There Certainly Is A Hack Here

Every now and then I come across a meme that is obviously meant to be a joke.  It’s hard to know what stance to take with memes like this; it is a mostly harmless piece of fluff, easily forgotten, and probably not something worth getting worked up over.

Of course that’s never stopped me before.

See, I don’t mind jokes, even mean-spirited jokes made at other peoples’ expense – as long as the butt of the joke has actually done something worthy of contempt.  Take the asshole in this video.  He’s strung together a bunch of worn-out stereotypes about women – masquerading as “jokes” – and presented it as a farcical representation of “science”.  He’s basically painted a target on his back for snarky assholes like me, so let us waste no further time with introductions, explanations, and what have you.

At about 12 seconds in, Professor Jackass (PJ for short) draws a pair of intersecting axes on his White Board O’ Science.  He labels the vertical axis “Crazy” and the horizontal axis “Hot”, then scales the “Hot” axis from zero to ten, saying that “we’re all familiar with that.”

We’re all familiar with that?  What kind of scientific presentation is this?  Any scientist worth his salt would first define the terms and values used in his graph.  He would never just assume that the audience knew precisely what he was talking about.  By what standards are we to evaluate a woman’s physical attractiveness on the zero-to-ten scale?  See, I’m already starting to doubt this guy’s scientific bona fides.

At 28 seconds, PJ says that the “Crazy” axis is measured from four to ten because “there’s no such thing as a woman who’s not at least a 4 crazy.”

I haven’t read the DSM cover-to-cover, but I’m certain it doesn’t evaluate a person’s “crazy” factor with a simple zero-to-ten scale.  Once again, I have to question where the professor earned his scientific credentials. (No, I don’t think I’m being too harsh: the video’s title contains the word “Science”, so I expect a certain level of scientific integrity!)   Also, if there’s no such thing as a woman who scores less than 4 on the “Crazy” scale, then you should rejigger your scale, Professor.  Don’t malign the sanity of women in general just because you can’t properly scale your stupid axis.

At 40 seconds, PJ draws a diagonal, roughly-straight line and says that it represents the “Hot-Crazy Line”.  It’s very important, the Professor tells us, to keep in mind where the Hot-Crazy Line is.  Sadly, the good Professor does not give us an equation or any other means of reproducing the line on our own; we’re simply left to guess.  I call balderdash!  From what data was this line established?  I demand error bars!

Ahem…anyway, the Professor bisects his graph with a vertical line rising from Hot = 5.  He designates everything to the left of the line as the “No Go Zone”, meaning that women who are, “in our mind”, less attractive than 5 should not be considered for dating, marriage, hanging around, etc.

Here’s the message I’m getting from this:  People who don’t meet our narrow criteria for hotness are worthless human beings; they contribute little-to-nothing to the enjoyment of our lives.  Got it, Professor.  Will this be on the test?

To his credit (not that he really deserves any) PJ’s use of the phrase “in our mind” does remind the viewer that this is all subjective bullpuckey.  That was a kindness.

Professor Jackass then defines a sub-area between Hot = 5 and Hot = 8 below the Hot-Crazy Line.  He tells us that this is the “Fun Zone”.  Girls in the “Fun Zone” are good for having fun (as the name implies) but should not be considered for long-term relationships.

I think I understand, Professor.  Women who are moderately attractive and sane should be used for our personal enjoyment, but have no value as life partners.  Golly, Professor Jackass, I sure could learn a lot from you…you know, if I didn’t care about being a decent human being, that is.

According to the Professor, all women above the Hot-Crazy Line, regardless of hotness, are in the “Danger Zone”.  This includes “redheads, strippers, anyone named Tiffany, and hairdressers”.  The women in the “Danger Zone” are terrifyingly unstable and will make Fatal Attraction look like a day in the park, if you believe Professor Jackass.  You know, the Professor has spent so much time insulting, stereotyping, and marginalizing women that I was afraid he wouldn’t have time to insult mentally ill people.  What a relief that he worked that in there.

At 2:25 Professor Jackass says that the chart isn’t static, and that one must “use this chart over time to develop some reliable data.”  I am happy to hear you say that, PJ.  When do you think you’ll get around to doing that?

Confusingly, the Professor says at 2:30 that any woman can vanish from her station on the chart and spontaneously reappear elsewhere, presumably at some other combination of Hot and Crazy.  I don’t see how that’s possible, but let’s take the Professor at his word.  In that case, what is the point of this chart?  If a woman’s position on the chart is randomly mutable, then any attempt to classify the relationship-worthiness of a woman is futile.  The Professor indicates that the bachelor should collect a “cluster” of data points (But how?  From the same woman?  From different women?) and that over time, you can begin to consider that reliable.

What?  You just said that women can spontaneously teleport to any other location on the chart.  In what way does a random smattering of data points indicate a reliable pattern?  The only people who see patterns in that kind of data are the people who think television static is a secret government code to communicate with lizard people from Alpha Centauri.  Come on, Professor, this isn’t even college-level statistics we’re talking about.  High school students know you can’t draw valid conclusions from randomly generated data, and yet you claim to be able to make important relationship decisions based on magic category-hopping women!  Truly, your skills require much more than a six-minute video to teach.

Professor Jackass subdivides the remaining section of the graph into the “Date Zone”, the “Wife Zone”, and the “Unicorn Zone”.

Women in the “Date Zone” are above Hot = 8 (so, you know, they’re not disposable), below the Hot-Crazy Line, but above Crazy = 7.  PJ says you can stay in the “Date Zone” indefinitely – even introduce these women to your parents and friends.  I note that the extreme upper corner of the “Date Zone” (that is, the craziest woman it’s still okay to date because she’s incredibly hot) shares a border with the extreme rightmost corner of the “Danger Zone” (that is, the hottest woman that you shouldn’t date because she’s just too crazy).  This makes me think: on a planet with seven billion people, approximately half of whom are women, there must be a significant number of women who straddle the border between these zones.  One wonders what the Professor’s advice would be in a situation like this.  Then again, maybe it’s pointless to worry about; by the time you’ve got it figured out, she’ll spontaneously shift to some other part of the chart.  No wonder men have such trouble understanding women.

Any woman for whom Hot > 8 and for whom 5 < Crazy < 7 is in the “Wife Zone”.  Professor Jackass says you should marry these women.  Just so we’re clear: women with sufficiently troublesome mental disorders should not be married, only dated.  Moderately attractive, sane women should be led on but never committed to.  And of course unattractive women are worthless.

The Professor fills in the final space in the graph – representing women for whom Hot > 8 and Crazy < 5 – as the “Unicorn Zone”, because “these things don’t exist.”  Professor Jackass urges you: If you find a Unicorn, capture it safely so it can be studied and replicated.  Because that’s exactly what should be done with rare and beautiful animals – or, you know, meaningless women.

But I have another problem with the so-called Unicorn Zone.  PJ says Unicorns don’t exist, but earlier, he said that any woman can change her position on the graph.  He made no restrictions on the regions into which a woman can shift, so…following his logic, at any given time there should be at least some percentage of women in the Unicorn Zone – ephemeral visions of perfect beauty and clarity of mind…right?  I mean, he did say that.  That seems like a pretty large and glaring logical hole in your theory, Professor.  Perhaps you should reconsider your position before you submit to a peer-reviewed journal.

Even if we assume that the Unicorn Zone has some weird exclusionary property that prevents women from morphing into it, that still doesn’t satisfy all the logical problems.  To wit, how come a woman with Hot > 8 cannot be Crazy < 5?  Less hot women can apparently be less crazy; Professor Jackass placed the lower limit of feminine craziness at Crazy = 4, remember?  I wish he had taken the time to explain why a woman for whom 4 < Crazy < 5 cannot simultaneously have a hotness factor greater than 8.  Does being exceptionally hot somehow make a person more crazy?  The Professor’s thesis opens more questions than it resolves.

Professor Jackass relates an anecdote starting at 4:25 about a fellow who objects to his theory (Imagine that!).  His friend claims to know a woman who is smoking hot, at least a 9, and not crazy at all.  PJ’s response: she’s a dude.  “You’re talking to a tranny”, says the learned Professor, once again displaying the breathtaking sensitivity for which he is famous.

What have we learned?  Any person who was biologically male at birth has the potential to be more sane than any person who was born female, even if he decides later in life to become female.  And any woman who is both uber-hot and completely sane is in fact a man.  That’s the gist of this “joke”.  Men are better in every conceivable way than women…even at being women.  Classy, sir.  Very classy.

After the Professor’s presentation, a bearded douchebag asks the professor if there is a similar matrix for men.  The Professor enlightens us all with the Husband Hack, a much simpler graph with axes labeled “Cute” and “Money” and three regions:

  • A large “No Go Zone” wherein broke, ugly men reside,
  • A “Fun Zone” populated by men who are broke but still good-looking, and
  • A “Husband Zone” populated by wealthy men, regardless of physical appearance.

And in presenting his second masterwork, Professor Jackass manages to get in one last insult against women: he insinuates that they are as shallow as he is.  Ouch.

2 thoughts on “There Certainly Is A Hack Here

  1. Another thing that hasn’t been taken into consideration is that amongst humans of the male sex some extremes are more common thanx amongst humans of female sex.

    Thuis goes for IQ and certain disorders like classic autism.

    So there might be more exceptional men than exceptional women, there are also more very low IQ and deeply disordered males, when comparing it tot the amount of so called crazy

    • Women.

      The ratio of normal/ somewhere in the middel of the crazy scale turns out more positive for females.

      It is not a sign of voor mentale health tot be wel adapted tot a sick society.

      Tot be seen as a commodity sure is sick tot me.

      Sexism should be considered the same violation of basic human rights as racism.

      My English is bad cos it’s my seconde language

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s