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.”
Kanazawa has published a LOT of screamingly racist and classic evopsych, including one editorial in which he claimed black women were naturally less attractive.
Today in Awesome Comment Juxtapositions
Kyrie:
Pecunium:
My favourite version of Beauty and the Beast is Juliet Marillier’s Heart’s Blood, a fantasy which takes place during the Norman invasion of Ireland. I don’t think it’s too spoiler-y to say that there’s no physical transformation in the Beast character by the end of the book. I absolutely love Marillier’s writing style, it’s almost lyrical, and I don’t think she gets the recognition she deserves — possibly because YA-ish* historical fantasy/romance novels centred around female characters are not always considered “serious literature”.
+1 to the appreciation of Warburton and Kitt in The Emperor’s New Groove! Warburton is fantastic in everything. I didn’t much like The Princess and the Frog, though. I felt it was somewhat unfocused, and I didn’t really connect to the relationship between the two mains. But, hey, to each their own!
*I say “ish” because I always find her stuff in the main fantasy section, but it reads like YA work. The main characters are usually teens, for one thing.
I thought the name sounded familiar
What pisses me off about the whole evolved to f
I love how to Ruby, science is an appeal to authority, not a methodolody with steps to be examined or critqued. She really is like the way a lot of religious people stereotype athiests to be, she’s just substituting “Science” for “God” and making an appeal to divine authority.
Well, strictly speaking fitness would be determined over a huge population, and looking at the population’s growth over x cycles, because traits can be adaptive in a population and maladaptive in an individual (see: The finch Pecunium mentioned), but they obviously didn’t do that; more to the point, Evopsych doesn’t recognise these things. It’s always about individuals, every time, and this is another example of it.
Rutee: Yeppers. People survive, populations evolve.
pecunium: hmm, all right. (I didn’t know it was a code. Thank you google) But they probably tried anyway, risking to kill them and killing the baby mice in the process. And maybe hurting the adult ones.
Ruby: there is such a thing as bad science. For example of terrible sciences done by serious people with diploma, some scientists pretended that black people were less intelligents and other thought that you could know all about a person (what they were “meant” to be, for example) by looking at the bumb on their skull.
The only way we could judge the work of these people is if you show it to us, instead of a video who base itself on it.
ithaliana:
1) colon, very long titles with big words.
2) colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon, colon.
(sorry)
Oh, har, misread Pecunium’s bit. Easier example, Ants.
Sorry.
Individuals survive, populations evolve.
I was being anthrocentric.
Kyrie: Having bred mice, it won’t hurt them to drop them from some high building.
What’s interetsing is they won’t jump of a ledge. In Germany, in the late 1800s, keeping mice was quite the thing, and the way they were kept was in these large “houses” which were on platforms. If the platform was more than two fee off the ground, the mice wouldn’t leave them.
PDA: I think it’s more ad populum than verecundiam. This may be their field of expertise, but we’ve not been shown they are correct; we are just supposed to accpe them because, “SCIENTISTS”!
Just wait till we get to the point where we have to try explaining to Ruby why even if she links ot an actual published study that doesn’t automatically mean that the results are Objective Truth and beyond questioning.
Of course, it’s always bad science when we don’t like the results. And the studies of a professor of psychology and an anthropologist at prestigeous universities mean nothing.
Ruby, have you read any of the posts written by people other than you? Could you link to one of your choice and summarize what it says?
Ruby: Of course, it’s always bad science when we don’t like the results. And the studies of a professor of psychology and an anthropologist at prestigeous universities mean nothing.
So, all studies, by all scientists are all true?
That means Aristotle was right, and bees are “ruled” by kings, and women have fewer teeth than men.
It means Lamark was right (and he was more right than we give him credit for, but that’s a digression).
Science isn’t religion. It’s not, “He said it, so it must be true.”
Science is argument. It’s collecting evidence, and drawing conclusions, and convincing people you are correct.
Wegener was “wrong” for decades. Darwin believed that, “blending” weakend the theory of evolution (because no one knew of Mendel’s work).
Science isn’t a trump card.
And all you’ve done is shown us a piece of entertainment, with some scientists talking, and told us that makes your theory true.
That’s not how it works.
But having, “a scientist” say it will convince you, I’m sure people will be glad to point you to some studies. You won’t like the results.
Sorry, sloppy language. Ruby isn’t arguing a theory, but theorising an hypothesis.
It’s not kind to Darwin, Newton, Einstein, et al, to make that conflation.
I don’t even understand why Ruby feels so committed to this simplistic, condescending model of how humans interact with one another.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201105/why-is-money-so-sexy
Money is associated with power and prestige. This is particularly important for men. Many studies show that the top quality that makes a woman sexy is physical attractiveness, while for men it is money. Some of this may have evolutionary roots, as money indicates that a man is a good provider, but all in all, there’s something sexy about all that money and power.
Yeppers, a Ph.D in Leadership. A real scientist that one.
But that’s not a paper. No data. No models. No predictive ability, no testable hypothesis.
It’s not as good as the YouTube.
Ruby: we can’t say if it’s good or bad science, because you’ve given us no study so far.
What you gave us is a video with no proof, no data (I don’t count asking to 10 people in the street), no reference.
You also gave us names, which is not enough we don’t want to judge them but their work. And we still don’t have the title of this work, if I’m not mistaken.
And I’m not letting a huge possibility aside: that those people did good work on the subject, but that you (willingly?) wrongly decided that their conclusions and your were the same. For example, what your video shows (or tries to) is that some (how many?) can be influenced by money when gading the beauty of a man.
It doesn’t mean ALL women do that.
It doesn’t mean DNA is responsible.
It doesn’t mean it will a main, or one of the main factor when deciding who to date, as people don’t date pictures but people, who are much more complex.
Yeah, I figured that was a problem with my last post–she doesn’t read the posts, so she didn’t read my post asking her if she read the posts.
Psychology today? I will read it in a minute, but, isn’t that the paper in which Kanazawa published his racist bs?
I like this part of the last link Ruby gave (which had one link to a “survey” on MSN Money; but it was 404).
The survey responses from wealthy women suggested that they had better sex lives because they could afford to travel to exotic places and because they had more free time. For example, 72% of the wealthy women said they were members of the Mile High Club – of course, most owned their own planes.
If 72 percent of the women surveyed (source unknown) owned their own planes, it was a very atypical; or small, group of women.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/5042640/Women-more-attracted-to-men-in-expensive-cars.html