Domain Query: Logic, and the lack thereof

Alexandra Bolus posted this rather amusing comment on one of my more unmedicated rants from a while back:
If your theory on evolution was correct, that would mean that women, too, would be programmed to only be attracted to men with long hair. After all, there is absolutely no difference in the sexes regarding the way hair grows. 
Furthermore, the picture you provided was a horrible example. I did not find the two on the left more attractive - in fact, I barely looked at them. Because they are BORING. The gals with short hair look much more confident stand up straighter. 
Furthermore, since we do not live in a time where natural selection is prevalent, I see no reason why men should only be attracted to women with long hair. With modern medicine, nutrition and growth hormones, a man can logically say that just because a woman had short hair does not mean she is unhealthy or infertile.


And, if such is the case, that would also mean that men should only be attracted to size 10 and 12 women, since anything below (back when we lived in tribes) was considered unsightly. 
But that is not the case at all. 
Your point is moot, sexist, and ill conceived.
Once I stopped laughing, I went back and re-read this once or twice to make sure that I'd gotten the full flavour of it. There are, by my count, at least two (I would argue for three) major errors of logic and one instance of outright solipsistic projection here.

I'll wait for you to find them.

Need another moment?

OK, time's up, I don't have all day. (No, really, I don't, today was brutal.)

Let's start with the very first paragraph. The idea that women would only be attracted to men with long hair would be completely true- if men and women are the same. I really hope that I don't have to tell you why men and women are not, and have never been, the same. Men and women apply totally different standards to what they find attractive- this is why talk of double-standards makes zero sense, since there is no such thing as a single standard that is universal between both men and women for judging the same things. They are literally wired to think differently- this fact starts with the basic reality of sexual dimorphism and affects the very way we perceive the world around us. I have rarely seen a more perfect example of a flawless logical deduction undone by the fact that its starting point is completely false. It's like watching someone passionately argue in front of a crowd that a pristine white canvas is in fact matte black.

Now take a look at the second paragraph. I will assume, for the nonce, that the author is a woman- you can't take anything for granted these days. Note what she says- she finds the women in the photo unattractive.

My dear, the point is not what you think about the photo. The point is that men in general find women with short hair deeply unattractive. Most guys don't give a toss what you specifically think about the women in the photo. What matters to us is what we are programmed to pre-select for: good genetics signalled by clear skin, a healthy complexion, shapely breasts and buttocks, and well-maintained hair.

There are, to be sure, exceptions. There is indeed a very small minority of men who like women with short hair- it's just that most of them tend to be lower Delta, Gamma, and Omega males. Like this jackass.

I could go on in this vein, but I think it's better to let the best of us, Vox Day himself, explain the rest.

And Ms. Bolus is quite wrong to argue that we live in a day and age when natural selection is no longer prevalent. As far as I can tell, it is more strongly prevalent than ever. The dating market is becoming extremely polarised, as noted by multiple game bloggers. Roosh, Roissy, and Rollo have all commented at various times on this polarisation, and on the fact that a small number of highly successful players are capable of rapidly racking up notches due to superior genetics, skill, luck, or a combination of all three, while most guys wallow in mediocrity all their lives because they never develop their game. Never before in history has this polarisation occurred, and it is happening precisely because women are now freer than ever to seek out the traits that they are programmed to find attractive, without fear of the negative consequences of unprotected sex. Women are indeed the gatekeepers of sex, and when they find that they can get the pleasures of sex without severe penalties of societal ostracism, early (and painful) pregnancy, and economic and financial hardship (thanks to Big Daddy Government), is it really so surprising that they will tend to search out specifically Alpha male traits?

Finally there's that little gem about how women "back in the tribal days" were at least a size 10 or 12. Uh, lady, have you ever seen pictures of ancient and modern hunter-gatherers? Unless you're talking about tribes living in areas which specifically favour stocky builds and layers of fat, both ancient and modern tribal women tended towards lean, muscular, and very fit. They compare with the modern cardio-bunny-PR-flack woman in much the same way that Spacebunny Day compares with Theresa Nielsen Hayden.

As for the point that I was making in my missive- moot? Not if you talk to, y'know, actual guys- and by that I mean men who eat red meat, like shooting guns, and have no problem whatsoever with beating the crap out of trespassers and aggressors. Ill-conceived? To a vegetarian, perhaps- but then, I doubt many vegetarians frequent this blog or any others like it.

Sexist? Yes, and...?

This, I have to admit, is where I simply dissolved into uproarious laughter. Here's a lesson for those paying attention: calling guys like me "sexist" is not an insult. It's like being called a poopyhead by a toddler in a playground- it just reveals the fundamental immaturity of the name-caller, and nothing more. (Or, if you prefer, it's like watching McRapey trying to prove that he's really not bothered at all by Vox's clearly vast intellectual and physical superiority over him.)

Gentlemen, the next time a woman calls you a sexist pig, just look her straight in the eyes, put on your best s***-eating Han Solo grin, and tell her, "True. Now go make dinner. And fetch my slippers while you're at it."

Comments

  1. That last line is classic.

    Anyone that says that natural selection isn't prevalent at any time is a vacuous idiot.

    To deny how this universe works is an exercise in willful ignorance.

    The "evidence" of the invisible hand of the Almighty is everywhere and easily seen to those without a superiority complex.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts