WWE 2K18 Review

It's just shit. And that's the bottom line, because I fucking well said so.

We all like a good moan at video game critics. Yes they often give suspiciously strange and inconsistent scores for games, and yes they often live in some ethics based wonderland, but every so often I will agree that they get a game completely wrong. What fucking game have they been playing when this repetitive garbage manages to score in the region of seven or eight out of ten? That's better than average, yet surely any sane human being who picks up this game for more than an hour can realise it's sub par at best. I implore these idiots to play such classics as 'Smackdown: Here Comes The Pain', a game so awesome you'll notice it's part of my hall of fame if you end up scrolling to the bottom of the page. Maybe by playing actual wrestling games these idiots that are payed to critically review the latest titles might start to understand why the majority of players are getting increasingly frustrated by the shit on offer here. Maybe then they can understand that giving this pile of shit a score of eight out of ten is fucking deluded considering since two thousand and fucking four wrestling games have taken a severe drop in quality. Okay, we as players might be getting more in terms of quantity, and trust me the roster in this game is damn impressive, as is the variety of game modes, but unfortunately there's no quality control to back all this stuff up. Fundamental errors have been made here; fundamental errors that leading reviewers have failed to pick up on.

Let's begin by dissecting the very worst WWE 2K18 has to offer: The disastrous career mode. In short it's fucking terrible. You may have heard some talk of loot boxes surrounding this game, and although thankfully there are no microtransactions present, there are randomised crates unlocked via a virtual currency system present in this game mode. I don't know who thought adding this randomised loot was a good idea, but fuck you. I would support this idea if it actually followed the idea of having a progression system, where you unlock moves and attires for your character with earned points. However the system in place is a blatantly restrictive wall where you grind to unlock items at random. If you want a cool outfit to complete your desired character then you better play about 500 matches just to afford a single deluxe loot crate. And hey, if that one in a thousand item you were looking for doesn't appear then feel free to grind for it all over again. Obviously no sane person finds this fun so you just have to stick with a character that looks terrible, and nothing like I want it to. It's meant to represent my journey as a wrestler, but at the moment it looks like something you would find hidden in a basement after 30 years of parental abuse. The cringey dialogue generated for the storyline doesn't help that image go away.

And do you know what? The loot system is not even the real pile of shit. Oh no, that's the constant fucking loading screens. You want to start the actual game mode? Loading screen. Oh you want to go backstage? Loading Screen. How about starting a match? Even longer loading screen. Now do you need to find the parking attendant for some stupid fucking reason? Loading screen. This may all be acceptable if these were brief loading times, but they go on for ever. I must have memorised that entire soundtrack of eleven songs in a day through the sheer boredom of waiting for at least something to happen. And trust me, nobody wants to memerise some of that shite music. Maybe it's the sheer realism of the game informing me that becoming a wrestler is a fucking dull job. Maybe all backstage areas at wrestling events are filled with meaningless dialogue and terrible looking wrestlers. That's of course assuming the game can cope with this excitement. Even just moving around a bit will push the game to its limits and tank the framerate. I've heard these were all big issues last year, so what the fuck have the developers been doing? It's just not fucking acceptable in a triple-A franchise.

I just can't comprehend why the developers thought a generic wrestler talking to another generic character with terrible dialogue would be in any way fun.

Even when you get through the irritating game modes you are left with a core gaming experience that's hopelessly flawed. The matches for example do not adhere to the classic style where having fun was the primary objective. Sure the modern matches may be more realistic, if you can apply that term to a simulated wrestling match, but the actual gameplay now feels horribly clunky. An example of this poor design is the addition of eight wrestlers in a match, which on the surface appears to be a good move. However, maybe only add this feature if the game can handle it. Boy does this piece of shit struggle to cope with eight different wrestlers doing eight different things at the same time. Whether it's the shocking performance drop or the countless fucking bugs it's clear to see that this added feature like all the rest needs a ton of refining.

If you don't fancy yourself some clunky action then you can always partake in some other bullshit systems the developers have kindly included to ruin the experience. The submission system that was imported over from the last game for whatever reason is fucking awful, the stamina systems seems completely pointless, and the counter system is now a case of luck instead of skill. If you don't fancy throwing your controller at the screen after playing through this infuriating and tedious shit you can just go back to the age old button mashing system that turns this once enjoyable experience into a rage inducing shitshow. Oh yeah, there's glitches as well. A shit ton of glitches laced throughout the entire game. Sometime these glitches are hilarious. Most of the time they really start to get on your tits. Please just sort this fucking game out 2K.

I do understand this franchise is annually released, so expecting a complete redesign of everything in a year is merely wishful thinking. I'm also not going to have a go at the publishers for overhyping new features that appeared to be a huge leap forward, as that's essentially their job. However what I will complain about is the lack of passion and care put into this franchise. What was once every child's wet dream has turned into a boarded up house where the gaping holes are too fucked for any improvement to get anywhere near fixing the overlying issues. The truth is this franchise has been suffering from gross mismanagement for years, with any revamp becoming more tedious than the next. The new redesign this year that everyone seems to be banging on about is the graphical improvements, which to my eyes are non existent. Maybe 2K have become masters at repackaging the same old shit, or maybe every reviewer in the world is blinded by poor eyesight or monetary incentives, but it still looks like the shit you might expect from the previous generation of consoles. In fact I'm going to make a bold statement and say the wrestlers looked nicer in the 'Smackdown vs Raw' days of old. Seriously, a quick look at the hair of your character in career mode is enough to make you doubt this was made with anything other than Microsoft Flash.

Fucking hell. That dramatic difference in graphical quality surely makes up for the endless pit of failings this game has.

That's not to say everything this game does is terrible. The creation suite is absolutely brilliant, as it usually is with wrestling games. It's always been a centerpiece of this franchise, and once again it shines in this edition when your options aren't limited by those fucking loot crates. I imagine the creative elements to be the game's biggest draw. Cocking about with your mates with some ridiculous characters you've created is probably the way to force yourself to play through a single match. Of course creation is also the draw with just about every other wrestling game, so why not play them instead? I also enjoyed the Universe mode in this game, perhaps more than some, but then I do enjoy meticulously micromanaging virtual worlds. I felt the customisation open to me here was acceptable, although not mindblowing, and that did lead to the format becoming stale after a few long playthroughs. This isn't helped by those fucking loading screens, and the frustratingly long and dull ways the game forces you to customise stuff, but on the whole this features was the sole draw for me.

A quick look at these creations shows just how amazing the creation facilities in this game are.

I must admit that I don't watch wrestling anymore, so could be forgiven for being a bit out of touch with the modern trends. I do however love wrestling games, so imagine my disappointment when I found this to be the finished product after a year of hard work. For wrestling games to work they need to capture that spark that gives you the same feelings of exhilaration as when you first saw a wrestling match. This installment however fails to get anywhere near this idyllic spark. It's yet more of the same mistakes without any real interesting new features to keep me playing. And that's apparently all fine. The reviewers aren't going crazy for the title, but they're acting as if nothing is wrong, as is the fanbase, as are the developers. This once beloved franchise is becoming a festering sore that really needs to fuck off and discover why people love wrestling. I can assure you that faux attempts at realism and roleplaying aren't the ways to go about this. Honestly the way the quality of these games has dropped with every year is just shocking, and this is fucking 2K games we're talking about. Get your shit together.

Overall: A generous 4/10

Feminist Biology and Pseudoscience

On this blog we've already looked at how feminist biology cries wolf over issues that have nothing to do with biology, so now let's look at ways in which this discipline interprets the subject. The good news for us is that a cognitive neuroscience and gender studies student is going to explain to us how science supports feminism. The bad news is that it's published on Everyday Feminism, which means it's a certainty the article will be complete shit. In any case, let's examine the arguments.

Really this whole article is based around one big strawman argument. I'm not sure who these commoners are that are proclaiming feminism is advocating for some Frankenstein type monster and going against nature. It was my understanding that many of these objections to feminism arose from the idea that it loves to shoehorn ideologies into scientific fields. I can't imagine what sort of articles would give people that idea. In any case, the scientific illiteracy begins almost immediately. On one side we have dubious studies that aren't in alignment with certain political views, and on the other we have the universally solid side of science that just so happens to follow my political worldview. Hmm, that sounds a bit suspicious. However we probably shouldn't be following the advice of an idiot that proclaims the evolutionary differences between men and women is a dubious science. Unbeknownst to me the idea of sexual dimorphism is apparently now dubious. Easy mistake to make, as it's not as if humans are one of the most sexually dimorphic species on the planet. Turns out opening your eyes and looking at the striking differences in physiology is a hard task for some.

The scientific illiteracy is just a forefront to the real scientific discussion surrounding gender roles. We'll forget that gender roles have no basis in science, because they sure as hell do in feminist biology. It's so fucking frustrating when an ideology finds it acceptable to interchangeably use scientific and sociological reasoning, and invariably this usually leads to statements of pure ignorance. I'm seriously worried if this shit is considered scientific discussion. I don't know if this person was enrolled on a science class at a really shit university with dreadful teaching standards, but my money would be on the fact they interpreted factual information through their own personal bias, failing at a fundamental requirement for science students. We still haven't even reached our first 'scientific fact' yet.

Oh here we fucking go again. No, there are not more than two sexes. Not only is this statement flat out incorrect, but it also makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, considering how sexual reproduction is based on two opposing sexes. That's sexual reproduction, the way humans pass on genetic traits. These intersex individuals you are referring to are medical abnormalities that cannot under any circumstances be classified as a trend. I've said this before, but this would be like claiming humans cannot be naturally bipedal as a small minority of people use wheelchairs for locomotion. Don't try any of this 'typical chromosome' bullshit, because this is just factual scientific information you can't even have the balls to admit is true. The reality is the dichotomy between sexes is almost perfect, and actually one of the most profound you will find in nature.

To say that gender expression isn't necessarily tied to chromosomes is absolute nonsense. Not only are they tied, chromosomes fucking DETERMINE sex. Hormones as well drastically differ between the sexes. Gender on the other hand is purely sociological, not scientific, so I'm not quite sure what science supports this idea of feminism, but my guess is it's your idealised view of the subject. You can't claim to follow scientific principles if you deny that hormones, chromosomes and physical characteristics aren't tied to sexual expression. How am I supposed to believe your advanced points on the inner workings of science when you can't even understand the basics?

I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics from either. The actual number of individuals that don't follow this 'typical chromosome' pattern is one in every 1,666 births, and only one in every hundred births had different bodies from their assigned sex. That's certainly not anywhere near the 4% figure you gave, but more importantly the statistics show that these anomalies do not describe a trend. Even more absurd is that the paper you cite is actually nothing more than a thought experiment. Such was the solidity behind its scientific method that it was actually later revised, and your solid evidence was nothing more than 'tongue in cheek'. So again, scientists are not supporting the idea there are more than two sexes, because it's just not true. Next point please:

What the fuck are you talking about? Sex chromosomes are critical to biological function. Why don't you pull some more statistics out your ass about what percentage of babies are born without sex chromosomes? I'll give you the answer now actually, it's not a single one. Even in the context of behaviour these chromosomes are still absolutely critical. You are right to say that environmental variation has a role on behaviour, but without genetic variation there would be no alleles for this environmental variation to effect.

This idea that no behaviour is set in stone at birth is absolutely bonkers. How the fuck is a baby going to survive if it can't distinguish food from birth? Your telling me that facial recognition is purely environmental. Fuck off. I wasn't even aware that gender is a behaviour. At least it's not in a scientific world that's for sure. I just love how you claim we have an overly simplistic view of gender at birth and then in the very next line give possibly the most reductionist account of neural network formation possible. Are you convinced you went to university?

This is a very one sided account of a controversial subject, so it goes without saying there is a fair amount of evidence against what you're proclaiming to be universally true. For example twin studies have shown that traits such as IQ and multiple other cognitive traits are heritable, but as we're about to find out you have an obviously biased view into this subject.

I think we have our next Nobel prize winner here guys. Not that you get Nobel prizes for biology, but credit for the woman who single handedly gave us the undisputed answer to a debate that scientists are still having to this very day. Turns out some random feminist on the internet has the answer, and not distinguished researchers who've spent their lives in this area. In reality it's simply untrue to state that many scientists are using this dynamic systems theory. The 'nature vs nurture' debate is a highly controversial subject, so quit acting like science has a unified answer.

Again, this idea that nurture is solely shaping human nature is just nonsense, and if anything it's the other way round, as without a nature there would be no fucking nurture. You may have an argument if you were discussing the ambiguity of acquired and inherited traits, but your claims go far beyond this, even blatantly dismissing the role nature plays full stop. Genetic variation and environmental variation are two totally different variants, so please treat them as such. You can't just amalgamate the two because they're vaguely related. If what you're saying is true, and that natural behaviour is manipulated by environmental factors all throughout life, then how do you explain the arise of these oppressive behaviours you're campaigning against. There's this overriding naturalistic fallacy here that human beings are inherently 'good', and it's those that disagree with your moral outlook that are destroying the brain's unanimously positive functions. Why for that matter do vastly different environmental pressures all conform to the same idea of oppressive behaviours? You later go onto say that gender has different roles in different cultures, so why is there such an alarming similarity in these various oppressive systems if behaviour is purely environmental?

There's an old saying in science that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so how can you sit there and lecture me when you provide such anecdotal and pitiful evidence? This whole point is a classic example of a just-so story, and there is no conclusive evidence that maternal handling and neuromuscular function are even related. Even in the quote you supplied there is complete uncertainty. How on earth is this sufficient evidence to amalgamate two conflicting ideas? How can you honestly say that these studies prove nature has no effect on sensory development. They say nothing of the sort. Again, science is not supporting your ideas.

There may well be a cultural aspect as to why women tend not to go into science careers, although you should tell that to the girls that make up 90% of my biology course. Even if this cultural division is true it doesn't instantly invalidate the point you're arguing against. Where is the evidence that women are actively discouraged from being selected for science courses? That would certainly be evidence for active sexism, but women choosing not to participate in courses because they don't want to definitely isn't. Funnily enough I never see this same argument used when men are absent from biology or midwifery courses, or for that matter university places in general.

My primary gripe with this point is how any of it is supported by scientific theory; a growing trend in this piece. This is purely a sociological argument. It's also highly suspect, considering once again we're just flat out ignoring the role of anything that isn't considered oppressive, and comparing statistics to countries with greater 'gender equality', which is an incredibly tenuous statement. If socialisation really is the defining feature of gender differences that's deeply ingrained from your earliest memory then explain the famous scenario of David Reimer, who killed himself after being forcibly socialised as another gender. An anomaly maybe, but one that puts into question this narrative that it's only women that are adversely socialised. Stop playing the victim and hiding behind this false idea of what science supports.

We really haven't quite got our head around the fact that none of this is scientific theory, and has actually been heavily criticised by other contemporaries. This is a big claim you're making, and just because it supports your ideological view doesn't mean it's solid science. In reality you picked a hopelessly flawed study as evidence. A recent meta analysis of this claim of stereotype threat described a non existent trend.
 
The rest is just anecdotal nonsense, and certainly not scientific reasoning. Who honestly gives a fuck if men and women are held to different standards when it comes to their sexual partners? Maybe it's because men and women typically have different roles during reproduction. But no, it's ambiguous social reasons that must be the answer, and not the biological fact that men typically have more partners because they're limited purely on the number of mates and not by resources; a trend almost universal in nature. Oh shit that's biological reasoning, and not environmental, so obviously it must be wrong. That's how science works guys. Not an ideology, but science. It's obvious there's a clear confirmation bias found throughout this article, but I'm appalled at the lack of discussion in an article exploring controversial areas of science, not to mention the continuing absence of any scientific reasoning.

Oh, you're now lecturing me on insufficient evidence. Ha, the chickens have come home to roost. What this segment does is literally just described a dichotomy between sexes, but apparently this is invalidated because there's variation within this dichotomy. I'm not sure how you think evolutionary processes work, but for the majority of life on earth there isn't the ridiculous variation between the sexes you think constitute a sexual dichotomy. The example with height difference that you mention is a perfect example of this variation. If you plotted the average height of both men and women in different countries around the world these points would form two bell shaped curves in different positions. The different in these curves is that dichotomy. However the way you've worded it is like you're assuming there's a whole mish-mash of quantitative traits irrespective of sex, which is quite obviously bullshit. I know you don't understand what a trend is, but on this one all you need to prove it is being able to open your eyes. If this dichotomy is weak science then no study in history is going to be considered strong science by you, unless of course it supports your ideology, and then it can be as flawed as it needs to be.

The highlighted point in this section is the serious equating of differences in height with differences in behaviour. Let me guess, can genetics and psychology now be inaccurately amalgamated as well? If you were to equate height differences with behavioural differences I'd be careful considering that height is predominantly determined by genetics, therefore further invalidating your already stupid argument that behaviour is purely environmental. In any case, you can't fucking quantify behaviour. I honestly don't know how the fuck you can make the last point and expect to be taken seriously.

THIS ISN'T SCIENCE. If your point was that different cultures treat the idea of sex differently in accordance to their differing DNA structures you may have a weak point, but your point has nothing to do with biological facts. Of course humans share most of the same DNA with each other. Technically we share most of our DNA with fucking fruit flies, so what's your point? It worries me when a self proclaimed neuroscience student can't tell the difference between a scientific source and gender studies bollocks.

Honestly this is 'wacky conspiracy theory' level nonsense. Just more mounds of anecdotal shite that doesn't in any way prove science sides with feminism. I'm not even going to fully address that last flippant comment. I bet doctors in Iran get payed less than doctors in Russia, and I bet you all the money in the world there aren't many female medics in Iran. It's almost like gender isn't the determinate factor here. Remember, when studies do find gender differences they are often too weak to serve as the basis of generalisations, apart from when we're talking about generalised masculine traits. Fucking hypocrite.

Nice tautology to start this section with. We can generalise behaviours from other species to humans. It's called comparative psychology, and although I'm not a huge fan of the discipline I will admit in a heartbeat it's got far more weight than whatever rhetoric you're spewing. It really makes me wonder why animal behaviour doesn't adhere to your gender based nonsense. Is it because what you're suggesting is fabricated bullshit? Is it because animals have evolved separately from humans for millennia, and therefore have totally different brain functions? I just can't put my finger on why this point might not be watertight.

According to this idiot we apparently can't generalise behaviours from other species to humans, except when it's providing evidence to their point in the next fucking paragraph. I'm really not sure who's claiming that the animal kingdom follows gender roles, when animals have no notion of what gender is. The examples you use indeed show the plethora of sex based behaviour shown in nature. Surely the alarming division of labour in lions, the dichotomous battle of the sexes in antelope and the random point on homosexuality in birds does anything but prove your point that gender is prevalent in the animal kingdom. That article on antelopes really pissed me off actually, because it assumes the theory of sexual selection relies on stereotypes rather than theory. There's nothing inherently wrong with the science behind it, but it has nothing to do with how different cultures perceive gender.

Well the consequences of factual inaccuracy are the creation of a website called 'Everyday Feminism', so I can't imagine there could be any more direr consequences. I find this reasoning hilarious considering it was you who attempted to describe gender roles in animals during the last paragraph. The only person bringing nature into gender roles is you. Science doesn't give a fuck about your perceived idea of gender. That's ideological, not scientific.

And then it's all capped off with such a stupid point. 'Everyone deserves the space to express their authentic personality whether or not it aligns with commonly accepted ideas about nature'. Jeez, forgive my boy Jimmy Savile. Turns out he did nothing wrong. Oh and just another timely reminder: THIS ISN'T SCIENCE.

Am I missing something? Is being gay suddenly a new gender. Didn't you literally provide evidence of homosexual behaviour in albatross couples in this very article? How the fuck can then you go and say that science allegedly ignores this community with no further evidence? In any case the LGBTQBLWHJDBLHWBBHDKB community aren't spoilt children, well some of them anyway, so why the fuck does science owe them preferential attention? Imagine being factual and equating sex with chromosomes. How the fuck can you claim to be a scientist when you make a remark as fucking dumb as that?

Woah, woah, woah. I know you don't understand how chromosomes work, so sexual selection was probably a bit of a stretch, but fucking hell. You are literally mentioning a single scenario and applying that to a vast theory. Even by your own standards that's a huge fucking leap. The article you cite is the biggest load of shite I've read in a while. It's written with the insight of a student journalist on their day off. However that article isn't as bad as your pathetic rebuttal. Your evidence as to why sexual selection can't manifest itself in humans isn't anything to do with science. You claim that because this isn't unanimous behaviour it can't possibly be a trend, which is the whole fucking point of sexual selection, and if you actually bothered to do some research you would find that these kinds of behaviours evolved due to the variation in the number of mates. Some sexual relationships that you like to describe don't involve sexual reproduction, which means they're irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint since they have no control over gene flow into the next generation. (This isn't strictly true, but the point I'm making is that this woman makes no sense from an evolutionary stance, and once again doesn't understand how trends work.)

Quit banging on about psychologists. We're discussing the science of sex. If you want to claim that various studies suffer from certain biases then you must provide evidence. In any case the biology of sexual reproduction does not vary from culture to culture, so once again this point does nothing to counter gender essentialism.

So no, science does not support feminism in any of the ways this article claims. Science doesn't support any ideology for that matter, it's merely a method for pursuing knowledge. It's quite difficult for me to believe what this woman is saying when she clearly doesn't understand these principles. Simply applying an ideological lens to science is not evidence that the two disciplines go hand in hand, and the lack of debate in this argument brings forward pseudoscientific assumptions rather than any objectivity. Gender essentialism is not a scientific theory, just a term used by the gender studies crowd to try and prove the existence of systematic oppression towards women. Believing in gender essentialism does not make you anti-science, whereas misconstruing studies and creating a narrative based around an ideology certainly does. Even when you try and focus the argument on a tiny fraction of science you still can't provide the evidence that science in general supports your ideology. Take your political activism out of places it doesn't belong and fuck off back to your echo chamber.

