The problem with the “it’s in the genes” argument

This is one of those articles I’m writing mainly so we can refer to it whenever someone argues “it’s in the genes.” It’s a broader version of Why I Banned Gender Essentialism, and it’s very simple. Disclaimer: this article is not talking about physical traits that get passed on by genes. No one’s in denial about this. This article is about the desperate quest to legitimize age-old bigoted ideas about how “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” or “breeding will show.”

Long before genes were discovered, human beings had the idea that “blood” transferred all sorts of traits. Suitability to rule the world, or suitability to be a slave, for just two examples. It should terrify you to think that humans long ascribed entire lives of misery or absolute power to people based on nothing resembling merit – just the idea that these things could be inherited. And humans were proved wrong over and over and over, but still the idea persists. Why? Because it’s magical.

“It’s in the genes” = “It’s in the stars”

Then people discovered genes and, voila, confirmation bias! Genetics opened up the possibility that there were real physical ways in which people could inherit suitability for certain lives. Again, it didn’t matter how many total duds showed up in royal lineage, or how many potential great leaders showed up in slavery – we humans were absolutely determined to believe this bullshit. We had married it, and we lived with it, and we were dedicated to it no matter what.

There are two problems with this argument. The first is that it’s magical thinking. I mean, which of these arguments sounds more plausible to you?

  1. The reason I’m a strange blend of meticulous nit-picking organizer and eccentric creative theorist who can’t even remember where the box was, it’s been that long since she thought inside it, is that I’ve got nitpicky Virgo and eccentric Aquarius both strongly placed in my astrological chart*; or
  2. It’s in the genes. We don’t know which ones. Nor can we point to anyone else on either side of my family that’s quite like me. But we feel sure it’s in the genes. We just do.

*(I am proud to say, the same astrological leanings have been theoretically assigned to Sherlock Holmes by the sort of fans who like to think about that sort of thing.)

#1 at least has reasoning. It’s based on totally unfounded assumptions about star positions connecting to personality traits. But #2 is based on totally unfounded assumptions about genes we haven’t even identified yet connecting to personality traits.

Environment controls gene expression

Let’s begin with why the quest to assign personality traits to genes is more hopeless than the search for the ark of the covenant. Cordelia Fine, in Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference, discusses numerous alarming studies which show how much environment controls the expression of genetic traits. Just as a lack of nutrition will prevent a child from reaching her full genetic potential height, so can what psychologists call “priming” limit our mental and emotional development.

She provides numerous examples of how performance on tests or answers to questions shift among the same individuals, depending whether the researchers have more recently reminded them of their identity as a woman or minority, or as a member of a particular field or nation. If you tell a student that a group he belongs to consistently does better or worse on tests than another group, he will tend to perform according to the stereotype. And even when we struggle to prove the stereotype wrong – i.e., western girls determined to prove they can kick ass at math – “stereotype threat” clouds the mind with defiance, anger and/or anxiety, which compromise our intellectual performance. Conversely, if you tell someone her group is more likely to shine on a test, that boosts her performance by adding confidence to the mental mix. Confidence relaxes the mind and helps it focus.

Therefore, you can never work backward from expression to determine genes. Because expression is so controlled environmentally, it doesn’t reveal much about the genetic makeup.

But that doesn’t prove genes don’t have some impact

That’s true. Logically, one cannot prove a negative. But we can say for sure that the vast majority of genetics/personality arguments so far are too flimsy to stand up – and some are outright bullshit (Louann Brizendine, we’re looking at you). So let’s discuss just what it is that these educated scientists are failing to take into account: family and social dynamics.

Why, oh why, can one family produce a sibling who’s confident and another who’s shy? I’ve never understood why people leap to the genetics argument when it’s actually pretty common for siblings to have things in common rather than be opposites – looking alike, sounding alike, etc. The most obvious explanation for a confident/shy dynamic is simply that the two kids were treated differently – possibly by parents, but probably also by outside influences. If the shy kid is a girl, I really have to throw up my hands and wonder what rock the “genes” arguers have been living under. It’s hard to, like, know five human beings of mixed gender without noticing that there’s a double standard for how females and males should conduct themselves.

And yet, people manage not to notice. People manage to somehow assume that women are just “naturally” (read: “genetically”) shy, unable to ask for raises/promotions, uncomfortable asking for dates/sex, etc. The lack of analysis and synthesis is just so irritating.

So let’s get to a more interesting question that’s been the subject of more serious research. Why do some kids in a family end up with a personality disorder while others do not? This happens commonly, and most people erroneously assume that it rules out the possibility of a negative upbringing causing the personality disorder (even though it’s well-established that most people with personality disorders suffered neglect or abuse during childhood, and the mechanism through which these things are proposed to damage personality makes excellent sense in light of what we know about the development of ordered personalities). We also have no known examples where two identical twins separated at birth both developed the same personality disorder while growing up in very different households.

Also, who’s never known a pair of identical twins who had distinctly different personalities? It’s not that uncommon. And the existence of such twin sets, all by itself, casts serious doubts over the idea that genes are a primary determinant of personality.

None of this supports a conclusion that the difference in sibling personalities must be accounted for by some unaccounted difference in genes – if anything, it makes that seem unlikely. The far more logical hypothesis is that it’s environment. Two siblings are typically two or more years apart in age. Their brains are at very different points in development when major life events happen (death, divorce, a parent’s addiction problems accelerating, the introduction of an abusive step-spouse, etc.). Additionally, abusive parents tend to play “favorites” with their kids in a very extreme way, sometimes even grooming one child to think abusively and another to feel like a born victim. The differences in the environment are obvious, and the fact that similar family dynamics pretty consistently produce similar personality issues in all sorts of gene pools – across races and nations – compels any serious scientist to investigate these dynamics before resorting to the assumption that “it’s in the genes.”

That said, at least one study has found some correlation between certain personality disorders and certain genetic factors. Does this warrant a conclusion that the presence of these factors gives one a personality disorder? Not unless someone establishes that large sample pools of people without personality disorders also lack these genetic factors – and given how every extended family has a disordered personality or two versus lots and lots of ordered ones, that seems unfathomable. My guess is that genes may determine which personality disorders a person is most susceptible to developing, but it’s the environment that determines whether an ordered or disordered personality develops.

These are the main arguments any “it’s in the genes” arguer needs to overcome before having his opinions taken seriously by anyone for any reason. Feel free to point these arguers to this article. They won’t get it; they’re typically very dedicated to this simplistic, magical explanation because it requires no thought, and most people are too lazy and irresponsible to think.

Comments

  1. sbg says

    I come from a huge family. There are some things some of my siblings and I have in common that I would chalk up to being a very [insert last name] thing to do – like, over half of us are extremely fussy about weird things such as the right way to vacuum, fold laundry, stuff envelopes, etc, and if someone doesn’t do it “right”, we freak.

    But considering we were all raised in the same environment, the fact that we are all so different in the big ways kind of distills the whole “it’s in our genes” thing. When I was younger, I often wondered how it was possible for my sister, two years younger, to be the social butterfly cheerleader while I was happiest alone and reading a book. Answer: my parents left me alone and reading a book (and basically alone everything) because they got a feeling I would be okay on my own, where to my sister they gave much more verbal and physical feedback. She developed a great set of social skills and I … did not.

    People manage to somehow assume that women are just “naturally” (read: “genetically”) shy, unable to ask for raises/promotions, uncomfortable asking for dates/sex, etc. The lack of analysis and synthesis is just so irritating.

    Interestingly (or not), I had a convo just the other day with someone wherein I explained how when I was a teenager, I was very shy, unassuming and reluctant to speak up. I passed up opportunities, because I had not yet fully developed who I am as a person. Adult me would leap at some of the chances I had and adult me is not terribly afraid to say what she thinks. If it’s all down to genetics, I would still be my high school self, no?

  2. says

    Spartakos,

    LOL. Evo-psych is really a whole field that exists on unfounded assumptions. The very idea that a trait’s survival means it must serve some great evolutionary purpose is ludicrous, and yet they work backwards on that assumption. We still don’t know if the mutation of blue eyes provided some evolutionary advantage, or just failed to kill people off before they reproduced, and therefore stuck around. Additionally, the idea that our psychology is the result of evolution – well, certainly our *brains* are, but we have a near-zero understanding of how the physical brain corresponds with our psychology. And since we adapt our environment more than we adapt ourselves to it, it seems particularly silly to assume our psychology evolved helplessly in adaptation to the demands of environment.

  3. Sabrina says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    I also hate how evo-psych has pretty much become a fallacious appeal to authority cause it likes to fancy itself as “science” and thus people believe all kinds of shit just because of some contrived ideas about gatherers and hunters and even more so use it as excuse to be sexist assholes.

