What are /r/FeMRADebates' favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

You seem to be mixing two different things here: strength of gender role expectations, and strength of expectations for suppressing emotions. If both genders have the same expectations for suppressing emotions (which I don't think they do, but if they did), that wouldn't be a gender role, it would just be a societal expectation on everyone.

Here are some sources on strength of gender role expectations:

The abstract of this study notes that past research has shown men being punished more harshly.

> Because past research has shown that men who transgress gender role norms are punished more harshly than women [...]

Also, this study found that men making mistakes in masculine jobs were viewed more negatively than women making mistakes in feminine jobs.

> When female leaders made mistakes in the nursing condition, they were viewed similarly to male leaders. However, in the construction scenario, male leaders who committed errors were seen as significantly less task-competent than similar female leaders.

Now to the topic of expectations for suppressing emotions:

> My tendency to cry easily was one reason I had no friends and was bullied in elementary school, and I'm a girl.

I can't comment on your elementary school experience, but let's look at the present. Do you genuinely think that women who cry are perceived as negatively for it as men who cry?

In my opinion, this article has the same issue most others like it have: I agree with the premise that men are often judged more harshly for transgressing social conventions regarding how men ought to behave and what they should and shouldn't like. But to blame this basically all on culture punishing "female" behavior is short-sighted

Saying it's misogyny that men's behavior and interests are more restricted--and that men are judged more harshly for not conforming to expectations as to how men should behave--is a bit like saying it's misandry when people / cultures restrict women's behavior and interests, and judge women harshly for not conforming to expectations of how a woman should behave

It's basically taking an area of discrimination against men and trying to twist it into being about discrimination against women

Reading the article, at first I was thinking the first two examples aren't really that significant, as the backlash showed most people don't have an issue with men eating ice cream or eating bananas out of the peel. However, the study linked seemed pretty interesting. I'm curious what the sample size was and how dramatic the results were

Either way, the overall conclusion isn't surprising, as many traits considered "masculine" or "feminine" are just social conventions rather than based on any kind of genuine difference between males and females (e.g. the color pink, wearing make up or jewelry, fruity beverages being feminine)

That figure is compared to a "synthetic Texas" construction which assumes a continuing downward trend at the same linear rate, which is obviously not indefinitely sustainable. Teen abortions actually spiked downward (even from "synthetic Texas) in 2012, with birth rates rising.

Here's the paper for anyone who would prefer their data unfiltered by HuffPo - that is to say, useful.

Oh, and by the way...

>There was a 28% decline in the abortion rate in Texas between 2011 and 2014, from 13.5 to 9.8 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age.

Guttmacher Institute

There have been a Jezebel apologist from time to time around here. But for the most part I agree (and am very glad).

But that's not really the point, though. The question we need to be asking ourselves is not whether or not Jezebel spews vile hate and vitriol. The proper question is how big is their audience, and what can we learn about the zetigeist by the audience that is eager to consume that hate and vitriol.

According to Alexa, Jezebel.com is currently the 292 highest traffic generating US domain, and not quite in the top 1000 worldwide. That puts it in the same neighborhood as sites like opentable.com, DailyKos, NBA.com, VRBO, match.com, and Disney.

Though you're making noises like they don't matter, in fact they do. They have an extremely sizable constituency, and presumably that constituency goes there in part because their interests and opinions align with Jezebel's editorial policy and position.

That's sort of what we assume about Fox News viewers, isn't it? I'm pretty sure the same applies here.

When the editor of a website says horrible, hateful things....well....then that's just a person. When that website has hundreds of thousands or even millions of adherents. That's a very, very different thing.

It's like this: Trump isn't going to be president. But the fact that around 15-20% of the electorate wants him to be should be a cause for concern for us. Likewise, the Jezebel editorial stance given Jezebel's relative popularity should be a cause for concern.

Article for non video watchers available here and actual study available here, is better than video if only because 21% is more accurately a fifth than a quarter and doesn't include some dude bloviating.

My first takeaway was this "More than half (65.4 %) of the 821 men were recruited from sexual networking Websites" - so I suspect the sample base leans a little more, um, explorational? let's say? - than the average.

But I'm a believer in that Kinsey thing about not being straight or gay and just doing straight or gay things. You all should watch whatever porn you want.

Honestly, while I'm someone who thinks there are problems with the MRM (although quite frankly I think it's moving in the right direction so I'll give it that), the first paragraph is simply awful and ruins the entire thing. It's such a pro-patriarchal statement of power dynamics and hierarchy that it makes me want to scream.

As I say, Winning the Patriarchy isn't the same as Ending it.

Instead, everybody should read this. (It comes from again, a Feminist Egalitarian PoV, it's actually the guy behind the Just-Smith tumblr blog)

http://www.wattpad.com/21431710-the-fourth-wave-an-illustration-involving-children

That's a much better analogy. The TL;DR version is that not everybody wants the same thing. Not all men want to be rich and powerful, and judging men by ONLY that standard actually serves to reinforce those traditional gender roles.

>which kind of conforms with the stereotypes around SJWs

Even so, I don't see as it matters from our perspective as a gender debates subreddit. Surely abuse happens in SJW couples just like it happens elsewhere, and they find ways to handle the cognitive dissonance just like every other abuser who wants to think of themselves as a good person. Without some evidence that this is systemic in any fashion, all this story says even at face value is that at least one bad person is an SJW... which is not really a revelation as bad people are in every large group.

The more interesting discussion here (and indeed the theory that most anti-SJWs talk about but tend to ignore the academics on) is that the case can be made that too much social activism can create a phenomenon known as "moral self regulation" where people excuse bad behaviors because they also have good behaviors or "moral fatigue" which for some reason all the papers focus on medical professions, but basically means you stop caring for people because you've cared beyond your capacity. These are why I say even in the ideal sense, SJW goals are untenable, as they are too taxing on the average psychology. It is possible, though there is no evidence for it aside from the anecdotal so far as I know, that SJWs might be more prone to certain interpersonal behaviors because they are overly concerned with larger issues.

I agree that outrage culture isn't limited to SJWs, though they are the best at it, Adria Richards really is not the best example.

>For example, Adria Richards never suggested these people get fired. She was having a bad day and was frustrated by the "brogrammer-ness" of the convention she was at and tweeted a dumb joke that some dudes in front of her had said.

She was a visible tech evangelist, with a large twitter following, as the guy who was fired said, 'with great power and reach comes great responsibility'. Her actions weren't simply limited to a tweet about what they said, but she also took a picture of them and posted it with her tweet. Then, while high on the self-righteous support she was receiving she also wrote a blog post about it, further denigrating the two men. Funnily enough, it seems all trace of that post has been removed, if anyone could find it? She knew she had an audience, with her tweet and photo, she further inflamed that audience with the blogpost, she incited the mob. Did she deserve the invective that was thrown her way? Absolutely not. But it is a bit rich to ride the wave of outrage, then cry foul when a larger counter-wave flattens it. I can't remember which news organisation it was with, but there was an interview done with her a year or so later, where she showed a complete lack of empathy for the men she 'outed' and a complete inability to understand the role she had to play in starting this mess.

> She isn't the one responsible for his name getting out there.

Huh? She did make a complaint to the people at Columbia. She also did eventually make complaint to the police. That makes his name publicly available. So, she definitely does play a causal role of some sort in his name becoming public, so long as such a report to the police enables the accused's name to become public. If I understand things correctly, the rape shield laws prohibit the accuser's name from becoming public, but not the accused's name.

Now, of course, just because she goes to the police and that information can become public, that doesn't mean she's engaged in defamation of character. However, the student newspaper published his name: http://columbiaspectator.com/2014/05/16/why-we-published-name-alleged-rapist And thus it stands to reason that plenty of people at Columbia knew that Sulkowicz was implicating Nungesser through her art project. And she has continued to do this even after her complaints have gotten investigated.

The lawsuit has evidence that she filed a case with the police, not for the sake of justice, but for the purpose of making his name public... see p. 18: https://www.scribd.com/doc/262956362/Nungesser-Filed-Complaint

So, no, she definitely does have serious responsibility in his name getting out there.

It also looks like there's a lot more in the lawsuit, in that the purpose of her art project was to "get her rapist off campus".

100% of the one in power at government level. The ones sitting on a council on women and girls and their various other country equivalents (Quebec has one too).

You might be interested to know the Quebec equivalent invented DV statistics out of whole cloth, and was believed on their word, with their stats published in DV stuff for years. Until a MRA group tried to find the source for it and debunked it as mere estimation. But that doesn't stop the stat from still being used, knowingly false now, by the government.

https://www.amazon.ca/300-000-femmes-battues-avez-vous/dp/2923644190

http://hommelibre.blog.tdg.ch/archive/2010/08/28/300-000-femmes-battues-ou-les-folles-du-quebec.html

>Nombre de ces hommes pris dans une machine à broyer ont étudié les chiffres, les enquêtes, et ont constaté un fait aberrant: 300’000 femmes battues par années, pour 1’750’000 femmes en couple environ, cela signifiait qu’en 6 ans toute la population féminine y passait et que donc tous les hommes étaient des salauds.

Translation:

Number of those men stuck in a machine to crush studied the numbers, the studies, and saw that there was an aberrant fact. 300,000 women beaten per year, over a 1,750,000 adult female population, this meant every 6 years, all women are beaten. All men thus suck.

ETA: DV policy was decided based on this "huge epidemic of battering men and battered women". I'm amazed its not as bad as Spain.

> It will be the very first data on the topic that we can get.

Are you sure about that? e.g. Interaction Patterns and Themes of Male, Female, and Mixed Groups which earlier led to, e.g., this Economist article:

> What evidence shows that male and female styles differ? Among the most compelling is a crucial piece left out of the “simple sexism” explanation: men mansplain to each other. Elizabeth Aries, another researcher, analysed 45 hours of conversation and found that men dominated mixed groups—but she also found competition and dominance in male-only groups. Men begin discussing fact-based topics, sizing each other up. Before long, a hierarchy is established: either those who have the most to contribute, or those who are simply better at dominating the conversation, are taking most of the turns. The men who dominate one group go on to dominate others, while women show more flexibility in their dominance patterns. The upshot is that a shy, retiring man can find himself endlessly on the receiving end of the same kinds of lectures that Ms Tannen, Ms Chemaly and Ms Solnit describe.

> That makes four accusers now.

First, Even if all of the accusations are true, though they can get placed in the same category of "sexual assault", there exist major differences between them. Sulkowicz's allegation involves anal rape, and more than that. The prosecution in Nungesser's case indicates that:

"The first, Jane Doe #1 ... [that] Paul had grabbed her at a party and tried to kiss her."

"Jane Doe #2 reported that she had the impression while Paul was her boyfriend, that she could only see him if she had sex with him, and thus she felt obligated to have sex with him. She never alleged physical coercion, violence, or rape" [that this is sexual violence at all seems highly questionable... perhaps it's an an unreasonable or unrealistic demand, but it simply does not harm anyone]

https://www.scribd.com/doc/262956362/Nungesser-Filed-Complaint

It isn't at all clear what the accusation by the male student means from what you posted.

Do you have any idea if "sexual assault" there means a grope on the butt, a kiss on the lips, a kiss on the cheeks, or groping of the crotch? We also don't know what the accused has to say about such an accusation or if there exists any evidence to support it.

Second, none of the other accusations, other than Sulkowicz, were made to the police. Only in the university system.

Third, my understanding is that the past sexual history of an accuser of sexual violence cannot get brought up as any sort of evidence. So, how can previous accusations of sexual misconduct get brought up? How is that not ad hominem? How is that evidence?

Fourth, at the bare minimum the above accusations, and even the other accusation leveled against Nungesser makes the accusation of "serial rapist" seriously lacking in proof.

Turns out it's OK and doesn't matter if the viewer is male or female.. And the people who think otherwise likely have a treatable mental illness. I've certainly met people who believe things like "looking at porn is cheating" and it always continues with "looking at pretty girls is cheating", "being in the same building as a pretty girl is cheating", "the mere existence of any girl who is less ugly or less fat than me is cheating", etc.

There's a difference between limiting sexual intercourse to your partner and limiting sexuality to times and places and types that are mutually acceptable. And it's not like those packs of D batteries are buying themselves, is it?

edit: a letter

Thanks for replying!

So this raises more questions for me. How do you think consent should be taught? How do you define consent? I know you've got knowledge of the BDSM scene, and all its consent-play, so your views on what constitutes consent should be unique. Do you think that your definition of consent matches up with society's at large, and do you think that teaching said definition of consent to young people would be practical? These are a lot of questions, so just answer what you wish!

I'd also like to know what you feel the cause of the lack of diversity in female roles in media is. Do you feel there's also a lack of diversity in male roles? I've certainly noticed (and I'm certainly not the first) that women's roles in television seem to be generally terrible, where they're relegated to act as the superego for the action-taking males.

Ah, Jane Gilmore, of such great articles as:

>The irrefutable facts of domestic violence in Australia

and

>Male violence: Why aren't men warned to be careful like women are?

I see now.

I'll try and give one of her paragraphs the old mirror switch:

> MRA websites, and the comments sections on almost every article about violence against women, are full of men angrily disputing the irrefutable data on the disproportionate number of female victims in domestic violence.

Feminist websites, and the comments sections on almost every article about domestic violence, are full of women angrily disputing the irrefutable data on the proportionate number of male and female victims, trying to claim the victim role solely for women.

> In fact, it seems like a large percentage of them are from men accused of rape

Well, to be fair there is no large effort to exonerate people wrongfully convicted of minor crimes. The only study I could find in my admittadly quick search reported that of surveyed inmates (which is itself probably a poor measure), 8% of males claimed they gave false confessions vs 5% of females. But this was primarily due to number of times they were interrogated. I think the idea that false confessions are non-gendered is likely, but not provable. That study didn't break it down by crime.

Looks like it was a mistake - the actual study says it was three times as many negative comments, not a third as many.

That's an opinion from a feminist historical author, not a quote from Solanas herself:

"How would you describe what the SCUM Manifesto says in one sentence?" "That the males can't love -- they're emotionally deficient and because of these emotional deficiencies they fuck up the world. And all the evils of the world emanate from this male incapacity to love." "Well, since it's called the Society for Cutting Up Men, is the answer to eliminate men?" "To eliminate them. Right."

If so, it's poor survey practice because it primes the subject. That looks like it was studied pretty well in the 80's, if anyone wants a more scientific analysis of that, I think the best search phrase for Google Scholar is "survey 'order effect.'"

The proper way to study such a difference would be to use independent studies over a large population and control for demographic and contextual circumstance as much as possible.

Ahem:

> #downplay

> verb \ˈdau̇n-ˌplā\ : to make something seem less important or not as bad as it really is

So, in answer to your question, you did. You may not have intended to, but the meaning of the word you used does at least carry the implication that you are endeavoring to make women's issues "seem less important or not as bad as they really are." Which, I think you'll agree, is a pretty classic example of bias.

You're spot on that media is often a poor representation of a culture, but it is often indicative of their values. I have the sneaking suspicion that if we were talking about gun control you'd be fine with a reference America's high gun crime rates, and if we were talking about climate change you'd think American car culture was a legitimate point. And why not? Those are actual phenomena.

In this case, it is a valid academic concept in moral psychology/sociology that culture largely divide into honor cultures and dignity cultures, similar to how /u/Aapje58 initially describes, and that Japan is considered in academic literature to be an honor culture. It's not just a movie stereotype, there are measurable differences in the moral psychology. Perhaps that view is flawed, but you can hardly fault someone for accepting the conclusions of foremost experts in a scientific field... or if it doesn't mesh with your experience, perhaps the times as a-changin' or perhaps you find yourself within one of those "subcultures within countries" he described.

Not convincing... at all. In terrorists attacks and things like that, usually the goal is to kill everybody, so I doubt that more women die (to the point of being fair to frame it as a primarily women's issue). During war times, every number I ever saw show more men dying.

> Andreev, Darski and Karkova (ADK) put total losses at 26.6 million. The authors did not dispute Krivoshev's report of 8.7 million military dead. Their demographic study estimated the total war dead of 26.6 million included 20.0 million males and 6.6 million females. In mid-1941 the USSR hosted 8.3 million more females; by 1946 this gap had grown to 22.8 million, an increase of 13.5 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

> The war left Paraguay utterly prostrate; its prewar population of approximately 525,000 was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which only about 28,000 were men.

http://www.britannica.com/event/War-of-the-Triple-Alliance

So, if you are trying to argue that just as many women die or something like that, I would like to see numbers corroborating to this view. I agree that women are affected, but the way you trying to frame the issue is strange.

I didn't https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/porn-watchers-think-more-highly-of-women

> In fact, pornography users were more supportive of women in politics, more supportive of women working outside the home, and more supportive of women's access to abortion, than were non-users of pornography.

It's a bit different, but still.

> Voltaire's aphorism

That quote is misattributed to Voltaire. In reality it was an anti-Semite and child pornographer using it to prove that "the Jews" have tyrannical rule of the USA. This shows what a failure it is as an aphorism: unless we agree Jews are tyrant overlords, then clearly the quote supports whatever conclusion a speaker wants, no matter how false.

Putting my cynic glasses on, this is how the list reads:

1. Teach your children to be slaves to the corporate marketing machinery. Spend 100s of dollarydoos every holiday season. Barbie? Fine! Elsa? Great! BB8? Terrific! Gotta buy them all.
2. Throwing a tantrum at the drop of a hat is "expressing emotions" too, and is totally OK wherever you are. Kid's throwing a fit at the nice restaurant outing? That's what free emotions look like.
3. Yep, include shaking hands to the list of unwanted physical contact.
4. Sure, every kid can aspire to become a Transformer or a turtle.
5. Wait... aren't all relationships of diaper-wearing kids platonic?
6. Jack doesn't want to learn to pee like a boy, and Jane doesn't want to pee like a girl? Totally fine.
7. Absolutely. Mom should learn to change the engine oil and fix a leaky roof too. No calling for help.
8. Let's not learn about more sensible guidelines to praise kids.
9. (Finally! One point that I can agree with. As long as it's clear that being mindful and being critical are not opposites!)
10. But wait! This contradicts the second point. Unless the real lesson here is, "just do as I say now". Sneaky!

> Challenging our own opinions is difficult and requires us to always be on our guard against ourselves and our own biases. There are studies(it late and I'm on my phone so I'll find them of you want the. tomorrow) that people, when shown evidence that contradicts something they believe in, will end up believing that thing more strongly. Even if faced with evidence that they are 100% wrong. The point is that opening yourself to bring wrong, and having your opinion being wrong is hard and takes a lot of conscious effort.

Here's one of those studies.

Effects like these make me think that it can be wise to try to challenge your views at a bit of an angle rather than head-on. This might mean, e.g., podcasting a sociology course to allow people more time to develop arguments - and give you an idea both as to were you might agree and might disagree - rather than only directly confronting counter-arguments on a specific issue - e.g. on a gender disparity in income.

> Being a homemaker simply isn't an option for the majority of women, and so there is pressure to demonstrate traditional femininity in other ways, including outside of the home and in the workplace.

I think if this exists it sounds like a relatively weak effect, since feminity can be demonstrated in many ways, and so can masculinity. Overall I think the growing gender disparity is more strongly evidence of biological differences since there you would have obvious and strong causality (... BY THE POWER OF BAYES THEROREM !).

Additionally we always have to ask the ultimate reason: Where do our different sexual preferences come from, not just proximately? Are they happenstance? Seems implausible given lots of cultural universals.

Edit: >(Shakespeare thinks I'm stupid D:)

I would more worry about Gauss ;)

> Many, when I describe intersectionality, people tell me I'm misrepresenting it or that people don't really believe it the way I've described. This entire article is a refutation of such individuals...intersectionality is exactly what I call it...a way to generalize individual experiences as representative of the group and stack them up against each other. They literally use the progressive stack in this article...being black is "one dimension" and female "another dimension" and being both is "worse" than one or the other, with being white and male as neutral or positive. How the hell am I misrepresenting this racist theory?

The problem is that a lot of what people call intersectionality are actually meta-theories surrounding it. All intersectionality actually says is that there exist issues at the intersection of identities that don't exist for either of the individual axes. It's like the opposite of Venn/Euler diagrams, where the exist things in the overlapping parts of the circles that don't exist in a single circle.

The meta-theories around this have taken it, combined it with the OOGD, and ended up with a lot of racists/sexist/x-ist ways of looking at the world, but that isn't the fault of intersectionality any more than racists using pseudo evopsych arguments are an indictment of evolution.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. One inference that could be drawn is that the first several open relationship experts the author contacted (presumably closer to ~~silicon valley~~ san francisco where she is based) didn't give her the quote she was looking for. If that expert is really the premier expert then I'd have to withdraw that observation as interesting.

Edit: just going by Amazon rankings, her book sales are not very impressive. Risky click of the day - Amazon will no doubt now assume I'm poly.

I think this falls afoul of the hippocratic oath. The primary goal or medicine is Do no harm. Transitioning after puberty is harder but no child is mature enough to make that decision clearly. We ought to default to avoiding an irreversible transition until we can be sure that its what the patient wants. An adult patient might regret not transitioning earlier but that risk is outweighed by the risk of a young child or teenager who is encouraged to make an "informed decision" that they are not capable of making.

Incidentally, Joe Rogan had author Abigail Shrier on the podcast to talk about this subject a few days ago. She wrote this book.

Not sure what your first paragraph is really responding to. I am not saying female sexuality is defective at all just stating a fact that women tend to be more desired. A lot of the things you are saying are part of the reason for that but it doesn't change the fact.

The study about the women lying about the sexual preferences is an excellent example of how asking your female friends about their sexuality is probably not a good source of information.

> And the ratio is unequal because women are more socially-driven and prefer real-life dating when they can see the person first, hear their voice, etc.

No man I have talked to likes online dating. For most they do it because they are sort of out of options.

The rations are actually not that different.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-male-to-female-ratio-on-the-big-five-dating-websites-Match-com-eHarmony-PlentyofFish-Zoosk-and-OKCupid

There are plenty of shitty female profiles as well.

