Facebook study: Gender Clichés

CFRProflcopter · 2013-10-04T14:17:53+00:00

I came across this article on r/theredpill about how people on Facebook adhere to gender stereotypes....

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (99 children) | Copy Link

I'm starting to see something here:

I think a lot of the debate on this sub that revolves around gender roles is kind of pointless.

I mean, TRP seems to generally favor that gender roles are far more biological than not. The non red-pillers seem to favor that there is a very strong cultural component as well.

And, while it's an interesting discussion, and tangentially related to a debate here, I think it's largely a moot point.

Even if we could prove to TRP that gender roles are 100% cultural...would it matter?

I don't think it would. Because the fact of the matter is, even if it's due to cultural influence, the majority of women are still socialized to fill some semblance of their gender role. And an even greater majority of men are still socialized to fill some semblance of their gender role. (This last one is just me throwing in my perception. Not an indisputable fact).

Even if you convincingly make the argument that freedom from these roles is a net good, would TRP really care?

I think it's more likely they would say, "Well, whatever. Whatever the cause is, it's the way the world is now, and I'm damn well gonna take advantage of it."

And...they're right. A lot of women DO still expect some semblance of a tradtional male gender role as their romantic partner (Strong, stoic, good in a crisis, leader). Because they've been conditioned to be some semblance of a traditional woman (More likely to express emotion, care more about her appearance, etc.). And since we're talking to guys who were definitely conditioned to be traditional men, convincing them to give it up doesn't seem bloody likely.

I mean. Gender roles are a bit more fluid than once upon a time. But I don't think they're SO fluid, or are breaking down fast enough, to be able to convince TRP that it doesn't have a point when it says being traditionally male is gonna be attractive to a lot of women.

I mean, you can make the case that they're morally repugnant. But, that's taking on a Sisyphusean task when you're talking to a group largely unconcerned with morality.

And I agree that a lot of their science and their explanations don't really hold water (Solipsism, hamstering, Captain/First Mate, etc.). But what we're actually faced with is invalidating any individual red pillers personal experience. Which we'll never be able to do.

Sooooo...What exactly are we accomplishing here in this sub?

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (90 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (89 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

As a red piller, there is nothing I would love more than to see woman 'man up' and take responsibility for their womanhood.

Wouldn't you say the prevailing attitude on TRP doesn't actually promote this? Doesn't excusing bad behavior on the part of women as "hypergamy that's just part of her biology" run directly counter to getting women to "man up?"

I mean, what I'm trying to get at is something I've sort of said elsewhere: The attitude that society needs some fixing is very prevalent on TRP. And, I don't disagree. But isn't TRP sort of, I dunno, I guess...contributing to the ills? Or at the very least, basically saying let someone else handle it, and I'll just have lots of sex in the meantime?

Which, I mean, that's fine. When I first encountered that attitude, I got angry about it, and that was misguided of me, I suppose.

But, if you're choosing, instead of trying to help become part of the solution, to check out and do the best you can for yourself in the meantime, aren't you kind of forfeiting the right to complain about it?

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

But isn't TRP sort of, I dunno, I guess...contributing to the ills?

Absolutely not.

There are a population of natural-born alphas who garner most female attention (the 80-20 rule, and all that). The small tiny minority of red pillers spend time learning how to transition into that group.

I do agree that a lot of red pillers would give up at 'that's her biology' but many including myself do not.

basically saying let someone else handle it, and I'll just have lots of sex in the meantime?

What would you have them do? This country demonizes men who advocate for themselves and their fellow man. Should all red pillers be noble saints, sacrificing themselves for the very society that let them down? Or should they just learn how to make the best with their life?

If you want these people to take up that responsibility, you should also be expecting the same out of any other group of people.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_FallacyBot_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is not how proof works. We know these things exist. We know these things are sexist. We know these things are consistently renewed for more funding for women and no funding for men.

Again, the proof of mere existence is already here in our global politics. MRAs get backlash for wanting to open up men's centers. Universities continue to fund women centers only. VAWA continues to ignore the 50% male DV victims. Male contraception or fathers rights never get a political platform as single mothers do.

Can you explain how these things exist with a society of people who adamantly disagree with the underlying sexism?

Also, polls like you want don't exist. Feminists would never allow a poll like that to see the light of day.

If you want a statistic, congress voted 286 to 138 to renew the VAWA, which again focuses all DA/DV funding towards women, ignoring literally half of the problem.

On top of that, the female voting block (which is MUCH larger than the male) used this as a selling point for reelections, and shamed congressmen who voted against it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/28/the-violence-against-women-acts-most-interesting-votes/

You may say "but congress are men, patriarchy!". They are representing more women than men and as such have to pander appropriately. By replacing congressmen who don't support sexist things like VAWA, America's female electorate is directly responsible for the terrible state of men's rights in America.

[–]soulcakeduck4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is not how proof works. We know these things exist.

Huh? If you claim they exist, prove it. That's exactly how burden of proof works. Prove that 100 million American women are "preventing male rape and DV/DA victims from being able to find help."

There's a touch of irony here. You rightly reject people who would inflate statistics to further their cause. Yet you're offering statistics in this discussion, and arguing you don't need to prove they're remotely true in any sense.

If you want a statistic, congress voted 286 to 138 to renew the VAWA, which again focuses all DA/DV funding towards women, ignoring literally half of the problem.

And MRAs focus on men's issues. Are you saying any advocacy that is narrowly tailored is intentionally exclusive and must by definition hate other solutions/problems? So MRAs are misogynists who don't want women to get support for rape or domestic abuse? LGBT don't want straight people to have a right to marry? Surely not.

Advocacy groups are nearly always tailored as narrowly as possible. There's evidence to suggest this is often helpful: by focusing on one problem as specifically as possible they're better able to address it, similar to how many people would argue local governments are better than the federal government at solving many social problems. And the history of rights movements has shown this has been far and away the most effective and paradoxically least fracturing approach.

[–]_FallacyBot_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you saying any advocacy that is narrowly tailored is intentionally exclusive and must by definition hate other solutions/problems?

When the solution is 'fund women at the expense of male problems', yes.

So MRAs are misogynists who don't want women to get support for rape or domestic abuse? LGBT don't want straight people to have a right to marry? Surely not.

Unlike feminists, these groups want to have the same rights as everyone else. The feminists are pushing for (and acquiring) special treatment.

How many Women's shelters are there? How many Women's centers? How many Women's studies professors?

Meanwhile, men dominate the homeless, the insane, the murdered, the poor, and the sick.

I would have this same argument for someone who argues that LGBT women shouldn't receive aid/funding for domestic abuse.

Why do you think these anti-male policies exist, if not for an anti-male feminist agenda?

edit -

Huh? If you claim they exist, prove it.

Look up the UofT riots. Feminists preventing MRA discourse. The university and police silently condoning it via their inaction.

Look up provisions of VAWA and then the Duluth model.

Look up some family court and child support statistics.

Look up any number of ways men are disenfranchised, disadvantaged, and killed.

[–]soulcakeduck3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Unlike feminists, these groups want to have the same rights as everyone else. The feminists are pushing for (and acquiring) special treatment.

Do you think that is open for debate? Do you think these feminists would characterize their actions that way?

Why do you think these anti-male policies exist, if not for an anti-male feminist agenda?

I don't think that shelters that help female victims of rape and violence are anti-male. I think they're pro-women, and perhaps we could do with more pro-male advocacy to match.

Look up the UofT riots. Feminists preventing MRA discourse.

100 million American women protested at University of Toronto?

Look up some family court and child support statistics.

The statistics I am familiar with are academic studies that all conclude the courts favor fathers in custody proceedings. The problem is that nearly all custody arrangements are made outside of the courthouse, with both parents agreeing to results that, in aggregate, give women custody more often.

Look up provisions of VAWA and then the Duluth model. ... Look up any number of ways men are disenfranchised, disadvantaged, and killed.

Where can I look to find evidence of 100 million American women agitating that these are special, unequal treatments that they want to disadvantage men?

[–]PizzaOnEarth0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think they're pro-women, and perhaps we could do with more pro-male advocacy to match.

Here's the problem. Everyone says "well men just need better advocates".

Money and resources are zero-sum. When you take all the funding for women's shelters, that necessarily excludes men. The feminists in charge know this.

Do you think these feminists would characterize their actions that way?

No. However they also refuse to acknowledge their lack of responsibility in society. Women don't do any dangerous jobs, manufacturing, agriculture, etc etc etc. Feminists fight to have the right to do anything, but not the responsibility to support that right. That's left to the men.

That's why today's men are leaving the workforce in favor of eating cheetos and playing CoD all day. No family to support, no loving wife to come home to. Might as well chill.

100 million American women protested at University of Toronto?

Please stop straw-manning.

Why do you think none of the violent and aggressive feminists there were arrested that day? Patriarchy? Men oppressed women so much that we can't bring ourselves to punish them when they break the law?

[–]soulcakeduck4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]am_thro_way1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]am_thro_way5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Good job on missing the point!

It wasn't just men, it was men and women. Men are historically over-represented in the creation of technology because women generally weren't allowed to be involved in academia historically. It says nothing about a women's capacity to do the same thing. The fact that I even have to spell this out is just kind of mind boggling.

Saying shit like this:

Maybe you should stop hating on men and be thankful that men invented the computer, programming, OSs, and all the other nice amenities that you are enjoying right now. Because as it is going now, men are getting the shaft and deciding to stop doing these things that keep society running.

...is no different than "Check your privilege patriarchy!" You respond the childishness you perceive in feminism with the exact same childishness.

[–]PizzaOnEarth0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

women generally weren't allowed to be involved in academia historically

Good thing most innovation and creation historically has taken place outside of academia then, huh? Other than maybe in the Victorian era I would venture to say that academia (with female exclusion) is even the exception and not the rule for innovation.

Especially in the age of computers. It doesn't matter what gender you are when you shun academia and choose to risk your future spending tens of thousands of hours innovating and programming from behind a keyboard. So where are the female Bill Gates of the world?

I would love to see feminists step up and leave their bullshit 'gender studies' and other useless pursuits in favor of actually contributing to society. Go build a skyscraper, run a power plant, or assemble some cars.

[–]angatar_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

so again... I will direct you to the 'needle in the haystack'. I am not saying 'no woman ever invented anything'. I'm saying not enough are doing it and you can't always blame the patriarchy.

This woman was basically seen as a god, as were many of her female colleagues who were not creative like her. And her actual work is pretty standard prayer-like boiler plate metaphors. She was no William Shakespeare. She's not famous because of her contribution, but because of the archaeological significance of her place in society, and the fact that she was able to leave such a footprint.

Like Lucy, the 3 million year old skeleton. Her legacy is 'being in the right place at the right time'. This does not make her a great woman.

This still begs the question - where are the rest of the women? Why not 50% of innovation?

Feminism has never actually contributed anything useful to society, now, huh?

I never said that, nor would I ever. Feminism did great things. In the 1920's. Of course they did shit things too like guilt/shame men into dying in WWI.

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

attacking credentials as an appeal to discredit in an unrelated field is an ad hominem attack and does not validly discredit any argument it is used against.

There is no fallacy above because remember that ad hominem's aren't always fallacious - sometimes they are simply insults and sometimes they are valid attacks on someone's credentials.

For example, if someone claimed to be a world renowned professor who lectures at all the top universities, it would be an ad hominem for me to point out that that person is a full-time janitor at the local high school with no formal qualifications. That is, the characteristic is valid to the line of argument (specifically, how can someone with no advanced degrees who works fulltime in an unrelated position, manage to reach the position of visiting professorship? Obviously it's not impossible, but it's a valid point to raise).

The same thing applies here. One thing people learn in college is that their naive views of the world are usually wrong - the idea that men invented everything and are responsible for all the technology and scientific innovations, etc, is a naive and overly simplistic view of the world. When people have finished a first year course in any STEM field, they usually have enough knowledge to recognise why their beliefs are unfounded and wrong.

So, no fallacy, just an ad hominem. And as pointed out by angatar, the fallacy was in your response - you rejected his point based on your perception that his argument was fallacious. This is a fallacy because the conclusion can still be correct even if the argumentation is fallacious. Plus, in real life, nobody carries out discussions without committing a number of fallacies so it's kind of ridiculous to call them out.

[–]PizzaOnEarth1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Please reread my statement

I repeat

attacking credentials as an appeal to discredit in an unrelated field is an ad hominem attack and does not validly discredit any argument it is used against.

"college" has nothing to do with a scientific education. Especially since most degrees now are worthless, just used as a continuation of high school babysitting. He was merely using an immature deflection when he could not refute anything I said. And he still refuses.

One thing people learn in college is that their naive views of the world are usually wrong - the idea that men invented everything and are responsible for all the technology and scientific innovations, etc, is a naive and overly simplistic view of the world.

I actually grew up with the contrary view - that men and women had an equal hand. But then as I actually gained an education on the history of technology, literature, etc etc., I found that the women I learned about were the few and far between, and were exaggerated to appear equal in influence to men.

And my education allowed me to see that almost everything around us in society is built by the sweat of men, for the comfort of women. And I'm fine with that. But feminism sure isn't.

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Please reread my statement I repeat

attacking credentials as an appeal to discredit in an unrelated field is an ad hominem attack and does not validly discredit any argument it is used against.

That doesn't change anything I've said though. You've described an ad hominem there but haven't shown it to be an ad hominem fallacy.

"college" has nothing to do with a scientific education. Especially since most degrees now are worthless, just used as a continuation of high school babysitting.

This is obviously a bullshit claim.

He was merely using an immature deflection when he could not refute anything I said. And he still refuses.

No, he was incredulously asking if you had been to college. That is, he was asking if someone who had learnt enough about the world to go to college could possibly hold such naive and factually incorrect views.

I actually grew up with the contrary view - that men and women had an equal hand. But then as I actually gained an education on the history of technology, literature, etc etc., I found that the women I learned about were the few and far between, and were exaggerated to appear equal in influence to men.

Ah, so you did go to college? Or is your "education on the history of technology, literature, etc" self-taught (i.e. not a real education)?

If the latter, then it makes sense that your views on the topic would be so far from reality.

And my education allowed me to see that almost everything around us in society is built by the sweat of men, for the comfort of women. And I'm fine with that. But feminism sure isn't.

Historically this is mostly true (we still have to ignore significant contributions from women throughout history but sure, we'll go with that), but obviously it's only because up until very recently in our history, men were the only ones allowed to get an education. Even in many parts of the world today this is still true.

[–]PizzaOnEarth1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is obviously a bullshit claim.

Tell that to all of the Liberal Arts majors who have to work at starbucks.

And again, if I had a degree in Park and Forestry services, would the presence of that degree increase my qualifications in this area? How is 'college' as a broad subject at all relevent? The only purpose to bring that up is to deflect irrelevent credentials.

Or is your "education on the history of technology, literature, etc" self-taught (i.e. not a real education)?

My formal collegiate and postgraduate education in computer programming and software engineering, chemistry, and medicine have changed my view of 'women are equal innovators' that was instilled on me in elementary school. Now that I actually see the names of all the men who created the fields I work in.

up until very recently in our history, men were the only ones allowed to get an education.

The 'women are oppressed from modern life' notion is faulty at best. Even the Bro dude up there was linking women who were heads of their academic fields in the 1900-40's, or worshipped princesses in early history. These women were clearly not kept from participation.

Innovation in its purest form does not even require an education. Many of our finest innovators shunned formal education to pursue HIS dreams unhindered. Again I ask - where are the female Bill Gates?

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Tell that to all of the Liberal Arts majors who have to work at starbucks.

Liberal arts majors with shitty jobs proves that college has nothing to do with a scientific education? And obviously the fact that many markets are becoming saturated with graduates doesn't mean that college is simply a baby sitting service - that would ignore all the great work that comes from people who did find jobs.

And again, if I had a degree in Park and Forestry services, would the presence of that degree increase my qualifications in this area? How is 'college' as a broad subject at all relevent? The only purpose to bring that up is to deflect irrelevent credentials.

They aren't irrelevant. College degrees generally focus on areas of human creation and innovation - even in park and forestry areas there is innovation.

If you want to go back and limit your claim to scientific creation and innovation, then sure a specific degree might be relevant, but it still doesn't change the fact that a college degree exposes you knowledge that makes it impossible to conclude that men were solely responsible for our current society.

My formal collegiate and postgraduate education in computer programming and software engineering, chemistry, and medicine have changed my view of 'women are equal innovators' that was instilled on me in elementary school. Now that I actually see the names of all the men who created the fields I work in.

And so Brosolophy's point stands - it's incredible that someone can go through college and have such an ignorant view of reality as you do (i.e. no ad hominem). No one can study computer science, chemistry and medicine and conclude that women played little-to-no role in the development of those fields.

The 'women are oppressed from modern life' notion is faulty at best.

No, it's a fact. It's not even an historical issue, given that (as mentioned) many parts of the world still refuse to allow girls the same education as boys.

Even the Bro dude up there was linking women who were heads of their academic fields in the 1900-40's

So what? How in the world do you think that supports your point? The existence of some women who rose above challenges to reach those positions does not negate the fact that those challenges existed.

or worshipped princesses in early history.

Not sure what relevance this has.

These women were clearly not kept from participation.

Of course women were kept from participation as, up until relatively recently in our Western history, girls were expected to learn how to take care of the house at an early age, whereas boys were the ones who went on to study.

Innovation in its purest form does not even require an education. Many of our finest innovators shunned formal education to pursue HIS dreams unhindered. Again I ask - where are the female Bill Gates?

...Bill Gates' dream was only possible as a result of his years spent at Harvard. He even admits that dropping out was a mistake.

As for examples of similar women innovators, what criteria would you be looking for? What about Josephine Cochrane, inventor of the dishwasher with no formal qualifications, or Gertrude Elion who invented the AIDS drug AZT without a PhD because she wasn't allowed to apply for one as she was a woman.

[–]PizzaOnEarth-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

girls were expected to learn how to take care of the house at an early age, whereas boys were the ones who went on to study.

To say this was true throughout history is disingenuous, dear. Women were business partners and equals through most history, even colonial America. The 'stay at home' trope was only present in the Victorian era.

The existence of some women who rose above challenges to reach those positions does not negate the fact that those challenges existed.

"No women are allowed education!"

"Well these women just got education because they were so awesome and lucky and EVIL MEN rah rah rah!"

...

As for examples of similar women innovators, what criteria would you be looking for? What about Josephine Cochrane, inventor of the dishwasher with no formal qualifications, or Gertrude Elion who invented the AIDS drug AZT without a PhD because she wasn't allowed to apply for one as she was a woman.

Again, why aren't innovators HALF of women? Even now?

Gertrude Elion who invented the AIDS drug AZT without a PhD because she wasn't allowed to apply for one as she was a woman.

Actually the opposite of true. As Ms. Elion details in her Nobel speech she talks about how some of her classmates go on to scientific research, but she held off graduate school "because of the depression". When financially stable, she went and got her Masters in 1939. She went into shitty lab work for a couple years then got into research in 44. She even states she later declined pursuing her doctorate because it would require her full-time attention. And she didn't want to leave the lab where she was an ASSISTANT to Dr. Hitchings where they began pursuing purine-derived targeted drug approach.

Elion's lab (mostly men) made great contributions and put Elion in a unique position to test out some unique compounds with excellent results. Namely, purine derivatives that may act as anti-biotics for various agents due to nucleic acid synthesis disruption (which was already known by Hitchings). As a result of this group effort (of mostly men), Elion, Hitchings, and Black were recognized and awarded the Nobel.

Where are you getting these silly facts?

Elion worked hard and studied hard and got exactly where she wanted to be. And 95% of her female cohort decided they didn't want to work that hard or risk anything, and instead chose to become a homemaker for a man who did.

In conclusion:

No one can study computer science, chemistry and medicine and conclude that women played little-to-no role in the development of those fields.

I'm still waiting for evidence of anything greater than a 'little to no role'.

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

To say this was true throughout history is disingenuous, dear. Women were business partners and equals through most history, even colonial America. The 'stay at home' trope was only present in the Victorian era.

You're just trolling now, right? No I'm sorry, sugar balls, you can't be serious.

"No women are allowed education!" "Well these women just got education because they were so awesome and lucky and EVIL MEN rah rah rah!" ...

Well those were some fine strawmen you pulled out there. Hey, why not point out where anyone has suggested: a) no woman in history has ever received education, and b) that men were evil.

Thanks, doll.

Again, why aren't innovators HALF of women? Even now?

Despite your attempts to rewrite history, the fact that women have largely been denied access to even the most basic forms of education (never mind tertiary level education) is the main reason why they weren't the primary drivers of innovation.

To put it another way, if the only thing you teach women is to be housewives, then how much opportunity do you expect for them to have for innovation? Even with this limited scope, you still had women like Cochrane inventing the dishwasher.

As for why this difference still exists, it's because the sexism in society still exists. Importantly however, notice the trend - as women are given more equal opportunities in higher education, the more the gap closes. This narrowing gap contradicts your position.

Actually the opposite of true. As Ms. Elion details in her Nobel speech[1] she talks about how some of her classmates go on to scientific research, but she held off graduate school "because of the depression". When financially stable, she went and got her Masters in 1939. She went into shitty lab work for a couple years then got into research in 44. She even states she later declined pursuing her doctorate because it would require her full-time attention. And she didn't want to leave the lab where she was an ASSISTANT to Dr. Hitchings where they began pursuing purine-derived targeted drug approach.

What an incredible misrepresentation of her life. Okay, let's review: she was denied from 15 institutions for a PhD position on the sole basis that she was a woman. The only position she could find at that time was a research assistant position which was unpaid, since she was a woman.

And you don't think her being a woman affected her career and opportunities? Pull the other one.

Elion's lab (mostly men) made great contributions and put Elion in a unique position to test out some unique compounds with excellent results. Namely, purine derivatives that may act as anti-biotics for various agents due to nucleic acid synthesis disruption (which was already known by Hitchings). As a result of this group effort (of mostly men), Elion, Hitchings, and Black were recognized and awarded the Nobel.

Oh I see! When women do great things, and are explicitly awarded for their efforts, it's because men in the background did it all for them. When men do it, it's because there were no women in the research teams behind them and it was all the work of men.

Gotcha.

Elion worked hard and studied hard and got exactly where she wanted to be. And 95% of her female cohort decided they didn't want to work that hard or risk anything, and instead chose to become a homemaker for a man who did.

She made multiple breakthroughs in the field of medicine, changed the face of our society forever, and she couldn't find anyone to give her a PhD position despite applying everywhere available to her on the sole basis that she was a woman.

Yep. She continued her education exactly to where she wanted to be.

I'm still waiting for evidence of anything greater than a 'little to no role'.

Come on now - you're inventing men in the shadows pulling at the strings of any success of any woman. Of course you're not going to accept evidence or reality, you've concocted a warped view of the world where your biased view can never be wrong, dimple cheeks.

[–]PizzaOnEarth-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, let's review: she was denied from 15 institutions for a PhD position on the sole basis that she was a woman. The only position she could find at that time was a research assistant position which was unpaid, since she was a woman.

Source?

She openly states she opted to join the work force after her masters to save money.

That's not in the link I gave, nor anything else I can find.

As for the unpaid internship - men do that too. And this was not 'because she was a woman'. It was because the job market sucked (see "World War II")

Nothing I can find on Elion mentions her being held back as a female institutionally (except, ironically, by her female instructor at her all-girls school telling her to stay in the kitchen)

you're inventing men in the shadows pulling at the strings of any success of any woman.

Are you denying the fact that Hitchings was already working on purine analogs?

As for women in history:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes_p2.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_19780_5-gender-stereotypes-that-used-to-be-exact-opposite_p2.html

Even the anti-MRA feminists at cracked know that men and women were equal pretty much until the industrial revolution.

Despite your attempts to rewrite history, the fact that women have largely been denied access to even the most basic forms of education (never mind tertiary level education) is the main reason why they weren't the primary drivers of innovation.

So what do you make of the fact that most men were also prevented from basic education throughout most of history? The fact that even now, more men are in poverty within the first world, and more women are granted higher education? Why isn't innovation now 60% female, in line with access to higher education?

you've concocted a warped view of the world where your biased view can never be wrong, dimple cheeks.

I wish that were true. As I've stated before, I grew up believing (and want to believe) that women are contributing to innovation as much as men.

I don't like living in a society where half the population refuses to get their hands dirty. Pull your own weight already!

Show me a progressive field that brings societal benefit whose innovation (not just membership) is 30% women by any quantitative measure. Any field.

Surely it isn't your field. Even though your field is female-dominated, the women in your field opt to sit at home and complain while the men are doing actual research.

If women like you stopped bitching and actually went out and showed some ambition, none of this would be an issue. We already have educated women. You just don't produce anything.

[–]angatar_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Source? She openly states she opted to join the work force after her masters to save money. That's not in the link I gave, nor anything else I can find.

She discusses it in a number of places and there are some good biographies on her you can read. For example: Gertrude Elion: Nobel Prize Winner in Physiology and Medicine. After being rejected from 15 institutions and then was turned down from a laboratory assistant position for being too pretty (she would distract the other workers apparently), she claims that she "almost fell apart" and that it was the first time she realised that being a woman was a disadvantage, and that is seriously discouraged her from continuing this path.

As for the unpaid internship - men do that too. And this was not 'because she was a woman'. It was because the job market sucked (see "World War II")

No, it was because the labs she applied for mostly turned her down for being "too pretty", and the only way she could get a foot in the door was to take an unpaid position. If you have a link to men in WWII times having to take unpaid positions because they were too pretty, then I'd love to see them.

Nothing I can find on Elion mentions her being held back as a female institutionally (except, ironically, by her female instructor at her all-girls school telling her to stay in the kitchen)

How is that ironic? That's the point I'm making. Do you think discrimination against women is only done by men?

Are you denying the fact that Hitchings was already working on purine analogs?

No, I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. No invention came about in a vacuum. None at all. To generalise Newton's quote, they all stand on the shoulders of giants. To dismiss the work of women because they did not invent an entire area of science with no reference to anything else in the world is ridiculous.

To put it another way: much of Bill Gates' innovations were ideas repurposed or directly stolen from IBM. IBM was the company renowned for its female workforce and many of the creations with IBM were, at least in part, due to the contributions of women. If you reject Elison's work because men were part of the work in the background then you have to reject Gates' work because women played a significant role in the development of Windows.

As for women in history: http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes_p2.html http://www.cracked.com/article_19780_5-gender-stereotypes-that-used-to-be-exact-opposite_p2.html Even the anti-MRA feminists at cracked know that men and women were equal pretty much until the industrial revolution.

Haha! I don't know what's funnier - using Cracked as a source or referring to them as "anti-MRA feminists".

But hey, just because women couldn't vote or couldn't own property when married doesn't mean they weren't equal. It's obviously just a different kind of "equal". I think George Orwell discussed this kind of equality in 'Animal Farm'.

Anyway, try wikipedia, it's slightly more respectable than Cracked (particularly the scholarly references at the bottom).

So what do you make of the fact that most men were also prevented from basic education throughout most of history?

You're ignoring the fact that more women were.

The fact that even now, more men are in poverty within the first world, and more women are granted higher education? Why isn't innovation now 60% female, in line with access to higher education?

Because times are still only changing slowly. More women are getting degrees but are finding it hard to get into graduate positions. When they do that, they have a much harder time finding jobs and being paid anywhere near as well as men.

I wish that were true. As I've stated before, I grew up believing (and want to believe) that women are contributing to innovation as much as men. I don't like living in a society where half the population refuses to get their hands dirty. Pull your own weight already!

You're so far gone it's ridiculous. Plus, I'm a dude.

Show me a progressive field that brings societal benefit whose innovation (not just membership) is 30% women by any quantitative measure. Any field.

Nursing.

Surely it isn't your field. Even though your field is female-dominated, the women in your field opt to sit at home and complain while the men are doing actual research.

...What are you talking about? The research in my field is dominated by men because women are still rejected in much greater numbers from graduate positions and research positions because they are women. Seriously - if you have a female named attached to your CV, then you're much less likely to get the position and to be paid the same amount as if you had a male name.

Despite that, there is still a massive amount of research being done by women in the field. For example, given that red pillers love evolutionary psychology so much, they should know that the field was kickstarted by a woman (Leda Cosmides).

If women like you stopped bitching and actually went out and showed some ambition, none of this would be an issue. We already have educated women. You just don't produce anything.

Only in your magical world where everything conforms to your preconceptions, including contradicting evidence.

[–]am_thro_way2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Then what exactly did you mean by equating men being "shamed" into dating old/slutty women or doing housework to a gay teen being bullied into suicide?

One was an analogy for emotional abuse. Which is what many wives do to their husbands in the process of taking their balls away. Ironically, this is what also causes the wives to lose attraction to their husbands and divorce-rape them.

I know that, and that's obviously a problem that needs addressing, no argument there.

So why aren't women like you fighting for equality in suicide, domestic violence, violent crime victimizatoin, etc etc.? Why are you instead shaming men to control them?

What makes you think I hate men?

See above.

also

At the moment, it almost comes across as if you want women to be responsible for men's actions, rather than their own.

You need to realize that men are already responsible for all of society. All innovation, all hard dirty work, all dangerous work, all agricultural work, all production and manufacturing work, all military work, and all social and familial responsibility rests on men.

I'm asking women like you to start pulling your own weight. I'm sorry if that idea offends you. But that's how I think.

[–]am_thro_way2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

One was an analogy for emotional abuse. Which is what many wives do to their husbands in the process of taking their balls away. Ironically, this is what also causes the wives to lose attraction to their husbands and divorce-rape them.

I assume this is regarding the housework example? In that case, I agree with you that domestic abuse against men needs to be taken more seriously, but your original comment didn't really get that across. I don't think many people would make the leap from housework to abuse.

You need to realize that men are already responsible for all of society. All innovation, all hard dirty work, all dangerous work, all agricultural work, all production and manufacturing work, all military work, and all social and familial responsibility rests on men.

Well, my initial comment wasn't meant to shame men or imply they currently have no responsibilities in society - I apologize for not phrasing it more clearly. What I meant was that your wording, in the context of the specific examples you gave, implied that women should be held responsible for men's choices re: who to date and how much housework to do.

Also, I do believe more women are entering the workforce and the military, so change is already happening on that front.

So why aren't women like you fighting for equality in suicide, domestic violence, violent crime victimizatoin, etc etc.?

Not everyone is cut out to be a political activist. Most of us are busy living our own lives. If "not advocating on behalf of" == "hatred" then put me down as hating the entire human race, every single endangered species, and the environment.

[–]PizzaOnEarth0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Also, I do believe more women are entering the workforce and the military, so change is already happening on that front.

Women are not going to the shit part of the work force, AKA the glass floor.

Any dangerous job is going to be woman-free. Even the ones that don't require physical strength. Have you ever seen a woman in a harness repairing a power line? Also the women in the military are mostly in the reserves, and in active duty mostly in noncombat roles. They want to have 'combat-adjacent' roles so they are eligible for necessary promotions that require combat, but they don't want to go risk their life. That's a man's job.

Most of us are busy living our own lives

And then once every few years you vote for congressman who run on anti-male platforms to do things like pass the VAWA or the Duluth model.

The electorate is 55-60% women. Men have very little control over today's political climate.

[–]angatar_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]am_thro_way2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women are not going to the shit part of the work force, AKA the glass floor. Any dangerous job is going to be woman-free. Even the ones that don't require physical strength. Have you ever seen a woman in a harness repairing a power line? Also the women in the military are mostly in the reserves, and in active duty mostly in noncombat roles. They want to have 'combat-adjacent' roles so they are eligible for necessary promotions that require combat, but they don't want to go risk their life. That's a man's job.

Fair point. However, I wouldn't say that doing dangerous jobs means men are solely responsible for society. A job doesn't have to be life-threatening to be important.

And then once every few years you vote for congressman who run on anti-male platforms to do things like pass the VAWA or the Duluth model. The electorate is 55-60% women. Men have very little control over today's political climate.

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to owe you a response for that, as I'm not American and have very little familiarity with American politics. But I doubt most women base their voting decisions on hatred of men.

[–]RobotPartsCorp3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reason-and-rhymebi male, anti-bullshit0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why should the responsibility fall to men? Until societies attitudes towards men change, being the person who tries to change the system and go against gender roles is pretty much self-emasculation and won't lead to the kind of female attention that men really want. So your options are: devote your life trying to alter social opinions to give non-masculine men a chance at being "alpha" (an absolutely monumental task that can certainly not be completed in a lifetime, even if the vast majority of men were devoted to it), or operate within the current system and get laid. It shouldn't be hard to see why TRPers choose the second option.

As far as raising children goes, I feel like children of a red pill man (in the somewhat unlikely event that he actually has them) would be raised with an acute awareness of gender roles, and how they impact men and women. They would, unfortunately, be given the same choice as their parents: try and fix the system and be frustrated and most likely lonely, or operate within it and hopefully have a good time, lots of sex, and feel satisfied that you're actually doing something that directly benefits you.

[–]angatar_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why should the responsibility fall to men?

What makes you think it's only men who need to change?

Until societies attitudes towards men change, being the person who tries to change the system and go against gender roles is pretty much self-emasculation and won't lead to the kind of female attention that men really want.

I wonder if the same criticism was leveled at the men who formed the women's suffrage movement. Anyway, do you know what I really want? If what I really want is female attention, why does everything I do have to work towards that goal?

So your options are: devote your life trying to alter social opinions to give non-masculine men a chance at being "alpha" (an absolutely monumental task that can certainly not be completed in a lifetime, even if the vast majority of men were devoted to it), or operate within the current system and get laid.

This is a false dichotomy, and that first option is bullshit anyway. According to The Red Pill, feminism took over the world in less than 100 years. Why is it impossible to change society further?

Children

I find it likely that a Red Piller's child would not be aware of the positives and negatives of gender roles.

[–]Reason-and-rhymebi male, anti-bullshit1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think it's men that need to change. All of society needs to change, and I'm asking why it should be the responsibility of men to bring about change for the entire world, not just their own mindset. It's a daunting task.

You also misplaced the emphasis on "really". I'm saying [most/many/this is a generalisation try not to dispute the shit out of it because it's quite evidently true] desire female attention greatly. Additionally, you can't compare the changing of social attitudes to the suffrage movement - legislation is as easy as getting a sizeable minority of people to agree with you. Changing attitudes towards gender roles requires the cooperation of pretty much everyone, otherwise children will continually be raised according to tradition.

If you see a third option that does not fall under the categories "Change the system" or "work within it" I would like to hear it. TRP likes to exaggerate the amount of power that feminism has acquired. Obviously feminism hasn't "taken over the world" and there are still a bunch of hurdles in the path of gender equality. My point remains, you can't just change social attitudes. It takes both a lot of effort from dedicated people and a long time.

And the children thing is total speculation. As a person who subscribes to red pill philosophy, I personally believe I would educate my kids on what gender roles mean, how they affect us, their negative and prohibitive aspects, and how you can learn to live with them (in case you didn't know, that's pretty much the entirety of RP philosophy, minus the sexual advice/game).

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it's men that need to change. All of society needs to change, and I'm asking why it should be the responsibility of men to bring about change for the entire world, not just their own mindset. It's a daunting task.

It's not only men's responsibility, it's just that you need widespread support. Men are part of society, like it or not.

You also misplaced the emphasis on "really". I'm saying [most/many/this is a generalisation try not to dispute the shit out of it because it's quite evidently true] desire female attention greatly.

I understand men desire female attention. What kind of attention are you looking for?

Additionally, you can't compare the changing of social attitudes to the suffrage movement - legislation is as easy as getting a sizeable minority of people to agree with you. Changing attitudes towards gender roles requires the cooperation of pretty much everyone, otherwise children will continually be raised according to tradition.

I was comparing the "emasculation" of men in the women's suffrage movement to the "emasculation" of men today. I don't think women desire men less than then; they probably desire and have sex more now. What's so different about this challenge other than difficulty?

If you see a third option that does not fall under the categories "Change the system" or "work within it" I would like to hear it.

That's not what I read. I read you either change the system or get laid. You can do both.

My point remains, you can't just change social attitudes. It takes both a lot of effort from dedicated people and a long time.

So?

As a person who subscribes to red pill philosophy, I personally believe I would educate my kids on what gender roles mean, how they affect us, their negative and prohibitive aspects, and how you can learn to live with them

Could you explain gender roles to me like I'm your child? I'm curious.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Even if we could prove to TRP that gender roles are 100% cultural...would it matter? I don't think it would. Because the fact of the matter is, even if it's due to cultural influence, the majority of women are still socialized to fill some semblance of their gender role. And an even greater majority of men are still socialized to fill some semblance of their gender role. (This last one is just me throwing in my perception. Not an indisputable fact). Even if you convincingly make the argument that freedom from these roles is a net good, would TRP really care? I think it's more likely they would say, "Well, whatever. Whatever the cause is, it's the way the world is now, and I'm damn well gonna take advantage of it."

I've tried arguing this point before. Everyone seems to agree... I know I do, that TRP seems genuinely unconcerned with the cause. There are discussions and a lot of bad science but as long as the desired outcome is achieved the why doesn't really matter.

As for what we're accomplishing, I for one enjoy seeing many different takes on what is discussed here and have actually changed my view on some things because of these discussions. I think this sub makes doing so easier compared to the echo chambers of TRP and TBP.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Even if you convincingly make the argument that freedom from these roles is a net good, would TRP really care? I think it's more likely they would say, "Well, whatever. Whatever the cause is, it's the way the world is now, and I'm damn well gonna take advantage of it."

Firstly, most of the reason I argue against them is because my field is evolutionary psychology and their arguments make my head explode.

Secondly, I do think it would make a difference because their position relies on their belief in the dominance and immutability of biological predispositions. That is, our behavioral "drives" and attractions are the result of basic genetic facts that we can't change so, according to them, we should just accept it and trying to 'hamster' our way out of it.

If, on the other hand, they were to discover that things they previously thought were biological predispositions were in fact not biological predispositions, or they learnt that biological predispositions weren't the only, nor the dominant, factor in determining particular behaviors or attractions, then their entire philosophy collapses.

Yes, certain gender norms (as a general trend) do exist and so it wouldn't change their philosophy as applied to those people a whole lot, but this is a long way away from the universal generalisations their philosophy rests on. If only some women behave in ways susceptible to red pill approaches, and these behaviors could change as a result of individual experiences and events so that they are no longer appropriate in any given situation or timeframe, then the best sexual strategy would be to treat women as individuals and not try to apply a cookie cutter approach.

[–]SudoTheAdmin4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The study itself merely studies words used on Facebook by different age groups, genders, etc. The article author adds her own feminist spin onto the research to further her own agenda. That happens in the article when she writes:

But remember the our Facebook statuses are not about who we are, but rather about who we wish we were. Social media isn’t about expression, it’s about performance. So the results of this study reveal less about who the subjects are than about how they want to be perceived.

The author doesn't back this up in any way, yet from that point on goes down the road of saying anything men or women write about on Facebook is used to conform to gender roles, not because it's what they like. Everything after that quote is author opinion wholly unsupported by the study.

That is what TRP is railing against. That is not science.

ps. It is wrong to say no one read the study. Multiple direct links to the study are in the comments. Your unscientific assessment whether it has been clicked is rather ironic.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The author doesn't back this up in any way, yet from that point on goes down the road of saying anything men or women write about on Facebook is used to conform to gender roles, not because it's what they like. Everything after that quote is author opinion wholly unsupported by the study.

The author of the study is quoted in the article saying something very similar.

Dr. Kern thinks that even if the results reflect some online posturing, those online performance sometimes come true. “There’s certainly this image-management aspect to everything, even who posts anything,” she said. ”But even if that’s an image, that’s how all your friends start to see you. So in a way, that can become part of a person as well”

But honestly, I don’t have a problem with criticizing the author. The issue is that the study is framed as how people project their own image rather than how these words reflect what people are really like. Dr Kern suggests that a cultivated image could potentially lead to that image spilling over into your personality, but that doesn’t mean it’s a natural part of who you are.

Looking at the comments in TRP, many of them are drawing conclusions from the study/article about what men and women are really like. I don’t think you can do that at all. Doing that is just as bad as editorializing like the author of the Time article.

ps. It is wrong to say no one read the study. Multiple direct links to the study are in the comments. Your unscientific assessment whether it has been clicked is rather ironic.

Those links didn't appear until after I posted this, so don't be a brat.

[–]SudoTheAdmin2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Looking at the comments in TRP, many of them are drawing conclusions from the study/article about what men and women are really like. I don’t think you can do that at all. Doing that is just as bad as editorializing like the author of the Time article.

Yes, the study suggests some differences in how men and women use a technology (social media). Extrapolating beyond that is not really supported by the data.

Women are also likelier than men to use a car for food shopping. It doesn't mean they're more interested in food shopping than men are, though. And it certainly doesn't prescribe that difference or prove it is biological either.

Even the TRP comments that did link the study seem to really reach to connect it with TRP talking points. This one eg, which,

1) Argues women's use of first-person singular pronouns suggests they're solipsistic (not correct), but then concludes that men's use of first-person possessive pronouns proves "men view these relations as personal" instead of proving male solipsism.

2) Notes the study found men use more object words. But somehow concludes women are more object oriented.

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not "feminism" that's just a standard scientific conclusion. The fact that self-reported data is a representation of who we'd like to be (a performance), rather than who we are, is the exact reason why psychologists try to avoid self-reported data or at least interpret it carefully.

This is especially true for uncontrolled situations like face book profiles where there are a range of variables and contingencies driving an awareness of self-image rather than accuracy.

Simply put, there is absolutely nothing controversial about that statement and is consistent with at least the consensus in psychology from the last century. To reject that claim we'd have to argue that self-reported data was objective evidence and that there were no issues of bias involved in it (incidentally making field like sociology natural sciences and part of STEM).

[–]soulcakeduck2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

Again, I don't think you can draw conclusions about what "women are like" or what "men are like." If anything, this study shows us that people want their public image to adhere to their gender.

If you want to extrapolate on that, you might say that people are likely extremely insecure. The men are clearly worried about how "manly" they are, women are worried about how pretty or "girly" they, and both are worried about how popular they are.

Even then, you can't say that this insecurity is natural or innate in humans. This trend of insecurity could easily be induced by societal factors. There have been countless studies that link advertising and media to causing insecurity.

TL;DR, the study doesn't really say much of anything beyond that people are insecure. It also describes a pretty accurate picture of perceived gender differences.

[–]PizzaOnEarth 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

From the study:

For example, females used more emotion words [86], [87] (e.g., ‘excited’), and first-person singulars [88], and they mention more psychological and social processes [34] (e.g., ‘love you’ and ‘3’ –a heart). Males used more swear words, object references (e.g., ‘xbox’ and swear words)

One of the foundations of TRP is that men and women are in fact not the same exact thing, and as such should not be treated the same unconditionally.

Women in this study were more traditional (emotional, referring to social processes, referring to their own emotions / states). Men were more traditional (suppressed emotion in favor of sports and games, don't talk about other male's partners as much as females do).

Did you read the conclusion section of the original study? Now that I am picking through it I realize several points that you argued as unfounded from the TRPers before were actually verbatim from the study.

Here's a chunk of it if you don't have access to the journal:

Gender provides a familiar and easy to understand proof of concept for open-vocabulary analysis. Figure 3 presents word clouds from age-adjusted gender correlations. We scale word size according to the strength of the relation and we use color to represent overall frequency; that is, larger words indicate stronger correlations, and darker colors indicate frequently used words. For the topics, groups of semantically-related words, the size indicate the relative prevalence of the word within the cluster as defined in the methods section. All results are significant at Bonferroni-corrected [76] .

Many strong results emerging from our analysis align with our LIWC results and past studies of gender. For example, females used more emotion words [86], [87] (e.g., ‘excited’), and first-person singulars [88], and they mention more psychological and social processes [34] (e.g., ‘love you’ and ‘3’ –a heart). Males used more swear words, object references (e.g., ‘xbox’ and swear words) [34], [89].

Other results of ours contradicted past studies, which were based upon significantly smaller sample sizes than ours. For example, in 100 bloggers Huffaker et al. [39] found males use more emoticons than females. We calculated power analyses to determine the sample size needed to confidently find such significant results. Since the Bonferonni-correction we use elsewhere in this work is overly stringent (i.e. makes it harder than necessary to pass significance tests), for this result we applied the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate procedure for multiple hypothesis testing [90]. Rerunning our language of gender analysis on reduced random samples of our subjects resulted in the following number of significant correlations (Benjamini-Hochberg tested ): 50 subjects: 0 significant correlations, 500 subjects: 7 correlations; 5,000 subjects: 1,489 correlations; 50,000 subjects: 13,152 correlations (more detailed results of power analyses across gender, age, and personality can be found in Figure S1). Thus, traditional study sample sizes, which are closer to 50 or 500, are not powerful enough to do data-driven DLA over individual words.

One might also draw insights based on the gender results. For example, we noticed ‘my wife’ and ‘my girlfriend’ emerged as strongly correlated in the male results, while simply ‘husband’ and ‘boyfriend’ were most predictive for females. Investigating the frequency data revealed that males did in fact precede such references to their opposite-sex partner with ‘my’ significantly more often than females. On the other hand, females were more likely to precede ‘husband’ or ‘boyfriend’ with ‘her’ or ‘amazing’ and a greater variety of words, which is why ‘my husband’ was not more predictive than ‘husband’ alone. Furthermore, this suggests the male preference for the possessive ‘my’ is at least partially due to a lack of talking about others' partners.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, the point is that most behavior has a genetic component that is TOO COMPLEX for us to understand at this point.

Can you find a study that is not 60 years old that still finds 50% of personality is independent of genetic makeup?

As for identical twins: One word. EPIGENETICS. This is a very recent development we have only begun to scratch the surface of.

When you have different stimulus (for autism, in the first year of your life, or even in utero) the molecules surrounding your DNA (and attached to your DNA) are modified. This changes how the DNA is read, and how those genes will work. These changes can be permanent, and even pass down to your children.

One of my colleagues told me of a smoker study that found smoking signals some pro-cancer epigenetic changes that will stay on your DNA through your grandchildren.

A person may pick up some different epigenetic markers from their parents and environment, but at the end of the day, it is still their genes that are dictating how much 'nice' hormone they have.

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

epiGENETICS.

They are modifications on your genes. Your DNA.

This paper talks about a few more recent studies.

Did you read the paper?

Thus, about two-thirds of the reliable variance in measured personality traits is due to genetic influence.

An important thing to note about things like epigenetic markers and SNPs and point mutations is that their manifestation IS NOT MENDELIAN. I pointed this out earlier, because even this 1994 study predates what we know about this.

You can inherit a mutation from your mom and mutation from your dad that together influence a new personality trait. Or an epigenetic marker from mom and mutation from dad. Or pick up a new epigenetic modification of your own that becomes a static part of your DNA.

You inherit genes that cause this behavior, but your parents did not necessarily have this behavior. It's more complex than that.

There's also this book that talks a lot about personality differences we see between the sexes.

This also backs up my point.

The mere presence of a Y chromosome causes radical differences between men and women. Physically, mentally, and psychologically. Genetics!

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

epiGENETICS. They are modifications on your genes. Your DNA.

I know what epigenetics are. When you have an epigenetic mark that blocks a certain gene, then the protein isn't produced and the gene might as well not be there at all.

Did you read the paper?

Did you?

Both approaches yield estimated of genetic influence of just over 40%.

This also backs up my point.

Not really. The book talks about the observed differences between men and women (physiological, and psychologial), but it pretty much says flat out that we don't necessarily know why these particular differences occur. Genetics play a big role, but we don't know precisely what role they play.

Obviously when we figure this stuff out, there will be innate genetic differences between men and women, but to say we understand those now is ludicrous.

[–]PizzaOnEarth0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know what epigenetics are. When you have an epigenetic mark that blocks a certain gene, then the protein isn't produced and the gene might as well not be there at all.

Oversimplistic and very lacking. I am having serious doubts as to your scientific comprehension on these topics as I have to repeat things over and over again.

Both approaches yield estimated of genetic influence of just over 40%.

I'm sorry but again you misread the paper.

They could not account for 25% of the 'differences' found. So really they were looking at 50% genetic differences out of the 75% differences they could figure. That's 2/3. Which is what they reported. In the paper.

Obviously when we figure this stuff out, there will be innate genetic differences between men and women, but to say we understand those now is ludicrous.

I'm the one that has been saying this whole time that the issues are too complex to understand. Our current knowledge of genetics is still in its infancy. Are you really hijacking my stance to defend yours?

And again, cross-gender children studies fail. Why? Genetics is the only reason that can account for that.

As a conclusion, I would like to express my doubt that you have read and understood that book you referenced. I think you are parroting talking points and are not willing to experience new ideas. I challenge you to find me a source in the book on environmental factors known to transcend genetics.

Go!

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oversimplistic and very lacking. I am having serious doubts as to your scientific comprehension on these topics as I have to repeat things over and over again.

Of course its simplistic. I'm not going to take time to explain the entire mechanism.

That's 2/3. Which is what they reported. In the paper.

Yes, but only 50% of the overall difference was genetic. They couldn't account for 25% and chalked it up to error.

I'm the one that has been saying this whole time that the issues are too complex to understand. Our current knowledge of genetics is still in its infancy. Are you really hijacking my stance to defend yours?

This has been my stance all along.

I think you are parroting talking points and are not willing to experience new ideas.

I don't have an ideology on gender, so I'm open to just about anything.

I challenge you to find me a source in the book on environmental factors known to transcend genetics.

I'm not sure there's enough information in the book to state anything like that with certainty. It's more about observing differences rather than accounting for them.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

u/k6eqj

1-Females use more first person singulars, more words indicating their psychological state and social processed. This, I believe, reflects what we have been saying all along - female solipsism implies that they are always more concerned about, firstly, themselves and about their internal emotional state.

This is a massive leap in logic. First person singulars are verbs (example: "I am" or "I was"). No where in the study was anything like this listed as a conclusion. In fact, the study suggests that this might be an indication of higher incidence of emotional expression.

2-Males use more object references - "xbox" for example. This seems to reflect the idea the males are more concerned about the world outside of their minds.

Hah, what?

3-Males use the terms "my wife" or "my girlfriend", i.e in possessive language. Females use these words in isolation, "husband" "boyfriend" etc. I guess this reflects the fact that men view these relations as personal and women use these term more impersonally, as if they are objects.

So when females use "I" or "my" it's evidence for "solipsism," while men using "my" makes them more sentimental?

The larger point is that all three of these things are speculative, just like the article that was criticized. None of them are conclusively stated in the study, and many of them lack basic logic.

[–]SudoTheAdmin-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You misattribute the origin of TRP.

TRPers did not start out saying "this is the red pill philosophy". I think understanding that is a big part of also being able to empathize with the men who go there. A lot of them are hurt or lonely because of what they now see as their blue pill behaviors.

TRP is based on observation. A man observes his GF leaving him for a rich guy. A man observes a woman responding positively to being teased. A man observes being denied relationships after doing everything society told him a Good Man does.

These observations are then put together to get an idea of this 'red pill theory'. Just like the theory of evolution best explains our current knowledge of biology, the red pill theory best explains the sexual dynamics we see at work, based on what we know and our experience.

The difference between TRP and Feminism:

Lots of TRPers would LOVE to be wrong (myself included)
TRPers try to use TRP knowledge to better themselves and the world around them. Activity/motivation are promoted, instead of whining for privilege and hand outs.
TRPers are willing to change their mind on things. No one was born with TRP. We share this ideology because we have all come to this conclusion as the best we've seen yet. We changed our minds to get here, and we are willing to change our minds to something better if it comes along.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

But TRP has practically no scientific evidence to backup its theory. The few scientific studies I see posted there never support their assertions. This is the fundamental issue. It's all built on anecdotes and speculation, which both can be be subject to bias.

You're absolutely right. But to my point:

We don't claim this is 100% science. There are some interesting hormone and pheromone studies done that are rock solid. And little studies here and there that are interesting. But at the end of the day, just as with real science, this is in the early 'observation' stages.

And part of the reason we HAVE this problem is because of Women's Studies.

If a respected scientist were to ask for a 5-million dollar grant to study "women riding the cock carousel", it would end his career. Anything against a feminist agenda has a large bias against happening in today's social climate.

So... Observation and the occasional bump from a study like this is all we can really hope for until feminism finally kills itself off, which might be 20-30 years.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My problem is that I don't believe anyone should base their beliefs on a complete absence of reliably gathered scientific information. Absent of empirical support, why have an opinion at all?

and

The reasons studies don't exist that prove TRP is that humanity has around a 5% understanding of the brain. If we're talking about genetic personality differences and tendencies between the genders, you need a 90% understanding of the brain at the very least. We're 100 years away from that level of understanding.

I agree with you that TRP has little scientific backing, but if as you say, that backing can't exist, then in my mind the next logical step would be to use what knowledge we do have. That is, anecdotal. It's better to do that then keep doing what you're doing with no success is it not?

[–]angatar_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Facebook study: Gender Clichés
Author	CFRProflcopter
Upvotes	7
Comments	124
Date	October 4, 2013 2:17 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1nq2zg/facebook_study_gender_clichés/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/facebook-study-gender-cliches.286718 https://theredarchive.com/post/286718

Comments