Imagine a... | MensRights

persianpimp · 2012-07-18T09:00:58+00:00

Every few years, I encounter a teacher that likes to play a social experiment with their students. The teacher will ask us to imagine a doctor, a dentist, a...

[+]Lawtonfogle 14 years ago* [recovered] (39 children) | Copy Link

I've always wanted to stand up and say

Then do.

Once you get good at it, the results can be amazing. Once had feminist* tell a class that a poor man had more power than an extremely rich black woman.

*by feminism, I mean the 'women are better than men and should be treated as such' variety, not the 'women should be allowed to vote or have any career they are willing to work for' type of feminist that I agree with.

[–]Neurotikitty 26 points27 points28 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuzzy-Hat 39 points40 points41 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 27 points28 points29 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheTyger 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheTyger 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheTyger 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheDWGM 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NWOslave -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheDWGM 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]StackOfFiveMarmots 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Asks_Politely 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]successfulblackwoman 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geodebug 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CrawdaddyJoe 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Lawtonfogle 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji 100 points101 points102 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]no1elsehasthisname 49 points50 points51 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adjective_ 48 points49 points50 points 14 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 27 points28 points29 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raenryong 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]underskewer 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]yourfaceyourass 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

This is common for all of evolutionary history, and is called Bateman's principle.

In biology, Bateman's principle is the theory that females almost always invest more energy into producing offspring than males invest, and therefore in most species females are a limiting resource over which the other sex will compete. It is named for English geneticist Angus John Bateman (1919–1996).

Typically it is the females who have a relatively larger investment in producing each offspring. Bateman attributed the origin of the unequal investment to the differences in the production of gametes: sperm are cheaper than eggs. A single male can easily fertilize all a female's eggs: she will not produce more offspring by mating with more than one male. A male is capable of fathering more offspring if he mates with several females. By and large, a male's potential reproductive success is limited by the number of females he mates with, whereas a female's potential reproductive success is limited by how many eggs she can produce. This results in sexual selection, in which males compete with each other, and females become choosy in which males to mate with. As a result of being anisogamous, males are fundamentally promiscuous, and females are fundamentally selective.

Females have defined masculinity since the dawn of humanity. This is a common phenomenon within all species really, and something you can still observe within the animal kingdom in the present. In mating calls, the women is able to choose her mate based on how fit he looks. In humans, women not only select for good looks, but also for utility. Hence the perception of a masculine male, who is tall and strong and successful, and is able to provide and protect the women.

I think girlwriteswhat did an excellent take on this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N9daqANcw&feature=relmfu

It was that or "Gender is really bumming me out"

[–]typhonblue 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Bateman's principle is not accurate in light of new evidence.

Let me go through it step by step and identify all the fallacies(in relation to mammalian reproduction).

sperm are cheaper than eggs.

False. The average ejaculate is on the order of millions of times more biologically expensive to produce then a single egg cell.

This notion is actually patently ridiculous when you think about it realistically.

A female egg cell is microscopic while the semen expelled by the average human male can be measured in millilitres.

Male ejaculate is immensely more expensive then a single mammalian egg cell.

A single male can easily fertilize all a female's eggs: she will not produce more offspring by mating with more than one male.

This is actually a false dichotomy. A female will not produce more offspring but by mating with multiple males, she can produce better offspring and also improve her chances of conception.

A male is capable of fathering more offspring if he mates with several females.

Because male ejaculate is immensely more expensive then eggs, every sexual encounter is at a cost to the male. For most promiscuous mating species, the male is limited in how many females he can deliver the best quality ejaculate too. Because sperm takes time to replenish itself.

By and large, a male's potential reproductive success is limited by the number of females he mates with

A male's potential reproductive success is based on far more factors then how many females he mates with (in a promiscuous system).

It's also based on how many males the females he mates with have also mated with and how selective he is in reserving his HIGH COST sexual investment for females who are more fertile and less mated.

whereas a female's potential reproductive success is limited by how many eggs she can produce.

The real cost to a female is investing her resources in sub-par offspring. Mating with multiple males guards against her incurring this cost.

This results in sexual selection, in which males compete with each other, and females become choosy in which males to mate with.

In this antelope species (and biologists conjecture likely other mammal species as well) females also compete over males with the best sperm.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129100050.htm

As a result of being anisogamous, males are fundamentally promiscuous, and females are fundamentally selective.

And you can see that this conclusion is bullshit.

Females in most species mate with multiple males in order to both improve the chances and the quality of a conception. Their real risk is in investing in sub-par offspring, a risk that's reduced the more males she mates with. This combined with the fact that sex is pretty much zero investment for a female mammal (she's not exactly expending any biological material in the act) means that female mammals should logically be more sexually voracious then males. The more males she can mate with the better her chances of success, at zero cost to herself.

