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

Scientists conducting the world’s largest study of sex differences in the brain have found that men and women think differently. Men and women are different. They have different skills. They are biologically attracted to different jobs. Deal with it.

Lieandcomplain

November 14, 2018
2388 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://archive.is/SVG7O
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 Scientists conducting the world’s largest study of sex differences in the brain have found that men and women think differently. Men and women are different. They have different skills. They are biologically attracted to different jobs. Deal with it.
Author

Lieandcomplain

Upvotes 2388
Comments 326
Date November 14, 2018 3:51 AM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9wwhec/scientists_conducting_the_worlds_largest_study_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/scientists-conducting-the-worlds-largest-study-of.890188
https://theredarchive.com/post/890188
Top posts by Lieandcomplain

Apparently mainstream media is sympathetic if you are a woman

12262 upvotes
February 24, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

When you read more about manspreading than actual issues in the world...

5127 upvotes
December 4, 2018
/r/MensRights

Girl confesses that she can't have sex with her bf unless drunk, internet tells her she is being raped.

4262 upvotes
November 1, 2018
/r/MensRights

Senator, this is a troubling message that excludes and diminishes half the population of the young people in America. I strongly encourage you re-evaluate your priorities on this.

2780 upvotes
December 5, 2018
/r/MensRights

Madlad | fuck their games

2636 upvotes
January 4, 2019
/r/MGTOW

Trump now wants at least $778,000 in legal fees and sanctions from Stormy Daniels over failed defamation lawsuit

1892 upvotes
December 4, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

How to defeat Thanos

1629 upvotes
March 4, 2019
/r/MGTOW

Drunk, high woman fatally hits 15 year old boy on a bike, flees scene, returns in different car to view crime scene, goes to police next day after fixing car and sobering up, later posts 'hide your children' on Instagram, posing in prison jumpsuit. Sentenced to home detention and community service.

599 upvotes
December 16, 2018
/r/PussyPass

Comments

[–]merton1111 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the best way to debate regarding sexism, is to ask if the other party believe in biological differences, if yes which one. Same with nurture. Then go on to discuss lack of parity in STEM & wage gap.

Accepting whatever conclusion in the first step, we apply the same to suicide, prison population, justice system, etc.

I think we are more likely to get empathy to our problems that way than try to impose our beliefs (regardless of evidence) off the bat.

[–]Ex0tictoxic 187 points188 points189 points 7 years ago* (39 children) | Copy Link

I saw Sky News (British news outlet) discussing this study on TV yesterday evening. The leader of some Feminist group, and I remember it clearly said that 'these kind of studies invoke prejudice'. Guess Science is anti feminist now.

[–]chadwickofwv 77 points78 points79 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Guess Science is anti feminist now.

It always was.

[+]elmstfreddie1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

This is literally taught in gender studies at university. They teach that the scientific method is patriarchal and therefore flawed/bad. They study "alternative research methods" which are basically to just view everything from an intersectional perspective (aka disregard inconvenient facts).

[–]GrandWizardBumtickle 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol what univ?

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Sure buddy, I'm sure this totally real class that you took at a totally real university said literally that. Please tell me where you took this class, what specific university and which specific gender studies class did that happen in?

[–]ckiemnstr345 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here is a PhD thesis stating that the scientific method is in fact racist/sexist. That means an academic adviser had to ok the thesis in the first place for it to get that far.

[–]271827182718 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

“This is literally taught in gender studies at university.” Providing one PhD thesis totally means this it’s a part of all gender studies classes.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not the thesis dumbass, have you ever gone to a university or any school in general? The Federalist is a laughably bad source, they are incredibly biased and can't see things like nuance or depth to any position that they don't like. Kind of like you. So post the actual thesis, not an incredibly biased and likely retarded take on it, or shut the fuck up.

[+]misstonk1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

He didn't say that he personally took such a class. But to give you an example of "feminist science":

"While there are various versions [of the Feminist Standpoint Theory], the commonalities include endorsement of the following three theses: the situated knowledge thesis, the thesis of epistemic privilege, and the achievement thesis"

  1. Situated knowledge thesis: "The thesis of situated knowledge is based in the understanding that knowledge is for and by a particular set of socially situated knowers and so is always local—a cultural/social/political “location” characterized by the power relations endemic in such settings."

  2. Thesis of epistemic privilege: "Standpoint theories are mainly used to claim epistemic privilege over socially and politically contested topics on behalf of the perspectives of systematically disadvantaged social groups, relative to the perspectives of the groups that dominate them. The scope of the claimed privilege includes the character, causes, and consequences of the social inequalities that define the groups in question. This type of standpoint theory classically claims three types of epistemic privilege over the standpoint of dominant groups: First, it claims to offer deep over surface knowledge of society: the standpoint of the disadvantaged reveals the fundamental regularities that drive the phenomena in question, whereas the standpoint of the privileged captures only surface regularities. Second, it thereby claims to offer superior knowledge of the modality of surface regularities, and thus superior knowledge of human potentialities. Where the standpoint of the privileged tends to represent existing social inequalities as natural and necessary, the standpoint of the disadvantaged correctly represents them as socially contingent, and shows how they could be overcome. Third, it claims to offer a representation of the social world in relation to universal human interests. By contrast, the standpoint of the privileged represents social phenomena only in relation to the interests of the privileged class, but ideologically misrepresents these interests as coinciding with universal human interests." [from here

  • TL;DR: This basically goes along with the postmodernist claim, that what a society considers knowledge is a manifestation and reenforcement of power. Additionally it claims that marginalized groups actually possess greater insight into social structures.

Feminist Standpoint theory is a postmodern theory derived from the works of Hegel and Marx and is equivalent to "Marxist Standpoint theory" - just in case anyone was still doubting the validity of Jordan Peterson's term "postmodern neo-Marxists".

For a broader insight into postmodern critique of scientific theory, I recommend reading up about the "Science wars".

Additionally: The postmodern assault on science

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

Feminist Standpoint theory is a postmodern theory derived from the works of Hegel and Marx and is equivalent to "Marxist Standpoint theory" - just in case anyone was still doubting the validity of Jordan Peterson's term "postmodern neo-Marxists".

This is why I like how Sargon refers to them as "gender communists." It makes total sense.

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/14/uct-students-say-science-is-racist-discuss-african-black-magic-video/

He had to apologize for saying black magic isn't real to a woman who genuinely believes in it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that small fringe group of people are fucking stupid. Do you think this is at all representative of any kind of larger movement?

This is also not a gender studies class.

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that small fringe group of people are fucking stupid. Do you think this is at all representative of any kind of larger movement?

It actually is. See Joe Rogans podcast from last week, with those two guys who got Mein Kamf published in those SJW journals. There's a big push towards "traditional sciences" because western science is too "patriarchal."

This is also not a gender studies class.

But it is indicative of the kind of nonsense being peddled around academia. The scientific method itself is being challenged.

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

See Joe Rogans podcast from last week

Yeah cuz fucking Joe Rogan's podcast is the pinnacle of leftist thought. That podcast that almost never has leftists on it is totally a bastion of leftist thought. You rock dude, you're so smart.

But it is indicative of the kind of nonsense being peddled around academia

A few idiots at a small university are representative of the entirety of academia? And you claim to use LOGIC and REASON? You're a joke dude.

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah cuz fucking Joe Rogan's podcast is the pinnacle of leftist thought. That podcast that almost never has leftists on it is totally a bastion of leftist thought. You rock dude, you're so smart.

You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. It helps to finish reading the sentence before jumping into your emotional reactions.

A few idiots at a small university are representative of the entirety of academia? And you claim to use LOGIC and REASON? You're a joke dude.

No, again, you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills; those guys on the JRE podcast had Mein Kampf and other ridiculous works published in 7 major SJW journals by rewording them towards SJW-slanted-language. I realize this might all be a little too complicated for someone who can't read through an entire sentence without getting emotional, but I thought I'd clarify it a bit.

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

You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. It helps to finish reading the sentence before jumping into your emotional reactions.

Nah bro, I just don't trust the right wing idiots that Joe Rogan gets on his podcast to be truthful about anything they say in regards to the left or "SJWs". Also what are these "SJW journals"?

[–]Adanu0 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

With the way the education system in the western world is now? I totally believe it. It's going to take a long time to reclaim universities for actual education.

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

What university did you go to? I recently graduated from one of the best in the world and it is definitely about actual education. Maybe because you believe things that just aren't true you think it's somehow different. But let me tell you, you're wrong.

[–]Sp33d0J03 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I absolutely fucking despise post-modernism.

[+]FKArene1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

No, it isn’t. If you have to make up a fact to back up your views, check out your views.

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/14/uct-students-say-science-is-racist-discuss-african-black-magic-video/

[–]ThatGuyV3 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Logic is not their forte

[–]SoloMan98 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

She’s right. If the studies say “women are more likely to react to x in a certain fashion” and I see a woman I’m going to think that she’s more likely to react to x in that way. Same goes for men as well. Whether this is a bad thing or not is debatable, but making scientifically backed blanket statements about a group will definitely influence my prejudices towards that group.

But at the end of the day don’t be a dick, don’t judge a book by its cover, etc etc.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Should we judge information not on its relation to truth, but rather how that information affects people's attitudes and beliefs? Wouldn't this constitute a form of social engineering, rather than honest truth seeking?

[–]SoloMan98 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Taking the information at face value is fine. If a study says “men are 2x more likely to become computer programmers than woman (made up fact)” then that’s just a fact. The issue is when people take the study entirely out of context and use it to make baseless and prejudicial claims, such as “men are better programmers than women” without looking at the context of the study or having any supporting evidence. When the feminist says that these studies inspire prejudice, he/she isn’t saying that the study is bad or wrong, or shouldn’t be published, or even that she disagrees with it, the concern is that someone is going to just read the headline of the paper and go “Men and women think differently so they should be treated differently too” without any evidence linking the study to his claim.

