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.
I wonder where love is in all of this?
Direct from the Encyclopedia Posterior, fresh assfax!
Wat.
Sigh.
Look, while knowing what superfecundiation (Hetereopaternal or otherwise) is and being able to spell teleological are both impressive things, but unfortunately the main stay of your argument there doesn’t really hold.
The notion that from A (Women, one rearing) and B (Men, impregnate multiple) flows the syllogism that “Maximal genetic fitness” means that females unconsciously become more selective is rather hamfisted in its disregard for other basal factors, like, oh I don’t know, environmental lethality or abiotic factors. It doesn’t matter how many children a person can raise or impregnate if they all die because they’re blind and walk of a cliff – the misunderstanding that genetic fitness solely implies out-breeding is one of those haunting spectres of misunderstood and misapplied biological knowledge.
So let me school you for a bit. We’ll start with geometry – a triangle has three sides. That’s what “tri” means.
Secondly, both males and females exhibit mate selectivity and test for “genetic fitness”, whatever that nebolous terms might mean when all you can really see is the phenotypic variations and they might not tell you much. Sexual selection involves sexual selection, by all partners, for all reasons. Mammals included (Unless you’re willing to pre-suppose that “unconscious” fornication takes place between two individuals once one activates the “mating signal”). Human females breasts is one exception to the rule of complete female selection, but how about hair, style, obvious signs of leprosy in advanced stages, clear and stated infertility and communicated non-desires for children? To assume in your standard evolutionary progression that those signals don’t count is disregarding just how much information two humans share with verbal and non-verbal communication.
It’s sapiens sapiens for a fucking a reason, and for reasons for fucking.
Now, on to your idiocy of “inferior specimens”. Unless you can genetically screen every single member of the MRA and give me a run down of their specific endowments and any genetic disadvantages or genotypic problems that might cause them to be less able to deal with biotic and abiotic factors, then I don’t buy it. You can’t chemically sniff out the presence of genetic resistance markers or the specific expressed genes, recessive or dominant, which be found in someone’s chromosonal locus. That’d be fucking weird, and also, you’d have the greatest nose in the world. Your bullshit argument boils down to “Let the MRA suffer, for they will never get laid, and also, they’re pitious because women won’t sleep with them”. For all your fancy words and probable scholarly research, you end up with a fallacious conclusion drawn from myopic premises.
( Also, addendum, most MRA’s brag about how much about they sleep with a multitude of women, and there’s an entire PUA subsphere of their particular ideology. Account for that, please).
Their abhorent views are not contigent on mis-expressed genetics, or somehow a transient property of their psychobiological processes at this stage. They have shitty ideas because they’re ignorant people, wallowing in ignorance, and continuing to share that ignorance in a way quite reminiscent of pollution.
For the record, a lot of them have wives, had wives, have children, had children, or are in relationships (or at least, claim to be). Sexual congress between them and some other human of the female persusasion must as such be assumed to have taken place at some point. Stuff your genetic fitness.
MOVING ON; breeding is not vaguely meritocratic, and only a nincompoop who hasn’t read any baseline evolutionary texts or slept through their advanced evolutionary pressure lecture would claim it to be so. Breeding is breeding, it’s a question of selection, but also of availability at a given time, chemical pressures and environmental factors. Hypergamy, if it exists, doesn’t mean “Always better, nothing until then”, but would ultimately just mean “Some now, more later” – at the very least, it would be neither neutral or good, it’d just be a thing. A thing that would also, in a very, very, very, very large subset of cases actually increase the output of child per MRA because they’d be the nicest person in the room at some point. I give them that much credit.
That ruins your idea, by the by, because women don’t just drop naked, spray their individual diluting chemicals in someones face (all mating selection is female, is it?) and then proceed to impregnate themselves. They have lives, and they have “mates”, and sometimes the two interact.
There is nothing cruel about the passive eugenics of sexual selection, because it’s passive, and not boosted by mildly inhuman drones like you who would smear a whole group of people with what boils down to “Erhamagerd, their sordid ideas come from their sordid genetics! They won’t ever get laid! Hullu-bu-lu selective pressure in mammalian groups!”.
So it’s incorrect, and it’s foolish, and it’s also dangerous, because if we start assuming ideological oddities have a genetic basis then, boom, your passive eugenics project is now a call for a genocide to get rid of the genetically, ideologically misfit.
Cat Lady is wrong, you are wrong, and a triangle has three sides.
Don’t ever write the sentence “Women want superior specimen” again.
This whole treatment of human behaviour as if it’s just biologically driven makes me roll my eyes SO HARD.
Like … okay, only anecdote (but then so’s most evobull): if Mr K were in his earthly body he’d not be the Hypergamy Magazine’s Man of the Year. He had tuberculosis, chronic digestive complaints, bouts of malaria and dysentery, and the emotional fallout of childhood abuse.
I’d still choose him as my mate over any man who’s ever lived or ever will, whether or not breeding came into the matter.
Fuck evopsych.
Also, how often in human history have women had any choice in who they mated? Patriarchal societies, what are they?
Drat, that should be “individuality diluting chemicals”.
That was awesome, Fibinachi.
I also love how foursidedtriangles equates being fat and/or jobless with being lazy, stupid, and talentless.
Man, I HATE when parentheses are used instead of commas. It seems to be the habit of people who try just a wee bit too hard to sound smart.
Anyways, the notion that humans function like a herd of cows with few bulls mating with many females is just plain wrong. With animals like that, the males are always outnumbered by females.
With animals that mate more or less for life and raise their offspring together, the female-to-male ratio is relatively equal, such as humans & swans & junk.
So, please don’t compare our sexual habits to species that operate in a completely different fashion.
Also, I’m childfree. According to evo-psych BS, people like me shouldn’t exist because instinct. FUCK EVO-PSYCH
Or ones who tend to think parenthetically. ::raises hand::
🙂
1. An equation of being fat with being lazy would forego the necessity of the “and” conjunction. There is no need to say that something is “red and scarlet.” To do so would be redundant. Hence, my use of “and” is an indication that I do not find the additional adjectives to be absent additional information. One would hope you to be a non-native speaker and that you speak a language where the closest analogue to our “and” conjunction has a different logical truth table. Otherwise, your lack of comprehension signifies either dishonesty, laziness, or cognitive deficiency.
2. I am well-aware that triangles possess only three sides, and I’m fairly certain you know that I know this. The name, as you are probably aware, is a deliberate absurdity. Pretending that I don’t understand basic geometry is an adorable attempt at poisoning the well, but adults can see that it for the petulance it represents.
On the other hand, I know of no proof that all triangles must have three sides. To be sure, any sufficiently topologically trivial Riemannian manifold has the property that a closed, 2-dimensional figure with three internal angles must be comprised by the intersection of three arcs, and if we wish, we can specify that the arcs must be geodesics in order to properly generalize the notion of a polygon to non-Euclidean geometry. In particular, any flat space with finite dimension (R^N, SxSxSx…xS, or even R^NxSxSx…xS) will almost certainly have this property. However, I am not aware of any proof that there’s no manifold (or orbifold) wherein all geodesic polygons with three internal angles must be constructed by exactly three geodesics. In particular, spaces in which the homology contains torsion elements may not pass this test. For example, must all “triangles” in the real projective plane (RP^2) or any of its higher dimensional analogues be comprised of three distinct geodesics? It’s not obvious that this must be the case, even if it is true.
You may also note that the “tri” in “triangle” signifies the presence of three internal angles, not the presence of three “sides,” as you asserted. It’s even in the name. It’s tri-ANGLE, not tri-SIDE.
3. Also, I included the possibility for exceptions to the general rule of sexual selection. This is obvious in that I even included a particular exception by name. To act as if I allowed for no exceptions is patent dishonesty.
4. Certainly males exhibit some degree of mate selectivity. Indeed, the existence of exceptions, something to which I attested, proves this to be the case. However, the difference in male and female reproductive biology all but guarantees that, ceteris paribus, the selectivity of females will be larger. Also, as I indicated, the X/Y sex determination scheme ensures that male phenotypic variance will be larger than female phenotypic variance for all X-linked traits, and also that the phenotypic variance of Y-linked traits will be non-existent for females. For all other chromosomes, both males and females have two pairs. Barring extreme epigenetic factors, the overall variance of males should be greater than that of females. As a “Bayesian prior,” for any given trait, males will have a higher than 50% chance of having more variance than females. This provides an even stronger indication that the primary sexual selectors will be female.
5. Humans think, but you largely overestimate the degree of Type II reasoning in humans. Humans engage in unconsciously-driven and heuristically-derived behaviors (Type I reasoning) far more often than you would like to believe. Type II reasoning (rational deliberation, empirical evidence, etc.) is hard and time-consuming. Most decisions must, of necessity, be left to less reliable but faster methods.
Such pomposity. Much verbiage. Wow.
How about you go fuck yourself, hmm? Pompous ass.
Well aware does not require a hyphen.
Hmm. Fibi snarks about the stupid nym. Troll writes uber-pompous wall of text about triangles. But troll pretends it’s Fibi who’s petulant.
LOL!
So I wanna play the stupid “I’m not like that” game for a second, bear with me.
Jobless — well yes
Fat — no
Unattractive — never been told that, been told the opposite often
Unintelligent — non, mais vous êtes un poulet
So I should be a pretty good genetic lottery right? WRONG! I’m bipolar, I stand a 1 in 3 chance of any of my hypothetical offspring having a mood disorder. But hey, I’m thin, attractive and smart, so I must be a better mate, genetically, than an unattractive fat person of less intelligence than I, right? Even if they carry no known genetic disorders?
(Kittehs, you’ll be amused to know that autocorrect is learning French)
emilygoddess: so blowhard. many angles. wow.
This one’s gonna be no fun.
Oh and you’re so wrong it hurts when it comes to the results of (cis) men only having one X chromosome. “Also, as I indicated, the X/Y sex determination scheme ensures that male phenotypic variance will be larger than female phenotypic variance for all X-linked traits…” — well sorta, if you count it being impossible to have a second “good” X chromosome to negate any x linked genetic disorders.
Oh dear, someone just got out of Baby’s First Formal Logic Class and is going to try it out on us.
Four sided triangle, long post + big words =/= intelligent.
Evo psych is not science. It is not testable, verifiable and falsifiable. Not until we have a time machine that can go back in time so we can observe the first humans.
Evo psych assumes that attitudes and behaviors in our current culture biologically based and exist across all times and all cultures. That is one huge leap to make. It’s called confirmation bias. http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm
If ancient men did all the mammoth hunting, then men weren’t spreading their seed and moving on to the next woman without investing anything else besides sperm. You see, fathers would have had to teach their sons how to hunt and make the spears used for the mammoth hunts.
Maybe, just maybe men often like to bed as many women as possible and brag about because they are socialized to. Maybe women are more reluctant to have multiple sex partners because they want to avoid slut shaming.
Maybe the truism “if you leave monkeys at a typewriter long enough they will produce the complete works of Shakespeare, in order” was overly optimistic.
Yep, because this is what everything thinks when the word “triangle” is used.
LOL, wut? How are you fitting Bayesian priors into this statement, and what is the value of the priors? What research did you use to generate your priors? What is your equation that you are using in this paradigm? How the fuck, mathematically, can males have a higher than 50% chance of having more variance in eye-colour, hair colour, etc than females?
What theory of reasoning/philosophy are you using that has these stated as Type I and Type II? In logic systems, Type I wouldn’t be recognised as “reasoning” because there isn’t actually any “reasoning” content.
Credit where it’s due: This is a good explanation of your posting habits.
Be afraid, be very afraid!
I notice blowhard bore still seems to think humans are the same as herd animals. Individuality, preferences that have everything to do with personality, social restrictions on who one can live with/marry … nope, nothing about those. Is this one of those lizard people or aliens we hear about? Troll seems to have no contact with actual human beings.
foursidedtriangles: A lesson on context. You said:
So, you say, “They’re simply inferior specimens,” and then follow that with a list of descriptive terms, “…jobless, fat, unattractive, unintelligent losers with no talents or future prospects.” When you include “fat” and “jobless” in with those other undesirable traits you are equating being “fat” and/or “jobless” with those negative and undesirable traits. You include “fat” and “jobless” because you think them to be negative and undesirable in the same way that being unintelligent and talentless and lazy is. You are using “fat” and “jobless” and “unattractive” in the same way you are using the personal failing of being “lazy;” and when you do this you are equating fatness, joblessness and unattractiveness as personal, moral failings. If you considered fatness, joblessness and unattractiveness to not be equivalent to laziness, stupidity and talentless, them you would not have included them in your list of negative descriptors.
One would hope this inability to clearly communicate is due to you being a non-native speaker who does not have a grasp on meaning and context in the English language. However, I think it’s far more likely that you are disingenuous little shit who is trying to backtrack from zir original argument.
The “males have more variance than females” bit: He’s just saying that he can’t tell women apart, isn’t he?
Whether or not women are held to a higher standard of beauty is something that likely depends on the society under discussion. Even within a fixed society, it’s somewhat subjective. In addition, physical beauty is only one of many characteristics that mate selection is based upon. Cultural narratives are not a reliable place to gain information about the behaviors of people within a culture. Cultural narratives are often believed only in the abstract, and are very often hypocritical and internally inconsistent.
“your lack of comprehension signifies either dishonesty, laziness, or cognitive deficiency.”
Cognitive deficiency. SNARF.
You’d think people who strain so hard to sound intelligent would be more creative that just ‘No; *you’re* stupid!’ comments.
Try. Harder.