695,227 posts

Can't admit I'm right? Just ban me

Reddit View
August 25, 2018
79 upvotes
https://i.redd.it/v1utpknib9i11.png


Post Information
Title Can't admit I'm right? Just ban me
Author ThornierSpider7
Upvotes 79
Comments 37
Date 25 August 2018 03:21 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit antifeminists
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/711545
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/9a7j3i/cant_admit_im_right_just_ban_me/
Similar Posts
Comments

[–]Jempi91122 points23 points  (3 children) | Copy

I got banned and muted from the site because of a comment under a post with some actress in the 60s with a sign „equal work, equal pay“ on it. I said at that time it was the case, nowadays not and that the gender pay gap is proven wrong. And I asked why then not only employ women when it no problem to pay them less. It took 5min to ban me. Then I asked the moderates why not just anwser me or „prove me wrong“ I got muted. Thats what Feminism is about nowadays, reinforcing their ideology and silencing those who disagree

[–]JayCoop4103 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I got banned on an alt account so then I asked the mods why, and then was hit with a 72 hour mute

[–]Pz51 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

And their ideology is based entirely on their sexism toward men.

[–]ThornierSpider70 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

^

[–]CucumberMonkee13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy

Same thing happened to me when I mentioned that the odds are stacked against men in STEM fields. Women are 2 times more likely to get a job over men and get payed about 30% more.

[–]ThornierSpider74 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

If they don't like your facts they won't let you day them. To hell with Reddit being about discussion. People just want to take a one side view of things and call it "proof" of what people believe

[–]Cheese_Pufffffff[🍰] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

Lmao exactly. There isn’t one. Feminism isn’t what it used to be. The majority of feminists are just SJWs who watch buzzfeed.

[–]CucumberMonkee4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy

Do you know of any Reddit’s that allow for open discussion? I’ve been looking for one but I’m starting to think it’s a mythical creature.

[–]JayCoop4101 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

There's a difference between open discussion and honest debate, Open discussion doesn't have a set subject

[–]CucumberMonkee1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

True. So do you know of any with honest debate?

[–]JayCoop4101 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I've yet to see one about politics sadly, sorry

[–]CucumberMonkee1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Damn, that’s sad. Thanks anyway!

[–]JayCoop4104 points5 points  (62 children) | Copy

I got banned for pointing out that social constructionism fails to account for the measured sex differences in interests are present in newborns

[–]WorldController0 points1 point  (61 children) | Copy

Which interests are you referring to?

[–]JayCoop4100 points1 point  (60 children) | Copy

People vs Things

[–]WorldController-1 points0 points  (59 children) | Copy

Can you please provide a reliable source supporting this claim? I'm a psychology major, and I'm almost certain you've either misunderstood something or learned this from an unofficial source.

At any rate, like animal psychology, infant psychology is biologically determined. It is different from adult psychology, which is not biologically determined but rather cultural. It is no sillier to compare infants to adults than to make comparisons between adults and, say, bees.

Edit: Also, the idea that newborns can be either social or analytical is silly.

[–]JayCoop4102 points3 points  (39 children) | Copy

It is no sillier to compare infants to adults than to make comparisons between adults and, say, bees.

That's seems rather foolish as infants become adults, so it's highly unlikely that their psychology would be completely altered

Also here's my source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4726418/

[–]WorldController0 points1 point  (38 children) | Copy

That's seems rather foolish as infants become adults, so it's highly unlikely that their psychology would be completely discarded

Infants, unlike adults, lack the capacity to acquire culture; their psychology is instinctual. Once they acquire culture, their behavior is organized around their culture's macro factors (institutions, concepts, artifacts).

Also here's my source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4726418/

Please quote the relevant sections of your source you feel support your claim.

[–]JayCoop4101 point2 points  (37 children) | Copy

Please quote the relevant sections of your source you feel support your claim.

"in a human interaction test, females displayed more affiliative behaviors (e.g., facial gestures, close proximity) to familiar and unfamiliar social partners, compared to males when 4 to 5 weeks old. In sum, in the absence of different postnatal environments, across two tasks, females appeared more social than males. "

Once they acquire culture, their behavior is organized around their culture's macro factors (institutions, concepts, artifacts)

That's seems wrong as across many culturals certain interests are seen as "masculine" and others as "feminine" so it makes little sense to assume it's purely due to culture

[–]WorldController-1 points0 points  (36 children) | Copy

"in a human interaction test, females displayed more affiliative behaviors (e.g., facial gestures, close proximity) to familiar and unfamiliar social partners, compared to males when 4 to 5 weeks old. In sum, in the absence of different postnatal environments, across two tasks, females appeared more social than males. "

This is a study on macaque, not human, newborns. Read the title: Experience-independent sex differences in newborn macaques

That's seems wrong as across many culturals certain interests are seen as "masculine" and others as "feminine" so it makes little sense to assume it's purely due to culture

First, universality isn't the same thing as "natural." A few traits are cross-culturally observed because humans everywhere face similar challenges and opportunities. Just because a trait is cross-cultural, does not necessarily mean it's genetically preprogrammed. Second, due to Western cultural imperialism, there's a lot of similarity between the world's cultures; this similarity, likewise, is not biologically determined.

[–]JayCoop4102 points3 points  (35 children) | Copy

Read the title: Experience-independent sex differences in newborn macaques

Read the abstract, literally the first line "Human females exhibit greater social interest and skills relative to males, appearing in infancy, suggesting biological roots"

It's a study on macaques in order to prevent cultural influence

First, universality isn't the same thing as "natural." A few traits are cross-culturally observed because humans everywhere face similar challenges and opportunities. Just because a trait is cross-cultural, does not necessarily mean it's genetically preprogrammed.

So you're backtracking? As you had said that adult psychology was due to culture, but when I pointed out cross cultural similarities you claim that those are due to environmental factors

Second, due to Western cultural imperialism, there's a lot of similarity between the world's cultures; this similarity, likewise, is not biologically determined.

This is ridiculous, are you going to tell me that Aztec Jaguars and Maori Warriors both being exclusively male is due to Western Cultural Imperialism? Or what about the fact that both Aztec and Egyptian builders were almost exclusively male?

[–]WorldController1 point2 points  (34 children) | Copy

Read the abstract, literally the first line :"Human females exhibit greater social interest and skills relative to males, appearing in infancy, suggesting biological roots"

It's a study on macaques in order to prevent cultural influence

Then you should've quoted that, instead of that bit about macaques. This is why I asked you to quote the relevant sections.

It's well-known to researchers that people interact with babies differently depending on their gender. Studies have shown that adults are more social to newborns dressed in pink, even if (without their knowledge) it is actually boy. This gender-specific treatment, unsurprisingly, results in gendered behaviors, even in infants.

Please quote the portion of your study that explains it was carried out "in order to prevent cultural influence." Even if true it would, again, be silly to think these results can apply to human infants, which possess particular behavioral traits and skills that other animals don't. There is a reason humanistic psychologists take issue with animal studies.

So you're backtracking? As you had said that adult psychology was due to culture, but when I pointed out cross cultural similarities you claim that those are due to environmental factors

Humans' environment is cultural. I'm not backtracking at all.

This is ridiculous, are you going to tell me that Aztec Jaguars and Maori Warriors both being exclusively male is due to Western Cultural Imperialism? Or what about the fact that both Aztec and Egyptian builders were almost exclusively male?

Nope, that would be due to the fact that humans everywhere face similar challenges. As men are more effective fighters and laborers, these roles are almost always filled by men; this doesn't mean that these roles are genetically preprogrammed. However, other cultural similarities relating to gender roles can certainly be pinned on Western culture's ubiquitous influence.

[–]JayCoop4102 points3 points  (14 children) | Copy

At any rate, like animal psychology, infant psychology is biologically determined.

You are aware that is my point, correct? I'm confused why you thought this supports your argument as I was pointing out that the divide is present in infants thus it's likely biological in nature

[–]WorldController0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy

Even if true, this wouldn't mean these differences extend to adulthood, or even childhood for that matter, which is what you're implying.

[–]JayCoop4102 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy

Even if true

You're back-tracking on your own statement

these differences extend to adulthood, or even childhood for that matter, which is what you're implying

So we can completely disregard infant psychology when it comes to human psychology? You're aware that numerous disorders are apparent from soon after birth, right?

[–]WorldController0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy

You're back-tracking on your own statement

Hmm? No I'm not. I'm saying that even if your claim regarding newborn sex differences were true, this wouldn't support your implication that social constructionists are wrong and that adult sex differences are biologically determined. So, you would need to provide additional evidence to support that implication.

So we can completely disregard infant psychology when it comes to human psychology? You're aware that numerous disorders are apparent from soon after birth, right?

You're saying that newborns succumb to psychological disorders?

[–]JayCoop4101 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy

Hmm? No I'm not. I'm saying that even if your claim regarding newborn sex differences were true

You said that there were differences (https://www.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/9a7j3i/cant_admit_im_right_just_ban_me/e4ukwbc?utm_source=reddit-android)

this wouldn't support *your implication that social constructionists are wrong and that adult sex differences are biologically determined

Basic Logic -Infant Psychology is mostly determined by Biology -There are observable sex differences with infant males favoring things and infant females favoring people -Adult Males dominate "thing"-centric fields (STEM) and Adult Females dominate people-centrix fields (psychology, communication, child care)* -since both adults and infants have similar sex diffences in interests and infants interests are based on biological factors, a similar cause is highly likely for adults

*in general there are exceptions but as a general rule this holds

You're saying that newborns succumb to psychological disorders?

Yes, Autism, and a number of other disorders have been diagnosed in infants https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/childrens-health/in-depth/mental-illness-in-children/art-20046577

[–]WorldController0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy

You said that there were differences

I'm not suggesting these differences are biologically determined, like you're saying.

Basic Logic -Infant Psychology is mostly determined by Biology -There are observable sex differences with infant males favoring things and infant females favoring people -Adult Males dominate "thing"-centric fields (STEM) and Adult Females dominate people-centrix fields (psychology, communication, child care)* -since both adults and infants have similar sex diffences in interests and infants interests are based on biological factors, a similar cause is highly likely for adults *in general there are exceptions but as a general rule this holds

Infant psychology is biologically determined, but like animals they are still capable of learning. A socialized infant, for example, behaves much differently from a neglected infant. This does not suggest their respective behaviors are biologically determined. Instead, we can attribute their behavioral differences to differences in environment.

You have not provided sufficient evidence for the claim in bold.

[–]JayCoop4101 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Also, the idea that newborns can be either social or analytical is silly.

We're talking about interests, so it'd be more accurate to say People vs Things

[–]WorldController0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Newborns are essentially blind. They do not have a preference for particular types of objects they cannot even see.

[–]JayCoop4100 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Let's just clarify our terms, At what age does a newborn stop being a newborn?

[–]JayCoop4100 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

From my perspective a newborn is under a month old

[–]LookSWtco0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I’m gonna try this myself, I’ll come back with the results

[–]ThornierSpider71 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Banned in 3 minutes



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter