I am now on the radar of the dumbest people on the planet. No, not the creationists: MRAs. After my post on that ridiculous “sexual market value” curve, I’ve been getting email from terrible people trying to justify it…and yesterday, the walking chancre known as Heartiste tried to contact me on twitter.
@heartiste
Hey @pzmyers give your wife this test: http://tinyurl.com/lzyexse And yourself this one: http://tinyurl.com/kud2myg See if either of you break -20.
I looked. Those links go to some simple-minded surveys that ask simple-minded, loaded questions to determine your Dating Market Value. I didn’t bother to actually take the test, I was too busy laughing.
You know how the SMV curve had women peaking in their late teens/early twenties? In case you were wondering how these goons determined that, here’s a sample question:
1. How old are you?
15 to 16 years old: +5 points
17 to 20 years old: +10 points
21 to 25 years old: +8 points
26 to 29 years old: +3 point
30 to 33 years old: 0 points
33 to 36 years old: -1 point
37 to 40 years old: -5 points
41 to 45 years old: -8 points
46 to 49 years old: -10 points
over 49: you’ve hit the wall. waysa?
Remarkable. They’ve essentially hard-coded the result they want into the design of the questions. Then they’ve got a series of questions for the women asking about their appearance: having breasts that are “D cup, naturally firm”, for instance, gets you +2 points.
So when you ask these dumbasses how they determine this mysterious “sexual market value” thing, they point you to a test that uses the assumptions of the SMV curve to hand you a confirming number. See, look: a test that proves that large-breasted 19 year olds have the highest “market value”! Science!
Oh, and the men’s test is all about your attitudes and mastery of stock pick-up lines use by PUAs, with scattered bits about your income and IQ (you will not be surprised to learn that having an IQ above 145 gives you a negative score.)
There’s circular reasoning, and then there’s spinning around in circles chasing your own tail until you fall over and vomit. That’s these pick-up artists and so-called men’s rights activists.
With any luck, all that spinning will create a whirlpool and suck the whole lot of them down into the centre of the Earth.
Well, I can dream, can’t I? =^_^=
Really interesting.
I recently went to the wedding of two of my favourite people.
The bride was 55, her groom 51.
I must have dreamed up the whole thing
Hmmm…
Need I say more?
So according to question 16 on the men’s one, if you’re approached at parties that’s a sign that your dating market value is low?
Uuuuuh, my favourite one!
So, do not ask people who apparently do find you attractive about whether you are attractive. Because everybody who finds you attractive is clearly wrong.
Wait, are you telling me MRAs are shallow, simplistic, self-serving morons? I CANNOT BELIEVE IT.
Yeah, I don’t know how David Futrelle does it either.
I clicked on the men’s link. Mistake.
You know PZ, I’m pretty sure folks have been asking for a better class of troll…
Wait, I thought all heterosexual male friends are supposed to want to sleep with a female friend given the chance because it says so right there on the label of their Y chromosome.
Kevin Anthoney #4
I think the idea’s supposed to be that teh Manly Man™ is a go-getter who’s in charge at all times. Waiting for the lowly woman to approach is a sign of weak-kneed indecisiveness, and will produce scorn from Real Manly Men™.
For all that the men’s test is claimed to be about how good at impressing women, so as to get laid, it’s really more of an exercise in cock-duelling to impress other Manly Men&trade, who will then award you the Alpha badge.
Myself #10
I really should try out this “proof reading” idea I’ve heard so much about.
Yes, I clicked on the links. Yes I wasted some time on them. But maybe it was worth it because I am a bit of a fan of the bizarre, and this clearly qualified as that.
Did you know that your SMV as a man goes up if you have ever been arrested? Or if you sexually harass/assault women?
Did you know there is one universal standard of beauty in which big buts and lips are pretty on women, and the opposite is not beautiful?
Did you know every man likes the same size of breasts the best?
Did you know a 15 to 16 years old is sexually more attractive and datable then a 26 to 29 years old woman?
Also:
The SMV scale of a woman has a minimum of -83 points and a maximum of 64 points. The SMV scale of a man has a minimum of -26 points and a maximum of 26 points. The totes accurate and totally scientific graph of yesterday went from 0 to 10.
Also, the MRAsshole who made the test is proud of the fact that the following things are not considered in determining the value of women, and explicitely states this; apparently the job of a woman, how much she makes, her accomplishments, social status and number of friends, and her worldview don’t count at all.
This guy doesn’t want a woman, he wants a sexdoll.
Also:
Yes, this guy is truly one of the most vile bits of scum roaming around on this Earth.
It is very lucky for these MRA clowns that women apparently care nothing for physical appearances. If one can’t tell whether a man is worth ‘mating’ with by his looks or measurements then we need to make it more socially acceptable for me to introduce myself to men with ‘Hi, I’m Mary2. How much money do you earn and do you own a porshe?’. I’m no longer going to waste my time with small-talk.
Oh, wait, am I supposed to be standing quietly in the corner wearing my push-up bra and thinking deep thoughts with my brain which is only clever enough to allow me to connect emotionally with men, waiting to be approached by a ‘real man’? How will I know if he is a real man worth emotionally connecting with? I know, by approaching me with ‘What’s a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?’ he will let me know that he is THE ONE.
I’ve only come as far as the introduction to the women’s test and I’m already rolling on the floor laughing.
Really? Guys need a test to tell them whether they’re getting hard? Please appreciate how difficult it is not to insert a small cock joke here, because I know they are bad, but this is such an incredible setup.
And if they need a test to check whether they never forget her birthday, then I can already tell them they probably do, as well as their car keys and their address. Go see a doctor, please.