    In a few gaming forums I occasionally read there were recently a couple of debates regarding sexualized armour design for female characters. Of course plenty of dudebros (and even a couple of women) were instantly claiming “It’s just natural! We’re hard-wired to find women like that sexy! Sex sells! IT’S IN THE GENES!!11″ It’s particularly enraging when it comes from game artists themselves: http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=7563

  4. says

    Sabrina,

    …and het women and gay men aren’t hard-wired to find men sexy? Oh right, we (women, I guess) are supposed to find men attractive because they, as a group, withhold the world’s resources from us until we sexually service them. Yes, that’s such a turn-on!

  5. Sabrina says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    But didn’t you get the memo? Girlz and teh gayz don’t play games!!!11oneoneeleven Diversity – we can’t have that! No! God forbid someone actually designed a game where EVERYONE might feel welcomed! In the end gamerbros would have to start behaving like decent people. OMG, NO!! Also, manly skin is icky! D:

    It’s really astonishing with what vehemence people are defending this shit. There are plenty of blog articles and forum posts explaining in detail that yes, women and gay people play games too, that yes, these groups do find men sexy/pretty/cute/attractive, and that yes, it would be a wise decision to make a game that caters to those groups as well cause it would mean more sales. But noooo, can’t have that… With these people it’s like talking to a brick wall!

  6. Fraser says

    Well put. Interesting to read about the gaming stuff in comments (I’m a non-gamer so the culture is pretty much terra incognita to me).
    Doyle never actually set Holmes’ birthday–Jan. 6 is just a longstanding fan assumption.

  7. says

    Fraser,

    Well, damn. The internet lied to me (I came across a site where one fan stated that this was the date Doyle gave, and everyone else seemed to agree, so I assumed they knew what they were talking about). How dare it! I have edited the post so it’s not lying anymore either. :)

  8. Fraser says

    It’s based on Holmes having made a couple of references to Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night (12th night is Jan. 6) and that one Doyle story could be taken to show he was out celebrating heavily on that night. Of such thin gossamer we Holmes geeks spin our speculations …

  9. says

    Fraser,

    …and I’ve been known to get into mild arguments with SG-1 fans who place Daniel Jackson’s birthday in 1965 based on his comment that he was “about 4 and a half years old in 1969″ and his stated birthdate of July 8. He would only be 4 and a half at the very END of 1969 if born in 1965, so I place his birthyear in 1964. :D

  10. Quib says

    Sabrina,

    Oh my goodness, “cleavages = butts, cavemans. obviously” Is definitely one of my favorites. The best part being that anyone who genuinely thinks a pair of breasts looks just like an ass is clearly not familiar with what nude women look like.

    It kind of aggravates me that no one ever seems to say “I, me personally, like looking at women like this, and so I put a this character in this outfit”. Because the core issue, as interpret it, is that a designer is alleging to have made a fighting game, about fighting and put this character in the game to do fighting (or driving, or computer hacking, or magic, etc.) and then put half the cast, or the token female in skimpy swimwear for no reason. It would just bother me less if they’d go ahead and make their boobie game about boobs and ladies being appealing to them, without the pointless and convoluted justification for awkwardly shoehorning skimpy lady outfits where they make no sense (like in reteaux, 16bit style exploring/building games ( http://wiki.terrariaonline.com/Necro_armor ) still tryin’ to figure that one out).

    I hesitate a little to draw conclusions about the whole field of evolutionary psychology based on its public face, because I know the things that get popularized, passed around and turned into soundbites are often several times removed from the consensus in the original field of study. I don’t know how much “pick something people do, make up a ‘just-so-story’ with vague references to the origins of humanity and pretend like that’s a reason to keep doing that thing” reflects on what actual scientists with relevant qualifications might be doing and thinking.
    The appeal to authority aspect really doesn’t make a lick of sense. It’s either something that’s hardwired, immutable, universal and naturally inherent, or it’s something you have to defend from new ideas and societal change. I get that people jump at anything that will back up their stereotypes and assumptions with ‘science’ or ‘nature’, but it seems like there’s so many people who take sever offense at the idea of not hollerin’ children which toys they should play with.

  11. says

    Quib: I don’t know how much “pick something people do, make up a ‘just-so-story’ with vague references to the origins of humanity and pretend like that’s a reason to keep doing that thing” reflects on what actual scientists with relevant qualifications might be doing and thinking.

    According to scientists I’ve read, this is pretty much what the field is about. There is an entire book, for example, of essays from qualified academics taking down the work of those two assholes who wrote a book about how all men are rapists and women should just lie back and be grateful because It’s Nature.

    The original book (and even the top Amazon comment rips it to shreds): http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262700832

    The book where other academics ganged up on these fools: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262700905/qid=1078840224/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-2489949-1569527?v=glance&s=books

    And then Louann Brizendine’s first edition of her big book was so full of shit, and I mean made up references that allegedly supported her points, or would have if they actually existed, that she had to revise it.

    Now, neuroscience contains both good and bad science – people trying to make squiggles on MRIs fit their just-so stories, and people finding real stuff and drawing only cautious, supported conclusions.

    But evo-psych by its very nature… well, psychology is a soft science, but over time, reported data leads to stats and noticeable patterns, so you can cautiously draw conclusions, test them, and get confirmation. But that’s because the affected people are right there, alive today, observable in a clinical setting. With evo-psych, you’re guessing why long dead people would have needed a trait that maybe no one ever actually needed, so I don’t see how this could ever qualify as anything resembling empirical science.

  12. lilacsigil says

    And the fact that there are some personality-influencing traits passed on genetically – tendency to schizophrenia, tendency to alcoholism, tendency to depression – just makes the “it’s all in the genes!” people extend their wobbly logic even further.

  13. Lika says

    Great, thought-provoking article.

    I was reading a baby version of a Mary Sue fanfic the other day where I believe the writer was trying to live out some fantasy of a superior baby that came above because the parents of the baby happen to be Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler. Of course their baby would be smarter than other babies with those genes *rolls eyes*

    Something about that reminded me of the Lebensborn project. Let’s make superior babies! It was just creepy.

    I do know smart parents with smart kids, but I figured that has just as much if not more to do with the parents having the resources, dedication, and care to give their children an environment that’s conducive to learning. I know booksmart people who had parents who had no interest in school learning (but they were knowledgeable and capable in other ways.)

    Good point about siblings’ brains being at different development spots when a major event happens. Birth order may also have something to do with it, as I think culture usually see first borns as leaders and the “baby of the family” as someone to give more leeway to.

  14. Fraser says

    There’s also that Harvard Law student who sent around the email about how she really, really, really (no really!) hates believing black people are inferior but she just has to go with the facts. And she mentioned in passing that no matter what they say about environment, some children will grow up stupider regardless of their influences, just as she knows her future babies would become geniuses even if raised in the back woods of Nigeria.
    The racism didn’t floor me as much as the assumption of her own innate, genetic superiority.

  15. says

    Lika,

    Yes, and while this is anecdotal and I may have a case of confirmation bias, it seems to me most of the kids who feel like they barely got noticed at all and were usually asked to subvert their needs for the other siblings were usually the middle kids. Not sure why – just that there’s no cultural definition of what they’re good for, maybe?

    Fraser,

    It wouldn’t shock me if we learned that genes affect how brains are physically structured, and that in turn has some effect on a child’s strongest mental potentials. But what we do know for sure is that kids’ brains are extremely affected by environment. And we also know that “smarts” get evaluated according to cultural preferences, which is certainly why women used to be less intelligent than men but now aren’t. ;) If you drag a race of people to your continent in chains, define intelligence by the standards of a third continent from whence you and yours came, and purposely try to keep that race suppressed and dependent, I don’t think genetics is the first possibility that comes to mind when wondering why the test scores at the mostly black school in the scary neighborhood aren’t quite as high as the scores at the mostly white school in the low crime neighborhood. I mean, let’s think about this.

    This also brings to mind my sophomore (high school) English class. We’d just gotten some tests back, and a black classmate asked to see mine. Sure enough, we’d put the same answer on one question, and has answer was marked wrong but mine wasn’t. We found a distinct pattern of this. This girl was every bit as capable as I was – I found her very intelligent and insightful about literature in particular – but the racist teacher evidently had a separate grading scale for people of color. I believe the girl’s parents were both profs at the local university? I don’t remember exactly, but they were better employed than my parents, and probably better educated. Here she was, living proof that a black girl can be damn smart, and the white teacher was determined to put a stop to that sort of thing.

    So, genetics? Nope, not my first thought. Or second. Or 64th.

  16. Quib says

    Lika: I believe the writer was trying to live out some fantasy of a superior baby that came above because the parents of the baby happen to be Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler.Of course their baby would be smarter than other babies with those genes *rolls eyes*

    I think that also speaks to a conflation of skill and potential with success. In the original stories, Holmes had a brother who was his intellectual rival, if not superior, but, if I remember correctly, was pretty much a useless loaf about.
    Even if skills transfer directly from parent to child, there’s no guarantee they will be applied, or accomplish anything.
    I think I’d also have to say that I’ve never seen any interpretation of Sherlock Holmes that would be a competent parent.

  17. Fraser says

    Quib,

    No, Mycroft was actually a kind of prognosticator for the British government, applying the same deductive skills as Sherlock to policy rather than crime.
    But no, I wouldn’t pick Holmes as a good parent.

  18. Alara Rogers says

    The concept that genes might play a role in human behavior, and that it might be possible to figure out what that role could be, isn’t the problem. The problem is how very, very badly it’s being done.

    You cannot make any kind of call-out to “well, humans are genetically like this” if you cannot demonstrate that humans are like this as a *pattern*, over many, many societies, and especially hunter-gatherer societies from different continents where they had no opportunity to influence each other (I used to argue with my mother because she would say that a certain behavior is innate to humanity because people in Europe do it and people in ancient Greece and Roman did it and I’m like, “But those cultures are related! You have to look at completely unrelated cultures!” and she’s arguing “I don’t think some tiny little hunter-gatherer group in New Guinea can speak to the true nature of humanity as much as the entire history of Western civilization” and I just facepalmed.) It also helps to be able to demonstrate the behavior in apes. If you can’t do that, if you identify a trait that you think is genetic and you find that a significant part of humanity doesn’t do it that way, then it’s not genetic.

    Secondly, if you do identify a trait that’s genetic, this does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that it is a good idea to give it free reign. The desire to murder some idiot who’s annoying the shit out of you is a trait that appears to be universally human, and every human culture declares that it is not a good idea.

    For example, let us say that the asshat whose book is mentioned above is right, and there *is* a biological basis to rape. Let’s say we live in the universe where men really do rape because it’s biologically advantageous to. (This actually does appear to be true of orangutans.) Why should this ever mean that women should lie back and take it? If the desire to rape is biological, odds are, the desire to *not be raped* is also biological. Males who are not fit to attract a desirable mate, the logic goes, forcibly hijack the reproductive capacity of a woman to ensure that they can reproduce. Well, why did the woman refuse him in the first place? Maybe because HE IS A BAD CHOICE? Maybe because she evolved to be able to tell that some guys are going to be really bad for any potential children she might have with them, and therefore, she should not voluntarily have sex with them? So what about a male who has traits that have been deemed by a woman (who has evolved to detect traits that are beneficial to her children, in this logic) to be inferior makes it okay for him to go around reproducing just because he has *one* trait, the ability to commit rape, that permits it? Why not trust women’s perception that his genes should not continue? Remember, by this logic, women would be *much* better evolved to select against bad father material than men would be to select against bad mother material because men can have many children and walk away from them… so women have evolved to figure out who they should not mate with, for the benefit of their children. Why would it ever make sense to say that *women’s* biological urge not to be raped, which is based in the ability to assess the value of a man’s genetic contribution, should be overlooked in favor of a man’s biological urge to rape, which is based solely on the strategy of “father many children, provide for none of them”?

    Wolves have a biological impulse to prey on young animals. Dogs that bite babies get killed, and we’ve been killing the dogs that bite babies for 10,000 years. Most dogs do not bite babies. If rape was in fact based in biology, this doesn’t argue for Lock Up The Wimmenz; it argues for Lock Up The Men. It argues for “a man who commits rape should be sterilized because the rape trait should be extinguished from the human population.” It argues for creating a society where women are in charge, precisely *because* men have a biological propensity to selfishly rape, thus causing inferior human children to be born and damaging the ability of women to choose men with better genes, which is bad for the whole human race, so because it’s just biology, dudes, you have to let us run everything until you can prove you’ve extinguished your biological desire to rape us. Because you’re *predators*, and what humans do to predators that we live with, like dogs, is we kill the ones that harm us and we make damn sure they know we are the ones in charge.

