Yahoo! Answers Gender Studies: Zenith of Civilization

Oh, Yahoo Answers! Why do you always raise more questions than you answer? For example, let’s just take this intriguing question, recently posed to Yahoo Answers Gender Studies by a fellow calling himself Tubetruth.

Not sure I quite get you, Tube. Care to elaborate?

I’m still not quite sure I get you, Tube, but no matter! For danilhastings has already provided us with an answer!

I guess that’s all there is to say on the subject, then.

Happily, those whose gender studies appetites have been whetted by this lively exchange will find many other fascinating gender studies questions to contemplate elsewhere on Yahoo Answers.

About David Futrelle

I run the blog We Hunted the Mammoth, which tracks (and mocks) online misogyny. My writing has appeared in a wide variety of places, including Salon,, the Washington Post, the New York Times Book Review and Money magazine. I like cats.

Posted on April 4, 2012, in antifeminism, bunnies, I'm totally being sarcastic, idiocy, misogyny, reactionary bullshit. Bookmark the permalink. 101 Comments.

  1. Gender studies: “Why did my rabbit smell my fart?”

    Yeah…the internet has gone to shit.

  2. @ Guest This- I think there’s an important distinction between “creationists” who take the story in Genesis 1 absolutely literally (and think that dinosaur bones were planted by Satan) and “intelligent designers” or whatever else you want to call it, who believe that there is a Divine hand shaping the universe, but that it works through science. The first I just sort of have to point and laugh, while ascribing to the second.

    Either way, the above post has PAINFUL levels of biology fail.

  3. Why are we discussing these irrelevant topics when the question of why the rabbit smelled zir’s fart is left unanswered?! This is a travesty!

  4. @M Dubz, there are three kinds of religiousy theories. Typically, when people say “creationist” they mean people who reject naturalistic explanations and only accept religious ones. Among those, there are two main subgroups, young earth and old earth. Both of these think evolution is false. The young earthers believe the earth is literally like 6000 years old (this number varies, but it’s always absurdly small). Old earthers tend to be less absurd about general geology and think the earth is much older.

    The position I think you mean to allude to as “god working through evolution” is called theistic evolution. Some people consider that a type of creationism, others don’t (presuming that the posited divine intervention is vague and distant, not close and obvious).

  5. So in short, yes, all creationists are absolute shit at the science and are exactly as irrational on the matter as Falconer said. They’re not all idiots per se (Hence the SAlem Hypothesis; if someone who claims an advanced degree is spouting crankery, they are probably an engineer or IT/Computer Science/Informatics degree holder), but they are entirely, obviously wrong.

    I do, however, realize that I miss pharyngula’s habit of banning self-proclaimed trolls.

  6. Zarat actually admits he’s a troll. Wow…

  7. @Rutee, I still think this is a bit unfair. Not all creationists (though it depends even on how you define that term) are shit at science. Although I am an athiest-leaning agnostic with a degree in bio, my husband is far better than me at science in general. His advanced degrees, I promise, are legitimate and actually advanced, not in crankery (B.S. in biomechanics, PhD in biochemistry, Medical Doctor). I may not understand how he reconciles his idea of God with his understanding of evolution, but I don’t presume to know so much than he to say he is irrational.

    Like I said before, yes, this post is terrifying failure at understanding basics of biology.

    On another note, has David written any posts on Girl Writes What? I haven’t been reading here long, but I have unfortunately run into a few of her monstrous You Tube videos and it left me scared for the future.

  8. Correction to above, I do not presume so much as to say he is irrational

  9. All the creationist arguments I’ve come across are pretty idiotic, but not all creationists are idiots.

    If only idiots believed in creationism, then there wouldn’t be any point in arguing against creationists. After all, we’d be wasting our time trying to explain evolution to people who were apparently too stupid to understand it.

    And undoubtedly there are some creationists who are just too stupid to understand evolution. (For instance, I suspect that Ray Comfort is one of these.) But that’s not all creationists. You can be a perfectly intelligent person and be a creationist provided that you are self-deluded and/or ignorant enough.

    I suspect that most creationists are simply ignorant. I suspect that most creationists don’t know much about biology, don’t understand the theory of evolution, and don’t know about any of the evidence supporting it. And what they think they know and understand about the subject is often absolutely wrong, because they’ve been lied to by the likes of Duane Gish, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind.

    This is what makes countering the idiotic things creationists say worthwhile. You can’t cure stupidity, but you can combat ignorance.

  10. he’s only got a blurb up of her… but… I have begged him at least once to do a GWW post. so… fingers crossed!! She’s upset that the FBI will say someone is a rapist if they stick the tip of something somewhere, ever so slightly… against their will. That’s just madness, way over board in her opinion. Yikes.

    Then she did an interview with johntheother on A voice for men talking about black women and their “matriarchy” oh… let me get the video.

    too much stupid to summarize.

  11. “The science”. Specifically, geology and biology. Because they are. It’s a perquisite to the position. Prerequisite?

    But that’s not all creationists. You can be a perfectly intelligent person and be a creationist provided that you are self-deluded and/or ignorant enough.

    Hence mentioning the salem hypothesis.

