This explains so much: Feminists reject logic as patriarchy; elevate emotion as "women's ways of knowing."

[–]Bobsutan 39 points40 points41 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I think I almost grasp your statement...
But. Ah, but. By controlling the argument by keeping statements factual, is that bad? Adhering to a measure of truth while arguing is not an issue. Forcing an opponent to refrain from lying is not an issue. So.

Logic may be used to control, as appeals to emotion are certainly illogical, but the same appeal to emotion may hold some truth or insight that hints at the crux of the issue. Many aspects of human rights arguments appeal solely to emotion and perspective. So logic can be used in a bad way, certainly.

The truth though, should never come into question. If you make a statement that is patently false and misleading, that lie should be clarified, correct? Refuting the SPLC lie is not abuse nor controlling, but dismissal of the harm caused a person who has been raped, or misgendered or what-have-you through the use of "logic" can be... Am I being clear? Do you see the distinction I am (attemting) to make?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

One, I took the time to try and grasp what you are saying, please offer me the same courtesy.

Two, refuting a claim such as "The SPLC has declared AVFM to be a hate group" is easy to do with third party sources. There are different truths, those that can be proven and those that remain questionable or true to some people and not others, or even just one person and noone else. The truths that I refer to are in the first category, not the latter.

I am not the arbiter of what is factual if I use citations to prove my stance. We are not discussing Plato's ultimate unknowable truth here in which the heart of a thing cannot be truly known, no. We are discussing truths of a much more mundane variety, statistics, statements, numbers.

I conceded that logic can be used to control an argument and narrow the window in which claims can be made, all in bad faith. Yes I'll give you that, but you'll never get my truth.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are not arguing in good faith.

the claim of "truth" isn't about even attempting to provide proof in the context we're talking about.
This is not a sentence, much less a statement. Address the following, please:

Refuting a claim such as "The SPLC has declared AVFM to be a hate group" is easy to do with third party sources. There are different truths, those that can be proven and those that remain questionable or true to some people and not others, or even just one person and noone else. The truths that I refer to are in the first category, not the latter.

I am not the arbiter of what is factual if I use citations to prove my stance. We are not discussing Plato's ultimate unknowable truth here in which the heart of a thing cannot be truly known, no. We are discussing truths of a much more mundane variety, statistics, statements, numbers.

I conceded that logic can be used to control an argument and narrow the window in which claims can be made, all in bad faith. Yes I'll give you that, but you'll never get my truth.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_raptor 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]iongantas 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The quote from the organization in question:

Claiming “the truth,” being the authority, defining her behavior, using “logic.”

"The truth" and "logic" are in quotation marks. This says to me that they're not talking about the use of actual truths or actual logic, but presenting illogic and untruths as logic and truth.

This has happened to me in previous relationships with men. If a man accepts the proposition that logic is the realm of men and emotions the realm of women (anyone who does this on either side of the gender fence is being sexist), he is prone to present his own irrational, gut feelings as "logic" by definition -- and sometimes this "logic" can be incredibly personally affonting and actually mean. A particular ex of mine used "logic" to "prove" to me that my personality was flawed, that I was a bad person. When I pointed out the flaws in his argument, his evidence, and the definitions of words he was using, he called me "over-emotional" and "irrational." And yet, he couldn't explain how I was exhibiting those characteristics.

It was absolutely infuriating. He wasn't seeing me for me or judging our arguments by their merits, he was using stereotypes as a weapon to practically gaslight me. It was slightly emotionally abusive. I'm really glad that's over.

[–]kazagistar 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Personality being flawed is an inherently emotional proposition. It is only true from the perspective of people and their opinions.

Generally, propositions can be categorized into 5 general types.

1) Logic: Statements that can be logically resolved to be true or false, given that the true/false status of the axioms can be ascertained. "Given that X is true, Y is true."

2) Disprovable: Statements that can be shown to be false. If a lot of people have shown it to be true (i.e. failed to show that it is false) it gains credibility. This is how science works.

3) Undisprovable: Statements that cannot be shown to be false. These statements are essentially meaningless, because if it had "meaning" that would imply it affecting the world in some way, and thus be testable. "God created the universe."

4) Disproven: Statements that have been shown to be false. "The earth is flat".

5) Opinion: Statement of preference, or how much someone likes or dislikes something. Useful in the pursuit of happiness and in some cases morality, but does not give any kind of information about reality outside of a particular person's mind.

I wish we taught this sort of thing in school, from a very very early level. It would help people realize things like the fact that logic always relies on the truthfulness and type of its axioms (for example, if you use feeling axioms, your logic will end up being totally subjective). I guess the problem is it would also anger a lot of groups who have differing definitions of truth. (What I feel is true is true; truth is given by God; truth does not exist, only opinions; every truth is just as valid; and so on).

Sorry, just had to rant there for a bit.

[–]mehr_bluebeard 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ay_ch 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Since those words are in scare-quotes, your interpretation is reasonable.

It also brings-up another question. If a man's "logic" is but a mask for his gut emotions: Are the woman's gut emotions more reasonable and closer to truth than the man's gut emotions? Which is to say: are a man's "logic" (feelings in disguise) outranked by a woman's feelings? So both people have emotions, but does that not only mean that the man's emotions-as-logic are just as valid as the woman's emotions-as-emotions?

So what made your emotions valid while his emotions were less-valid?

I certainly wasn't present for the arguments that you had with your ex. All I know is that you're presenting your version of events in which you were the more reasonable one. I had an ex-gf do something very similar. She was a high-conflict personality. For whatever reason, she'd sometimes be itching for a fight and start yelling at the slightest provocation, and I would gently try to talk her down. She'd scream her head-off for minutes and then she'd run-off to the phone and call-up her friends and complain about how I started the whole thing with my ridiculous, crazy irrational behavior.

The problem is that she really didn't do that when other people were around. Just with me, behind closed doors. Her sister informed me that she could get "evil" when she got angry, so this wasn't simply my opinion. One time she made the mistake of doing the same ploy in front of my brother, who could instantly see that she was acting like a ranting nutcase.

But what about her side of the story? Well, if she were to tell it in her own words, she'd swear that I was the horrible brute and she was the reasonable little angel who never did anything wrong. She only screamed and threw things because the horrible brute (me) forced her to do it. Perhaps the horrible brute (me) would try to stay calm and not raise his voice in arguments and try to cool things down, but his lack of emotions only proved what a cold, unfeeling and rotten bastard he was.

The behavior you describe from your ex sounds like something you'd get from someone with narcissist personality disorder.

[–]kazagistar 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ay_ch 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Look, I understand that when tensions and passions are running high, it's difficult to stay cool and calm and perfectly objective. No one would dispute that.

The fact that no one can remain perfectly objective and dispassionate at all times (not even a fictional character like Spock could do that) does not mean that trying to use logic to help you work-through problems is therefore valueless.

I am capable of accepting truths that make me unhappy. I am capable of doing what displeases me in the short run so that I can benefit in the long run. I am capable of recognizing that what makes me happy in the immediate-term may not always be good for me further on down the road. These are the things that grown-ups need to come to terms with and the people who allow themselves to be slaves to their feelings are going to run-in to a lot of problems throughout life.

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

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

[–]MRB2012 44 points45 points46 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MRB2012 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThoughtPorn7242 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whisper 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MRB2012 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MRB201216 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Karmamechanic 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I've heard of this brand of nonsense before, and I've always wondered whether its proponents have really thought their position through (I guess that might require too much logic). Do they really want to cede science and all its benefits as the products of "male" thinking? That's terribly flattering, if so! Also, they should GTFO the Internet because that uses computers and programming logic.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine

"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principles that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument." - Ethan Allen

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Irongrip 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 78 points79 points80 points 13 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]rottingchrist 50 points51 points52 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points44 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck 36 points37 points38 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]roscoe_jones 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_icebear2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roscoe_jones1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]optimus_woo0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roscoe_jones2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spagma 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rottingchrist 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ma99ie 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While in the elevator, the man expressed interest in talking to Rebecca some more and invited her to his hotel room for coffee. She declined, but felt that she had been sexualised in the process. She also said it made her very uncomfortable to be approached this way, and suggested to ‘guys’ that – as a general rule – they should not to do this

You don't see anything wrong with publicly shaming someone for expressing interest in her, just because that someone was a man and it was in an elevator? From my understanding, she declined his offer and nothing further happened. I'm failing to see what issue she is railing against.

What she did "wrong" was call out someone publicly for perfectly healthy behavior, labeling said behavior as deviant. Even if the behavior was sexual in nature, turning male sexuality into a bogeyman is harmful. She was in no way hurt by this request, she was not followed to her rooms, she was not molested, nothing happened. She had a polite request to continue a conversation over coffee, with (probably) an implied sexual overtone.

The entire issue is that her brand of feminism, and via its influence society at large, have villainized men's sexuality and turned it into something that you just don't express, because doing so belittles the person it is expressed towards. This is unhealthy and harmful to men, and is the exact opposite of what feminism claims to stand for in regards to female sexuality.

[–]LonelySOB 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Memyselfsomeotherguy 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedactedDude 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rdesktop7 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]srasmus4 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedactedDude 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

NAFALT is just the other side of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Using the phrase is almost never helpful to the discussion at hand. Remember, a fallacy is not ALWAYS a fallacy, it is always contextual. Look at the following (made up) scenario:

News: Feminists lobby for a law creating a new governmental grant program to help more women enter college.

MRA: With limited space for college, this harms men, who are already underrepresented in college environments. This right here is an example of how feminism harms men.

Feminist: Well, not all feminists are like that!

The Feminist in this scenario is adding nothing to the discussion. It is fallacious in the same way that the No True Scotsman fallacy is fallacious: it is making an assumption about the best, and rejecting the example of where this "best" doesn't apply as irrelevant.

[–]srasmus4 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]blinderzoff 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites[S] 27 points28 points29 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Total fucking bullshit.

Please explain how True Feminism represents equality, when "True Feminists" believe at least several of the following:

-We live in a society that subjugates women, despite mounds of evidence that men are worse off than women in many ways.

-We live in a "rape culture" where we have to "teach all men not to rape" despite that both sexes can be victims, and perpetrators, of rape.

-False rape accusations are rare, and should not be punished, despite how horribly a man's life is ruined.

-Women are the victims of domestic violence, and men are the perpetrators, despite that numerous studies show DV is reciprocal and male victims are profoundly discriminated against.

-Men should have no reproductive rights.

-Only women should be entitled to billions of dollars worth of social services, despite that men are statistically worse off than women in a variety of ways.

-The "wage gap" which has been debunked 5 zillion times by respected economists.

-Fight shared parenting laws yet whine about women being percieved as default caregivers.

Please explain how these mainstream feminist views = equality for all.

[–]MrJMaxted0291 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites[S] 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drewniverse 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shalteck 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRMRising 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfallibleBiship 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MRB2012 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MRB2012 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]deshki 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]nwz1236 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20123 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Subversive 34 points35 points36 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites[S] 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrcap 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]warrior_king 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thefran 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]thefran 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thefran2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]toblotron1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Seacrest_Hulk 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrJMaxted0291 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thefran 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Again, there are different ideas of patriarchy.

Nobody says it's a conspiracy, it may be self-sustaining societal norms.

For example, some insight into "patriarchy = men in position of power".

My father is a rich, influential person. Not extremely influential, but on friendly terms with some of Russia's top politicians and businessmen. When I still kept in touch with him I spent some time hanging out in that society.

On some level when you rise higher in society you will become friendly with the people of your class just because they are of your class. Good for business, good for power. Which is why stuff like secret societies of people who control the world doesn't really need to exist - the top Xty people in the world are best friends anyway. But i'm getting kind of sidetracked.

Cross-gender friendship is more rare than same-gender friendship. That is true for a number of reasons and also supported by evidence. People are just more likely to do so.

The high class tends to do informal stuff together, oftentimes very "manly" informal stuff. Like going hunting together. Or going to a sauna, I've actually seen contracts being signed in a sauna. Imagine a woman and a man going to a sauna and hanging out there together whilst mantaining 100% business relationships, can you?

My point exactly. Nobody literally keeps women from positions of power intentionally. It's just a woman would have a harder time blending in with the guys so to say.

And this is patriarchy, this is why it's self sustainable.

The fact that feminists try to break that, or scream at those people for being hidden women-haters of some sort, is what's ridiculous.

[–]RedactedDude 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thefran0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]srasmus4 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BJBirr 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seacrest_Hulk 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Knight_of_Malta 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Koocnahtanoj 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dctrwho 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]qwer777 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]monarchmra 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

john the other at avfm put up posters that says mens rights are human rights. (look for that poster on the poster tab of a voice for men)

he then gets confronted by a group of people with boxcutters and they start to rip his posters down, he calls police to come down and make sure nothing gets physical, police tell him to stop putting posters up.

except he was putting them up on private property with permission from the owners of said property.

Then one of the poster rippers who works for some news/media company reports on the "evil posters" and links the mrm with terrorism and the guy who did the oslo norway bombings (i shit you not.) - http://www.openfile.ca/vancouver/story/mens-rights-campaign-stirs-conflict-commercial-drive

you can see his pic in the corner of the article, click it and his profile has a bigger one. compare it with this pic

so its been an over all bit of fun. gww talks about it in her videos, should be in the last 4 or so.

[+]wavegeekman -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

Years ago, pre WWW, I commented in response to a particularly loopy feminist's posting, that feminism was a parody of women's thinking.

Someone then pointed out that feminism is, in fact, nothing more or less than women's thinking. Women basically built this edifice of illogic all on their own.

Example: the feminist idea that "gender is just a social construction". Women live in a world that consists almost entirely of social processes. Read any book by a woman, or watch a chick flick. Nothing exists apart from the social world. Nothing happens other than people interacting socially with each other.

It is men who deal with reality in our society. They build buildings, bridges, and roads, build ships and cars and trucks. When an enemy attacks it is men who defend the society. All of this is largely invisible to women.

Similarly every MRA has been shocked by the cavalier disregard by feminists for truth and evidence. For feminists the only purpose of evidence is to convince someone. Its actual truth is irrelevant, in fact in many cases the idea that something is objectively true or false simply does not compute.

What feminism shows us is the limitations of women's thinking, with no real help from men, exposed in the clear cold light of day.

[–]imtooold21 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrJMaxted0291 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Watermelon_Salesman 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Seacrest_Hulk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imtooold21 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seacrest_Hulk 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]imtooold21 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seacrest_Hulk5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]imtooold211 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Demonspawn -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]imtooold21 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seacrest_Hulk 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]imtooold21 -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seacrest_Hulk5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]imtooold212 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThoughtPorn7242 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]imtooold212 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]imtooold21 -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20122 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThoughtPorn7241 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Germanyah1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Germanyah1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Germanyah1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Germanyah1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyWorkUsername20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Germanyah1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]imtooold21-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]failbus 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jonas223XC 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't necessarily make women worse at engineering, it just means that they are less interested in it. There's a difference.

I don't feel like looking up evidence to support this claim, but if you looked at how well those 20% women engineers did compared to their male peers, I'm willing to bet that they do just as well (if not better) than men.

But yes, I agree that men and women are fundamentally wired differently. The fact that women tend to be steered away from the "fact-based" academia of the engineering, math and hard science and towards the social sciences of english, the arts, or acting goes to show that women don't really value logic as highly as guys do. This doesn't mean that women are (in general) worse at using logic, but it just means that they don't think it's as valuable as men tend to.

[–]failbus 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How high would it have to be before you do think its a generality. I picked engineering because it's one of the least common for women, in biology, the number rises to 50%.

A STEM grad is still a graduate. A STEM grad who teaches will still understand the hard reality of science.

A 20% exception is a very bad case to make a generality of "Woman's thinking." If 20% is not a sufficient counterpoint to a stated generality, then no man is in jail, there are no African Americans in the United States of America, and no day of the week is Monday.

It's not about "men's thinking" and "women's thinking." It's about scientific, reasoned approaches based on empirical data, and circle jerking rhetoric which has no bearing on the real world.

The hard sciences won't state anything without 95% confidence. If you're going to claim science as the man's domain, you could at least have a more statistically significant argument.

[–]AtheistConservative -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How high would it have to be before you do think its a generality. I picked engineering because it's one of the least common for women, in biology, the number rises to 50%.

3 to 1 would generally be a solid pick for many things. If a StarCraft player pick 'toss 75% of the time, I wouldn't be preparing for a zergling rush. To put that a different way, say 3/4 of a particular field is made of women. If I was told to meet with two of them, the chance of both of them being women is actually more likely than not (9/16) and the chance that at least one would be a woman is just shy of 94%.

A STEM grad is still a graduate. A STEM grad who teaches will still understand the hard reality of science.

It is men who deal with reality in our society. They build buildings, bridges, and roads, build ships and cars and trucks.

About 20% of engineering graduates are women. There is no field which confronts the reality of the world more than that. Please do not make wide sweeping gendered statements. There are plenty of women who understand reality, and there are plenty of men who have made a professional career out of sophistry.

Two points: Because more women go into teaching out of STEM, that means then the proportion of women to men who go into building buildings, bridges, roads, ships, cars and trucks, is less than the proportion of women who are qualified to.

Secondly, at least the teaching track STEM majors that I've met are vastly different than the rest of us. Most seem to not have deep interest in any of the higher end classes, because they know they'll never use them. After even just a few years, their skills have atrophied so badly that in most cases a second year student would be able to beat them on a test. This is because they never use their skills in a scientific context and instead basically just repeat lore.

A 20% exception is a very bad case to make a generality of "Woman's thinking." If 20% is not a sufficient counterpoint to a stated generality, then no man is in jail, there are no African Americans in the United States of America, and no day of the week is Monday.

wavegeekman never said that there are no women build bridges or such. A coin that flips heads 80% of the time doesn't prohibit the possibility of a tails, but I wouldn't take even odds on that bet.

The hard sciences won't state anything without 95% confidence. If you're going to claim science as the man's domain, you could at least have a more statistically significant argument.

CI's have nothing to do with this.

[–]iongantas 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Germanyah 13 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Reposting since the mods deleted it for some reason:

Of course it's a good idea. Patriarchy was a good system. Matriarchy, what we have today, is dysfunctional and downright hateful toward men and families.

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

[–]mayonesa 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Germanyah0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	This explains so much: Feminists reject logic as patriarchy; elevate emotion as "women's ways of knowing."
Author	OuiCrudites
Upvotes	261
Comments	178
Date	September 17, 2012 2:13 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/100tq1/this_explains_so_much_feminists_reject_logic_as/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-explains-so-much-feminists-reject-logic-as.1013356 https://theredarchive.com/post/1013356

Comments