Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 2:20 PM
Sun Nov 8
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/05/09
Smart guys get laid, buddy! But like anything else, it requires a little effort rather than sitting around and "being a good catch."
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
bitter Nice Guys(tm) and evolutionary psychology... it's a match made in heaven.
08/05/09
"Is it just me or is Kanazawa starting to sound a little bitter?"
Not just you.
08/05/09
Thanks a whole lot, feminism. I hate choices. Choices are the worst. The ability to have my own bank account? Ugh, why? Voting! What a pain! I despise being protected as a full person and not property! It's terrible to have autonomy over self and life! Feminism makes me miserable. Thank you for noticing.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
Because if a man chops off my limbs, keeps me in a box, repeatedly impregnates me, and I live to be 100, I WIN! BALLOONS BE DROPPING FROM THE CEILING AND SHIT!
08/05/09
08/05/09
When I was a (Psychology) undergraduate, I had an assignment about Evolutionary Psychology. One of the papers that is frequently cited as 'proof' of the evolutionary nature of sexual attraction and the 8:10 ration (how big a womans hips should be in relation to their waist measurement in order to be 'attractive', very depressing) claims to use historically valid data. When I read deeper into this, the data was taken from the measurements of the Miss America finalists since 1922. Way to go with the historical evidence!
08/05/09
sorry to phone it in, but i'm too hungover to do better.
08/05/09
He be doing that though.
Prof sounds like a whiny boy gamer stereotype who doesn't shower often enough.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
But then I remembered a frivolous and deeply enjoyable interview with Alex Skarsgard I read yesterday in which he, when asked if he was a feminist, responded, "Of course. Isn't everyone these days?" And strangely, I felt incrementally cheerier.
God bless the men who don't subscribe to the toxic bullshittery evidenced above. For unflappable Scandianavians like Skarsgard, such legitimized bigotry probably seems like a laughably preposterous anachronism in the 21st century. But in the face of such an onslaught of ugly misogyny, it genuinely gives me comfort to remember that there are many, many men who don't subscribe to such vileness, and wouldn't shake hands with anyone who does. So when I hit the booze tonight, I'll be raising a large glass to the dudes who help us fight these wars, illogical, unnecessary and evil as they are.
08/05/09
08/05/09
There was a pretty good takedown of evolutionary psychology in Newsweek a while ago, you can read it here:
[www.newsweek.com]
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
Er, (1) I object to the use of the word "all." This is not excused by the appended "largely." There are human societies where the women control the money, property, power, etc.
(2) I object to his assumption that impressing women is the sole reason men strive for money, power, politics and prestige. I think there's a lot more going on there than that, which Dr. Kanazawa, as a psychologist ought to acknowledge. Hell, much of it is to impress other men, as well.
(3) I object to the assertion that it is somehow to the benefit of women (even/especially if we're calling them superior beings due to uteri and longevity) to strip them of their rights and resources and reduce them to only wielding influence by proxy, and then only if they are very beautiful. I notice that criteria like a woman's intelligence, wisdom, insight, and skills hardly seem to matter here. I believe this does society a disservice. Logically, one would think the better person for a job should do it, regardless of whether some male really needs the prestige of that job to obtain a mate. Unfortunately, he seems to be coming from the "women are quasi-property and men are the only human beings and we should feel bad for them, the poor saps, because of all they go through for the sake of women" school that I have little patience for at this point. If you take his assertion that men are the weaker sex and they run the world with the sole goal of impressing and impregnating as many women as possible, then in order to truly better society, we really ought to just get rid of men altogether. We have the technology, after all. See how this logic works? And why it makes us all look like silly douthats?
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09