How stupid do you have to be to actually believe the following nonsense? Not just regular stupid. Men’s Rights stupid.
Heck, this is even stupid by normal Men’s Rights standards. It made me think of this line from Ruthless People.
Now, horqth could very well be a troll. His account is brand new, and, I mean, this is just amazingly dumb. But here’s the thing: his comments are being treated as if they are completely reasonable by the Men’s Rights subreddit. I noticed only a couple of mostly ignored comments out of more than 100 even raising the possiblity that he was a troll.
Not only has his post gotten dozens of upvotes, but in the comments there are numerous other Men’s Rights Redditors — not trolls — who’ve actually managed to outdo him in the sheer ridiculousness of their opinions. And they’re getting upvotes too.
Milessycamore seemed to suggest that horqth had understated the degree to which men were being victimized in both places, and more than 200 Redditors agreed:
Saxonjf thought it would be nice if more women would act like these strippers and make men feel “important special.”
Itchybrain, putting his economist hat on, suggested that the root of the problem was the massive over-valuation of women:
So how did the ladies get so overvalued in the first place? Blame the government and all that darn welfare. Responding to one contrarian Men’s Righster who suggested — get this! — that women are appropriately valued — FloranHunter laid down this truth bomb, by which I mean a bunch of complete and utter crap:
If only we could return to the good old days, when women would starve unless they were super nice to unattractive dudes who pestered them in bars!
Lawtonfogle also has no problem with the idea of men being valued for their money; he just wants to get more bang(s) for the buck.
![Lawtonfogle 10 points 1 day ago (12|2) Government intervention in the means of social support programs that result in a woman having far more bargaining power in relationship dynamics. If it weren't for laws that provided support for children and forced fathers to pay for children (even when they aren't the biological father), it would be a very different issue. Men would still be valued for their money and women for their attractiveness, but money would hold more value and being a male willing to commit would also hold (more) value. permalink source parent save give gold hide child comments [–]IOIOOIIOIO 5 points 23 hours ago (7|2) Effective male contraception is going to be amazing.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/lawton.png?ssl=1)
I give up.
Not at an interview though, they will expect you to dress better for the interview than they will expect you will dress if you get hired. Tailored clothing looks good in an interview, even if it’s not a suit.
Yeah, I’d go for woven over knits just because it always looks more pulled together and professional.
Sounds good then. I put more credence in the applicant’s experience than in what they are wearing. 🙂
Let’s see – IVF is a godawful procedure to go through, with the egg harvesting, the hormones, the tests, etc, etc, as well as being horribly expensive.
Most people don’t give a damn about genetics unless they have particular illnesses, conditions etc. they know about and don’t want to risk their children inheriting.
You’re talking out of your arse about love, I see. No surprise though, since you get all weasellywaaaaah about the simple fact of a triangle being a three-sided figure.
Could it be because you’re just another nitwit who’s answering everything in standard bizarroland trollspeak?
I vaguely remember reading something about not wearing too much makeup or excessive jewellry to interviews. Breastfeeding during the interview could be a bit of a no-no too. 😉
Hm… I do have a suit jacket I could wear instead. Maybe I’ll explore that.
(Is Triangle gone?)
PRECISELY.
I sometimes suspect the trolls troll here because they never have and never will be in such a relationship. Oh, I don’t mean sex: I mean love. I’d swear they’re incapable of it.
It would be particularly weird for me to breastfeed during the interview, since I have no children. And I own very little jewelry.
Will you be comfortable in the clothing you wear? Nothing worse than being in a job interview for over an hour in tight, scratchy, itchy, or hot clothing.
“I have Pakistani family members who didn’t want my uncle to marry a white German woman because they would feel inferior to her due to her whiteness. The same beauty standards lead to black women devaluing themselves as women because of the white supremacist notion that blackness is inherently ugly.”
That’s really depressing… 🙁
Oh, Ally S, I read your recommendation of Gradient Lair and decided to go check it out. I read a few of her articles before noticing the link to her content use policy. Long story short: she’s been dealing with a lot of crap for a long time, and said her blog is now for women of color only. I didn’t read any more of her content after that, though I did sit there staring at the page for a while.
Assuming you didn’t already, do you think it would help if you went over and wished her well?
Ha ha, “over an hour” — this is an all-day affair, lasting from breakfast through dinner. So I definitely need to be comfortable.
cloudiah, you could come to your intereview in jammies and I’d hire you (if I knew it was you, which kinda borks the question).
The outfit you described sounds fine. I’m not sure I’d even bother with the scarf – could it make it too busy around your neckline?
@scott1139
I don’t recall her saying that it’s only for women of color, but if it is then it’s definitely not a good idea to read it if you aren’t a woman of color. It doesn’t mean much to me since I’m a woman of color (half white, half Desi), but it’s important to respect rules like that. Another good blog for woman of color issues that isn’t only intended for women of color is Flavia Dzodan’s blog at redlightpolitics.info.
Oh, speaking of racism, one of my uncles once told her ex-wife to make her face whiter so he wouldn’t be embarrassed to be seen with a woman without “fair skin.” I can’t make this shit up.
Kiwi Girl — I think the problem is the Triangle has managed to conceive of some definition where if men have blue eyes, idfk, 50% of the time, and the rest of the men have brown eyes, but women have blue eyes 25% of the time, then that’s more variance (taken from the bit about plumbers). But if, idk, purple eyes naturally occurred, and only in men, that’d also be more variance.
And with any categorical variable you’re likely going to have some category where one population lands more than another, even if only slightly and not statistically significantly. But that’ debt more variance by the aforementioned “logic”. So by this “logic”…
Men:
Brown eyes — 26%
Hazel eyes — 24%
Blue eyes — 26%
Green eyes — 24%
Women:
Brown eyes — 25%
Hazel eyes — 25%
Blue eyes — 25%
Green eyes — 25%
There’s more variance among men!
Men:
Brown eyes — 25%
Hazel eyes — 25%
Blue eyes — 24%
Green eyes — 26%
Women:
Brown eyes — 25%
Hazel eyes — 25%
Blue eyes — 26%
Green eyes — 24%
Somehow still more variance among men, because they’re more likely to have green eyes than women, or something.
Triangle: well, you’re certianly is a tedious fellow, huh?
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or just an insuffrable bore, but here’s the deal: if you want to discuss things with other commenters here, have a normal discussion with them. Avoid flooding the topic with endless comments, walls of text, equations, comments in which you basically are talking to yourself. I’m putting you on moderation for now.
Also, most genes are not a strict binary thing. Eye color REALLY isn’t. It’s a bunch of interacting genes. For any of that sort of gene, if any of the interacting genes is x-linked, then the possibility for two copies instead of one is going to open the door to more variation among women. Really, the entire idea that men have more variance because x linked recessive genes ignores the vast number of genes where more copies means more variance, or the ones that’re more affected by estrogen than testosterone. And missed the ones modulated by life experiences that are more likely to happen to women than men.
I apologize for this post’s cis centric wording.
…all this genetic talk gave me an idea to a question I was asked about maternal inheritance of mental disorders. Thank you, I now know wtf I should’ve been using as search terms.
Hey, triangle with an extra side of silly! Guess what? You aren’t alone in thinking sex is icky. Some of us just don’t feel the need to assume everyone else is disgusting or unintelligent because they like it. Frankly, some of the people here are way more clever than both of us, combined.
Guess what else? Test tube biology doesn’t work nearly as well as you think it does. Sure, we can screen for genetic disorders, but actually raising a viable little human outside of a human remains a pipe-dream. There are a ridiculous amount of subtle hormonal, chemical, and other environmental stimuli that trigger gene expression at particular times, which we have not even come close to nailing down. Plus, some exposure to icky environmental things is actually good; please, do yourself a favor and look up some studies on the causes of allergies.
Guess what else? As a biologist, I call BS on your assumption that males have more phenotypic variation. In biology, variation is more “Does this trait exist?” Since females can display all autosomal recessive traits, with two recessive alleles, the recessive argument fails. Since only females have two X chromosomes, only females can display codominant traits that are sex linked. For males to show more variation due to X-Y shenanigans, the alleles would have to be on the Y chromosome… Which is pretty durned limited.
Essentially, the only gene guys have distinct differences in variation from women is the distinct set of 50-60 genes that pretty much are all “make this human a man” proteins. The SRY gene is most fundamental, there. We call that gene “Sorry” when we feel silly.
For scale, humans have about 25,000 genes. For more information on why your phenotypic variation argument is baloney, first read a good intro to genetics text and then familiarize yourself with the human genome project.
Whew. Onto the evo-psych BS. Which, as much as I love some good sociobiology, your version is still very much baloney.
Guess what, again? Reread Fibonacchi’s first wall of text in reply to you. Then, just in case it wasn’t clear enough:
Biology is messy.
The environment can play a huge role in phenotypic expression for many traits and a very little role for some others.
Phenotypic plasticity is a thing, and uber frequent.
One species behavior is rarely a good informative for another species behavior, although generalizations can be CAUTIOUSLY drawn.
Your generalizations failed. Severely. Find a good study, give us a link, and we’ll talk real science.
Peer reviewed, please.
Everyone else, so sorry for the wall of text. I just hate when people misuse biology, stats, and non-Euclidean geometry simultaneously. The rectangle was tromping on all my loves at the same time.
🙁
Special sorry goes to the ferrets in the David suit.
Can I send you some scented candles, to make up for the errors of my ways?
Everyone else, I’m so sorry.
Here, Internet Bon-bons?
@Ally S
I think her exact statement was along the lines of “The only thing stopping me from password locking my blog is not knowing which of my readers are women of color and which aren’t.” Anyway, I’ll check out that other blog; thanks for the link! 🙂
That’s the saddest thing I’ve ever read.
…Never mind, that’s the saddest thing I’ve ever read.
The other thing that I couldn’t be bothered engaging with Triangle enough to point out is that the answer to “why have babies via sex?” is “why not?”. If people want to keep fucking, and they can find someone who wants to fuck them, why shouldn’t they? “Because they want to” really is a good enough answer in this case.
You’ll be able to appreciate this song.
@Scott1139
What the hell are you talking about? This is not remotely true, here’s a quote from ‘Gradient Lair 101’:
How is “other people are welcome to read this blog” in any way exclusionary?
Where do you think she says “her blog is now for women of color only”? I cannot even fathom where you got this idea, you have completely misunderstood her policy on contact use. I’ll quote her very reasonable policy below.
Not wanting to be cross-posted to feminist sites that don’t have any self-generated content by WOC is very reasonable. She’s not willing to be a token-for-hire whose articles are borrowed to add a fake appearance of “diversity”. Good for her.
Feminists of every stripe should check out her blog.
Thanks for clarifying, Brooked.