Take the information at face value (the truth, as you called it) but don’t use it to make baseless, out of context assumptions or claims. When the study says “women are more emotional than men” that’s the fact, and anything you say after is either an opinion or an idea.

[–]Ex0tictoxic -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yep, but because people misinterpret a study doesn't mean the study shouldn't take place in the first place. To me it's an unnecessary thing to say if in the overall we already teach people to not be prejudice.

[–]SoloMan98 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I’m not saying it’s an unnecessary study. I’m just saying some fucko is gonna go “this woman is gonna be super emotional because the study said women are more emotional than men” without actually understanding what the study means, or the context of the study, or that people are different, or that studies can be flawed sometimes, etc.

And everybody is prejudice, regardless of what you try to teach them (not that we do a good job of teaching people not to be prejudice)

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

It’s .....half a million people tho. Can’t really claim “but, exceptions exist!!!” when your sample size is overwhelming.

Contrary to your statement, it’s conclusions aren’t making people think women are emotional. It’s just confirmation for most folks. It’s why a majority of women prefer a male boss. It’s why when the majority of college graduates (and women are the majority now!) self select a profession it tends to conform to traditional female centered job norms

Note I said self select.

[–]SoloMan98 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Now the article above is locked behind a paywall for me, but does it actually say “the majority of women prefer men as their boss because they’re more emotional”? Or that “the majority of female college graduates select professions that conform to traditional female jobs because women are more emotional”?

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

Things are changing it seems

[–]Ex0tictoxic -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh ok I actually agree with you there.

EDIT: When I say I agree I get downvoted? Is no sub safe?

[–]a-man-from-earth 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Guess Science is anti feminist now.

Reality has an anti-feminist bias.

[–]_Mellex_ -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I saw Sky News (British news outlet) discussing this study on TV yesterday evening. The leader of some Feminist group, and I remember it clearly said that 'these kind of studies invoke prejudice'. Guess Science is anti feminist now.

Are you not familiar with the Science Wars? This postmodern, intersectionality bullshit has been plaguing the sciences since the 60s.

[–]GingerRazz 421 points422 points423 points 7 years ago (127 children) | Copy Link

It makes me sad that this is a contraversial statement and not common sense. Change my mind. I dare you.

[+]ShadowBoogers1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (66 children) | Copy Link

Assuming that a job that is mostly occupied by one sex is as a result of discrimination is a silly thing to do.

Disregarding someone for a certain job because of their gender is worse.

The bottom line is, none of this matters. Set the bar for the job, if someone passes the bar, they get the job. The fact that the nature of someone's genitals is even a point of discussion in the hiring process is infuriating.

[+]BabaXIII1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

I've been told flat-out to my face by my internship supervisor that men shouldn't teach in elementary school. It was a crushing act of sexism in the workplace and I know for a fact that my gender negatively affected my final grade.

I don't teach in elementary school. I also don't go around complaining and blaming someone else for that. I didn't like being the police (I'm a big guy, I don't like raising my voice, she basically trained her students to only reply when yelled at), I still teach, but in a different sector.

I don't go around blaming others for my decisions and I don't blame discrimination for the fact that most men aren't interested in teaching in elementary school.

It's surprisingly easy to not blame others for yourself.

[–]sixdicksinthechexmix 35 points36 points37 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Same thing happened to me in nursing school during my labor/delivery rotation. My instructor was pretty cool but sat me down and told me that I was going to have a hard time with being allowed to see live births and such, as it requires patient permission, and that she would do her best. I think I had one patient who was ok with me being present, and one patient who was ok with me taking care of their baby/the mother. I spent a lot of time sitting around and studying. It was pretty clear from the beginning that I wasn't going to be welcome in any hospitals nursery or even pediatrics floor.

[–]Genesis2001 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I wish I knew how to beat this stereotype. It sucks for fathers, male nurses, and male teachers. We're all pedos and/or perverts to most* women apparently.

[–]a-man-from-earth 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am a male teacher in elementary school. But I work in China, where such attitudes are not common (yet).

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is we're setting policy based on the assumption that any disparity in (high profile, high paying, safe, male dominated) jobs must be due to discrimination.

[–]Epic_Mind_Blow 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

Which positions are gender relevant? I’m trying to think of some but I’m coming up blank.

[+]ShadowBoogers1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (29 children) | Copy Link

Stripper, Model, Prostitute, Prison Guard or other LEO

I'm sure there are a few more, that's what comes to mind.

[–]NibblyPig 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Teacher/Parent.

Young kids need role models. Especially those from broken homes who have no father figure. My reply is short but the magnitude of this is pretty enormous. I've posted several times in the past about how much of an effect you can have being a male teacher for young boys. It gives them someone to look up to, someone to respect and someone that will respect them back, based on their behaviour.

You can imagine how little respect a young boy from a broken home gets from men. The answer is, pretty much none. Nobody is going to control and shape his behaviour, nobody that he respects is going to praise him when he does well. They can't relate to female teachers in the same way as male ones, especially when the male teacher engages with them. They will only modify their behaviour based on someone that they look up to.

If you've ever worked with deprived kids as a male teacher you will immediately understand.

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

I have a friend who's a male music teacher. The sheer volume of kids who have only him in their lines as a male figure is astonishing

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

Preach on brother. Very true and heartbreaking.

[–]Epic_Mind_Blow 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well there you go, 4 good answers. Thank you!

[–]Okymyo 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Also actor/actress, obviously!

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

they're all called actors now regardless of sex

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

Not by wider society. Even the oscars still have seperate actor/actress categories.

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

They have to; especially in today's climate. If they combine the categories and a man beats a woman, they will have a shit fit and claim all kinds of discrimination. But if a woman beats a man for it, then they will claim that it's an astonishing victory for women everywhere.

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Fire fighter, soldier, construction worker, logger, deep sea fisher, oil worker....

[–]C4H8N8O8 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you pass the requirements you get the job

[–]perplexedm 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think first two should be researched more. Women get more weak as they they age which can effect team performance.

[–]SqueaksBCOD 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That can be handled with ongoing performance standards. And frankly men age too. In fact i personally know a fire fighter who specially transitioned to a desk job because the physical standards were becoming more difficult and he literally felt that a younger guy could save lives better at that point.

[–]perplexedm 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fully agree with this. Was trying to say that women ages earlier than men. A 40yrs old man in general will be far fit than a woman of same age.

Have seen woman police officers in India those finding it difficult to walk in uniform, comically out of shape, can't even take a brisk walk, leave alone running. In comparison, men fares better. They are there in those post because it is govt. job, pc correct gender quota, lack of woman officers, etc.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Gender is relevant in exactly zero of your examples.

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

Uhhh are you an idiot?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Are you? You're acting like only one gender is able to sing or act, or that having a dick somehow makes you an incredible fighter and having a vagina makes you made of paper and glass. You're a fucking idiot.

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

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

If I wanted a role in a movie for a female character, I would hire a woman. If I had a position open for a male model, I would hire a man.

Yes there are male and female actors, but unlike, for example, an engineer where gender wouldn't matter in the slightest, in these examples gender is directly relevant to the job,

Which is exactly what I already said; You would understand if you weren't a fucking idiot.

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

Wow, you're extremely stupid, you said that being an actor or singer are professions where gender is relevant. Not getting certain roles, but being an actor in general. Also in what way is gender relevant in being a singer? Are you saying that either only men can be singers or only women? Because that would be wrong. Or are you saying that gender is relevant for the song? Because then you'd also be wrong because there are many jazz standards which were originally written for a certain gendered vocalist, and guess what? Different gendered singers have done the song also. So once again you don't know what you're talking about and prove that you're a fucking idiot.

Nice attempt at backpeddling but it's obvious that you're just a fucking moron.

[–]ShadowBoogers 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/relevant

*backpedaling

I'm a singer. Women and men have different vocal properties regardless of range. Thus, were I hiring a vocalist for a composition, gender would be relevant.

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Either sex can do any of these jobs.

[–]dejour 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but you can't expect people doing the hiring to not demand a certain gender.

If I'm hiring someone to play Abraham Lincoln in a movie, I'm going to choose a man.

If I'm hiring people to pose in bikinis in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, I'm going to choose women.

Doesn't mean that many women aren't great actors or that men can't be great models. Just that they can't really do the particular job.

[–]blette 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Except that most women don't want hard, dirty or physical jobs.

So, they choose lower paying easy jobs.

And if we lower the pay for the hard jobs and increase the pay for the easy jobs, no one will want to do the hard jobs and we won't have any more logs, oil, paper, electricity, fish, etc, etc....

So, what radical feminists want is a complete breakdown in society so that things can be "fair".

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

I agree with you, just stating that either sex can and do do those job, just in the minority.

[–]Rockbottom503 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup...... issue is the ‘want’ to do these jobs, rather than the ‘can ‘.

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

Gender/Race/Orientation and affirmative action diversity quota bullshit are all contrary to meritocracy.

Blind hiring is the only way.

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I mean, you can still have a systemic bias, right? I try to understand both sides on this topic. I agree with you that we should not assume, but I also respect the idea that accepted norms should be challenged, that we can fall into local minima, that there are many arbitrary social and cultural norms which need be approached from fresh angles. In fact, it is the very basis of mens rights that we together agree that social assumptions should be challenged and that the normal way of thinking is not right or good, and moreover equality is not achieved by passive means.

That said, my contention is with how we are focused on women's rights at the expense of men's rights. Favoritism is always wrong, we can agree on that. If however, we are able to accurately identify some unconscious bias we hold, then we should be equally willing to promote the methodical deconstruction of it, as we are asking women and society to challenge their own ideas about how men are viewed and treated.

I believe in Affirmative Action. In fact, I am a feminist (albeit probably not the kind you imagine). I am a mens rights activist, and I support many competing demographics as I empathize with their claims. There is no winner in the gender war - we need to find the middle ground, and I think we can get there together.

[–]iainmf 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

accepted norms should be challenged,

yes.

that we can fall into local minima

Why is this your goal?

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I was attempting to say that we should not be stuck in a local minima where there are clear winners and losers. I think we can find a place where we all care equally for one another and actively work to elimenate bias as a whole. A global minima is to say "a global fairness" - which is what I hope we all desire.

[–]truthserum23 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

You are over complicating matters. To put it in perspective, if you were hiring a nanny, what gender would most of your applicants, and likely the chosen one be? If you were hiring a window washer, what gender would likely occupy the position? Biases may exist, but they are substantiated.

[–]Okymyo 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

If 90% of the candidates for a subset of jobs are men, or women, it's likely that 90% of the workforce in those same jobs would be men, or women.

Any expectation otherwise is obvious discrimination and bias.

[–]truthserum23 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

So, if men and women tend to gravitate towards a particular type of job, why does there need to be an intervention about it? Why can't we be okay with a particular gender having preference for a particular job?

[–]Okymyo 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I don't think there needs to be an intervention about it. As long as people are gravitating towards those jobs because it's a choice they make themselves, nothing is wrong with it. What we should do is not push people towards jobs or areas based on their gender, but that's not nearly as prevalent as it was some time ago. And we should also increase the contact that high school students have with different areas, so that they get a glimpse of a wider range of possibilities.

As an example (anecdotal): my best friend at the time was forced into law school by his parents. If he had gone into nursing school, which is what he wanted, his parents would've kicked him out of the house and cut all ties, because that wasn't a job for a man. He hates his parents, but at the time he didn't have much of a choice (he either went to law school or he couldn't go to anything at all, since he'd be homeless, jobless, and with no family).

[–]truthserum23 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

People will gravitate to a job for a multitude of reasons. Why is it so harmful to anyone else that gender may play a factor in the decision to choose a certain path. The point of the original post and linked article is that men and women are different and think differently and these differences may manifiest into the career path they chose. So, be it. Maybe it's for the best.

[–]CountVonVague 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why "should" certain norms be challenged, rather than "could"? Any social structure can be questioned especially if it is failing, but intentionally assailing a stable and valuable tradition with anything other than a deliberate intent to fail seems... counter productive.

IMO mras intention is largely to ask people at large why men have disproportionate legal rights compared to women and if they'd like to do something about that presuming they believe in equality of the sexes under the law. Nothing much about compelling people see one another differently, that'd be some other conversation.

[+][deleted] -36 points-35 points-34 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. This sub is becoming more and more misogynistic which is harmful for our movement.

Also, we shouldn't believe in these fucking 'studies'. They are bullshit most of the times.

[–]Hiihtopipo 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Stupid science bitches don't know shit amirite?

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

Couldn't make I more smarter, thats for certain.

[–]tmone 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

/r/menslib - - - - ->

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

Here's a sneak peek of /r/MensLib using the top posts of the year!

#1: MensLib stands, and has always stood, for the fundamental rights and dignity of trans people and all GSM. We condemn in the strongest possible terms today's actions of the Trump administration and the GOP.
#2: Fact Checking False Rape Accusations and Why We Shouldn't Fear a False Rape Epidemic.
#3: Let's talk about dating my daughter and a joke that needs to die.... | 287 comments


I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out

[+]stiofan_io1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

There's a lot of stupid people in the world. Pre-social media they would sit at home in silence. Now they go online and torture the world with their lack of thinking ability.

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

It's rather true. At least in the past, when they got on their soapbox on the corner, people realized they are normal. With the online algorithms for social media, crazy gets a boost because controversy keeps eyes on screens.

Edit: fixed typo

[–]WilliamRobutt 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Stupidity is common, not good sense.

[–]Macheako 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You understand there’s million, if not billions, of dollars invested into this gender equality bull crap right?

Like....what’s gonna happen to alllllllllll those people? Don’t get me wrong, I personally don’t care, but try asking them that.

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

I understand that entirely. I just don't care much about what happens to them if their propaganda falls apart. I know they wail and gnash their teeth any time anything runs counter to their narrative. I just find it sad how effective their flimsy propaganda has been.

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

I’m just saying it’s only controversial because it stands to destroy people’s wealth.

Nobody likes their wealth being destroyed, so expect a fight, that’s all ;)

[–]DrunkenYeti13 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

A lot of "common sense" things still need to be researched and have data to back them up. Its a good base of actual tangible knowledge to develop different tests of experiments to further investigate other hypotheses. Knowing for a fact that our brains function differently and how they function differently is crucial for things like medicine and therapy.

[–]GingerRazz 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I understand that, but this isn't new science. This kind of research has been around for years and is often ignored or ridiculed. At this point, it feels like researchers are informing me that water is wet and fire is hot for the 20th time.

I support research of all kinds, but it's just frustrating that people act like this is new or contraversial.

[–]DrunkenYeti13 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Did this research use the exact same methods and techniques as previous research? Repeating research isn't always a bad thing either.

Also, this thread isn't tamping out any of the controversy it's a bunch of "well women this" and "well women that." A good chunk of the posts on this subreddit have shifted from pro men's rights and awareness to anti women and women bashing. We are better then that. We don't need to become like some of the loudest and most extreme in the feminist movement. We are better than that.

[+]TheDreidelMan1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

When you are having gay sex, you are having gay sex. Pure and simple. There is no way around it.

[–]DrunkenYeti13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What?

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

Oh, I get all of that. My frustration is more that people act like this isn't derivative. I want people to be able to get deeper into the topic with papers and focus more on quantitative and qualitative analysis of behavior to figure out what parts lean more nature or more nurture rather than just having multiple studies come out say biology exists and somehow always manage to be viewed critically and attacked saying nurture exists.

[–]DrunkenYeti13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think that the majority of people would agree that nature and biology exist and there are limitations that most normal people experience no matter their sex. Obviously there are those who don't fall on the bell curve and that just where you get your game changing scientist, artists, athletes and other academics. In my opinion it's a lot like politics in the states. Right now you have a small group of extremely loud people on both side of the aisle getting all the attention. There are plenty of us who fall somewhere in the middle. But unfortunately we tend to be relatively quiet so we don't bring any sanity or balance to the issues.

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

My issue is that it is a contraversial topic because the sane middle has been cowed into silence in light of the bombardment from the crazies who think either nature or nurture is a lie.

[–]hamsterbator 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

it’s only controversial if you paint women in a bad or negative light. If it paints men in a bad light then it’s “obvious”

[–]GingerRazz -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Take my upvote for you speak truth.

[–]Vaeon 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Some of America, and the world's, first computer programmers were women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer#Wartime_computing_and_electronics

and here:

https://ethw.org/Women_Computers_in_World_War_II

[+]freddydangerface1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The concept of computer programming during that time was almost incomparable to modern programming. Think of a programmer as more of a secretary like job back then.

[–]Vaeon -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you ever get tired of not knowing what you're talking about?

[–]GingerRazz 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I understand this is factual. At the same time, It's a bit of a cherry pick to imply anything from that as it's very much not typical across time and cultures.

I'm not saying women can't do those types of things, merely that most women don't want to because of biological reasons.

[–]Vaeon 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I'm listening. What would those reasons be?

[–]GingerRazz 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Women have a predisposition towards jobs involving human interaction and caring. Men have a predisposition towards mechanical objects, abstraction, and competition.

These are just generalities and can be defined by individuals. For example, I'm a man, an my I've worked in child care and would still be doing so if the laws and rules weren't so biased.

I wish there was more in depth research than that, but people freak out for going even that far, so the grants just don't happen for studies that want to document sex differences in behavior with more granularity.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You didn't answer the question.

[–]GingerRazz 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Let me try again as I may have misunderstood the question. The biological differences are the result of sexual dimorphism stemming from thousands of years of selective reproduction. Men, on average, are taller, stronger, less risk averse, and more big picture orientated l, and process feelings through action. Women are shorter, weaker, more cautious, more detail oriented, and process feelings through talking.

These are not factual when applied to specific individuals, but when applied to the population as a whole, it paints a clear case for sexual dimorphism that extends back thousands of years.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You still didn't answer the question. Why were women originally the computer programmers and now men are?

[–]KROMExRainbow 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What? Your examples are about women working as computer programmers in wartime situations. The reason men weren't doing these jobs is because they had been drafted to fight on the front lines.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There was no wartime shortage of labor in the fucking 60's and 70's my guy. Answer the question (third time asking hopefully you actually do it this time, or at least admit that it isn't because of genetic variables).

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

Why were women originally the computer programmers and now men are?

Uh, who said that? Plenty of men programmers back then too and men and women both program now as well. That's a stupid question.

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

Yeah, a MAN scientist, I bet /s

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

Triggering intensifies

[+]PostExistentialism -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Change my mind. I dare you.

Ok. People's brains and even gene expression are molded by society, so even if we found literal genetic differences, that still wouldn't be too relevant.

This is a repeat of the 80's math test study where "scientists" found that boys outperform girls in math tests and concluded that boys are naturally better than girls. Later someone with a brain started controlling for variables related to discrimination and found that the difference is purely social and, in Iceland, where the discrimination is so low it's almost non-existent, girls outperformed boys by something like 1%.

I submit that the results of this study are entirely due to epigenetic factors.

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

Could you provide links?

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

I submit that the results of this study are entirely due to epigenetic factors.

So the behaviors in the genes biologically passed from parent to child means that not only is gender biological but Inherited? :O

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

It's a complicated mix of factors. Your environment affects you a lot more than you can imagine.

For example, having no history of schizophrenia in your family and being adopted into a non-schizophrenic family, your chances of developing it are 1%. On the other hand, if there's no history of schizophrenia in your family but you get adopted into a family where one of the parents has schizophrenia, your chances of developing it jump to 3%.

If this is true for what we can acknowledge as mental illness, imagine how much other things about you are determined by environment. Girls and boys being raised in different ways causes their genes to express themselves in different ways. This study only shows that there is a correlation, but (rightfully) it doesn't jump to any conclusions about causation. What it does, the way I see it, is just confirm what we already assumed about men and women's preferences. If you switched the way boys and girls were raised, many if not most of their preferences would also switch. Of course, you'd have to do it repeatedly, over the course of 5-10 generations because their ancestors' gene expression will be partly inherited.

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

Your argument would have some merit if it wasn't a strawman, to an extent. I've not said that environment or society has no impact. Your whole counter argument is that environment has an impact, and one would have to be a moron to argue against that fact.

Even so, the fact that environmental and social impact has an effect on this, that in no way even remotely goes to show that there isn't innate biological differences.

My view is that there are innate biological differences in preferences and interests that are caused by nature, not nurture. This is what the study says from a quick skim of it. Asserting nurture as a piece of the puzzle doesn't make nature vanish. Assuming I think nurture doesn't factor in because I assert nature is a factor is a large jump to a bad conclusion.

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

you used iceland where they are reported to have the most egalitatian society. you know what else they have? the biggest gender gaps in employment across the board. Shocker, they just let everyone actually choose what they want and guess where they migrate to?

[–]blette 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And Giraffes have long necks because their parents stretch out their necks to reach leaves. Nice try Lamarck.

Epigenetics is not the reason that boys beat out girls in math.

Boys beat them out for the same reason that men seek out hard, dirty, shitty jobs that pay a lot.

Math is fucking hard and you get rewarded for success.

Girls don't like to do hard shit and don't desire the rewards as much.

If a girl fails at something hard (math, sports, job), that is OK for her because if she is even slightly pretty, she can still easily mate and have children.

If a boy fails at hard work (math, sports, job), he is failure, gets no rewards, is a shame to his family and NEVER gets to mate or have children.

​

While we can argue that brain differences make these things happen, I argue that it is genitals that make them happen.

[–]DrunkenYeti13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What a shitty argument. Please please please provide some sort of source to back up your statements. If you don't have any and you're grouping all girls and women into the lazy, easy work category, you're a moron who's opinion means absolutely nothing.

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

Girls who play sports can learn to work hard, so there are exceptions to my simple rule. My sister played sports, she works harder than me. However, if she quit her hard job and got married, my parents would not castigate her. If, as a male, I quit my job because it was too hard, family and society would call me a lazy shit.

However, I don’t need a scientific study to tell me that men more likely to take dirty or physically demanding jobs where they have to work harder. All I have to do is get in my car during the summer and drive around and I will see men doing road work, laying hot pavement on hot days. Maybe there are some women who are capable of doing these jobs, but they are not doing these jobs. The women have chosen easier low-paying jobs.

If you want to read a study that explains the differences between men and women I recommend the article posted at the top of these comments, the original posting.

P.S. Oh and it is a fact that successful PhD candidates in math are more often male than female and that fact is primarily due to genetic sex differences. Autism and autistic tendencies are more prevalent in men because we carry the X and the Y Chromosomes. And when not too severely afflicted, people with autistic tendencies are often much better at advanced math and the hard sciences that rely on math.

And don’t tell me to provide the studies, go check it yourself. Of course you won’t because you don’t want to learn anything that opposes your social justice beliefs.

[–]PostExistentialism -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Boys beat them out for the same reason that men seek out hard, dirty, shitty jobs that pay a lot.

Do you have a study from the past 20 years to confirm this? Because I have some which flat out disprove what you're saying.

[–]blette 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Given the modern educational environment which is more suited to the nature of girls, we have seen a decline in achievement for boys. If this decline in male academic performance involved a decline in high school math grades or even college math test scores, I would not be surprised. But, when we look at extreme math achievement, it is a different story.

----------------------

Why Are There So Few Women Mathematicians? - The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/math-women/506417/

Nov 4, 2016 - In mathematics, just 15 percent of tenure-track positions are held by women, ... Topaz had the unusual experience of having women as both his Ph.D. and .... in math are producing less work compared to their male colleagues.

----------------------

​

When we look at the top end of math performance, males are still dominant. One reason for that is that we are literally talking about a field where we can define performance mathematically. In a purely merit based system, the best mathematicians still have the best performance and earn the majority of advanced degrees. Why do men dominate math? Simply because men dominate the extreme ends of IQ scales due to the greater genetic variability of the male genome. With one Y and one X chromosome, we see more males geniuses and also more male morons. With the stability of two X chromosomes, women tend to express less genetic variety in some areas. No one pays attention when we don't reward male morons with equal outcomes, but they get pissed when the males EARN the most Math PhDs. We can see evidence for greater male genetic variability when we see the higher rates of autism in men. Autism is often a disability but in some cases, people with autistic tendencies do demonstrate greater talents in the fields of math and science. If there are fewer girls with dysfunctional levels of autism, then it is very very likely that there are fewer girls with autistic tendencies that are useful.

​

Equality of opportunity does not always result in equality of outcome.

Let's examine sports, isn't it unfair that men hold all the world records in weightlifting? Oh, I forgot, we have weightlifting for women too and they have their own set of records. In fact, in the Olympics, the women are able to earn the same number of gold medals as the men. So, that is fair, right? Is that what we need, a female category for math PhDs? Women should get 50% of the PhDs by law despite the fact that they cannot do the heavy lifting? Should math be like the olympics?

​

Don't like that idea? Maybe we should change the criteria for how we judge weightlifting. We could judge weightlifters on the form they demonstrate and give them extra points for that. If a female lifter has better form than a male lifter, then she could become the world champ despite the fact that she can only lift half amount of weight.

​

Bad idea? OK, why don't we just make it harder for men. Give male lifters testosterone reducing drugs and force them to take female hormones. Then women could actually out-lift the weakened men. That would make it fair, right? Wait, I got an even better idea, just manipulate the DNA of woman in the womb to give them the same muscle power potential as men. Turn girls into boys. This is already working well, like when we allow transgender women (formerly male) to participate in women's sports.

​

Unless you want to do these things, no matter how much money you invest in female weight lifting programs, women are never going to be better than men at lifting weights.

​

No matter how many STEM equality seminars or female math college scholarships we give out, we are never ever have a greater number of PRODUCTIVE female math PhDs.

The purpose of giving out math PhDs is to choose people who do good math, not to produce social and sexual equity.

Good math is a civilization builder, bad math is a civilization destroyer.

​

Sometimes DNA is destiny. Nature is just so damned sexist!!!!

[+]pmatus3 -35 points-34 points-33 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Actually it should not be common sense, as I do not think it is a well enough established fact that there are biological factors that make men disproportionally better at some tasks than others and vice versa for females. Take the quoted study in the article posted above it was just a survey ( I couldn't find source study so am basing it on the article posted) a survey of a lot of ppl but just a survey, there might be many cofounding variables at play here for example there are biological differences but to what extent society at large reinforces those, in essence correlation is not causation. human brain development is not only influenced by biology as in genetics but to a large degree by environmental stimuli, similar can be said for muscle development even though men have an genetic edge, it's not worth much if it is not exploited.

[–]mBBurns 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You must live in under a rock then

[+]pmatus3 -17 points-16 points-15 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Nope, I'm sorry but one can not simply attribute something to either nature or nurture merely based on survey, the studies that would be necessary are almost impossible to design, might even range on the border of unethical.

[–]Santaball 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree, it is much more likely that men in general have either a predisposition or have allied together to keep women out of certain jobs and fields through discrimination because they hate women that much. /s

[+]pmatus3 -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Even your hyperboly doesn't work most of the time in nature it is not either or but rather combination of the 2.

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

That implies that men have a natural or social dislike of women which is ridiculous. Men who hate others tend to enslave them or worse. Why is it so easy to believe that men hate women?

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

If you want to take that stance, can you explain away the equality paradox in which more egalitarian nations like Switzerland or the Netherlands have more gender segregation in the work force when compared to less egalitarian societies such as China?

I understand that we can't paint a complete picture with simple points. At the same time, I find it insane that I feel like I must regularly argue that there are biological differences between men and women when some are as simple as opening your eyes to see the physical differences.

More than that, though, no one who wants to claim the interest divergence (on average) between men and women presents primarily in a way that goes beyond culture. Sure, some are just norms, but studies show gender dimorphism towards interests in the first days of life, and those are mirrored in other primate species.

Men and women are genetically prone to fill different roles. This doesn't mean they should be forced to comply. This doesn't mean a single woman will be worse than a single man at a task. It just means, on average, in a fully egalitarian society, we will see a skew on outcomes away from 50/59 male/female.

[–]gloryhole87 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We’ve allied together to keep you out of working in our beloved sewers

[–]pmatus3 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

First of all I'm a male, secondly mischaracterizing the issue as you do, brings you much closer to feminists than you realize. Looks like mrm turns into another case of red pill and mgtow who knew....

