What Statistics Tell Us About Gender Differences.

[–]toothless_budgie 378 points379 points380 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Taguroizumo 150 points151 points152 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]pfo_ 145 points146 points147 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 74 points75 points76 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Sleeping rough is roofless as well as homeless. You can be classed as homeless whilst provided with a temporary roof awaiting permanent housing.

In the western world, priority is given to women for shelter spaces, due to them being labelled as automatically vulnerable ( Where Is The feminist Out Cry Of Sexism).

This confusion between Roofless (Rough Sleeping) and Homeless (Having a Temporary Roof) causes many confusion.

Women make up less than 10% of Roofless/Homeless and no more than 25% of those who are Homeless with a temporary roof.

The vast majority of homeless people in western culture are MEN.

Homeless Charities Play Down the gender bias against men because when they raise it support and financial donations drop. People donate to help homeless women, and not homeless men.

Erin Pizzey found this back in the 1970s when she opened the world's first refuge for battered and their children. She was being handed massive cheques, deeds to properties and had the backing and physical support of Rock bands like The Who for Women's Refuges (Never mind children). She had to close the much needed men's refuge after six months as she didn't receive and couldn't raise even one penny to support Battered Men and Their Children.

See;

Erin Pizzey (1976). Scream Quietly Or the Neighbours Will Hear (2nd ed.). IF Books.
Erin Pizzey (2011). This Way to the Revolution: A Memoir. Peter Owen. ISBN 978-0-7206-1360-5.

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

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

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

[–]BasicFemme 65 points66 points67 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Absintheuphoric 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]iamnotfromtexas901 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

most ceo's are men.

most prison inmates and homeless are men.

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 43 points44 points45 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 374 points375 points376 points 7 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 119 points120 points121 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ragnrok 54 points55 points56 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]crunchthenumbers01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 39 points40 points41 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ldt003 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]laffytaffy6969 -75 points-74 points-73 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]mmob18 66 points67 points68 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".

That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.

Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.

But I want you to know. You don't matter. You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."

You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.

You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.

You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.

You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.

You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.

You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.

You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.

You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."

You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.

And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.

You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.

Karen Straughan

[–]cknight18 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chavez300 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Chavez300 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]420N1CKN4M3 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Someone needs to post this to murdered by words, because that's what just happened. Let me guess, no reply back?

They have no real substance to their arguments and as soon as they need to defend them...poof. Into thin air they go. It happens so much now that it is almost expected. They try to make an argument with some superficial, almost childish way of looking at an issue they feel emotional about. Instead of being able to back up what they say, they just vanish.

I think a lot of them simply are to a point now where it is bringing out some very tribalistic behavior and actions. They just see themselves on the "right" side no matter what, and are willing to do some pretty nasty stuff to even up what they see as them being oppressed. Mind you some of the most vocal of these people, are the most privileged university students on the face of the planet. They will most likely become the oppressors they think so poorly of. Then, justify it because they aren't like those other people. After all, they're on the right side of the issue. A little collateral damage isn't a big deal when you are in a "war" against the opposition.

[–]WPB999 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prince_odd 48 points49 points50 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Mode1961 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

the idea is that both genders are equal

Because I've been against feminism , producing content and engaging against feminists for so long that I forget that there are people that are still presenting that argument with 100% sincerity.

Alright , off the top of my head I will give you three vectors in which feminism fails miserably to meet the criteria you yourself have set, that men and women are "equal", that feminism forwards that notion with sincerity....

Feminist theory and especially cornerstones like "patriarchy theory", "rape culture" and "female oppression" all violate the tenet you claim feminism is about, I.e. none of those could exist if it was truly the belief that men and women are equal.
Feminists , in their actions, since the very beginning of feminism in the late 1960s/early 1970s , have always acted in the best interests of women, and tore men down at every opportunity that presented itself. That's not something that is consistent with the idea that "men and women are equal".
Finally, the very term "Feminism" means "Ideology/Advocacy in favor of women" .

Fem : Etymological root: Feminine, female.

Ism : A set of values conforming to a specific ethos, determinate pattern, system of belief and/or practice, etc.

The very word "feminism" contradicts your mythology, it is not about "men and women are equal" and never was on any metric. . What you are probably thinking of is EGALITARIANISM, not feminism.

Feminism is garbage and has always been garbage. There is no counter-argument.

[+]skepticalbob -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]torsmork 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]laffytaffy6969 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[+]laffytaffy6969 -12 points-11 points-10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

In theory, yes. In practice, hell no. Do you know how many issues men face that feminists have fought against? I want to ask a couple questions here. I don't think I've ever had a feminist even respond to this because they don't have any answer and can't defend certain actions. So, I have two questions, and they are posted below. I'll bet you don't respond, but here goes.

You can try to pull the no true Scottsman fallacy if you'd like and say not all feminists. I'll use the socratic method so you can come to your own conclusions and give me your opinion.

A major issue and reason for the MRM, is custody issues and family courts. This is something that has affected me personally. Anyways, NOW, the national organization for women is the biggest feminist group on the planet. They have lobby money in the millions, if not billions of dollars. Again, they're the biggest feminist group on earth. So, would you please explain to me why they keep blocking any legislation that would have divorces start from a point of equal custody? This is when both parents are deemed fit BTW. If feminism is truly for equality, and want to fix institionilized and systematic issues that men face. Why then, do they keep trying to block these bills? Let's not forget, the Tender Years Doctrine was created by feminists, not men. If you aren't familiar, this is the legislation we still use in a lot of cases to determine custody. The doctrine states that women are natural child care takers, and therefor should be given custody in a divorce.

If feminism is about equality and wants to fight against traditional gender roles, all while helping men. Why then is NOW as big as it is? Shouldn't feminists be condemning NOW because they keep pushing legislation that enforces traditional gender roles? If feminists don't agree with this type of legislation because, again, it forces women into stereotypical gender roles, same with men being the provider in that role. How are they still the biggest feminist group on earth, if that isn't the view of your average feminist. Why aren't they losing members?

So, you have feminists push the tender years doctrine. Then, turn around and support legislation and lobby the government to do exactly that, and pigeon hole women into raising the kids. Then, complain about traditional gender roles, when they wrote the fucking legislation that did so. Before, the kids actually went to who could best provide for them. It then forces men to be a walking atm for the mom, not the kid, because there is zero oversight into how the money is spent. So, they wrote legislation that made traditional gender roles into law. Then, fight like hell and spend millions of dollars to keep it this way. All the while, they complain about traditional gender roles. What the hell kind of logic is that? As someone who has lost custody because of title IV-D laws, also set by feminists. I will never support feminism until the biggest feminist group in the world changes their stance on this, and stops fighting any and all equal custody divorce laws.

The other issue, is how feminists have fought against men's DV shelters getting built. The last feminist I talked to said it's because they believe it will take away from women's DV shelter funding, and give it to men. Why not, oh I don't know, not look at DV as a gendered issue? Especially since the latest statistics on DV, show that it isn't something that effects women exclusively. The cdc reports that one in five men will face SEVERE DV in their life at some point. That seems like enough to me, to warrant. A bit of funding. One thing in the newest statistics I've found very eye opening. Is that lesbian women in relationships have the highest rate of DV out of any relationship type. Gay men have the lowest rates of DV. That flys in the face of patriarchy theory and toxic masculinity even being real.

[+]laffytaffy6969 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

No it isn't, and I just proved to you it wasn't. Again, in theory, sure. In practice? Hell no.

I change my opinion all the time. I have a feeling you don't, because you just "know" you are on the "right" side of these issues. I change my mind with evidence. You on the other hand, are beholden to an ideology above all else. So, don't project your bullshit, I won't change my mind simply because that is the stance you've taken, and assume me to do the same. Again, my mind changes with evidence and when someone can objectively demonstrate their beliefs. Yours won't with any amount of evidence I give you. That's called being brainwashed, by dictionary definition. So, and again, don't project bullshit on me just because youre ideologically possessed, and won't change your mind no matter what I show you. Thats being brainwashed to a political ideology if you won't change your stance as evidence is made available. I'm not the one doing that, and am trying to get you to show me something that goes against what I have said. Because unlike you, I am actually interested in truth here.

You haven't addressed a single point I made. You didn't answer a single question I had either. I'm not looking for some long response. Simply answering the questions would suffice.

If those aren't "real" feminists as you put it. Which, that's a logical fallacy btw and I shouldn't even be entertaining it with a response. Why then, is the national organization of women the biggest feminist group on earth as big as they are? They hold what you just said would be extreme views. Why aren't feminist correcting them? Do they not see that legislation as pushing traditional gender roles by creating legislation that makes women be seen as child care takers?

Mets be honest here. You can't defend your beliefs here, and are choosing to revert back to the original, controversial statement you made.

You made the claim that feminism is simply for equality. It is up to you to prove it now as you put the burden of proof on yourself. Defend it or go away we are trying to further discuss and dig into these issues. Or just make blanket, stereotypical statements and then run away.

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

[–]CaptSnap 118 points119 points120 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlackCatAristocrat 48 points49 points50 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CaptSnap 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]ActionJacksen 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]bklee83 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carmyk 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pieonthedonkey 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]BitsAndBobs30420 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]bpbucko614 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]torsmork 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]superhobo666 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]pieonthedonkey -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

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

If you want the RAW DATA, why not do an image search on google and you can then explore the subject to your heart's content.

The issue of the bell curve and diversity between men and women was being treated as old hat when I was at University over 3 decades ago. The issues was known about back in the 1970's with the debate over introducing Comprehensive education in the UK and abolishing assessment based education and grammar schools.

But if you need a sign post, why not start with the most basic and frequently referenced paper in since 1983....

Jensen, Arthur R., and Cecil R. Reynolds. "Sex differences on the WISC-R." Personality and individual differences 4.2 (1983): 223-226. DOI: 10.1016/0191-8869(83)90029-690029-6)

Then move onto the research that shows even bigger issues which the gals really don't like;

Jensen, A. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (1983), Sex differences on the WISC-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 223-226. doi: 10.1080/00221325.1993.9914744
Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32(5), 481-498. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.008

[+]RobertCatherine1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (21 children) | Copy Link

Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: the Scottish mental survey 1932 Ian J. Dearya,*, Graham Thorpeb , Valerie Wilsonb , John M. Starrc , Lawrence J. Whalleyd a Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, Scotland, UK b Scottish Council for Research in Education, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK c Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK d Department of Mental Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK Received 9 October 2002; received in revised form 18 March 2003; accepted 8 April 2003

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]pieonthedonkey 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Imnotmrabut1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pieonthedonkey1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Imnotmrabut1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]superhobo666 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackdog6621 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]RobertCatherine1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I might put in more effort if I actually thought the previous poster was authentically interested in a source.

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

[+]RobertCatherine1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Full PDF of the article.

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

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

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

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

[+]Abadoobie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Not really a glass basement though, nobody is looking down and wondering why they cant get there.

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

What’s Worse — Glass Ceilings or Glass Cellars?
Apex fallacy. Glass cellar. Feminine imperative. All of these, he argued, are contributing to a “war on men” in the workplace. This was an issue I’d asked about in my essay called “The Silent Sex” in the March issue of HBR. The apex fallacy is the idea that we use the most visible members of a group to make generalizations about the entire group; i.e. we see prominent men at the top of the pyramid and think all men are doing well, when, in fact, there are a great many at the bottom of the pyramid too. The glass cellar refers to that lowest tier of hazardous or poorly paid jobs (think firefighters, truckers, lumberjacks, coal miners and construction workers) that are mostly held by men.
*Alison Beard, What’s Worse — Glass Ceilings or Glass Cellars?, Harvard Business Review, MARCH 07, 2013*

What’s Worse — Glass Ceilings or Glass Cellars?

Apex fallacy. Glass cellar. Feminine imperative. All of these, he argued, are contributing to a “war on men” in the workplace. This was an issue I’d asked about in my essay called “The Silent Sex” in the March issue of HBR. The apex fallacy is the idea that we use the most visible members of a group to make generalizations about the entire group; i.e. we see prominent men at the top of the pyramid and think all men are doing well, when, in fact, there are a great many at the bottom of the pyramid too. The glass cellar refers to that lowest tier of hazardous or poorly paid jobs (think firefighters, truckers, lumberjacks, coal miners and construction workers) that are mostly held by men.

Alison Beard, What’s Worse — Glass Ceilings or Glass Cellars?, Harvard Business Review, MARCH 07, 2013

[–]TylerDurden1983 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Tedesche 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]fonduman 30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]89peters -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]89peters -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Nergaal -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]89peters 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]89peters 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You know what is much more strongly correlated with success? Inheritance.

That's actually not even remotely close to true.

A modest fortune can be mismanaged and squandered by an overconfident idiot and this is not an outlier. Stupid people have a habit of burning through money at an inordinate rate.

The reason this doesn't happen as often as you might think, is because people don't "get rich" for no reason, they had to have a knack, a certain level of intelligence, of some type, to have succeeded so immensely... and we know intelligence is a trait that is confirmed to be heritable, not in absolute terms but still very strong influence. I.e. intelligent father means the son will likely be intelligent as well and far less likely to be stupid. QED

So basically, your premise is incorrrect. Intelligence is a strong indicator of whether someone will be successful in life, and how successful they will probably be..... inheriting some money means jack point shit if there isn't the intellect and character to back it up.

though it is true that genius correlates with success, it can also correlate with lack of success. Geniuses have a higher probability of being mentally ill.

False.

The actual correlation is , as you go up in brackets of intelligence, you find a greater amount (proportionally speaking) of PERSONALITY DISORDERS, not "mental illness" proper. Personality disorders can be managed by the individual, generally speaking, mental illness cannot.

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

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

[–]AceroInoxidable -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]AceroInoxidable1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Who gives a fuck about your dumb idiotic argument that has nothing to do with reality when you can't even understand a simple sentence.

First, learn to read. That's how conservatives get to be conservatives: ignorance. Did you know that there's a strong correlation between lack of education, rural areas, and conservatism? It's called statistics and they show reality.

Of course, you're too stupid to know what statistics are. Basically, it means that if you grow up in a rich family chances are you're rich, and if you grow up in a poor family you're likely to be poor.

And you, asshole, can't even answer that reality. Can't even see it. Therefore you let people suffer instead of fighting to improve the world's inequality.

You, you personally, are a failure as a human being. Now keep thinking of ways to deny the truth --if you were smart enough to understand it, which you're not.

[–]89peters 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's actually not even remotely close to true.

Uh, yeah, it is. The data on this is absolutely clear:

"Most of the Forbes 400 have benefited from a level of privilege unknown to the vast majority of Americans. The study concluded that more than 60% of those on the list all grew up in substantial privilege with inheritances up to $1 million, and 11.5 of those on the list have inheritances well over $1 million. Seven per cent of those on the list had inherited wealth over $50 million.

As for IQ:

"Even allowing for this “environmental” caveat, IQ scores only account for about 10% of the variance in income differences among individuals (Fisher et al. 1996)."

What about social mobility?

"When the Pew Economic Mobility Project conducted a survey, 39 % of respondents said they believed it was “common” for people born into poverty to become rich, and 71 % said that personal attributes like hard work and drive, not the circumstances of a person’s birth, are the key determinants of success. Yet Pew’s own research has demonstrated that it is exceedingly rare for Americans to go from rags to riches, and that more modest movement from the bottom of the economic ladder isn’t common either. In fact, economic mobility is greater in Canada, Denmark, and France than it is in the United States."

https://raywilliams.ca/the-american-myths-of-the-self-made-man-the-american-dream-and-meritocracy/

The actual correlation is , as you go up in brackets of intelligence, you find a greater amount (proportionally speaking) of PERSONALITY DISORDERS, not "mental illness" proper.

Wrong again:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-the-highly-intelligent/

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

benefited from a level of privilege

... you expect me to take a marxist article seriously?

You might as well link to Barbie's Teatime Playhouse... it'll provide you with about the same level of merit.

"Even allowing for this “environmental” caveat, IQ scores only account for about 10% of the variance in income differences among individuals (Fisher et al. 1996)."

Nope. No benefit of the doubt bullshit this time, I already know you took that way out of context. It shows. It is blatant.

Wrong again

Nope.

I find it quite pathetic that you used the second google result. It tells me you are operating with severe confirmation bias.... but I will concede if "depression" and "anxiety" constitute forms of mental illness, which is retarded but unfortunately the DSM went full retard in modernity, then yes, your argument would have some merit.

Until or unless the DSM is completely discredited, which we are inching ever closer to by the way, the general notions of "personality disorder" and "mental illness" will remain extremely flimsy.

I concede. Not because your argument is good, it isn't, it's complete garbage.... but I realize now that if I argue the point, the APA and the DSM will both have nonsensical definitions that can be used against me. I would lose this argument due to bullshit semantics, but I digress.

[–]89peters 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]tpn86 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]Nocturn_Adrift0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]drkalmenius -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]tpn86 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tpn86 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drkalmenius 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]armaadi 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]drkalmenius1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

Ok i get your point but that still isn’t really correlated with IQ

[–]Twebified 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[+]drpayout1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

*conscientiousness

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

[+]drkalmenius1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I’m not saying intelligence has no influence on occupational attainment. But intelligence isn’t the same as an IQ score. The IQ for a toddler, which you used as an example, should be equal to its IQ as an adult. So, you helpfully proved my point- you wouldn’t expect a toddler to be a capable nurse, yet a toddler has the same IQ as many adults.

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

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

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

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

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

[+]Planner_Hammish -12 points-11 points-10 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevingrumbles[🍰] 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]UNLIKELYME -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]UNLIKELYME -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Happydrumstick2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UNLIKELYME1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KngpinOfColonProduce1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nybo1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]ImaginationFap1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UNLIKELYME0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ImaginationFap1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[+]Lallo-the-Long -20 points-19 points-18 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]Lallo-the-Long -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Lallo-the-Long -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Lallo-the-Long 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Lallo-the-Long 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

What Statistics Tell Us About Gender Differences.

Comments

diagram

Title	What Statistics Tell Us About Gender Differences.
Author	Imnotmrabut
Upvotes	1082
Comments	208
Date	August 19, 2018 11:55 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/98jql8/what_statistics_tell_us_about_gender_differences/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-statistics-tell-us-about-gender-differences.895912 https://theredarchive.com/post/895912