Fat girls make inferior mothers

Science has spoken:

A total of 43 550 (3.5%) offspring had any major congenital malformation, and the most common subgroup was for congenital heart defects (n=20 074; 1.6%). Compared with offspring of normal weight mothers (risk of malformations 3.4%), the proportions and adjusted risk ratios of any major congenital malformation among the offspring of mothers with higher BMI were: overweight, 3.5% and 1.05 (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.07); obesity class I, 3.8% and 1.12 (1.08 to 1.15), obesity class II, 4.2% and 1.23 (1.17 to 1.30), and obesity class III, 4.7% and 1.37 (1.26 to 1.49). The risks of congenital heart defects, malformations of the nervous system, and limb defects also progressively increased with BMI from overweight to obesity class III. The largest organ specific relative risks related to maternal overweight and increasing obesity were observed for malformations of the nervous system. Malformations of the genital and digestive systems were also increased in offspring of obese mothers.

Conclusions Risks of any major congenital malformation and several subgroups of organ specific malformations progressively increased with maternal overweight and increasing severity of obesity. For women who are planning pregnancy, efforts should be encouraged to reduce adiposity in those with a BMI above the normal range.

Conclusion: don't marry a fat chick if you want healthy children. Maintaining weight isn't merely about your preferences or her health, but the health of the children.

One thing I've noticed at the beach is that fat women very often only have one child. If you see a slender, fit mother, she's usually got three or four.

Relationships bore women

A counterintuitive survey result prompts Heartiste to take yet another victory lap:

Over the last few decades almost all research studies have found that men are much more eager for casual sex than women are (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010). This is especially true when it comes to desires for short-term mating with many different sexual partners (Schmitt et al., 2003), and is even more true for wanting to have sex with complete and total strangers (Tappé et al., 2013).

In a classic social psychological experiment from the 1980s, Clark and Hatfield (1989) put the idea of there being sex differences in consenting to sex with strangers to a real life test. They had experimental confederates approach college students across various campuses and ask “I’ve been noticing you around campus, I find you to be very attractive, would you go to bed with me tonight?” Around 75 percent of men agreed to have sex with a complete stranger, whereas no women (0 percent) agreed to sex with a complete stranger. In terms of effect size, this is one of the largest sex differences ever discovered in psychological science (Hyde, 2005).

Twenty years later, Hald and Høgh-Olesen (2010) largely replicated these findings in Denmark, with 59 percent of single men and 0 percent of single women agreeing to a stranger’s proposition, “Would you go to bed with me?” Interestingly, they also asked participants who were already in relationships, finding 18 percent of men and 4 percent of women currently in a relationship responded positively to the request.

Did you catch the glint of that sparkly truthgem? On the question of having sex with a stranger, the percentage of men willing to do so dropped from 75% if they were single to 18% if they were already in relationships…..while the percentage of women willing to fuck a stranger rose from o% if they were single to 4% if they were in relationships.

At this point, do we actually need social scientists when we have Le Chateau?

Is work good for women?

Given the incredible number of women now on anti-depressants and other mind-altering drugs, it might be informative to learn what percentage of women in the work force are on them compared to women who are not in the work force.

Based in simple observation, it seems pretty clear that women who are wives and mothers occupied with home-making are considerably less mentally ill than single working women from similar backgrounds.

There is the hypothesis. Let the science begin!

We need more women in science?

Why is that, again, exactly?

Up to 23,000 current prisoners are expected to be released from the Massachusetts State Prison system because the female lab chemist handling evidence in their cases lied, forged colleague’s signatures, and purposefully contaminated evidence.  Here is the story of Annie Dookhan, nicknamed “Superwoman” for her record productivity at the state crime lab.

Annie Dookhan, a female born in Trinidad & Tobago in 1977, moved to the United States as a child, became a chemist, and took a job at the state crime lab in Massachusetts, where she earned the nickname “Superwoman” due to her speed and efficiency running lab tests, primarily on criminal drug cases.  Her productivity was so high, she was processing four times the work of the average government lab worker.  Or was she?

Annie’s secret was to not test the samples at all, but to take the short cut by lying and confirming that whatever substance police told her to check for was present, or to contaminate evidence, or forge co-worker’s signatures guaranteeing the chain of custody of evidence.

