Men are superior | PurplePillDebate

fhqwhgads_ · 2013-10-23T04:25:30+00:00

This post called "Men are superior" currently has 46 upvotes (20 downvotes) on TRP. Choice comments: I have yet to find anything women are better at...

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This kind of shit is why I really find myself increasingly disillusioned with TRP as a group, lately. I think the philosophies have some truth and merit to them, but the subreddit's devolved into a giant butthurt circle jerk where posts are basically variations on the following themes:

"Here's a woman doing something obnoxious! All women are scum! Yeaaaah!" (Cause there are certainly no recordings of men being scumbags anywhere)

or

"Hey something bad happened to this bitch! Yeah slut, sweet redemption! Eat it!"

... or, you know, unconvincing bragging about how "oh man, all these HB9s are totally clamoring for the D".

Self-improvement? Scientific studies? Theorizing about what masculinity is/was/will become? Dudes helping dudes live more fulfilling lives? Cool, but almost nonexistent on the sub these days.

[–]mrsamsa11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine61534 points35 points36 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]LucifutureCrassanova2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWERBlue Pill Man9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRP_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine61514 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I could respond by saying "Of course not!" and leave it at that, but this is an oversimplification.

There are various traits shared by various groups of people, and each one of these trait-types comes with a varying degree of divisiveness. That's a bit unclear - it's early here, need coffee - so let me use some examples.

I have red hair. My roommate has brown hair. Neither of us give a fuck about the fact that we don't have the same color hair. But, if I were to lose my temper about something, I'd be subjected to a common folk maxim about red hair and quick tempers. Also, thanks to the illustrious Parker & Stone, I'll forever endure an occasional ribbing about not having a soul. All in all, not particularly divisive.

I am white. All my coworkers are white. My community is predominantly white. There are blacks, and asians, and latinos (around here everyone just calls 'em mexicans) in my community, but whites are the majority here. Because of this, nobody from the workplace stands around after work telling jokes about the weird shit white people do. I can appreciate this type of humor, but it's not that common within my community. Jokes featuring blacks or asians or 'mexicans' are going to be more common. And it includes everyone. When a latino guy is around, we'll trade jokes about latinos & whites. When a black guy is around, we'll trade jokes about blacks & whites. It's all in good fun, it's all in jest, and it's accepted by everyone who understands we're all a bunch of guys joking around out back. But then, someone in a suburb suffers a home invasion. White cops show up. They shoot the black perpetrator. Maybe the homeowner is white, maybe black, maybe 'mexican'...it doesn't matter. Suddenly, you just can't ever really trust a black guy. Well, except you James, we know you're cool. But, hey, now that James is gone, did you hear about those coons over in the next county last year...and this is how it goes. Race or ethnicity or whatever you want to call it is a more divisive trait than hair color, for a wide variety of reasons.

I am a man. About 55% of the population in my community is female, so I wouldn't consider myself a minority to any significant point. It's about equal. And we generally get along, because men and women have been getting along since the dawn of time. But then a woman in the office makes a sweeping declaration about protesting an NRA rally nearby, or about the frequency of smoke breaks behind the office, or how she's not Steve's mother and she's not going to put up with him always leaving his dirty dishes in the office sink and oh, hey, could you lift this heeeaaavy water bottle and place it into the cooler for me? And the men gather out back, and smoke, and talk about why women don't understand what's really at stake in the whole gun control thing, and goddammit if I'd let my wife show up with a protest sign, someone needs to get her under control, and hahahaha look at you loverboy, I bet she thanks you later for that trial of Hercules water-cooler battle, yessir! I bet she thanks you real nice. Gender is a divisive trait. More so than hair color. More so than race in some areas, less so in others. There are a wide variety of factors that make this so, but it is so.

You can't just chalk it up to one differing trait. You have to take it in context.

[–]ANewMachine61512 points13 points14 points 12 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

talk about why women don't understand what's really at stake in the whole gun control thing

I'm a dude. I think the NRA is full of shit, a useless organization that hides behind the Second Amendment to lobby for a giant, immoral industry, preying on the ignorance and fear of gun owners to drive the profits of the industry no matter how many people have to die. Please explain to me why men (because I = all men, just like that one woman in the office = all women) don't understand what's at stake with the whole gun control thing. Because that's what you're saying, right? We can take a single example and generalize it to the entire group without looking totally silly, right?

Gender is a divisive trait.

Largely because you choose to treat it as such. Some experiences are absolutely different between genders. Most are not. And even if it were qualitatively divisive, that's not the same thing as saying it is significant to whatever you're complaining about. "Women" don't understand gun control? What about Sarah Palin? She seems to get it (or at least, vocally claims to). So, tell me why women in general don't understand gun control... but Sarah Palin, and Ann Coulter, and Michelle Bachmann, they do, despite being women.

Edit because I skipped your giant paragraph the first time:

Suddenly, you just can't ever really trust a black guy. Well, except you James, we know you're cool. But, hey, now that James is gone, did you hear about those coons over in the next county last year...and this is how it goes.

The thing is, it's totally accurate to describe that shit as racist. Just as it's totally accurate to describe the comments in the OP as misogynist. You're picking one trait that is not at all related to their behavior, and treating it as a substitute for behavior in judging the person. That's bigotry, right there, in a nutshell. If you're OK being a bigot, then fine, but let's recognize that using racial/sexist slurs and judging based on a non-personal factor, like race or gender, is bigotry.

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine61511 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I've made no claims as to the racist content or misogynistic content of the speech related here. Stop making assumptions about me before examining the facts.

Right, you're just defending them as natural results. You should be saying "wow, it's kinda fucked up that our culture/society/whatever leads us to make these stupid, illogical connections between people based on ephemeral surface traits, isn't it? Shouldn't we fight that? Shouldn't we view people trying to keep these illogical connections in place as somehow problematic?" Instead you try to go all Vulcan logical mind on it and end up basically defending the practice by normalizing it.

And let's be clear, you are normalizing it. A black guy totaled my car a few days back. Do I now look askance at all black drivers on the road? Nope. Could have just as easily been a white guy -- heck, given the lily-white state I live in, that's far more likely. A racist reaction is racist, and should be avoided. By saying it's natural and "people do it regardless," you're normalizing it. That's a problem.

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Look, you're passionate about whatever this all means to you. I get that. I'm not. I observe, and I try to learn, and I try to grow wiser about the way the world is. In the subjective-pragmatic first-person perspective that is my consciousness, of course I will rebel against tenets that obstruct my personal imperative, but I take great pains to keep this chemically-induced passion at bay during rational argument. To say that I "should be saying" a certain thing is nothing more than your personal imperative attempting to invalidate my own.

The matter at hand: these are natural results. "US vs. THEM" is among the oldest, most primal mindsets in human history. We snap to this deeply-graven grid in times of crisis. The protection of "US" at cost of the destruction of "THEM" is the difference between life and death. It is ingrained in our biology, our chemical responses to external stimuli, our psyches. It isn't going anywhere, so the question becomes not how to get rid of it, but how to regulate it. I'm not interested in the discussion of regulation, because it will inevitably involve the question of morality, and this is where the personal imperatives take over. We worship our own reflections and shout: "I am right; and you are wrong; and I must bring you around to my way of thinking, or discredit you to the point that no one takes you seriously." And there, again, we have US vs. THEM.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's a 2012 study whose findings state "This research supports the notion that venting may be used as an emotion regulatory strategy and highlights the importance of the reciprocal aspect of the venting interaction." Further stated is "Venting may persist as a common practice because we “feel better” after the venting interaction not because we release anger," as well as "What is said in response to venting matters. Respondents should be aware of the attributions they use when responding to venting." The study used a method of recalling emotions from memory, not live anger testing.

Some older studies I found support your point that venting is not effective, but this may be because they were measuring anger reduction rather than a "feel-good" release following the venting. Also, I'm unaware if any of these other studies took into account the respondent factor, which is a large part of the venting process. We vent to those who can identify with our feelings, rather than coldly analytical observers.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but that's where your morality comes into it. Just because you think something is misogynist or wrong, doesn't mean others think the same as you. What if I thought beauty pageants for 5 year old girls was the most morally wrong thing in the universe and I'd find anyone who discussed it lowly scum? It wouldn't matter because these are my own personal moral standards.

So, basically, not only is the term "misogyny" overused and misunderstood by most, there's also the fact that misogyny is not universally wrong either. Just because you think it's wrong, it doesn't mean that it is. Just like how I might think pageants for little kids are wrong, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't share that opinion. So yes, all venting is right because I believe that the benefits of venting far outweigh subjective morality. Have you ever felt bad for squishing and killing an ant? Just because society hasn't declared it wrong/murder/insect cruelty, certainly doesn't mean that it's not or that it's okay.

[–]ANewMachine61514 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 5 points5 points5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine61513 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And that's your opinion of what misogyny is, that's alright. I've been called a misogynist because I once criticised a woman. Who's definition of misogyny should I follow?

This single TRP user seems tense and maybe even frustrated at that precise moment. That might explain the coarse language. The rest just seems like hyperbole to me to prove a point. You should ask him yourself if he honestly thinks that no woman in history contributed to anything. He'll tell you that such women did and do exist, and he'll then [look] at you strangely for taking everything he says so literal.

How do you not read that and see how it's placing women as inferior to men?

