By : Ok, so this article is a few years old, but has been making it’s rounds on facebook recently.
Let’s ignore that Susan Fiske is a feminist psychologist with a fascinating wiki dossier, and had close family among the Suffragettes.
The obvious problem is, she studied a whopping, an astounding, an unprecedented… twenty one men. I could do the same in my trailer court, probably get the same results, and it would be equally meaningless. A picture of nearly naked nubile women, without heads, won’t engender empathic personality engagement; they were headless, therefore both brainless and emotionless, with nothing to offer any reliable indications as to their intention other than taut bellies with navel jewelry. Just what the fuck did she expect the reaction would be??? I would almost hazard a wager, that the “most misogynist” men were more red pill, and saw a shit test, and weren’t playing the game, after all, the headless bodies could have been underage; and for shits and giggles, they might have thought the researchers were tools, hence the result.
I like her questioning of what brain-scans of women would be. Never mind that women’s brains act differently than men’s anyhow (cross-wired with emotional overlays, as opposed to compartmentalized), but while sexy headless men might get them wet (the numerous images of, abs with kittens, comes to mind), what will really drive their brain-scans crazy, is a clean-cut business suit casually overlooking his estate. But her reasoning that the idea that women’s brains wouldn’t act the same under the same circumstances, is… insulting really.
But let’s entertain the idea that her research is correct…
I don’t know about you, but I use tools all the time, and each one has a personality, and they’re all out to get me. The hammer is a sneaky bitch, glancing off the nails and smashing my thumb; and if it’s not my thumb, the nail gets fired across the room. All the blades are crazy fucking sadistic blood thirty cunts; they think they’re innocent looking, but I’m onto them, I got enough scars. My patching trowel bit me once; it didn’t like getting used as an emergency dustpan. The tape measures are clever, mean, and generally uncooperative; and if you hurt them, they WILL get you back. And the screwdriver deliberately wobbles on the screw, so you have to hold the screw steady, allowing the driver the opportunity to slip off and stab your finger.
I had a truck once (I’m no mechanic), every couple of months she would act up. So I’d take her to a mechanic, and he’d lift her… hood, and with his greasy paws, he’d massage her tender bits. She’d come outta the garage purring like a kitten, and he’d say, “there’s nothin’ wrong with her, fifty bucks.” The wretched hoe was making me pay to get cuckolded before my eyes.
If men are seeing women as “tools”, I’m not seeing that as a bad thing, but more likely a survival mechanism. Women are dangerous, and need to be viewed with caution, particularly those who prance around making a public sexual spectacles of themselves to feed their vanity. At the same time, tools are rarely seen as malevolent, but rather as benevolent.
Let’s ignore that Susan Fiske is a feminist psychologist with a fascinating wiki dossier, and had close family among the Suffragettes.
The obvious problem is, she studied a whopping, an astounding, an unprecedented… twenty one men. I could do the same in my trailer court, probably get the same results, and it would be equally meaningless. A picture of nearly naked nubile women, without heads, won’t engender empathic personality engagement; they were headless, therefore both brainless and emotionless, with nothing to offer any reliable indications as to their intention other than taut bellies with navel jewelry. Just what the fuck did she expect the reaction would be??? I would almost hazard a wager, that the “most misogynist” men were more red pill, and saw a shit test, and weren’t playing the game, after all, the headless bodies could have been underage; and for shits and giggles, they might have thought the researchers were tools, hence the result.And the men who scored higher as “hostile sexists”—those who view women as controlling and invaders of male space—didn’t show brain activity that indicates they saw the women in bikinis as humans with thoughts and intentions.Yeah, I just about pissed myself at the related topic plug.
Scientists have seen this absence of activation only once before, in a study where people were shown off-putting photographs of homeless people and drug addicts.
(Related: “Sex-Based Roles Gave Modern Humans an Edge, Study Says.”)
I like her questioning of what brain-scans of women would be. Never mind that women’s brains act differently than men’s anyhow (cross-wired with emotional overlays, as opposed to compartmentalized), but while sexy headless men might get them wet (the numerous images of, abs with kittens, comes to mind), what will really drive their brain-scans crazy, is a clean-cut business suit casually overlooking his estate. But her reasoning that the idea that women’s brains wouldn’t act the same under the same circumstances, is… insulting really.
But Fiske doesn’t think such an experiment would work the same way, because women usually react to men they desire by “interpreting their minds, thinking about what they’re interested in, and then trying to please them,” she said.How does anyone “interpret the minds” of headless naked bodies they’ve never seen before? Hell, I have difficulties deciding whether I like porn-stars looking at me (via the camera) while getting ravished, or if I should feel cuckolded; I think I lean more to enjoying them focusing on enjoying the partner they are actually with. And for that matter, I’m not too keen on close-up parts shots, as I am whole body shots; but I think that has a lot to do with enjoying her reactions, while also enjoying her foot action. BAH, National Geographic, Fiske went about her research all wrong.
But let’s entertain the idea that her research is correct…
I don’t know about you, but I use tools all the time, and each one has a personality, and they’re all out to get me. The hammer is a sneaky bitch, glancing off the nails and smashing my thumb; and if it’s not my thumb, the nail gets fired across the room. All the blades are crazy fucking sadistic blood thirty cunts; they think they’re innocent looking, but I’m onto them, I got enough scars. My patching trowel bit me once; it didn’t like getting used as an emergency dustpan. The tape measures are clever, mean, and generally uncooperative; and if you hurt them, they WILL get you back. And the screwdriver deliberately wobbles on the screw, so you have to hold the screw steady, allowing the driver the opportunity to slip off and stab your finger.
I had a truck once (I’m no mechanic), every couple of months she would act up. So I’d take her to a mechanic, and he’d lift her… hood, and with his greasy paws, he’d massage her tender bits. She’d come outta the garage purring like a kitten, and he’d say, “there’s nothin’ wrong with her, fifty bucks.” The wretched hoe was making me pay to get cuckolded before my eyes.
If men are seeing women as “tools”, I’m not seeing that as a bad thing, but more likely a survival mechanism. Women are dangerous, and need to be viewed with caution, particularly those who prance around making a public sexual spectacles of themselves to feed their vanity. At the same time, tools are rarely seen as malevolent, but rather as benevolent.
No comments:
Post a Comment