    All of this is bullshit, obviously; there is almost certainly no “rape trait”, women don’t select men on the basis of “superior genes”, and rape isn’t really a viable strategy for reproduction anyway unless it also comes with kidnapping the victim, making her live with your family in your hometown surrounded by your people, cutting off any escape route home (or possibly having killed everyone in her home except her) so she is trapped, and then offering her the ability to make a new life and maybe finally achieve some modicum of status and stability again if she just accepts that she’s your property and it’s okay when you rape her. (Which… has happened so disturbingly universally and often throughout human history that I think it actually *is* a viable reproductive strategy, biologically, which is why we need to crush any notion that it’s a valid and acceptable one out of every human culture.) Men don’t have a biological urge to rape, and therefore, we don’t need to treat men as dangerous predators and pre-emptively take from them their human rights; we can treat them as human beings. But the argument that men can’t help raping is *not* an argument for letting them do so, and anyone who thinks that one follows from the other was too much of a misogynist to pay attention in logic class, because “tigers cannot help eating the meat you left out” does not mean “hide the meat better”, it means “shoot the tiger.” And also, people are not meat, so you also fail at empathy forever if you try to make that argument.

  19. says

    Alara Rogers,

    Very well said. I really like your points on the “rape as an evolutionary strategy” argument. That book pretty much ignored that people who obviously can’t have babies (children, post-menopausal women and men) get raped a lot, too. It ignored that a lot of rapists are fathers already – husbands and partners with regular access to consensual sex and reproduction in a family setting. It seemed to be based entirely on the myth that rapists are lonely guys who can’t get any. No, they’re just entitled guys who can’t ever get enough and resent women for it.

    Also, the number of pregnancies resulting from rape is really low in comparison to the number of pregnancies resulting from consensual sex, so if it’s an actual strategy, it’s not a very successful one.

    And why not look to psychology to see how this pans out? Rapists talk freely about how good it feels when your victim is terrified of you, and how you feel like a god, and how they (the rapists) were just having a really bad day and their 13 year old step daughter was there, so they raped her, and then they felt better. I can’t think of a single account – and yes, I sit around reading psych reports on convicted rapists because somebody’s got to get in the muck and try to figure out what makes them tick and how to stop producing these warped personalities in the future – where the rapist was desperate to father a child. It just doesn’t come into play. You’d have to discount these conscious motives to make it all about the unconscious reproductive urge, and psychologists would not back you up on that (i.e., even though you can’t take a person’s word as gospel, what rapists report about their motives often tracks with how victims report their behavior/remarks during the rape).

    I’ve argued before that if anyone really believes all men are just rapists waiting to happen, then that person should support setting up zoos and putting them in there, because that’s what we do with the dangerous animals who can’t control themselves.

    http://thehathorlegacy.com/do-men-belong-in-the-corridors-of-power-or-zoos/

  20. Fraser says

    Alara Rogers,

    Very well said.
    I think anyone who believes rape is a biological urge should have to explain why they don’t excuse shoplifting food the same way. We have a biological urge to eat; supermarkets tongue-tease us by putting all that yummy food on display; ergo, we can’t help ourselves.
    For that matter, peeing is a biological urge, so rape apologists shouldn’t object if I have to do it on their shoes.

  21. Sabrina says

    Alara Rogers,

    Great rant!

    Jennifer Kesler,

    What annoys me the most with this concept is the catch-22 situation that comes in a neat package with this myth:
    If a woman doesn’t take it seriously and something bad happens to her it’s all her fault for not believing that all men are horrible rapists. OMG HOW COULD YOU TRUST HIM!?! DON’T YOU KNOW ALL MEN JUST WANT TO RAPE A WOMAN LIKE YOU!!?
    But if a woman is distrustful and takes precautions (see Schrödinger’s Rapist) the same people that told her all men are predators are all up in arms like: DON’T BE SO MEAN TO HIM!! CAN’T YOU GIVE HIM A CHANCE?! HE’S SUCH A NICE GUY!

    shm.

  22. Casey says

    Sabrina: If a woman doesn’t take it seriously and something bad happens to her it’s all her fault for not believing that all men are horrible rapists. OMG HOW COULD YOU TRUST HIM!?! DON’T YOU KNOW ALL MEN JUST WANT TO RAPE A WOMAN LIKE YOU!!?
    But if a woman is distrustful and takes precautions (see Schrödinger’s Rapist) the same people that told her all men are predators are all up in arms like: DON’T BE SO MEAN TO HIM!! CAN’T YOU GIVE HIM A CHANCE?! HE’S SUCH A NICE GUY!

    It’s definitely the worst case of doublethink ever.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.