I read that as someone claiming that contributed women much less to humanity than men. You see it as a statement of superiority. Just because someone contributed less, it doesn't mean they're inferior. Plenty school projects where I did much less work (contributed less) than some of my teammates, does that make me inferior to them? Because that's how your logic seems to me: Less contribution = inferiority.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And that's your opinion of what misogyny is, that's alright.

There's only one definition of misogyny. No opinion is involved. Wikipedia:

Misogyny /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/ is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.

He'll tell you that such women did and do exist, and he'll then [look] at you strangely for taking everything he says so literal.

Here's an idea. Go up to a black guy and call him a "nigger." Then when he gets angry, tell him to not interpret what you say so literally. Good luck.

Honestly, your views have no place in a debate sub. If you told you're debate teacher that you didn't believe in reality or truth and used those arguments in formal debate, you'd fail the class. If you used those arguments in a court of law, you'd lose the trial. If you used those arguments in a scientific study or paper, you'd never get published.

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's only one definition of misogyny. No opinion is involved.

Wrong. Did you even bother reading the comment I was responding to before upvoting it? This dude was claiming that:

misogyny can be pretty objectively defined. If

the only important things women contribute to humanity is that hole between their fucking legs, simple as that. men will always beat women when it comes down to it

ain't misogyny then you're not living in the same reality as the rest of humanity.

Do you understand that this user was associating that quotation to the meaning of misogyny? I already posted the official definition of misogyny on this thread, so you don't have to remind me what it means. I'm was telling him/her that picking out a TRPer comment and defining that as the meaning of misogyny is his/her own opinion.

Here's an idea. Go up to a black guy and call him a "nigger." Then when he gets angry, tell him to not interpret what you say so literally. Good luck.

Cool. I'll tell you to go up to some chick and call her a bitch. Good luck.

Doesn't change my point that you took out of context. I'll let you make a fair analogy and have another go at it.

Honestly, your views have no place in a debate sub. If you told you're debate teacher that you didn't believe in reality or truth and used those arguments in formal debate, you'd fail the class. If you used those arguments in a court of law, you'd lose the trial. If you used those arguments in a scientific study or paper, you'd never get published.

I don't give a shit. That's neither there nor here. I was debating with another user about reality/perception yesterday and you're just so caught up with it and angry at me, you had to bring it to this new thread. The comment you replied to spoke nothing of that (reality/perception), so where's the problem? This is exactly like witnessing two people discussing abortion (pro/anti). You meet the pro life guy at some other group and you tell him that he's just not welcome in this group because you don't like his pro life abortion views. Do you see how fucking insane that is? That person is You who's shutting down someone because of something they spoke of elsewhere that has nothing to do with our current topic on "Men are Superior". Go troll someone else, I won't allow myself to waste another minute on someone who's been using dirty debate tactics every step of the way since yesterday.

[–]ANewMachine6155 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but that's where your morality comes into it. Just because you think something is misogynist or wrong, doesn't mean others think the same as you. What if I thought beauty pageants for 5 year old girls was the most morally wrong thing in the universe and I'd find anyone who discussed it lowly scum? It wouldn't matter because these are my own personal moral standards.

This argument makes no sense. If you thought beauty schools were morally wrong you'd have the obligation to do or say something about it, unless swayed by a more important moral principle, that's what having an ethos means.

You can't use moral nihlism as a moral argument "well that's just your opinion" isn't an argument. It's a cop out.

So, basically, not only is the term "misogyny" overused and misunderstood by most,

The guy is saying women are literally inferior. What would misogyny be in your definition?

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Basically, what you're telling is that since the majority (?) of the population agrees that this is misogyny, then it's no use arguing, It Just Is. You do realize that a huge chunk of discoveries and philosophy actually came from disagreeing with the "ethos" of the population? You're telling me to shut up, because most people would disagree with me and therefore my argument is null and void. This is a debate sub.

If you thought beauty schools were morally wrong you'd have the obligation to do or say something about it

No, I don't. Since when? Most people complain about government and the dirty shit some politicians do, are you trying to tell me that it's their obligation to all go do something about it? Most people have never even see their representative.

You can't use moral nihlism as a moral argument "well that's just your opinion" isn't an argument. It's a cop out.

You claim that misogyny is wrong, I claim that it is not universally wrong. Where's the problem? It's not a cop out, I'm just using the same type of argument as you, which was that misogyny is not okay. I'm turning it around saying it can be okay and that you're opinion was formed from living in 21st century society. I can ask you to think of any time where misogyny was condoned and considered "okay" (I can't think of any) and tell you to ask one of the guys in that era if misogyny is wrong. He'd tell you NO and tell you to shut up (like you did) because the overwhelming opinion is that misogyny is okay in their society.

The guy is saying women are literally inferior. What would misogyny be in your definition?

