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, you realize this study makes no mention of DNA and that the data is very specific, it does not applies to all societies or all times. It doesn’t even applies to everybody in the USA today, it’s about internet dating. It’s also about average, not about every women.
With this kind of data, you can say that women in X conditions* care more than men about money. You can’t say WOMEN care about money because of DNA.
*in this case, the conditions include men being on average richer in our society. The result could be different in a utopia where gender discrimination is not a thing and where being pregnant is not a financial risk.
@Ruby Hypatia,
I don’t give a fuck where your supposed “scientists” teach. Alan fucking Dershowitz is a professor at Harvard and a known plagiarist http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/30/dershowitz-v-finkelstein-who-s-right-and-who-s-wrong/ . He’s also one of the people responsible for the claim that false rape accusations make up 50% of all rape claims. How did he find this out? He claimed Linda Fairstein said it and then she later put the number at 5% without explanation. Guess what? When one actually looks for evidence of her having said 50% of rapes are false, there isn’t any. Are we then to take his word over hers? That’s what the MRAs at The False Rape Society do http://falserapesociety.blogspot.ca/2009/08/from-archives-greatest-champion-for.html . That’s just one example of a person in a high place whose word you should not trust. As others have noted, it’s not the names that are important when it comes to science; it’s the methods.
You…are an idiot.
Subjectivity. It’s a thing. While I agree that Donald Trump isn’t a looker, others may disagree. There is no objective beauty, and what a stupid argument to make in the first place!
http://www.oprah.com/relationships/5-Elements-of-Attractiveness-The-Science-of-Sex-Appeal/4
Financial Stability
Anyone who’s ever wondered if an older man’s companion is his daughter or his date knows attraction isn’t all biological. Sometimes, it’s logical.
During one study, researchers asked women to look at the face of a man whom she knows nothing about and rate his attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 10. Then, they showed women the same face, but this time, the photo was paired with a corresponding income.
The results? When a man makes a lot of money, a woman will rate him higher on an attractiveness scale than she would rate that same man if he had a smaller income.
Dr. Berman says this doesn’t prove that women are gold diggers. “It goes back again to evolution. When we were having babies who were very dependent on us, we couldn’t hunt and take care of ourselves, so we were looking for the man who had the most social status, who was the best hunter, who was going to bring home the biggest chunk of meat for our babies,” she says. “It’s the same thing today.”
Alex: not just subjectivity, though it has it’s place. There are obvioulsy women who are interested by men who have money and power. But it’s not all women, and it’s not DNA.
Oprah???
You have to be trolling XDXDD
The funny thing about this whole tedious conversation is that if women picking men on the basis of income was universal, the word “gold-digger” wouldn’t exist. The reason that specific behavioral tendency is named (and commented on) is that it’s not the norm.
There exist enough women whose primary motivation in relationships is money to keep Donald Trump in new wives, but most women would not be willing to marry Donald Trump just because he’s rich. “Some women” is not “women as a whole”.
Those who don’t quite get the whole “women are people” thing always seem to find this difficult to understand.
oprah.com
…
I’m baffled. I don’t know, I.. just don’t know.
Why, why are you quoting the website of a tv celebrity in a discussion about science? Are you gone in full troll mode?
Help me, Ruby, you completly lost me. Please tell it’s a late 1st april joke.
So who cares about studies from the University of Arizona, University of Chicago, University of Vienna, and that Economic Institute in Germany? LOL!
I hope Ruby is using a bot, at this point. The idea that she’s been sitting here the whole time picking out and posting these links like it proves something (besides “look, lots of people believe the same fallacy!”) is just getting depressing.
And the artcle quotes…. the discovery channel video she showed us at the beggining of the discussion. It’s beautiful.
Ruby, we’ve been over this. You didn’t read it.
But thanks to the magic of the Internet, those posts are still there! You can go back and read them!
If you can read Oprah.com, you can read us! I know you can do it!
…I also know you won’t.
Oh what the hell
Yes its the same today because men hunt money for women…….
Also women can get their own money so why need a man with money?
Not all society’s were hunting based so that wouldn’t even be relevant in all cultures. So much for your world wide human theory.
(still not accounting queer people eh ruby)
@Ruby Hypatia,
You know what? If you are content to resemble one of the worst stereotypes about women, you go right ahead, but DO NOT suggest the rest of us are fucking programmed for it!
What’s a beautiful woman, Ruby?
Ruby: if you have so much dta, how about you show us the studies from the University of Arizona, University of Chicago, University of Vienna, and that Economic Institute in Germany directly instead of sending us to oprah, the daily mail, etc?
You might not realize it, but sometimes scientists disagree. Which proves some of them, even with jobs in big universities, can be wrong.
Fun fact: the number two of the Front National (most racist party in France), Bruno Gollnisch teaches at the University of Lyon (Lyon III), which is the second biggest town of the country. I still wouldn’t trust him if he told me the Earth turn around the Sun.
@kyrie,
Yes, you’re right of course. In fact, given the way Ruby insists that women are “programmed” to do this, one has to wonder if she herself is one of those women.
Wait, I’m lost again Ruby, what is t that you’re trying to prove? Is it that women are more attracted to money? Because that seem to be what you’re going for with what you gave us so far, yet you said:
http://manboobz.com/2012/04/10/mens-rights-redditors-find-ebonics-hilarious/comment-page-4/#comment-145034
So what is it, are we all gold diggers? Is it just us women?
@Kyrie
But! I proved it! Here! And here! Please don’t argue with science.
/sarcasm
Alex: I wondered about that, as many male trolls disguised themselves as women in hop that we would accept what they say.
But I don’t think that’s what Ruby is. I don’t think she’s a fake faminist, just a bad one. In that she remind me of a racist feminist commenter, both of them sound alike when they go “why don’t you agree with me, I’m on your side”.
I could be wrong of course, but in doubt I always prefer not to go for the conspiracy. I prefer to be wrong by trusting her and realized she lied (which is very easy on internet, therfore not really shameful to fall for) than being wrong and having accused the MRA of making this up, in which case I would look very silly.
Small anecdote: I met MrB when he was unemployed and wasn’t going to be able to get a job until the hospital worked things out to the point that he could have a major organ hacked out and given to his sister. Believe me, it wasn’t money or power that made him attractive (although his willingness to make such a sacrifice for his sister did – it took almost a year and a half to get everything ironed out).
@Kyrie, sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t assuming she’s actually an MRA male pretending (though she of course could be). Rather I was suggesting that she might be a gold-digging woman herself if she thinks we’re programmed to be that way. I agree that she’s probably a real, but bad, feminist.
I was going to finish reading through everything then Ruby compared ASU to a prestigious university. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry.
I went to ASU. Despite the overspending by Crow and whatshisname on trying to build up the university (which incidently is also forcing a huge increase in tuition because heaven knows that the state lege is never going to fund the school. They are too busy making AZ the laughingstock of the nation and possibly the world. People expect Texas to be mildly kooky but AZ?) All that happened is that ASU lost the rep for the party school it had. Nothing more.
I may be a Sun Devil but even I admit ASU is well ASU.
Obviously not you.
Alex: I was projecting my paranoia 🙂
Incidentally, Totes Not A Racist Ruby, just to be clear, whenever you invoke evopsych for western societies, you are basically saying white people are the golden children of evolution. But you’re totally not a racist, nossirree bob.
To riff of of Rutee’s point, 96% of psych participants are Western, 68% from the US alone, so the universality of what we’ve learned from the hitherto conducted studies is highly suspect