  12. Wow, thanks a ton for pointing out “yahoo answer” to me! Now I have a profile, and 22 answers! “YAHOO”, more feminists that I can troll!

    good for you, antz, that’s probably more your speed than this place

  13. I should probably add that when I refer to creationists, I’m excluding theistic evolutionists. Although I suppose that theistic evolutionists are technically creationists, they aren’t engaging in the sort of science-denial that makes creationists so pernicious. Theistic evolutionists aren’t the ones trying to get creationism taught in schools. Theistic evolutionists aren’t the ones using their religion to lie about science. Theistic evolutionists have done some of the best work in arguing against creationism. So when I talk about creationists being ignorant, I’m not talking about theistic evolutionists. They aren’t ignorant. They know the science, and they accept it.

  14. Rutee, I guess I can’t argue with this if it’s your’s and others’ opinion’s (I have a feeling I really fucked up the apostrophes in that sentence…) Especially since I am arguing solely through my opinion that categorization of all religious people as self-deluded and/or ignorant is both mean and, in my experience, inaccurate.

    Indifferentsky, thanks and yikes! And how does GWW get so riled over the deterioration of marriage/fatherless kids, isn’t she divorced?

  15. Anathema, thank you. Generally when I hear creationist I think specifically of the young-earthers, I probably should have asked for a definition of some kind before jumping in.

  16. Oops, I meant when I hear it used in a derogatory manner, but this time I rather assumed it meant all religious folks.

  17. Not all religious people are creationists. Worldwide, they’re an extreme minority. Even in the US they are only a minority (Albeit a strong one).

    Christ, that’s twice you’ve been told about theistic evolution. Why did you ignore the first one?

  18. I’m sorry, I must have missed the first. I don’t know why that should evoke such a strong response. I honestly don’t mean to upset.

  19. Hey AntZ, have you heard of this new thing called UseNet? It’s really cool. You can look it up on Ask Jeeves.

  20. I know I should do a GWW post. But dammit I hate watching MRA (and fem-RA) videos more than almost anything.

  21. I also hate watching boobztubes, but that video you posted was a nice compact dose of MRA racism and sexism, thanks sky. They talk about how disgusting and scary rap and “thug culture” are, but in their long list of grievances they leave out the rampant misogyny, wonder why. It turns out the all the black wimmens select thugs as mates, so it’s all their fault they’re mistreated — just like those thug-lovers Oprah and Condoleeza. “We have to stop the runaway masculinity!” Huh? I thought MRAs wanted to jailbreak the penis from matriarchy’s grasp, now they want to reign it in. When it’s black dudes.

  22. Seriously, why did that person’s rabbit smell his fart? 

    Inquiring minds. 

  23. @Guest This and others — Well, okay, I was rather careless in my definitions. I was thinking about the folks who completely dismiss evolutionary theory, the folks who have made it possible for there to be a “museum” designed to lie to children* in my great, home state of Kentucky, the folks who don’t think for themselves about it but just go along with whatever their pastor says about it because they’re conditioned to do that on pain of losing out on the afterlife.

    These are the folks who want to force school science teachers to tell students that there are valid criticisms of evolutionary theory, to “teach the controversy,” and to “let the students make up their own minds.”

    I’m going to stop there because I could go on all night.

    No, I didn’t mean the people who see the hand of the divine behind a more-or-less science-based understanding of the history of the universe, and I’m sorry my net was cast too wide.

    @ M Dubz: The problem with “intelligent design” as an appellation for those who think a deity is guiding a universe that is more or less as it appears to be, is that “intelligent design” is what creationists started to call creationism in the late 80s when it became clear that they couldn’t get it into the schools by calling it creationism. Of Pandas And People is perhaps the type specimen of this kind of trojan horsing, especially given that it was clearly find-and-replaced for its second edition, replacing “creationists” with “design proponents” and in one instance coining the bizarre portmanteau “cdesign proponentsists.”

    So I’m afraid the Ham, Hovind and Comfort crowd has poisoned “intelligent design” already.

    *Pratchett has a few paragraphs in, I think, Nation about lying to children. In general, I find his ideas about it inoffensive, and what’s so enraging about Ham and the Creation Museum is that it is so obviously an attempt to raise future contributors to Ham and Answers in Genesis; it primes the dollar-pump to the benefit of the founder of the museum.

  24. Ms. Crazy Pants

    Real adults can resolve differing opinions while being equals. Requiring that one person gets the default right to have their opinion be valid merely because they are “dominant” is akin to fascism.

  25. I can’t believe they got rid of Geocities, a veritable museum of our rich internet cultural heritage and bad 90s web design, to make more space for this wretched hive of scum and idiocy

  26. I had a Geocities webpage once for an author. I later scolded him for his illogical musing about Harry Potter.

    And today I told someone that maybe they went to the Hogwarts School of Economics but out here in reality, that did not work.

  27. And today I told someone that maybe they went to the Hogwarts School of Economics but out here in reality, that did not work.

    Ooh, ooh, was it give the wealthy more money than they can spend in 100 lifetimes and maybe they’ll give a starving person a slice of bread?

    ‘Cause I love that one.

  28. Yes it has worked every time it has been applied. Raising taxes has hurt the economy every time it has been tried.

    Do you lack the common sense to understand that if I have more discretionary money to spend I will spend it and that will create jobs?

    What part of basic economics do you not get?

    In response to my pointing out that cutting taxes does fuck all to stimulate the economy.

  29. Raising taxes has hurt the economy every time it has been tried.

    There is no evidence this is true, in fact, there is plenty of evidence that it is not.

  30. Yep! but not if you go to the Hogwarts School of Economics…cuz that lets you magic up the results you want.

    *not really*

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,152 other followers

%d bloggers like this: