New study: Sex differences in mate preferences, with women more set on earning capacity and men on physical attractiveness in the opposite sex, did not lessen in countries with greater gender equality.

[–]EricAllonde[S] 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempasta 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago* (41 children) | Copy Link

ETA: Can someone attempt a rebuttal of my points before you downvote me simply because my opinion does not fit with your worldviews? Constructive debate would be nice. My main point is that by perpetuating sexist Red Pill ideology, you guys are shooting yourself in the foot and delegitimising your movement.

I am a progressive who agrees (in principle) with the Men's Rights Movement, and I'd like to offer a dissenting opinion. As a feminist and a person who appreciates science (and whose father is a geneticist), I personally do not believe in the "blank slate" theory and you'd be hard-pressed to find younger feminists who actually believe in that. Experience has taught me that those who support this theory are mostly Second Wavers/Gender Feminists, who are the opposite of Gender Essentialists (which is also a very flawed and extremist school of thought that over-generalises entire demographics and disregards individual experiences. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be a proponent of Gender Essentialism judging by your impassioned denouncement of Gender Feminism.)

Let me point you towards the words of Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker regarding the differences between the two subsets of Feminism (although I personally disagree with his views):

“Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive — power — and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups — in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.”

Again, let me stress that Gender Feminists do not represent all feminists, but they are a very vocal and rabid bunch. I agree with the aims of Equity Feminism, whose beliefs are more in line with the MRM ideology. I personally don't believe that it is important to know what causes gender discrimination/disparities, but rather, we as a society should focus our efforts on achieving equal rights for all people regardless. I do not think that its useful or healthy to fixate on the biological/cultural roots of gender differences, which is most probably a mixture of nature and nurture anyway. Studies that claim one way or another are too biased to be a true reflection of reality, IMHO, and they help to perpetuate toxic beliefs about the behaviour of men and women (e.g. men are more aggressive, women are more submissive by nature etc.)

[–]DeathMind 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

First of: what is the sexist red pill ideology? Just so we agree on terms.

Secondly from my experience it is 2nd wave feminism that is about equity and that especially young American students at colleges are more third wave with the ideology of intersectionality which focuses on group oppression and most of the ideas I see people in this sub oppose

While I don't think any here are opposed to equity in terms of laws and treatment, I think many oppose the methods generally presented as ways of reaching this equity (things like positive discrimination).

While it may be true that gender feminism is the loud minority, from other posts I have gathered that the sway they have in governmental institutions seems a problem to reaching equity from the male perspective (equal custody starting position etc.)

I know that the plural of anecdote isnt data so don't see this all as hard evidence and I'm sure other people are more informed than me.

I do not deny that woman face problems on the basis of their sex nor do men and I feel both need addressing. However male discrimination is for a large part also present in laws rather than societal treatment which should be easy to fix imo. This is what is see most mras fight for such as the MGM ban.

Sorry for the rambling :)

[–]skepticalbob 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Nice to see a respectful back and forth.

from other posts I have gathered that the sway they have in governmental institutions seems a problem to reaching equity from the male perspective (equal custody starting position etc.)

I think that the effects of hardcore feminism are dramatically overblown outside of niche environments, like very liberal colleges on the coasts and other unusual places. I'm in graduate school in classes full of women, women of color, and almost no men. I don't feel all that compelled to watch what I say beyond the obvious cultural politeness stuff.

Take laws. Who is passing them? By and large, men are. Efforts to blame feminists specifically and women broadly (heh) aren't reflective of reality. I'm not saying you are doing that, but I see that on this sub. And a lot of it isn't even liberal men, but conservatives. Which judge is more likely to award custody to a man, a conservative or a liberal? Typically it is conservatives into traditional gender roles. Many of them believe its the woman's job to raise kids and the man's job to work. They also believe that men are more violent and women are gentle creatures. I'm stereotyping, but i'ts clearly based on reality, IMO. These men aren't like this because of feminism. Yes, certain feminists groups might push for these things. But that's different than knowing they are responsible for it. In my mind, complaints about judges being biased against men in custody and for women in criminal proceedings have little to do with feminism, because these decisions are mostly made by male politicians and male judges. The same goes for how mostly conservative male police forces investigate rape. And how mostly conservative male prosecution offices prosecute rape. Anyone in sex crimes investigations, like my partner, will laugh at this notion that men are somehow being railroaded into rape at some alarming rate. It's literally absurd.

There is a reticence to acknowledge that the biggest oppressor of men is other men. This is natural and in our biology. If you pull the camera back and engage in some bayesian reasoning, it becomes clear to me.

Anyway, my two cents.

[–]DeathMind 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I think that the effects of hardcore feminism are dramatically overblown outside of niche environments, like very liberal colleges on the coasts and other unusual places. I'm in graduate school in classes full of women, women of color, and almost no men. I don't feel all that compelled to watch what I say beyond the obvious cultural politeness stuff.

The problem of a silent minority and loud majority i guess.

Take laws. Who is passing them? By and large, men are. Efforts to blame feminists specifically and women broadly (heh) aren't reflective of reality.

While the majority might be men that pass laws we should consider 2 things: firstly with what interest and representation do they vote these legalizations and under what pressures. Just because they "are men" doesn't mean that they are just going to pass laws that benefit all men. More specifically they will vote what benefits them either personally or politically if anything. So when large feminist/woman's organizations are putting pressure on legislators you get governmental sway that I mentioned. Examples of this are: * Guilty until proven innocent in rape cases on college campuses sometimes to the point of absurdity where both people say it was consensual but a third party makes the claim and hence the man is still prosecuted * NOW organisation fighting against equal custody, under the notion that it would be giving abusive males custody. (While I'm far from educated about the legitimacy of the claim, wouldn't law admentments be better than outright banning it?) * No governmental funding for male battered shelters (this is heavily the case for woman's shelters) * Anonimity in rape cases till convictions so that peoples lives aren't destroyed if their innocent * Lesser till no sentences for female crimes (I'm not sure where I heard this but I think some other guys here will have plenty of sources citing law books or information to be more lenient on woman for the same crime) where 4/5 males wouldn't be in prison given the same sentencing as a woman

I can probably name a lot more as these cross the sub every now and again but the point is that just because a judge is a man doesn't mean that he is going to vote in male interests. I don't disagree that on this sub people are quick to jump the gun on a headline without reading the whole article. But people like you are encouraged to participate in debate and discussion to improve both this sub (and prevent it from becoming and echo chamber) and the world which is something that isn't possible on the feminist sub afaik. and that nuance slowly dies the fewer people have differing views. I'm not from America so I'm not greatly informed on things like the 'conservatives' and the 'liberals' but from my understanding, the division between the left and right in America is to such an extent that both sides are harmful to the equity I seek.

Yes, conservatives are probably a roadblock to equal parental rights but on the other hand, the liberals are trying to enforce things like positive discrimination (which is debatable depending on your moral system).

In my mind, complaints about judges being biased against men in custody and for women in criminal proceedings have little to do with feminism, because these decisions are mostly made by male politicians and male judges. The same goes for how mostly conservative male police forces investigate rape. And how mostly conservative male prosecution offices prosecute rape

I'm not aware of this fact. Not trying to put you on the spot here but do you happen to have a source for this as I'm curious whether this is both true and the reason why this would be the case.

Anyone in sex crimes investigations, like my partner, will laugh at this notion that men are somehow being railroaded into rape at some alarming rate. It's literally absurd.

I'm not saying that men are being railroaded into rape, the problem here lies in the agenda that seems to be pushed by the vocal gender feminists that I find damaging to a equal society such as:

Guilty until proven innocent
No anonymity until convicted
Cases where when proven false (beyond a reasonable doubt) there is no repercussion for the false allegations
Cases where when proven false there is no restoration of the identify of the accused (e.g. still banned from the college, etc.)
Convictions with lack of evidence and based solely on the testimony

Now when this happens on a few cases, that is just the system fucking up. The problem lies when people try to push these rules so that it is easier to get convictions and that is what people are afraid of. Offcourse the "that could be me" effect is a very strong incentive :)

There is a reticence to acknowledge that the biggest oppressor of men is other men. This is natural and in our biology. If you pull the camera back and engage in some bayesian reasoning, it becomes clear to me.

You have your calculations for that bayesian approach somewhere? I wouldn't say that men aren't the problem but I think putting the burden mostly on men would be doing the problem injustice. A lot of governments and organistations have sections specifically for woman such as the UN for woman. There these issues are mostly discussed by females about ""woman and children"". A good example would be this edgy british MP philip davies who is the only man on the equality and human rights comission. I believe he littearly shot down the first 4 propossals because they all excluded men and these were made by woman.

Also I believe this psychology research showed that both men and woman prefer woman (hence gynocentrism) and that the idea that men are disposable is possibly still a nature thing that we as a society have to undermine.

I'm not from America, I'm not an expert and I'm certainly open to have my mind changed and if you disagree with anything I say feel free to bring it up to discuss :)

sorry for the possibly bad formatting. I usssualy don't post much on reddit

[–]skepticalbob 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Just because they "are men" doesn't mean that they are just going to pass laws that benefit all men.

They are passing laws approved of by most men.

Guilty until proven innocent in rape cases on college campuses sometimes to the point of absurdity where both people say it was consensual but a third party makes the claim and hence the man is still prosecuted

Not all cases, not all campuses, and its not a court of law. If you are suspected of cheating, stealing, destroying property, or any other crime in any other setting outside of the legal system, the same standards often apply. Title IX lawsuits were began as a result of universities doing nothing about sexual assault accusations and often covering them up, particularly against star athletes. That's literally the origination of the tactic. The notion that this is all going against men simply isn't true.

NOW organisation fighting against equal custody, under the notion that it would be giving abusive males custody. (While I'm far from educated about the legitimacy of the claim, wouldn't law admentments be better than outright banning it?)

And how are you teasing out the difference between them advocating for it and them actually causing it to happen? You cannot assume that because they advocate for it, that it actually happens as a result of their advocacy. Take domestic violence shelters for men. How many men think laws need to be passed to fund them? Most men are conservative. Why doesn't the Republican party, which is dominated by men, pass such a law? Because by and large, men aren't interested in it. Has there ever been a fundraiser on this sub to try and raise money for it? I suspect that it would be a failure because this isn't a real concern that keeps men up at night. It certainly doesn't for most men for good reasons. Men don't get hurt much by domestic violence and are usually in a financial position to simply leave.

the problem here lies in the agenda that seems to be pushed by the vocal gender feminists that I find damaging to a equal society

Al Qaeda has an agenda of establishing a caliphate spanning the middle east and africa. I don't think its reasonable to worry about that, so I don't. I do worry some, but not a lot, about their terror attacks. But even then, they don't do as much as other causes of death that we should worry more about, but don't. The same thing is true here. You can worry about being railroaded because of what some activist says, but the data makes it clear that most rapes go unpunished. Most men accused don't have their lives ruined. Most false accusations are unnamed or made by the parents of children. This isn't what you are worried about though, right? Most rape accusers are women that you would never have sex with: sex workers, homeless, and the very poor. This is something that those that work sex crimes know, but doesn't make the statistics. You see simple numbers and your brain makes up a scary narrative that isn't true.

Recent excellent investigative reporting found out that a huge percentage of rape clearances are cases where they know the perp, believe he is guilty, and choose not to arrest them. This comes as no surprise to anyone involved in sex crimes. The problem is that in subs like this, you don't even know what it is that you don't know. Think about that. You don't have enough information to know areas that you are lacking information. When that happens, you see some numbers and your mind just makes up a story. Then you get scared of the implications of a story made up with insufficient information. Its happening to you. Its normal and natural, but the truth is that it just isn't a substantial problem. My partner saw the DA at a rape trial this morning. Both the trial and the DA attending were unheard of. Why? Because the trial was for a black prostitute that was attacked and raped by her john. That never gets prosecuted. Why? She's a black sex worker and rape isn't much prosecuted in this county. And the DA never attends trials. Why now? Because this city is one of the cities involved in a law suit and covered in that reporting. The status quo before this wasn't one where someone like should have some fear of going to jail over a false accusation. It's not one where actual rapist should fear going to jail. This is the reality throughout the nation.

You mention actions that cause problems. Lack of prosecutions cause far more problems, in aggregate, than the small number of false accusations, most of which are what's called the boogieman, an unknown assailment made by someone mentally ill, often homeless. This shows up in the statistics as a "false accusation" though. And that scares you when you assume its someone like you getting their life ruined. It almost never is.

A lot of governments and organistations have sections specifically for woman such as the UN for woman.

Have you thought about why this is? Why would men in power do such a thing? Could it be because of historical discrimination? I think the government should do more for men. Most men do not believe that. When the government is doing much of what men want, I don't think it makes sense to describe that as a feminist conspiracy. It simply isn't.

[–]DeathMind 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

As I mentioned I am not from America and judging by your post, you are (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm no expert on how your government is fractured so I'm I might be taking a leap here.

If you have a representative government then people will vote indirectly for legislation. So individual approval by gender/sex would be an estimation. Most people do not follow politics more than hot issues on the news and thus will be unaware of.most passing legislation until it hits them in the face. Also isn't the majority of the voting base female? Unless I have clear data showing otherwise I don't think we will agree on the notion that most men just agree that all these laws should be passed.

Also I feel like u keep bringing up "men" as though it's a well interconnected group? Is the solution to the problem men or are there ideas held by individuals that should be challenged, because it sounds like you are just blaming the majority of a sex ( no offence)

Not all cases, not all campuses, and its not a court of law Like I said before, it's the possibility of this injustice becoming applied on a greater scale that causes the fear.

You can worry about being railroaded because of what some activist says

The campuses was a mere example there are many areas even in my country where I have concerns if the wrong people gained too much power. Also worrying and advocating against injustice are not the same thing.

the data makes it clear that most rapes go unpunished.

From the data I've seen most rapes are 'unfounded'. I'm not accusing you of this as you have a spouse that works in this field but most people that say this seem to conflate accused with guilty. While rape is a heinous crime, most cases come down to a he-said-she-said story which can be hard to convict on, but lowering the barriers for this would be detrimental to the presumption of innocence

Most rape accusers are women that you would never have sex with: sex workers, homeless, and the very poor

This seems a bit like a personal attack on me? All rape is bad, everyone here agrees with that. Do you have good solutions for fixing this, share and advocate them as long as they do not destroy the presumption of innocence I encourage you too. In fact if I find them good ideas I'll even advocate them.

You see simple numbers and your brain makes up a scary narrative that isn't true.

Another personal attack? You don't know me tho? I have said several times that I'm not an expert, people on this sub are quick to jump the gun and the plural of anecdote isnt data (also goes for your husbands experiences tho). There are lies, dammed lies and statistics, that's why this is such a difficult topic to discuss in a reddit post

This comes as no surprise to anyone involved in sex crimes. The problem is that in subs like this, you don't even know what it is that you don't know

Like what I actually think it seems. If rape is proven beyond a reasonable doubt the rapist should go to jail. Noone disagrees! If they know the perp I agree they should investigate. If they belief he is guilty, can they proof it?? That matters a ton as it is often hard to proof.

Then you get scared of the implications of a story made up with insufficient information. Its happening to you. Its normal and natural, but the truth is that it just isn't a substantial problem

Strawman

My partner saw the DA at a rape trial this morning. Both the trial and the DA attending were unheard of. Why? Because the trial was for a black prostitute that was attacked and raped by her john. That never gets prosecuted. Why? She's a black sex worker and rape isn't much prosecuted in this county. And the DA never attends trials. Why now? Because this city is one of the cities involved in a law suit and covered in that reporting.

Again I'm not from your country county and city so what you cite here as anecdote isnt necessarily representative of every other place.

The status quo before this wasn't one where someone like should have some fear of going to jail over a false accusation. It's not one where actual rapist should fear going to jail. This is the reality throughout the nation.

Are the two mutually exclusive? Can we not try to guard the innocent and try to improve conviction rates for the provable guilty?

Have you thought about why this is? Why would men in power do such a thing? Could it be because of historical discrimination? I think the government should do more for men. Most men do not believe that. When the government is doing much of what men want, I don't think it makes sense to describe that as a feminist conspiracy. It simply isn't

Again, men isn't a hive mind. Also whether the reason for making them was just or not doesn't take away for the lack of gender equity in their proposals. Who said it was a feminist conspiracy?

Also what has your government done in the past decade that was helping all men at the expense of all women?

My point is, both genders face discrimination in different ways. There are many depending on the country that are ingrained in law. I advocate to remove those inequalities on both sides where possible. A nuanced discussion is possible for each issue. Now whether the scale of a problem is big or small isn't really my concern in these discussions. If you want me to make a list of issues I will do so and you can tell me where u disagree. If instead u prefer to strawman me and throw in some personal attacks I'm not sure the discussion is fruitful. You do not know me, you don't know my complete stance from a single reddit post so rather ask me what I think about something rather than taking a wild guess.

[–]skepticalbob 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Also I feel like u keep bringing up "men" as though it's a well interconnected group? Is the solution to the problem men or are there ideas held by individuals that should be challenged, because it sounds like you are just blaming the majority of a sex ( no offence)

I'm mostly critiquing the notion that feminism is this huge threat to society that has turned us into some kind of gynocentric society. By and large, people are tribal and vote for their group. In the US, Democrats tend to do what most women want and Republicans do what most men want. Take child custody. Most men don't want to be the primary custody. Men are more conservative, meaning they are more likely to favor more traditional roles. If men mostly wanted this to change and cared a lot about it, it would change. They mostly don't, but they are starting to. And it is showing up in the percentage of men that are obtaining primary custody, which is increasing. Why do you think that is? Because men care more about now. Do you think its women that are pushing this?

People tend to advocate for what benefits them personally and people like them. This is basic human nature. No, it doesn't always happen. But it is the norm, not the exception. The world is divided into tribes of gender, race, nations, sports teams, etc. We have great evidence that people in different groups not only look out for one another, but even take pleasure in seeing other groups suffer. We aren't wired for morality. You can see this in watching women enjoy a guy getting hurt and men doing the same in subs like pussypassdenied. The notion that Republicans are actually working for feminist causes makes no sense, because most Republicans are men. Yes, some men are feminists and many women voted for Trump. Even that was based on race, which is also tribalism. But the rule is as I'm describing it. You can believe this isn't happening, but if we are considering likelihoods, that is unlikely to be true.

Are the two mutually exclusive? Can we not try to guard the innocent and try to improve conviction rates for the provable guilty?

Again, likelihoods. Look at this like risk assessment. Should you be more scared of terrorism or getting murdered by someone? Clearly murder is the greater threat. Should we be concerned about both? Sure. But resources and attention are limited and I'd prefer the government spend more addressing the larger threats than the smaller one. And in the case of rape, efforts to stop what is falsely believed to be the high risk of a false accusation that "ruins men's lives" can work against the far larger problem, which is actual rape. Its a balancing act. If you really want to solve the problem, which I don't think most people do as evidenced by how the system functions here in the states, you would push for funding and staffing appropriate to fully investigate sexual assaults. Have you ever once in this sub seen that suggestion? I'm the only one I see say this, yet it helps solve both rapes and false rape accusations. Why is that? I find it telling, tbh. You want false accusations to stop? Then fully and properly investigate the accusations and put women in jail who falsely accuse. So I'm not saying we should favor one over the other. I'm saying two things. Push to solve both of them. And actual rape is clearly a larger problem than false accusations of rape. If you behave in a manner that values consent of your potential sex partner and work to make sure you have it, your chances of being falsely accused are basically nil. That's the reality. But men here, by and large, don't want to do that. They bemoan efforts to make sure that consent is explicit and enthusiastic. "How will I get laid if I have to make sure they are sober and enthusiastic the first time I fuck her?" That seems to be the thought process. I ask you. Is that kind of approach more or less likely to lead to a rape accusation? I think its obvious. They want it both ways. Women do to, as a group. They want to be able to play hard to get and make men fight for them and play hard to get. This too leads to sexual assaults. So does simple biology. I'm interested in solving the problem. My partner is a manager for a group of nurses that conduct rape exams. She sees the damage that it causes and how it actually happens. She sees what the solution to this problem is. She also sees the relative size of the problems of rape and false accusations. And she's not some feminist. She thinks a lot of men accidentally rape women, because we don't know how to talk about consent. These issues have solutions, but people have to care about it first and they largely don't.

Who said it was a feminist conspiracy?

Damn near every post in every thread either explicitly or implicitly says the problems facing men are a feminist effort to maintain a gynocentric society. Call that what you will, but that's what I'm referring to.

both genders face discrimination in different ways.

No argument. Let's solve these issues honestly (not saying you are being dishonest, but most activists on all sides aren't honest).

Now whether the scale of a problem is big or small isn't really my concern in these discussions.

I would suggest it should be. Limited time, attention span, and resources suggest that some problems deserve more time, attention and resources than others. If we can solve multiple problems, like both rape and false accusations, then we should. I'm not worried about women in school, although there are ways they are systematically disadvantaged. I'm worried right now far more about men in academia, who are disappearing. This is a disaster. Just like women getting raped is a disaster and not false accusations.

I'm not sure where you think I personally attacked you or set up a straw man, but I didn't intend to. I've been nuanced and keeping it on the topic at hand. Where I have failed, I apologize.

[–]DeathMind 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm mostly critiquing the notion that feminism is this huge threat to society that has turned us into some kind of gynocentric society.

The idea of gynocentrism stems from research that both males and females have a preference for female well being and generally consider males disposable which would stem forth from the survivalistic nature of mankind. While feminism isn't the complete evil, as several political mens groups have pointed out that large prominent feminist organisations have been blocking their proposed equity legislation.

Ideas thought in gender studies courses (speaking from my own country) have largely been a list of ways women are fucked by society without both the scientific rigger to back this up with solid data nor the analysis on the male side giving a skewed view of the problem.

I don't disagree with the problems of tribalism but even in my country where most would agree shared custody would be the starting point this isn't the way the system works.

you would push for funding and staffing appropriate to fully investigate sexual assaults. Have you ever once in this sub seen that suggestion? I'm the only one I see say this, yet it helps solve both rapes and false rape accusations.

I actually have seen this many times. Look at posts for wrongly convicted you will see people advocate good investigation. Regards to funding and staffing specifically no, but I would argue that this is mostly because of both differing countries as well as not knowing whether that is the solution to the problem. If it is I would encourage you to make a factual sourced formal post on this sub explaining why you think that this would fix both problems rather than trying to convince me 7 subposts down where most people won't see it.

But men here, by and large, don't want to do that. They bemoan efforts to make sure that consent is explicit and enthusiastic. "How will I get laid if I have to make sure they are sober and enthusiastic the first time I fuck her?" That seems to be the thought process. I ask you. Is that kind of approach more or less likely to lead to a rape accusation? I think its obvious. They want it both ways. Women do to, as a group. They want to be able to play hard to get and make men fight for them and play hard to get.

I'm not sure that this is the case on this sub, but more the notion that asking consent every 2 Min is killing romance and the ridiculous written consent pages and apps. Yes people should know about consent, both sexes and for more than just sex.

On false accusations, I feel that for most of the problems the solutions are simple rule based laws/guidelines to follow compared to "solving rape". The problem is smaller but so is the solution.

I'm worried right now far more about men in academia, who are disappearing

Which is also a common point for this sub

I'm not sure where you think I personally attacked you or set up a straw man, but I didn't intend to. I've been nuanced and keeping it on the topic at hand. Where I have failed, I apologize.

You stated several times that I was very worried about false rape accusations whilst not caring about the real problem of rape and that I make false correlations and causations based on anecdotal evidence. But apology accepted :)

All in all I do believe you try to advocate for true equity and while we may disagree on some aspects you are open to discussion which I appreciate. There are plenty people on this sub like me so if people are being close minded stay respectful and polite even against insults because it delegitimizes them more than if you attack back (whether ur right or not)

Edit supports -> subposts cuz autocorrect

[–]skepticalbob 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tempasta1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Sorry to butt in, but where on earth did you get your "statistics" that men are more likely to be conservative/less likely to want custody and so on? I'm not from America, but I follow American politics pretty closely so I have a good idea of what's going on. How can you assume what most men are like without doing a proper survey and statistical analysis? Please don't paint all men with the same brush (I'm female BTW, and I can't stand it when people generalise entire groups based on just a hunch or casual observation). Also please stop it with the America-centrism. Not everybody here is from America; the world does not revolve around the petty infighting you guys have, and neither does the rest of the world have such a polarised and broken political system.

Anecdotally, I have some male friends who are liberal-minded, so I don't understand where you got the idea that most men are conservative (but then again, I'm not from America, so the prevailing cultural attitudes would differ). I would say that most reasonable people, men and women included, lie somewhere near the centre of the political spectrum or are politically apathetic/on the fence. It is hardly fair to make wild and unsupported assertions about the political beliefs of an entire group. Men aren't a monolithic group, you know.

DeathMind has been very thoughtful and reasonable in his arguments thus far. I do not think it would be fair for you to launch ad hominems at him and assume what his positions are. If you want to complain about this sub, then make a post of your own. Direct your anger at those who deserve it, not the one person who has been reasonable on this thread.

[–]skepticalbob 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempasta2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

No argument. Let's solve these issues honestly (not saying you are being dishonest, but most activists on all sides aren't honest).

This depends wheter or not it would be profitable to me.

Just like women getting raped is a disaster and not false accusations.

Sure. False accusation does not cause any harm, lol. Women are more important. LOL. Nope. Its YOU and your priorities. He might have different ones, and he has right to have different priorities, and act upon them. Sorry for women getting raped, but we men are on receiving end of false accusations, thus we want that fixed, no matter what. Why would you ever expect someone to sacrifice legal safety of one gender for another to have easier time with their accusations ? Is that a legal system you want? Really ? You dont see any problem here ? Thats telling a tale, and its a really bad story about you.

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempasta 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Red Pill ideology has a tendency to attribute immutable, innate traits to the two sexes and claim that one's biological sex is deterministic of one's behaviour, personality and inclinations. Red Pillers also tend to pin the blame on all women for the actions of a few. E.g. All women are manipulative, lying, cheating bastards/gold diggers etc. This is not a good image for the MRM to adopt, which appears to be the case here. OP and another commenter below are insinuating that there are inborn differences between men and women which makes women more likely to take advantage of men for their money, and men to be more likely to lust after physically attractive women. Such assertions prevent constructive dialogue and unfairly creates a sense of victimhood for men, which is not all that different from feminazism.

You made some very good and succinct points about the MRM. Thanks for that, as I've yet to completely understand the aims of this group. I've always maintained that sexism and gender roles harms both genders, and it's about time we do something to eliminate institutional discrimination from both sides.

Just curious: Is the MRM going to politically campaign for its goals the way feminists have been doing?

[–]DeathMind 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

that one's biological sex is deterministic of one's behaviour, personality and inclinations.

While I agree that biological sex has a significant influence on these factors I don't think it's the sole or even main factor. I'm sure there are people here that feel the way you described it but I would disagree with them on this aspect. I think society plays a huge role here. However wether the societal influences are a bad thing is dependent on the situation

tend to pin the blame on all women

I think most would agree with "feminism" being the blame rather than women in general, but even then I agree more nuance is needed

All women are manipulative, lying, cheating bastards/gold diggers etc.

Haven't seen this very much but people that hold this view are sexist in my opinion and are part of the problem.

OP is insinuating that there are inborn differences between men and women which makes women more likely to take advantage of men for their money, and men to be more likely to lust after physically attractive women

Isn't it the nature based idea that for reproduction men are geared towards physically healthy women and women geared towards stable resource providing men?

it's about time we do something to eliminate institutional discrimination from both sides. Just curious: Is the MRM going to politically campaign for its goals the way feminists have been doing?

Agreed! I think that depends on the group and nation as this is a global sub more about calling out issues afaik. For more political movements there are groups like justice for men and boys that are more activist than advocate

[–]tempasta 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

OP and another commenter below are insinuating that there are inborn differences between men and women which makes women more likely to take advantage of men for their money, and men to be more likely to lust after physically attractive women.

No, OP is citing a study which found that "Sex differences in mate preferences, with women more set on earning capacity and men on physical attractiveness in the opposite sex, did not lessen in countries with greater gender equality".

You may find that research finding to be ideologically inconvenient, but then it's on you to challenge and disprove the scientific research itself, not my reporting of it.

When we find an element of human behaviour, such as this one, which exists everywhere and is unaffected by very different cultures in different countries, then it is safe to assume that element of behaviour is not solely a product of socialisation, as many feminists would claim.

[–]tempasta 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. But one study doesn't prove anything. Only 36 countries participated in the study, with only about 3000 participants, averaging to less than 90 people per country. That's a really meagre sample size (and this is supposed to tell us something innate to human nature? I find that unlikely) and in no way representative of the entire gamut of human bahaviours. They included countries as long as they had at least 9 participants from that country, which is way too low a bar to set IMO.

Furthermore, their research methodology culled a huge portion of participants who were not "exclusively heterosexual", meaning that their findings are only applicable to this specific demographic and not humanity in general. I'm guessing its because non-heterosexual participants would skew their figures and disprove their hypothesis. After all, the LGBT community is not exactly known for gender conformity.

The differences could be explained by socialisation. There's greater expectation for men to be the primary breadwinner, even in First World industrialised nations where women have equal labour force participation. (I know this is the case in my country and many others). There's also a socially ingrained expectation for women to be physically attractive and presentable, whereas the same pressures don't exist for men.

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempasta 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempasta 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tempasta 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bubby963 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mackowatosc 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]likes_to_read 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]azazelcrowley 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]azazelcrowley 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gender Development Index

The Gender Development Index (GDI) is an index designed to measure gender equality.

GDI together with the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) were introduced in 1995 in the Human Development Report written by the United Nations Development Program. The aim of these measurements was to add a gender-sensitive dimension to the Human Development Index (HDI). The first measurement that they created as a result was the Gender-related Development Index (GDI).

Gender Inequality Index

The Gender Inequality Index (GII) is an index for measurement of gender disparity that was introduced in the 2010 Human Development Report 20th anniversary edition by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). According to the UNDP, this index is a composite measure to quantify the loss of achievement within a country due to gender inequality. It uses three dimensions to measure opportunity cost: reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation.

The new index was introduced as an experimental measure to remedy the shortcomings of the previous indicators, the Gender Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), both of which were introduced in the 1995 Human Development Report.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nuala-lala 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JazzTheGoose123 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempasta 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Repost: One study doesn't prove anything. Only 36 countries participated in the study, with only about 3000 participants, averaging to less than 90 people per country. That's a really meagre sample size (and this is supposed to tell us something innate to human nature? I find that unlikely) and in no way representative of the entire gamut of human bahaviours. They included countries as long as they had at least 9 participants from that country, which is way too low a bar to set IMO.

Furthermore, their research methodology culled a huge portion of participants who were not "exclusively heterosexual", meaning that their findings are only applicable to this specific demographic and not humanity in general. I'm guessing its because non-heterosexual participants would skew their figures and disprove their hypothesis. After all, the LGBT community is not exactly known for gender conformity.

The differences could be explained by socialisation. There's greater expectation for men to be the primary breadwinner, even in First World industrialised nations where women have equal labour force participation. (I know this is the case in my country and many others). There's also a socially ingrained expectation for women to be physically attractive and presentable, whereas the same pressures don't exist for men.

[–]EricAllonde[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Furthermore, their research methodology culled a huge portion of participants who were not "exclusively heterosexual", meaning that their findings are only applicable to this specific demographic and not humanity in general.

I think the title of the study makes it clear that it was looking at heterosexual attraction. For the researcher's first exploration of this specific topic it's entirely reasonable to start with the straight 92% or so of the population. If the research proves fruitful, they'll get to gays & bis in due course.

The differences could be explained by socialisation.

The moon landings could have been faked. But that's very implausible and there's no evidence to support it. Just like your speculation here.

Behaviours that are universal and consistent across races, countries and cultures are almost certainly not driven solely by socialisation.

[–]tempasta 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, I'm speculating, but when faced with data that's supposed to tell us something innate and universal about human nature, I believe that we should examine it with a critical eye and not accept something at face value. There's nothing wrong with hypothesizing about the possible causes of an observed difference. The data can only tell us so much, and the rest of it is open to interpretation. Which interpretation you favour is going to depend on your personal beliefs to some extent. (Your Moon Landing consipiracy is a false analogy that does not pertain to what I'm discussing, which is sociology and thus cannot be proven by physical documentation or direct empirical observation like the moon landing).

I understand your reasoning, but the small sample size and low bar for entry for each country's inclusion is enough for this research to be inconclusive. From a statistical standpoint, this research requires greater scientific rigour and further investigation. You can agree with the findings while still admitting the flaws in the methodology and scope of investigation. I don't disagree that there are differences between the sexes, but it's not purely biological nor cultural/social.

Thanks for the respectful replies, considering that this is a controversial topic for many.

[–]abatoire 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments