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, I’ve found a scientific source which provides damning counterevidence.
RUBY READ THE REPLIES READ THEM FUCKING READ THEM THEY HAVE WORDS READ THOSE WORDS
ALL THE WORDS
THE WORDS MEAN THINGS
REEEEEEEAAAAD
WORDS MEAN THINGS
Ever wondered what kind of idiots take evo-psych seriously? Meet Exhibit A. The purpose of science is to confirm the things that I just know, because they’re common sense. I know this is true because The Daily Mail agrees with me.
(She still hasn’t caught on to the fact that “this is what people do in society X” and “people are programmed to do this” are not the same thing. READ, Ruby, you might learn something.)
Wow, you guys, there is a lot of information on the Web. Prestigious scientists have documented the fact that the Pacific Northwestern Tree Octopus (Octopus paxarbolis) is on the verge of extinction, due to the “decimation of habitat by logging and suburban encroachment; building of roads that cut off access to the water which it needs for spawning; predation by foreign species such as house cats; and booming populations of its natural predators, including the bald eagle and sasquatch.”
Here’s a video of babies hatching, awwwwwww:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wt-dqIulGU
Please donate what you can today to save this marvelous animal from extinction. Also endangered: the mountain walrus, the dwarf orca, and the saber tooth salmon.
Please don’t do this, evopsychers are fucking cruel to queer people.
No, it’s pseudo-science if it’s bad.
Dude, the studies you’ve cited don’t even support your claims of Genetic Programming, let alone data from other societies.
Of course you don’t.
The Daily Mail song:
So far, Ruby quoted FoxNews, Discovery Channel, Psychology Today and the Daily Mail. Is there a bingo for this kind of thing?
I’m betting on shady conspirationist website or youtube comment for the next quote.
tl:dr: WTF, Ruby, the Daily Fail?
The evidence suggests this is not likely.
I live in hope.
Whoops, cut off “Of means”, but yeah, Ruby, for someone complaining about how everyone else is refusing science (Not really, you’re just offering either shitty studies, or studies that don’t say what you think they do), saying “I DIDN’T NEED SCIENCE TO TELL ME THIS” is not a thing to aid the perception that you are being reasonable.
From the DailyFail article:
And for every women that places more value on things like morality, honesty, decency, and loyalty she will never be given a chance if she’s too fat or old.
So women are only worth something as long as they are hot little maids? gotcha.
So men are all generalizing assholes…nothing new there then. (see what I did there?)
Typical women really. Its just another reason men are not interested in marriage anymore. Its a one-way ticket to penury and serfdom.
– Anti-misandrist, Maidstone, Kent, 11/4/2011 11:16
Awwww. The dramatic little MRA wandered off from his MRA forum. Poor dear.
Point proven from my previous comment. I love how these dudes simultaneously complain that women are shallow and dehumanizing yet display the same attitudes towards women in their comments.
I don’t need science to tell me that the sun revolves around the earth. I see it rotate around us from East to West, and then it comes around again in the morning. Plus I found this in Yahoo! Answers:
Okay. How are “means” measured? Why are women attracted to “men of means”?
How is beauty measured? How does attraction translate to LTRs? Why are men attracted to “beautiful” women?
and more brilliant reporting by the DailyFail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128662/56-stars-tattooed-Belgian-womans-face-visible-year-planned-laser-surgery.html?ICO=most_read_module
Rute: there is little evidencethat she read what we write. Lets try an experiment: I think ruby is a poopie head (WOMEN’OPINION OF PICTURES BEING INFLUENCED IN AVERAGE BY MONEY DOESN’T MEAN OUR DNA WANT US TO HAVE RICH BF OR HUSBANDS, THE DAILY MAIL AND PSYCHOLOGY TODAY ARE TERRIBLE SOURCES) that molest kittens as a hobbie.
Now, lets wait for the results.
More proof of geocentrism. They couldn’t copyright it if it weren’t true!
Nobody followed my link? But it was scientific!
http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf
Income 65% of men and 53% of women report their income. Income strongly affects the
success of men, as measured by the number of first-contact e-mails received (Figure 5.6).
While there is no apparent effect below an annual income of $50,000, outcomes improve
monotonically for income levels above $50,000. Relative to incomes below $50,000, the
increase in the expected number of first contacts is at least 34% and as large as 151% for
incomes in excess of $250,000.
Katz: I did, and it was fantastic. For your effort I award you an internet, and, if you wantit, a Nobel Price in EvoPsych.
We have only DAYS TO LIVE! Source: Weekly World News, “the World’s Only Reliable News.” Says it right on the masthead and everything. Luckily, physicists at Stanford University have figured out a way to save us by moving to a parallel world.
The Daily Mail is totally a legit source for thoughful and deeply scientific examinations of gender issues.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html
You hear that, Ruby? A Nobel Prize winner says you’re full of shit!
The Prestigious Journal of Scientific Psychology is accepting submissions if there’s ever anything you need an Extremely Scientific Source for.
I’m starting to wonder if Ruby set up a bot to post these things a few minutes apart and left her computer long ago.
I mean, if she’s actually sitting there refreshing the page just to do this, boy is she wasting her time.
Ruby linked something that actually looks like a scientifical study! I’m so excited.
Katz, that looks like an extremely prestigious journal you’ve found there. Also, it’s scientific.
Okay, if I was presented with two identically attractive and likeable men, and one was rich and one was poor, I suppose I would go with the rich one? Although for reasons less “deep biological yearning” and more “maybe he could take me on nice vacations.”
I have never been in this situation in real life so it’s kind of a moot point. (Well, I guess I’ve met a couple male sets of identical twins? But they’ve always been about the same financially and I’ve never dated any of them.)
Also, I’m disturbed by the conflation here between “is more attractive to women” and “dates more attractive women.” It assumes that all men are attracted to the same things in women and that men will always pick the most physically beautiful women available to them regardless of other factors.