Categories
$MONEY$ hypocrisy I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert misogyny MRA racism that's not funny!

Men’s Rights Redditors find “ebonics” hilarious

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.”

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

537 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Kanazawa has published a LOT of screamingly racist and classic evopsych, including one editorial in which he claimed black women were naturally less attractive.

katz
8 years ago

Today in Awesome Comment Juxtapositions

Kyrie:

pecunium: “3: What happens if you throw an adult mouse from the top of the Eiffel Tower?” I will be very angry at you. Why would you do that, monster!

Pecunium:

No. It does this grow and shrink thing.

Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

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.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

Kanazawa has published a LOT of screamingly racist and classic evopsych, including one editorial in which he claimed black women were naturally less attractive.

I thought the name sounded familiar

What pisses me off about the whole evolved to f

darksidecat
8 years ago

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.

Rutee Katreya
Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

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.

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

Rutee: Yeppers. People survive, populations evolve.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

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)

Rutee Katreya
Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

Oh, har, misread Pecunium’s bit. Easier example, Ants.

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

Sorry.

Individuals survive, populations evolve.

I was being anthrocentric.

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

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.

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

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”!

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

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.

Ruby Hypatia
Ruby Hypatia
8 years ago

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.

katz
8 years ago

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?

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

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.

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

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.

Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

I don’t even understand why Ruby feels so committed to this simplistic, condescending model of how humans interact with one another.

Ruby Hypatia
Ruby Hypatia
8 years ago

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.

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

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.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

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.

katz
8 years ago

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.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

Psychology today? I will read it in a minute, but, isn’t that the paper in which Kanazawa published his racist bs?

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

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.

katz
8 years ago

The Telegraph! From a blog to a newspaper! Perhaps next she will link to magazine such as Popular Science or New Scientist.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

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.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

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.

Timid Atheist (@TimidAtheist)

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:

A total of 120 people, aged between 21 and 40, were asked to look at two photographs containing comparably attractive opposite sex models sitting in two different cars. One was a silver Bentley Continental and the other a red Ford Fiesta – which were chosen as they were seen as having a huge price difference, this being reflective of ‘High status’ and ‘Neutral status’ respectively.

The results showed that women found the same man more attractive when he was sat in the Bentley, whereas men thought the women was of equal attractiveness irrespective of which car she was sat in.

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

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

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.)

Timid Atheist (@TimidAtheist)

(Presumably with rock wheels and their legs sticking out the bottom.)

That’s how Fred and Barney ended up with Wilma and Betty!

katz
8 years ago

Holly: Of course they are! Men evolved from monkeys and everyone knows that boy monkeys like playing with toy cars.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

A total of 120 people, aged between 21 and 40, were asked to look at two photographs containing comparably attractive opposite sex models sitting in two different cars. One was a silver Bentley Continental and the other a red Ford Fiesta – which were chosen as they were seen as having a huge price difference, this being reflective of ‘High status’ and ‘Neutral status’ respectively.

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?

katz
8 years ago

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.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

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.

ithiliana
8 years ago

@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!

cloudiah
8 years ago

I can’t imagine how a human could NOT read and engage with ANY of these substantive replies. Is Ruby an algorithm?

Ruby Hypatia
Ruby Hypatia
8 years ago

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.

katz
8 years ago

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.

Maija
8 years ago

And then zie actually referenced the Daily Mail?

Good call, Cassandrasays.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

Of course, it’s always bad science when we don’t like the results.

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.

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</blockquote.
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.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

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.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

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

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.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

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.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

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.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

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.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

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.

Ruby Hypatia
Ruby Hypatia
8 years ago

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.

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

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 >_<

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

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.

1 5 6 7 8 9 11