The regulars over on the Men’s Rights Subreddit are currently getting amused and/or outraged by the existence of a book titled “Girl, Get That Child Support,” a guide to help single mothers track down deadbeat dads and get the child support they are owed. A few of them were apparently so overstimulated by the book’s title, and a reference to “Baby Mamas” in the subtitle, that this little conversation ensued:
Note the upvotes and the (scarcity of) downvotes. And the complete lack of anyone saying “hey, you’re being racist assholes.”
The Men’s Rights Movement, the “most significant civil rights movement of the 3rd millennium.”
Ruby: Still not science. Sciency, perhaps, but just at Truthy isn’t really truth, sciency isn’t really science.
Scientific journals, Ruby. Have you heard of them? They tend to publish actual research.
(This is what the Internet has done to our discourse – when asked for scientic proof people link to YouTube videos. Is this the post-grad version of trying to use Wikipedia as a citation on your homework?)
RE: Kendra
Ah, Princess and the Frog. I hate that Dr. Facilier was such a slapdash podge of stereotypes, but… goddammit, it’s Keith David! My favorite voice actor in all of voice actordom (just barely nudging out Clancy Brown)! And he gives such personality and slickness to the performance AND HE SINGS!
Obviously the solution is to have Keith David in as many things as possible so he can sing and be amazing in more awesome things.
(Random thought: are there sign language cartoons for the deaf? If not, WHY NOT? You could save so much on voice actors!)
“we assume this kind of car is safer”.
Assume.
“It’s usually the more expensive types of cars”.
Where is the cause and where the effect? I know that if I am spending more money on a vehicle, I expect it to be safer.
Who is the talking head? Why should I believe him?
What is with the oddball assumptions, “so even attractive women will marry men who are not as handsome as they are beautitful because they are trading for other sorts of carictaristics.” That’s some misandrist shit right there.
He’s just gone on about how reproduction is about a lot of things, and then boils men’s interests to a pretty set of legs and some nice breasts. WTF?
And what’s with the “random women”? How were the selected? Was it statistically random? Or socially? What area were they in when they were approached (I can tell you it was NYC). What about the variables? Was it the money, or the job title?
And who did the selecting for the baseline values? The, “got a 4 in the lab” is meaningless, unless you can show that there is an actually non-preferential standard for looks.
In short, not science.
LBT: The acting is the least expensive part of animation. Making the signs legible would be hella more expensive.
So Ruby,
How many subjects for this test?
Who realized it?
Where was it published?
Who rated the men in the lab, based on what?
How does that proved that attractiveness, for the women shown, comes from genes? (by oposition to a cultural influence)
Do you really think having a cool/dominant/power showing/safe car and being a good provider is exactly the same thing?
What happen when you show pictures of women to men while saying they’re rich or poor? How does it works for non-straight people?
Is it also true for rich women?
Is it true for 100% of women, or just a part of the group ?
How does this ‘artificial beauty’ rates compared to other criteria when chosing a romantic/sex partner? (eg: I find Johnny Depp very hot but I wouldn’t want to marry him, because we would have zero in common)
How was I able to chose the less rich guy?
And many more question, I’m sure, from people smarter and sciencier ^^ than me.
It is science. You just don’t want to admit it. Heck, it’s common sense. Why do ugly men like Donald Trump marry beautiful women? What kind of women would the Donald attract if he was a used car saleman making 30 grand a year? Supermodels don’t go for average Joes. Why? Because looks affords them wealthier men. Of course the reverse of this is that wealthier men won’t settle for the average Janes. These behaviors in both genders is the result of evolution. Yep, both genders are shallow.
Ruby, you DIDN’T READ.
I am very sad. I wrote a long thing. I was hoping you would read it.
Please read people’s responses or there’s no point in continuing to talk.
Oh, thanks pecunium, I meant to ask about the job title. Some of them are much more glamourous than other, and it makes the ‘study’ even less reliable since they cant control this factor. What happen if you put a job in the music industry with a small salary, or someone working, lets say as an accountant with a very big salary? Why not show the picture of the same guy with the same job and different amounts of money to see if it makes a difference?
Amendment to Holly’s point – Ruby, if nothing else please read a dictionary. Specifically, please look up the word “science”.
Ruby, ruby, ruby, let set aside for a second that it’s very bad science for entertainment puposes, and please answer at least this question: how was I able to chose the least rich of two guys? Am I (and other people like me) lying, am I an abnormality?
RE: Pecunium
Ah, makes sense. Bummer; I really want to see sign cartoons now…
I mean, COME ON. With all the effort James Cameron put into making the Avatar alien girls boobs jiggle realistically, they can damn well make comprehensible sign language cartoons!
Psssst! Holly! Holly holly!
You are back from out of town, so are you equipped for super secret awesome night?
On the bright side, now it’s not just women Ruby is trying to fit in her sciency theory, but all genders. Which is kind of better, IMO.
Not a question, Ruby, but I would like to point out that stating “IT’S TRUE” or any variation withouth proof (it’s science, it’s nature, it’s common sense) is a very common troll behaviour.
Science means something that’s super sciency right? Like something a scientist says (“scientists” are people who are real super smart so they’re always right) or that uses big scientificamal words.
It couldn’t possibly mean “something that is proven through rigorous and DOCUMENTED testing.”
Seriously, Ruby, we’re only snarling because you give no indication of having read or thought about any of the thoughtful, substantial responses to your posts.
RE: Kyrie
You know Rubes ain’t going to answer. Seriously, all conversations go this way:
Rubes: Statement!
Commenters: Disproval of statement, inquiry of sources, backing up disproval with sources.
Rubes: Statement repeated!
Commenters: Continued disproval, asking of explanation, more sources.
Rubes: STATEMENT IN CAPS!
Commenters: …dumbass.
Rubes: YOU ONLY SAY THAT BECAUSE I’M LIBERTARIAN.
LBT – I’ll be there!
And I would like to emphasis my previous post. Even if it we are to accept your youtube video as a proof than in average women prefer men with money, it doesn’t prove that:
– all women follow that patern
– this behavior come from our genes or our cave women ancestors
Heck, I’ll give her an even easier one:
My partner is an attorney. When I met him, he was working in a corporate job, which paid rather a lot. A few months thereafter, he switched to a government job, which pays a good deal less. However, he is not generally expected to work overtime at the government job, he gets more days off, his benefits are great, and he gets along well with his boss and his coworkers.
Over the past couple of years, he sometimes debates going back into corporate work for the salary and prestige. Every time this comes up, I consistently argue in favor of staying put, because having seen him in both, he’s happier in this job, and I love him and want him to be happy.
Which means, in effect, that I am being given the choice between two otherwise identical men, one who makes a lot of money, and one who’s better-rested and happier, and I keep choosing the latter. Which kinda sounds like I care more about having a happy partner who enjoys his job than a rich partner. (Or, hell, if you want to ascribe me a selfish motive, maybe I care more about having a partner who is actually available to hang out with me before 8 PM because he’s not working overtime every night than a rich partner. Either way, I certainly seem to care about something more than having a rich partner, since I keep advocating for a decision that leaves him non-rich.)
So, Ruby, am I lying? Am I a freak? Or do you maybe need a better argument than “SHUT UP MEANIES IT’S SCIENCE”?
RE: Holly
Sweet as! See you tonight.
Oh Jesus fuck, Ruby! You know what, the next time you feel like bringing forth this argument again, just go read this thread:
http://manboobz.com/2012/03/29/the-misogyny-album/comment-page-3/#comments
You can feel like you’re arguing with us, and people here don’t need to keep typing up the same damn comments ad nauseum. Saves everyone time
Ruby: It is science. You just don’t want to admit it
No, it’s not, and you don’t want to admit it. The objections you are getting are specific. They are the things study designers have to explain to the people who approve them (because studies cost money). They are the questions peer reviews ask when they get the results.
Heck, it’s common sense.
Which isn’t science. What do you think the “common sense” answers to these question is?
1:Does the Earth rotate?
2:Do heavier things fall faster than smaller things?
3: What happens if you throw an adult mouse from the top of the Eiffel Tower?
4:which weighs more, an ounce of feathers, or an ounce of gold.
5:Which weighs more, a lb of feathers, or a lb of gold?
Why don’t supermodels go for average Joes? I don’t know, it might be they don’t meet them. Certainly the TV show you linked to had a guy who said ‘pretty women will choose less attractive men”.
The thing is, you are making claims, and not supporting them.
You have no evidence. You have some random people telling me things. There is no data. There are not protocols. There is not way to test the repeatability of those “results.
That’s not science.
(answers… ROT13)
1: Vg qbrf, ohg vg’f abg boivbhf. Jr unir gb or gnhtug, naq fubja.
2: Gurl qba’g, ohg ybgf bs crbcyr fgvyy guvax gurl qb.
3: Vg jnyxf njnl. Gur grezvany irybpvgl bs na nqhyg zbhfr vf fybj rabhtu gurl nera’g vawherq sebz snyyvat. Guvf vf abg gehr bs onol zvpr.
4: Gur srnguref qb abg jrvtu nf zhpu nf gur tbyq, orpnhfr gur bhaprf hfrq gb zrnfher vg ner urnivre.
5: Gur srnguref qb unir n terngre jrvtug guna gur tbyq, orpnhfr gur yof hfrq gb zrnher gurz unir zber bhaprf.