And even the more attractive men tend to have to message first.

>Go to Japan and you'd see women making the first move because men never make them.

Yet the men aren't creating a social movement which dictates how women are allowed to approach them. I also entirely disagree with your statement that women aren't approached on the street in Europe. French guys are notorious for it.

not what i saw. http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/12/do-women-support-abortion-more-than-men-the-answer-will-surprise-you/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion

>What exactly makes an 'established' slur? Any pejorative reference to a class of people is a term of bigotry.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/darkie

See how that's listed as "offensive" in the dictionary? Established slur. Pale does not have that listing.

>Plenty of words that are used in terms of bigotry can be used in other contexts.

Yes, but if you can use the word to describe someone and it's not offensive, it's probably not a slur (some exceptions for "reclaimed" slurs).

>Negative references to classes are terms of bigotry. It really is that simple.

"Wealthy people pay far too little in taxes and are a drain on society" is a negative reference to a class, and not bigotry.

"Black people suck" does not make the word "black" a slur, but the sentence as a whole is bigoted.

>I gave an example of someone putting it together right in the OP. Of course not every use of 'pale' is part of a bigoted slur.

Then the word "pale" isn't a slur, now is it?

>That's like trying to say the 'black' in 'black-buying' isn't 'negative'. The point is that there is a negative association with a class.

It's not. The total phrase together is negative, but the individual words are not. Are you aware that words coming together makes a phrase, which may have different meaning from the individual parts?

>Any use of pale as a pejorative reference to any class of people is a slur. The example in the OP is clearly that.

>Any use of pale as a pejorative reference to any class of people is a slur. The example in the OP is clearly that.

>Any use of pale as a pejorative reference to any class of people is a slur. The example in the OP is clearly that.

You could replace the word "pale" with "white" in that sentence and no meaning would change. Does that make the word "white" a slur?

This discussion really seems bizarrely roundabout and a bit pointless, I'm afraid.

> Do you think it's possible for someone to molest themselves?

In this case, based on the court decision, the answer in criminal law seems ambiguous even if I think that's somewhat absurd.

I'm rather interested in how law the law as it exists coheres with what people are interested in. e.g. If you define rape as any sexual activity not involving explicit verbal consent, but then find in the literature on women's preferences that:

> Although being able to communicate about sex with a partner was often seen as positive, particularly in the older age groups, a partner verbally “asking” for sex was widely regarded as a turn-off

... you've basically talked yourself into a very weird corner.

EDIT: Trimmed back the first assertion a bit.

>The CTS II is an unreliable method for comparing rates of violence between men and women as retaliatory violence is judged no differently than instigative violence IIRC.

even if true that still doesn't explain why in unidirectional violence women are represented at a rate of 70% on average or in bidirectional violence with women initiating 70% of the time. I have heard muaray struas defend the CTS II stating it fixed the issues present in CTS I.

Also you never addressed the link i provided in my previous post.

Full text here.

Abstract (highlight mine):

> This study investigates gender-specific changes in the total financial return to education among persons of prime working ages (35–44 years) using U.S. Census data from 1990 and 2000, and the 2009–2011 American Community Survey. We define the total financial return to education as the family standard of living as measured by family income adjusted for family size. Our results indicate that women experienced significant progress in educational attainment and labor market outcomes over this time period. Ironically, married women’s progress in education and personal earnings has led to greater improvement in the family standard of living for married men than for women themselves. Gender-specific changes in assortative mating are mostly responsible for this paradoxical trend. Because the number of highly educated women exceeds the number of highly educated men in the marriage market, the likelihood of educational marrying up has substantially increased for men over time while women’s likelihood has decreased. Sensitivity analyses show that the greater improvement in the family standard of living for men than for women is not limited to prime working-age persons but is also evident in the general population. Consequently, women’s return to education through marriage declined while men’s financial gain through marriage increased considerably.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1710568/one-child-policy

> Traditionally, male children (especially firstborn) have been preferred—particularly in rural areas—as sons inherit the family name and property and are responsible for the care of elderly parents.

EDIT: BUT THEY MAY BE TAKING STEPS TO FIX THIS ALREADY, BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS: http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/chinese-laws-requires-adults-to-care-for-aging-parents-china-economy/1708639.html

Sorry just tagging this crazy thing I found on all the real links to the OP study that /u/TwoBirdsSt0ned found.

There just- seems to be two iterations of this study. Sort of. https://www.academia.edu/17829912/On_the_Existence_of_Optimal_Level_of_Women_s_Intelligence_in_Men_s_Perception_Evidence_from_a_Speed_Dating_Experiment

The article? Yes. It sounds like somebody just discovered what "benevolent sexism" is and decided that this would be a great time to call all men sexist.

The study? Less than ground breaking. What gets me is how the article paints a study basically reconfirming what we've known for decades as somehow being about the prevalence of sexism rather than the nature.

And they article actually butchers the idea of benevolent sexism to boot

>Basically, a hostile sexist calls you a whore after you let him buy you a drink but then refuse to fuck him, while a benevolent sexist calls you a whore when you won’t let him buy you a drink in the first place.

No, the benevolent sexism is buying you a drink because you're a woman, the fact that most women won't think of that as sexism is a major point of the study this author seems to have missed. Both examples are benovolent for the drink and hostile for the "whore" remark.

So nothing in the study supports the title and they seem to badly misunderstand the study.

That said the benevolent/hostile sexism distinction is useful in assessing how people respond to sexism and applies just as much to sexism against men.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225038992_How_Ambivalent_Sexism_Toward_Women_and_Men_Support_Rape_Myth_Acceptance

http://www.uv.es/garzon/psicologia%20politica/N44-4.pdf

You may have to look back a ways into the earlier posts on KotakuinAction or another site covering it, but there were a number of people that presented evidence of threats (needles and other things left at their house) and workplace harassment that resulted in being fired. This is the example that comes to mind.

The cycle of game journalist spouting calls to bully, harass, or otherwise attacking gamers resulting in a backlash and often the person getting fired occurred a couple of times and is probably well documented someplace.

I've always thought that the best extreme examples of "toxic femininity" are FDIA--Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another and the Octomom.

You're using words that are being understood as something else by everyone else.

>Please find me a definition of manipulation that is so broad as you are suggesting.

the action of influencing or controlling someone or something to your advantage, often without anyone knowing it:. Literally the second google hit, from the Cambridge dictionary. If you try to convince someone of something, whether that's to buy a product or to go on a date with you or to get out of the street because a car is about to hit them, you're manipulating them. Yes, there's "to your advantage", but that's fine, so long as what I wanted was for them to buy the product, date me, or not get hit by a car.

Any seduction or attempt to get someone to date you is manipulation. And while there's sometimes a negative implication to the word, it's not a requirement. The question is whether or not you're doing something deceptive or harmful in your manipulation.

If you haven't read it, you should give this excerpt from Discipline and Punish a read. It's fascinating. I was just paraphrasing this excerpt:

> He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection.

>I wish, and that's also an uncharitable characterization of Quinn - which is unfortunate, since I really don't like her. MAYBE you could say that of Sarkeesian, but even still, that's a pretty shit argument.

https://www.patreon.com/zoe?ty=h

Making mid-five figures for doing nothing?

>Do you not know what doxxing is? They released her real name and address.

Her real name is a matter of public record, and the address as far as I know was not posted.

