TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

This just in, science says women actually have the same physical strength as men. In other news, science still says men are inherently bad. Thank you, Motherboard, for redefining "science".

Taxus_Calyx

June 22, 2017
84 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://archive.is/2FGdj
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title This just in, science says women actually have the same physical strength as men. In other news, science still says men are inherently bad. Thank you, Motherboard, for redefining "science".
Author

Taxus_Calyx

Upvotes 84
Comments 58
Date June 22, 2017 5:44 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6iv50n/this_just_in_science_says_women_actually_have_the/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-just-in-science-says-women-actually-have-the.919775
https://theredarchive.com/post/919775
Top posts by Taxus_Calyx

This McDonalds in Hawaii has no men's room. Only a women's/handicapped room.

455 upvotes
January 14, 2019
/r/MensRights

Don't lose hope.

147 upvotes
April 1, 2019
/r/MensRights

Google acknowledges evolutionary pshychology. Gets hammered by shit storm of biology denying, gynocentric, social engineering babies.

135 upvotes
August 5, 2017
/r/MensRights

36 year old woman charged for sexually assaulting bedridden 16 year old boy. Bail set at $600,000.

123 upvotes
March 11, 2018
/r/MensRights

Anyone else notice that most of the news today on the Youtube shooting is in the form of criticizing Youtube’s ‘demonetization’ practice.

87 upvotes
April 4, 2018
/r/MensRights

Don't want to be convicted of a rape you never committed? There's an App for that.

84 upvotes
August 23, 2017
/r/MensRights

Is it still legal to mutilate the genitals of little boys in Alberta? Will kittens and puppies soon have more human rights in Alberta than little boys?

83 upvotes
February 25, 2019
/r/MensRights

16 year old boy commits suicide after being shamed for his sexuality by the cops.

70 upvotes
May 24, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]EsraYmssik 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, science journalist Angela Saini read their research and was filled with a pure and clarifying rage.

Love the language. Her anger was pure and clarifying, not at all irrational, it was positive and transformative... totally unlike, I presume, mens' anger.

It's good to hear that a science journalist can see the glaring error in modern science, an error that has somehow escaped the notice of EVERY scientist (male and female) for the last few centuries.

[–]fengpi 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Feminists do believe that anger and rage are positive emotions. "Anger is a tool", according to Feministing, and it can be used to burn the gunk and impurities out of one's brain, like what fiber does for your colon.

[–]Blutarg 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists do believe that anger and rage are positive emotions for women.

[–]EsraYmssik 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Anger is a tool", according to Feministing, and it can be used to burn the gunk and impurities out of one's brain,

Unfortunately, the one thing 'anger' burns out of one's brain is reason.

[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchal so-called "reason," you mean. Pffft! Sure, you have "reason," but you stunted-minded men lack the full Feelings Rainbow that is necessary to think clearly about weighty matters of vital scientific importance.

[–]Rasalom72 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This is great! We should be jumping on this and pointing to it in order to remove those pesky lowered requirements for women when joining the military/ police/ firefighters/ etc.

"Science" says women have the same physical strength.... so why the different standards?

[–]Lumberingfeather 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Same goes for sport too. No more "men's" and "women's" 100 metre races or the like.

[–]SworntotheDeath 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Or MMA. Because let's not forget that Ms. Ronda Rousey has the hubris to claim that she could beat male bantamweights, but won't because showing men hitting women on TV is wrong (but showing men hitting men is okay and so is women hitting women)???????

[–]Taxus_Calyx[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's because Rousey DOES realize that women in general are less physically powerful than men. She is generally opposed to feminism. Unfortunately,she also had a bad streak of arrogance, partly due to a bad training camp. She has since had a great deal of that arrogance knocked out of her.

[–]Rasalom72 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup... it's too bad their "science" won't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

[–]-redditardation- 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting

Well that was easy enough.

And because I'm a dick and like to rub it in:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-are-only-two-of-the-world-s-top-100-chess-players-women

[–]Panel2468975 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

While the weightlifting one seems fair enough, the chess one seems to be contesting that the reason for low numbers at the top is due to stereotypes and sexism. Might not be understanding it though.

[–]-redditardation- 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The chess one is tied to the difference in standard deviation of IQ leading to men being over-represented at the higher and lower tail ends and women clustering more around the mean.

If I recall correctly at around 140 IQ the ratio is 2.5 men to 1 woman and if you take this up to around 160 this ratio increases to something like 20:1. (Don't remember the exact figures but this is ballpark what they were)

You could also use running or throwing as good examples. The actual differences in the 'average' male vs. female brain are so significant they are actually well documented in terms of shape/weight/grey to white matter ratio.

I just put the chess one in since it highlights a difference in mental as well as physical performance. It'd just be one of those things you'd mention to trigger some SJW who is like no men and women are exactly the same! Weight, height, muscle mass, body fat distribution, propensity for illness, bone density etc. are all social constructs.

[+]applydirect2forehead points 9 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Is it simply IQ, though?

How many women vs. men have interest in chess? (and I don't mean "women are discouraged from playing" or because of sexism). People--especially children--don't do things they are not interested in, so that's relevant.

I really don't understand the obsession with IQ anyway.

[–]-redditardation- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

IQ is about the best predictor people have of life success when you look at educational attainment, job attainment and income.

Wealth is a different issue and ability to earn is somewhat overshadowed by propensity to be 'conscientious'.

The real question would be what is the average IQ of the top 100 chess players. Sadly that data doesn't and likely won't exist.

The brain differ for subjects like math or specific tasks like spatial reasoning.

[+]applydirect2forehead points 9 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Not everyone values career, formal education attainment, or income as most important. Some people don't have that as part of the definition of success. Success is an almost completely subjective concept.

Plenty of average intelligence people are doing just fine.

And yes, the brain differs. Even aside from outright learning disabilities such as dyslexia and dyscalculia. And even high intelligence is often channelled differently in people. A brilliant writer is not necessarily going to be a brilliant physicist, and vice versa. A brilliant musician is not necessarily going to be a brilliant chess player. And not only because what they choose to practice.

[–]-redditardation- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're significantly less likely to be a brilliant anything if you have poor brain function. Granted if you had high fluid intelligence and used that to acquire high crystalline intelligence and then lose that fluid intelligence you will remain just as learned up to that point.

Doing just find doesn't mean much. People of average intelligence (100 +/-) would actually be expected to do rather well for themselves. You don't compare individuals you look at the average and that is where the trend emerges.

I'd also say it is very likely that these differences are amplified in part through personal desires but nature still plays a massive part.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

He is looking at the lake

[–]-redditardation- 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

US$ 50,000-75,000 is doing very well for yourself. Which is where you might find yourself if you were a hard working individual with an average IQ after a decade or two.

Doing fine would be much closer to the bottom with an income around say 30,000. Where you're not necessarily struggling but getting by just fine with little to spare.

IQ for the reasons I mentioned in the past. There isn't much reason to obsess about it beyond being aware of it influences those metrics. If you could raise average IQ to say 120 it would likely result in pretty significant improvements in the standard of living. Whether these correlate to happiness is another argument but happiness isn't an objective criterion and at least based on the amount of depression & substance in the developed world you could say it might be inversely correlated (but other analysis show that on average life satisfaction does track positively with GDP PPP). So whether IQ = happiness isn't yet settled but for other things there is a strong correlation.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I am looking at the stars

[–]fengpi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Boys are not encouraged to play chess either. Chess club kids are at the bottom of the social pecking order and they get into chess despite massive discouragement.

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It seems to me that being good at chess involves very, very little socialization. I don't know why anyone would conclude that there was some social factor working against women.

[–]Taxus_Calyx[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Could be the opposite. Could be that fewer women are good at chess because chess is relatively antisocial compared to other competitive activities and women are generally more social than men.

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not claiming to know why there is a difference in outcome for men and women, just that it seems unlikely that socialization is that explanation.

[–]lukmeg 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

In case someone wants to skip all the blablabla, this is the meat of the argument as to why men seem stronger but are not:

explaining that the reason they might be faster, or have more upper body strength, is because they're able to put more energy into body mass—energy that women direct into menstruation and childbirth.

Its all about "the energy" people, you just have to relocate your energy accordingly. Hormones and other biological shit is just a patriarchal conspiracy I guess, testosterone might be a social construct. Thanks feminist science.

[–]Taxus_Calyx[S] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So, women who have not had kids and/or, for medical reasons, are unable to menstruate, have massive pecs and can run a 3 minute mile.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You joke, but when I'm not feeling patient and some smug feminists asks me the rhetorical question of "what can a man do that a woman cannot?", I just say "a sub 4 minute mile"

[–]Taxus_Calyx[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Great point. Lynn Hill was the first person of any gender to free climb the Nose of El Capitan in Yosemite. Lots of other similar examples too.

[–]DaeusPater 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

her conclusion

old women live longer because we 'need them'.

LOL, this doesn't even qualify for pseudo-science. Btw, the original study was exploring the causes for menopause in female humans, they came up with a number of possible factors: like deterioration of the womb, higher marginal energy cost for every additional pregnancy, etc and among them was 'older women were less attractive, .....' and this factor was derived from observing other primate species, not from some 'patriarchal' conspiracy theory.

[–]siesiek123 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why is her conclusion wrong, in your eyes? I believe she was referring to inclusive fitness--in this case, the fact that older women can still ensure the survival of their genes by caring for and promoting the survival of their relatives. It's a pretty well-established part of evolutionary biology, I thought, and even the authors of the paper she was criticizing mentioned it as a popular explanation.

Also, I think there is some very legitimate criticism of the mate choice theory of menopause. The theory relies on the assumption that mate choice for youth came before menopause existed, which would be strange, since it would generally be a good evolutionary strategy to mate with any fertile female with good genes. Before menopause existed, older women would still be fertile, and should be considered viable mate choices. Instead, it would seem much more likely that youth preferences evolved in response to menopause, diverting males away from non-reproductive females.

It is possible that youth preference did in fact come before menopause--perhaps in response to less severe fertility decreases correlated with age--but in that case, you might expect to see menopause occurring in other animals as well, when in fact it is exceedingly rare. The fact that we don't see this in other animals should indicate that either other animals don't have youth preference (in which case, the authors should provide some explanation as to why humans uniquely do), there is some additional factors at work with humans (which would go against the authors' assertion that mate choice is sufficient to explain menopause), or the authors are just wrong.

[–]DaeusPater 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She is science journalist commenting and reporting on the opinions of another (I should mention distinguished) science journalist exploring how personal gender bias of scientists can creep into their conclusions. She is approaching science with an agenda rather than an unbiased mind. Even Saini, when talking about 'men are stronger' in her book tries hard redefine strength to include aspects other than physical strength(which is proportional to muscle mass). There is nothing wrong being critical about science, infact that is the process of science, but is making pointless arguments coming from an inferiority complex. She seems offended when people say men are stringer(more muscle mass), in contrast I'm not offended by someone saying I don't have boobs and only women have boobs, even though technically all people have breasts. There is some sort of propaganda implying that men and women are indistinguishably biologically equal.

Men aren't stronger because they're hunters, she tells me, explaining that the reason they might be faster, or have more upper body strength, is because they're able to put more energy into body mass—energy that women direct into menstruation and childbirth.

She again seems to think and assume that males and females have equal 'energy budgets' to draw from, when anyone taking a basic biology classes will tell about the difference in metabolism rate, men simply were sexually selected to consume and use more energy.

And the reason why women go through the menopause and continue to thrive, living longer lives than men? It's not because they're ugly and unattractive: it's because we need them. "It's the grandmother hypothesis," Saini says warmly. "Older women are invaluable, not only in terms of helping with child-rearing, but their wisdom, the work they do in our communities. They are living proof of why we need women."

Again some kind of glorification of women. There seems to be an obsession with trying to redefine whatever is threatening their fragility. She thinks attractiveness(basically youthfulness) is no factor in sexual selection especially during 'evolutionary times' when we possessed considerably less intelligence and were restricted in free decision making instead relying on instinct.

LOL, this doesn't even qualify for pseudo-science.

When I said this, I was a little sleepy. It was in reference to the 'grandmother hypothesis' which you also bought up, which is also a scientific hypothesis with decent support from evolutionary biologists (I was wrong in comparing it to pseudo-science). But it is not a good hypothesis.

Humans evolved from primates, which don't exhibit menopause. So that means at some point, we evolved menopause. The 'grandmother hypothesis' addresses how females could have maintained longer post-reproductive lifespans, it does not provide an explanation for how it would have evolved in the first place. Even then, why can't 'grandmother phenomenon' occur while continuing to reproduce? Like in other mammals. And also why can't the same be said for males, but males are reproductive for the entire lifespan.

You see this is a bad hypothesis, and if you are nonchalantly jumping to this ignoring other better hypothesis because of trying to coddle to feminism, then you are doing polluted/corrupted science, which will get rooted out of science eventually anyway. That was my issue with this feminist-revisionist approach by 'journalists'.

Also, I think there is some very legitimate criticism of the mate choice theory of menopause.

Agree, and I never said I think this hypothesis is a perfect fit. But I think this hypothesis has fewer contradictions. I think it is important to note that other primates and human women lower their reproductive activity at similar rates(with each passing year), but humans far outlive other primates.

Instead, it would seem much more likely that youth preferences evolved in response to menopause, diverting males away from non-reproductive females.

