Categories
alpha males bad boys bad history bad science crackpottery cuck evil sexy ladies evo psych fairy tales men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA red pill reddit thug-lovers we hunted the mammoth

Red Pill dude: Women created thugs by having sex with thugs

Ancient cave art proves that women have always gone for macho bad boys
Ancient cave art proves that women have always gone for macho bad boys

Misogynists love it when they can figure out a way to blame a woman for the misdeeds of a man. And no woman is a more convenient scapegoat than a bad man’s mother — after all, if she’d raised him right, he wouldn’t be out there murdering and raping and robbing and whatever other terrible things he’s doing.

Recently, misogynists have discovered that the “blame the mother” strategy is almost infinitely expandble. You don’t have to stop with the bad man’s mother. You can blame the mother’s mother as well. And the mother’s mother’s mother — all the way back to the origins of our species or even before.

According to this updated “blame the mother” theory, the world is full of bad men because women love bad boys — so much so that their preferences have changed the course of human evolution. By having sex with (and getting pregnant by) sexy brutes, these women have passed “bad boy” genes onto their children.

Putting it slightly more crudely, as one Red Pill Redditor does in the title of a recent post, “thugs exist because women f*ck thugs.”

In his post, thelandofdreams takes issue with what he sees as the widespread perception that

men are the takers, the destructors, the ones greedily absorbing all of the gendered benefits and dispensing the depression and victimization of the fairer sex. Men have always benefited selfishly from the relationship between the sexes, the popular thinking goes, raping and pillaging because that is just in their nature.

Well, ok, he admits, maybe men are a bunch of jerks. But it’s not really their fault. It’s the fault of their mothers, and their grandmothers, and their great grandmothers and so on and so on and scooby dooby doo.

“[T’hese gender theorists balk the closer they get to examining the root cause of all this,” thelandofdreams sniffs.

The simple fact of the matter is that men are aggressive, assertive, violent, and fierce because for ages untold women have been f*cking the aggressive, assertive, violent and fierce among us.

Longtime readers of this blog may recall YouTube “philosopher”/cult leader/MRA/douchebag Stefan Molyneax making a similar argument – well, assertion — several years back.

Thelandofdreams, apparently convinced he’s onto something new and original, continues:

You know that thuggish, drug dealing cousin of yours who is constantly getting arrested and treats his family like sh*t? Yeah, that guy is swimming in fucking pussy, believe it or not.

Ah, the old Argumentum ad That-Guy-um!

[T]he popular zeitgeist of the day says that he became that way because men are just arbitrarily monstrous and not because, well, his older brother acted that way and had a new hot girlfriend every month. Contrary to what you might have been told, his gangster lean, tribal tattoos, and predilection for violence are a learned behavior, and women are the ones who taught it.

Thelandofdreams steps back, for a moment, from all this women-blaming to declare that “as men, we must not blame our shortcomings on others.”

And then he resumes blaming our shortcomings on others:

We can, however, at least realize that a lot of the ways we act have a deep root– a million years of biological evolution and female mate selection pushing us towards aggressive, assertive, dominate behavior because that, we have come to know in our dark hearts, is what drives women towards us.

A MILLION YEARS of evolution have made us dudes the jerks we are today. While beta provider cavemen were out hunting the mammoth, their cave wives were cave-cucking them behind their backs with the jerkboys from one cave over.

What are we, if not creatures made to reproduce? A monkey who is aggressive gathers more resources, and in doing so accrues more females.

You know what they say, women love men with lots of bananas!

Much of the history of warfare and bloodshed has this same subconscious motivation at its core.

The point is that no, women are not blameless when we count the piles of male corpses on which the modern world is built. They had a hand in it to.

They had “a hand in it to” … what?

Bad news, Red Pill dudes who love to fill the internet with ungrammatical, woman-blaming screeds: Most women looking for love online these days will reject a man outright if he can’t master basic grammar and spelling, at least according to a recent survey of 9000 singles by Match.com.

The only bad boys they go for, in other words, are the ones who know the difference between “to” and “too.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Saphira
Saphira
5 years ago

The other day I ran into an extreme version of this type of guy on another site.

I logged on to find a private message from him saying he loved my pictures, thought I was gorgeous and asked if I’d ever want to fly to Las Vegas for a sensual massage. It wouldn’t lead to sex if I didn’t want it to.