In the aftermath, a state crime lab was shuttered, 5 workers were fired for failure to properly supervise this rogue employee, up to 23,000 prisoners are expected to be released from prison, and Annie plead guilty to falsifying drug tests.

Pretty impressive, even by female fuck-up standards. I'm sure the fact that she was a) diversity, and b) kind of cute when she was younger had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to skate by without ever actually doing her job.

College surprised to learn women are not men

Harvey Mudd went out of its way to bring in considerably more female and diversity students. Guess what happened?

Harvey Mudd eight years ago revised its core curriculum, cutting it back from four semesters of courses to three and allowing for more elective classes. It was a measure that faculty and administrators believed would reduce student workload and stresses, and they were frustrated to learn it was not successful after many months of planning, Klawe said.

Some faculty members, meanwhile, told the interviewers that students were not prepared for their classes, and that they’d observed deterioration in the quality of students accepted to Harvey Mudd over the years. They described students as wed to their phones and not committed to the sciences....

While leadership there has recruited more women — to the point where they comprise nearly 50 percent of the student body — gains in the numbers of Hispanic and black students were sluggish until recent years, Klawe said. As a college recognized for its sciences, Harvey Mudd competes with institutions like Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, both with higher profiles.

With this diversity comes growing pains, and practices that benefited what was the traditional Harvey Mudd student still linger, but are being identified.

It's rather impressive how people keep managing to be surprised by the inevitable.

Some faculty spent Monday afternoon in a training learning more about sensitivity toward minority groups and women.

Right. Because science is all about sensitivity.

The dyssocial sex

Science is discovering that women, not men, tend to be more dyssocial:

A recent study by the well-known Professor Robert Dunbar has shown ‘a very striking sex difference between male and female friendships.’  In the few days since Dunbar gave a talk on the results, a number of articles have written of the superficiality of male relationships; rather, they focused on Dunbar’s view that ‘women clearly have much more intense close friendships…very like romantic relationships…if they break, they break catastrophically.’  Whereas men are painted as superficial – ‘With guys it is out of sight out of mind. They just find four more guys to go drinking with.’  But, do the findings really indicate that women are friendlier or more sociable than men?

Now, of course, feminists will tell you that masculinity is inevitably oppressive and abusive, especially of the more supposedly feminine qualities of love, gentility and empathy.  But, this misconception is totally unfair.  As Moore and Gillette point out, in King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine, oppressive forms of patriarchy are simply based on the same juvenile fear of Lord of the Flies; the ‘mature masculine’ psychology, however, is ‘marked by calm, compassion, clarity of vision, and generativity.’

Indeed, science seems to agree, not only that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but also that women seem predisposed to scorning.

I noticed a long time ago that while I still have pretty much the same friends that I did in high school, virtually no woman I knew hadn't changed out her entire set of friends more than once. There are exceptions, of course, but it does seem strange that the supposedly social sex tends to be less inclined to maintain lasting friendships.

IQ is more than ability

It is also a disposition, as Bruce Charlton explains:

IQ not just an ability, but also a disposition

Although general intelligence is usually conceptualized as differences in cognitive ability, IQ is not just about ability but also has personality implications [17].

For example, in some populations there is a positive correlation between IQ and the personality trait of Openness to experience (‘Openness’) [18] and [19]; a positive correlation with ‘enlightened’ or progressive values of a broadly socialist and libertarian type [20]; and a negative correlation with religiousness [21].

So, the greater cognitive ability of higher IQ is also accompanied by a somewhat distinctive high IQ personality type. My suggested explanation for this association is that an increasing level of IQ brings with it an increased tendency to use general intelligence in problem-solving; i.e. to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense.

The over-use of abstract reasoning may be most obvious in the social domain, where normal humans are richly equipped with evolved psychological mechanisms both for here-and-now interactions (e.g. rapidly reading emotions from facial expression, gesture and posture, and speech intonation) and for ‘strategic’ modelling of social interactions to understand predict and manipulate the behaviour of others [16]. Social strategies deploy inferred knowledge about the dispositions, motivations and intentions of others. When the most intelligent people over-ride the social intelligence systems and apply generic, abstract and systematic reasoning of the kind which is enhanced among higher IQ people, they are ignoring an ‘expert system’ in favour of a non-expert system.

Thus explaining why intelligence isn't always behavior-optimizing.

11 out of 10 pedos agree

But, but, it is SCIENCE that totally recommends gay men should raise little kids, pedophile scientists explain:

From the Abstract:

… The current study applied … meta-analysis to 10 studies … to evaluate child psychological adjustment by parent sexual orientation. …[R]results indicated that children of gay fathers had significantly better outcomes than did children of heterosexual parents in all 3 models of meta-analysis.

The emphasis on “better” was in the original — a word that was noticed in the popular press.

If the results are true, then surely if we want what is best for the nation’s children, they should be placed in the households of men who enjoy non-procreative sex-like activities. (Actual sexual intercourse can only take place between males and females.) Leaving kids to fester with their own parents dooms them to lesser outcomes.

That prescription might to your ears sound absurd, but it does follow if Miller and his co-authors are right. Are they?

The authors used a controversial technique,badly applied and in the service of confirmation bias.

The trio used a statistical technique called “meta-analysis,” which I jokingly define as a method to prove a hypothesis “statistically” true which could not be proved to be actually true. Actually, it is a way to glue together results from disparate studies, so that one needn’t be troubled by the hard work of investigating the disparate studies. In other words, it is a controversial technique, often badly applied and in the service of confirmation bias. I suspect that is true here.

Miller et al. gathered 10 studies culled from “a list of over 6,000 citations of published and unpublished studies from 2005 and later based on the search terms same sex, same gender, gay, child, and parent in any combination.”

Somehow — it is a mystery — in their diligent search, the researchers did not turn up the remarkable 2012 study known by all sociologists,  “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus. That study made national headlines!

Since we're talking about statistical analysis, it is perhaps worth pointing out that gay men are 14 times more likely to abuse children than normal men. So, this leads to the obvious question: precisely how do the pedo-scientists define "better outcomes"?

Gamma is a downhill slope

One of the dangers of lying to yourself is that it gets easier the more you do it:

Scientists have uncovered an explanation for why telling a few porkies has the tendency to spiral out of control. The study suggests that telling small, insignificant lies desensitises the brain to dishonesty, meaning that lying gradually feels more comfortable over time.

Tali Sharot, a neuroscientist at University College London and senior author, said: “Whether it’s evading tax, infidelity, doping in sports, making up data in science or financial fraud, deceivers often recall how small acts of dishonesty snowballed over time and they suddenly found themselves committing quite large crimes.”

Sharot and colleagues suspected that this phenomenon was due to changes in the brain’s response to lying, rather than simply being a case of one lie necessitating another to maintain a story....

Twenty-five of the volunteers played the game while having their brain activity monitored by an MRI scanner. This showed that the amygdala, a part of the brain linked with emotion, was most active when people told their first lie. But while the untruths escalated in magnitude, the amygdala’s response gradually declined - and larger drops in brain activity predicted bigger lies in future.

The researchers said this adaptation effect was similar to those seen in basic sensory experiences. A scent becomes less potent when smelt repeatedly, for instance.

This is fascinating, especially in light of other research that suggests Gammas may have smaller, less developed amygdalas than higher-status men. On the other hand, it also suggests that my advice to ruthlessly tell the truth may be a reliable way out of Gammatude, as it stands to reason that refusing to tell lies will also alter the brain's response, but in a more positive manner.

The more a Gamma tells the truth, the easier it will become for him, and the more reluctant he will become to construct a delusion bubble to defend his pride from contact with reality.

I'm going to say no

I don't think the author of this piece quite grasps what "the selfish gene" actually is:

If it’s been said once, it’s been said a thousand times, nice guys finish last. But why is it that women choose dominance every time over niceness, dooming notions of sexual equality to dismal failure?

The Selfish Gene” theory could explain the tendency of women not only to marry up, but to completely disregard the bottom 4/5 of men as potential suitors as The Pareto Principle suggests and eyewitness evidence in any club in America will illustrate. Here’s a simple definition of The Selfish Gene:

A lineage is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness—the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual).

This theory is bad news for men in a sexual market that has shifted to look more like a jungle than a civilization since the advent of “women’s liberation” a.k.a. feminism. The Realtalk translation of that very effete sounding definition of The Selfish Gene works out to: Women want to fuck the winners, and they will fuck over the losers.

Women have evolved to disregard and even harbor contempt for “inferior” DNA. In a cruel world in which survival of the fittest has been the rule from day one over 4 billion years ago when life began to form in the slime, being a nice boy doesn’t cut it. Women, more than men, are beholden to the influences of The Selfish Gene, and though we may lament its effects on our sexual and familial prospects as men there are sound biological reasons women have evolved to be ruthless when it comes to choosing sexual partners.

As much as it pains me to say this, a little reading of Richard Dawkins is in order here. Selfish gene theory will not explain hypergamy because there is no known hypergamous gene or even combination of genes that lead women to behave in this manner.

Indeed, the "quality" theory underlying hypergamy tends to conflict with the idea of the selfish gene.

It's not your imagination

There is scientific evidence for pedoface:

Evidence is steadily accumulating to support a neurodevelopmental basis for pedophilia. This includes increased incidence of non-right-handedness, which is a result primarily of prenatal neural development and solidified very early in life. Minor physical anomalies (MPAs; superficial deviations from typical morphological development, such as un-detached earlobes) also develop only prenatally, suggesting them as another potential marker of atypical physiological development during the prenatal period among pedophiles. This study administered the Waldrop Physical Anomaly Scale to assess the prevalence of MPAs in a clinical sample of men referred for assessment following a sexual assault, or another illegal or clinically significant sexual behavior. Significant associations emerged between MPA indices and indicators of pedophilia, including penile responses to depictions of children, number of child victims, and possession of child pornography. Moreover, greater sexual attraction to children was associated with an elevated craniofacial-to-peripheral anomalies ratio. The overall sample demonstrated a greater number of MPAs relative to prior samples of individuals with schizophrenia as well as to healthy controls.

And, presumably, gayface as well. There is, quite literally, something wrong with these people. It also explains why there is such a high rate of recidivism among pedos.

Takeaway: if there is a teacher who is REALLY enthusiastic about children and happens to be left-handed with undetached earlobes, transfer your kids to a different school.

Furthermore, pedophiles can apparently be detected by their differing brain wave activity. If this holds up, child abuse can be proactively stopped.

The pedophilic group demonstrated wide-ranging increases in functional connectivity with the default mode network compared with controls and regional differences (increases and decreases) with the frontoparietal network. Of these brain regions (total = 23), 20 have been identified by meta-analytic studies to respond to sexually relevant stimuli. Conversely, of the brain areas known to be those that respond to sexual stimuli, nearly all emerged in the present data as significantly different in pedophiles.

It's not her fault, blame evolution

Now scientists are excusing female infidelity with science:

What drives women to cheat is a subject that has been long debated over the years. And now scientists are suggesting women have been programmed by evolution to pursue affairs in case they decide to leave their partners.

New research claims this 'mate switching hypothesis' particularly applies to childless women whose loved one can affect their ability to raise offspring. The theory that affairs are women's natural back-up plan challenges the accepted notion that humans are intended to be monogamous. It suggests humans have evolved to constantly be on the lookout for better long-term partners that their current ones.

David Buss, Cari Goetz and their team told the Sunday Times: 'Lifelong monogamy does not characterise the primary mating pattern of humans. 'Breaking up with one partner and re-mating with another - mate switching - may more accurately characterise the common, perhaps the primary, mating strategy of humans. For our ancestors, disease, poor diet and poor medical care meant few lived past 30 - meaning experimenting to find the most suitable partner may have been key to survival.

Scientists claim people would pick partners with the highest chance of survival, but have someone in reserve in case that person died.

That's certainly a novel excuse. "This isn't what it looks like! I'm only trying to prepare for your inevitable death!"

Of course, the reduced attractivness that is concomitant with the aging process tends to get in the way of this partner-replacement theory.

The label is not the behavior

I've noticed that a number of people who are skeptical of the socio-sexual theory keep making the same mistake. They focus on the labels, rather than on the observed behavior to which the labels are applied.

There is no doubt that Alphas exist. There is no doubt that Gammas exist. We know this because we see them exhibiting the differentiating behavior in action on a daily basis. It doesn't matter what they are called; although the terms have become descriptors and predictive behavioral models, they are derived from actual behavior observed and recorded by others.

So, don't get caught up in the descriptors, their status implications notwithstanding. They are only there to label the various behaviors being observed.

The essential strategy of ethnocentrism

As we are seeing in real time in both Europe and the USA, ethnocentrism trumps humanitarianism the vast majority of the time:

In this study, we examine the possible temporal coincidence between population saturation and the establishment of ethnocentric dominance. Both the mediation and direct hypotheses predict a close temporal coincidence between population saturation and ethnocentric dominance. Both hypotheses also predict that the frequency of humanitarian agents decreases with ethnocentric growth, though the direct hypothesis predicts a direct relation not using the mediating influence of free-riders.
Method

Our methodology is the same as in the original simulation (Hammond & Axelrod 2006b), except that we record strategy frequencies at every evolutionary cycle in 50 worlds and stop at 1000 cycles because solutions are always stable by then. We record results at every evolutionary cycle to provide a more complete picture of evolutionary processes and insights into the determinants of stable evolutionary outcomes.

To examine the unique predictions of each hypothesis, we perform a mediation analysis to determine whether the relation between ethnocentric and humanitarian strategies is mediated by suppression of selfish strategies. The direct hypothesis would be uniquely supported by finding an unmediated negative relation between ethnocentrism and humanitarianism, while the mediation hypothesis would be uniquely supported by finding evidence of such mediation through selfish free-riders.
Results

Mean evolving strategy frequencies over the 50 worlds are plotted in Figure 1. These plots indicate that ethnocentric dominance occurs, on average, at around 300 evolutionary cycles. Until that point, there is strong competition from humanitarians. Both selfish and traitorous strategies increase over the first 300 cycles but then stagnate at such low levels that they never pose much of a threat to either humanitarianism or ethnocentrism. A plot of evolving population sizes in 50 worlds, in Figure 2 left-side Y-axis, indicates that world population saturates at around that same time, 300 cycles. The right-side Y-axis in Figure 2 shows that the proportion of out-group interactions, averaged over 50 worlds in a fresh simulation, increases across the first 300 evolutionary cycles and then stagnates at just under .2. Proportion of out-group interactions is computed as the number of out-group interactions divided by number of total interactions (out-group interactions + in-group interactions). In summary, as the world fills up, out-group interactions reach a maximum and final decisive splits in strategy frequencies emerge. Similar to earlier results (Hammond & Axelrod 2006b), the mean proportions of strategies at 1000 cycles are .08 selfish, .02 traitorous, .73 ethnocentric, and .17 humanitarian.

Translation: the West has severely endangered itself by exchanging nationalism (ethnocentrism) for globalism (humanitarianism), and can only recover by abandoning the latter.

Men, women, and intelligence

An NRx purist was having a hissy fit on Twitter over my statement that on average, men and women are of roughly equal intelligence, with men being both more intelligent on the high end and less intelligent on the low end.  He cited this chart, which I've posted previously here on Alpha Game.

However, he clearly didn't understand either what I was saying or the chart, which is rather ironic considering his supposedly superior male intelligence. These numbers are cumulative. Which means that in order to get an accurate snapshot at a given range, one needs to subtract both the higher and the lower levels.

Here was my actual response to Louise's question:

Louise: Do you think that women as a group are less intelligent than men?

Vox: On average, no. At both ends of the bell curve … At the high end of the bell curve, women are less intelligent than men, but in the middle they’re about the same, and at the low end, they’re more intelligent than men.

So, let's look at the average IQ range, which here is 90 to 110. For women, that is a population of 40,006,230 - 13,152,863, or 26,853,367. For men, that is 24,938,369. There are 1,914,998 more women in the average intelligence range than men, and all 26.8 million of them are more intelligent than the roughly 10 million men with sub-90 IQs while being just as intelligent as their 25 million male counterparts.

This is far more relevant to the experience of the average man or the average woman than either the 2 percent difference in IQ mean or how they happen to relate to a relatively rare +3-4 SD outlier such as me.

While it would have been more precise to say that most women are as intelligent as most men in the normal -1 SD to +1 SD range, the fact that I pointed out the bell curve distribution and the male advantage on the right side of it is sufficient to indicate that I was not watering anything down for fear of Louise Mensche's disapproval.

Boobs or Intelligence?

Dr. Helen asks whether men really prefer intelligence to big breasts:

A new study shows men prefer intelligence in women to breasts. Here is the article from the scientific People magazine entitled "A Weight Off of Women's Chests: New Research Shows Men Prefer Intelligence to Breasts" (via Ironshrink) :

    Yup, that's the sound of cynical women everywhere breathing a long sigh of relief.

    A woman's intelligence is considered far more attractive to a man than her breast size, according to University of Cambridge professor David Bainbridge, who researches evolutionary biology.

    Intelligence, Bainbridge asserted at last weekend's Hay Festival, shows that a woman is more likely to be a successful parent – which, evolutionarily, is more favorable than huge breasts.

    Pointing to new research, Bainbridge took the claim even further. "Breast size doesn't matter," he told festival-goers, shocking just about every woman who's ever been insecure about her chest. (So ... every woman?) "Actually, large breasts are more likely to be asymmetric, and men are more attracted to symmetry."

Spacebunny, in addition to looking rather fetching in a bikini, is of a scientific turn of mind, and therefore attempted to replicate the study's results. Her findings:

• 59% Boobs
• 41% Intelligence

And she's okay with that. Because science. And history.

"Boobs have arguably done more for children and society than all the intelligent women put together."
- Spacebunny

Diversity harms share values

It's no wonder feminists and SJWs hate science. All it does is deliver bad news:

This paper examines the relationship between board diversity and firm performance. Using 14 years of panel data on U.S. firms, we show that increasing gender diversity has no impact on objective measures of firm performance, but does result in a systematic decrease in the firm’s market value. We explain this finding by suggesting that the decision to appoint female directors will alter the market’s perception of the appointing firm. In a second panel study, we show that firms perceived to be committed to diversity similarly suffer a decrease in firm value. Finally, we show through an experiment that female board appointments are taken as a signal that the firm is motivated by social performance goals, to the detriment of pure profit maximization. 

In the forthcoming SJWS ALWAYS LIE, I explain this as the inevitable Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence. Which means, to put it simply, is that any organization which is invaded by SJWs and directed towards social justice goals loses its ability to perform its primary function as a direct consequence of its new SJW-imposed priorities.

Barbie doesn't like math

A study indicates that it's not male oppression keeping women out of STEM:

A new study into causes of the scarcity of women in technical and scientific fields says that it is not discrimination by men in the field keeping the ladies away. Nor is it a repugnance felt by women for possibly dishevelled or unhygienic male nerds.

No, the reason that young women don't train in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) areas - and thus, don't find themselves with jobs at tech companies, in IT etc - is quite simply that they mostly don't know enough maths to do those courses.

"It is all about the mathematical content of the field. Girls not taking math coursework early on in middle school and high school are set on a different college trajectory than boys,” says economics prof Donna Ginther.

Ginther and a colleague, Shulamit Kahn, examined statistics on young women's maths qualifications and mathematical requirements for college courses in America. Put simply, they found that absence of women studying a given course can be accounted for simply by the fact that most young women don't know much maths.

It's also why they don't write hard science fiction. As I pointed out ten years ago.

It must be the smart women's fault, then

We are reliably informed that men prefer intelligence to large breasts or long legs in long-term relationships:

Men value intelligence in women far above large breasts and long legs, a Cambridge evolutionary biologist has claimed. Although having a large bust and never-ending pins are deemed by western culture as the epitome of femininity, when choosing a mother for their children, men look for brains first,

Professor David Bainbridge, of the University of Cambridge said that intelligence is by far the most attractive quality for men looking for a long term partner because it demonstrates that his chosen partner is likely to be a responsible parent.

It also suggests she was brought by intelligent parents and so was likely to be well fed and looked after in childhood, and so healthier. It may reveal why men like George Clooney ended up marrying human rights barrister Amal Alamuddin.

If men prefer to marry intelligence, and nearly 50 percent of women with advanced degrees remain unmarried and childless, then we can only conclude that the declining rates of marriage, particularly among the intelligent, must be entirely the fault of women.

Obviously, since we so prefer intelligence, it can't possibly be our fault that no one is marrying all those smart women.

The rag is real

And it's not just a joke either. From a paper entitled MENSTRUATION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN A CORRECTIONAL CENTER FOR WOMEN

Of all violent crimes committed by women in Paris in a given year, Cooke notes that 84.0% were committed by women who were menstruating. In a New York prison for women, Morton found that of the forty-two inmates convicted for violent crimes, twenty-six commited those crimes during the pre-menstrual week.

This is something to keep in mind in case you're wondering if perhaps it's not the best time to crush a shit test. The science would tend to indicate dialing down the conflict rather than ratcheting it up is wise, considering that women are about 360 percent more inclined to violence at the peak of their cycle than they normally are.