So @catches_stars on Twitter is pretty hilarious. She’s also got an OkCupid account, and regularly posts snippets of her conversations with some of the more problematic dudes who contact her, some on her main Twitter account and some on @okcupid_TXT. With her permission, and because I’m too lazy to actually write a post today, I’m passing along a few of my favorites.
This overeager fellow has a rather sudden change of heart when his stated plan runs into an obstacle, that obstacle being that @catches_stars finds him completely repulsive.
This guy is either totally high or trying some weird and misguided PUA wizardry on her. (It does not succeed.)
This foot-obsessed fellow spammed her with the same message from several different accounts.
This guy, who seems to be shirtless in his profile pic, gets what I assume is, to him, a very disappointing answer.
As does this fellow.
Romance is hard.
Sorry, in fast typing, I seem to have typoed. Paternity pay is less than maternity pay in the UK, due to being paid for fewer weeks and only in line with extra conditions.
And please stop trying to pull our legs and tell us that the MRM gives a blue fuck about paternity leave. That’s actually something, wait for it, FEMINISTS are concerned with.
Take your confirmation bias and shove it up your ass, if there’s room with your head wedged in so tight.
It says something when someone doubles down on racist, sexist, and ableist eugenics, while inaccurately using the term to mean testing for certain genetic diseases, and ignoring the basic issues of selecting for characteristics in a species always leading to a narrowing of the genetic code of the species which causes severe physical defects. I mean, you have to admire the dedication to being a complete fuckwit troll as well as an ignorant ass.
All hail, blockquotes monster.
@Martyn
Society is wrong. Glad we cleared that up.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!
ANY choice is a “responsible” one as everyone knows themselves and their uterus better than the rest if the world. BUT a drop in the rates of Down Syndrome is not a win for humanity or society you ableist piece of shit.
Nope, the original purpose of abortion was always ending an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion has always existed. It existed in ancient Greece, medieval Europe, always. What changed was that male doctors in the latter half of the 1800s started attending women during pregnancy, which was up until then the province of midwives. Those male doctors are the ones who started this nonsense about women’s true identity being mothers and the idea that you could outlaw abortion based on someone else’s criteria of when.
It really says something that he came here to double down on eugenics, of all things. Too bad it says nothing good.
@hellkell
You made an absolute statement, I don’t think I’m the one with confirmation bias. Of course that’s assuming your head isn’t wedged in to tight you’ve lost oxygen to your brain.
“The original purpose of abortion”? Like, when abortion was first invented by Cyrus T. Abortion?
Oh, and because I repeated this mistake (I am so sorry!), I feel I should be the one to point it out:
NOT ONLY WOMEN GET PREGNANT.
Yeah! It’s totally unfair that paternity leave gets less pay and less time off than maternity leave! It’s based on the fact that women are usually the primary caregiver because of some retrofuck notion that women are inherently more nurturing/more suited to raise children/men should be breadwinners because a woman’s true purpose should be raising a family.
Gosh, IF ONLY there was some movement that was fighting against these cultural notions from which these policies spring.
(Martyn, hint: it sure as fuck is not the MRM. All the slights men suffer are results of the patriarchy you ignorant twit).
Nope, you don’t get to respond without links to your proof. You’ve been braying about wanting a “rational” debate using evidence, you need to conform to those rules you’re trying to lay down on the rest of us. Citation fucking needed.
Oh and btw:
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsdownsyndrome/
Oops, you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about!
@Shaenon
Not many people know that Cyrus T. Abortion was not only an early adopter of the flying car, but wrote hauntingly beautiful limericks.
Hee. He reminds of when Biscuit gets all big and bad and tries to puff himself up to the other cats.
Go look up confirmation bias, Martyn. Your entire body of work here reeks of it. Well, that and utter bullshit, but you get the idea.
Fuck off.
@drst
“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”
The Hippocratic oath, originally dated back to 400BC. Doctors never approved of it. Long before the 1800s.
@pseudo_star
It is also based on the notion that some people require time to heal and recover from delivery/surgery. The person giving birth should probably have enough paid time off for that.
@Martyn
Well if doctors wouldn’t do it, people must not have been aborting.
Agency is itself practical.
There’s also the great fucking hole in eugenics that a lot of traits are interlinked. For example, you wanna get rid of genetic susceptability to mental illnesses? Well, you might also be breeding out traits like intelligence and creativity.
Also, I ran across someone in the Sims community trying to claim eugenics is fine away from the practice. They called it ‘reclaiming’ and named their shitty, looks-damn-racist, nonsensical mod after it.
