Men’s Rights Activists learned a long time ago that the easiest way to win an argument with someone is by playing the old straw man game, ignoring what they actually believe and instead pretending that they believe something much less defensible — and much easier to rebut.
Trouble is, when you’re actually debating one of these people directly, they may point out to you that they don’t actually believe what you claim they believe. And this makes it oh so much harder to win the argument.
Luckily, MRAs have found a workaround for this little difficulty. Instead of debating real feminists who can argue back, they debate imaginary ones who say only what the MRAs allow them to say.
One quick visit to a stock photo repository and hey, presto! You’ve got yourself the following memes depicting Straw Feminists Confused About Everything.
Er, what? Feminists have the power to ban hot babes from going out in public? Do these hot babes have to make themselves less hot before they can get a walking around permit from the Department of Jealous Feminists Who Won’t Let You Go Out if You’re Too Hot?
I think I may have posted this one before, but I still don’t quite understand it. Hey MRA dudes, you’re supposed to confuse the imaginary women in your memes, not the rest of us!
This dumb little cartoon, drawn in 2003 by a dude hoping to sell a few t-shirts, has provided MRAs with thirteen years’ worth of cheap outrage so far. Congrats, MRA meme-maker, for squeezing a little bit more outrage from its desiccated corpse.
I ain’t saying she’s a golddigger but, yes, you are saying that. Again. That song is more than a decade old. Move on, dudes.
As Corbyn said earlier today on the Andrew Marr show, the Labour party is pro remaining in the EC – though very much not for the same reasons or with the same objectives as Cameron and the pro-Remain Tories.
Cameron is the stopped clock on this one, I think. I agree strongly with the left’s pro-EC arguments (working for common environmental protection standards, working to protect workers’ rights won so far and working to improve them in cooperation with other European workforces, having some protection against our own home-grown rabid deregulators; essentially, strength in numbers to some extent – as opposed to a rabid-capitalism deregulated-free-market Europe that some others might like to see, for example).
Is this his way of admitting that most women must maintain a state of semi-starvation in order to be as thin as is currently fashionable?
Wasn’t it Pancake Guy that argued something similar? He was upset that his girlfriend wanted to eat breakfast after working out (or before, I forget) even though it was HIS meal of steak and eggs that would have costed more. I think their ideal is that women don’t use the gym or stay in shape, but rather eat as little as possible so that a) they remain in Boner-Pleasingly-Acceptable condition and b) don’t use up too much of men’s money, since we’re all lazy moochers with no jobs just trying to find a beta to sponge off of. Eating is misandry!
Well, if I ever open a restaurant I won’t be stuck for a name.
re: skinny women who shouldn’t eat every day and for some reason that improves their reproductive potential
If any of y’all get a chance to see the documentary “A Walk to Beautiful,” do so. Especially Dustin needs to see this. It is about women who developed obstetric fistula in childbirth (be sure you’re prepared before you google that term) and a hospital in Ethiopia that repairs these fistulas to give them their lives back.
The short version is that these young women ate very little growing up and worked far harder than Dustin can imagine, carrying for long distances jars of water and food, and bundles of wood that I would bet money he could not even pick up. In an environment of limited resources, very similar to what Dustin’s evopsyche bullshit is imagining, the men and male children get lots of food and the women and female children have to make do with far less.
The result is that these women are very thin, and very “fit” if by “fit” you mean “have really strong muscles and a lot of physical endurance.” They perfectly match Dustin’s imaginary evopsyche ideal – not eating very much at all. They also demonstrably cannot give birth to a child, because “thin” is working against them.
If Dustin would get out of the house more and actually learn some things, he might see that the theories he cooked up in his basement on the basis of no evidence are exactly like Aristotle’s evidence-free belief that women have fewer teeth than men.
P.S. If you find the documentary, have a handkerchief ready, because it brings the onions
And women can’t? Listen, fool — we’re the gender known for both a propensity to pack on poundage (which is actually a sign of fertility, even if YOU don’t think it desirable due to your conditioning, which is too bad for you but not for us…because really, Dustin, the last thing a guy with your mindset should be doing is trying to reproduce). AND we’re the gender known for its endurance. AND we’re the ones who can better withstand cold and long journeys than yours.
Also, there aren’t a lot of human-eating predators in my neck of the woods. I’ve heard rumors of black bears and the occasional cougar, but they’re very shy and if they went after humans, they would go for small children, not fat ladies.
I guess what I’m trying to say here is, YOUR ARGUMENT IS IDIOTIC. Try thinking with something bigger than your pr0n-conditioned glans for a change.