@ Kevin Anthoney
Not quite, Daz has more the right idea. All three responses allow for being approached, and no one question in the survey can suggest your overall dating value is low (as their individual effect on the final score is miniscule). From the wording of the question, it’s saying that if you’re the type who waits to be approached, rather than approaching others, your dating value is negatively affected. It’s suggesting that actively approaching women increases your chances of “success” by some amount.
@Giliell
You must have, because the men’s scores only go up to 26.
(joke)
The guy who invented the SMV tests not only hates women but he also hates men. The MRAs continue to prove they’re not only misogynist but misandryist. Or as the spell checker tries to tell me, misanthropist
Al Dente
I’d go with misandrist. Mind, my spellchequer doesn’t like that either.
So that second “firm” is unnatural? I thought breast enhancement would be the best investment a woman can make, to these guys.
That’s disturbingly precise.
Whoever made that questionnaire must have had some strange conversations with his girlfriend(s).
Wut?
OMG I’m imagining a disturbingly grinning woman (see question 27) suddenly dropping to her knees in the middle of the street and going for some random guy’s zipper.
What, no dirty talk? Meh.
I almost pissed myself laughing when I read this.
The lack of self-awareness in this paragraph is astounding.
zenlike @12
DMV seems more specific than SMV, but I don’t know enough about either to say you’re wrong to use them interchangeably. You could have a 0 to 10 scale if you wanted one, for the DMV test linked. DMV=10*([score]+83)/147 for women and DMV=10*([score]+26)/52 for men.
Rating(evaluating) is us, we are all up to our eyeballs in the rating game 24/7. We are sometimes able to choose what and how we do our rating. Even our choices in what we wish to rate are rated….by us ….who else?
Try reading a couple of posts without doing the rating thing, just observe. Is there free will, are we able to not rate for even a few moments?
My Dog! What happened to these people in puberty that made their brains/emotions freeze in place, the way our mothers always told us would happen when we made faces?
Firm D cup breasts are more sexually “marketable” than an intelligent, funny, compassionate mate who really loves you?
These people probably think a gallon of ice cream is haute cuisine.
This survey is going to be included in a new book, “Writings from Mom’s Basement”.
It’s sadly instructive of the mindset of MRAssholes like Roissy aka Heartiste that the SMV for women includes giving 15 and 16 year olds a positive score. (Ephebophilia isn’t a problem in the kingdom of Pua.) I also found my BMI skewed –1 on one version of the test, +10 on the other. But then, when going through the men’s SMV, I came to Q4 and had to ask, what is a bench press? Enough said.
“Don’t waste your time with this survey”
An excellent way to tempt me to do the survey. Until I read your sample question, indeed
“I was too busy laughing”.
The only thing this test proves is how stupid the makers are.
Men’s test is amusing like fuck. There’s elaborate scoring for earning and hairline.
Bits that made me laugh:
Men’s friends are much more reliable that women’s friends, of course.
Murder is fine. Arson would probably get you a +2, if the author had only remembered how cool putting stuff on fire is.
That kind? Ah, you mean rapey. How… nice.
I.. I don’t know how to say this, but… I agree with this one.
*faints*
janiceclanfield #22
Tha’s better. :-)
Some people, usually USAians, have this thing about mocking people who live with their parents. It’s most annoying.
Summary of nearly all the guy’s questions:
A thing happens, do you respond like
A) a human being, to another human being? -1 Urg U R so gay/a woman (which are apparently both very bad things)
B) a mirror/robot? 0 points Nothing. You are nothing.
C) a total dick? +1 You win everything!
Beatrice #27
I live with my mum these days, and I’d never thought of it that way. But yeah, you’re right. It’s mocking of summat that’s not in any way bad or silly. I’ll avoid it in future. Thanks.
Wow, men’s BMI changes their score by +/- 1, women’s BMI changes it by +/- 10? priorities right there. Same goes for age. Women get a huge raft of questions on their appearance and men get “Are you old or fat? Doesn’t really matter. Are you rich though? can you act like a prick?”. Has this guy met any women or men? Any humans at all?
Thank you, Daz.
I was going to take the men’s test but as I’ve apparently already ‘hit the wall’ the result is pretty much pre-detemined.
Mary, maybe your recent blow to the head has changed you after all. You, going after men? I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked to the core!
I was about to ask you the very same question. :-))
To all: please don’t think that any offence is meant by the above. Mary2 and I are good friends from elsewhere on the interweb.
Acolyte of Sagan
PZ is quoting the women’s test, which is the only one that has a wall. Whether you’re 59 years old or 105, your score still only incurs a penalty of -1.
Joshua @ 28
To be fair, whether or not you have special knowledge of the author’s personal views from other posts, I don’t recall seeing this kind of homophobic attitude made apparent anywhere in the men’s test.
Not that I need to point out the obvious, but here’s another question that shows what kind of kids make these kind of tests:
31. Do you do anal?
Yes, and it makes me come to know how much it pleases my man: +1 point
Only when I get really drunk: 0 points
Never. It’s an exit only: -1 point
If I have incorrectly assumed homophobia (which appears to be the case in this specific article) I am sorry. I have trouble giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone who views emotional engagement as bad and a woman as a “target”.
They probably are not kids, but grown ass men, sadly regurgitating the rapey and misogynistic tropes common in the culture at large.
Still cracks me up that they’re trying their shtick out on a happily-married father of three. I thought they were all supposed to prey on 33-year-old single lewsers like me. It’s like they’re really just incapable of going off script.
Having survived my teenage years, I don’t think I’m too keen on repeating them, thank you.