A female mammal has nothing to lose (and everything to gain) from mating with as many males as possible. In fact a female mammal likely is better off with sperm competition from two lower status males then sperm from a single high status male.

On the other hand for each act of copulation a male reduces both the volume and the quality of his ejaculate. So a male animal, in order to maximize his reproductive success, will be more selective about the females he mates with, preferring un or less mated females and more fertile females.

Now this all relates to promiscuous mating systems. Which do not actually resemble the human mating system which is monogamous and, by definition, will have even more choosy and selective males then the promiscuous mating system. (Since a male's investment in a monogamous mating system is even greater then the investment of sperm.)

All of this easily falsifiable 'biology' is just bullshit peddled to make men feel expendable thus make them more controllable. Human men are the least expendable males on the planet.

[–]yourfaceyourass 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]yourfaceyourass 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I believe women being limited in reproduction is at least relevant in many mammals, as women can only produce eggs certain times, and also can only have several offspring in a given year, while males on the other hand are almost always replenished with sperm. This at least hold true in humans. I am not sure if it has to do anything with the cost effectiveness of gamete production at all, at least in mammals.

It is therefore much more costlier for a woman to go through pregnancy with a sub par offspring, as the parental investment is much higher than it is for a man to "waste" his gametes, which continually die and are replenished regardless.

Robert Trivers’ theory of parental investment predicts that the sex making the largest investment in lactation, nurturing and protecting offspring will be more discriminating in mating and that the sex that invests less in offspring will compete for access to the higher investing sex. Sex differences in parental effort are important in determining the strength of sexual selection. This is why in many species, the female will be particularly choosy when looking for a male to mate with, as she will be examining the males to see which one will provide the best genes to ensure her offspring’s reproductive success is maximised.

Does this not explain as to why women would be more choosy in a fit partner?

Obviously there are exceptions within species, but I think in most mammals and at least in humans, it holds true.

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

In a promiscuous breeding system, the 'window' of female fertility is generally short and coincides with all other females. (Humans are different, but they also don't have a promiscuous breeding system.)

It takes time for a male to replenish his sperm count so he has only so many effective ejaculations during the period of time in which the females of his species are fertile.

Humans do not have a promiscuous mating system; humans have a pair bonding mating system. In pair-bonding mating systems the male is just as choosy as the female (rather then more choosy then a female as in a promiscuous mating system) this is because his investment in his offspring over his offspring's lifestyle will be considerable.

Look at the case in wolves. You can't just count a male wolf's investment of sperm, you also have to count a male wolf's investment in feeding his mate and his offspring while she is nursing. That investment can be huge and potentially lethal for him so it behooves him to select the best mate he can.

It is therefore much more costlier for a woman to go through pregnancy with a sub par offspring.

Sub par offspring are more likely to happen if a female animal does not mate with as many male animals as she can.

[–]yourfaceyourass2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hmm. I have to give it some though.

Can you explain how this would tie in with our modern gender roles? Does it change my conclusion that women have defined masculinity, seeing as that they were just as choosy? Or that men have generally been seen as having the role of support as they put much effort in feeding their mate and their offspring?

Sub par offspring are more likely to happen if a female animal does not mate with as many male animals as she can.

Can you explain this? How will the off spring be more likely to be sub par if the women is selective for fit strong mates, instead of being promiscuous to the point that she has sex with any male offspring? Its seems like a contradiction to say that she was just as choosy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system Also

Compared to other vertebrates, where a species usually has a single mating system, human display great variety. Humans also differ by having formal marriages which in many cultures involve negotiation and arrangement between elder relatives. Regarding sexual dimorphism (see the section about animals above) humans falls in the intermediate group with moderate sex differences in body size but relatively large testes. This indicates relatively frequent sperm competition which is supported by reports of extrapair paternity of 2-22% in socially monogamous and polygynous human societies. One estimate is that 83% of human societies are polygynous, 0.05% are polyandrous, and the rest are monogamous. Even the last group may at least in part be genetically polygynous

and

humans have a large relative size of testes to body mass in comparison to most primates;

humans have a large ejaculate volume and sperm count in comparison to other primates;

as compared to most primates, humans spend more time in copulation;

as compared to most primates, humans copulate with greater frequency;

the outward signs of estrous in women (i.e. higher body temperature, breast swelling, sugar cravings, etc.), are often perceived to be less obvious in comparison to the outward signs of ovulation in most other mammals;

for most mammals, the estrous cycle and its outward signs bring on mating activity; the majority of female-initiated matings in humans coincides with her estrous, but humans do copulate throughout the reproductive cycle;

after ejaculation/orgasm in males and females, humans release a hormone that has a sedative effect; however human females may remain sexually receptive and may remain in the plateau stage of orgasm if their orgasm has not been completed.

These anatomical factors combine to suggest that, from a zoological standpoint, the human animal has a reproductive strategy based at least to some degree on sperm competition. Under this theory, females enhance their genetic reproductive success by making every egg a contest, and males enhance their success by participating in as many contests as possible. While such a strategy was conducive to the cooperative competition and solidary bonds of tribal existence, new more complex behavioral choices are seemingly superseding our physiology in complex cultures

Seems like this is a little more complex than as you suggest.

[–]typhonblue2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wikipedia is bullshit. This:

humans have a large relative size of testes to body mass in comparison to most primates

In particular.

Male humans have larger testis and ejaculate volume in comparison to gorillas but they have either half or one fourth the testicle size and ejaculate volume of chimpanzees. Gorillas are polygynous, chimpanzees are promiscuous.

There is also another explanation for human male's moderate to low testicle size. Human female fertility is occult, that mean's it's far difficult to synchronize the delivery of sperm and egg. Larger ejaculate volume could compensate for this and extend the fertile window for conception.

How will the off spring be more likely to be sub par if the women is selective for fit strong mates, instead of being promiscuous to the point that she has sex with any male offspring? Its seems like a contradiction to say that she was just as choosy.

Because it's sperm competition that ensures an optimal conception. The only way to create sperm competition is to mate with multiple males.

[–]yourfaceyourass1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It was hyperbole. However even if you look at just the organic mass, the fact that men ejaculate during sex makes sex more biologically expensive for them.

for women reproduction is more biologically expensive".

That's fine, but we're talking about the promiscuity of female animals versus male.

The functional reality is that male animals, who ejaculate every time they have sex are limited in the number of effective copulations. Female animals are not.

The risk for a female animal in a promiscuous mating system is in giving her resources to sub-par offspring. Sperm competition prevents this. The greater the sperm competition, the less likely she will end up carrying a sub-par offspring. Therefore, for a female animal in a promiscuous mating system, having sex with as many males as she can convince to have sex with her maximizes her reproductive success.

If a male animal is not choosy and simply mates with every female that crosses his path, he may end up expending his sexual resources(which take time to be replenished) on females who have already been multiply mated or aren't fertile. It's in his best interest to save himself for higher quality females.

And when you're talking about animals that pair-bond due to high resource offspring... the female may be investing 'biologically' but the male is also investing socially and physically in terms of having to gather more resources. That means for pair-bonders a male, once again, does not want to end up investing resources in a marginal female either.

In no scenario (save for polygynous species) is the male less choosy then the female.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I fear there's something one or both of us hasn't considered for why we're seeing eye to eye.

There are discrete types of mating systems. Promiscuous, Polygynous, Pair Bonding. (There are others, but let's stick with those.)

Each mating system comes with a suit of instincts for both males and females within it to maximize their success.

In the promiscuous mating system, male animals have evolved to know that the fertility window of female animals is limited and finite. When female animals go into heat they generally go into heat at one time.

During this time period in which the female animals are in heat, it's unlikely that the male animal will be able to replenish his supply of sperm. That means he has only so many good shots available to him and he will want to reserve them for a. less mated females and b. higher status females. Remember, he's under a time crunch.

Let's use an analogy. Let's imagine an alien species in which the male creates 'berries' that the female ingests to get pregnant. The females of the species are only willing to eat berries for a narrow window of time--the berry eating season. But the male only has so many ripened berries to deliver to females before he's out and he needs time to ripen more. The ripening process likely lasts longer then the time females are willing to eat berries.

The females, on the other hand, only receive benefit from eating as many berries as they can get their grubby paws on. And eating berries is zero cost to them.

The male is going to try to reserve his berries for a. less full females and b. highly fertile females in order to maximize his chance of reproductive success. The females, on the other hand, are going to try to consume as many berries as possible.

How are the males and females in our alien species going to act during berry eating season?

As for humans, their sexuality is so far removed from a promiscuous breeding scenario that it's pointless to look at the behaviour of promiscuous breeders to understand human sexuality.

However it's possible that humans have an vestigial 'promiscuous breeding system' instinctual profile underneath their pair bonding hormonal profile.

But you don't get to cherry pick from the 'pair bonding hormonal features' and the 'promiscuous breeding instincts' to explain human sexuality. Simply because a human being's vestigial suit of 'promiscuous breeding instincts' would have evolved many speciations ago when hominids might have been promiscuous. Thus would have likely have evolved under the same restraints as current promiscuous breeding systems.

Therefore this hypothetical latent 'promiscuous breeding instinct' in humans would induce the same behaviour in humans as it does in current promiscuous breeders.

Creating a mishmash of 'promiscuous breeding instincts' and pair-bonding features (the occult nature of human female sexuality and her continual receptivity) in order to justify an asymmetrical sexual interest for human males is... it just doesn't work.

One or the other. (And this is allowing that there even is some sort of vestigial promiscuous instinct in humans.)

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let me try to explain my comment about 'artificial reproductive situations.'

The only females that are interested in the resources produced by a male(high status) are pair-bonders and they're interested because they want those resources invested in their offspring. In a pair-bonding species males are also, INVARIABLY, pair-bonders. This is because pair-bonding evolves in situations where offspring must have the resources of both parents to successfully survive to adulthood and reproduce themselves. A promiscuous male in a pair-bonding system isn't reproductively successful because he's leaving dead babies behind him, not to mention he is far less likely to have grandkids or well-adjusted offspring who are successful in the social systems that usually arise in tandem with pair-bonding. The only way a promiscuous male is successful in a pair-bonding system is when the environment changes(agriculture, slavery, welfare, religion--to fill in the social gaps that an absent or uninvolved father creates) that gives his offspring access to the resources that he would otherwise be providing.

This change in environment (civilization so to speak) hasn't been around long enough to change the basic suit of mating instincts that humans have(which are decidedly orientated to pair-bonding). Therefore if you're going to posit some sort of atavistic throwback to promiscuity to explain promiscuous behaviour in the human system, then you have to reference the instincts that evolve in promiscuous systems that actually exist.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gingor 34 points35 points36 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGentlemanZombie 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheGentlemanZombie 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 20 points21 points22 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cyb3rSab3r 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]justamathematician 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]justamathematician 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]justamathematician 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuzzy-Hat 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fuzzy-Hat 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]philosophy_arm 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Omnominable 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alecbenzer 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Omnominable 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EpicJ 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]geodebug 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EpicJ 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cthulufunk 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]no1elsehasthisname 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]sltkr 14 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

It's the notion that because men are over-represented at the top (think of senators, presidents, CEO's, et cetera) men as a group must be better off than women, completely ignoring the fact that at the bottom (when you consider people who are homeless, jobless, committing suicide, failing school, et cetera) men are over-represented too.

If that isn't enough, the fallacy is compounded by the fact that the people at the bottom vastly outnumber those at the top. For every male president, there are literally thousands of homeless men. For every senator there are thousands of men without a job.

Clearly the average man is much more likely to lose his job than to become president of the USA, but feminists insist that the latter statistic means they are privileged. (Never mind that the president is elected democratically and women hold the majority of democratic power in the USA.)

[–]no1elsehasthisname 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yourfaceyourass 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cthulufunk 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hach8 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SpiritofJames 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]PolishRobinHood 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]puppetry514 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sidwood 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]puppetry514 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrawdaddyJoe -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Lawtonfogle 14 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

veterinarian

Only vet I have ever been to (well, took my pets to) has been male. So that one doesn't work so well.

[–]Hach8 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheTyger 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hach8 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's not how it's administered. Title IX, while the STATUTE is about equality of the sexes it is administered by the Agency in charge of education. The problem is that how the statute is used and interpreted is entirely up to the agency, and currently they have interpreted it to mean that women need to be given equal representation as men (in terms of sports). The assumption that it will be the same interpretation for Science stuff.

So, while the Dept of Ed. may (presumably) put a quota system in place for STEM stuff, it will only go one way, because that's how the agency has interpreted and administered the statute.

A party so inclined could either a) petition the Dept of Ed. to change their interpretation to apply to both genders, or b) sue the agency claiming that the interpretation of it applying only to women is "arbitrary and capricious."

But, the former would likely not have much effect unless it gained some serious national traction to get the agency to actually look at and respond to the petition, and the latter is an uphill battle, because agencies are given wide latitude to interpret their statutes. Though it would be a very interesting lawsuit.

Either way we have to wait until the issue is 'ripe,' that is we have to wait until the DoE actually decides to lay out how they will be applying Title IX to STEM courses to sue them, as well.

[–]TheTyger 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]funnyfaceking 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amunium 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]puppetry514 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]funnyfaceking 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]puppetry514 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuzzy-Hat 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]puppetry514 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbsoluteBlack 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5eraph 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]persianpimp[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HolyCounsel 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Omnominable -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrStonedOne 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Omnominable 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RgrRone 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KatGunz2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dagoneth 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]persianpimp[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dagoneth 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]__circle 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]theAnalepticAlzabo 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]no1elsehasthisname 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Imagine a...
Author	persianpimp
Upvotes	241
Comments	161
Date	July 18, 2012 9:00 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/wr2by/imagine_a/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/imagine-a.1017689 https://theredarchive.com/post/1017689

Comments