I've already posted a definition of misogyny is this thread. I want you to link me to where he "literally" said that women are inferior, please.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

No, I don't. Since when? Most people complain about government and the dirty shit some politicians do, are you trying to tell me that it's their obligation to all go do something about it? Most people have never even see their representative.

Because that's what "wrong" means. Unnacceptable. Bad. Shameful. Morally not permittable

Practically most people don't act on their moral sentiments,out of either apathy or nonconviction or whatever but philosophically morality implies duty. To say beauty pagents are wrong is to say "you should not engage in beauty beauty pagents". The "should" is always implied in a moral statement.

You claim that misogyny is wrong, I claim that it is not universally wrong. Where's the problem? It's not a cop out, I'm just using the same type of argument as you, which was that misogyny is not okay. I'm turning it around saying it can be okay and that you're opinion was formed from living in 21st century society. I can ask you to think of any time where misogyny was condoned and considered "okay" (I can't think of any) and tell you to ask one of the guys in that era if misogyny is wrong. He'd tell you NO and tell you to shut up (like you did) because the overwhelming opinion is that misogyny is okay in their society.

I'm familiar with moral relativism thanks, you don't seem to be familiar with its implications however. The argument has been debunked so thoroughly I'll let Wikipedia explain it:

Normative moral relativists believe not only the meta-ethical thesis, but that it has normative implications on what we ought to do. They argue that meta-ethical relativism implies that we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. Most philosophers do not agree, partially because of the challenges of arriving at an "ought" from relativistic premises.

Moral relativism only ever really functions in the descriptive or meta ethical sense. In a practical one it can't function as a coherent ethos. You can't counter a normative claim with a meta ethical one.

I've already posted a definition of misogyny is this thread. I want you to link me to where he "literally" said that women are inferior, please.

The title is "men are superior".

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

philosophically morality implies duty, this is ethics 101 stuff

Srry, didn't take that course. I never knew that for every complaint I made throughout my life, I was required by some universal Force to act upon it. But you were telling me to go out and do something about my complaint, I'll ask you the same: Are you or have you performed your morality duty for every complaint you've made since birth? If not, then you have no right to tell me that I must get up and do something about my dissatisfaction.

The title is "men are superior".

The title is not "men are superior". Perhaps this PurplePill title is, but it certainly isn't the TRPer's title. But even if you meant the RPers title, I'd still have to disgree because that user put "men are superior" in quotation marks, followed by the name Adam [something]. You look at the post and you find out that he's talking about a Youtube video. You open that youtube page and you find out that those words actually belong to this Adam fella, not our TRP user.

The guy is saying women are literally inferior.

No he isn't.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Srry, didn't take that course. I never knew that for every complaint I made throughout my life, I was required by some universal Force to act upon it.

It doesent matter if you took the literal course, but if you're totally unfamiliar with the argument you're using that ought to be addressed.

Like, if the concept of a "normative claim" sounds bizzare and alien to you maybe the best course of action is rather than reacting with incredulity to read up on it or something? Because the argument you're using has such a fundemental flaw that its the first thing that comes up when you do the barest minimum of investigation into it.

I'll ask you the same: Are you or have you performed your morality duty for every complaint you've made since birth? If not, then you have no right to tell me that I must get up and do something about my dissatisfaction.

You're not getting this. A normative claim is in the format of "to create the best possible world, I ought to do X" the fact that sometimes someone fails in the execution of X does not disprove the claim, it just means you didn't succeed in it.

If you say "its is ethical to recycle" and then don't recycle your failure doesent prove that recycling is non-ethical. The moral imperative still implies, the best possible action is still one where you recycle.

The title is not "men are superior". Perhaps this PurplePill title is, but it certainly isn't the TRPer's title. But even if you meant the RPers title, I'd still have to disgree because that user put "men are superior" in quotation marks, followed by the name Adam [something]. You look at the post and you find out that he's talking about a Youtube video. You open that youtube page and you find out that those words actually belong to this Adam fella, not our TRP user

You are correct - I conflated the OP and "women can't excel at anything except baby making" guy. But yeah, all the same, that's misogyny.

[–]mrsamsa6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexuslexus3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SolluxCaptor22 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FleetingWishStepford Girl1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men can only be seen as superior if you regard men's "talents" as more important than women's "talents". Men are better at lifting heavy objects, fighting wars, and logic reasoning. While women are better at making babies, being nurturing, and social reasoning. Both are needed and important roles. Do you think men want to go to war, without being able to come home to someone able to "nurture" them back to health? Is being able to do math and computer code more important than being able to navigate social structures, and communicate with others?

The truth is that men need women's talents in their lives, and men who have been around too many women who don't use their talents aren't able to experience their usefulness. It's these men who start saying that "men are superior" when they are under exposed to women's talents and the usefulness they provide.

[–]Vault912 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

why hasnt the female Mozart, da vinci, aristotle, newton or tesla cropped up yet?

Probably because the female Mozart, Maria Anna that is, Wolfgang's older sister, despite showing an enormous aptitude for both performing and composing, was barred from composing music when young Wolfgang announced, after publicly performing, that the song he had just performed was composed by his sister's lady brain. A scandal ensued, because you just don't play the works of feeeemales, and due to severe embarrassment and public shaming, Daddy Mozart banned Maria Anna from ever composing, and told her to get busy popping out babies.

Robert Schumann on his wife, Clara: "Clara has composed a series of small pieces, which show a musical and tender ingenuity such as she has never attained before. But to have (eight) children, and a husband who is always living in the realm of imagination, does not go together with composing. She cannot work at it regularly, and I am often disturbed to think how many profound ideas are lost because she cannot work them out."

Lise Meitner, who discovered nuclear fission, was refused access to her university's labs, faced severe harassment, often had her work sabotaged for being a woman, and straight up had publishers refuse to publish her work for the one and only fact that she was a woman. And this was a girl from a rich family who had some connections, too.

These are just three stories I rattled off the top of my head. The fact of the matter is that women have been prevented, either from outright discrimination or because they were tending to other things, from being a large force in pretty much anything beyond the domestic realm. Even in our so-called feminized gynocracy that many Red Pillers believe we live in, beliefs about female inferiority in certain endeavors are still prevalent. A study came out not too long ago demonstrating that science professors more harshly criticized the same work, and gave it lower marks, when a female name was attached to it.

Say you have two kids: Kid A trains everyday and is being encouraged to be the next Olympic track star, and Kid B, you refuse to even let out of the house and are always forcing him to babysit his younger siblings. Kid A gets a gold medal at his track meet. Are you really going to turn to Kid B and say "Look what Kid A accomplished. You don't have this gold medal because you are clearly an inferior track runner."

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AcatalepticPolemic9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

where are the innovative, visionary female architects?
where are all the great female polymaths who have always existed but were just kept down by men?

This question answers itself. Red pillers argue that women are historically under-represented in STEM fields because of inherent inferiority, feminists claim it's because of systematic oppression by patriarchal societies. They would both be equally plausible explanations, until you realize that:

Women were historically prevented from entering STEM fields, and
In contemporary culture where women are afforded the same freedom as men to engage in the STEM fields, there is no scientific data indicating that they have have trouble keeping up (no more so than your standard man, anyway).

I see TRP make this argument quite often, but it comes off to me as nothing more than willful ignorance; there's a plethora of women who have achieved great things, and it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to find them.

[–]jacobman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AcatalepticPolemic3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're partially right, and it's a very curious and complex issue. There are a few proposed explanations from the field, none of which I can give an opinion on because I wouldn't consider myself an "expert", but from what I understand, most experts attribute this to cultural influence; women were socially (and up until recent times, politically) discouraged from engaging in academic pursuits, and were culturally conditioned to instead focus on exemplifying more feminine traits. The brain is pretty malleable at a young age and tends to be shaped by its environment very easily.

This has changed in recent years, and there seems to have been one study from about a year ago that showed women testing higher recently, so given the variability in group outcomes, I can jump on board with this theory.

That being said, I have seen studies showing men testing better at math and women testing better in writing/reading comprehension, so I suppose I wouldn't completely discount the possibility entirely. I don't personally put much investment in them though, because I personally know a few female mathematicians who are way better at math than I could ever hope to be.

Out curiosity, off the top of your head do you have any particular studies in mind that are good to include in the portfolio of data on the innate abilities of men and women?

I don't, unfortunately. I read a whole lot of books, and I don't have the shelf space or brain space to store them all.

[–]jacobman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

discouraged from engaging in academic pursuits, and were culturally conditioned to instead focus on exemplifying more feminine traits.

When you said this, my first reaction was that when I was younger I felt like it was the exact opposite in the entirety of my school. Being into school was very very unpopular amongst the boys. On the other hand I sensed much less pressure on the girls to dislike school. Being intellectual came across to me as a very feminine thing when I was growing up in the late 90's and early 2000's.

This has changed in recent years, and there seems to have been one study from about a year ago[1] that showed women testing higher recently, so given the variability in group outcomes, I can jump on board with this theory.

If it is indeed a social issue, given my previous experience, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it did shift.

I don't, unfortunately. I read a whole lot of books, and I don't have the shelf space or brain space to store them all.

I can't blame you at all. I can be counted on to never dole out sources on the spot. Every once and while though someone does have something of easy access to share.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

l said where is the female newton, tesla, da vinci or mozart, not where are some women who innovated some things. i said where are the great female polymaths who always existed but couldnt rise to the fore because of oppression, not where are the female STEM majors. was newton a STEM major? come on man. i didnt say anything about "keeping up", i asked about great female polymaths who burn their names into the annals of achievement.

if you cant see how utterly small what i call "the white-out" list of female achievement that is always proffered in these discussion is, and how many of them are a stretch (indira gandhi as an "innovator"? come the fuck on, im sure she'd have been prime minister if her last name had been patel)is compared to the list of male achievement in every possible field is then i dont know what to say. where are the women RIGHT NOW who are fit to be included on THIS list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment

[–]AcatalepticPolemic9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obviously. No need to repeat yourself. In response, I explained to you how this fact can't support the notion that women are intellectually inferior considering contemporary evidence indicating otherwise, and that there are much more plausible explanations that explain this phenomenon, such as the fact that women were socially and politically blocked from entering academia up until recently. Everyone on your list is from a time when women were considered property; intellectual women wouldn't have had the resources or social position to become polymaths.

You don't hear about many female innovators nowadays for the same reason you don't hear about many male innovators nowadays; every field is accelerating with such great intensity and requires so many different facets of specialization that any earth shattering innovation is either the product of teams or only understood by their peers. Once again, even a cursory look through modern academia will show a plethora of women who are at the forefront of their respective fields. This is so commonplace that I can't help but assume that red pillers are willfully ignorant on this topic.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]AcatalepticPolemic7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]AcatalepticPolemic15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]AcatalepticPolemic13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 10 points10 points10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AcatalepticPolemic5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Again what sources do you need? What do you think academia is? Buildings, walls, gates? How did academia arise? Spontaneous emission from ether? No, it has been the work of men. So why should strong and independent women lay a claim to it? Why not go build up their own? They are strong and independent minds after all, they need no man to teach them! Did Mary Wollstonecraft think that god taught her how to read and write? Where did Maria Montessorri think technology came from, ancient aliens? Why, the female entitlement knows no bound!

The feminist movement has been the astounding inversion whereupon instead of men getting the praise for bringing women out of the animal sphere, they get the boot for not rolling out the red carpet for them to academia soon enough and the subsequent generations of men then have to make amends for that fact. This feminist chutzpah is quite fucking amazing! Not only it condemns men, it makes heroes out of women who made great achievement in going into those male-dominated spaces You can see their recent struggles in video games where sexism and misogyny run rampant.

Modern test scores, on the other hand, indicate no difference between male and female intelligence.

So what? Even if men and women's intelligence distributions were identical, intelligence isn't the end all be all. And it is more than mere under-representation of women in STEM, I am saying they wouldn't be anything if not for men setting it up. The strong and independent women would be at 0% if not for men teaching them how to. The source is human history and not the herstory that feminism has succeeded in replacing it with where the dehumanized terms like education, technology, science remove men from the picture and they apparently grow on trees. Or the myths of ancient matriarchy which makes feminist finagling a matter of reappropriation than expropriation.

[–]AcatalepticPolemic5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So what? Even if men and women's intelligence distributions were identical, intelligence isn't the end all be all. And it is more than mere under-representation of women in STEM, I am saying they wouldn't be anything if not for men setting it up. The strong and independent women would be at 0% if not for men teaching them how to. The source is human history and not the herstory that feminism has succeeded in replacing it with where the dehumanized terms like education, technology, science remove men from the picture and they apparently grow on trees. Or the myths of ancient matriarchy which makes feminist finagling a matter of reappropriation than expropriation.

Your whole post is a trip, but this literally hurt my brain. Think about this for a second:

So what? Even if men and women's intelligence distributions were identical, intelligence isn't the end all be all.

Yes, yes it would. It is, in fact. The fact that academia as an institution was built by people who happened men is completely, 100% irrelevant in determining whether or not women are intellectually inferior. The fact that you can't see this is mind-boggling.

This:

And it is more than mere under-representation of women in STEM, I am saying they wouldn't be anything if not for men setting it up

Is pure speculation, and completely indefensible. There is absolutely no way you could possibly know this. The fact that women are intellectually equal to men supports the idea that, yes, a group of people who happen to be women probably could have built something similar on their own given thousands of years. Given that we can't know either way with certainty, Occam's Razor comes into play.

Also, intellectual equivalency of women does not equal feminism. The idea is a fundamental facet of feminism, but not exclusive to feminism by any means. There are many non-feminists who hold this position as well; vast generalizations about the existence of a feminist conspiracy are not only absurd, they're irrelevant.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AcatalepticPolemic7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Human history tells us that men came up with academia and women were let in after an orgy of thousands of tears.

This is just silly. Women were historically confined to imposed gender roles, and were let in after it was realized that they are just as capable of contributing to academia as men are.

The tears haven't stopped since then because women are still not equal(mentally) in test scores(maths),

Source? (Preferably an actual scientific source, not a blog post about feminist conspiracies).

faculty representation and le STEM.

The link you provided said that sexism still exists. Not sure what point you're trying to prove with that.

If you think academia arose from ether or that 'women didn't come up with education because women were not educated by men' is a worthy argument, you can take your place alongside the god believers.

How is this relevant? Just because men have been at the forefront of academia historically doesn't imply that women couldn't do the same, nor does it imply that women are incapable of participating in it. Academia isn't about the domination of men, it's a collective effort to further our understanding of the world; gender is not relevant in the slightest.

[–]namae_nanka0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This is just silly.

It's not.

Women were historically confined to imposed gender roles

Herstorically and a rather convenient excuse. “Lock up your libraries if you like, but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind.”

and were let in after it was realized that they are just as capable of contributing to academia as men are

No 'just as' and had to be taught by men.

Source? The link you provided said that sexism still exists.

They are crying about it in that article, as for maths you can see the various studies that keep popping up by the years, showing how maths gender gap can be pinned down on sexism. See: Research on the Women and Mathematics Issue: A Personal Case History by Susan F. Chipman

How is this relevant?

Look up Columbus's Egg.

Just because men have been at the forefront of academia historically doesn't imply that women couldn't do the same

They didn't, and you are taking on faith that they could. Men did and they taught women. History is on my side, your equality position is based on faith and feminist herstory.

gender is not relevant in the slightest

LMAO, yeah it isn't relevant when it comes to getting the goodies, "we are equal, now pay up". It's supremely relevant when it comes to the numbers.

[–]AcatalepticPolemic6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's not.

It demonstrably is.

Herstorically and a rather convenient excuse. “Lock up your libraries if you like, but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind.”

Also, historically a fact. To deny that women were historically prevented from entering academia is simply laughable; it's comparable to denying the Holocaust happened.

No 'just as' and had to be taught by men.

Men also had to be taught by men. Einstein, Newton, and every other human being to ever discover anything ever had to be taught everything that came before. You're relegating something to gender which actually has nothing to do with gender; a common fallacy of red pillers called confusing correlation with causation.

They are crying about it in that article, as for maths you can see the various studies that keep popping up by the years, showing how maths gender gap can be pinned down on sexism.

The research you referenced discusses the lack of participation in math classes by women, not that they're inherently worse at math. Lack of participation could more accurately be relegated to cultural norms regarding gender rather than biological capability, as women function just fine in mathematics. There is no research suggesting women are inherently worse at math than men are.

Look up Columbus's Egg.

Even more irrelevant?

They didn't, and you are taking on faith that they could.

Just as you are taking on faith that they couldn't. The fact that contemporary evidence shows women to be just as capable of contributing to scientific research supports my position more-so than yours. Occam's Razor.

Men did and they taught women.

Men also taught men, as I explained earlier. I suppose the only truly worthwhile thinkers were whoever had a remotely abstract thought first.

History is on my side, your equality position is based on faith and feminist herstory.

It's not. I've explained how it isn't multiple times, though, you seem profoundly incapable of viewing the world through a lens not tainted by wild theories of a vast feminist conspiracy. Confirmation bias and confusing correlation with causation permeate every facet of your argument.

LMAO, yeah it isn't relevant when it comes to getting the goodies, "we are equal, now pay up". It's supremely relevant when it comes to the numbers.

Once again, spectacularly irrelevant. I literally have no idea what point you're trying to make with this statement.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Human history. Is not a source.

It is. It wasn't sarcasm. The physical inferiority of women is kinda agreed upon even by feminists, though some don't even believe that and the rabid pursual of equality in the mental domains has therefore been a feminist goal from the start of the current feminist movement.

Cultivate the frontal portion of her brain as much as that of man is cultivated, and she will stand his equal at least. Even now, where her mind has been called out at all, her intellect is as bright, as capacious, and as powerful as his.

Ernestine Rose

Mental equality(and the hinted superiority) is important, for man the brute might be stronger but at least he isn't mentally superior. So women could have done what men accomplished and even more if only his physical superiority hadn't got in the way.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Vault917 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine61512 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]newuofh6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]newuofh4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

People will upvote shit not because they agree with 100% of what is said, but rather because they liked something about it or they find it contributes well to the thread.

For example: I upvoted that thread. I upvoted it because I checked out the video and liked most of what was said, while disagreed with some. I upvoted because I thought it had some good content in it, not necessarily because I agreed with the title of the thread/video, which is: "Men Are Superior".

Technically not, yet doesn't no one mentioning it imply implicit agreement?

I'd generally agree with that, except most blue pillers see things in a very strange way, so I have to disagree. Very often, you see BPers bring up links to some users who've said "misogynistic" things. Hypothetically, you could see a blue piller quote an alleged RPer who mentions within his comment that rape isn't a bad thing. The main argument used will be: "LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF UPVOTES, clearly this must be a TRP position and everybody in there condones rape".

And this is wrong, 99% of the time. In 99% of the cases when a user says something you'd be offended by, he's usually got other words written in his comment. He could be giving brilliant advice along with that rape statement, and we'd still upvote it. Basically, while you guys fixate on a few words in the entire paragraph and claim everybody supports that position, we usually upvote because we like the general gist of it.

[–]newuofh-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]newuofh4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Hypothetically if genders were flipped:

I have yet to find anything men are better at that doesnt involve children. Even with kids they arent always better, but its what they are here for....That 15 year old kid knows nothing about life... Real life will smack him in the face with its hard tits soon. (12 upvotes, 2 downvotes).

Not if hes pretty, then he wont get that smack in the face till hes 30. (6 upvotes, 0 downvotes).

Here's another:

the only important things men contribute to humanity is that dick between their fucking legs, simple as that. women will always beat men when it comes down to it. (15 upvotes, 7 downvotes)

Another:

Men are better at mothering and things to do with childcare and the nurturing of animals. Women are better at literally everything else. Literally everything. (10 upvotes, 7 downvotes)

Another:

If it requires abstract thought, spatial skills, or planning ahead months in advance, men will not be excelling at it. (7 upvotes, 3 downvotes)

Regardless of the level of truth, would this constitute an implication women are superior? On the other hand would this apply:

I don't agree with your statement. In all those quotes, I didn't see a single one claiming that women are superior. Most are pointing out where women excel, while some point out where men perform better. And even it was agreed that women are better than men in a lot of things, it still wouldn't translate to women being superior to men. A person can be better than another, yet still be inferior. Just look up European queens and kings and you'll be surprised by how incompetent, stupid, and weak many were. Does that still mean they weren't superior to everyone in their country? Their advisors were doing a lot of the thinking for them, their troops were more physically fit and more capable in combat, etc.

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Solid point. But my answer is still no. I've already been bombarded for several years, since childhood, with that kind of talk. (that women are better than men at everything, smarter, etc.) You can flip the genders, but it doesn't change the fact that I've been exposed to that kind of talk plenty in my life, yet my conclusion wasn't that women are superior to men. Even if people claimed women were more intelligent, I didn't take that to mean that guys are inferior.

Furthermore, I don't generally see these traits within the Superior/Inferior duality. Whenever people bring up stats about how one sex is "better" at something than the other, I just think: "Oh cool... Men and women are different. Thought that was obvious." I'm aware that men can be better than women at certain things and vice versa. I see the sexes as complementary before all else.

would this constitute an implication women are superior

I can agree that some people would see it that way, but they're the ones in error. Having one trait (among a multitude of fucking traits in the human being) that is better in one sex than the other shouldn't translate to mean that they are superior. I could be better than you at cooking, but I'm sure you wouldn't see yourself as inferior to me because of that, now would you?

[–]newuofh4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure if I was a man and happened upon a forum thread titled "great talk, "women are superior" where a bunch of women said my gender cooked well and that was the only single trait, out of all traits, in which my gender ever beat their gender, I'd think those women thought they were the superior gender.

Hmm...I guess so. But I think OP should have waited until someone actually posted a clear comment that exactly claimed that "XX or XY is superior", then we would have this debate. But this wasn't the case. This was men pointing out traits that are generally stronger in men than women, while pointing out some traits that women are better at. Some blue pillers got sensitive (somewhat warranted, but then again, we live in a culture where any criticism of women by men should be seen as suspicious) and made this thread claiming that this must all mean that men are superior, when it isn't necessarily the case.

I don't know if I've made the analogy with you or someone else, but I compared that statement to camels. If someone came along and claimed that: "the only thing useful about [camels] is [their backs so I can ride them for transportation]". Would you automatically call him a camel-hater for pointing out what he thinks is the utility of camels? People are just so quick to throw that word, misogyny, anywhere they like.

[–]newuofh3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]newuofh1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Wikipedia says Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women. "Hatred OR dislike of women" is pretty subjective, if a parent says the only thing his fucking kid contributes to the household is the welfare check arriving every month, is it dislike or simply a statement of utility?

It is true that someone doesn't need to hate camels to say that, and wouldn't need to feel hate toward women to say they contribute nothing to humanity except a fucking body. It can be argued that a certain level of dislike is needed in order to disregard other contributions of one gender to humanity. Contributions of camels to his lifestyle, not so much.

Throwing around the word misogyny might be explained by feeling threatened by the perceived support of people who perceive you and the group you belong as next to useless to humanity.

Title	Men are superior
Author	fhqwhgads_
Upvotes	13
Comments	102
Date	October 23, 2013 4:25 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1p12q7/men_are_superior/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/men-are-superior.286684 https://theredarchive.com/post/286684

Comments