According to a 2006 academic study: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/why-men-dont-fancy-funny-women-525001.html

‘Hundreds of men and women in their twenties were questioned. Asked if they found a sense of humour to be attractive in women, most men said yes. But when they were asked if they would want to be with a woman who cracked jokes herself, the answer was a resounding no.

“When forced to choose between humour production and humour appreciation in potential partners, women valued humour production, whereas men valued receptivity to their own humour,” said Dr Martin.

More than half the men who took part in the survey revealed that a witty woman was not what they were looking for in a partner. Dr Martin said the findings suggested that men see themselves as the ones who should be delivering the lines and feel threatened by humorous women.’

Q: what does Princes Diana have in common with a minefield?

A: Easy to lay, very difficult and dangerous and expensive to get rid of.

Link to interview here. (Warning: nasty sexist Monica Lewinsky joke follows that one.)

Oh, and the balls, too, of course. Yes. (dunno where to download those.)

Some women also continue to marry men, which is definitely scientific evidence of having a well developed sense of humor.

You’re right, the neutering solution is looking better and better!

It’s shocking that many men don’t understand why women don’t want to interact with them, when it’s so plain that our every interaction with them is centered around their pathological need to control and dominate us.

-Making- us ‘’smile.” -Making- us laugh. -Making- us fuck them. -Making- us orgasm. -Making- us pregnant. And so on.

We are removed from the equation, as if we had nothing to do with any of our actions. As if we are only passive objects they manipulate to please their frail, frail little egos, the frailty of which they continually blame on us.

It doesn’t seem like you have actually read much from him at all. Richard dawkins is not an evolutionary psychologist. The closest he has gotten to that is work like the selfish gene, where he argues that altruism and cooperative behavior are a benefit from the point of view of gene distribution. That was in the 1970’s. The god delusion is full of respect for women and feminists as well.

He is a constant victim of quote mining and just plain making crap up from the creationist side of things as well. If you just heard he said something controversial I would encourage you to check it out, creationist websites/people are infamous for attributing a huge number of things to him (and darwin, and steven hawking for some reason) that were never said by them at all.

And turn them all into ‘choirboys’?