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

All roads lead to Rome is what they say.

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

My core argument is that interests show distinctive sexual dimorphism, and a survey is a fairly good way to judge interests because it is studying desire to do an activity rather than actually doing the activity which can be controlled more easily via external pressure.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that sexual dimorphism does cause differences in potential areas, on average. Even if the averages are different, that doesn't mean men are always superior or inferior to women in an area, just that on average they will be. Individual ability doesn't care about averages.

[–]warcroft 163 points164 points165 points 7 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Cross post to r/science and see if you get banned.

[–]StarbornProject 63 points64 points65 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9wo82u/scientists_at_cambridge_have_completed_the_worlds/

They did post it there

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

Lol this is gold

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

Yeah...read this article which was linked in the comments on the above link.

They did everything to Hill but make him drink hemlock.

According to the article, feminist academics went on a crusade and it ended with his paper being made to "cease to exist." In short, after several thwarted attempts to get his paper published, he finally managed to get it published in a journal and then those same feminist academics managed to get it "unpublished." Furthermore, because the paper had technically been "published" already, he couldn't resubmit the paper anywhere else due to the rules of academia.

Science doesn't prove anything. That's left to mathematicians and theologists. Science describes and predicts. The religious trust we have put in science as a primary source of truth is quite naive and outdated. It's 19th century stuff. Get over it.

This is the kind of Galileo-type shit that the fucking idiots we are seeing in here are working towards. At this rate, we'll be back in the dark ages in about another twenty years or so. While our technology won't get any worse, it won't get any better either. We definitely need to plan an planetary exodus strategy ASAP and leave these fools where they want to stay and colonize a planet where we can build a real future.

[–]slixx_06 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Not really their cup of tea.

​

[+]StarbornProject1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

why? we know men and women are different since biology exists, read the comments of r/science, they're saying it's a bit of a redundant paper since it only confirms what we know

​

of course, it gives much more perspective, specially among autism cases, but still, anyone that knows basic biology won't be surprised, in fact, 99% of stem field members don't share the fanatism of feminism with "equality" and "empowerment", and since we are used to analysis, we do know how reality works, how to check if what they say is true or not, and we know how to do analysis truthfully. The other 1% are those rare cases that will defend anything that aligns with their ideology (a doctor defending homeopathy works, for example)

​

in fact, I'm a physics student and my chief teacher is a MRA that tries to make everything better for both genders, he's awesome overall and spends some time debunking the idiocy of feminism when it's useful for our learning (for example, we analyzed the gender wage gap in statistic analysis, and we proved how false it is, we could've done the same thing with random numbers but that was just awesome)

[–]slixx_06 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not really their cup of tea.

It has 145 upvotes in 1 day with 88% Upvoted. it was just an observation.

Why? I don't know. Maybe, "99% of stem field members don't share the fanatism of feminism with "equality" and "empowerment"" so they didn't bother to click or upvote.

[+]StarbornProject1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm glad then!

[–]jeegte12 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Most of the top comments are agreeing with it. Stop talking out of your ass you victim.

[–]slixx_06 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't call people names. It makes you look like the moron.

​

[–]jeegte12 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

victim is different here. it's not just name calling.

[–]slixx_06 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Explain

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

They would. Instantly.

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

No, they wouldn't?

[–]thamasthedankengine 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shhhh doesn't fit the victimhood

[–]AFellowCanadianGuy 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They wouldn’t and they didn’t.

Don’t you get tired from playing the victim?

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

Give it time, the independent thought police probably haven’t noticed it yet. Or maybe they’re waiting for some troll to say something sexist in the comments so they can use that excuse to lock it.

[–]AFellowCanadianGuy 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Keep playing hypotheticals.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Keep pretending /science isn’t a SJW shithole like most of this site.

[–]jeegte12 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Let's see if you learn anything from this. My bet is on no.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I mean, I already knew /science was heavily censored and openly SJW, so I wouldn’t say I learned something new...

[–]jeegte12 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

the article was not censored, and most of the commenters are agreeing with it. so have you learned anything?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What are you talking about? You know we aren’t on /science right now, right?

[–]jeegte12 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

i assumed you were aware of this post.

this is what we're talking about.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh!

I’m shocked. Perhaps the independent thought police just haven’t caught wind of it yet. I’ve seen far more innocuous stuff censored immediately in that echo chamber of retards.

[–]jeegte12 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So no, you're not learning anything.

[+]TheDreidelMan1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Gay sex. That's all I have to say and all I need to say.

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

You gonna contribute to the conversation, or just shitpost randomly?

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

I didn't even do anything like that and I got banned from it. I think it's because I called a moron a moron once. Kinda funny because I am probably closer to a scientist than most people posting

[–]f__ckyourhappiness 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Kinda funny because I am probably closer to a scientist than most people posting

Before someone r/iamverysmart s this, mind explaining your job?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I work in a lab and I'm doing a masters in zoology. A lot of people there are enthusiasts, some are even just pseudo-intellectuals.

[–]jeegte12 -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Don't call people names. It makes you look like the moron.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How stupid must someone be for me to allowed to call them out on it? Trump level?

[–]jeegte12 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

never. don't call people morons. either highlight how what they're saying is stupid or don't engage with them.

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

Don't call people names. It makes you look like the moron.

[–]nforne 69 points70 points71 points 7 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

Horse's mouth:

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/over-half-a-million-people-take-part-in-largest-ever-study-of-psychological-sex-differences-and

[–]SergePower 75 points76 points77 points 7 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

In the paper, the authors discuss how it is important to bear in mind that differences observed in this study apply only to group averages, not to individuals...To do that would constitute stereotyping and discrimination, which the authors strongly oppose.

It's unfortunate that the authors need to explicitly state their opposition to discrimination.

[–]kellykebab 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It is good that they point out individual variability, though. I think a big part of the controversy over something like sex differences is both sides strawmanning the data. Biological determinists will see these results and claim (or appear to claim) that all women are distinct from all men and vise versa. Behaviorists and others will cite individual exceptions to these findings and then throw out the entire set of findings.

Both sides seem to forget that it is often true that patterns will hold, in general, across large populations, but that individual variety often remains. Yes, there are some women who enjoy fixing cars. This does not change the fact that there is probably a biological component to the fact that car fixers are overwhelmingly men in total. Both can be true.

[–]destarolat -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The thing is there is not those two sides. Biological determinism is a feminist invention, an strawman created to make themselves look better.

The discussion has always been between the people defending that human behaviour is a mix of genetics and experience vs the tabula rasa people (feminists, postmodernists) who think human behaviour is all experience.

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

I would grant that a somewhat extreme behaviorist/tabula rasa approach is overrepresented in the mainstream of academia and media, but that does not mean that an equally extreme biological determinism does not exist at all. It does, but it probably is much more of a fringe viewpoint, comparatively.

There also plenty of people who acknowledge biological effects, but still emphasize cultural solutions to human problems.

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

I have never seen anyone in academia claim experience does not matter. Never.

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

Fair enough. I was thinking more about extreme social/political movements. People like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor might admit that experience and environment play a role in influencing human behavior, but they clearly overemphasize (and probably misunderstand) the role of hereditary factors to a degree that you might be able to call them biological determinists. As I mentioned above, these views are very fringe and neither of those guys is an academic, but they do both have solid educational backgrounds from elite institutions. And both have a small, but non-negligible cultural influence.

I don't think we're really disagreeing too strongly, if at all, here. The tabula rasa perspective is undoubtedly overrepresented in academia. And I think that's a big problem.

[–]Chobeat 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

If people stopped using scientific results to promote their ideological agenda (as we are doing here), maybe they wouldn't have to specify such a thing.

[–]Eyiolf_the_Foul 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I don’t see it that way, it’s more of an acknowledgment of the way things are and always have been btw women and men. Hell, you see it in the Scandi countries, which are much more egalitarian than the US-women still choose traditional job roles even when explicitly given a choice not too.

[+]Chobeat -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

it’s more of an acknowledgment of the way things are and always have been btw women and men

That's just another way of saying that you seek support in science to push your vision of the world, that is in the end a result of the ideological forces working over you and that you, like everybody else, try to reproduce because you believe they are right.

This doesn't change the fact that you're using science (that is supposed to be neutral, even though it's not, but that's another problem) to push your ideological agenda.

[–]bufedad 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That's just another way of saying that you seek support in science to push your vision of the world

Yeah... how dare you use Newton's Laws to prove that things fall when dropped? /s

[+]Chobeat -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah... how dare you use Newton's Laws to prove that things fall when dropped? /s

Science doesn't prove anything. That's left to mathematicians and theologists. Science describes and predicts. The religious trust we have put in science as a primary source of truth is quite naive and outdated. It's 19th century stuff. Get over it.

[–]Blackfire12498 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah fuck science and facts. That's why i stick to my personal opinion (which is sooo much better than yours)

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

What other knowledge-gathering system surpasses science for making practical predictions about and effective models of the real world? What miraculous new epistemology should medicine, bridge building and applied physics be switching to? If there is anything that can be used to "prove" hypotheses about the world with greater accuracy and replicability than science then by all means restrict the use of the word "prove" to that new marvel. Until then, science is the most "real" knowledge we have about the world and while subject to occasional revision is absolutely entitled to be treated as a source of truth by society.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Downvotes for explaining what is true. Sad.

[–]Chobeat -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably downvoted by people that never took a course on Epistemology or never worked as a researcher. But it's life, it's ok. If people understood Epistemology, the world would be much better than it is.

[–]Eyiolf_the_Foul 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

So the Scandi women who still choose motherhood/nursing over STEM fields are.....brainwashed? Even tho from early on in school they are offered/presented with the full range of career choices, in societies where parity and egalitarianism are extremely important?

I don’t understand your take on this.

Somehow, (thru watching American movies? Interacting with American tourists? Enlighten me!) the Patriarchy works some sort of voodoo?

This is a study with half a million people.

You’re telling half a million people that they are not in control of their own destinies and choices in a society where every woman can be a scientist or a construction worker.

[–]Chobeat -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My take is that probably there are biological differences but assessing them through science looking at high-level social phenomena is hard. You have to disentangle a huge mess of biological factors, social factors, political factors, material factors (economical, regional, infrastructural) and cultural factors. Just claiming that a study and its results are cross-cultural is not sufficient.

My point is that science is not necessarily the best tool we have to investigate this phenomena and claiming some ultimate truth on gender using some very narrow statistical result is naive and confirmation bias.

Nonetheless, intuitively and rationally I believe there are biological differences in the behavior of men and women because it's harder to believe the opposite but I also know that my understanding of this problem is limited and I don't act as if this is true.

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

Fair enough! We do know there are differences in strength, hormone levels, etc that are undeniable. From an evolutionary perspective (as a layman) it makes sense that the female of species be more nurturing.

Some of nuturing behavior is learned, to your point.

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

From an evolutionary perspective (as a layman) it makes sense that the female of species be more nurturing.

It makes sense but these kind of reasiong belongs to a field called "evolutionary psychology", that while being far from pseudo-science, is rooted on very very unstable foundations and the theories proposed under this framework should always be judged with a lot of caution.

​

[–]bufedad 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If people stopped using scientific results to promote their ideological agenda (as we are doing here)

Ideological agenda?

You mean pointing out that women choosing different careers isn't discrimination?

[–]WizardofStaz 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

People like you using this data to insist discrimination doesn’t exist is literally the only reason the authors included that they are against discrimination

[+]misstonk1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

But he didn't claim that "discrimination doesn't exist" ...

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

Look at his reply to me where he makes it plain for you. Unless you’re just trolling and don’t care what he actually believes.

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

People like you using this data to insist discrimination doesn’t exist

The gender career gap has clearly been determined to be the result of choice, not discrimination.

Look up the "Gender Equality Paradox". The more gender equal a society (i.e. the more choices women have) the more they choose traditional fields working with people...

for you to be right, and it to be the result of discrimination, the reverse would have to be true... which it isn't....

The truth is for you, it HAS to be discrimination... so the truth doesn't matter, and that's sad...

[+]Chernoobyl1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

You know who else pointed out woman choosing different careers wasn't discrimination? Hitler.

[+]openup91011 -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Is there like, another MRA sub where things are normal? I hate to say this, but shit is getting straight up exhausting and childish in here.

[–]SilverEgghead 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Is that an argument?

[–]openup91011 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, that’s me asking if there’s another sub where the rational MRA discussions are, because recently this place has absolutely not been it.

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

Maybe you have a valid point, I've been away for a while. But this seems a strange thread to make that complaint on.

[–]openup91011 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think, in all honesty, seeing it depends on the topic of the thread. Absolutely it is maybe one of the most random threads to say that on - I’ve been keeping it in for a week or two now (post election it’s probably going to die down).

[–]Chobeat 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think so. Communities about social topics tend to get filled with bitter people that are not interesting in debate but in validation and comfort. It's normal: society creates a problem for you, you get sad/bitter/angry, you join a community to try to solve this problem or get support. The result is that the closer you're to people with issues, the harder it is to have constructive, rational conversations. When life throws punches at you, you don't care about being rational, impartial, rigorous. You just want something to make you feel better, like a rushed article reporting some study that can have interpretations that support your vision of the world.

​

The problem for MRA is that other social issues have more space in the public debate, in the Academia and in general resonate more with the general public. For MRA this is not true and it's relatively hard to discuss these topics outside of the communities.

​

It doesn't help that most of these people, being bitter and beaten down, resort to exacerbated individualism and extreme right-wing positions, isolating themselves even more and making the conversation harder.

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

Ad hom ad hom ad hom

[–]openup91011 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for trying to actually answer my question instead of just downvoting.

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

r/menslib lol.

[–][deleted] 54 points55 points56 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Scientists also discover that water is wet.

[+]mikeK9981 points 7 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Blasphemous patriarchy propaganda, as ridiculous as saying the earth is over 6000 year old!

[–]Bigaggie12 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Not sure if it’s an intentional joke, but the people who claim that would be the last group of people to discredit the research.

[–]throwaway46819[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious, how so?

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

YEC and the like are overall hugely conservative. Conservatives don't believe in the patriarchy (at least, not to the extent that feminists do).

So the above quote would rarely leave someone's mouth unironically.

[–]PaperClippin 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Christians who believe the earth is 6000 years old would probably also believe that men > women.

[–]adamdavid85 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a nitpick, but these two statements:

Men ≠ women. Men > women.

are not the same nor does the latter follow from the former.

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

I actually changed my comment. The formatting of the original wasn’t the best.

[+]mikeK9981 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Both groups are a subgroup of people who are hostile to scientific evidence that goes against their flawed ideology. Modern feminism has parallels with hardcore Christians and Muslims in that respect.

[–]PraggyD -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

YES. THIS SO MUCH. The patriarchy existed long before that lmao

[–]chambertlo 64 points65 points66 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s almost like men and women ARE different based on biological reasons and not “social constructs”. Imagine my shock and surprise.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But how can that be? A bunch of non scientists declared the opposite after consulting their favorite blogs...

[+]coyotefleas1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Baffling that people really think all differences are social constructs. I see the differences being reinforced by social structures in feedback loops.

[–]The_Frag_Man 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Baffling that people really think all differences are social constructs.

It comes back to cultural marxism

[–]turbophaser 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haven’t you heard? Biology is a social construct now since confirmation from actual scientists confirm that men and women are different.

[–]merton1111 27 points28 points29 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Everyone should be treated uniquely based on who they are, not to which group they belong.

[–]octopusbackpack 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't that be a great?!

[–]ThunderNecklace -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You belong to a group wherein all members should be treated uniquely. How dare you oppress my group, wherein all members are people who are not members of your group!

You need to learn a bit more common sense. Saying things so blatantly vapid and stupid is not a good thing.

[+]PostExistentialism -24 points-23 points-22 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The problem is we're all treated like people and what constitutes people is often defined by rich men who belong to the same race. In western countries, these guys usually address the problems of white men, some times intentionally, some times due to ignorance.

[–]XenonNade 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What? I feel like the definition of who is/isnt a person is pretty fucking clear in western countries

[–]marcuzt 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I find it interesting. I will not discuss the article nor the science behind it, but I would like to mention some thoughts on what the difference is.

I believe that we are all people, the same species. We are much more a like than we are different. But if we make a difference between men and women we see that women tend to be a bit more emotional on average and men a bit more rational. This is then enforced by thousands of years of civilization. This does not mean that men can only do "hard" jobs and women do "soft" jobs. But it does mean that people that have stronger emotions than average might seek out a job where it is good to have stronger than average, it is quite logical. The main issue I see with the phenomena is the resulting bias, where "ALL WOMEN" are seen as more emotional than "ALL MEN". I have seen (I know it is anecdotal evidence, so not a strong foundation for an assumption) men being very emotional and women being very logical. If I need a nurse to care for me at a hospital I do not care for a specific gender, I want someone with empathy (and I have met many women that lacks in empathy).

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

People are dicks and generalize. It's just a fact of life. I don't see a reason that matters, in relation to this study. Up thread from here a person quotes from the study saying this is only averages and not applicable to specific individuals.

Even the study saying the differences exist is cautious to make your point because people would accuse them of not understanding that aspect if they hadn't gone out of their way to explain how statistics work in their paper.

[+]mikeK9981 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with everything you say here but still think that the gender pay gap is a non-issue that does not need to be fixed. Not all men/women conform to certain stereotypes, but enough do so such that it's not 50/50.

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

I have heard of evidence that the gap do not even exist if you look at different gender with the same job, experience, years in workforce and so on.

[–]mensmod 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The important thing to remember, when it comes to rights, is that while the genders have biological differences, these should not be used to restrict the behaviours of anyone. If a woman wants to be in STEM, or a man wants to be a nurse, there should be no societal barriers to those choices.

After that, if there are differences in the outcomes of the genders - so long as there are no social or institutional barriers influencing those outcomes - so be it.

[–]poulty1234 33 points34 points35 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I'd just like to point out that this title could be misleading. They did find that men and women have differing levels of systematic and empathetic abilities, and that people in STEM fields are more representative of male characteristics and the opposite for non-STEM fields.

However they, in the article, state that they did not examine what caused the difference and said it could be biological, or caused by external factors like your growing environment, so stating that the difference is just biological discredits the point that the authors are trying to make which is purely that the difference exists. Different systematic/empathetic levels could be because of current societal factors not gender, and more male characteristics in STEM could be because there currently are more males in STEM, not that STEM attracts male characteristics.

[–]mcmur 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

> so stating that the difference is just biological discredits the point that the authors are trying to make which is purely that the difference exists

​

I'm going to get flamed for this but this is exactly why this study is kind of dumb. Its like they think they have 're-discovered' gender exists. There are observable behavioral differences between men and women in society: we know its called gender and even the most post-modern feminist will acknowledge this. The question is why do we observe these large trends in observable behavior between men and women and can these be changed?

​

This study doesn't really help with that.

[–]GingerRazz 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It could be, but that would take a lot of proof compared to what the title implies as they've shown developmental differences between boys and girls under a week old and parallel behavior in primate babies of the same age.

Nurture is always a portion of how people act but I've yet to see anything close to credible saying that it's all nurture and I've seen quite a few credible studies dating back as far as 30+ years saying nature is a core cause to the divide. It's also a fact that these differences persist across culture, and if it was primarily nurture, we'd expect to have an example outside of a small tribe in isolation where the roles are flipped, but I'm unaware of such a case.

[–]pmatus3 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Not to mention data was collected from surveys. I stated exact same points as you in one of the comments and got bombarded with down votes and hyperbolic replays, this sub is going no where if only "let's hate all women" stuff has right of being taken seriously.

[+]MittenMagick1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Where do you get "Let's hate women" out of "Men and women are different"?

[–]pmatus3 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Well that's the vibe I got when my post got downvoted to Oblivion and bunch of guys started posting that "clearly men collaborate to keep women out of sweet gig in sewer cleaning ". Obviously men and women are different but extrapolating it to certain levels like that survey in the article does is useless pop-culture science that brings literally nothing to the table. it's not like it was a double blinded placebo controlled study on cohort of twins in different environments with all cofounding variables isolated.

[+]MittenMagick1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

That is not attacking women. That's attacking the mindset of "Men have conspired to keep women out of particular jobs".

[+]mcmur -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

> That's attacking the mindset of "Men have conspired to keep women out of particular jobs".

​

Well we know that that's not true regardless of this study. This study doesn't really refute that. You can just go ahead and ask women and they'll tell you why they decided to work in one industry over another. Do that enough times and you'll discover that differences in the labor market are due to individual choices that men and women make when they decide what kind of job they want to work. The choices are pervasive and systemic but not driven by biology.

[+]MittenMagick1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Study? Because we have a real-world example of Australia implementing blind hiring and stopping it because more men were getting hired. We also have the APA showing a direct correlation between "a strong desire to help others" and career choices while also showing that more girls had that desire. This study also found that women were not any less likely to receive an offer from a company, which goes against the "men conspiring" conspiracy, but instead found that women just choose different jobs. Why? Well, in a study that found that women CEOs paid themselves less but had higher satisfaction, women viewed the social aspect as much more important than men did and were happier with receiving less pay if it meant they could make a difference. This is also corroborated by the list of jobs that are predominately female. There vast majority of them are "making a difference".

[–]GingerRazz 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Shhh... Stop trying to bring evidence into this discussion. That's not fair because he didn't back his with evidence, so you are cheating. /s

But in all seriousness, he's going to need to provide crazy good evidence to show that it's nurture and not at all nature because of the globally consistent trend across cultures.

It's amazing to me that the 2 kinds of arguments I see against this is the condescending "nurture exists" as if we don't know or the "biology doesn't real, all is nurture" (patriarchy holding tha wahmenz back) asserted without evidence.

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

Yes we know gender exists in society, thank you. You're not really understanding what's being talked about here. The question is not whether or not men and women behave differently, we know that they do, that's called gender, the question is whether or not those differences are caused by biology or socialization.

[+]Alguyaeda1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Its almost as if the whole biology of men is based around protecting their young and mate, while the biology of females since we were apes is to nurture their young and pick the best fit for a parent in their mate

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

Who would of thought eh?

You win a Nobel Prize! 😀

[–]MussieGangEnrichment 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

His name was James Damore.

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

No, this patrick.

[–]eclectro 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As if this was a bad thing.

[–]slawo1605 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

World largest scientific study to confirm something which monkey-man humans knew 500000 years ago

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

It would be nice to be able to read the whole article but I'm not about to sign up for a "free trial"...

[–]thecinnaman123 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think that many people think that we aren't sexually dimorphic, even on a brain chemistry level. The problem is that no one (or close to it) is going to have every single typical male or female (respecitvely) natural inclination. Allowing for that variation, even when someone has highly atypical inclination for their sex seems just as important as, if not more important than, acknowledging that we are sexually dimorphic - one is intuitive, but the other can be liberating.

[–]v573v 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The much-maligned but longstanding idea that women enjoy discussing their emotions while men are mostly excited by cars may be true after all.

Here let me gender equalize that for them:

The much-maligned but longstanding idea that women are hysterical while men are mostly excited by cars may be true after all.

If they are going to be assholes is it too much to ask for them to be gender balanced assholes?

[–]seeking101 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

2018 and we need a study to figure out what we as a species knew for literally thousands of years

[+]100mimi1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Hence why gender isn't a state of mind either.

[–]NerfNerd94 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Define state of mind, it's such a broad statement, because the field of neurology can see the brain differences, therefore biological. For example, transsexual studies show that these individuals have similar brain patterns as that of their desired gender. If gender was not biological, then ypu wouldn't be able to observe it and be able to distinguish female and male brains.Would you look at that, another example that gender is in fact biological.

I feel like feminist want to hijack this minority to push their agenda and propaganda when study after study has shown even these peoples gender can be seen on their brain. They use these people to push the "gender is a social construct" I can agree that gender roles are socially constructed to an extent, but not gender. Example: blue for men and pink for women. I prefer black, but hey.

It's sad how people just eat this shit up.

[+]stiofan_io1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

It's like trying to explain to ISIS that we're all human and it's best we try to get along.

Feminists are simply crazy.

[–]Austin_The_Defeated -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

fEmInIsM iS eQuAl To TeRrOrIsM

[–]wave_327 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The fact that you had to editorialize the title, and end it off with a definitive "deal with it", just shows how immature you and some others on the sub actually are.

You can present evidence without snark.

You can argue without resorting to emotional appeal.

All you are doing is polarizing this sub further to the extreme. And yet this sub aspires to represent the "mainstream". Well you will never be mainstream if you continue to be as snarky as, by sheer coincidence, alt-right subs on this site.

[–]JohnDoeV6 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This subreddit is about hating women, not about men’s rights. There is a lot of insecurity in this sub.

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

Can someone be a totla legend and post this to a more mainstream subreddit and see what happens? I would, if I could use reddit better than on a 1st grade level.

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9wo82u/scientists_at_cambridge_have_completed_the_worlds/

[–]curiosityrover4477 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've never seen any women or even feminist say men and women are not biologically different, what's you point exactly ?

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

Their point is that this sub is for insecure men that are a couple slurs away from being incels

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

Studying brains is tricky. Brains, by their own function, are complex and varied. The notion that any ideology attempts to generalize or shape how our collective brains function is laughable. But what worries me is that there will be ideologues who see this study, refuse to accept it, and try even harder to force it. It's akin to those who refuse to believe homosexuality is natural and keep trying to force it away. It only does more damage and hurts more people in the process.

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

SQUEEEE!

[–]Alpaca64 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you have another link to the article? It isn't working for me

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

Different, but that shouldn't stop you from doing what you like doing.

If you're a woman and love cars, go ahead.
if you're a man who loves nursing, go for it.

Knowing it and still doing opposite of what generalization tells you doesn't mean you're weird. You're just you.

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

Interesting and all, but has anybody actually got a link to the study? Given the articles are behind a paywall, I can't even verify what they're talking about.

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

This is another in a long line of these studies, their conclusions are all the same, can we say its true already?

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

Thats why they are treated differently. Women being treated better and all.

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

Really sad we need a study for this. Even sadder those on the left will refuse and refute it.

[–]ShUtUpAnDdAnCe0857 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This finding is trying to rape me!

[–]kms2547 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

What does this have to do with men's rights?

[–]miroku000 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It is often argued that all differences in the percentage of men versus women in a given career field is due to discrimination and sexism. Another cause might be that men and women prefer different careers due to biological differences. Though, it is not clear to me how a survey could separate biological differences from differences that come from differing gender roles taught by society.

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

So what changed biologically in all women from the ~1950's to today? Because originally computer programming was a female dominated field, and obviously today it isn't. So if you think that biology is such a huge reason for the differences in male and female dominated fields, what changed biologically in all men and women to flip the gender dynamic in computer science?

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

They weren't computer programmers in the modern sense of word, they were operating those first computers.

[–]miroku000 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I imagine the major change from the 1950's to today is that women have way more control over their career choices than they did in the 1950s. As women have more career choices open to them, they have chosen to go into other fields. Obviously in the 1950s, women did not have as much opportunity to pursue their dreams as they do today.

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

Oh, so it's not biological at all glad you agree with me.

[–]miroku000 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There is no denying that in the 1950s women's careers were more constrained than today. I would expect that decreasing sexism and opening up many career choices for women would result in even more women in Computer Science. But removing sexist constraints on women's careers is correlated with less women going into Computer Science, so then it social pressures are not a sufficient explanation to why less women chose to go into Computer Science. This actually lends support to the argument of biology having an influence. On the other hand, societal pressures are complicated, so it is hard to know. My original point is that it is pretty hard to sort out how much biology might be affecting things or not.

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

So then don't claim it's biological if you don't think/know if it's biological.

[–]miroku000 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it is a combination of factors and it is hard to tell how exactly how a study could determine how much was biological versus societal as I said before several times. The evidence suggest that biology plays a role.

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

I don’t have to be a scientist to tell you this.

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

Bigots... /s

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

Rain is wet... Back to you John

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

How do you conduct that they are "biologically attracted to different jobs"? It's known that children under the age of 3 don't favour any "gendered" toys over other, but parents project that unto the child. It's only at the age of 3+ that they start to be interested in specific things. This asks the question, does some biological thing kick in at that stage of development, or does the parent's projection in the first 3 years affect it? Or is it a combination of both?

[–]JohnDoeV6 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

Wasn’t this suppose to be about men’s rights? I see a lot of hatred towards women. Men and women are different but I see a lot of hate in this sub, just cause they are different doesn’t mean you have to hate them. So much hate and antagonism, either cultural or stemming from insecurities.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I see a lot of hatred towards women.