Said by maybe 3 women on the history of the planet. Women who like anal usually like it for the same reason guys do: because it makes them feel good as a sexual act. Seriously, wtf.
Maybe this is the Nice Guy/Bad Boy myth at work? Being arrested adds to your Bad Boy points, meaning women are more likely to fall for you.
And sorry for forgetting to addressing you by nym, muskiet #34.
Okay, so I’ve gone and worked out my character’s DMV stat – is there any magic equipment in this Dimwits and Douchebags setting that gives me a bonus when the GM asks me to test against it?
You mean women are supposed to feel good during sex? Pffft. Any time they spend feeling good is time NOT spent worshipping the mighty cawk.
I’m also amused because they don’t seem to to know how wishy-washy bra sizes are – depending on brand, I’m anywhere between an A and a C.
I found this “gem” in the scoring section of the womens test.
That sums up the mindset perfectly. The perfect woman is not human.
Apparently she is a super alpha fembot, or possibly a blowup doll.
Rey Fox #37,
“The Happy Atheist”
Sounds like your average frustrated chump to me.
Seriously though, I cannot stop giggling reading their attempts to convince someone, someone that they do not know, that they MUST have a sex life that they are unhappy with.
_____
Tethys #44,
That “gem” you quote does reveal much about their thinking. For the not-quite-super-alpha-females**,
there is still only “something human about you”. What the fuck is wrong with these people, ALL WOMEN ARE FULLY HUMAN. Fucking shits-stains .
**what the fuck did I just have to type?
damn it, I skipped the tail-chasing and spinning and went straight to the vomiting.
On to the mens section and so dazzled by the complete lack of substance. I just can’t help but laugh sadly at this bit.
The bird shit part is absolutely trufax.
To me the most telling questions on the women’s test are the following:
And most bizarrely:
They don’t want a woman who does anything to look better. I imagine that would make her a slut. They want a fresh off the line sex bot without any mammalian characteristics.
While these guys are preening and prancing and showing their cocks to each other the other guys are getting the chicks.
Hmmm. Mister and I are both -1 point, going by this bit of idiocy, and connect emotionally just fine. I suppose this whole thing is clinging to the misogynistic belief that brains in a woman are bad, and men just don’t care for those brainy wimmin, nope.
Reading the questions about bra size, firmness, pertness, etc. reminded me of when I was ten and I found a copy of the ’60’s cartoon sleaze-rag “Sex to Sexty” (Yes, I am dating myself.). The point being that I was TEN and I thought the cartoons and jokes were NOT sexy but INCREDIBLY STUPID AND IMMATURE. And I was ten!
And I think of the guy who wrote these tests and . . . let’s say I feel reasonably sure that he has a whole stack of “Sex-to-Sextys” or similar stuff in his whacking material closet. These people are children (evil, stupid, adult children, with the capacity to do a lot of harm, but still — pants-pissing, snivelling, insecure, narcissistic, mewling, puking children.)
Erm, I’m not a man, but I have two motorcycles. Mister has two of them, also. Do I get a cookie?
Beatrice @ 27:
Yes, and they shouldn’t, as a lot of people in the U.S. live with their parents. It’s hardly uncommon.
It says something about how desensitized I’ve become from reading Manboobz that the poor survey design irritates me more than the misogyny does.
Must stop reading the comments and go outside and do stuff. Had to share this pithy summary.
They’re still clueless about the whole subjectivity thing.
Personally, I find beauty/sexiness in how everything fits together, rather than a series of “objective” scales for each feature. That overall picture includes personality, and at the top of the list. I’d like women to be able to accept their bodies as is (at least to the extent that they’re reasonably healthy bodies), rather than compare themselves to impossible ideals. Self-acceptance can show physically through posture and body language, and it can form a positive feedback loop if they’re acknowledged for it.
The reverse happens all too often, where unhealthy “objective” ideals are used to beat women down, rather than let them be beautiful in their own ways. Meanwhile, there’s plenty of MRA-created misandry for men who prefer real women over sexdolls. It doesn’t hurt in the same proportion, but it does hurt both genders.
Nepenthe @48, the “firm DD” thing is also a pretty good sign that they aren’t familiar with breasts outside of porn and video games. Even women who have fibrous breast tissue are subject to gravity and the elasticity of skin. The sort of breasts they find perfect don’t exist in nature.
Anyone else notice that a man’s child pornography record decreases his SMV by a whopping 1 point, the lowest unit in the quiz? WTF. In comparison, women lose 1 point when they have strong jawlines or sports trophies, and up to 10 for being fat or old. Call me crazy, but I would much rather date the fattest, oldest, most athletic woman with the biggest jaw in the world than a goddamn child rapist. I guess I must be a man-hater.
On a lighter note, the bizarre obsession with “firm” natural breasts is cracking me up. Has Heartiste ever touched a breast larger than a B cup? They are literally big ol’ sacks of fat sitting on the chest wall. If they’re “firm,” they’re either augmented, or the woman has extremely built pecs underneath them — which apparently both decrease SMV anyway. LOGIC!
To these losers, the importance of youth in women is that inexperienced women are easier to fool. And of course, more experienced women expect more out of even straight-up-one-night-stand sex than these pathetic creeps were capable of on their best days. In a few more years they will no longer be able to fool the children and that will be that.
Meanwhile those women who have hit the “wall” will be doing just fine. Lucy Liu is about 45, I think. IMO, she is far more beautiful now than she was at 25. (Full disclosure: I am pretty firmly heterosexual, but that woman makes me drool.)
At least I know something about the author:
He miserably failed highschool economics.
Because if everything were true, there would be very few desirable women, but a hell lot of desirable guys. Which means that their value must dramatically decrease by the laws of the market. many sellers, few buyers.
Caine @50
Perhaps. As you identified though, it’s -1 regardless of gender, which suggests a high intelligence quotient is thought to negatively affects anyone’s DMV. At a glance, an IQ beyond either of the extremes will have a greater negative influence on a man than a woman. The areas that award +1 and 0 differ across the genders, and would suggest intelligence is thought to be less valued in ‘wimmin’ by men than in men by women.
and @52
I agree they shouldn’t, but not because something they mock is common.
Zigbot @57
Indeed, though bear in mind that the 1 point (while the lowest) cannot be meaningfully compared from one test to the other without some kind of conversion. Given that the intervals are more or less evenly divided with vague references to terms like ‘alpha’, ‘lesser beta’ etc. it might be reasonable to suggest 1 point in the men’s test approximates 6 points in the women’s test.
Even with this consideration, I agree that one would perhaps expect it to be worth more than the lowest possible and not necessarily lumped in with public exposure.
On the menz survey, I skipped laughing and went directly to cringing. I bailed out when “smirk” was part of the correct response.
What a nasty bunch of alleged people.
Daz: Experiencing A Slight Gravitas Shortfall @ 11
Overrated and cliche. Also, -1 point for not living by the seat of your computer chair (or whichever surface your bum is planted upon.) No, I’m not subtracting points for some biased personal value assessment I want to see corroborated in an unscientific measurement of others… I ashore you!
====
About the living-at-home-with-parents-therefore-loser meme, yes it is horribly negative. It’s one of those things I’ve heard repeated so often that I am ashamed to show my face in public because I fit the “loser” mold externally, and assume that everyone has that same picture of a “loser”, and that’s how I end up feeling internally. It sucks, so yeah, stop it, please.
That last bit wasn’t directed specifically at you Daz… and I hope it’s not felt that I’m piling on to make anyone feel guilty. I just wanted to add my voice and personal experience for those who still have doubts about using the meme affecting anyone negatively via splash damage.
/OT
You might be right on target, considering a massive element of the Game/PUA-based “sexconomics” is to fool women into believing their SMV is higher than it actually is. It’s funny that they’re all trying to “game the system” but react violently against people who destroy it – just like poor Randroids who see capitalism is screwing them over but belive fervently they can make it to the 1% if they’re Hard-Working enough.
I find it absurdly comforting that my SMV (ugh, what a disgusting concept) or level of attractiveness to these doodz is probably in the negatives. Hopefully that means they and their ilk will avoid me.
Also, my husband would laugh his ass off at their suggestion that he “settled for tepid sex once a week” or whatever.
Whatever world they live in, I am sure our combined mangina and feminismismism repels them from the world I (reproductively successful!) inhabit happily with my (reproductively successful!) spouse and 3 kids.
The IQ question is biased towards a stereotype of intelligent women as being “frigid”, when in real life you never know if that “bimbo” celebrity you’re fawning over as a role model for sex objects has an IQ is in the high 140’s.
vaiyt,
Not to mention that IQ is pretty much bullshit anyway.
I don’t know why you all get so worked up. I just took the female test and it looks like I’m +5. So it’s time to put my best drag and go huntin` me some MRA because, apparently, I’m their kind of
guygirl!@57 Zigbot:
Of course they didn’t touch any C+ breast. They didn’t touch any breast – what human being would want to be intimate with someone as repulsive as MRA?
BTW, I encourage everyone to take both tests and compare the scores. It’s hilarious!
The differences between the IQ question for men and the one for women* is rather interesting:
Men have to have a higher IQ score before they get that +1, while both get a -1 at the same scores. I thought that was odd. They’re obviously operating on a “ladeez must be dumber than the menz to be sexy” assumption here, but still think that there’s some cut-off where men become less attractive for scoring too high on an IQ test.
*Obviously, in this worldview anyone non-binary identified just flat out doesn’t exist.
Beatrice:
Tell me about it. I have an IQ in the 140s and that hasn’t helped me any so far.
TMM:
Probably because it’s above the test creator’s IQ range.
I did not realize there was such as thing as negative IQ scores.
In this case, probably imaginary as well; e.g., IQ = –i = –sqrt(-1).
throwaway #62, 63
No worries, I got what you meant. :-)
The creator of this test seems to have created it to convince himself that he’s hot stuff and all those ladies who wouldn’t fuck him with a stolen pussy aren’t. It’s like a kid making up the rules of a game as he goes so that no matter what he does, he’s winning. It’s like Calvinball, but with only one player and that player is a total pedo-bear.
Blech!
Vaiyt @66
I note that in your criticism of the IQ question being biased towards that stereotype, the example you give is of a woman with an IQ claimed to be around 163. There is a problem I have with immediately accepting penalization of high IQ in the women’s test is necessarily a result of a stereotype. That problem being that men appear to get the same penalization.
If, in your opinion, the stereotype is what changes the IQ ranges for which 0 and +1 are awarded, I could certainly see that being a possible reason.
The Mellow Monkey @69
I thought it was odd also, but not necessarily that it’s a case of “ladeez must be dumber than the menz to be sexy”. If we assume the average has been taken to be 100, then clearly a woman’s IQ being below average doesn’t add to the DMV under any circumstances, while an average IQ to slightly above average IQ does. There is no indication that the IQ of the men to which this value is purportedly important must be higher (indeed, the average male IQ should also be 100). It could even be argued that this reflects value is added if the woman is of equal or greater intelligence, but not so intelligent that the man feels like an idiot around her. In the same way that some people would want to date someone more attractive, but not so attractive that friends reels at how much better either the more attractive of the two “could have done”.
What we can conclude is that the test suggests men like women of average intelligence to 20 points above average, but not much higher. Likewise, we can conclude the test suggests women value average (or perhaps very very slightly above average) to 30 points above average, but not much higher.
blf @71
Is there a such thing as a negative IQ score? Certainly I can’t imagine anyone would have one.
I meant to say “…but not so attractive that friends reel at how much better the more attractive of the two ‘could have done’.” There are probably other errors too, so just pretend I reworded them as well.
I love this, Burgundy. Thanks for warming the cockles of my cynical heart.
geroche:
How about you stop pretending you’re the only one who understands the PUA shit, and cease your continued explanations and weak ass defense of said shit?
@geroche:
No. there is no such thing as an average IQ score.
IQ was originally computed in the basis of [(your raw score)/(the raw score of a median person of your age)]*100
Some tests now have some adjustments to make before taking the ratio. I’ve never scored an IQ test, so I’m not sure exactly what happens, but the theory is very definitely supposed to be a ratio of your score to expected median.
geroche @ 74:
I don’t think it’s a suggestion. It’s a flat assertion that that is what is valuable in determining your desirability, with no reason given for determining the ranges and overlaps. What I conclude is that the test is suggesting that the people who’ve promoted this test as an accurate assessment of desirability have an insecurity issue with regard to pretty much every item in question and are trying to assuage themselves of such insecurities by normalizing their traits.
High IQ (if that’s even a reliable indicator of intelligence anyway) in a woman is a turnoff for these clowns?
Well, that stands to reason – if you’ve got the mind of a Bro-Magnon cave-douche then I suppose you would be intimidated by a 21st century woman who can use her brain. They’d better steer clear of my wife then. Oh, and my mother, sisters-in-law, niece – hell, these troglodytes would have run screaming from my grandmothers.
BTW: has anyone else noticed this MRA “science” reeks eerily familiar like that scientific poll employed by Chunderbunny to “prove” how right he was, according to his subscribers?
Caine @77
My explanations are responses within a discussion of explanations offered by others. You seem to be singling out me because I’m taking a contrary position, no matter how reasonable my justification is. This discussion isn’t about me. Many observations have been made on the page, and a small handful have been interpretations I think are overreaching or wrong. I’m on topic and free to call out inaccuracies in the posts of others as anyone else is with my posts. If I think I can justify why a particular view inaccurately represents that which it criticizes, what’s wrong with saying so? This is not defending the ‘PUA shit’, and nowhere do I make endorsement of any views the tests might express. I’m all for criticizing shit, but I reserve the right to engage in discussions that keep criticisms of shit accurate.
@Crip Dyke
Wouldn’t that, by definition, make the median IQ 100? I don’t mean to say exactly 100 is average. I realize IQ is fuzzy, but consider the average to roughly 100. Whether it’s 90 or 110, I still consider this about average. I don’t think it’s nonsensical to talk certain IQ’s being above or below average, when we know it doesn’t have a uniform distribution. Even if they tailor the number 100 to the median of the distribution, that would still be representative of the median of the ‘raw score’.
@throwaway
I couldn’t comment on the insecurity issue. I often boggle at the ‘rules’ of job interviews and such with similar dismay. But the rest I completely agree with. I don’t want to get bogged down in whether anything it says counts as an assertion or a suggestion. I’m fine with either. I merely said ‘suggests’ because it doesn’t explicitly say it in the same way I do.
um, this is nothing but ethnic bigotry skating close to downright racism.
Actually, on second thought, it’s skating close to downright classism. As in Class Mammalia.
not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Of course you meant that there is no such thing as a negative IQ score.
Not only is the average 100 by definition, but raw scores are further normalized to give a standard deviation = 15.
Read what I just wrote. 100 is the mean, not the median, and the distribution is indeed uniform.
@ChasCPeterson
If they were talking about negative IQs, I agree. The idea that an average IQ doesn’t exists wouldn’t really make sense. As for the distribution being uniform, I very much doubt that is the case. A uniform distribution would imply that all IQs have equal probability, which is just not the case. Perhaps you thought I said ‘normal’ distribution, which is the form I would expect it to take.
…
…That explains so much. They camp newbies for lazy, cheap scores. They’re GRIEFERS.
Caine @ 52:
0 if they’re pink.
-1 if you do your own maintenance.
-2 if your bikes are more powerful than his.
-3 if you’ve read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance more than once.
I wonder what a PMV (Pharyngula Market Value) test would look like?
yes, that’s what I thought you meant–my bad.
I have no idea how this business of negative IQ got started. It’s not in the quoted parts of the survey.
ChasCPeterson @87
It’s probably just an honest mistake by blf. They could have heard the talk of negative (DMV) scores and IQs and misunderstood it to be talk of negative IQ scores. The possibility didn’t occur to me at the time.
It’s like they came up with the survey and scoring based on looking at a handful of comic books and watching some bad romantic comedies from the 1950. It’s ridiculous stereotypes to the extreme. It would be funny, if it wasn’t so damaging to the people who believe it and the women they try their “game” on.
Worse than their witless surveys are the advice Roissy et al give for a man who’s somehow managed to get into a relationship. It’s entirely about abuse – gaslighting is the least of it; he even suggests terrorising a woman by pretending (or he claims pretending) to throw her pet from an upper-storey window.
O_o
That’s even a real and common tactic. Actually harming the pet, that is. I’ve had to rescue one.
http://thefeministwire.com/2013/10/the-link-between-domestic-violence-and-animal-abuse/
Abusers do that. They’ll torture and kill pets as a way of hurting their victims. It’s also a threat: “This could happen to you”. I even know one abuser who got his victim a puppy as a way of “making up” so that later he could threaten her with hurting the animal. It also makes it harder for the victim to leave. Shelters don’t take pets and the victim will be afraid to leave them behind. I know so many instances of this sort of animal abuse as psychological and emotional abuse of people that I jokingly wondered if there is some sort of abuser handbook that teaches it. It turns out, there is. Shelters are getting savvy though and some of them enlist the help of animal rescue organizations who have volunteers who can foster the pets.
Pteryxx, Jackie – exactly. I have no doubt that if Roissy’s ever been in a relationship, he’s been abusive.
Personal story: the one time I’ve been involved in violence (extremely drunk brother; I was sixteen and his violence was aimed at our mother) my worst fear was that he would hurt our cats. Not because he’d ever been cruel to animals, or abusive for that matter, but because they were the vulnerable ones and I was most afraid for them. If he had … well, I don’t know how much harm I could have done him, but damn I would have tried.
From zenlike:
So the idjit subtracts ten from all women’s scores, meaning the highest possible score a woman can get is 54. So no woman can actually be just shy of super alpha female.
Jacob,
Well spotted.
…if they post their scores in the comments. You have to keep reading past the bolded part.
This, however, makes absolutely no sense at all.
Still, I’m sure it’s every woman’s dream to be a ‘player”s optimal ‘target’. *eyeroll*
I’m’a mosey on down to the saloon to do some cockblocking. Have nice evenings.
Jacob @95 – his sour grapes become more and more obvious, don’t they? It’s like Jackie said upthread, it’s his “yeah well ur ugly hur hur” response to women who wouldn’t fuck him if he was the last man in the universe.
I noticed that, only there’s no if statement. You can’t subtract from a score that was never given. Also, he writes that *all* women’s egos are so fragile that they’re lying to themselves as they do the test:
Bwahaha, have fun.
Oh, and on Ian Immabigdick in the other thread? He made a complete arse of himself at the start of the year by jumping on the bandwagon of dudely outrage that the Canadian gummint was legislating to outlaw sexbots. Said bandwagon was being driven by Pox Day, iirc.
Problem for them being, of course, that no such legislation exists or was being considered.
http://manboobz.com/2013/01/15/imaginary-feminists-dont-destroy-ian-ironwoods-sexbot-utopia/
What is your IQ?
Correct answer: Who the hell cares?
How many degrees do you have?
Correct answer: No, really who the hell cares?
How much hair do you have on your body?
Correct answer: It’s none of your business
How pretty are you?
Correct answer: What the fuck is wrong with you?
carlie #102
I took your test.
I win!!!
These nits don’t know anything about bras. Example: they need to look up ‘sister bra sizes.;’ I myself can get bras that are 30G, 32F, 34DDD/E, 36DD, 38D, 40C,42B, or 44A. I discovered this when I went in for a professional fitting and they had me try D, DD, and DDD/E depending on the other, numerical value. No one is a D or a DD; women are both, depending on the bust size (and on the specific bra; companies often vary how they size bras).
Oi.
I also don’t get the obsession with firmness. I think it’s some bizarre concern over “sagginess.” Shows they’ve never actually had any fun with real breasts and an equally (or more!) interested person with them. Soft is justice.
Eristae @104 – Yep, I noticed that immediately as well. I technically size at a 42A, but generally wear a 38D, since the latter size is much easier to find.
I find it deeply comforting that I score well in the negatives. PUA’s would be uninterested in me? Yay! My husband and I will get on with our quite satisfactory lives.
@Eristae #104
FTFY.
Rip Steakface @105:
::snerk:: Imma thinking “projection” again.
Or maybe “non projection”.
/fourteen years old
pharyngula dating test
Question one:
Do you find me, as an indidvidual person, interesting and would you like to spend some time with me?
Yes: 2 points
No: 0 points
Do I fall within your sexual orientation, do you find me attractive and are you inteested in a relationship?
Yes: 1 point
No: 0 points
Result:
0 points: Well, it’s a big internet, isn’t it?
1 point: Well, it’s still a big place.
2 points: Hey, we should totally go for a coffee* and be BFFs
3 points lets try meeting one day and then we’ll see.
*as in hot beverage consumed in a public place
I’d love to see PUAs have to take your test, Gilliel. Their little heads would asplode at the concepts of “individual,” “person” and “interesting”. Or they would once those concepts had been explained to ’em.
Giliell, sorry. Got my Ls doubling up wrong!
kittehserf @ 101:
Wow, that was pretty awesome. For someone who boasts about his sexual prowess, Ian McRocktool is suspiciously enthusiastic about his masturbot dystopia. That seems very… beta?
I especially like the bit about BMI. Having a BMI under 18.5 is considered underweight. But according to this, it’s totally hot. I’m not sure where these men think they’re going to find an especially super skinny woman with natural d cup breasts and a big, round ass.
Moggie @112
But Ian Petrifiedlog claimed to be happily married and to have more and better sex than everyone here combined. Surely he wouldn’t need a artificial vagina for practice.
Possibly even gamma.
Moggie and Al Dente –
Ian McRocktool
Ian Petrifiedlog
::dies laughing::
Gamma is right. The only hard thing about these guys is tryhard.
I wonder if anyone’s told ol’ Stiffy that “working in the porn industry” doesn’t actually include “offering to
wank todo free reviews of porn”?Barbie dolls!
.
.
I love your dating questionnaire, Giliell! (a great many Pharyngulites are 2s for me – so many people with whom I’d love to spend an afternoon in a pub or a café!)
kittehserf @115
As soon as I posted @114 I realized I should have called him “Studly Screwright” but it didn’t occur to me until after I hit submit.
Al Dente @117 – I’ve already died laughing once tonight, now I’m going to have to be Zombie Kittehs and do it all over again!
Anyone here know A Voice for Pierre? It’s a comic by one of the Manboobz regulars (not me). Pierre’s a stereotypically polite and patient Canadian who has the misfortune to meet up with MRAs regardless of what work he’s doing (he’s been in everything from retail to medicine to national security).
This one has him dealing with Pox Day at the time of the Oh Noes They Are Banning Sexbots Panic. The drawing of Pox is a likeness, btw: I found a pic of him with that woeful hairdo.
Negative IQ scores…
It was an attempted joke by me never flew, in part because I failed-to quote the comment I was joking about (@70): “Probably because it’s above the test creator’s IQ range.”
me@71: “I did not realize there was such as thing as negative IQ scores.
In this case, probably imaginary as well…”
Apologies for creating unintended confusion!
Perfect! :-D
Hmm. I would have thought, given the assumption that women are primarily financially motivated, that being 105 and rich would get you +50.
Me @78:
geroche @81:
Why yes. Yes it would. However, my sentence still makes complete sense if you realize that the keys for aergv are all disturbingly highly variable, and leapt inappropriately under my fingers – or, in some cases, out from under – when I was trying to use the keys aegintv to give you an answer to the earlier question about whether or not **negative** [not average] IQs exist.
You know, if IQ were actually a reliable basis for predicting anything other than IQ, I might be severely disappointed in the IQ implications of typing two otherwise reasonable paragraphs in a manner that rendered them gibberish through the replacement of a single word.
Sigh.
Pteryxx, I think “Sex Griefers” is probably the best tag for these losers ever.
@Crip Dyke
Yeah, in hindsight it should have been obvious that’s what you meant. My post ended with “Is there a such thing as…?” and yours began “No. There isn’t a such thing as…”. ChasCPeterson recognized it was a typo immediately.
@blf
I see now, cheers.
@geroche:
Yeah, Chas is good at detail and memory.
@Chas
Yes, that’s how they did it. Thank you Chas. I knew that they were adjusted as opposed to being more directly compared as they were originally, but I couldn’t remember what they did to adjust things.
In hindsight, not only had I forgotten this as a fact specifically communicated to me, it’s also obvious a z-score would be the tool of choice for this. It makes hash of it being the “quotient” it originally was, of course, but it accomplishes the goal quite neatly. Clearly I haven’t been doing any math for a while.
Ah, science, I hardly knew ye….
Thanks, kittehserf @118 for introducing me to Pierre. And Poutine (what a cutie,eh?).
omgomgomg so I went and read all the Pierre comix; not bad, even if I had to read the author’s notes on some of them to get it…but frog help us there are links in there to the actual maonsphere. I followed some and now I feel dirty. I had not even imagined the fetidness of that swamp. ew ew ew.
I do NOT recommend that little exercise to anybody else. I will just post a couple of milder things here to sort of serve as warning signposts:
So you have a blog, and you want to select some background art to sort of give the place some flavor.
And the flavor you choose is this.
Or this.
Nope, no misogyny here!
And I just cannot resist one, just one, not-even-illustrative quote:
omg
Gah, these guys know nothing about bra sizes. First, cup sizes don’t work that way. The general view of cup sizes is something like this:
A: Tiny.
B: Small.
C: Average.
D: Big.
DD: Even bigger.
Anything over that: Porn star.
Let me tell you, that whole thing? Completely and utterly wrong.
First of all, as a couple of people mentioned above, cup size is relative to band size, so there is no such thing as a “D cup.” All “D cup” means is that the full bust measure is 4″ larger than the underbust measure. That’s it. So a D cup on a 30 band is a radically different size from a D cup on a 42 band. Handy example here
Second, the whole A – DD thing does not reflect the sizes of actual women. American bra companies, in particular, don’t offer a full range of sizes that reflects what people need, so we end up trying the closest available size, which half the time isn’t even close. A more accurate portrayal would look something like this (and remember, cup is relative to band, so take this with a grain of salt):
A – D: Small
DD – FF: Medium
G – H: Large
HH and above: Very large.
The proper way to measure yourself for a bra is to measure your underbust and your full bust, and take the difference. Your underbust is your band size. The cup size is the difference between underbust and full bust, one inch per letter size, so 1″ of difference = A, 2″ = B, and so on. (British sizing goes A B C D DD E F FF G GG H HH J JJ K KK L. American sizing is all over the map, really inconsistent, and very few companies even make sizes above DDD, so it’s better to ignore American sizes altogether.)
The problem is that most bra shops use an outdated measuring system that will automatically put you in the wrong size even if you go to get “professionally” fitted. (Victoria’s Secret, I’m looking at you.) Most places find your band size by measuring your underbust and then adding four inches, and then they take your full bust to find your cup size. This will instantly put you in a band that’s too big and a cup that’s too small. It’s very frustrating. There’s absolutely no need to add inches; that method was introduced in the 1970s as a way to transition from the old style of bra sizing to the new, and it stuck. Almost 40 years later, we’re still in the transitional period. You know how you keep hearing that “80% of women are wearing the wrong bra size”? This is why. It’s not because women are too stupid to know their own size; it’s because shops encourage people to wear the wrong size, and on top of that, bras of the right size are simply not available.
For instance, I wear a band size of 30. That’s almost impossible to find here in the US, because most places expect you to add 4″, which would put me in a 34 band. A 34 would be way too loose on me, and it would constantly ride up, and it wouldn’t provide any support.
Ibis3 @126 – Poutine is adorable! And smart.
Chas @127 – Yes, Pierre is a bit in-jokeish often enough, since it’s derived from trolls on Manboobz threads as well as MRAs’ own sites.
I never follow links to MRM sites. First, because getting them filtered by David in the safe environment of MB is quite enough; second, because I wouldn’t be at all surprised if MRA sites were loaded with malware (apart from the human malware running them); third, they’re so obsessed with how many hits they have that I don’t feel the need to contribute to their back-patting.
Ahh, Pierre took an episode out of mocking MRAs to mocking Singulitarians. (Singularians?) It’s wonderful. http://pierre.thecomicseries.com/comics/24
Yup, we had a collective head explosion on one thread where those who know about Singulwhatsits told the rest of us about it, and the eternal torture by AI and so on that Lesswrong blather on about. It was possibly even more bizarre than the usual MRA stuff.
In my experience buying bras in the US, the stated band size is almost always much closer to the bust measurement. In other words, a bra that says “32 [letter]” on it is likely to have a band several inches shorter than that (and no, the elasticity isn’t enough to make up for the difference), while a bra that actually fits an underbust of 32 is likely to be labeled 36 or 38.
Singularitarians.
Oh hey, Pierre is apparently run by one of the assholes who was most happy about throwing out the LGBT from manboobz. Cool, I can ignore a webcomic based on personal distaste for the author rather than neglect like I usually do.
I once had to stand in the office and explain to a group of three guys how bra sizes are calculated! Not something I really wanted to have to go into, but one of them was quite seriously telling the others that it was related to bowler hat sizes and how a cup size of this fitted into a hat size of that! (I don’t even know how he got hold of this idea, and I have no idea how he expected to keep the hat brim out of the way while measuring!) I realised that all three of them could end up buying really unsuitable things for their wives if they didn’t get this corrected fairly quickly, because the fact that they were actually buying his explanation suggested to me they might not think to just ask the right size..
I doubt anybody knows what you’re talking about.
(As is so often the case.)
Do you care? You could link if you did.
Well, about a year and a half ago, some of the LGBT posters on manboobz, including yours truly, had mentioned, for reasons that sincerely escape me (Given that nobody said we were derailing, we probably were not), that supporting the Catholic Church was an anti-gay move, because the church uses your attendance to intimidate politicians, and your money to either directly fund heterosexist measures, or to attack pro-gay laws that were in existence (Such as holding ‘charity’ money ransom and contingent on pro-gay laws not passing, etc). The folks who’d in general been bad at queer rights (for trans people, usually) were offended that we were questioning folks’ religious matters, and really weren’t their efforts to reform the church totes making up for it?
It escalated, given that most of the “Nah, catholics can go to church without doing heterosexist shit” folks had priors, more or less. Futrelle came down on their side, and most of us except for a token bounced, as did other folks who were watching and were like “dude, not cool.” A couple other occasional posters around here were present for it, and if you insist, I can find us leaving, but I sincerely don’t recall where in the nine hells on the main site the matchstick is. The kindling is even less concentrated (We did not explode off of a single incident).
Rutee – I didn’t want to say anything but you’ve brought this up a few times lately when MB is mentioned.
You don’t speak for every LGBTQ person on Manboobz. Yes, I know something about what happened then, I’ve read the threads from the time.
There are plenty of LGBTQ people there now – some new, some not – who’re at least as comfortable and safe in that space as then. That’s partly due to some former members having left.
I don’t know any regulars there now I’d call assholes. Far from it. Obviously our views on that are very different.
Obviously, seeing as I left more than a year ago.
If that’s a reference to me/us (I do recall the token at the time blaming us in The Secret Room. Technically, I’m not the one breaching the confidence here, as it was after we were removed), I’m laughin’.
If you read Pecunium defending as non-heterosexist the Catholic Church as an organization, Catholic Doctrine in particular, and the US Military’s prosecution of gays, and don’t consider him an asshole? Then your opinion on assholes is entirely fucking irrelevant to me, and he still seems to be there. And seeing as you’re posting here, I’ll just go ahead and let you know: The immediate choice of words used to defend the choice to remain in the Catholic Church was that I was “being one of ‘those atheists'”. Because you know, my problem with Richard Dawkins isn’t that he’s a sexist and racist berk, it’s that he’s too mean to religious people.
And it was seriously not just Pecunium. Katz was huge on pretending anything bad me or DSC ever said about Christianity being patriarchal was because I was an atheist, and that I was being way too mean to ‘regular Christians’, despite the fact that I felt I was frankly softballing it on Christianity in general.. Shit I said about Islam, Chinese syncretic religions, etc? Obv deserved and something any rational woman would say.
These are people who defended, or in Futrelle’s case, were wishy-washy over condemning, some fucked up cissexist shit. If there hasn’t been a huge change in culture, and a lot of individuals owning up to their mistakes, then I don’t really care if you’re queer or not – you’re participating in marginalizing queer people, albeit in a pretty small way.
There were others doing the same nonsense as Katz, I just sincerely don’t remember their SNs, and they may have changed in the interim at any rate. I want to be clear that this was not a matter of 3 people fucking up.
Manboobz: hilarious and/or disturbing.
Manboobz community: best avoided for atheists and rationalists who find religious and supernaturalist twaddle oppressive and/or obnoxious. It does seem to have gotten more queer friendly insofar as several prominent commenters are at least part trans*.
Dumb? Bad woman!
Average -> very slightly above average? You are good breeding stock! Good woman!
Significantly above average? Bad woman! You will intimidate teh menz!