Science must be wrong, because scienceman doesn't have boobs.

ArsenicSulphide · 2013-04-15T11:51:57+00:00

A man studied hundreds of pairs of boobs, and reported a finding. Then a journalist says, "I have one pair of boobs, therefore false." And it's not like the guy is trying to put the brassiere-industrial-complex out of business or something; he's just refuting years of folk-wisdom saying that "wearing a bra will keep your tits from sagging." Turns out: no, it won't -- in fact, it will probably make it worse.

If a woman wants to wear a bra for some other reason, his work does not even address that issue.

ClaudeKenni · 2013-04-15T12:06:51+00:00

This is one of those things that takes a bit of consideration before seeing any sort of relevence to mens rights. The assumption by some women (and more feminists) that men are unable to understand anything which is unique to women is a frustrating one, as it taps in to the stereotypical view that men don't possess empathy, while often these same women (and feminists) are happy to discuss male issues as though they are as capable, or even more capable than men of understanding them (such as the assertion that male problems are caused by 'the patriarchy', instead of actually listening to men about where the issues we face in society actually come from).

As for the article, note that it doesn't actually disagree with the mans findings, just uses the article as an excuse to attack him. The scientist never claims that women don't or shouldn't wear bras for psychological, aesthetic and practical reasons (though I've not read the study, just the article, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Just that there is no medical, physiological or anatomical benefit, and therefore they are not essential, in the same way that wearing a hat isn't essential. It doesn't imply any value judgement on those who choose to wear them, or say anything negative at all about women that I can see, as well as being based on 329 more pairs of breasts than Deborah Orr's analysis.

Volundarkvioa · 2013-04-15T12:20:34+00:00

So by that logic if I have a female doctor checking my genitals and giving me medical advice that I shouldn't listen to them? Thanks, Ms. Orr!

Let me also make sure that if I ever get a lawyer to defend me, they better be of the same group, otherwise they won't understand what I'm going through!

How's about this article, should I not listen to Proffesor Nicola Cherry on her findings (I'm neglecting Dr. Allan Pacey's findings at NICE since he's a man, so my exaggeration would make some sense in this context)?

Surely as a woman Professor Cherry would know absolutely nothing about male fertility! I mean just look at this quote:

"The higher risk we found in manual workers is consistent with earlier findings that chemicals at work could affect sperm and that men should continue to keep work exposures as low as possible."

Who the hell does she think she is?! She doesn't have any testicles, so what would she know about male fertility?! /s

(In all seriousness though, how hard is it to use some basic logic before making an ignorant article? I get that you probably get paid to write about whatever you want to say, but please think a little before you speak. Or in this case if that logic was grown from thinking, then please do not think again in the future! It's obviously detrimental to your mental health, Ms. Orr!)

Moxiecontin · 2013-04-15T13:33:40+00:00

The reason lots of ladies are angry about this study, is that every time we see it it's under the a title like, "Guess what? You don't need that bra anymore!" or "Bras: Doing more harm than good!" And then of course, we read the information and realize that it is in no way saying that we should just trash our bras, because believe it or not, many women don't care about their breasts sagging over the course of their life, they care about hauling two giant, awesome sacks of fat around comfortably.

So the reasonable response isn't to be angry with the male scientist, but to be angry with "news" sources that are advertising it incorrectly. But not everyone is reasonable, and not everyone is willing to actually read the information. What can you do?

I personally found the study a bit frivolous, and I think that it didn't really seem to take into account a lot of aspects of wearing or not wearing a bra, mainly proper bra size and nipple chafing.

literallyschmiteraly · 2013-04-15T13:37:14+00:00

Oh fuck me. New depths of ignorance have officially been reached.

2013-04-15T14:44:23+00:00

What's the report process on this again?

Aim
Hypothesis
Method
Results
Check your privilege
Conclusion?

This is somewhat amusing.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2013-04-15T18:07:41+00:00

Call me when she only sees oncologists who have had or currently have cancer.

Grapeban · 2013-04-15T14:22:09+00:00

This seems legit to me. Guy says, "Bras aren't needed ("false necessity" are the words he uses).", woman says, "Um, actually, I wear one, it's needed."

Super_delicious · 2013-04-15T16:30:39+00:00

This man studied small breasts on athletic young women and his study even says it doesn't represent the general population. Don't forget that most women aren't wearing the correct sized bra and that will cause pain. If women wear the right sized bra they have no back pain and are perfectly supported. Also look at the breast of women who have never worn a bra.

I_fight_demons · 2013-04-15T17:30:32+00:00

Scientist describes an empirical result.

Columnist appends a prescription that is not, nor can be, a part of descriptive science.

Columnist rages at science for making prescriptions about behavior and the social implications of this prescription.

Columnist is apparently unaware that the prescription, and her interpretation of it, is wholly her own invention.

Move along.

(Note: I haven't actually found the original text of Dr. Rouillon's paper and would like to read it. Does anyone have it?)

2013-04-15T17:49:59+00:00

Last time I checked, I have breasts and nipples. Next think you'll know they'll ban men from free Breast Cancer screenings. Oh wait, they already do.

Redxl1 · 2013-04-15T19:10:32+00:00

The Guardian accepts material better suited for Facebook, that is all I learned.

blueoak9 · 2013-04-15T21:31:34+00:00

She'd better never say a word about circumcision.

Well,wiat - lookee here. I was looking for some article by her on circumcision and found this instead. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/deborah-orr/men-dont-you-love-to-hate-them-659069.html

Hmm. I think better of her now.

Stephen1985 · 2013-04-15T22:09:18+00:00

Feelings over facts.

Chicago-JSO · 2013-04-15T16:11:30+00:00

Wait, wasn't it women who did the "bra" burning? Now research comes out to suggest that you don't need bras, and oh, boy it's sexist to suggest women don't need bras... What a hypocritical pile of crap.

Maleguy_Boyman · 2013-04-15T16:22:44+00:00

That is not what they are saying at all. Science is correct. Science man is misguided in thinking that women would want to do without bras as she does not consider them a false necessity. Its like saying "Pants can be constructive and cause chafing therefore a false necessity as maximum comfort is most important."

Title	Science must be wrong, because scienceman doesn't have boobs.
Author	ArsenicSulphide
Upvotes	54
Comments	34
Date	April 15, 2013 11:48 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1cdu2k/science-must-be-wrong-because-scienceman-doesnt-/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/science-must-be-wrong-because-scienceman-doesnt.1610604 https://theredarchive.com/post/1610604

Comments