I replied that I’m very happy with the partners I have (I’m openly poly) and not interested in flying halfway across the country to get a massage from a total stranger.

His response was to pull up some cooked up statistics that state 75% of women in relationships experience emotional, sexual or physical abuse (everything I’ve read puts the stat at around 25% which is still entirely too high) and that these women tend to pick the same kind of partners over and over, getting into a cycle of dating abusive a-holes (aka thugs). I was probably in the same kind of situation and didn’t know any better after having abusive relationship after abusive relationship (in other words, I loved dating thugs).

He went on to say that he was trying to help an attractive woman break that cycle, but if I wanted to support the rape and abuse of woman by violent men, then there wasn’t a thing he could do for me.

Plus there was some disconnected stuff about how women have never been taught to enjoy sex properly (followed by a diatribe on how to pleasure a woman that didn’t even acknowledge that all women are not after the same things sexually), that we’re all conditioned to settle instead of looking for our knights in shining armor (don’t need saving, thanks anyway) and other such nonsense that made me think he actually believed he was a rare white knight in a world full of evil men.

That is the first time I’ve not only be accused of being in abusive relationships (I’m not), but told I support the abuse of women because I turned a “nice guy” down in favor of a couple of “abusive” ones. Yep, even domestic abuse is the fault of women who date jerks. At least one guy’s mind.

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

Trigger warning: reply to IP above

@IP:
Wow. My sympathies to your Otter for growing up in such a family. It sounds horribly uncomfortable for everyone involved, and I’m glad she got out.

It sounds to me less like the father is truly frightened, and more as though he’s trying to turn this into yet another dominance gesture. (“I’m spending all this money on a hotel room and it’s your fault because you raised the kids to be violent!”) Emotional abuse is an ugly thing.

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@WWTH:
That’s really cool! It’ll look awesome in ink. How large were you thinking of getting it?

DoctorChicken
DoctorChicken
5 years ago

I’ve seen that argument coming from misogynists a couple of times over the years. The first was in a Cracked article that went something like this “reasons why Humanity is f*cked”. The top 1 reason, according to the enlightened man who’d written the article, was because women loved bad guys and psychopaths.

The second was in a Reddit argument where one Red Pill poster kept repeating again and again that women were genetic parasites who had contributed nothing to the evolution of humanity. In order to back up his claims (which were being trashed by an actual geneticist), he kept saying “I’m a biologist, I know my shit”.

These guys seem to think that only men give the genetic material necessary for procreation and that women only receive it. It’s a ridiculous idea that sounds a lot like what Medieval and Renaissance alchemists believed about reproduction (that the man planted his seed in the woman, and that the woman was just an oven). Genetics, and even just plain old common sense and observation, have shown time and time again that the mother contributes just as much as the father to her offspring.

tl;dr: Red Pillers and Misters are the modern day equivalents of Medieval “scientists”.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
5 years ago

@Hexum7

I’m kind of new to this stuff, but can someone parse out for me why these jerks assume that “agressive, assertive, dominate(sic) behavior , no matter which gender it applies to, is synomous with being a violent jerk? There’s a step in logic missing there.

There are probably lots of people who disagree with me here, and certainly there exist scenarios and individuals where the following may not apply, but I don’t think they’re entirely wrong in making this connection. I don’t actually see being dominant and aggressive as positive traits at all, except for in very limited circumstances (such as a competitive sport of some kind, and even there, it can easily lead to bad things). Everywhere else they are a sign of, if not an outright abusive personality, at least a borderline bully.

‘Aggressive’ refers to someone who, at best, is militantly forward and lets no one step in their way, and at worst, someone who is quick to anger and is provoked at the slightest hint of opposition. An aggressive person goes after what they want, sure, but there is no indication that they’re taking other, less aggressive people into consideration while doing that, which is a sure sign of a bully. For the life of me, I can’t see how a person exhibiting an aggressive personality would not raise at least a few red flags. ‘Dominant’ is, in certain respects, even worse. Pretty much all evil deeds in society can be traced back to the concept of power in some way, shape or form, and a willingness to dominate implies a willingness to abuse the power one has over someone else, no matter how noble and selfless the intent. Power corrupts, after all*. So no, I see no positive side to being dominant, except maybe to counter another person trying to establish dominance over you, which, again, is only necessary if another person is trying to dominate you in the first place**.

I think ‘assertive’ may be the least loaded term of the bunch, since it can also refer to a healthy understanding of one’s personal boundaries. Sadly, in our competitive society, I’ve also seen the word used as shorthand for someone willing to assert their will over the will of others. Again, typical abuser behavior. But if I were to list all the ways I see imperialism, capitalism and other ideologies based largely on dominance and subjugation contributing to a fucked-up collective social personality, I’d be here all day, not to mention I’d probably piss off people more. So I won’t digress further.

To summarize: Not all people with aggressive, assertive and dominant personalities are physically violent jerks, but I’d fathom that all physically violent jerks have aggressive, assertive and dominant personalities. And even if they’re not physically violent, I tend to be wary of anyone who wishes to establish dominance over another human being, since I can bet my butt that they’re going to be emotionally or psychologically abusive in some way.

“Obligatory” TMI section:

I may be biased, though. All the people I’ve known in my life who’ve had an aggressive and dominant personality have abused me physically, psychologically, emotionally and, yes, sexually. It is not a coincidence that said personality traits are largely encouraged in men, and it’s mainly other men I’m having trouble trusting these days (the few exceptions I know being some of my closest friends).

/TMI

Lastly, I think it’s important to note that I’m an incredibly privileged person, looking at things from the point of view of an incredibly privileged person. Only in the most recent decade have I really come to understand the difference between the concept of pride as understood by members of privileged groups and pride as it is understood by members of oppressed groups. To the former, it means being better than the oppressed group(s); to the latter, it means not being worse than the dominant group(s).

This, I think, is a fundamental difference between a privileged person praising their privileged identity and an oppressed person praising their oppressed identity (example: why ‘white pride’ can never have a positive connotation, but ‘black pride’ can). The same could certainly apply to the personality traits listed here: a straight white man being aggressive, assertive and dominant carries a threat that isn’t quite there when the same personality traits are exhibited by, say, a gay black woman. The more privileged you are, the more probably you’ll equate being assertive with being a jerk.

Ergo: Since manospherians are usually very privileged people, they tend to look at things from the point of view of a privileged person. Which means, becoming more assertive = becoming a violent jerk. After all, if you’re already a massive jerk, the only way you can really escalate is by turning violent to boot. They don’t actually hate the concept of some people having power over others, they just wish they were the ones who had the power.

Of course, another, less tangentially related reply is that the manospherians want to justify being violent jerks themselves on the pretense of it being a valid tactic for the survival of their genes (oh my gods), or to single themselves out as “the nice guy” amongst all the bad, abusive men out there, but that’s a different ball of yarn.

*As an anarchist, though more philosophical than political, I’m very concerned with the concept of power and the various ways in which it manifests in our society. If I weren’t, I don’t think I would qualify as any kind of an ally in the first place; I think failing to draw the connection between the evils of abusing political and economic power and the evils of abusing the social power you have over someone else is what makes a brocialist (or a manarchist, whichever term one fancies).

**As for whatever kinks one may have, those are still to be based on consensuality, trust and taking another person into consideration. So, no, an aggressive and dominant personality has no place there, either.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
5 years ago

Saphira : Ugh. I still can’t understand what can explain such an attitude. Are they truly stupid enough to believe what they say ? Or are they buying some evo-psych garbage pick-up advice ?

On topic : it’s ridiculously backward to say that women dating jerk would explain jerk, for a lot of reasons :
* it completely overvalue genetic. We are the product of our environment, which include our education, genetic makeup, and a lot of other factors , not just of an omnipotent god called “genetic”.
* there is likely no jerk genes anyway, but at best some combinations of traits who can make you more or less likely to create troubles. It’s also likely that a lot of thoses traits are also genuingly useful. Being very focused and able to channel all its energy on one thing seem to both allow to be a genius and to be a stalker depending on what you focus on
* that’s an obvious cope out to refuse to personally try to change, and refuse reeducations, etc. That’s half the way to justify eugenism and concentration camps to say the wrong guy will reproduce into more wrong guys.

Also, I don’t think there is any good reasons to think that thugs have more children than average. Other species show that their so-called “dominant male”, who are basically the real world version of the thugs they talk of aren’t *that* dominant genetically.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
5 years ago

I’m pretty sure that thugs and jerks and assholes existed even back in the days when men had the final say over who women married. He’s arguing that women shouldn’t have agency because they make terrible choices, but then who was pairing women up with Thuggy McSchoolLockerBully during all those millennia when women didn’t have agency? (and no, cucking was not as common historically as these nitwits like to believe)

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

TW for mentions of aggression, violence, suicidal thoughts

Thanks, everyone who has replied to my family drama post. It’s not really an option for us to stay elsewhere, for example at a hotel, for a month. We wouldn’t be able to afford an extended hotel stay, and the entire purpose of the trip is to spend time with the family. I feel like I have to clarify that, while there’s always some tension, this kind of escalation is fairly rare. I’ve seen a few all out screaming fights before, but most of the time things are calm and relatively normal. The shut-in son usually stays in his room whenever we visit. It’s been a few years now since I last saw him. I don’t worry that my wife or myself would be intended targets of any aggressions, but of course I don’t want anyone else to get hurt either.

It’s a family with plenty of undiagnosed mental issues. I think I can say that with certainty, and I also know they would agree. (Depression, extreme anxiety, narcissism, etc.) They’re quite well off, so there’s no particular incentive for the sons to ever work or support themselves, or to move out of their parents’ house. They’re basically living in a private hotel with 24/7 free room service and unlimited junk food. Now there are three very large, adult men living there, with a lifetime of tension that has been built up between them, and they’re all unstable to some extent. I suspect that the parents have made a joint decision to not have guns in the house, since the father has been suicidal at certain times in the past.

Like I said, I’m not significantly worried that something serious will happen. Having said that, I really hope there are no guns in the house. With guns, things can escalate so fast and people can get hurt by accident or through just a split second of lapsed judgement. Fucking gun culture. It really doesn’t need to be like this. :/

Matthew H.
Matthew H.
5 years ago

To Darkstatistic,

Thank you for the recommendation; I’ve been reading and enjoying their articles.

Orion
Orion
5 years ago

David,

Yiannopolous is spinning up the slander machine again, this time targeting the editor of the Tempest, a 24 year old Muslim woman who’s an acquaintance of an acquaintance. She wrote about it here: http://thetempest.co/2016/06/18/life-love/this-is-what-happened-when-racist-america-made-me-enemy-1/

Orion
Orion
5 years ago

Yeah, that guy is swimming in fucking pussy

But is he swimming through [his] pussy vault like Scrooge Fuckin’ McDuck?

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

That’s really cool! It’ll look awesome in ink. How large were you thinking of getting it?

Not too big. I need the option to hide it if necessary.

His response was to pull up some cooked up statistics that state 75% of women in relationships experience emotional, sexual or physical abuse (everything I’ve read puts the stat at around 25% which is still entirely too high) and that these women tend to pick the same kind of partners over and over, getting into a cycle of dating abusive a-holes (aka thugs). I was probably in the same kind of situation and didn’t know any better after having abusive relationship after abusive relationship (in other words, I loved dating thugs).

That’s just so incredibly creepy. I’ll bet he’s actually the one with abusive tendencies.

Stuff like this is exactly why I never take the “women love assholes” claims remotely seriously. A lot of the men who say that just assume that any man who is partnered with a woman must be an asshole. Like when MRAs were saying Emma Watson is a hypocrite for being a feminist while dating a rugby player. Because rugby players are apparently automatically alpha assholes.

In the mean time, the Nice Guy is the one completely dehumanizing the women they desire. This old WHTM post really exemplifies it. TW for rape https://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2012/04/17/the-worst-nice-guy-rage-comic-in-the-history-of-the-universe/

I don’t actually see being dominant and aggressive as positive traits at all, except for in very limited circumstances (such as a competitive sport of some kind, and even there, it can easily lead to bad things). Everywhere else they are a sign of, if not an outright abusive personality, at least a borderline bully.

I agree. There are a lot of people like this who even if they don’t commit any actual violence will make life unpleasant in various smaller ways. Like cutting people off in traffic, talking during a movie, leaving a mess in the breakroom at work, etc. It’s especially bad in the US where aggression and competitiveness is highly prized. I think you’re right that people who are focused on developing these traits do not take others into consideration at all. They’re all about “me, me, me.”

Sorry if my post is word salad. The coffee is just not waking me up this morning for some reason!

GenJones
GenJones
5 years ago

@DoctorChicken

Red Pillers and Misters are the modern day equivalents of Medieval “scientists”.

And neotony is being bandied about like the new phrenology.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@Anarchonist
While you are right that I’m going to disagree to an extent, I don’t see your view as unreasonable given your experiences and the state of the world today. Humankind has a problem with expression of aggression and dominance in general. I’m coming at this as a person who is innately aggressive and can be described as having a “social dominance orientation”, and I am a person who has spent a lifetime working to keep that part of myself under control so that when I express it it is for a good reason. These characteristics are associated with my Tourette’s Syndrome, a condition that I see as a natural part of how human beings can exist (in a similar category as things like ADHD and autism which have advantages and disadvantages).

I agree with your summary, it would be a safe bet.

Not all people with aggressive, assertive and dominant personalities are physically violent jerks, but I’d fathom that all physically violent jerks have aggressive, assertive and dominant personalities. And even if they’re not physically violent, I tend to be wary of anyone who wishes to establish dominance over another human being, since I can bet my butt that they’re going to be emotionally or psychologically abusive in some way.

My way of looking at aggression here has to do with the dispositions of people. My view of aggression and dominance is at a different resolution then that of most people. The way that I see aggression and dominance also includes its use in some of the smallest parts of communication that your comment uses. I’m pointing this out not to take away from your experience of these things but to show a proper and good application of these things so that the improper applications stand out more starkly. Aggression and dominance are general features of human psychology at many levels of interaction. At this textual level the application of aggression can be seen as a combination of anger and anticipation where one is seeking to remove an obstacle, in your case the obstacle of people that include careless and callous use of aggression and dominance as a part of their personality. This is a good obstacle to want to remove from one’s life and a good application of aggression in text.

The application of dominance is in presenting your view that these people are bad as one that should stand as a view to be accepted relative to what people who might disagree would say. I see this as a good application of dominance as your view is an important one that should be taken into account in order to improve society. Farther I see your view as a dominance display against those who have harmed you, a display I choose to support with my own aggressive instincts when such people show up here.

The above would be impossible without your willingness to be assertive with respect to your experiences and risk a boundary violation (or deliberately cause which is often necessary in changing society for the better). I see this as a good application of assertiveness and one that needs support as society is terrible at allowing women and other disadvantaged groups to be assertive in general (the same for being aggressive and dominant).

I hope that these points support rather than contradict your points and experiences and if I failed at any point I would like to hear it.

(((Hambeast))) now, with more parentheses!
(((Hambeast))) now, with more parentheses!
5 years ago

We are DEVO!

pitshade, I think I love you! Also, I’d like to dedicate the DEVO song “Shrivel Up” to all the manoshperians.

The silly theory in the OP falls apart for many reasons, some of which are outlined here. I have two more:

1. For centuries (maybe millennia?) few women* had any say in who they got paired up with. Even *if* there was cuckolding going on, odds are that the men in those pairings had bio kids that survived to reproduce themselves. The menzers all seem to forget that until they long for the days when women could be forced to marry!

2. Given our current culture’s penchant for serial monogamy,** even if a woman finds herself attracted to (and dating) a “bad boy,” it’s likely that at least some will choose differently in future relationships. I did!

*In western cultures, cuz let’s face it, these guys aren’t allowing for much else unless they have to dig around other cultures to support their arguments for horrible things.

**Even though serial monogamy has pretty much always been a thing; otherwise, no one would ever have remarried after widowhood.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

Crap. Above the paragraph after the quote should have said.

That way of looking at aggression here has to do with the dispositions of people.

…where my way of looking at it has to do with in-the-moment applications outside of general personal tendencies as a matter of personality (disposition).

dustwolves
dustwolves
5 years ago

Wait, women got to choose?? I though the whole reason these guys love the idea of alpha males was that back in the “good” old days, women presumably wouldn’t get a say. Or maybe I’m confusing different strains of MRAge theory with eachother.

dustwolves
dustwolves
5 years ago

…or in other words, what @(((Hambeast))) now, with more parentheses! said.

(Also I wish more comments sections would autodetect double posts.)

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
5 years ago

Who wants to see Hbomberguy knock Sargon’s thin skinned ego down a notch?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU

Because he does a pretty good job pf pointing out Sargon doesn’t believe in surveys, then uses a survey to prove his point, a survey in an article that has the word survey referenced 94 times. It’s wondrous to see this person flounder in the comments so hard.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

@OoglyBoggles

Sargon’s comment was actually the most glorious fail I’ve seen in a long time. :p

History Nerd
History Nerd
5 years ago

Red Pillers are more or less amoral. Their ideology is more or less “men are abusive jerks because evo psych, so get over it.” They probably realize that’s actually textbook misandry, so they need to either project it onto women or decide they simply don’t care.

Orion
Orion
5 years ago

re: dominance and the desirability thereof,

I have no idea if “artofmanliness.com” is a good website generally — with a name like that I doubt it — but they have a fascinating article up that combs through survey data in great depth to suggest that there are two distinct high-powered male personas, one based on “prestige” and one based on “dominance.”

When undergraduate women take one-dimensional surveys that compare a hypothetical “dominant” man who is driven, successful, and authoritative with a “nondominant” man who is content, agreeable, and conflict-averse, they tend to consider the dominant man more attractive. However, when given a short description of a man who is talented, driven, and successful, they found that more attractive than a longer description which described him also as dominating, powerful, and competitive.

When asked to rate the attractiveness of character traits, ~120 undergraduate women said that “confident” and “assertive” men were attractive, and “quiet,” “shy,” or “submissive” men were unattractive. However, they also said that “easygoing,” and “sensitive” men were appealing, while “aggressive” and “demanding” men were unappealing. “Dominant” got neutral/mixed reviews.

Other surveys have suggested that “dominance” is attractive if and only if it was paired with kindness and cooperation. The most attractive man was one who the community *turned to* for leadership because of his skills and his energy, not those who became leaders through aggressive competition.

There were a few women who preferred the description of an aggressive and self-interested man over the skilled and compassionate one, but these women tended to be misogynists and/or raised in unstable households.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/07/07/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male/

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
5 years ago

As I have already pointed out on the Jo Cox thread, these Alt Righters are obsessed with breeding, Eugenics if you will. It makes them exactly the same as the Christian Right who see abortion, contraception, homosexuality and gender reassignment as a conspiracy to reduce the population by stopping people breeding, although, this only counts when it’s white people who are being prevented from breeding, it’s what they like to call White Genocide. If you look at the cults like Mormonism and Quiverfull, and families like the Duggars you can see this in action. They very much belive in the outdated and debunked theory of the Alpha male, typified by Jim Bob Duggar, Phil Roberson from Duck Dynasty and Donald Trump, who are aggressive and ‘sexually virile’, unfortunately for the ‘evo psyche’ disinformation agents who see these guys as the peak of fertile masculinity, thugs is what they are, unempathic, insensitive and irresponsible. Being ‘christian’ makes no difference, these people are not followers of Christ, and you may not know this, but the ‘eternal life’ they belive in is not the eternal salvation of the spirit, but their progeny and descendants forever propagating. This is because they are really Worshippers of Baal, or Nimrod, who represents the Phallus Dei, or ‘God’s Penis”, basically what they call ‘CHRISTIANITY’ is actually a Babylonian fertility cult.

History Nerd
History Nerd
5 years ago

@OoglyBoggles Sargon would probably prefer something like how often the police decide to seek prosecution for rape or sexual assault or sampling an entire population and doing rigorous investigation of every claim. But there are good reasons to believe that a survey based on random sampling and an estimate of how often people lie on surveys would be more accurate than investigating every single claim to determine whether it is true.

Investigating every claim introduces huge potential for error. Very large sample sizes are also not so nice computationally and can make your code or data analysis software barf out complete nonsense. A mathematical model of how often people lie on surveys is usually better than fully investigating each claim.

Carl doesn’t understand statistics. There are surveys that use untrustworthy methodology, but not every survey uses untrustworthy methodology.

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

Just a quick note here about Father’s Day: Happy Father’s Day to those amazing individuals who are good dads. You guys are hella appreciated for all the wonderful work you’re doing for the next generation.

And for those of you who have dead fathers: I’m sorry for your loss, and I certainly won’t judge you if you don’t want to celebrate, but instead would like to grieve or just take the day off.

AND for those of us who had shitty fathers: I’m sorry if people are trying to force you to celebrate your awful fathers, and I’m certainly sorry if they’re trying to force you to “forgive” them if they were abusive. I 100% know how that feels, and I’m sorry if the commercials you see around this time of year give you knots in your stomach like they do mine because they remind you of all the awfulness you’ve faced at the hands of your “parent”.

No one should be forced to celebrate today if they don’t want to, and if you don’t want to, you’re more than welcome to join me in my corner.

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
5 years ago

@History Nerd
The entire comment section is bully la bully.txt, poor Sargon can’t even keep up, then again 5 minutes might be too much for him to handle.

It’s so hilarious and I don’t even feel bad at all.

Saphira
Saphira
5 years ago

Saphira : Ugh. I still can’t understand what can explain such an attitude. Are they truly stupid enough to believe what they say ? Or are they buying some evo-psych garbage pick-up advice ?

I checked my “nice guy’s” profile and found it full of writings of his explaining his views. Basically he take stats and warps them into a belief that most men are abusers, all women are stuck in a cycle of abuse and prefer “bad boys” and he’s here to rescue what women he can. Yes, he literally thinks that all women are damsels in distress, he’s the knight in shining armor and also that he knows best what women need to be sexually satisfied. Yet most of the groups he’s joined on this site are devoted to racial fetishes and getting laid, so no women avoid him like the plague, as evidenced by the writings he has up ranting about how no “girl” appreciates him and the effort he’s taken to learn how to romance her.

As for my two cents on the discussion of dominance. I personally don’t see it as a bad thing nor always connect it with aggressive, violent behavior. Some naturally dominant people are good go-getters, leaders and organizers. They can be an asset to an organization or great managers in their workplaces. Simply because they like controlling things doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to control things in an aggressive or violent manner. Or without the permission of the people around them.

I’m also part of the BDSM community, which obviously has its share of dominants. I’m a switch, so I have my own dominant side. This is a community that does not tolerate violence or aggressiveness. At least without the consent of the person you’re being violent or aggressive towards, if that’s your thing. The quickest way to get ostracized if your dominant is to violate a submissive’s consent or act like a total douchebag who can’t respect that subs have their own agency.

PocketNerd
PocketNerd
5 years ago

Yeah, that guy is swimming in fucking pussy, believe it or not.

Is it just me, or is a lot of MRA-rage rooted in an entitled bitterness over the perception that other people are having more and better sex than the MRA does?

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
5 years ago

@PocketNerd
And they claim it’s all about the sex bots and the waifus.

They are failures at life, being decent people and anime weebs.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Who wants to see Hbomberguy knock Sargon’s thin skinned ego down a notch?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbhspzE7jk1ror6v2.gif

That was hilarious. Thanks for sharing.

Axecalibur
Axecalibur
5 years ago

@Oogly and anyone else interested in the subject:
He’s a bit STEMbro-ish, but this vid helped me understand the stats when I’d first heard of them. The comments are a minefield tho
TW for obvious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hog9Nlf-dRs

@PI
My dad was around when I was little, til the rest of us moved. Actually met (remet, maybe?) him some years back. Pretty cool dude, I guess. Still weird saying the word ‘dad’, but ‘father’ makes me sound like an aloof English gentleman

Anyway, for what it’s worth, Imma echo my sentiment last month on mother’s day: I’m sorry that anyone, especially my internet buddies :), has to deal with parental issues. Hugs are on me, and do take care of yourselves <3

History Nerd
History Nerd
5 years ago

More generally, they think they’re entitled to other people, especially women, behaving in ways that make them feel good regardless of how they behave. Plus they’ve learned to have a number of other incredibly toxic attitudes.

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
5 years ago

@Axecalibur
Well that video at least reaffirms readings and conclusions I drew from the study.
@History Nerd
Speaking of which, I finally was able to talk to my mom about that bad not friend in my life. I am elated to know that she agrees that, that person was a really bad guy and I can’t put to words how happy it is to know that your family is at your side on things like this. We even joked about how I should treat it like a relationship and use him as an example of “stay away from these people when dating.”