Feminist Biology and Sexual Reproduction

'Feminist science'. A term for failed academics that can't comprehend complex scientific theory without first injecting their biased narratives all over it. You would assume that ideological lenses were thrown aside in the world of science, but unfortunately subjective political movements are sects that are getting more and more attention in the academic sphere, with significant works even being used by leading universities as core text reading. A typical example would be 'The Egg and The Sperm' from Emily Martin, which aims to persuade the reader that science has artificially constructed the process of sexual reproduction based on typical male and female roles in society. Let's have a look at the solid science behind this PEER REVIEWED article, and what roles it could possibly have in modern day science:
____________________________________________________
https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/Martin1991.pdf
____________________________________________________

THIS crap constitutes a science now apparently. The whole argument here is just putting words in other people's mouths. No scientist is calling menstruation a failure, because that's a subjective term that doesn't relate to science. I guess you could refer to menstruation as an evolutionary flaw, as destroying the lining of the uterus isn't exactly what you would call evolutionary advantageous, but that still doesn't imply it's a failure. Evolution does not predict the future or follow a predetermined path, so the term 'failure' should never be used here. It also makes perfect sense to view systems of reproduction in terms of productive output, because after all they're methods of production. I would of thought the word 'productive' in the term 'reproduction' would have given that away.

I just don't understand the premise of this paragraph. Is the argument that scientists should be forced to glorify tissue dying? I'm sorry if the thought of tissue dying is a hard truth to swallow, but what would be the purpose of scientists blatantly misrepresenting biological processes? Your explanation for this argument is that menstrual waste has a purpose. What purpose? Are you gonna fry your vaginal walls into a slap up lunch for the family? I've seen some pictures on the internet, but there's no way you can view the body destroying its own uterus lining as anything other than disgusting. A quick reminder that lying to yourself isn't empowering. However, she continues:

I do not want to meet any scientist that shows 'intense enthusiasm' at female bodily processes. I imagine them to be some replica of Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs. Please remember you're referring to scientific journals and not holiday brochures. Nobody gives a flying fuck if scientific descriptions don't show enthusiasm. I will happily admit that I think it's pretty amazing how both sexes produce gametes, however I would argue that the production of sperm is actually seen as less impressive in the academic field as the process typically requires less resources to create when compared to ovulation. This is why so many spermatozoa are produced, therefore making each individual less valuable. That's an observation based on scientific theory, which is far more valid than relying on biased interpretation. The bottom line however is that anecdotal interpretations are irrelevant to the sciences, and the fact that two different processes illicit two different responses is hardly surprising, or for that matter harmful. You could just as easily make the argument that altruistic sperm trains in wood mice are viewed far more favorably than human reproduction methods, which in turn indicates some sort of systematic oppression. Actually to be fair to my ludicrous example it's almost as mental as this next segment:

Aren't both reproductive systems already viewed as homologous? I think you're getting the terms 'homologous' and 'identical' mixed up. I also don't think you know the difference between 'negative' and 'oppressive' either. These aren't terms you can just use interchangeably. In any case, this is purely your interpretation of various studies. Once again you're ignoring any sort of context and forcing words into other people's mouths. Your scrutinizing these papers with a moral ideology that has no business being applied to objective scientific papers. Nobody should be forced to give a fuck about negative connotations when you have no evidence this is reciprocated in society.

For fuck sake, why the hell do you need credit for a naturally functioning process. What else do you want, a sticker every time you take a breath? But God help you if you fucking dare speak positively about male reproductive processes. That would just make you an oppressive asshole. Here ladies and gentleman are the teachings of feminist biology, which I'm repeatedly told is a movement dedicated to gender equality. Only with this movement can we destroy those damn scientists reporting facts like the oppressive class they truly are.

It's yet another edition of 'where's the fucking argument'. I sure as hell can't find a valid one anywhere. There's whinging over a turn of phrase, and whinging over the wording of a caption in a single image. Fantastic. Since when does a single image describe a trend? Here's a little suggestion: Maybe the sperm was the focus of the fucking picture. If not then surely this is just an example of a poor caption, and not fucking systematic oppression.

Guess what? I followed up your sources, and you're a lying scumbag. 'A Portrait of the Sperm' is the title of multiple images and not the caption of whatever one of the pictures you're referencing. Funnily enough I was correct in my earlier assessment, and actually The reason why the sperm is being portrayed is because THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THE FUCKING PICTURE. Each image is clearly labelled with succinct scientific wording, so fuck you for trying to manipulate and drag this man's work through the dirt just so you can bullshit about made up issues, you entitled whore. The only defense you have for this pitiful claim are that portraits are associated with the wealthy. Fuck you and your shitty word association games. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the scientist who authored that quote believes that solely male sex cells should be seen as wealthy and powerful? I've seen people in mental asylums jump to better conclusions than this lunacy. It's also not truthful to say that sperm images are depicted as portraits. The term 'portraits' is plural, and therefore implies there are multiple examples, whereas a quick search on Google Scholar will show you there is only the single sperm portrait published in the academic sphere, which just so happens to be the one you've referenced. A SINGLE IMAGE DOES NOT REPRESENT A TREND, ESPECIALLY IF THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. If you can't work that out then why the fuck are you writing scientific papers?

I should just note that one of the sources provided in this article is just as laughable as the actual content. This particular citation is just listed as some unspecified research from a random graduate student. If I sourced like that for my university work, yet alone an academic study, I would be brutally beaten by every member of the faculty. How the fuck did this piss poor referencing get through a fucking peer review?

I only added this part because it perfectly displays the dreadful quality of argument. I genuinely have no idea how you can conclude that sperm are efficient at escaping cells when you've just been analysing a study that states in your own words that sperm are optimised to penetrate the egg in the most effective method possible. Instead of writing the term 'escaping' in italics, why can't you just admit your argument is full of shit. She later goes onto say this research shocked some apparent cultural norms, providing zero evidence of this apparent outrage. I think at some point we're going to have to cede that this is just ideological rhetoric rather than a serious scientific argument.

So hang on the method described is now suddenly fine, but it's just the wording that's now at fault. I mean come on, is there any limit to your whinging? Earlier on she was banging on about how the word 'harpoons' should be censored because that indicates harm, and now it's the turn of seemingly harmless and innocent models. It's becoming rather apparent that it's an ignorant attitude rather than the scientific community at fault in this debate.

Yet again this argument is more bullshit. This lock and key model comes from the visual representation of fertilisation rather than the precise actions involved. We can also find this model in the lock and key hypothesis for enzymes, where it is the passive substrate that is assigned as the lock because of its visual appearance, and not its sexual orientation. Are enzyme models now sexist too? Just a reminder that it's not a very good visual representation if the model is grossly untrue. In any case, this must be the most pointless issue I've ever encountered in an allegedly scientific paper, and clearly has absolutely nothing to do with sexism. But wait, even when the egg is given an active role that's problematic as well:

Yet more pointless wording issues. How is any of this shit productive? Again, who is making the assumption that an egg is described as stereotypically feminine? Only yourself, you fucking idiot. It's YOUR PERSONAL interpretation of the language used, and not a scientific argument. And anyway, wasn't this wording literally your whole solution in the last paragraph? Even in your own warped logic this predicament cannot possibly be resolved without some meaningless cries of sexism.

For fuck sake, sociobiology has nothing to do with the idea of women becoming servants. You just plucked that conclusion out of thin air. This reductionist argument blatantly ignores the plethora of sexual and social relationships in the natural world. The fact that your shitstain of a brain felt the need to smear your agenda over complex and sophisticated areas of science is a testament to your anti-science viewpoint. You're right that female choosiness and greater parental investment are key trends in many species worldwide, including humans. That's widely proven scientific theory, and has absolutely nothing to do with your metaphorical analysis here. The irony in this statement is that if there's any scientific viewpoint that's blatantly fueled by ideological views it's feminist biology. We're now resorting to passing the blame onto other scientific fields without any evidence. Real fucking classy. Such an inspirational academic.

Oh for fuck sake, now it's female sex cells being a dangerous threat that's the issue. What do you want from me? Shall we just portray eggs with STEM degrees that own their own successful business? How the fuck is any of this productive dialogue? Who thinks turning objective facts into moral minefields is a positive thing? Grow up. Why can't we just let scientific papers be descriptive? Stop living in an English literature seminar and address the argument from a scientific perspective.

There is a key point to be made here. I mean just look at this sexist language. 'Interrupt'. 'Sudden'. 'Swift'. It's like we're back in the 1950s again. It's such a huge issue that I would even go as far as comparing these monstrosities to fictional literature, because that's certainly a valid comparison. Admittedly we do finally get a solution. A solution that perfectly exemplifies how little this writer understands science. Maybe, and here's an amazing suggestion, the cybernetic model shouldn't be applied to sexual reproduction because there's absolutely no reason for it to be. I would love to hear the explanation on how cybernetics could possibly erase the wording problems you keep banging on about whilst still maintaining scientific accuracy. Your referring to papers on physiology, yet your complaint is that they don't apply this physiology to certain models of another field. What makes you think your anthropological view is more qualified than these scientists? By all means feel free to apply this information to different fields of science, but blindly screaming sexism is not a valid argument in any field of science.

I hate to bring this up again, but please could you actually bother to give examples of how this imagery is negative. You perceive it as negative. YOU. Why should the objective fields of science bow down to your ideology you self centered bitch? Here's some food for thought: Not everything in science must be described as a rose garden, and there is nothing damaging about using certain suggestive words. Welcome to the real fucking world. This is an argument I might expect from a spoiled child, not an academic.

