As you may be aware, Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide has taken a brave and bold stance against “fat chicks.” That in itself is not very surprising, or interesting, really. But in a recent post he offers a take on the fat acceptance movement that betrays an strange bit of … paranoia, maybe?
After a few uninspired swipes at “fat-assed she-beasts and big-titted blubberboys” and the “femilosers” on Tumblr who recently batted around an anti-“fat chick” post from his blog, he makes this strange pronouncement:
These histrionic little girls are full of it. They don’t want fat acceptance — they want to FORCE men to be attracted to their endless rolls of fat and their cheesy crotch creases. Fortunately, their emotional delicateness will ensure that they will fail. We are the Patriarchs, and we’re coming to take back what’s ours. Beware.
Ferdy, don’t worry. The fat chicks of the world aren’t going to FORCE you to lust after them, and wouldn’t even if they could. I haven’t conducted a poll or anything, but I’m fairly certain that the fat women of the world are just fine with you not being attracted to them. Heck, I’m pretty sure most skinny women would prefer that you not be attracted to them either. They really don’t want your lucky charms.
Also, the weird little bit at the end there, the thing about “coming to take back what’s ours?” In The Incredibles, they called that “monologuing.” I don’t know quite what motivates so many manopshereians to want to talk like comic book supervillains. But it is sort of adorable.
There was a well known 1960s civil rights figure who hated chickens, so you’re in good company darksidecat. Can’t remember his name at the moment.
I’m not zoned for chooks, either. I got some anyway. If no one complains to council, they aren’t going to make me get rid of them. If you don’t have a rooster, the neighbours prolly won’t know or care if you have them. 😉
Ruby: Our maternal cave ancestors needed to mate with men who were good hunters (men of means) so as to have their children provided for (with meat which was the best source of calories). Of course we women inherited this same behavior. There’s a reason men with no money and no source of income have a hard time getting dates.
Citations needed.
1: Proof that meat was the needed foodstuff and 1a: that men who were better hunters therefore had more kids.
2: That this is a genetically heritable trait.
3: That men with “no money and no source of income have a hard time getting dates”.
Those are all claims of fact.
Support them.
RUby:As I’ve said before, though it got ignored, the ability of men to financially provide for potential children is hardly the only thing women look for in a mate, but it is important.
What you said was: “Yes, women are genetically programmed to desire men who would be the best providers, men of means. It’s been scientifically proven.” which is a bit more cut and dried than you are presenting here.
Genetically programmed to to go for men of means.
You backed it up with, ,” 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.”
Not much qualifying in that one.
And I’ll close with this gem, “Honestly, I don’t even need these studies to know women are more attracted to men of means.”
You made it plain that women, as a class, go for the dudes with the money, and you are still claiming that men with no money get no sex.
You are saying it’s all about the benjamins.
And it’s all there; we can go ad look it up, no matter what you say now; what you said then is still there to be read.
Pecunium, 1a is basically why ev-psych is a bit laughable — you can’t prove anything about the psychology of long dead people. Even if they did have more kids that we can trace, it doesn’t mean it isn’t because of some other factor besides women wanting to have their child — the “better hunter” part could mean they were better at killing animals that threatened their children for example.
Even if she can cite a correlation, there’s literally no way to prove a psychologically based causation effect. And #2 is where ev-psych gets really silly, because even if she can prove #3, which I doubt, it still doesn’t prove anything about how things were “in hunter-gatherer times”
Ruby — there are hunter-gatherer cultures still (the San and Pila Nguru), and certainly plenty within the last few centuries. Please explain how non US cultures fit into your model of the world.
Dunno if this is at all relevant. I remember watching a TV series about “class”. One Aboriginal leader was saying that traditional people had a system of class, but it was not based on wealth. Even the King did not own much more than the commoner. It was more like royalty, aristocracy sort of thing. Whether you could be a leader, and who you could marry, depended on who your parents were.
Very well put, that’s exactly how I used to think, too, until I reread David Buss’ “Evolutionary Psychology”.
If you don’t have room for full-sized chickens, get seramas. They are chickens, but apartment sized!
Are chickens (not roosters) noisy? Because if not, I know a lot of people who keep pets that their lease says they’re not allowed to have…
Chooks are not very noisy if they have a quiet life. They make a big fuss if anything chases them.
Katz, that’s adorable! LIke a bantam bantam.
Vindicare, can I get a short version of the argument against what I said?
Argenti: That’s the point (and we talked about all of that, right down to the San and Kung, in the previous thread.
Vindicare: What about Buss convinced you that the motives of long dead peoples can be derived from the present?
That you can never derive the motives of people, neither living nor dead, at least not with the objectivity of the natural sciences. Ask a criminal lawyer. If that’s the main point you have against evolutionary psychology, you can likewise throw out a few other scientific disciplines.
Vindicare, well, I’d ask a lawyer, but actually, all the ones I know wish their profession would take the stats “mine” produces more seriously, despite the <.05% chance they're wrong. (Mine is in scare quotes there as while my degree was in psychology, I'm in no way actually using it)
No, you can't *prove* the motives of anyone, but you can derive them with high degrees of probability using research methods that nope, archeology and anthropology just don't have access to because their subjects are dead.
Pecunium, of course that was the point >.< Maybe just rename this thread: failed attempts at baiting Ruby. Sorry about that!
You seem to have confused the motives of individuals with the motives of groups — the latter can be studied and hypotheses can be tested. The former is irrelevant.
Vindicare: That you can never derive the motives of people, neither living nor dead, at least not with the objectivity of the natural sciences. Ask a criminal lawyer. If that’s the main point you have against evolutionary psychology, you can likewise throw out a few other scientific disciplines.
Nope.
1: You are conflating the collective noun, “people” with the singular person.*
2: Divining the motives of the recently dead in the context of the legal codes under which they lived; to prosecute the living is not the same.
3: Legal conclusions are not derived with the same level of objectivity of the natural sciences.
4: EvPsych doesn’t even rise to the standards of legal proof.
*that’s the generous interpretation. The less generous is that you are intentionally equivocating the two.
Argenti: I’m not baiting Ruby. I’m holding her to the same standards I held Brandon. The same standards I hold everyone to. Apart from her hypocrisies, or the places she makes claims of unsupported fact about things which she purports to be true for large swathes of people I ignore her.
Because so far as I can see she is either ignorant beyond all hope of reasonable intercourse, or intentionally dishonest.
When I see how she describes her past words, I begin to think the latter is the more likely.
4b: And I’ve *never* seen it pass peer review.
Argenti: if you accept Evolution of Human Behavior there are articles which have. There is also some stuff which has been put up on one of the open source, online, peer reviewed publications.
I’ve yet to see anything in the first which was at all worthwhile. I’ve seen a couple of things in the other, but they weren’t making any claims at all similar to the things which the MRM cites.
It was more the sort of thing which was admitted to be speculative, and was about neurologic structures, not behaviors.
Pecunium, I’m not familiar with Brandon, though I get the impression he stepped on enough toes to get banned. Being also unfamiliar with Ruby’s previous statements, I had tried earlier to get her to explain herself. That failed of course (if you’ve read the thread, which I assume you have, you saw what I mean). I prefer to get racist statements actually said before I tear them apart though.
So I’m thinking the latter as well, as she could’ve tried giving a non-racist answer and didn’t.
Well, regarding 4b, yesterday I’ve read an interesting ‘evo-psych’ study (I recommend it, if you’re interested in the so called “Friend Zone”), “Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross sex friendship”, published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. JSPR is a peer-reviewed journal, I wonder if Argenti can explain to me, how this study ended up in there.
That does look peer reviewed, but it also doesn’t look like it’s trying to guess at motives so much as potentially evolution based effects on current humans — I don’t have journal access currently but from the titles I’m seeing things like:
“Male facial width is associated with death by contact violence: narrow-faced males are more likely to die from contact violence” — that’s probably got nothing to do with psychology, seems more like it’s about bone structure.
“Fear is readily associated with an out-group face in a minimal group context ” — speculative neuroscience, almost certainly doesn’t take wild guesses at where the out-group structures came from psychologically >.<
Not that they're necessarily worthwhile per se, but they don't seem remotely the same claims as the MRM either. And as for neurological structures, those can be studied evolutionarily because we’re just another animal in that sense
(My annoyance here is at Vindicare and the MRM not you Pecunium)
Vindicare, if you’d like to provide a link to a full text study supporting your claims, I’ll put my many hours of research methods to use and see if it looks like actual science or not. (Hint, if the “data” is an online survey, it’s not science)
Assuming I can access the full text, you’ll have to give me a bit to review it.
He didn’t step on toes. He was a dishonest person. That’s not what got him banned. He admitted to lying in his accusations about some of the people who comment here. That’s not what got him banned.
What got him banned was saying some people deserve to be raped.
Ruby… well Ruby thinks poor people are, at best, second class citizens not deserving of the same sorts of things non-poor people have, and she pretends the disagreement with her is about her politics, not her being wrong, her refusing to listen to what anyone else has to say, nor yet her unwillingness to provide facts instead of the opinions of people she agrees with (some of whom have a vested interest in the things she quotes them saying).
Those won’t get her banned; but they aren’t going to be forgotten either.