They’ve kind of been shunned in a big way by most Simmers for this reason.
@Creative Writing Student
Why does every group need to have assholes in it? It makes me sad to think of rackets and ableists playing my beloved game. They don’t deserve it. 🙁
*racists
We are running into all sorts of dictionary problems this morning. (My kindle and Martyn appear to have the same ability to choose correct words.)
Has anyone else seen 4000 Years for Choice? I’m thinking of buying a poster or two when I finally get my own place.
Hell, I’ll tag in.
No, you should drop it because it’s wrong. Eugenics and “game” aren’t “theories”, they’re processes based on theories. They’re both similar in that they are theories with a lot of faulty misconceptions (race in the former, sexism in the latter). Both get an additional level of awful by being forced upon people.
Bullshit on stilts. The “theory” is natural selection. Eugenics is the strategy to apply artificial selection to human breeding.
Natural selection is where inherited traits improve or diminish the chance of an individual to pass on those traits. “Survival of the fittest” is always based on the environment; the “best” traits are always dependant on the ecological niche of that creature. You can say which rabbit is most successful, but you can’t compare a rabbit and a shark: both are equally evolved for their respective environments, and trying to compare which of the two is “Better” the two is pointless.
Early eugenicists believed that “success” in society was heritable and an objective measure of superiority. Despite the fact that human beings can change the political environment, and thereby change the terms by which one is successful, early eugenicists proceeded to justify their political environment as being the best way to select for “success” and punish “failure”. This is what Hoefstader in the 40’s would refer to as “Social Darwinism”.
Compounding the basic bullshit of their failure was the acceptance of pseudoscientific justifications of their position. Failure of africans to thrive under brutal colonial rule was seen as a weakness of the negro race, not the logical result of brutal oppression; a strain which is easily seen in Charles Murray’s pile of steaming bullshit “The Bell Curve”. Despite piles of evidence showing that IQ is strongly variable and dependant on environmental conditions, Murray ignores that all to say that black people fail because they’re genetically dumber, therefor we shouldn’t waste our money trying to help them out of poverty (which is a major factor in determining IQ scores)
And what makes all of this so so much worse is that because these are ultimately framed as being for the betterment of society as a whole, it becomes too easy to justify the need to force eugenic policies on others. Don’t look to the Nazis, look to North America; Alberta was doing this as recently as fucking 1972!
BZZT. WRONG. The test for Down’s syndrome is GENETICS, not eugenics. While eugenics might provide the justification for a family to choose whether or not to have a child with potentialy severe medical conditions, it also implies that the health or normalicy of a child is the only predictor of what that child will bring to the world. It ignores the contributions of the diverse mind to society; the artists, the scientists, the inventors who benefit from being aneurotypical. At it’s worst, it’s used to FORCE people to abort or be sterilized for the good of civilization.
Eugenics is rotten to the core. The only “good” part of it is uncontroversial and available without going into eugenics: that people can choose their ideal mate, and choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
Which leads us to game, where people feel they have the right to fuck who they want, regardless of her desires.
So what does this have to do with Game? Game is just a strategy, based loosely on psychology. At it’s core are strategies to wear down resistance from women through micro-aggressions, rather than building a positive relationship with enthusiastic consent. That fundamental flaw is what leads to so many outright sexist assholes studying the art of the PUA.
@drst
Time for one of the most respected medical journals, the BMJ:
“Despite the number of births in 1989/90 being similar to that in 2007/8, antenatal and postnatal diagnoses of Down’s syndrome increased by 71% (from 1075 in 1989/90 to 1843 in 2007/8). However, numbers of live births with Down’s syndrome fell by 1% (752 to 743; 1.10 to 1.08 per 1000 births) because of antenatal screening and subsequent terminations. In the absence of such screening, numbers of live births with Down’s syndrome would have increased by 48% (from 959 to 1422), since couples are starting families at an older age. Among mothers aged 37 years and older, a consistent 70% of affected pregnancies were diagnosed antenatally. In younger mothers, the proportions of pregnancies diagnosed antenatally increased from 3% to 43% owing to improvements in the availability and sensitivity of screening tests.”
(Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3794.abstract)
Without eugenics, there’d be a 48% increase in live births of children with a serious genetic disease. That makes abortions due to genetic disease a net win for society.
Now stop quoting the CDC using outdated data.
Dodged the blockquote monster, eaten by the link monster. I need a preview button…