Fucking hell, even this cybernetic model is sexist. I give up. What isn't sexist? This was your solution, with the whole point being it would cease stereotyping. Turns out that wishful thinking can't solve my non existent issues. This segment is just more vague waffle. Not that the rest isn't, but this bit in particular seems to serve no actual purpose. She's just debating with herself now, which really serves up a similar experience to someone who's bipolar arguing with themselves about what cheese to get for lunch. I think the overriding message is meant to be that these studies are designed to purposely discriminate and justify a patriarchal view of sexual reproduction, as is the message of the whole piece. I know, it's fucking bonkers. How with the pitiful evidence you've provided can you come up with a conclusion like this? The logical leaps needed for this to make any sort of sense are bewildering.

Then we get to the usual progressive bollocks on how much of an asshole Charles Darwin allegedly was. Of course to conclude this would have to drastically misrepresent the man's influential work. Darwinism certainly was imported into social sciences over a hundred years ago at a drastically different period in scientific understanding. Evolution on the other hand had been a prevalent idea in natural sciences for decades before Darwin's arrival, so to pin these allegations on one man is grossly unfair. Darwin's observations were based on facts, he was only inspired by the use of population dynamics in Malthus' work, and not the message of social class. Darwin has fuck all to do with constructing narratives around sexual reproduction, as do the sources you've provided. I think you're confusing Darwin with social science idiots such as yourself. In any case, are you seriously suggesting to me that these papers on sexual reproduction are going to be as influential as the most important work in the history of biology? I think not. This is just flat out hysteria with only revisionist arguments provided as examples.

Later this crazy lady evolves into Nostradamus, just in case you didn't think she was crackpot enough already. For some reason she starts proclaiming that future research would prove her right. Except that's not how this works. You're the one making accusations that all this negative language has adverse effects. You can't just base this whole argument on a hunch. Really it is amazing why you're not viewed as a serious scientist. Imagine if people used this extraordinary line of justification for any form of accusation. "Well I predict that the person could possibly murder me in the future, so therefore they're guilty of murder."

Oh come on, can we all just admit this is one big joke. How fucking arrogant do you have to be to claim 'we' should be substituting more metaphors in serious scientific papers. We're discussing science, so nobody gives a fuck if metaphors are used poorly. You remember earlier when you were complaining that the role of the egg was purposely underplayed, and that scientists were concentrating on a relatively minor thing instead? Yeah maybe your source for that should of been some crazed lunatic complaining about the use of metaphors in scientific papers. You on the other hand should never be allowed anywhere near a scientific paper, but instead you just expect other people to bow down to your unfounded whims when they're the ones doing the grafting. That's a deplorable attitude, and one born of ignorance over scientific methods.

How dare scientists try and make science relatable to an audience. I never realised that installing personalities in cellular objects was so damaging. Turns out that watching Osmosis Jones as a child has turned me into a monster. In this deluded woman's mind I think she genuinely believes this language used purely exists to support the patriarchy. Tell me this: If the science of reproduction is inherently sexist towards women why are the majority of biology students female?

And then just when you thought you had heard everything we get a lecture about waking up sleeping metaphors. Congratulations madam, you've displayed a new type of stupid I never knew existed. Somehow I doubt that policing language will have a positive effect on scientific methods. That's a fucking bold claim that you've backed up with precisely zero evidence. You have no reason to suggest this, and have little to no experience in the field, so why the fuck should I just blindly believe you're totalitarian rhetoric?

The whole paper is SEVENTEEN pages. I'm not sure in the history of me analysing this sort of rubbish I have ever read so much shit that translates into such meaningless rhetoric. More importantly what serious biologist actually gives a single fuck? Who honestly gives a shit if egg and sperm cells are given equality? Just blindly chanting sexism without qualification does not constitute an argument. Here you're just constructing this false narrative that biologists are sexist pigs, and that's purely derogatory slander. This is not a scientific discussion, this is ideological nonsense masquerading as a serious scientific piece. In actual fact it's done such a good job in its disguise that I'm sure many have happily bought into this obvious facade. Since when has this scientific dissonance become acceptable? Maybe I would be more sympathetic if this was a paper that proposed pragmatic solutions or suggestions, but it simply never does this. The lack of evidence and verbal reasoning indicates this is merely a promotion of women's rights, and nothing more. This is not a progressive attitude towards an archaic subject, it's counterproductive propaganda trying to force an ideology into an area it doesn't belong.