@Dustinzeit,
I notice that, when I provide explanation or clarification – even on request! – you have not replied to me! I’m not upset about it, and I hope that it is an indication that you agree. It would be nice to know whether you see any problems with the points though!
This in mind, you said to @dreemr,
This was in reply to you being asked for citations on saying that
Which, well..
http://oi44.tinypic.com/30bz9fm.jpg
oh dear.
It is good to have ideas about things! It’s good to explore your own thoughts and not to just follow whatever the herd around you believes because they believe it!
What you are doing with this paragraph above, and your reply to dreemr afterwards, is a major hazard for intelligent people of all kinds. You can come up with interesting ideas, and are probably good at finding holes in other peoples ideas! Which is great, and also terrible. These abilities combine with the brains’ natural tendency to discount or ignore information that it doesn’t already agree with – this is called confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias makes smart people almost immune to rational argument, and makes them very, very prone to just “following their gut” by wrapping up their instinctual beliefs in the dressings of science.
Don’t fall for this, Dustin! The path to truth is a long and difficult one – it’s a lifetimes’ work. But it will improve your life, and improve the lives of everyone around you. Finding truth is hard, and the best first step I know of is to say about everything I believe to be true, “I am probably not right about this.”
Truth hurts. If it doesn’t hurt, you’re doing it wrong.
Please reply! I would like your ideas on this. I am probably wrong, so any input you might have would be wonderful.
Scildfreja, chapeau. I take off all my hats to you. I
mayMy thoughts on Scildfreja in this thread can be summed up as follows:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1xZ9UZWa8Ao/VlGYiQimcRI/AAAAAAAADAY/5YhDjl4EQLk/s640/vlcsnap-00001.png
I started to think about the evopsyche things we could possibly learn from the animal kingdom about how humans are naturally wired to parent.
CW: some grossness follows, because nature, and also tl;dr
For some species of spider, the mother spider carefully guards her brood of eggs, and when the spiderlings hatch she undergoes a programmed death, liquifying her innards for the babies. They suck her fluids out of her, then go forth into the world with full tummies. Truly maternal sacrifice.
Some species of octopus do a similar thing, with the mother guarding and brooding her eggs, making sure they are clean, and circulating water over them. She does not leave them at all, not even to eat, and shortly after the eggs hatch she dies.
These animals have short life expectancy, and in the absence of reproduction they would die soon anyway. The males, despite not exhibiting this kind of behavior, have similarly short lives. Their young are also self-sufficient from day 1, so Mom’s demise doesn’t deprive them of anything. So from this we learn that if you’re not long for this world, investing all of your energy into your offspring can be a successful strategy.
However, human beings live a long time and usually outlive their offspring’s childhood. Human children need a lot of care, and Mom dying soon after a kid’s birth is not giving that kid the best start in life. Extreme maternal self-sacrifice doesn’t seem to fit with human reproductive strategies.
As we get closer to human beings, animals become much less sacrificial. Many bird species make a habit of laying 2 or 3 eggs a year, but they raise only 1 chick to adulthood. While the chicks are small, the parents can easily keep them fed, but as they grow this becomes more difficult. Rather than exhaust themselves trying to feed all the chicks, the parents bring enough food for 1 chick back to the nest and feed all of it to the strongest one with the loudest voice. The others starve, or are actually kicked out of the nest by their stronger sibling. Predatory birds with this strategy will sometimes tear up the deceased chick and feed it to the winner.
Migratory waterbirds sometimes find themselves in a drought situation, where the lake where they made their nest dries up before the chicks are big enough to fly. The parents in this situation just fly away and leave their chicks behind. Parental investment, like any other investment, sometimes doesn’t pay off, and birds don’t throw good money after bad, so to speak. They cut their losses. Next year might work out better. From a passing-along-the-genes standpoint, the adult birds are far better equipped to preserve their genetic legacy and pass it along again next year than the still-flightless chicks, so it’s better to save the adults than the babies.
Stressed mammals typically do likewise. Sometimes continuing to nurse a baby is guaranteed death for Mom. The mother will usually abandon her baby. A stressed mother rodent may kill the babies and eat them to recover some of the nutrients she invested in them. Again, there is a limit to the mother’s self-sacrifice, because from a genetic standpoint it’s fucking stupid to die to save your still-dependent baby. Adults can breed again. Babies can’t breed until they grow up, and they are far less likely to survive to next year than a capable adult.
