Ladies! Have you felt your jaw lately? Does it seem a bit … square to you? Maybe a little bit too square?
This could be the result of TOO MUCH FEMINISM, according to some dude who writes for the ongoing internet dumpster fire known as Return of Kings.
In a recent post looking at the allegedly dire results of fifty years of feminism, “Relampago Furioso” warns that one of the most dire “end results of feminism” is the proliferation of “man-jawed women” who look sorta like dudes.
Mr. Furioso quotes, without linking to it, a recent study that looked to see if feminist activist lady women are more “masculinized” than your standard issue lady women.
The study-conductors gave feminist activists a test to see how bossy they are, and measured the length of their ring and index fingers, because apparently fetuses exposed to a more masculine mix of sex hormones at a critical stage of their stay in the womb end up with ring fingers longer than their index fingers.
Turned out the feminist activist lady women were pretty bossy, and they also had “significantly more masculine 2D:4D” finger ratios!
And so, despite the fact that the only physically “masculine” trait discussed in the research is this finger thing — which is determined by sex hormones in the womb, not by anything one does as an adult — Mr. Furioso seems to think that feminist “indoctrination” will cause ladies to develop unsightly “man-jaws.”
If you think women are becoming manlier—they are. In fact, it’s becoming clearer sexual dimorphism (distinct male and female appearance and behavior) is an enemy of social engineers who want to see the sexes blend into one androgynous human pod in the coming generations.
An androgynous human pod? OH NO IT’S ALREADY HAPPENING!
Mr. Furioso quotes from the bossy lady finger study, and then offers this “translation.”
Feminists have a ton of testosterone coursing through their veins, and as more women are taught to act like men instead of being nurturing mothers even more man-jaws will emerge in the years ahead.
Lady from esurance ad, your rebuttal?
Mr. Furioso, your final statement?
It seems social engineers are catering to already existing instincts in women by encouraging them to be copies of men rather than copies of their grandmothers, bringing out the worst in women rather than the best.
Wait, this dude writing for a website run by a pickup artist who fetishizes very young women wants women to be copies of their grandmothers?
Honestly, dudes, do you actually think any of this through before posting it?
@PI
Your last line made me laugh for about 5 minutes solid. Thank you for that.
Can anyone give me recommendations for good literature to encourage jaw growth? Will protesting help? I’ve got a woefully weak jaw and would love to add a little definition
WATCH: The idea of being “fair” toward white nationalists shouldn’t be tolerated
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/02/watch-the-idea-of-being-fair-toward-white-nationalists-shouldnt-be-tolerated/
President of Media Matters Angelo Carusone points out that the biggest pipeline into white nationalism is the men’s “rights” movement.
Okay, so confession time: when I read the headline I thought it said “Man-Jew” instead of “Man-Jaw” and was like “What the actual fuck are they blathering about now?”
And you know what? Even with the correct words…well…there’s still only one proper response:
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee77/schnookumsfd/Memes/addtext_com_MjM1MDIyNjU2ODY_zpsvwxah5it.jpg
@Ooglyboggles
Evolutionnary psychology isn’t a pseudoscience. Most of what this field of study produce is excellent and shines a new light on human development and behavior. Of course, like all science, it has its cranks and its overly simplistic and poor vulgarisation attempts. What you presented is a good example of a bunk. Women have been found to be just as aggressive and violent than men on average. Thus, the premiss of the study you quoted is false. Men don’t dominate the millitary or fund-trading business because they are more aggressive and risk taking by nature. They do dominate those fields in our society and culture, but not because of our evolutionnary past. There is good stuff in evolutionnary psychology. It has an interesting approach and makes good researches more often than not. It would be a shame to throw away the baby with the water.
TIL that the ideas you espouse will change your actual bone structure.
Looks like the article is from a bullshit pay to publish site.
So many awesome Grandmas in this thread. 🙂
Well… At least he acknowledges that women HAVE natural “masculine” instincts. Most of these yahoos seem to think any assertiveness or independence or whatever is utterly alien to the female gender, and just something feminists tricked women into… emulating? Maybe?
-Kat
I guess if you first start seeing *someone* (women) as subhuman – it becomes easier to dehumanize others as well. In the end, the only “real” people become those that look and think exactly like you.
Sad… really.
But I still want my 100 scalps.
– Epronovost
Maybe not. But these kinds of sciences ALWAYS ends up being used by fascists and bigots to justify their evil. And having SCIENCE on their side (or thinking they do) ALWAYS emboldends them.
I don’t think its worth it.
If the baby goes out with the bathwater, so be it.
As an afab nb person let me tell you that I do have longer ring fingers compared to my index ones and that, although not tested, I always thought I probably have more testosterone than the average cis woman.
Still, don’t know why that’s a problem to misogynists since they think womanhood and femininity are so faulty, so shouldn’t “””women becoming more masculine/like men””” be a good thing? But I guess they do feel so entitled to Females™ it doesn’t matter.
Honestly I wonder why I still try to make sense of their logic. Always disappointing, really.
Hey, palaeontologist here.
Yes it bloody well is. It’s a pile (I could finish my sentence right there, but let’s continue anyway) of unverifiable, navel-gazey just-so stories, written to justify pre-decided conclusions and espoused wholely and solely by “Scientific” racists and “Rational” misogynists. You might as well believe in homeopathy or astrology; at least they weren’t designed to prop up cishet while male supremacy.
Hello.
Same thing that Hippodameia.
And i have the right hand slightly bigger than the left.
I do not know, maybe the size of fingers and hands are also greatly influenced by what you do with them (just compare the hands of a pianist and the ones of a construction worker), rather than just some kind of hormones.
Anyway, the good length for the index is the one which allows you to pick your nose quietly…
And since when a square jaw is a definitive male trait ? Jaw is clearly not a sexual dismorphism, ot you have to admit that non square jaw is a female trait, and then… Jesus would have been the daughter of god (for the believers), according to the general drawing. See ? Me too i can make ludicrous pseudo science !
> Paradoxical Intention – Resident Cheeseburger Slut
(to the bun post) I remember this one too. I am pretty sure that if they can argue about the shape and/or the length of the nails, they would. Any tiny bit of a body that do not fit their expectation may be a subject of ranting, it seems.
Maybe they just want clones…
Have a nice day.
Evo-psych; one step up from phrenology.
Please sign
PETITION: Keep Donald Trump’s Finger off the Nuclear Button
http://www.ploughshares.org/keep-donald-trumps-finger-off-nuclear-button?gclid=Cj0KEQiAtK3DBRCBxt-Yxduq5p4BEiQAbFiaPSynWirEpyBiV6X75hSIG_S7bRZ9LViGctU7jZqR7nsaAp5t8P8HAQ
So I started reading the wall-o-text quoted by ooglyboggles and noticed it’s almost entirely duplicated sections. Here’s my strategic section breaks, you see that only the short middle section is not duplicate:
No really.
They’re star-bellied Sneetches, so unsure of their self-worth that they’ve been reduced to staring at their own fingers and jaws, consumed with anxiety that people might not be able to see a clear difference between them and the inferior, hated Other. No wonder they’re easy marks for grifters, conmen, fake news, junk science, and kleptocrats.
So…
“Don’t embrace feminism – or horrible misogynist men will find you less attractive.”
2 sec…
*Throws all razors, signs up for a dozen protests, gets a cat, starts pumping iron, binge-reads on political lesbianism, and buys all the scented candles.*
SAFE!
yeah…
I’d feel sorry for them, but the real tragedy is, there are SOOOOO MANYYYYY of them….
So this study looked at women who were more likely aware of gender roles and social pressures on women to be meek and follow a man’s authority to determine if they were ‘bossy’? A word which is pretty much uniquely used to suppress young girls from showing any sorts of leadership qualities?
And they concluded that these women, who probably are not down with the idea that men should make all decisions, are ‘bossy’.
And this is a hundred page study???
Also, “””””bossy”””””????? Seriously?
I still want to ‘ban’ the word bossy. Let’s make it socially unnacceptable to crush a girl’s esteem.
Bossy wasn’t a problem for me, but ‘teachers pet’ was. I was good in school, and often knew the answers. I don’t know when it started, but i remember the realisation that i should just not give them. Let someone else answer. I would wait until there was that uncomfortable silence that stretches before actually raising my hand.
I was a pretty lonely kid for a few years, and often found it easier to interact with adults than with kids my own age.
I think the two things sort of worked together to make me more hesitant about asserting myself, which i am trying to overcome.
None of this was genetic, people who worte the paper. It was all societal pressures. I realised i would have more interaction with my peers if i didn’t look as smart. (I have never thought of it like that. DAMMIT i hate that i was a girl who made herself look less intelligent to potentially hang out with people. ARGH)
In other words:
Taken from this article, about another terrible study using self reported results to conclude that women are prefered 2-1 in hiring decisions for STEM positions. Ugh.
Lamarckian evolutionary science is still well and good, it seems.
@DL: yeah, I thought so too. If you really believed women were inferior, wouldn’t the ideal solution be for humans to evolve to a state where women were more like men? But no, then they might have to start treating us with respect, and screw that.
I never knew my biological maternal grandmother, but my paternal grandmother was an academic who was fluent in at least four languages, single-handedly raised and provided for three young children when my grandfather was long-term hospitalised, and worked in internal security during the war. Not to mention, she was incredibly intelligent and just an awesome person. I’d love to be even half the woman she was.
Emulate my grandmothers? The one who did all of the taxes for the farm every year since she was 12, and who worked for decades in the post office to support her family? Or the one who dropped out of high school when she got married (they’d probably like that bit) but later, once her children were out of the house, earned her GED and then an education degree, and had a successful career as a teacher?
There’s much to admire about how both of my grandmothers lived their lives, but I think I’d rather live a life more like the lives they wish they could have lead, if only they’d had more opportunities. My paternal grandmother’s greatest regret has always been that she didn’t go to University, which is why she always encouraged me to get an education. My maternal grandmother would have never gotten married so young if the state of medical science at the time allowed women to get pregnant into their 30s.
Don’t tempt me to comment about the existence of “gender” as a supposed scientific fact. Oh, please don’t…
@Pol
Yeah, no. Please do not be tempted. We don’t really care for your “science”.
“My science”? Look Sinkable, science is not a subjective thing: it is objective. So there is no such thing as “my science”, OK?
Science does not care for mine or yours. It just IS, in an objective way.