Zatar
Zatar
5 years ago

men are the takers, the destructors, the ones greedily absorbing all of the gendered benefits and dispensing the depression and victimization of the fairer sex. Men have always benefited selfishly from the relationship between the sexes, the popular thinking goes, raping and pillaging because that is just in their nature.

Wow they certainly know how to paint a positive picture of men and masculinity don’t they?

And they have the gall to say that its feminists who hate men.

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
5 years ago

@doctorchicken

The Christian Patriarchists still belive that it is only the male who contributes any genetic material to the offspring. They distrust any science which says otherwise and consider it unscriptural. That is why they are so hateful of homosexual males because they consider it to be planting ‘babies’ up another man’s behind. They have no idea, and do not want to believe in zygotes. They also think that periods are ‘abortions’. Crazy, fucked up people indeed. Glenn Beck even went on TV and said women should pray for their periods because it was a baby they didn’t have! Their ideas about reproduction are medieval.

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
5 years ago

@doctorchicken

The Christian Patriarchists still belive that it is only the male who contributes any genetic material to the offspring. They distrust any science which says otherwise and consider it unscriptural. That is why they are so hateful of homosexual males because they consider it to be planting ‘babies’ up another man’s behind. They have no idea, and do not want to believe in zygotes. They also think that periods are ‘abortions’. Crazy, fucked up people indeed. Glenn Beck even went on TV and said women should pray for their periods because it was a baby they didn’t have! Their ideas about reproduction are medieval.
I would guess the extreme Abrahamic cults within Islam and Judism have similar views, as they consider the promise God made to Abraham, that he would have more offspring than the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the beach, to be unfullfilled, and see it as their job to fulfil it.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

If we’re posting HBomb awesomeness:

Women were evolved for Etsy and men were evolved to be Ghostbusters,” courtesy of our old friend Davis-A-Rooni.

pitshade
pitshade
5 years ago

If Ghostbusters evolved from men, why are there still men?

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

@pitshade

If my parents gave birth to me, why are my parents still alive? 🙂

Kale
5 years ago

I just have a reeeal problem with people who think science is just a bunch of imaginative assumptions one makes to suit an agenda. ffs guys, there is a methodology in place. There is already a body of work dedicated to the general topic of “why violence?”
They really could start with zoology because every creature on earth has to be adapted to be able to defend itself from predators in some way, &/or to be a predator. Violence certainly existed before humans. That doesnt mean humans should be in favor of violence that hurts good people for no good reason.
& as others have said, WOMEN ARE NOT A SEPERATE SPECIES. I have heard a lot of transphobes confuse chromosomes with DNA so I think there is a popular misconception that women receive like a special set of girls-only genes or some shit? I have no fucking clue. TL;DR f*ckin Fix science education in America.

pitshade
pitshade
5 years ago

@ Imaginary Petal

Apologies if you were just playing along, but I was parroting an old anti-evolution talking point: “If humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?” Essentially just expressing annoyance at the nearly comical misunderstanding of how evolution works, regarding Ghostbusters and all.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

@pitshade

Yes, I was just playing along. 🙂

I used to be much more active in atheism/skeptic spaces in the past. I’ve heard that meme a billion times.

pitshade
pitshade
5 years ago

Ok, just me being overly cautious about misunderstandings.

Ash
Ash
5 years ago

So basically, vagina holds the power of the universe.

And the sky is blue.

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
5 years ago

I thought Americans didn’t believe in evolution, they think women are made of ribs or something. I think your on to something with them confusing DNA with chromosomes, they don’t think women are human, they believe them to be a subspecies created from males to serve males, exactly what the religions teach them.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

So basically, vagina holds the power of the universe.

I may or may not be picturing the Infinity Gauntlet covered in glowing neon vaginas right now.

Also, you’re an idiot.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

@Ash

Yeah, yeah. Vagina vagina vagina. Enough already.

pitshade
pitshade
5 years ago

I know that I’m just a screwed up asexual, but damn if it isn’t pathetic to see someone think that sex is somehow the sum of all existence.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

@pitshade

I feel you. I’m not ace but I don’t have an overly active sex drive. I’ve never been able to understand those people either.