MRAs like to bring up lions sometimes. A male lion bulling his way into a pride will sometimes kill the younger cubs to bring the female lions into heat more quickly. Female lions fight to save their cubs, but not the point of dying. They’ll save themselves first, and only put up with this at all because they don’t get to choose which male is hanging around. Also, this doesn’t happen as often as was once believed.
Wolves, despite being the model for PUAs, redpills and adjacents, are very willing to adopt and raise offspring that don’t belong to them. Female wolves that break off from their natal pack to make their own way in life sometimes bring weaned cubs along with them. Sometimes male wolves do it, too, but less frequently. Male wolves who find a female wolf with cubs are extremely likely to form a pair bond with the female and help to raise some other male’s cubs to adulthood. This is a good strategy for him, because wolves are social and, like human beings, they bond over babies. In fact, a wolf pair that is not successful in raising cubs together for 2 or 3 years straight will probably break up. Taking care of the female’s last litter until they are self-sufficient improves his bond with her, and those young adults will pitch in as packmates when he and the female reproduce together next year.
So what’s our evopsyche takeaway? First, nature operates on a “put on your own oxygen mask before taking care of others” principle. Extreme self-sacrifice only makes sense for animals that don’t expect to live too long beyond the birth of their offspring. Animals that expect another opportunity to breed don’t sacrifice all that hard for their young, because that would be dumb. Mothers prefer potential fathers who will prove that they will be good dads by being good dads to existing offspring.
Not sure how any of this supports Dustin’s assertions! Maybe his assertions are just assfax! Can’t really say, because he hasn’t put up any documentation for them!
@ sunnysombrera & fabian
I’m currently in the leave camp, although it’s not an issue I’m desperately passionate about. I won’t be bothered if we decide to stay in.
There are pros and cons with both options but on balance I think we’re marginally better off leaving.
The human rights stuff won’t be affected. The ECHR(s) have nothing to do with the EU. In fact the Convention was actually written by the British after WW2. Notwithstanding some arguments about the ECHR in domestic politics I don’t think anything will change very much, and the irony is that all the issues that people get worked up about could be dealt with within the current regime through derogations and the margin of appreciation.
EU environmental law is based on English environmental protection legislation (often word for word) so that’s not an issue for me either. It’s true the EU forces these standards on other countries but that won’t be affected if they stay in.
As for trade, we don’t need to be part of TTIP to be part of TAFTA. That will also be open to members of EFTA which we can join if we wish.
Generally I find the EU pretty undemocratic. I remember after the Irish referendum when there was a no vote. The EU immediately said they wanted further referenda until the voters came up with the right answer. I think that was pretty indicative of the attitude. It was blatant contempt for sovereignty and public opinion.
There’s also the practical consideration that, as a net contributor to EU finances, we can keep that money.
Leave seems to be the most popular opinion amongst my friends regardless of political view. Some of the most passionate hatred of the EU comes from my Bennite mates. The way Greece was dealt with didn’t help matters there.
Like I say though, I won’t be losing any sleep if we decide to stay in.
I live in an area that has mountain lions passing through occasionally. We are told that the best thing to do if we encounter one of them is to make ourselves look as big as possible. Humans simply can’t outrun a cougar. Also, we’re told to play dead if charged by a bear. I don’t understand what apex predators Dustin thinks that humans can outrun, other than fellow humans. (Even if I was skinny instead of fat, I still couldn’t outrun many men, due to my short legs and broad pelvis.)
Thank you! And I’m all like
@PoM, isn’t nature fascinating! The experiences of these creatures, and their reactions to the world, really put a lens on our own. What would our thoughts on life be like if we had the same survival strategy as an octopus? What excuses would we make to glorify an early death, and how would we defend our position against an r-selected species? So many interesting things there.
And, obligatory zefrank:
@lindsayirene, @dustinzeit,
It’s true – we are terrible at running quickly! We’re endurance hunters. We can stalk prey for days. Imagine the springbok’s fear – fleeing a pack of stringy, spear-wielding humans easily… but every time it stops to rest form its energetic burst of speed, they appear again on the horizon. Unstoppable, relentless, the humans pursue the poor creature. Unable to sleep, to rest longer than a few minutes, to eat; the springbok eventually succumbs to exhaustion as the dreaded humans close in…
We’re terrifying! And it has nothing to do with mighty lean male hunters dragging their prey back to lazy cave-wives. It has everything to do with groups of hunters – male and female – relentlessly jogging across the savannah for hours, days on end, to eventually descend on an exhausted, terrified beast.
No one was fat in those days. How could they be? All that work for one animal? That’s a lot of work for a steak!
@ lindsayirene
Well there’s truth in the old cliche that you don’t have to be fast enough to outrun the tiger; just fast enough to outrun your mate. 😉
@ scildfreja
You probably know that the current theory in evolutionary circles is that it was our ability for endurance hunting that lead to the loss of our body hair. It was a heat dissipation thing. Some interesting experiments with long distance runners wearing thermal undies.
I did not hear that, Alan! Makes very good sense. Also makes sense as to why we’d keep the head-hair and the other hairy bits, but nowhere else!
I don’t think I’d want to be involved in that experiment. It sounds exhausting. And stinky.
Pit traps and cliffs form the best hunting strategy. Dig some traps, or find a nice cliff if your terrain is right, build some funnel fencing if you’re feeling fancy, and run a herd of animals into/over your trap. The risk is far less than the spear-hunting that people like Dustin imagine, and the energy cost is significantly less when averaged over multiple hunts (especially the cliff variant, which requires even less energy to set up). There’s no reason to think that, prior to the invention of the bow, cave people did any significant hunting of large animals by running them down with spears. Nor any reason to think that women did not take part in this.
@Katz –
Nah, all the shivering helps us stay svelte.
Svelte, svelte on the veldt, where the lions and the wildebeest roam …
Maybe it’s in a song or something 🙂
I would like to add my voice to the admiration of Scildfreya in this thread!
@LindsayIrene – according to Dusty, we don’t necessarily have to outrun predators (who apparently lick their chops like cartoon villains when they see overweight humans, no doubt ceremoniously tying a napkin around their necks and picking up a random fork and knife in anticipation) we just have to be able to climb up on convenient survival ledges. Hone your ledge-climbing skills!
Yup, all you gotta do is climb onto the nearest ledge and you’ll be absolutely safe! No way a predator coul-
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–blSpWQ_d–/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/fvuo3vrrddajokbkad4m.gif
oh shit
My wife released her inner kaiju. It took a little bit to get used to the armor plating, but it’s all fun now.
@ Dustinzeit
1) Serious question relating to your first post in here. Did you realize that the bake sale was a political event? Often political events do things to draw attention to issues in creative ways. In the abstract, sure discrimination based on sex is a bad thing. But as a political exercise using a BAKE SALE meant to draw attention to such things in the broader society it’s an ideal example because it harms no one (physically anyway, the reactions to it are important and political exercises are not always supposed to be comfortable things).
2) I noticed that you used the whole “>characterization of what I am seeing instead of citing and talking about what I am addressing” instead of, well what I included in the quotes. Can you explicitly point out where the bolded portion was in Mish’s comment?
3) In return I have a lot of experience in looking at research that has to do with the sexes and various things that might cause something that seems to come along with one sex or the other more often at a group level since I’ve spent the last seven years studying my own Tourette’s Syndrome which seems to occur in males more often, but includes more masculine behaviors in both sexes. If you have a specific question I may be able to help you.
@????
There was a comment in here that I thought this would be relevant for, but now I’m having a hard time finding it. It’s a video about observations that people who are more upper class tend to break the rules more often and how they rationalize it. It does not directly have to do with sex, but since it does a great job of outlining how these things work the general patterns can be seen in how it works for sex as well.
Feeling concerned about how to explain the fact that your sex is earning more? Rationalize it away by making things up about how your sex is better or the other is worse on some issue without reason. Want to take immoral or unethical actions to advantage yourself even though you are already advantaged? Go right ahead! You are special because of XXXX and they deserve it anyway!
Hey, I can make up truthy-sounding evolutionary explanations too, for the exact opposite thing!
Being
skinnyfat implies that you arefitwealthy and that youdon’tget to lie around, gobbling down food every day, thus meaning that your children willnot have to compete with you for as many resourcesalso be well-provided for. Beingthinfat also means that youcan probably run faster in the event that something is chasing you, with fat people being unable to climb ledges and/or swim from things that might eat themprobably have lots of peasants bringing you food rather than having to work for it yourself, whereas the farmers themselves tend to be much more susceptible to famine and even in good times have to eat cabbage gruel every day.Fat peoplePeople too hungry to run fast are more appealing to predators, and it’s possible that men might have evolved to find them unappealing so that they wouldn’t feel inclined to dump their resources onto them, given that this would be risky in an environment fraught with predators.And it makes just as much sense, and has just as much basis in evidence!
Scildfreja, I wanna be like you when I grow up!
@ brony
A very wise friend of mine recently made the observation that “if someone is raised to believe they’re the most important person in the room they’ll eventually begin to believe it”