Mammoth FAQ

A mammoth, hunted. By leocigale
A mammoth, hunted. By leocigale

We Hunted the Mammoth: The FAQ-ening

Q) A mammoth, huh? What’s this blog about?

A) Misogyny, not mammoths.

Specifically, this blog focuses on what I call the “New Misogyny,” an angry antifeminist backlash that has emerged like a boil on the ass of the internet over the last decade or so. These aren’t your traditional misogynists – the social conservatives and religious fundamentalists who make up much of the far right.

These are guys, mostly, who range in age from their teens to their fifties, who have embraced misogyny as an ideology, as a sort of symbolic solution to the frustrations in their lives – whether financial, social, or sexual.

Some of them identify as Men’s Rights Activists, trying to cast their peculiar struggle against what they see as the excess of feminism and the advantages of women as a civil rights issue of sorts. Alongside those who explicitly label themselves MRAs we find a great number of antifeminist and antiwomen activists we might call Men’s Rights-adjacent – like those in the Skeptic and Atheist subcultures who still haven’t gotten over an offhand remark Skepchick founder Rebecca Watson made about a dude in an elevator a couple of years ago.

Others proclaim themselves Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), declaring a sort of independence from women – while spending much of their time on message boards talking endlessly about them.

Still others see themselves as Pickup Artists (PUA), or masters of “Game,” espousing elaborate “scientific” theories of male superiority while trading tips on how best to pressure or manipulate drunk women into bed. This misogynistic wing of the PUA subculture has a considerable overlap with a subset of traditionalist and far-right blogs. Many of those in what has come to be called “the manosphere” — hey, don’t blame me, I didn’t come up with that name — don’t simply embrace misogyny; they also proudly embrace “scientific” racism and other bigotries.

Still, while some of the New Misogynists see themselves as conservatives, even “neo-reactionaries,” many identify themselves as libertarians or even as liberals. Theirs is a backlash that frames itself as a step forward.

That said, there are numerous posts here that don’t have anything to do with MRAs or MGTOWers or PUAs or any of their ilk. Sometimes I like to post cat pics.

Q) Ok, but you still haven’t explained the mammoth thing.

A) This is a reference to a quote I once posted from a dude who felt women weren’t sufficiently appreciative of what men had supposedly done for them over the ages. Here’s the quote, in all of its weird glory:

We men built a nice safe world for you all the the coal-mines of death, roads, railroads, bridges and tall office buildings. Its $1,000,000 spent per death of a man on a large dangerous project on average now you can just 9-5 it and call it a day in air-conditioned and heated safety. Forget about the wars we died in and the sacrifices made just ignore history or is it now hersorty? You are accruing the benefits without ever having to pay the price you still don’t have to sign up for the draft and who will protect you? The Sex and the City girls will fight off the North Koreans with their Manolo Blahniks?

Men gave you this modern world now you take it for granted we hunted the mammoth to feed you we died in burning buildings and were gassed in the trenches but that was just for fun right?

How quick and conveniently you forget who made this possible.

We gave you Leonardo da Vinci, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy not to mention countless others, Jonas Salk saved half the world from death and you just piss on it all.

This quote is such an amazing clusterfuck of misogyny, entitlement and unwarranted self-importance – not to mention historical ignorance – that the bit about mammoths became a catchphrase around here, neatly conveying pretty much everything this blog is against. And so I decided to make it the name of the blog.

Q) And who exactly are you?

A) David Futrelle. I’m a freelance writer and blogger living in Evanston, IL, and the guy behind the Confused Cats Against Feminism blog. For more on my illustrious career, see the David Futrelle FAQ.

Q) You’re against the Men’s Rights movement. Are you against men having rights?

A) Of course not. As hundreds of posts on this site show pretty clearly, the so-called Men’s Rights Movement is a hateful, reactionary movement driven largely by misogyny and hatred of feminism. It doesn’t help men. It encourages them to scapegoat women and stew in their own bitterness.

Q) Are you secretly funded by the international feminist conspiracy?

A) No. I’m not funded by any organization. Some readers have very kindly given me donations. You can too, if you wish.

Q) What’s with all the cat pictures?

A) I like cats.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

643 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Snowberry
Snowberry
5 years ago

whoops I was trying to find blockquotes and forgot to check what page I was posting on when I used the back-arrow thing.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

It’s a solid point whichever thread you make it on; and considering that it accidentally landed in a discussion about gender policing in which MRAs accuse men of being disloyal to the brotherhood, it’s entirely applicable.

Arkenstone
Arkenstone
5 years ago

Almost three months later, I drop by to look at comments. Always interesting.

A bit of a ramble follows – tangentially related, and vaguely focused on comments from Thalia as a point of exploration.

//Assertiveness and Confidence as innately attractive factors//

“Trust me, I know — I’m a woman and this is something I have struggled with myself.”

Yes, I think so. People love to see a dichotomy: the notion of evil/good, black/white, male/female is greatly simplistic and the brain loves shortcuts. Research shows that there are differences(1,2), but its differences relative to each other and in degree rather than complete opposition.

“But you can get that from any psychological support around being more assertive and raising your self-esteem. ”

I disagree. Wish it was true, but I disagree. Psychology often revolves around the idea that everyone is rational. People are not. I lack sources since there are probably no studies contrasting “PUA training” vs “CBT therapy” for “overall dating success”, but personal as well as significant anecdotal evidence does NOT support the idea that it works.

Why? Because you’re trying to sell. And when you’re trying to sell something, including yourself, you need to use sales techniques.

//Marketing, human psychology, and attractiveness//

It sounds very disagreeable but after pretty vast research, a lot of PUA “tactics” work because they are also re-purposed around sales approaches. And that is instinctual…but it works. Not just on women, mind you; maybe slightly more so on women, sometimes.

I’m sure you will immediately respond with “But not on me!” You would not be the first(3). “Or on anyone intelligent! They wouldn’t fall for such tricks!”(4).

A few quick examples show this.

PUA often indicates the women seek “high value” males – but what is value?

Well, part of it, is showing that the guy “has choices” or “is wanted by others.” Why does this work? Well, because in part, people draw their sense of the value of something by by their reference group of peers. If all of my fellow colleagues seem to want a BMW, then the BMW has suddenly gained much greater value to me. If all other men want a girl who I find only middlingly attractive, I will immediately wonder why they want her so much – perhaps I’m not seeing something. Women consistently tend to be more vulnerable to social influence(6); this probably applies heavier to young women, who are the target market of such tactics.

PUA also indicates a notion of making a short approach, and then leaving, trying to force an acceptance quickly and the risk of “being ignored.”

This works because we increase the notion of value due to scarcity, as can anyone who has dealt with the car buying experience has experienced(7). We assign the mental pain of loss with irrational influence and this can promote women to increase the perceived value of a partner if otherwise they’ve already been at least somewhat interested.

And finally, PUA is considered infamous for using “negging” or slightly seemingly to offend the ‘target’.

When done well, this basically increases the ‘difficulty’ or ‘expense’ of getting to know the PUA. This works because we think that what’s more expensive or harder to get is innately more valuable(8). The sleazier part of is that it attacks self-esteem and then offers to become the “position of authority” to restore it, but its still is effective.

//Conclusion//

We like to think ourselves as enlightened and rational, and we also like to believe in a fair world where the best things go to a morally admirable methods(9). Unfortunately, this is not the case. PUA tactics often work because they are essentially sales tactics, and the same ‘shortcuts’ used to unduly influence people can also be used more specifically to influence women, and perhaps in manners that more specifically work on women.

Fortunately, you are immune from such influence because your experiences have made you special(10).

//Sources//

(1) “How Men’s Brains Are Wired Differently Than Women’s” http://www.livescience.com/41619-male-female-brains-wired-differently.html

(2)”Brain size and grey matter volume in the healthy human brain”, Lüders, Eileen; Steinmetz, Helmuth1; Jäncke, Lutz2, Cognitive Neuroscience And Neuropsychology 3 December 2002 – Volume 13 – Issue 17

(3) “Illusionary superiority”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

(4)”Perceptions of control and free will”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion#In_perceptions_of_control_and_free_will

(5)”Peer-Perceived Admiration and Social Preference”, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2194641/

(6) “Gender and Social Influence”,
http://academics.wellesley.edu/Psychology/Psych/Faculty/Carli/GenderAndSocialInfluence.pdf

(7) “The Psychological Effects of Perceived Scarcity on
Consumers’ Buying Behavior”, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=businessdiss

(8) “Price Tag Can Change The Way People Experience Wine, Study Shows” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080126101053.htm

(9) “Just World Fallacy”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

(10) “Fallacy of uniqueness”, http://gatewaytogold.com/becoming-authentic-the-fallacy-of-the-unique-personality/

Leisha Young
Leisha Young
5 years ago

Arkenstone, what you fail to realise is that what you (and your ilk) are suggesting is that women are commodities to be obtained through whatever means necessary. You speak about women as though you are speaking about selling/buying a product. We are not products! We are human beings and wish to be treated as such.

All of your issues with women stem from the fact that you see them as objects as opposed to living, breathing entities with thoughts, feelings and emotions.

You are never likely to have any meaningful relationships with women if that’s how you see them. Who the hell wants to be treated like a vagina with a woman attached to it?

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

I noticed that none of these citations actually said that PUA works.

Sure the notion that something is scarce makes it seem more attractive to people. But, the thing is, men aren’t scarce. No amount of negging is going to make a woman believe that men are scarce. We also know when we’re being hit on if we’re reasonably socially adept. Because it happens all the time.

PUAs love to think they’re these master manipulators. They’re not. When PUA actually works, it’s because it’s about numbers. They hit on everyone they see until they find a taker. That takes perseverance but it doesn’t take skill.

Or some PUAs just find someone drunk or high enough to not say no. Rape is nothing to be proud of either.

No matter how rational and “I swear I don’t hate women” a PUA tries to be, the creepiness and rapiness come out.

I’m sure you will immediately respond with “But not on me!” You would not be the first(3). “Or on anyone intelligent! They wouldn’t fall for such tricks!”(4).

In other words, “no” doesn’t mean “no.” We say we don’t like creepy and invasive PUA “tactics” and they disagree. They tell us we do want it. Whether we know it or not.

PUA also indicates a notion of making a short approach, and then leaving, trying to force an acceptance quickly and the risk of “being ignored.”

Force an acceptance? There’s another word for that. Rape.

Arkenstone
Arkenstone
5 years ago

“I noticed that none of these citations actually said that PUA works.”

Likewise, you will never see a scientific article stating that gravity works, or that God isn’t real. Fundamental statements as such aren’t really the domain of science, and innately the notion of fraught – for a paper to address that, it would need to establish “what is PUA”, as well as the definition of “does it work?”

I think that there have been some small scale studies that demonstrated that it “worked”; but that’s not really my concern, as I’m more interested in the marketing concepts and universality behind it.

“Arkenstone, what you fail to realise is that what you (and your ilk) are suggesting is that women are commodities to be obtained through whatever means necessary. You speak about women as though you are speaking about selling/buying a product. We are not products! We are human beings and wish to be treated as such.”

A resoundingly moral notion, but not really the point when discussing objectively about the efficacy of something. Replace ‘women’ there with ‘buyers’ and you have the basics of what is a lot of marketing, although I like to think of it as a bit less harsh.

Its also notable that I believe you’re missing the point of that. The compliance methods are designed to persuade /purchase/ rather than objectification innately.

Are you suggesting that, for example, men aren’t living, breathing entities with emotions and personal experiences? Of course they are. Do similar tactics work on them as well? Yes.

It always annoys me when such a dichotomy is attempted: compliance tactics work both on men and women. There’s evidence that in some cases they work better on women, but it remains a matter of degree, rather than of contrast.

I think its worthwhile to consider their efficacy, divorced from any moral considerations; and then reevaluate how to apply moral considerations toward it. The science is pretty solid that compliance tactics work – marketing is a great example of it – so I think its more worthwhile to work from the actual science toward a better and more moral world for everyone.

Also – I am not suggesting anything. An analogy would be that I find it worthwhile to explain that bullets do, in fact, cause trauma which can lead to death. This does not morally justify bullets but it is also foolish to deny that they work.

Ultimately, everyone wishes to be treated as special. But we really aren’t.

“PUAs love to think they’re these master manipulators. They’re not. When PUA actually works, it’s because it’s about numbers. They hit on everyone they see until they find a taker. That takes perseverance but it doesn’t take skill.”

A statement of belief, but the evidence really doesn’t seem consistent with it. I took a lot of effort to source that compliance tactics work on some sort of underlying human nature; if executed correctly, they probably do have significantly above average success rates.

“In other words, “no” doesn’t mean “no.” We say we don’t like creepy and invasive PUA “tactics” and they disagree. They tell us we do want it. Whether we know it or not.”

Its a lot like marketing.

We find ourselves doing a lot of things and then self-justify later. There are MRI scans that show exactly that type of mental behavior; despite our beliefs, we are not very rational creatures. The limbic system for feelings has vast sway the frontal cortex almost every time and no, not just for women. Everyone: men tend to be more motivated by anger, but its no less of an emotion than any other and no more rational as a driver.

You may or may not like it; I may or may not like being affected by the same emotions as many other people are, but ultimately, I will probably have similar feelings and by being aware of the nature of persuasion, it might help me understand myself and such methods better.

“All of your issues with women stem from the fact that you see them as objects as opposed to living, breathing entities with thoughts, feelings and emotions.”

I do not have issues with women anymore.

Significant irony is that I had many more issues with women when I specifically tried to interact with them in a much more stilted manner, arguably more respectful.

“You are never likely to have any meaningful relationships with women if that’s how you see them. Who the hell wants to be treated like a vagina with a woman attached to it?”

I find that type of projection to be rather disturbing. It makes certain assumptions of people, and specifically, in this case of me.

Again, remove ‘women’ from that sentence and replace that with ‘people.’ By observing how people and psychology works, I naturally treat all people as commodities? Is that, in fact, a completely logical following? If I observe that people(for example) are swayed by notions of authority, does this mean that I will always be using notions of authority as my sole means of communication with people?

Does this necessarily, essentially, limit my involvement with women to sexual desire?

Uh, no.

I have meaningful relationships with women, including my wife, friends and colleagues. Being aware that people may react in a certain way does not mean that you have to either 1)try to take advantage of that, 2)is worthwhile, or 3)limits your ability to interact with them in such a narrow manner.

shonpan
5 years ago

Sure the notion that something is scarce makes it seem more attractive to people. But, the thing is, men aren’t scarce.

This is very true. Women aren’t very scarce either; nor are food, cars, vintage, etc.

And yet we pay for certain things with much more time/effort/sacrifice than for others, even though we live in a world of abundance. Why is that?

Because we pay for perceptual scarcity, rather than actual scarcity. The brain really seems to work really hard not to think and uses as many shortcuts as possible. The ‘value’ of something is really all in our mind more often than not, and that ultimately serves as the guiding key to our behavior.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Likewise, you will never see a scientific article stating that gravity works, or that God isn’t real. Fundamental statements as such aren’t really the domain of science, and innately the notion of fraught – for a paper to address that, it would need to establish “what is PUA”, as well as the definition of “does it work?”

Plenty of science addresses gravity and its effects? Are you fucking kidding me? Science usually doesn’t address religion as they’re seen as separate topics, but it has been done. See the book God: The Failed Hypothesis by physicist Victor Stenger. I’d definitely recommend that book for anyone who is an atheist or is just curious about the subject but doesn’t want the Dawkins assholishness.

There’s no reason you couldn’t state define what is PUA and does it work as part of a hypothesis. You don’t need to mansplain the social sciences to this crowd. We already know about them. It’s not very scientific to look at a bunch of very tangentially related papers, look up some lingo on Wikipedia and declare PUA works. Those previous semi-related studies would be a jumping off point for a hypothesis specific to PUA. But don’t try to extrapolate and pretend it’s anything other than an unscientific personal opinion.

It always annoys me when such a dichotomy is attempted: compliance tactics work both on men and women. There’s evidence that in some cases they work better on women, but it remains a matter of degree, rather than of contrast.

I think its worthwhile to consider their efficacy, divorced from any moral considerations; and then reevaluate how to apply moral considerations toward it. The science is pretty solid that compliance tactics work

No. NO. NO! What you are essentially saying is that rape works to get sex, therefore we should consider that it is moral. Although science in and of itself is amoral, there are always moral and ethical considerations when applying science. Ethicists have decided decades ago that informed consent is an important part of applied sciences. You can’t just decide that getting your dick wet is a bigger moral imperative than another person’s bodily autonomy. Even if PUA was a legitimate science – and it so isn’t – there’s nothing you can say that will make coercing or forcing someone into having sex with you moral or ethical.

A statement of belief, but the evidence really doesn’t seem consistent with it. I took a lot of effort to source that compliance tactics work on some sort of underlying human nature; if executed correctly, they probably do have significantly above average success rates.

You are the one claiming that PUA has been scientifically proven to work. You’re the one who has to prove it. You haven’t done so. I don’t have to prove that they don’t work. The burden of proof is not on me. It’s on you. Once again, posting a few links to Wikipedia articles and tangentially related studies is not evidence that PUA works.

Its a lot like marketing.

The difference is, if someone is persuaded by marketing to buy something they don’t need, their bank account takes a hit. If you coerce someone into sex they didn’t consent to, you are violating their bodily autonomy. You’ve become a rapist. Which is a crime. High pressure sales attacks are shady, but they aren’t rape.

We find ourselves doing a lot of things and then self-justify later. There are MRI scans that show exactly that type of mental behavior; despite our beliefs, we are not very rational creatures. The limbic system for feelings has vast sway the frontal cortex almost every time

This is just a pseudoscientific way of claiming that rape victims just “regret” the sex they had the night before. Nobody is buying it.

I do not have issues with women anymore.

Significant irony is that I had many more issues with women when I specifically tried to interact with them in a much more stilted manner, arguably more respectful.

If you don’t have any issues with women anymore, why are you here dropping pompous teal deer and attempting to justify ignoring consent? I don’t believe you for one second. You even go on to admit here that you’re happier being a misogynist and ignoring consent. Fuck you.

Again, remove ‘women’ from that sentence and replace that with ‘people.’ By observing how people and psychology works, I naturally treat all people as commodities? Is that, in fact, a completely logical following? If I observe that people(for example) are swayed by notions of authority, does this mean that I will always be using notions of authority as my sole means of communication with people?

Funny. I have a degree in psychology and in none of my classes was there a unit on how rape is a scientifically valid choice. Stop trying to hide your misogyny in social sciences jargon. It’s transparent as fuck.

shonpan
5 years ago

Well, that was pretty emotional and immensely focused on the personal attack. Let’s see what I can address there that isn’t focused on, apparently, me.

Plenty of science addresses gravity and its effects? Are you fucking kidding me? Science usually doesn’t address religion as they’re seen as separate topics, but it has been done.

Science also addresses gender-based differences in the brain, and there are studies on how people generally react differently to presented situations, including influence on their decision-making. I have sourced that earlier.

have a degree in psychology and in none of my classes was there a unit on how rape is a scientifically valid choice

To be direct, from a purely scientific perspective – although at this point it seems increasingly jargony – rape /is/ a valid reproductive choice. This is where definitions are extremely important. Of course, it is a valid evolutionary strategy and it is practiced by quite a few animals, including near-human primate. Nature also bears a host of other unsavory practices including infanticide and cannibalism, all which have a scientific basis as well.

From a societal standpoint, it is a crime recognized from almost the beginning of prehistory. It is not a socially valid choice except historically when it was inflicted upon the “other”; or technically, not members of society.

I feel that your outage is largely because you keep trying to bring notions of morality into this. Science in, and of itself, makes few moral judgments if any. That isn’t the purpose of it.

You are the one claiming that PUA has been scientifically proven to work. You’re the one who has to prove it.

The body of evidence, which I took some effort to gather, highly demonstrates the mechanism as well as the reasoning why it has efficacy. Beyond that, I really do feel that you are essentially trying to deny from a position of personal moral belief – which is fine, but it isn’t really the best way to observe what may be reality.

I could probably find some decent studies to support a direct correlation, even, but you seem very invested in your position with enough emotion that you would deny out of cognitive dissonance. I may be wrong – that’s a presumption, but it really does seem to be so.

No. NO. NO! What you are essentially saying is that rape works to get sex, therefore we should consider that it is moral. Although science in and of itself is amoral, there are always moral and ethical considerations when applying science. Ethicists have decided decades ago that informed consent is an important part of applied sciences. You can’t just decide that getting your dick wet is a bigger moral imperative than another person’s bodily autonomy. Even if PUA was a legitimate science – and it so isn’t – there’s nothing you can say that will make coercing or forcing someone into having sex with you moral or ethical.

I never said it was either moral or ethical.

I wasn’t vastly interested in that. That goes into the realm of personal belief, which isn’t very objective. I can also provide plenty of evidence and agree that sociologically, informed consent is a great thing. I’m not arguing with you.

I’m much more interested in noting that A may cause B, and therefore it is interesting to note why A causes B, rather than “A is evil.”

The difference is, if someone is persuaded by marketing to buy something they don’t need, their bank account takes a hit. If you coerce someone into sex they didn’t consent to, you are violating their bodily autonomy. You’ve become a rapist. Which is a crime. High pressure sales attacks are shady, but they aren’t rape.

Methods of hurting people cause damage to people. Increasing the same measures may cause death.

Again, you’re drawing moral implication to my observations of mechanism. I believe the mechanism works; I believe there is enough science to show why. I’m not vastly interested in exploring how evil or good it may be; that would also a lot of personal judgment, and I would wish to also explore objective metrics for that(for example, I would measure societal health by infant morality, age of death, and general caloric intake).

If you don’t have any issues with women anymore, why are you here dropping pompous teal deer and attempting to justify ignoring consent?

I’m mostly interested in spreading what seems to be objectively true, regardless of agenda. I argue with MRA people as well, incidentally.

I find it a pity that you, at the least, seem to be very emotionally involved in your perception of what I am stating. It is your right, of course, but do you feel that it could draw question upon a calm, logical understanding?

Snuffy
Snuffy
5 years ago

Ha looks like the troll switched over to one it’s sockpuppet accounts in the middle of an argument.

shonpan
5 years ago

Nah, I realized it fell over to my old wordpress account, so why not. I’m more used to “Arkenstone” but it made me realize that I should probably update my old blog too.

I haven’t personally attacked anyone, so I’m not sure why it keeps being used against me. It seems unfortunate.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

I prefer this name, self-righteous sealioning jackass of a rapist* doesn’t deserve to be called Arkenstone.

*Nobody writes “Rape is a valid reproductive choice” unless they’ve raped somebody. Nobody.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

It is my considered opinion as a scientist and a gentleman that shonpan/Arkenstone is simply dishonest.

Sir, define your stance. Is rape moral, under whatever system of morals you hold?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) [Insert weasel here]

If (a), then please get out of my species. If (b), then stop defending it, especially to people who have had personal experience of it. If (c), then the internet has no place for you; come back when you’re willing to be honest.

The position you have taken – carefully avoiding taking a stance and trying to represent yourself in a scholarly fashion while deliberately being as offensive as possible – is not one any reasonable person should indulge in. Please stop doing it.

Yours sincerely,
– EJ

shonpan
5 years ago

Ah, yeah, so we’re back to ignoring the fact that force can in fact get people(and animals) pregnant and in nature, doing that spreads your genes so it can in fact be valid as a strategy.

So can other terrible things; the fact that they are terrible does not, in fact, mean that they will never work.

Every now and then I wonder how people blindly miss facts for belief, and then I realize, well, its how a lot of people operate. Unfortunate, but true.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

PS: I get what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to provoke a discussion in which you get to argue a position which you aren’t willing to admit to holding; and this gives you the freedom to be entirely inconsistent whilst demanding it of others. This is the rhetorical equivalent of doing that thing where you sit in the back seat of the car and go in to poke your little sister who’s sitting beside you, stopping your finger an inch away from her so you can claim that you’re not actually poking her, and that therefore her pissed-off state of mind isn’t your fault.

It’s an utterly childish behaviour that does not deserve the dignity of a proper answer; and the fact that you have peppered yourself with a bunch of footnotes (wikipedia references to logical fallacies, really?) does not in any way make it more so.

Grow up. Stop thinking it’s clever. Define your position. Until then, fuck off back to the comments section of whichever Sargon of Akkad video you came from.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Dude, there have also been studies that show rape is a super criddy reproductive strategy, particularly in smaller communities, because it essentially makes all other members of the community hate your guts, limiting your survivorship significantly.

Biology is more complex than ‘this can be a viable strategy’. Also, just because something ‘may cause’ or correlates with, that is not proof of causation. When I substitute taught for stats, I tried to beat that into the brains of the undergrads.

That’s like the super huge flag of ‘not really super science-y’ right there, bucko me boy.

Also the Wikipedia links.

…only math professors think Wikipedia is an acceptable resource.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Well, that was pretty emotional and immensely focused on the personal attack. Let’s see what I can address there that isn’t focused on, apparently, me.

Off to a great start here. Dismissing my comment, which was actually a lot more patient and mild mannered than you deserve as emotional. Never mind that I was mainly addressing your faulty science. I’m a hysterical wimmenz!

Science also addresses gender-based differences in the brain, and there are studies on how people generally react differently to presented situations, including influence on their decision-making. I have sourced that earlier.

And there is plenty of other science that points out how studies on gender differences are often faulty. Check out Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine.

For one thing, babies are treated differently based on gender from the very start. Given neuroplasticity, it’s very hard to separate, even when looking at brain scans, socialization from inherent biological differences.

For another thing, studies that involve brain scans tend to have very small sample sizes because they’re expensive to carry out.

Also, scientists are not immune from having biases and letting that effect their work.

But again, even if I were to give you “gender differences in the brain,” that’s still not proof that PUA works. None of the studies you linked to address PUA. Until somebody creates a falsifiable hypothesis about PUA and tests it, you haven’t provided scientific proof of jack shit. You have assumptions and anecdotes.

rape /is/ a valid reproductive choice. This is where definitions are extremely important. Of course, it is a valid evolutionary strategy and it is practiced by quite a few animals, including near-human primate.

And here it is. Classic evo psych pseudoscientific bullshit. Other animals are not humans. Rape is not the most successful reproductive strategy. How adorable that you were lecturing us about fallacies before when you just committed one yourself. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/132-naturalistic-fallacy

You know why rape is not a great strategy? In humans (unlike many animals) fathers are involved in raising and protecting young. Human children require a lot of resources and humans aren’t reproductively prolific so quality is more important than quantity. Rape and move on is not a great way to ensure healthy and thriving young who will pass on genes.

Rape, being a unwelcome, unpleasant, and frightening for women also serves to keep us weary of men. It means that ultimately, men have fewer opportunities for sex because we devote as much time to protecting ourselves from rape as we do getting to know men and deciding whether or not to have sex with them.

You’re also forgetting that women often abort unwanted fetuses. Abortion isn’t a new thing, women figured out herbal abortificants a long time ago. So there’s another way rape doesn’t make sense as a reproductive strategy.

Even setting aside how morally reprehensible rape is, it does not make sense as a reproductive strategy. It really doesn’t. You’re providing no evidence that it does.

The body of evidence, which I took some effort to gather, highly demonstrates the mechanism as well as the reasoning why it has efficacy. Beyond that, I really do feel that you are essentially trying to deny from a position of personal moral belief

None of your evidence pertains to PUA. Just because you are calling it evidence, doesn’t mean it is. Your “evidence” suggests that maybe it’s something that can be studied. But until somebody actually studies PUA, you can not claim science backs you up. Because it doesn’t.

Dismissing me as emotional does not change the fact that you are not meeting basic scientific standards. Here’s a basic 101 level guide to proving a hypothesis. You’ve only done step one. Sorry. http://classroom.synonym.com/steps-proving-hypothesis-2955.html

I am objecting to PUA from a moral basis. But I am also objecting to your claim that it’s scientifically proven from some way. I can do both. Despite being crippled by possession of a fragile lady brain.

I’m mostly interested in spreading what seems to be objectively true, regardless of agenda. I argue with MRA people as well, incidentally.

Except, you haven’t spread anything but the same pseudoscience we’ve seen a million times before. Do you really think your pathetic biotruths are some sort of truthbomb? Laughable.

I find it a pity that you, at the least, seem to be very emotionally involved in your perception of what I am stating. It is your right, of course, but do you feel that it could draw question upon a calm, logical understanding?

You find it a pity that I think rape is wrong. Seriously?

And quit pretending science is divorced from ethics. It isn’t. There’s a whole field called bioethics devoted to ethics in biology and medicine. Any time the subject deals with sentient beings, not even just humans, ethics enters into it. Informed consent is crucial whenever you are dealing with human subjects and these days, a study is not considered valid if it is not conducted ethically.

I guess this means PUA will never be proven because it is essentially a rape manual. Your use of the terms “forced acceptance” and “compliance techniques” certainly indicate that you are working backwards. You’ve started with the idea that rape is good and you’re working really hard to justify that. Hey! There’s a term for that! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

shonpan
5 years ago

The offensiveness which you take from it is unfortunately projected; it isn’t an effort on my part to be offensive, and indeed, I take some effort to avoid it. I dislike dichotomies, as I indicated, and so you are trying to insist on one.

But its worth exploring at any rate. I’ll substitute a phrase – as it is meaningful to consider.

Sir, define your stance. Is murder moral, under whatever system of morals you hold?
a) Yes.
b) No.

Is murder ever moral?

The easiest way to answer is no. Taking everything from someone – all possibilities, all futures, and any possible creation from him or her – by fiat and use of force – how could that be moral?

And yet, it is the reason why societies exist, effectively.

The earliest societies as we know it existed because grain could be gathered, creating a notion of wealth. With wealth, it became necessary or advantageous to use force to defend oneself and to use force to despoil others of what they had. This involved murder, often enough.

And yet, this great atrocity has given us the presence of the states(because violence was monopolized by legitimate sources such as the police/army), large organizations, and perhaps ultimately the very internet we speak of.

Now, to extenuate to your statement of rape.

And no, in fact, it has been condemned from the earliest sources of history and probably can be noted even in pre-human primates; the notion of genetic contribution being kept within a family and not by aggressive outsiders was paramount.

Yet, as a violent and hostile action, it probably did drive a lot of a need for protection. As a form of avarice driving armies, it perhaps did lead to a lot of change and perhaps even civilization – Roman forces, for example, were driven for a desire for plunder, and that included forced captives.

To personal experience

I would appreciate if you did not presume my own experiences. I have a great many beliefs; but fundamental to them is the tenet that being blind to what may be logical and factual, is ultimately very detrimental to building what is a positive society. That is the realm of the fanatic, and however justified the fanatic might be, it is still, ultimately, irrational.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

*criddy = crummy.

Back to EMS! On shift at summer job; I can hibernate in 30 hours. After 6 days on.

Not 24s, thank dog.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

I can never keep track of what the misogynist line is today. Is rape a valid means of reproduction or do our bodies shut that whole thing, making abortion unnecessary!?

http://revolva.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gop-science-quotes-todd-akin.jpg

shonpan
5 years ago

Your use of the terms “forced acceptance” and “compliance techniques” certainly indicate that you are working backwards. You’ve started with the idea that rape is good and you’re working really hard to justify that. Hey! There’s a term for that! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Ah yes, the strawman technique. That said confirmation bias is indeed true, and I may in fact be guilty of it; we all are, most likely, to some extent. This does not exclude you.

That said: “Forced choice” and “compliance techniques” are both concepts used in marketing and persuasion, fields which I am significantly involved in. The fact that you read sexual violation into everything speaks wonders about you, and less so about me.

I think I’ve said everything needed. I find it unfortunate that you seem to have taken my concept as a some sort of comment against “female brain”, which is rather revealing and interesting of your perspective, but not something I had ever claimed.

At any rate, I think I’ve stated what was necessary. Thank you for for your time.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

The earliest societies as we know it existed because grain could be gathered, creating a notion of wealth. With wealth, it became necessary or advantageous to use force to defend oneself and to use force to despoil others of what they had. This involved murder, often enough.

And yet, this great atrocity has given us the presence of the states(because violence was monopolized by legitimate sources such as the police/army), large organizations, and perhaps ultimately the very internet we speak of.

Keep your bullshit out of my field. As a political scientist, I can assure you that your assessment of statehood and the origins thereof are ahistorical assfax. And no, I won’t give you a free lesson on how reality actually functions. Go back to school and learn shit. Your “I am so scientific and dispassionate” act is utterly transparent and your “knowledge” is utterly lacking.

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

Ah, yeah, so we’re back to ignoring the fact that force can in fact get people(and animals) pregnant and in nature, doing that spreads your genes so it can in fact be valid as a strategy.

So can other terrible things; the fact that they are terrible does not, in fact, mean that they will never work.

Dear Pseudonymous Digital Entity:

We would like to extend our warmest thanks. It is not often that, immediately following accusations of dishonesty, a being so clearly confirms the charge. Your forthright confirmation saves us all much time and energy that might otherwise be spent pondering your sincerity. Conflating two independent criticism of your position may not be an effective means of addressing them, but it certainly highlights your disingenuity.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

Nope, sorry. You don’t get to make that argument. You especially do not get to make the following statement:

I would appreciate if you did not presume my own experiences.

I don’t know if you’ve bothered to read much on this site’s comments, but you are not unusual. It is fairly common to see people like yourself come in here and make the argument you are attempting to make. They all tend to have that same attitude: that they keep trying to make this not be about people and move it back to being about abstract ideas. Which is somewhat tawdry, seeing that rape is about people more than anything else.

If you have personal experiences to share, then by all means please share them. I’ll listen and empathise and do my best to work out whether I need to sympathise or offer hugs or just be silent.

However, simply coming in and announcing to the world “We are now going to discuss whether rape is a successful evolutionary strategy?” Nope. That is not an argument you get to make. Can you see how everyone here is not making that argument and not debating that matter with you, and instead discussing the far more interesting point of “What are shonpan’s personal experiences with rape? Is he a rapist? Is he merely pro-rape? Is he a survivor?” That is the discussion we’re interested in having here. The topic you’ve suggested is dull, like it is every time someone suggests it, and this is why we’re not interested in having it.

If you really want to have that discussion, I recommend you open MS Notepad, type your side of it in, and then wait for someone to respond. I’d be very surprised if anyone did. But you can take comfort in the fact that it’ll be one hundred percent on the topic you want it to be on.

This is a discussion about you, and your opinions about rape, and your experience with rape. You may, if you wish, give us some information which is pertinent to this discussion: after all, you know it better than we do and we’re not going to put our academic theories over your lived experience. You may join this discussion if you wish. Or you may be silent and just listen. But please stop trying to derail it onto your dry, uninteresting academic thing we’ve all heard a thousand times before.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

The earliest societies as we know it existed because grain could be gathered, creating a notion of wealth. With wealth, it became necessary or advantageous to use force to defend oneself and to use force to despoil others of what they had. This involved murder, often enough.

Troll casts himself as an expert on science and anthropology.

Doesn’t know pre-agricultural humans lived in societies.

I have a great many beliefs; but fundamental to them is the tenet that being blind to what may be logical and factual, is ultimately very detrimental to building what is a positive society.

How does the notion that rape is acceptable build a positive society (whatever that means)? Actually, all the research indicates that women’s rights are good for economic development. http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/facts-and-figures

shonpan
5 years ago

As a political scientist, I can assure you that your assessment of statehood and the origins thereof are ahistorical assfax.

The evolution of hunter-gatherer groups to tribes to chiefdoms and finally to modern states is a common anthropological idea( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopolitical_typology ).

Perhaps you don’t agree; it does not mean that it isn’t a significant, peer reviewed theory. I also draw heavily from Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies as sources.

Please keep up the creativity. I remember a quote about personal insults and last refuge of intellectual cowards, but I’m sure you can clarify that for me.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

The evolution of hunter-gatherer groups to tribes to chiefdoms and finally to modern states is a common anthropological idea( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopolitical_typology ).

Your diploma from the University of Wikipedia only makes me laugh at you harder.

You sound like someone who once read the Cliff Notes for Leviathan and stopped reading political theory right there.

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

Ah yes, the strawman technique. That said confirmation bias is indeed true, and I may in fact be guilty of it; we all are, most likely, to some extent. This does not exclude you.

That said: “Forced choice” and “compliance techniques” are both concepts used in marketing and persuasion, fields which I am significantly involved in. The fact that you read sexual violation into everything speaks wonders about you, and less so about me.

I think I’ve said everything needed. I find it unfortunate that you seem to have taken my concept as a some sort of comment against “female brain”, which is rather revealing and interesting of your perspective, but not something I had ever claimed.

A question for the regulars here: Does the above constitute gaslighting, or is there another name for what trollpan just did?

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

It’s only gaslighting if we take him to be a trusted authority and he abuses that authority. As it is, it’s just him being twelve years old.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

I disagree. Gaslighting can be attempted by anyone. We called it gaslighting when Professor Skull tried to pull it on Tub Boy, and IMHO rightly so.

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

Ah, the old “I know you are, but what am I” defense. Classic and effective.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

I think I’ve said everything needed. I find it unfortunate that you seem to have taken my concept as a some sort of comment against “female brain”

I’m mocking you This is a blog for mocking misogyny. Your insistence that any disagreement with you is due to emotion is a pretty serious misogyny tell.

A question for the regulars here: Does the above constitute gaslighting, or is there another name for what trollpan just did?

Oh, he’s definitely gaslighting. He’s failed to present even one piece of evidence that PUA works. PUA has never been based on a falsifiable hypothesis and he knows it. So what else can he do but imply that we’re too hysterical to comprehend his incredible and supreme logic.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

I don’t know how you guys are arguing with this asshole. shonpan clearly has no idea how science works or arguments or logic. I’m just gonna point and laugh on the sidelines while they bumble along with their nose held high in a faux-academia stupor.

shonpan
5 years ago

The frothing insanity. Lovely.

Not that I think there’s any real effort at this point for anything approximating science here – for all of the arguments posted, I’ve yet to see really see one study used, but I’l put one here used in research for PUA.

“The Dating Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Emerging Science of
Human Courtship”, http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10899909.pdf

A few final things:

1) Appeals to authority are cute but silly. I don’t need to brandish my degree; it serves nothing and would do nothing given the very real confirmation bias visible here.

2) My personal experiences? The world is a terrible place. These arguments are silly; I’ve had to survive in a warzone. Humanity at its most primal is not a pretty thing.

3) I agree wholly that economic freedom of women has promoted overall economic freedom and growth. One thing which very much inspired my belief on this in specific is Sarah Hrdy’s The Woman That Never Evolved(I can’t wait to see how many people will claim she’s an insane misogynist – given the commentary here). In it, she notes that the advent of technology such as birth control and labor-saving devices reduced the need that early societies had for women to be more exclusively focused on family affairs.

Its a consistent and true maxim: as technology changes, so do people and their roles in society. Biology is not destiny.

sunnysombrera
5 years ago

The frothing insanity. Lovely.

Yup. Definitely gaslighting.

sunnysombrera
5 years ago

Humanity at its most primal is not a pretty thing.

So then why the fuck are you evo psyching all over the place trying to claim rape as a “viable reproductive strategy” or whatever, and then whining at us for refusing to detach morals and ethics from rape?

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

1) Appeals to authority are cute but silly. I don’t need to brandish my degree; it serves nothing and would do nothing given the very real confirmation bias visible here.

You seem to think that you can crash into someone else’s back yard and demand a reasoned, thoughtful debate using, on your side, a complete and utter lack of actual information that wasn’t pulled directly from your rectum. You seem to think that anyone who doesn’t agree to debate you on those ludicrous terms is somehow breaking an intellectual rule.

I don’t demand that you brandish your degree. I demand that you brandish some demonstrable knowledge. You haven’t. You reference Wikipedia like it’s some kind of legitimate authority, which means that you either haven’t attended college at all, or you didn’t respond to your undergraduate professors’ attempts to beat that stupidity out of you. Referencing Wikipedia as an authority on anything more weighty than superheroes’ backstories is a mark of stupidity, not ignorance. It is stupid to do that. By doing so, you demonstrate that you are literally not worth the time it’s taking me to type out this response to you telling you how you are not worth the time.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

1) Appeals to authority are cute but silly. I don’t need to brandish my degree; it serves nothing and would do nothing given the very real confirmation bias visible here.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

A degree in what? Bartending? Coffee making? Dog psychology? Clown college?

Stop me when I get to it.

shonpan
5 years ago

Part of me wants to go and tell you to read up, but I’ll save you the effort.

“Many things in nature are terrible. That they are terrible does not mean they do not work.”

I’ve wasted enough time here, but I’ll place an object example of that.

Infanticide. Its horrific by our consideration but happens quite often in nature; infanticide is commonly committed by invading males when they take over a troop or pride, as well as by mothers themselves. Morally, its pretty terrible.

But from the perspective of the selfish gene, it serves the invading male no purpose to raise cubs or children with no genetic similarity to his own. It also wastes energy that the mother may have in raising cubs of his own. Killing the cubs brings the mother into estrus, which allows him to father his own cubs.

Some early tribes do that too: Yanomami are known for murdering children who aren’t their own.

It is a terrible thing. It doesn’t stop being horrible; but it does work. The genes of rival children/cubs cease, the “terrible” persons genes now continue to influence future generations.

This isn’t a complex concept. Something can be terrible but still efficacious. We do not live in a fair world.

And that’s all I have to say. I’m sure you’re more interested in continuing your bias than in considering things, but its worth thinking about – though I would assume the above is obvious.

shonpan
5 years ago

Masters in Marketeting with a BS in MIS actually, from one of the top ten universities in the country for business 😉

One of the first things I remember being taught in marketing? Freshman year.

“Yes, people will tell you that you’re brainwashing people, but they’re going to spend their money anyway, so you might as well get them to spend it on what you want them to.”

So moral relativism began early. ^^

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

And that’s all I have to say.

At last.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Oh, look, the troll has also read the Cliff Notes for The Selfish Gene, and didn’t really understand those notes either!

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

If you’re going to link to a pdf, it’s polite to excerpt and paste a couple of the main points and maybe the abstract. I’m about to leave for work and am not going to download and read a pdf on my phone.

Side note; I really wish there more options for internet research without opening pdfs. They’re kind of a pain in the ass. Especially for people on phones.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Masters in Marketeting with a BS in MIS actually, from one of the top ten universities in the country for business 😉

So you have zero background whatsoever in political science, natural science, anthropology, or any of the other sciences you’ve attempted to rally to your side. You admit that your expertise lies somewhere else entirely and you are operating in an absence of non-assfax in those fields.

Good to have that cleared up.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

But PoM, he has his Rational Male Brain which means he’s not susceptible to our weak ladybrain biases!

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

Once, twice, three times a flouncer…

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

So, troll studied business. Not a “hard” science or a social science. Figures.

I admit to not knowing much about business. But from a lot about what I’ve read, the field is scientifically a mess. Business and finance people tend to prioritize short term gain and will ignore the long term effects of their actions on the economy and on business. They also tend to fail to see imminent crashes because their profits depend on selling the notion that the market is always going up.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

one of the top ten universities in the country for business

I admit to wanting to know which school this is. I’d like to warn everyone off of it. They obviously didn’t manage to teach you that Wikipedia is not a legit source for literally anything. Nobody should attend a school that can’t manage that much.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Humans are now bears instead of being two different species that have evolved in their own specific reproductive cycles do to environment, availability of food, and how social we are. Nope, humans only go into heat once a year so everyone is in a frenzy to fuck in March.

We are also all Yanomami because every society in the world totally loves killing babies. All the time. We all kill babies everywhere, which is why we don’t have condoms or birth control pills to stop us from getting babies in the first place. Or abortions. Nope. We just get pregnant, squeeze that baby out and bash its head with a rock with no consequences.

And those babies that we keep alive don’t require any finite resources we may have, nope. No time taken away from hunting or gathering or taking care of the sick. They just lay there and occasionally need to shit – what they’re shitting? I don’t know because they totally don’t need food that other people could eat or something.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Masters in Marketeting with a BS in MIS actually, from one of the top ten universities in the country for business 😉

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No wonder you can’t science! No business major can science! They still think “sex sells” even though it’s been proven time and time again that it doesn’t affect sales at all!

You should have went to clown college; they have much better fundamentals.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/H0NUE.gif