~ archived since 2018 ~

Know your worth

thenewyorkgod

October 4, 2019

4742 upvotes

Archived from /r/PussyPassDenied

r/PussyPassDenied is a place where women are not allowed to use their gender as a handicap or an excuse to act like assholes. Yay equality!

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PussyPassDenied archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Know your worth
Author	thenewyorkgod
Upvotes	4742
Comments	85
Date	October 4, 2019 6:04 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/ddb052/know_your_worth/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/know-your-worth.867658 https://theredarchive.com/post/867658

Comments

[–]USSAmerican 619 points620 points621 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]GeserAndersen 287 points288 points289 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wontfixit 83 points84 points85 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]USSAmerican 40 points41 points42 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WolfeBane84 39 points40 points41 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EspWaddleDee 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomassredditguy 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Typhoon8321 points 6 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Can I get an invite?

[–]HunterPhwilip 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Typhoon832 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HunterPhwilip 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RainbowRockmanx 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]USSAmerican 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]USSAmerican 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ishouldbedeadnow 174 points175 points176 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeagueofDraaaaaaven 189 points190 points191 points 6 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]NaughtyFred 112 points113 points114 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fsck_Reddit_Again 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]harry_collins247[🍰] 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]Delliser -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]Delliser 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]Delliser 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

I just named one.

In fact, an area on the entire planet, my country, where judges are 80% women. Italy.

Europe gets around 53%. Still more than men. (and that's counting UK, where the nomination is more political in nature, being a common law system, and - oh wonder! - exactly where nomination is no more tied to performance, percentage of women drops to 8%. Were we to exclude that country, as it's less based on performance... Well, bodes very bad for your team.)

Law, and precisely the apex - the judiciary profession. A highly competitive field, where only the best come out on top. Ruthless exams, hundreds of thousands of candidates, the winners chosen anonymously.

And women win, or at least are on par, if you want to discount that 3%. On par, like you denied we could be. And that's assuming 80% Italy is an outlier, and I assure you, there are more around Europe with those percentages.

As you see, I did what was asked. Gave you an example.

You just chose to ignore it.

Know the only one you are tricking is yourself.

(By the way, for some reason, you seem obsessed with chess and games. They're not all that exist, you know.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't at least have a doubt that statistics might skewed by a trend that lasted for millennia after just one generation, has no business implicitly claiming to be intelligent or have an inquisitive mind and calling others retarded).

[–]TheCleanSlates 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

your stupidity is genuinely breathtaking.

"Hurr durr being a judge is a highly competitive field hurr durr"

judges are not directly competing with each other you absolute cretin, does it really have to be explained to (as a child) that when judges apply for their exam they are not directly competing against an individual they are merely trying to achieve a threshold.

at what point in your absolutely miniscule mind do you realise that two participants in say "scrabble" are directely related to each other, partipant A vs Participant B, A's aptitude directly applies to B's obstacle, the same is not true in passing a threshold you moronic idiot, and even if they werent its based on a subjective decision NOT AN OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURE!

your example shows you cant even process a simple fucking conversation.

give me an example anywhere in the world where Person A is in direct competition with Person B in an OBJECTIVE performance based task/feat/area and is dominated by women at the top tier (you wont be able to find one)

claiming more women pass a test to do X is fucking meaningless. it has to be directly competitive where opponents competency directly objectively influences your task.

you are so dumb your argument is like trying to disprove that "men are better athletes as all the top tier athletics times are completely dominated by men, you can find no athletic sport/feat dominated by women" and you respond with "haha not true because more women get their bronze swimming certificate than men and thats hard to get"

fuck me you are idiotic, its embarassing

[–]Totalherenow 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Delliser3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

at what point in your moronic fuckwittery do you realise your "Link" was behind a paywall?

do you want a free link? how about the bbc?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-49284389

There are not enough sample sizes to determine whether women are better ultra-endurance athletes than men, said Dr Bryce Carlson, an ultra-marathon runner and the first American to complete the 2,000-mile (3,218km) North Atlantic west-to-east-solo row.

"In some years, a woman can win outright," he said. "When that happens, it's a really small sample size, where you have an elite female runner who has trained really hard and well and has great skill in the sport, and the competition in the men's sport might not be that high."

Oh dear seems to make a complete downpour on your initial argument.

likewise you are so fucking dense you cant understand the difference between objective competition of a 100m sprint runner vs an ice skater which is awarded a judges score, that is LITERALLY HOW DUMB YOU ARE.

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"i dont understand the statistics" despite the fact that i was literally a statistician in a previous job and have acredited qualifications relating to stats, lol yeah good one retard. hurr durr "You dont understand statistics"

is there anything you actually do know? because quite frankly its fucking embarassing you are this stupid and are so unaware you think its others who are fault.

"hurr durr i dont understand the difference between objective and subjective competition also an authority claimed the sample size is not big enough to draw comparison, but you have 'misunderstood' what that means its all explained in a link i provided that is behind a PAYWALL Hurr durr because of reasons hurr durr"

you are so moronic i am actually embarassed for you, genuinely embarrassed for you.

you are dangerously stupid.

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totalherenow1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Delliser 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

... as you are so willing to spout insults, maybe you should first check if your arguments are sound. You behave like a commander burning a bridge... Before crossing it.

Judge exams have both a threshold and a competition.

Not all who meet the threshold pass.

With so many candidates, only those who get... Wait for it...

The best grades between all candidates. And that's the definition of competition.

An objective measure of result in what is a competitive, by necessity, endeavor.

Or did you think all that pass the threshold were admitted? If so, you didn't reason enough. Did you really think that 100 or so people out of 10.000 were the only ones that passed the exam?

It's not about passing the exam. It's about being the best between those that pass .

And it's women.

Fortunately for you, I won't conclude from that, that we're better.

We're just equal.

[–]TheCleanSlates 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Delliser1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Uuh... Yes. I'm claiming exactly that.

And that's because we WANT not to be there an interview.

Only anonymous grading should decide if you win or not.

Correction, actually: to be fair, in italy, after the written exam we have an oral exam too (can't vouch for other countries in Europe). Not an job interview, though, what is evaluated is not the personality of the candidate but his/her competence.

You might object this hinders anonymity, inserts subjectivity and thus voids the competition.

This is only at a cursory glance - the written exam is done first, and that's competitive (more on that later). If you win the written exam, you are admitted to the oral exam, which is just a formality - all who are admitted pass (of course, this is asinine, but thank my government for that).

In the end, it does not influence who wins, since all who won the strictly competitive step (and only them) pass it too. It can be discarded for our purposes of determining whether the exam is a competition.

As for your second point, there are some skills, by nature, that can only be assessed by other humans. Anonymous grading is there exactly to avoid subjectivity - and the fact that an human grades you means the results are subjective only if the subject matter is subjective.

For instance, math is graded by a human, generally, and the graduation is completely objective, by nature. Either an equation is correct or it isn't. If the human grading you makes a mistake, you can make a formal complaint and 100% win it.

The judge exam mainly consists in remembering 80 years of jurisprudence by heart. That's as objective as it goes, you either remember it (or you deduce it by guiding principles) or you don't. Either you got the correct solution, or you didn't. If a human makes a mistake, you can make a formal complaint and 100% win it.

This should be enough to refute the point, which was meritorious but did not consider some rebuttals.

For fun, I'll tell you - Olympics, Chess: the evaluation is subjective.

Why? Because of course what you're trying to say to me is not that "men play chess better", but "men play logical games better because they're more rational".

In other words, in and of itself, the game is of no consequence to this discussion - the quality behind it is what must be compared if one were to decide whether men and women are on par or not. Moving pawns around is inconsequential, the skill behind it is important.

And I'm saying chess is a subjective way of evaluating rationality. The subjectivity is in the step in which you establish the rules, which can and do affect performance favouring athlete X or Y depending on brain structure.

Example - both males, chess with 3 hour time limit. X wins, Y is slower to think, distracts easily. Chess with no time limit. Y wins, even if he's easily distractible, given time he has the best tactical ideas of all time, X loses.

Who's better?

Until we have a way to directly measure intelligence, depending on proxies like these is imperfect by nature. The judgement of who wins is objective, but the judgement of the skill behind it is flawed. It can be skewed one way or the other and we'll never, ever, know.

Same for Olympics - no direct measure of physical strength, just different ways in which to measure one aspect, imperfect by nature.

What the athlete ate that morning, what his mental condition, what the course's setup, slight unevenness of the ground, difference of gravity depending on the location on earth, all affect the performance. That's why precise regulations are in place, all decided subjectively, by the way, all imperfect (try to put there a rule that all athletes must not have been left by their boy/girlfriend in the last week as depression can influence performance, and enforce it. Or convince gravity to equalize all over earth in the Olympic days, to fairly compare world records attained in different locations!)

I mean, your last argument isn't bad, per se, It just applies to every measurement in the world, given sufficient attention to details.

[–]TheCleanSlates1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

while its true that policy and regulations enter a form of subjectivity in selecting the competitive agents to perform a feat, their actual performance is entirely objective, over repeated runs (enough) local fluctuations of conditions have an equal effect on all participants.

but i was not claiming because men are faster runners therefore men are better, i was claiming a runners time is an objective inarguable objective mertic which is no polluted by bias or interpretation, you can be a 20 stone black disabled illiterate, but if you can run faster than ussain bolt your results and outcome cannot be refuted in that specific task/measure.

i am pointing out that all entirely objective based competitions such as chess where only a single winner emerges based on checkmate the results are irrefutable, notice i said results not result. as the best will never be the best at all points its a case of consistent delivery. if a chess player A beats Chess player B (to checkmate) 80% of the time Chess player A is the objectively better chess player (chess being chess to completion)

[–]Delliser1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not debating that, I agree with you.

I'm just saying that, objective the results/performance they may be, a prior act (determination of rules) from which results depend is subjective.

This means the end results are not an objective measure of anything but themselves. They can't be used to evaluate objectively the qualities of the contestants that are behind the results. (Correction: of course, if one is willing to be less rigorous, they have a degree of reliability, but on this they're on par with other human evaluated tests).

What I'm trying to get at is that there are at least some areas (judicial, in my example) where women seem to have better results, and the exams that produce those results evaluate qualities behind performance no more subjectively than a chess game does.

You are welcome to disagree of course, but I've stated my reasoning, and for the moment, I really can't find fault with it.

[–]Delliser 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Dusk_Killaz 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]milenko_kitten 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Skhool 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]billyidolspetgoat 90 points91 points92 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JasHanz 20 points21 points22 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TonsOfTabs 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]deeznutsbeswingin 35 points36 points37 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yeetmiestersupreme 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]UnearthedElysium 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditMattstir 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dulcetsavanna -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JewelFazbear 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lordlivingston 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]SuspiciousRace -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link