who wants a laff?
Hm.
I don’t know about anyone else, Ruby, but you’re not offending me, you’re just boring me. And amusing me a little with your lack of understanding of how science works. Hint – just saying “X says Y and she seems to have impressive credentials” does not a theory prove.
Also I don’t think you know what “radical feminist” means. Professor Google should be able to help you with that.
Ruby, the reason feminists hate evo-psych is because they believe that the punchline of the disciplne is gender essentialism. Now, they have no problem being gender essentialists when talking about domestic violence, but gender essentialism contradicts central tenets of feminist ideology. And therefore, it must be destroyed as “wrong think.” Hope that helps.
Which feminist told you that, Magz?
The one’s who puth forth and support the Duluth Method. – you know, the domestic violence industry that has sprung up.
The main problem with the whole “men like pretty because babies and women like rich because babies” is that there’s no reason it shouldn’t work the other way around. Unless you expect us to believe that a man’s appearance has nothing to say about his health and wealth owned by a woman is useless for supporting kids.
Soooo, Magz, I don’t at all doubt that you’ve heard people say things about how violence is a natural expression of masculinity, or that men can’t be victims. It’s just not actually a tenet of feminist thought.
In fact, if you really dislike hearing stuff like that, you know who you should stay away from? MRAs and PUAs.
To blow your mind even further…what is “health”? I’d really like to know that one too.
Mags and Ruby: Some feminists can be quite gender essentialist (usually with a reversal built in: i.e. women are naturally PEACEFUL; therefore, they are superior to men). A number of the 1970s radical feminists tended that way (including believing that women would be better leaders than men). I tended that way myself when I first became a feminist in the early 1980s–since the kyriarchy depends on essentialist theories, it makes it appealing. And yes, some feminists assume all men are ‘naturally’ violent–and ‘naturally’ drawn to pornography, etc. That is generally not the tenor of discussion on this board (as a careful reading of post after post and thread after thread would make clear).
“The women are naturally nurturing and peaceful and would make better leaders and change the world” theory fell apart (for me) pretty quickly–starting with Margaret Thatcher.
Ruby, too bad you’re not venting about MRAs, you’re spewing complete bullshit about healthcare.
And if you think this a radfem site, you’re more than a bit mistaken. Read the header and try to comprehend it.
Total troll.
I find it hilarious when people use the word “feminist” ad believe it’s a magical word that will make everybody agree with them on anything. Even things like “women are greedy”.
Seeing how frequently regulars – and not trolls – confuse radical feminist with an actual mirror of MRA, it’s pretty amazing that people think this is a radical feminist site.
“Do these guys think women don’t experience sexual pleasure?”
That’s exactly what they think. That’s why they believe women could only use sex to “barter” for other more valuable material goods.
At some point along the line, they bought into the virgin/whore dichotomy and they cling to it for dear life. I’ve noticed that some incel men have a really tough time with this, and I can’t figure out which came first, the chicken or the egg…
I’ve also noticed that they think relationships are about possession. They feel entitled to possess an attractive woman, who will barter her bodily autonomy and freedom for “protection” from the big bad sexual male. When they don’t get that, what they see is a breakdown in the social system that’s supposed to be providing it for them, not a problem with their notions of what a relationship entails.
I’m getting the distinct impression that Ruby is a teenager.
Because I’m pretty sure most radfems would be deeply offended to be affiliated with a trans guy. Transsexual Empire and all, don’tchaknow.
attractiveness barely comes into consideration when I am attracted to someone.
ROFLMAO!
That’s not even a good lie, jumbofish! It’s a flaming contradiction.
Furthermore, there IS statistical evidence correlating physical beauty with good genes(health, intelligence, talent, etc). The thing about beauty is that it’s very much quantitative more so than qualitative. The one universal quality that seems to coincide with beauty 100% of the time is symmetry.
So the hypothesis that men want beautiful women because beauty is a sign of good genes fits the data quite well. And I say it’s probably not far off base IRL. 😉
Depends on what you mean by attractive Mr. No Name.
Oh fuck yeah, the guys who perpetuate a beauty standard of “light-skinned, skinny, big-breasted tiny-waisted medium-hipped, long hair, young, wears makeup, wears hyperfeminine clothing, etc.” are all about the fucking symmetry. Show ’em a fat butch chick who’s the same on both sides and they go wild.
Holly there are multiple axes of symmetry; not just the vertical axis. Most men like women with curves. And that’s not the same thing as OBESE women(whose waist circumference is significantly greater than their hips and their bust). Why would straight men like butch chicks, anyway? Some do, but most don’t. The women I’m attracted to, like her for example, have pretty wide hips, thunder thighs, and large derrieres.
…You like women who are the same on the top and the bottom?
Also I think it’s interesting you can understand that not all men like the same thing, but then still get all IT’S MATH IT’S OBJECTIVE. Because men are people; women are MATH.
Dealing with MSN is like trying to teach a pig to sing.