Ahhh, I love the smell of research in the morning, it smells like, victory.
Y'know its funny how powerful perspective can be. Definitions, truths, the difference between sinner and saint, all are determined by our perceptions. Was Joe McCarthy and evil right wing fascist who needlessly persecuted artists? Or was he a loyal public servant using his position to fight an unrecognised danger to the republic? It all depends on your perspective.
In a similar vein is this story, which you will either consider Blasphemy, or a "duh" moment, depending on how much of the feminist Kool-Aid you have drunk.
Now granted to the average person, the idea that men choose their partners due to fertility cues and women choose their partners do to success cues is just plain obvious. I mean hell, there's a reason that Larry Flynt still gets dates, and it aint cause of his looks and charm. The problem for feminists, is that this type of research reinforces the "laughable" claims made by evo-psych scientists. Namely that men and women evolved to fit very different roles, and as such have innate differences beyond just the plumbing.
But more to the point, it also sheds light on comics.
How many times have you heard some bitchy feminist complain because women in comics are "over sexualised", while men are shown as "powerful"? How many times have you heard someone say that "both men and women are signalised in comics" only to have a "bingo" card slapped in his face, or to have some feminist complain that male superheroes don't meet the average females requirements for sexy?
Well now we have proof. Men choose their sexual partners based on cues for fertility including youth, and for a very good, very biological, and very concrete reason, it increases their chances of having children, women on the other hand tend to choose powerful successful men, for the same motivation.
Maybe that's why Bruce Wayne is shown as being strong, while Selina Kyle is shown to be sexy? After all since we know that sexy is to men, what successful is to women, doesn't the current status quo of comics art actually prove that comics sexualise both genders, in the manner the other overwhelmingly prefers? And if so, doesn't that mean that the very same trends feminist bitch about the most, actually prove the sexual parity of comics?
In other news, we find further proof that it is feminists in general, and not just comic book feminists who are stark raving mad.Apparently the University of Iowa is being sued for having a pink locker room. Yes you heard me right. Being sued, over a pink locker room. Apparently painting the locker room pink is "sexist" in some way.
Of course in reality it was painted pink because as a psychologist, former U of Iowa coach Hayden Fry knew that the color pink tends to relax people, and he wanted any advantage he could get for his program, but that hasn't stopped one whack job feminist legal professor, a loony by the name of Jill Gaulding, from suing them under title 9. She claims that painting the locker room for the visiting teams pink the U of Iowa has offended and insulted women and gays.
You may take a break to give in to that overwhelming urge to laugh now.
Alright got that out of your system?
Here's the other items I found interesting this morning, Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite authors,, has an interesting "Random Thoughts" article today on the NRO.
Meanwhile, in very disturbing and distasteful news, it appears that Rapes in new York city Schools have increased. I wonder, given that New York is more feminist, gay, and minority friendly city than other, and given that its also a city where women now make more than men, why are rapes among high school children increasing?
I would submit its because New York is a feminist friendly city. Being such, the City of New York gives no consideration to males in education, and has in fact specifically designed its curriculum for females. As a result, many young men become alienated, frustrated, and angry. Some will naturally take this anger out in criminal ways.
One very interesting fact stated in the source article is that while girls are twice as likely to have been forced into sex as boys, (which in itself would seem to suggest a massive increase in male rape) boys and girls were equally likely to be the victim of violence on a date. Now this is of course assuming these numbers are accurate, and that this doesn't merely reflect and increase in reports of rape.
Another day, another day closer to Ragnarok.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Sexy women, powerful men, pink locker rooms and rape on campus.
Posted by Rational Mad Man at 9:29 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
"Ahhh, I love the smell of research in the morning, it smells like, victory."
It certainly, doesn't smell like, correct, punctuation.
Another day, another post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
From the article you linked: "'That is a significant increase,' said Cari Olson, head of the agency's epidemiology unit, adding that the latest figure puts New York City in line with the national average after years of falling beneath that statistic."
Um, yeah, I fail to see how this is NY liberalism's fault if the percentages are similar all over the country.
Yeah - women are only good for making babies anyway. And Superman does get to pick his women. Wait, he only has Lois Lane. Does she have child-bearing hips and huge breasts? I don't know. The point is men have the right to choose who to impregnate - so deal with it.
Lei D, you didn't really expect RMM to actually read and think about the article he links too before forming his opinion now did you? I mean, he's never done that before, why expect him to start now?
Lexi D, stop taking RMM seriously. We all have.
Aww my fans are back. Still fantasising about me I see earl.
Yep, sure am. Its very similar to the Green Arrow/Black Canary slap first sex later scene, except we're both yelling, and Im calling you simple minded, bigoted and reactionary, and your calling me naive, moralistic and a stalinist, and we both get so excited that we... no, I wont go on, kids might read your site. Though I pray to the gods I dont believe in that they dont.
Damnit Earl,Whaaddaya mean you dont believe in me?
Well, given how poor your spelling, grammar, punctuation and arguments can be, I do have a theory that you're not a real person but actually a computer program; like one of those random text generators that bulk-spammers use to fool junk-mail detectors. I'm not sure why someone would create such a program as you, of course, possible you're a tool of the Chinese Government used to demoralise Americans to make it even easier for them to take over the world economically.
Post a Comment