Do you, or do you see criticism of feminism and call it misogyny?

[–]JohnDoeV6 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

In this subreddit its both, same as MGTOW. In MGTOW its the entire point

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The fact that you're saying MGTOW is the same as mensrights proves you aren't here in good faith.

[–]JohnDoeV6 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Because they overlap and the man that posted this article post on both extensively. Many people that go on MensRights also go on MGTOW.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You've yet to cite this rampant misogyny...

[–]JohnDoeV6 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

For Men’s Right’s all you have to do is study the group as a whole. The post are not outright misogynistic but the responses are. It is popular to claim women just want money, they just want an alpha and some claim that they are inferior. Again, just go through the subreddit.

For MGTOW like dude, its called Men Go Their Own Way. It’s completely separating itself from women.

Im starting to think you’re just a troll cause the truth is literally right there and all one has to do is look.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

zero citations

Yes yes very compelling.

And to reiterate: I don't give a fuck about MGTOW. That's a different sub you're bringing up as a distraction.

So far your entire argument that sub A is "zomg misogyny" is to reference sub B.

Citations. From this thread.

[–]JohnDoeV6 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Understand that when everyone here says feminism they more likely mean women. You can also look at the guy that posted this article, look at his conversation with me. He claims that men are second class citizens and women are the fault. I asked him what he meant by this so await that respond.

Again, there is no clickbait. All you have to do is look and look at the subtext to realize what is actually being sad. You are smart, you’ll figure it out.

Edit: holy shit just looked at your profile. What’s is the limit in your mind for feminism. It is obvious you have a Crusade against feminist, do you also hate Second Wave Feminist or is it exclusive to third wave?

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

Understand that when everyone here says feminism they more likely mean women.

Ah hah! So we get to the bottom of it. You're mislabeling criticism of feminism as attacks on women.

So game over. So so troll but it fell apart at the end.

[–]Lieandcomplain[S] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

The title and article have nothing to do with hating women but rather addressing apparent issues brought up by feminists about the "pay gap" and other issues they conflate.

[–]JohnDoeV6 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

Im not talking about the title. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s the sub and the comments. You have to admit that this sub has nothing to do with men’s rights. It was co-opted by hateful people. This was suppose to help men but instead its focusing most of its energy on attacking feminist and women.

Edit: it’s a compulsive thing. An obsession with feminism to the point of a fault. This usually stems from deep failures and deeply rooted insecurity and has little to do with the extremism of third wave feminism.

[–]Lieandcomplain[S] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

I think there are always people who tend towards extremes. Perhaps all this is a reaction to the extreme and has become extreme in itself? Or it's an emotional reaction to feeling increasingly like second class citizens.

I like to share this video with people, to get a starting view on whats really occuring.

https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY

[–]JohnDoeV6 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Nobody is becoming a second class citizen, especially not men. MGTOW is a biological failure of the human species and a sociological failure of both the individual and society.

I’ll take a look at that video when I have time thou. Thanks for the share.

[–]Ugotlost 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

I have been victimized by women and laughed at for talking about it. I have felt like a second class citizen for about 14 years.

Edit- Upvote for your willingness to watch the video https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=3WMuzhQXJoY

[–]JohnDoeV6 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Can you explain more and help me understand? Where was did and what did they say?

[–]Ugotlost 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Fraud and physical abuse.

For example. I bartend as a second job. One night I go out to check our back patio of the bar. You can smoke on the back patio but you can't drink. We have a front patio where you can smoke and drink. There are signs posted everywhere. There is a mid 20s woman standing there drinking.I say "excuse me, can you please take your drink inside? We could lose our liquor license if you are caught." She throws the contents of her drink in my face. As I am pulling my hand down from clearing alcohol from my face. She hits me so hard with the pint glass it shatters against my face.

She is told by my bar back that she is no longer welcome and that she is calling the cops. The woman refuses to leave and stands in the parking lot screaming at me.

Cops show up and I tell them what happened. Both cops laugh in my face. Woman never gets arrested one of the cops called her a cab and told her to leave.

[–]JohnDoeV6 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

That’s awful but just one story. Has all your encounters with women been like that?

[–]Ugotlost 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Nope. Not the only time I have been physically assaulted by a woman either.

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

Feminism =/= women

[–]JohnDoeV6 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I know, in this subreddit and MGTOW they hate both

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I've seen no evidence for this.

[–]JohnDoeV6 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you serious about MGTOW? That’s the entire purpose of the subreddit dude

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No. I'm talking about this sub. You equated the two.

"Feminists, like Nazis, want to exterminate the Jews".

-what? That's crazy!

"Oh so the Nazis weren't anti semitic?!?!?"

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

FYI he admitted there is no misogyny here, he's just counting any criticism of feminism as attacks on women.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9wwhec/scientists_conducting_the_worlds_largest_study_of/e9pah48

Understand that when everyone here says feminism they more likely mean women.

Pretty standard troll.

[–]KazarakOfKar -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oy boy more "hate facts", here we go.

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Let's face it, you're only agreeing with this article because it says something you like.

In reality it's just another of the "muh scientists!" articles that are completely worthless.

[–]blette 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Let's face it, you're only DISagreeing with this article because it says something you DON'T like

​

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Let's face it, you're only DISagreeing with this article because it says something you DON'T like

Where does it say that I like or dislike what it says?

You know it's possible to neither dislike nor like something, but to just see it for what it is.

If it was the exact same article but had the opposite opinion, you wouldn't be arguing with me and you know it.

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

I don't need a science article to see that men and women are different.

Whatever happened to common sense?

Men work harder, dirty, dangerous jobs because they have to. No job, no wife.

Because they are often much stronger than women, men are able to do these jobs.

​

In the same way, people with autistic tendencies often do better at math and sciences.

Men more often have autism and autistic tendencies, voila, we have more male math PhDs.

Now, if a woman can demonstrate talent at math, we should certainly encourage her and reward her, but you are never going to find a greater number of women with autism or autistic tendencies because they exist in fewer numbers. And as a society, if, in the name of equal outcomes, we decide to reward dumb people (men or women) with advanced math and science degrees, be prepared to start watch our civilization collapse as scientific and technological progress grind to a halt.

​

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I don't need a science article to see that men and women are different.

I never said they weren't different, I never said they were different, you're really having a hard time reading two easy sentences huh.

Oh well, maybe you're just not biologically inclined towards reading comprehension. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–]blette 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

In reality it's just another of the "muh scientists!" articles that are completely worthless.

Above is what you said.

When science demonstrates something that agrees with our life experiences and our instinctual and spiritual understanding of life, it is very likely to be true.

However, people who are dogmatic about equality of outcome are never going to agree with proof that men and women are different.

​

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In reality it's just another of the "muh scientists!" articles that are completely worthless.

Above is what you said.

It is indeed what I said. Nice quote, very accurate.

When science demonstrates something that agrees with our life experiences and our instinctual and spiritual understanding of life, it is very likely to be true.

Write a book.

However, people who are dogmatic about equality of outcome are not going to ever agree with any proof that men and women are different.

That's great, well since you're just talking to yourself now I'll be going.

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

Sure, no problem, take you and your downvotes back to "Crappy Rhetoric Town"

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

what the fuck is your point then? you just come in here to fucking argue. god you are insufferable.

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

what the fuck is your point then?

Right here, maybe you missed it.

https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9wwhec/scientists_conducting_the_worlds_largest_study_of/e9o6h4j/

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

That's what's so great about science. You don't have to agree. Your opinion doesn't matter.

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

That's what's so great about science. You don't have to agree. Your opinion doesn't matter.

Hahahaha, okay, so how about those MGM studies that show it's beneficial? Or maybe the studies that show we're all dead from global warming?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

so how about those MGM studies that show it's beneficial?

The evidence is pretty weak and inconsistent either way. Some studies find beneficial effects, some negative, some neither. But even if there was a demonstrable beneficial effect, most anti-circumcision arguments are on the basis of moral principles involving bodily integrity and personal choice, not material benefit.

Or maybe the studies that show we're all dead from global warming?

U wot?

[+]RolfMjau -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE

Edit: Okok, apparently this comment wasn't funny, i will obstain from making comments like this in the future. thank you.

Edit 2: You know what? NO!! FUCK YOU!!! FUCK ALL OF YOU DOWNVOTING WANKERS!! RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

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

RRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE....

Edit: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEee

[–]is_not_a_robcop -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I gather you didn't read the paper or abstract. It says in the title of the study that they look at psychological differences, not biological. The origin of these traits isn't investigated and can't be said to be an essential part of manhood or womanhood, or to stem from the sex of the individual. Going further and concluding that this study determines the appropriateness of a man or a woman for a job position is straight up ridiculous, and partisan.

I would avoid citing research if you don't know what it means.

Also, to note:

"In the paper, the authors discuss how it is important to bear in mind that differences observed in this study apply only to group averages, not to individuals. They underline that these data say nothing about an individual based on their gender, autism diagnosis, or occupation. To do that would constitute stereotyping and discrimination, which the authors strongly oppose.

Further, the authors reiterate that the two theories are applicable to only two dimensions of typical sex differences: empathy and systemizing. They do not apply to all sex differences, such as aggression, and to extrapolate the theories beyond these two dimensions would be a misinterpretation."

​

​

[+]NeedHelpInHTX1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

women are too stupid to comprehend logic got one as we speak pissed because i exposed their hypergamy and shes trying to feed me some bullshit lol women will never stop the lies

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

.... kinda like your sentences don't stop? Bro...punctuation, please

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