> So, for example, the original context (AFAIK) where rape culture comes up is in prisons, with some of the earliest research being on why men rape men at higher rates in prisons.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130219022522/http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/svpjri0809pr.cfm

>Female prisoners (4.7 percent) were more than twice as likely as male prisoners (1.9 percent) to report experiencing sexual victimization by another prisoner. Jail inmates reported a similar pattern of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.1 percent for females compared to 1.3 percent for males).

I don't pretend to know why, but I sure hope you're not implying that more women are called bossy just because more women are bossy. Are more men called creepy because they're simply creepy?

> If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

• Sun Tzu, The Art of War

I feel like there must be some deep observation waiting to be made about the use of the term 'hate movement' or 'hate group' or 'hate ideology' or whatever over the last decade or so.

Remember that flap a while ago about the SPLC finding that MRAs were a 'hate group' that did the rounds for a while. Which I think got the SPLC itself to eventually disavow the way their brand was being used by people to score internet rhetoric points.

"They are just haters" seems to be a sort of modern go-to for dismissing a school of thought or argument that has been identified as the enemy. It's as interesting to me as any other rhetorical convention in the age of social media.

I don't know if I have a point here besides bemusement. I'm reminded of a great quote from Malcolm X

>For the white man to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped, or the wolf asking the sheep, ‘Do you hate me?’ The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate! Why, when all of my ancestors are snake-bitten, and I’m snake-bitten, and I warn my children to avoid snakes, what does that snake sound like accusing me of hate-teaching?

(from The Autobiography of Malcolm X, as told to Alex Haley, pg. 245)

It's very hard to tell who is the wolf and who is the sheep when each is asking the other why they hate them.

I had to take quite a few maths units (numerical analysis, calculus one, calculus two, linear algebra, differential geometry & discrete mathematics) to get my bachelor of computer science, but I'm not american. That knowledge was helpful here and there... like, in my uni, you are required to take a class about NP-completeness, master theorem... stuff that you can find in the textbook: Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest, and Stein.

The problem is that we evolved our emotions over a long history. The logical part of the brain is a relatively recent addition. It is not equipped to run the show, but is mostly used to rationalize the actions that the older parts of the brain have done.

Thinking carefully about important decisions that lend themselves to it instead of reacting impulsively is a worthy ideal to strive for, but it's best to be humble about our capacity for pure rationality because we are very good at self-deception and motivated reasoning.

For a better explanation see: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt

>Erin's lawyer, i think, made a sufficient case suggesting that Erin did not do anything other than post a blog about his own life. I know that he was also supposed to be interacting on reddit, but I certainly couldn't prove its him, and I don't have the comments on hand to support the idea that he did anything wrong or not. Ultimately, though, the process is proceeding, as it should, and resolution would be good either way.

Eron's identity on Reddit isn't really questioned by anyone, as far as I can tell. That said, here is an in-depth analysis of the claims Zoe has made in her affidavit.

>Oh, and the author of this article seems like kind of a jerk, too. Definitely pretty anti-Quinn biased.

Aside from what /u/MegaLucaribro said, I'm pretty sure Ralph is just self-promoting with a strategy (attitude) that he knows works.

>Athletic director Robert L. Scalise wrote in an email to Harvard student-athletes that he decided to cancel the rest of the team's season because the practice, in which women were rated on their perceived sexual appeal and physical appearance, appeared "to be more widespread across the team and has continued beyond 2012, including in 2016."

>"As a direct result of what Harvard Athletics has learned, we have decided to cancel the remainder of the 2016 men's soccer season," Scalise wrote. "The team will forfeit its remaining games and will decline any opportunity to achieve an Ivy League championship or to participate in the NCAA Tournament this year."

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/17965882/harvard-cancels-men-soccer-rest-season-review-found-team-had-made-vulgar-comments-documents-women-team

It sounds like it was more than just one person coming up with a list, it getting sent in one e-mail, and those getting that one email ignoring it.

This was a comparison between razors offered at my first college's convenience store, the most basic and featureless razors, which were the only ones they carried. These, but in five packs for the men's, and four packs for the pastel colored women's.

> Bud Light

...just drink tap water; it's free.

I haven't specifically looked at shampoo prices, but there's this Consumer Reports article from 2010 which looks at common drug store products that are marketed differently to men and women. Yes, some of the products are slightly different.

I haven't taken any before/after pics but growth hormone makes every tissue in the body bigger. And if you'd like it from a famous juiced out muscle god then here's Rich Piana.

Here is a thought experiment that came to me: Alice has a pack of "home protection" dogs that will attack on command. She yells 'attack' and the dogs attack you.

Another: I program a robot aiming a weapon of some sort to target pests. Someone mistakenly inputs your appearance among the pests.

Another: I tell people on twitter that you did something horrible or will do something horrible and you get injured as a result.

In some sense, it is true that the violence is, in each case, not the speech act in itself. And on this basis, I suppose one can argue that "speech is not violence". But if someone's goal is to stop the violence, it's not clear what they're supposed to be advocating for: banning dogs, openCV-powered weapons and the very vague "trying to do their civic duty based on what's said on Twitter"?

I'd argue one needs to fix the problem for these people in order to oppose the "speech is/can be violence" thing.

> Joss Whedon is kind of a Schrodinger's Feminist. Sometimes he's a feminist hero, but whenever anyone looks for examples of sexist stuff in media his works always seem to pop up, with no mention of his feminism in sight.

Indeed, Sarkeesian wrote her masters thesis on Whedon's "sexist" work yet she also seems to think he's pretty great. Maybe his work is only sexist when one needs something to write about.

Family Life in 19th Century America

The 1850 census suggested that the average annual income for male workers was $300, or about 62 pounds, which was just above the poverty line.

Studies in World History:

> In 1900, the average family had an annual income of $3,000 (in today's dollars) ... About half of all American children lived in poverty

It'd be interesting to see how the original study characterised it's results. Did the original study draw its conclusion as to covering the behaviour of everyone, to only students, to only American students, or to only Stanford students? I agree the difference between American students and Dutch students is potentially significant, but was this an issue addressed as an explicit limitation in the original study. If the replication attempts fit within the limitations discussed in the original study, then I think the critique from the replication study remains valid.

One of the strongest concerns I have with the state of this sort of science is the propensity for researches to take a narrow sample in a very specific set of circumstances and try to make general conclusions. If this is the supposed major flaw with the replication study then I still then that much of what goes on in the field is little more than dressed up anecdata.

Edit: From the essay criticisng the replication study: > an original study that asked college students to imagine being called on by a professor (4) was replicated with participants who had never been to college

From the general discussion section of that particular original study: > Note that the prospect of negative outcomes such as these would tend to capture imagination even if one does not have personal experience with having tempted fate in a given domain. To anticipate how bad it would feel to be rejected from graduate school after wearing that school’s shirt, one needn’t have gone through a similar, previous experience. One can simply imagine doing so.

Whoops.

One of the most terrifying quotes I recall from The Lucifer Effect: > Pauline gave the order that "Before you kill the women, you need to rape them." She ordered another group of these thugs to burn alive a group of seventy women and girls they were guarding and provided them with gasoline from her car to do so. Again she invited the men to rape their victims before killing them. One of the young men told a translator that they couldn't rape them because "we had been killing all day and we were tired. We just put the gasoline in bottles and scattered it among the women and then started burning.

If you have people complaining about being too tired to rape others there might be an expression of power in play.

(That said, I think its a mix of power and sex at play rather than purely one or the other).

She is advocating for new games being made to rectify the imbalance.

Here is some information about the statistics.

> The percentage of the white population, for example, that is impoverished is smaller, by comparison, and thus has less of a negative offset to IQ of the group as a result

Are you sure poverty is the cause of low IQ and not effect of it?

https://www.academia.edu/1512384/Neuropsychological_and_cognitive_performance_of_homeless_adults

I'll admit my post left out a crucial word: today. You'll have a hard time finding anyone today praising her.

The sources on that quote are also a little shaky. There's Solanas's own publications (and who would ever inflate their own importance for their own benefit in their own writing?) and this memoir from a lady who published the book in 1976 and died eight years ago.

I'd probably aim for teaching them in parallel. I just don't think you need something like Alice or Scratch in order to teach students to code though - i.e. graphics are nice but I don't think that they're a requirement (and, whatever graphics you might get, odds are they'll be worse than whatever the students usually encounter).

Toysoldier! Been a while since I read his blog.

>Frankly, the nerds have won. Nerd culture is culture, period.

Proceeds to give examples of where the nerds don't play a part or are kingmakers not the kings themselves. Anyway, I doubt this will change the anything, Aaronson's updates only threw more fuel on the fire.

http://www.metafilter.com/145707/Privilege-doesnt-mean-you-dont-suffer

> with out access to the study

study

> The Canadian military reported for 2005-2009 a suicide rate of 19 per 100k for males

That report seems to be based on roughly 58,000 men. This report suggests about 2500 soldiers were deployed in Afghanistan. Even accounting for rotations in and out of Afghanistan it seems likely that most Canadian soldiers never wound up in combat there despite this probably being the most prominent Canadian military expedition in recent times.

I wonder if there's some way to zoom in on those soldiers who did wind up in combat situations rather than looking at the military as a whole. Unfortunately, troop deployment details seem a bit hard to come by, let alone stats on a subset of them.

>and have yet to hear an example of it that I find legitimate.

Okay I'll bite, albeit it's a very loose iteration of "cultural appropriation":

>...in some subtle way, in a really profound way, I brought to Shakespeare, Bach, Rembrandt, to the stones of Paris, to the cathedral at Chartres, and to the Empire State Building, a special attitude. These were not really my creations, they did not contain my history; I might search in them in vain forever for any reflection of myself. I was an interloper; this was not my heritage. At the same time I had no other heritage which I could possibly hope to use--I had certainly been unfitted for the jungle or the tribe. I would have to appropriate these white centuries, I would have to make them mine--I would have to accept my special attitude, my special place in this scheme--otherwise I would have no place in any scheme. ~James Baldwin

source

But on the little less tongue-in-cheek side, I don't think there's a problem with the concept, merely in its application--too often I see it used as a tool to attack others, or as you put it:

>seems more about egotistical pride and identity politics than fairness or respect.

Actually, come to think of it, I rarely see an explanation attached to why one thinks it's disrespectful to be using elements from another's culture, it often seems to just be a means to silence others or claim some kind of superiority.

Sure. I was linked a picture in conversation about the shooter's actual, non-mrm related internet habits. He was apparently a member of the anti-pua site puahate, and some of the members were detestably celebrating his actions.

Proportional representation has quite a long history and, though it deals with an element of political systems, strangely I think this has largely escaped politicization so I'm not overly worried about Wikipedia here.

You could start with a source like Britannica, or read some of the (freely downloadable) chapters in this book if you've got lots of time, or just google away on the pros and cons.

I didn't know that we needed any of those things to prove bigotry. Weird. Let me look up the definition again?

> a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Huh, weird. They don't mention historical wars or Jane Crow Laws or any of that. Did I miss something?

And thus, is it therefore totally impossible to infer the word "only" because of that?

Strange.

Can you access this version?

It's basically trying to remove information that might reveal your race from your application. Assuming you can access the above link, look at the "whitening techniques" section of the paper to see what they're referring to.

>It's almost like you have to go out of your way to find the man hating ones, or take Tumblr seriously I suppose, but that seems so embarrassing to admit.

Yet FEMEN makes the news, often in European news from their protests and they don't take kindly to men at all.

>Of course I am not immune to rape culture.

I take it you agree with this article?

> I mean he may be correct that not having a mandate would make birth control cheaper, but if you are already paying for birth control in your premium, even if it is more expensive than alternative methods, you should have access to them.

The thing is that under the ACA, premiums cannot be different based on gender. If as a female your premium was higher because you were paying for birth control to be covered, yes you can argue that since you are paying for it you should have access to them. But under ACA, the cost of birth control is cheaper because men and post menopausal women are subsidising the cost. This is the sort of things libertarians tend to take issue with, if the benefit to you was reflected in your premium then it isn't a problem, if you are expecting someone else to pay for it then it is.

If you look at the birth control options available under the ACA to both men and women, you'll see that even though men are required to pay the same premium, they don't have equal access to birth control options. For example, even though female sterilisation procedures are required to be covered, male sterilisation procedures such as vasectomies aren't [1].

If you consider that most female sterilisation procedures are more invasive, incur more risk, and have longer recoveries than a vasectomy, why aren't vasectomies covered? It's actually a better and safer health option when a couple aren't going to have any more children.

I'm not in the US, but my partner and I have decided that two children is enough, the long term health effects of hormonal contraception aren't good, and that sterilisation for her is both risky and invasive. In looking out for her health, I had long ago decided to get a vasectomy after we had finished having kids. It's just the responsible thing to do, so why not cover it? And where I am, it is covered 100%.

1. HealthCare.gov - Birth control benefits

I'm guessing psychologytoday.com is more like a Dr. Phil type of psychology site? If so, I can't really rage over this because it's what I've come to expect.

I do find it interesting that there's an over-the-top comedy action anime, One Punch Man, that just tackled young men who lack motivation. Despite the over-the-top comedy, there are moments when the main character seriously reflects on how he's similar and could have easily wound up as one of them.

I just find it weird where we find certain issues being taken seriously while other places are just using them for clickbait.

It's different to what most people would consider to be a percentage. It's the measure of grams of alcohol per 100ml of blood (it's a calculation of mass/volume)

> There are several different units in use around the world for defining blood alcohol concentration. Each is defined as either a mass of alcohol per volume of blood or a mass of alcohol per mass of blood (never a volume per volume). 1 milliliter of blood has a mass of approximately 1.06 grams. Because of this, units by volume are similar but not identical to units by mass.

You could calculate a volume based blood alcohol concentration but you would have to take into account the specific gravity of blood.

> Because the specific gravity of whole blood is greater than water (on average, 1 ml of whole blood weighs 1.055 g), BAC expressed in terms of mass per mass (w/w) is not the same as mass per volume (w/v). In fact, a concentration of 0.10% w/v equals 0.095% w/v. This difference of about 5.5 percent could mean punishment or acquittal in borderline cases of driving while under the influence of alcohol.

What I would say instead is "a blood alcohol concentration of 0.22 to 0.24" (which is the way it is most commonly expressed in the media here).

Well I think affirmative action generally helps women over all more often than not. I've seen that said somewhere's especially in very liberal circles, the white women benefit from the most from affirmative action.

Actually yes, here's an example, keep in mind this is huffpost which is creme de la creme of liberal minded news: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/affirmative-action-still-matters_n_5981d9b6e4b0353fbb33e1bb

This is not a space where topics are moderated, it's a space where discussion style is moderated.

Here is an example.

I'll say she does! That was a private conversation, and I'm seriously offended that Ms. Oluo published everything I said verbatim without my permission! ^(...and somewhat ironically got it illustrated by a man)

It's very different from what I got out of the one essay that informs what I understand intersectionality to mean (which is that basically that identity politics which focus on one broad identity at a time can end up marginalizing members that it claims to represent, such as feminists and anti racists both neglecting black women for various reasons; our multiple identities cooperate to make distinct social categories with unique issues). But at the same time- my interpretation of crenshaw once caused a member of this sub to start a thread to try explain how wrong I was. I think it is a term that has a lot of definition drift because it is such a popular term, and I think many people understand it second or third hand.

Then again, I was baffled by Kimberle Crenshaw's position on my brother's keeper because it seemed to go against what I took from mapping the margins- she seemed to be agitating against giving young men of color support as young men of color because dealing with their distinct social category was disadvantageous to young women of color. She seemed to be performing an act similar to the acts she criticized in that essay.

> So here I would have to accept that we can reasonably talk about truth outside of logical systems.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this; could you please explain it a little further?

>Well, I don't want to change it, I want to speak in as simple and clear terms as possible.

I think that this is still pretty clear and simple, and also within the already-accepted understandings of power. Consider, for example, the Oxford Dictionary's second definition of power:

>The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events

That seems to be precisely what we're working with here. The question is simply of reflecting on the wide ranges of ways that behavior of others or courses of events can be directed or influenced.

Given that, I don't really see how this is "shifting of meaning," in the first place, or how it could lead to emotional manipulation. I can understand the form of what you're driving at, but it's not something that I really encounter in Foucault's work or work influenced by it. Maybe I just have my own biases, but to me it seems like an honest and straightforward way of investigating some of the subtler ways that our actions are influenced.

Interesting study. It's a little vague about what exactly they mean by 'emotionality'. Does this include behaviours emulating learned helplessness? I can see emotionality and high EQ being more protective of stress by proxy-because emotionality signals for collectivist, nurturing in-group behaviour between women, or to 'manipulate' men into comforting distressed women.

I'd have to see more of the methodology to come to a better conclusion. Their mentioning 'questionnaires' suggests they're going to have questions about the aforementioned social support networks, among other types of coping skills.

> Yes

Don't feel you have to answer this if you find it a daft question, but why?

> alternatives to the modern family

This is a fair point, although without having references immediately to hand, my suspicion would be that before presenting these as alternatives the traditional family / nuclear family model is first subjected to critique and deconstruction.

It may even be the case that it's argued that the continuation of the 'traditional' / nuclear form is seen as an active obstacle to the development of the alternative forms.

That's only a guess at this point, though.

> I'm not saying any of the people you've name aren't modern feminists.

In that case, I feel it's not quite correct to assert without qualification "Modern feminists don't argue for an end to the nuclear family"

> The insitution of marriage is divisible from the nuclear family of men and women living together with their children.

Agreed; though the prototypical image of the (traditional) nuclear family is strongly associated with marriage as this definition from Encyclopædia Britannica suggests even while acknowledging diversity within that form (my emphasis):

> Nuclear family, also called elementary family, in sociology and anthropology, a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children. Typically, but not always, the adults in a nuclear family are married. Although such couples are most often a man and a woman, the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage. Children in a nuclear family may be the couple’s biological or adopted offspring.

I would find it most unusual if Chambers' forthcoming work on marriage made no mention at all of children or procreation - wouldn't you?

EDIT And by "critique and deconstruction" of the family, I meant with the result of a negative evaluation.

I was really surprised that there were so few hate crimes reported against Hispanics. Anti-Hispanic sentiment is just as much a part of Trump's platform as anti-Muslim sentiment and there was a rise in hate crimes against that group. Then it occurred to me that Hispanics might be reluctant to go to the police given an increased risk of them being deported. Looks like that is the case.

> Police officers take precautions that other people do not. For example, they respond to calls in pairs.

It seems worth noting that such an approach is not necessarily safer for the officers (or the public as a whole) as a general policing strategy as it may cause them to take greater risks.

> In the US, but not in Canada, not in the UK, not in Australia, not in France. And the US reason has nothing to do with biblical stuff.

I was just pointing out it wasn't limited to certain religious groups.

>By Mr Puritanism himself, Kellogg. He wanted to prevent masturbation with his bland food, too.

Eh, not really. While Kellogg also believed this, the history of medical circumcision did not begin and end with Kellogg. For example, if you go to WebMD right now you'll find this:

>The use of circumcision for medical or health reasons is an issue that continues to be debated. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

This is hardly the opinion of one cereal maker, and it is certainly not universally accepted to be more harmful than beneficial. Obviously you can disagree, but I haven't really found any medical literature that says the procedure should be banned.

The same is not true for female "circumcision", which causes obvious health problems and no known benefits. Perhaps the science is biased; I will concede this point, but until I see evidence one way or another, I'm not going to accept that something is scientifically bad even if I think it's probably immoral.

>I meant that Philippino or other tribal groups that cut their male kids didn't complain when Germany or Iceland wanted to forbid it. Only Jewish and only Muslim.

I find it extremely unlikely that tribal groups did not complain when their practices were banned. They probably just didn't make the news as much. This may demonstrate a bias in the news, but the idea that ancient tribal practices being banned resulted in shrugged shoulders and "sure, no problem" would go against everything we know about forced changes in cultural practices.

The people who use 'mister' to refer to MRAs know perfectly well that the entire English-speaking world associate the word specifically with men; and I believe they use it partly to propagate an assumption - that the default MRA is male. They also use it as a dismissive and derisory term. It's not a term of endearment or respect, is it?

> I just don't think it's reasonable to call the word a slur or try to police its usage.

Neither do I. That is up to the mods to determine. What I said was, the likes of AMR should not be suprised if someone takes offence at the term, especially if they happen to be a woman. If they want people to side with them politically, they would do well to avoid the usage of such names, IMHO.

Look, I'll give you an analogy... I'm Scottish. We sometimes refer to the English as 'sassenachs'. Now, the dictionary definition only says 'an English person'. But I would be very careful to avoid causing offence by referring to English people that way. It is an 'us and them' type of phrase to use. When you add the fact that the phrase 'mister' is, given its general and widespread usage, typically used to refer specifically to males, you can see that it is doubly likely to offend those women who feel they are being stigmatised and belittled by association with the MRM!

Please note that I did not say the word should be banned or restricted in its usage. I merely said that I feel the way the word is used comes across as dismissive and hostile, and that I would advise critics of the MRM to stick to the facts and avoid using such terminology, lest they offend or alienate those who would otherwise be sympathetic to their cause. This is 'take it or leave it' advice, not an attempt to enforce a restriction on anyone else's speech.

> Is there anything that supports the idea that it's the most popular site for feminists?

Alexa rating putting it as the 495th most popular site in the US would be a start. I don't know if there's a definitive, canonical listing but I challenge you to find another that's more popular.

> Blah blah words that would be intellectually honest to you?

No, but it would make me intellectually dishonest if I said that it appearing on a site didn't support the assertion.

> Pretty inaccurate and derogatory way of referring to the posters who said hitting was wrong in all situations.

Highly accurate way of referring to the posters who complained about the optics of it rather than the events. Those few women who dismissed the entire thing do not deserve a cookie for merely being decent human beings.

A copy of my comment to /u/FloweringCactoid as you found the paper that this article was referring to.

>What appears to be a two year older version of the same paper from the same authors with very fascinatingly different way of writing up the conclusions.

>https://www.academia.edu/17829912/On_the_Existence_of_Optimal_Level_of_Women_s_Intelligence_in_Men_s_Perception_Evidence_from_a_Speed_Dating_Experiment

You should really consider using one of those free survey makers, like surveymonkey

It would be fine if all women were collectively buying chicken fries, but they aren't, so it's pandering, and everyone way paying the same price to begin with.

Burger King seems to have an even split between men and women for customer demographics, despite having targeted males with marketing campaigns, and maybe this one is an attempt to attract women.

Personally, I still think it's dumb because it relies on perpetuating the misunderstanding of a statistic that isn't relevant to anything they're talking about.

> but even Warren Farrell discusses at length how the ambiguity of certain courtship practices can lead to nonconsensual sex.

A complicating factor is that people in high school and college (collectively, "young people) communicate very differently about sexual desire (and often have very different values) than people at middle adulthood or even graduate level studies (collectively, "old people".) Those communication styles change constantly, and part of that change is often a direct intent to rebel against the old-fashioned ideas of "old people".

So as much as old people preach "get consent! This is what consent looks like!" they do so clumsily, and young people define those things for themselves, and do so clumsily.

dear old people (if you're over 25, this means you. yes, you. yes, get over it.)

Remember when you first found youtube and stumbled on black and white "how to date" films. Hahaha so quaint. so corny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FCeeY5xZ0k

https://archive.org/details/0248_Beginning_to_Date_19_10_34_24

this is how you (yes, you. get over it) look like to the under-25 people. Were there dinosaurs back then? I can't remember.

The clumsiness and ambuguity over consent (from dating to kissing through sex & more) is not a problem that old people can solve for young people. they have to figure it out for themselves.

Sorry for mixing up Alex and Bailey.

> /u/proud_slut[1] [+12]'s definition of Govism explicitly states that any power Bailey has doesn't count, as their power isn't "direct."

This is a problem with govism (and why I was somewhat sceptical about govism in that thread).

> But Bailey doesn't have power equal to Alex's, they have greater power. Bailey always get's exactly what they want (or rather, if they don't it's because neither one can do anything about it). Alex clearly wants this to happen, but that doesn't mean they don't have other interests that might sometimes conflict with this, just that such interests are less of a concern. Unlike Bailey, they will have to compromise, and will get less than what they wanted some of the time.

In that case, Bailey has more power than Alex according to the definition - Bailey has the chance to achieve their goals even when Alex would like to resist against that. Weber's full definition makes clear that the source of power is not relevant - no matter where it comes from, if have a chance to realize your will against the resistence of others, you have power over them.

If you interpret your example such that Alex will absolutely always do what Bailey says no matter what, then clearly Bailey has power over Alex by that definition. With real people however, we don't know what they will do in such cases, and it therefore seems prudent to remain agnostic as long as their wills coincide.

> I wonder, would a t-shirt emblazoned with "Girls are stupid. Throw rocks at them", have remained on sale?

How about a "keep calm and hit her" shirt? They were apparently removed from Amazon's UK shops a few years ago, but here they are....

> A low-card diet has proven to be beneficial to weight loss

Not in the long-term:

> Low-carb diets, especially very low-carb diets, may lead to greater short-term weight loss than do low-fat diets. But most studies have found that at 12 or 24 months, the benefits of a low-carb diet are not very large.

> They also didn't say that 85% of people are genetically incapable of losing weight, you made that up.

Well, I never said that, so it's hard to see how I made it up. That one is all you.

> Not that it will make you taller, even after you're into adulthood. Something you tried to claim.

Again, I am not responsible for your inability to follow the discussion.

> You still haven't proved how an adult can change their height as easily as weight.

Something else that you made up and attributed to me.

​

If you are going to debate yourself, rather than address any of my arguments, you don't need me for that.

​

If you're all for the removal of gender roles, even in a hypothetical scenario where both genders have it equally rough, then that's pretty admirable, and I'm sorry if I came off as hostile to you.

Some MRAs are anti-gender roles, and some aren't. However, the laaaaaaaaarge majority of feminists are anti-gender roles.

In fact, initially, I thought men and women were both equally harmed by gender roles. I identified as "feminist" because I thought feminism was better equipped than the MRM when it came to destroying gender roles on all fronts.

If destroying gender roles is your MO, is there a reason why you call yourself an "egalitarian" as opposed to "a feminist, but not one of those crazy ones"?

>What I would say, though, is that in my opinion there is a bias in feminism which minimizes and erases the ways in which men are harmed by gender. Since feminism is by far the most powerful movement advocating for gender equality, I think if this bias could be rectified it would lead to a greater reduction in gender injustice.

Good news! I went to an event where feminists addressed male survivors of sexual assault! Proof

> Has this behavior been observed in great apes too?

Not 100% sure, but given this from the intro section of the paper I doubt it (although I'd be unsurprised if great apes were to act similarly):

> Unlike in humans, there is little empirical evidence that animals use social incentives to manipulate the participation of their group members and overcome social dilemmas during intergroup fights. In fact, studies clearly demonstrating that non-human animals use punishment or rewards to manipulate the cooperative behaviour of conspecifics in any context are remarkably limited.

Full text available on ResearchGate BTW.

Also interesting:

> female intragroup aggression was almost exclusively directed towards males during intergroup fights, which raises the question of why females would use punishment primarily on males, rather than also with other females and juveniles.

Imposter syndrome is when a person is unable to internalize their successes. Any external evidence of success is taken as evidence the person is a fraud. (I had to look it up so I figured I'd put this here).

Thank you for sharing. You seem to have had the mental skills emphasized in STEM from an early age or from birth.

Would you say that a boy with your skills would have been more encouraged to pursue STEM than you were? You said you went to a school for gifted students, so your abilities were recognized.

Universities have very different atmospheres for undergrad classes. It is hard to tell from your description what type your school had, except that it had what you needed. Do you think you would have done well at a school like MIT that emphasizes grad research over indepth teaching of undergrads, assuming the students will figure things out themselves? I ask because there was a piece written by an MIT physics student that argued it was needlessly difficult. here

>But in college, they just gave us the formulas!

I enjoyed hitting the point in physics where they gave you the formulas and said use whatever calculator you want. If you didn't understand the problem, those things wouldn't help anyway. I even had a teacher that let students use mp3 players (with headphones) during the tests.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226799968_Why_are_Benevolent_Sexists_Happier

I found the study, but don't really have the time to get into it right now. So if anyone feels like going over it, have at it.

>I'm not sure that this is a fair or established definition in English

.

>the characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for men

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/masculinity

>is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men. As a social construct, it is distinct from the definition of the male biological sex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity

Pretty close if you ask me.

>That said, it doesn't make any sense to simply dodge by saying 'that's different than culture'. Certainly such expectations are an expression of culture, no?

If a white person talks about "black culture" they're (usually) talking about something distinct they as a group have no responsibility of. The same can't be said about toxic masculinity. In that sense it's either not bigotry or it's bigotry against both men and women.

>So it is OK to label a class culture/identity/etc. with a pejorative if we can use data as a starting point?

I'm sure I'll be missing something here but to start with..

• Data using scientific method
• Not any pejorative
• Unless it's very clear everything is bad (say, Nazis) it needs to be seperated. I.e "toxic masculinity" do not equal "all masculinity is toxic".

>You made a quantitative claim. Did you get there dogmatically or not?

No, I did not get here dogmatically. Why do you keep asking? I just assumed I didn't need it for such rudimentary claims. I've read data on male suicide/work related deaths, I've read studies/books on how men are associated with power/violence etc.