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.”
The Telegraph! From a blog to a newspaper! Perhaps next she will link to magazine such as Popular Science or New Scientist.
All right, read it. It was short. It failed all of ithiliana’s tests. The only data it mentioned goes to an 404 error page. PhD of Leadership? WTF is that, and why would that make him an expert on human sexual behavior? And yet, it still doesn’t say what you say. It says more money == better sex life, not that women (people?) goes for the richest man. Nor does it mention causes, like DNA.
The three lest paragraphes “Power, Money provides freedom, Reward power” don’t even try to look sciency, it could as well be a blog entry.
RUBY, READ. RUBY, READ. RUBY, READ.
If you don’t read (and give some indication you’ve comprehended) any of the replies to you, it’s goddamn rude of you to expect us to pay any attention to you.
After finding the original study regarding women finding men in expensive cars more attractive, I have to say I’m not impressed.
To quote from the university page where the Dr. did his study:
He got this from a total of 120 people. But he doesn’t say how many of these people were male and how many were female and he doesn’t discuss whether the higher age or lower age had an affect either. Honestly I don’t think this study does much to prove anything.
http://www3.uwic.ac.uk/English/News/Pages/20309mdunn.aspx
I bet attraction to men in expensive cars is genetically hardcoded; after all, primitive hominids surely had to compete for the nicest cavecars. (Presumably with rock wheels and their legs sticking out the bottom.)
That’s how Fred and Barney ended up with Wilma and Betty!
Holly: Of course they are! Men evolved from monkeys and everyone knows that boy monkeys like playing with toy cars.
I think the main problem here is that picking a photograph as prettier is not at all the same as committing to a relationship, much less the kind of long-term relationship where you might have kids together. My boyfriend is not the sexiest person I know (or the richest, not that I give a shit); he’s the sexiest person who’s also kind and caring and shares my geeky interests and sense of humor.
(Also, with only two models used, the researchers’ estimation of “comparably attractive” may have been off. They should’ve at least switched them between the cars and had four photos.)
Also, a personal question that Ruby won’t answer because she doesn’t READ THE REPLIES: do you, personally, feel attracted to men on the basis of wealth? Do you feel an inner gold-digging instinct? If you don’t, if you feel you pick your partners on the basis of personal compatibility and/or sexual chemistry… why do you assume you’re special?
Also they’re “comparably attractive,” which only suggests that, all else being equal, people will pick the guy with the better car. It doesn’t say anything about Ruby’s claim that women will pick the fugly guy over Brad Pitt if he’s in the better car.
Psychology Today! The Daily Mail of psychobabble, regarded with amused contempt by most serious psychologists.
I can see why Ruby likes evopsych so much, given that it’s the pseudo-science in which you determine your conclusion in advance and then go looking for any shred of evidence that might sort of support it if you stand on your head while squinting.
PS You want us to stop mocking you? Read and actually engage.
@Kyrie: *snorts*
This is actually, I kid you not, a title of a presentation I gave back in the 1990s:
“Boundary Crossings: Litera(Cul)tur(Genr)es”
Good times, good times!
I can’t imagine how a human could NOT read and engage with ANY of these substantive replies. Is Ruby an algorithm?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375720/What-women-really-want–money-Research-finds-women-look-paid-job-partner.html
Women may say they are looking for tights abs or a sense of humour in their man, but he had better have a healthy bank balance to go with it.
According to new research published yesterday in Germany, more women are using money as overriding criteria for choosing their partners.
Aaaand the Daily Fail. I was wrong–she’s regressing. Next she will link to a blog ranting about how Obama is a Muslim, and then to Time Cube.
And then zie actually referenced the Daily Mail?
Good call, Cassandrasays.
Are you an idiot? Anything with less than 300 people isn’t very indicative of the population at large. That’s so tiny you can’t even begin to sort past sample size issues. That study had two population sizes, 81 and 151. That is so small as to actually be insignificant.
How many more ways of saying “newspaper articles are not scientific studies” can we come up with, gang?
Especially if they’re in the Daily Mail.
Yes, in an unequal society, women are going to go for people of means more often, because that’s the only way they can get means. If the tables were turned, I suspect it’s men who’d be gold diggers; even without that though, we know that in societies where women have more opportunities to earn their own wealth (Hint: It’s not the USA), they are substantially less likely to value partner wealth. So much for your ‘genetic programming’. And that’s still in a fucking western civilization (The UK), we’re not even getting into completely alternate models of society.
Fixed myself there.
Holly: thanks. All of these studies on pictures are very easy to make but they teach us more about what kind of porn people are ikely to watch than the people they want or wish to date.
The only study quoted so far that take that in consideration was the one quoted by ithiliana.
Let’s stay in stereotypes for a minutes and assume that supermodel are all dumb and rich and smart people all look like Shrek and are poor. I would still marry Shreko ver Calvin Klein underwear model, because I could live with a very ugly person but not one with whom I’ve got nothing to talk about. The capacity of understanding geeky jokes is far more important to me than than money and even looks. (though looks matters, just not as much). But it could be because of the well known feminist gene, discovered by Dr Fluffy, PhD in cuteness.
So, what we have here is a person who thinks The Daily Mail is a credible news source, Psychology Today is a scientific journal, and human beings are “programmed” to do things.
Oh dumbasses, never change.
Oh that’s cute, you have a Daily FAil summary of science reporting. Ruby, that is not peer reviewed science (And is Psychology Today the Nature of Psychology? I had no idea); seriously, never, ever, trust a news source at science reporting, they are bad at it. Scientists regularly mock these articles, even if they’re the ones being reported on, because journalists either don’t understand the science, or edittors don’t care and want ratings. Either way, not ideal.
RUBY READ REPLIES
RUBY READ REPLIES
RUBY READ REPLIES
I keep hoping maybe if I make it real loud and obnoxious it’ll catch your eye as you rush past to post the next shady link without reading or thinking about a single thing people have said in response.
But I know I’m hoping in vain.
Oh, so now it’s psudo-science if you don’t like the results? Studies from America, Austria, and Germany aren’t enough to convince you if you don’t want to believe it. Honestly, I don’t even need these studies to know women are more attracted to men of means, like I don’t need a study to tell me that men are more attracted to beautiful women.
on thing I’ve noticed when all these “studies” are posted, is the utter resentment and misogyny coming from many of the men in the comments. I never hear that type of hatred come from women when men blather on about how being hot and young is all they care about. At most you get a “you’re shallow” comment. MRAs are the worse of course…they want to be given a free pass because of their biology but not women. Women are GOLDDIGGINGSLUTFUCKKSSS!!!!!!11 This is why the naturalistic fallacy is bullshit used by weak minded people.
Also appearance can’t be controlled as much as how much money can. One can work hard and make lots of money, and men on average make more money than women anyway. Once you get old though? or aren’t born attractive? better stock up on those cats!!!
One has to wonder who the “disposable” ones really are.
That is assuming these studies are even true, which everyone here are making a good case that they aren’t but Ruby isn’t paying attention. All these reports in the media are watered down, oversimplified, and sensationalized, probably to get all the bitter dudes screeching in the comment sections.
Also I’m getting the shrinking/growing comment box too, and everything is still in bold. Damn wordpress >_<
Also, if women are all programmed and whatnot, how do women end up marrying other women?
…Especially if they’re all trying to marry up. That seems like you could get caught in an infinite loop.