The theory relies on the assumption that mate choice for youth came before menopause existed

Even other primates have youth preferences in sexual selection. It is common among most mammals for reproductive efficiency(rate of fertility) to decrease with age.

[–]siesiek123 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that the science journalist here has a pretty obvious bias--ironically criticizing certain scientists for being biased as males, while ignoring her own similar bias. But even so, I still think she has a point in criticizing the mate selection theory of menopause, since the authors seem to take certain assumptions for granted, despite these assumptions raising questions that should at least have been acknowledged I'm the paper. And I think there is a decent argument to be made that some degree of male bias on the part of the authors may play into that oversight.

But again, none of that is really relevant to my response, because I was questioning your evaluation of her conclusion regarding the grandmother hypothesis. I'm glad you recognize it is not pseudoscience. However I think some of your criticisms are not substantive.

As you said, the grandmother hypothesis can explain how post-reproductive lifespans may be maintained, not necessarily how they originate in the first place. However, I think the origin is fairly well explained by a relatively rapid increase in average human lifespan. In other words, rather than male youth preference pushing fertility duration down, better health and nutrition are pushing lifespans up. The paper mentioned that captive chimpanzees experience menopause, and I think this would be very much in line with my thinking. In other words, chimp lifespans have increased beyond their preexisting fertility limit, and if they were allowed to evolve further in this state, as humans have, they might tend either to evolve longer fertility spans, or, if this was not possible, accumulate age-related, female-specific mortality-inducing genes. However, a grandmother effect would counteract these tendencies by inclusive fitness, maintaining menopause.

As for why males don't experience this as well, their natural fertility duration may just be higher, so that it is not outpaced by increasing lifespan. This seems plausible to me, given the differences in their reproductive systems, associated costs, etc.

And as for the mate choice theory having less contradictions, I fail to see how this is the case. Unless you have more objections than you listed, I don't really see any "contradictions" in the grandmother hypothesis. However, I do think that there is a glaring blind spot in the mate choice hypothesis:

Even if you accept the results of the mathematical model they used (which I generally do), you would still have to explain how youth preference developed before menopause. Either it is a common preference among primates (in which case you would have to explain why other primates have not also developed menopause), or it is unique to humans (in which case you would have to explain the mechanism for our unique development of youth preference, especially given that menopause itself would seem like the most obvious mechanism, given it's similarly unique appearance in humans).

[–]Blutarg 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow, imagine if someone made an energy drink. Women would be playing in the NFL!!!

[–]Lumberingfeather 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So does that mean we should take women's violence seriously then, and treat abusive females as dangerous rather than as a joke? Excellent, when do the men's shelters open?

[–]-redditardation- 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No, see that would be consistent.

Here take your daily dose of cognitive dissonance.

[–]Incident-Pit 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Dissonex get it from your local pharmiscist today!

[–]Taxus_Calyx[S] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Side effects may include female privilege, dehumanization of half of the world's population, and hypocritical ideology.

[–]Taxus_Calyx[S] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Call your doctor if you become a raging misandrist bitch.

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I believe this was a fake, it's so fucking stupid. It's not apparently

Now, we are stronger than men. So if feminists are right about patriarchy (and they aren't) men managed to oppresing us with it cause they are more intelligent and superior in many ways? Will they explain how it went?

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In one sentence they say woman are stronger. In the next, strength can be defined in many ways. Way to move the goal post.

[–]xNOM 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Handily, studying literature gave me a critical mind—able to dissect the fresh bullshit the McMaster trio were peddling, and unpick it analytically. Thanks, literature! And Inferior is a book that needed to be written; it's just remarkable that it took this long to arrive.

ROFL. She discovered a loophole. Fuck that mathematics shit, just read some "stories." Instant science genius.

[–]franklindeer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tolstoy after all was the master of the scientific method. /s

[–]HeForeverBleeds 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's simple: women are stronger when they want to make a point about female superiority, but they're weaker when they want to play the victim and say female victims are more vulnerable and female abusers are less dangerous

Basically, whatever benefits them at the time is what they'll find "evidence" to support

[–]fengpi 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are either strong or pathetic weaklings, depending upon what suits them.

[–]fengpi 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are actually the same height as men. The problem is that the metric and imperial systems of measurement are both biased in favor of men, making it appear as if men are taller.

To correct this, we need a feminist-approved system of flexible and context-appropriate measurement in which length can change depending upon the needs of the situation. If and when it suits a woman to say she is eight feet tall, or if she feels she is eight feet tall, then she will be eight feet tall. Also, the legal definition of "midget" should change to apply to men only, regardless of how tall.

Also, a day should be as long or as short as a woman's needs dictate. Maybe Monday needs to be 10 hours long while Saturdays and Sundays should be 40 hours long. The rest of you peasants can plod-along in your quaintly obsolete 24-hour days (hah!).

[–]devious29 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Unsurprisingly, it's usually scientists who self-perpetuate this myth of science as infallible.

Oh ffs, no they don't. they perpetuate the truth that science (or at least the hard sciences) are self-correcting. It's a system where things that aren't consistent with reality are tweaked or outright scrapped and replaced by things that are regardless of how many sacred cows go on the barbecue in the process.

Handily, studying literature gave me a critical mind

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't even comprehend doing, write about others.

[–]aussietoads 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

And those who can't teach become gender/women's studies professors.

[–]fengpi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Unsurprisingly, it's usually scientists who self-perpetuate this myth of science as infallible.

I've seen this claim said elsewhere as well, back in the Science Wars of the 90s where the proto-SJWs in the literature departments tried to throw mud on the physics departments. Science is very aware that there are areas of ignorance where further work needs to be done and that work needs to be confirmed (experiments need to be replicate-able, there is a need for peer-review, etc). Religion is what has the pat, canned, nonfalsifiable answers for everything.

Unfortunately, when you argue that science is no better than a religion, you are left without defenses when well-funded or popular bunkum comes-along ("intelligent design") or when science gets undermined by deep-pocketed propaganda (climate change is a Chinese hoax to make the coal industry go all sad-face) or by just plain idiots (anti-vaxxers).

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/men-are-stronger-than-women-on-average/

Every now and then there is a debate on who is more “anti-science”, the Left or the Right. I’m not too interested in the details of that, but, a few years ago I expressed my skepticism to Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, that liberals were somehow reflexively more “pro-science.” I suggested to him, for example, that when it comes to aspects of the biological basis of human behavior, with the exception of homosexual orientation, liberals are highly resistant to accepting any differences across groups because of their adherence to social constructionism. Chris brushed this off, suggesting that the “science wars” were over, and even when it came to evolutionary psychology (broadly construed) the liberal Left had conceded to the best evidence on hand. I was not moved, because I’ve had years of exchange with many liberal Left folk who defy Chris’ assurance to me. This is most notable when it comes to sex differences, which are usually seen as less controversial, and evolutionarily should have some prior expectation due to dimorphism.

To give a concrete example of how far this goes, there are many liberal Left people who won’t even accede to the proposition that men are, on average, stronger in terms of upper body strength than women. A few years ago this came up on social media, where a friend who has a biology background from an elite university, even expressed skepticism at this, when I was trying to get her to be open to behavioral differences between the sexes by starting with something I thought she would at least agree with as reasonable. When I saw the lack of unequivocal acceptance of this point I decided to opt out of the conversation. This was basically face to face with Left Creationism.

This is not to say that people are totally in denial. Rather, the standard educated tack by those with progressive tendencies kicks in. There are “problematic” terms which need to be “contextualized,” and “difference” needs to be considered as an expression of socially preferred categories and measurement. After the critical theory verbiage is hurled usually sane people want to run out of the room.

[–]Aivias 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its like they dont have eyes.

Jesus show me pictures and ask me to pick out the Anglo/Mediterranean/Japanese/Nigerian/American and I could do it.

[–]TheDongerNeedsFood 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TIL that the natural production of large amounts of testosterone is a social construct.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Such horse shit. Btw i stopped reading when i saw the Cosby comparison.

[–]rg57 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And the reason why women go through the menopause and continue to thrive, living longer lives than men? It's not because they're ugly and unattractive: it's because we need them.

TIL we don't need young women, except to the extent they pop out babies, and then become old.

I'm so glad I got rid of the scientific bullshit, and now have just the truth.

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a solemn occasion, the Birth of a new Fact. They all start like this, or mostly. Soon it will be cited in other articles. Interesting to track.

[–]aussietoads 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing is stronger than group delusion. Except perhaps Spongebob Squarepants.

[–]wilwarland 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Unsurprisingly, it's usually scientists who self-perpetuate this myth of science as infallible. After all, it helps justify their untouchable status in society, a status as exalted as the one that Bill Cosby enjoyed until relatively recently.

What the fuck does Bill Cosby have to do with anything?

[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To underscore that all scientists are raepists. Or that all scientists would raep you if they had the chance. Or that raep is everywhere, even in science laboratories.

Really, your guess is as good as mine. I think this author might be VICE's charity hire.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't even bother reading it. I mean, i warm up with weights that the women at my gym can't even do a one rep max with!

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

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter