Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Misandry and female privilege in the way we are taught to form relationships Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Totally, the random guy of the internet must be right.
    Still sore? Shame.

    (a) By my own specification I'm more likely to be one of the 90% of know nothings when I pass so that's not what I'm saying
    (b) You know it isn't and you're misrepresenting me AGAIN (do you have an argument of your own or is it too much effort to think of that and simultaneously invent mine?)
    (c) What actual argument against 'we should find out who is right' do you have? Being academic /= right. Fact. Therefore we should find out who is right rather than blindly believe whatever we read. Opinion. Which part of that do you disagree with or are you just being pathetic?

    edit - I've just realised what you did. He wasn't talking to me you moron, I've not had an opinion on this thread. Well played
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Still sore? Shame.

    (a) By my own specification I'm more likely to be one of the 90% of know nothings when I pass so that's not what I'm saying
    (b) You know it isn't and you're misrepresenting me AGAIN (do you have an argument of your own or is it too much effort to think of that and simultaneously invent mine?)
    (c) What actual argument against 'we should find out who is right' do you have? Being academic /= right. Fact. Therefore we should find out who is right rather than blindly believe whatever we read. Opinion. Which part of that do you disagree with or are you just being pathetic?

    edit - I've just realised what you did. He wasn't talking to me you moron, I've not had an opinion on this thread. Well played
    If Foo manages to write a peer reviewed article and publish his theories, then kudos and we can take him seriously.

    You read way too much into what I write, the above sentence is all I meant. As much as I would like to take credit, I have no idea what you mean by "well played".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    If Foo manages to write a peer reviewed article and publish his theories, then kudos and we can take him seriously.

    You read way too much into what I write, the above sentence is all I meant. As much as I would like to take credit, I have no idea what you mean by "well played".
    Not if he(she)? Is wrong. You can be as smart as you like, again, see Aristotles theory of equity. Nobody denies he's smart but it is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Who is correct is important, more so than whether or not something is published. Peer review may well be a different story, it means the item has already been rigorously tested. Published not so much as the trump dossier got published and it was literally 100% made up. Anyone can get published. It's the peer review that interests me (my uni publishes student work in its law review ffs) - it's crucial to be right not just to be academic and peer review is a strong indicator of correctness but even then you should apply a critical mind.

    To quote gavin McInnes the other outcome is people who say 'I know racism exists because I read a book written by an a$$hole liberal who quoted some sh!t from 1867 and drew some graphs' (obviously that's nth degree hyperbole) - thats literally how my course works. A law course requires you to quote a bunch of random people and give credence to claptrap (again see aristotles theory of equity). Doesn't matter if it was stupid. Said by someone published/smart - put it in you'll get marks, even if its stupid. I literally got feedback saying 'where did you get this, either evidence or cite' as in either prove it or say someone else said it. They might not have used any evidence but who cares, they're published. Do you see what I mean?

    Oh ffs, my bad - I presumed you were being petty as I recognise your name and remember we had a disagreement in which that occurred (the irony of being petty in response to presumed pettiness isn't lost on me). Sigh. Ignore that bit, I'm being the moron lol =)

    edit - in fairness what reaction do you expect if you write antagonistic responses (my excuse anyway)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Not if he(she)? Is wrong. You can be as smart as you like, again, see Aristotles theory of equity. Nobody denies he's smart but it is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Who is correct is important, more so than whether or not something is published. Peer review may well be a different story, it means the item has already been rigorously tested. Published not so much as the trump dossier got published and it was literally 100% made up. Anyone can get published. It's the peer review that interests me (my uni publishes student work in its law review ffs) - it's crucial to be right not just to be academic and peer review is a strong indicator of correctness but even then you should apply a critical mind.

    To quote gavin McInnes the other outcome is people who say 'I know racism exists because I read a book written by an a$$hole liberal who quoted some sh!t from 1867 and drew some graphs' (obviously that's nth degree hyperbole) - thats literally how my course works. A law course requires you to quote a bunch of random people and give credence to claptrap (again see aristotles theory of equity). Doesn't matter if it was stupid. Said by someone published/smart - put it in you'll get marks, even if its stupid. I literally got feedback saying 'where did you get this, either evidence or cite' as in either prove it or say someone else said it. They might not have used any evidence but who cares, they're published. Do you see what I mean?

    Oh ffs, my bad - I presumed you were being petty as I recognise your name and remember we had a disagreement in which that occurred (the irony of being petty in response to presumed pettiness isn't lost on me). Sigh. Ignore that bit, I'm being the moron lol =)

    edit - in fairness what reaction do you expect if you write antagonistic responses (my excuse anyway)
    But it wasn't antagonistic - Foo really is just some guy on the internet. As I said, when he publishes an article then he has a legitimate claim.

    Yes, you are right, "experts" aren't always right, but I will put my trust in them anyway over some person who no one knows, because more often than not, that will be the right bet. Have you read the arguments? He makes certain assumptions that apparently do not hold up. That is why I don't support him in this case. Wasn't a case of better argument, was a case of well it's been show his assumption don't hold up.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But it wasn't antagonistic - Foo really is just some guy on the internet. As I said, when he publishes an article then he has a legitimate claim.

    Yes, you are right, "experts" aren't always right, but I will put my trust in them anyway over some person who no one knows, because more often than not, that will be the right bet. Have you read the arguments? He makes certain assumptions that apparently do not hold up. That is why I don't support him in this case. Wasn't a case of better argument, was a case of well it's been show his assumption don't hold up.
    Eh (i cant think of a way to write potatoh potahtoe without phonetics fml)

    Prima facie yes, but my starting point is usually prove it. If someone says academic a says a thing, I'll read the source or ask for a summary. If the summary is crap or doesn't make sense I'll read it, else I'll judge the summary. Point being I wouldn't take anything at face value.

    Honestly in relation to this whole thread its a cluster of nonsense, I have no idea who said what I'm reading it purely for the comedic value. I deliberately cut out the argument he made so I could make reference to just the bit I which triggered my pet peeve alarm. I've heard so many ridiculous things said because 'academics' have said them. It's like when people ask if you believe in laws and then say 'so you should support the police'. Doesn't follow. I believe in the correct argument, I don't prima facie trust implicitly without question those intended to deliver it by right of status.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Don't bet on it.

    Also that is the worst argument ever. 'Academic literature' is 90% a bunch of people who studied the subject at uni (which in multiple degrees has about as much to do with real world practice as a fish has to do with an airplane) and want to pretend they didn't waste their time so sit around in research departments churning out garbage to feel better about themselves or under the misguided illusion they're actually making a significant contribution to the field. The remainder is people who really know what they're talking about going on about in in such detail and depth you don't even know what they've said never mind how to critique it.

    Those numbers are totally arbitrary but my point is a lot of so called academic literature is complete claptrap even if it comes from a smart person (see Aristotles theory of equity, just wtf) - the question shouldn't be what do academics say, the question should be 'who is right'. This simplification of how we process information is why people believe ridiculous stuff, because they read it in a textbook somewhere during their degree so it absolutely must be gospel.


    I'm only here for the fireworks (this thread went down exactly as I expected it to) but that kind of comment worries me.
    So this entire post is you slamming academic research?

    If you've read multiple research papers which have addressed a hypothesis in a way that at least attempts to follow the scientific method, and has been replicated and supported by numerous other research institutions, then it is only logical to believe that, above a randomer on the internet who is motivated to believe a certain line of thinking.

    Yes, in a few years new research may prove the current research to be inaccurate. But in the mean time please forgive me for believing science above a single man.

    You don't believe in academic research, then you don't believe in science. Now that is concerning considering how often you use the products of science on a daily basis.


    Edit:

    Just read your argument to Youdothis. In regards to papers being peer reviewed, well obviously I'm referring to research that comes from a reputable source. I.e peer-reviewed research publications. I find it odd that you assumed that not to be the case.
    For some reason your default belief was research from a poor source, why? I don't think I've ever used research that hasn't been peer-reviewed.


    Also, I don't understand why in your persuit for "correctness" you prefer a single man on the internet, to experts.
    Again, illogical.

    Say if you wanted to learn about Alzheimer's (picked because it's a hot topic at the minute). In your persuit for "correct" information regarding its aetiology, how would you go about it?

    You clearly wouldn't trust the current research, so you wouldn't consult the experts? Would you go to clinicians? But then their practice is based on academic research?

    Going by your logic in this thread, you'd take an online individual as correct above all that.

    The point is, yes the current research we have on Alzheimer's might not sometime in the future be seen as 100% "correct", it very likely wouldn't. But at the minute, that is the closest to it we have.

    The entire basis of science is the persuit of truths, this is why I am flabbergasted that you seem to think it's the opposite.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    You seem to have forgotten what you were arguing here. Let me remind you. You are arguing the subject of men being sent off to war and whether that is sexist or not. You made the argument that men are sent to war because they are privileged .
    No, I said that societies often traditionally conscript (I've explained why the phrase "sent off to war" is myopic) soldiers from their more privileged and dominant population segments, and so citing conscription of a group as proof of that group's oppression isn't a very good argument.

    ....In reply to your comment about soldiers being privileged I showed you pictures questioning the stupidity of that claim
    They don't though. Because privilege doesn't necessarily mean being fine and having no worries, it's a status relative to that of others. For instance, showing pictures of whites in poverty in the US South circa 1900 doesn't change the fact that being white was a privilege in that society.

    I tend to avoid replying to some folk on this forum. The nature of your replies might help you understand why I haven't addressed any of your comments in this thread so far but the utter ridiculousness of your claim that sending men off to war is a privilege was just too tempting....
    Except I didn't say that and you know it. There's a big difference between saying conscripts are chosen because of privilege and saying conscription itself is a privilege.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    They don't though. Because privilege doesn't necessarily mean being fine and having no worries, it's a status relative to that of others.
    Alas death is the great equaliser.

    :emo:

    All lives end the same way => :rip:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Alas death is the great equaliser.

    :emo:

    All lives end the same way => :rip:
    True, but even in death it's not always equal. For example, traditionally in many feudal European countries, the death penalty was not equal. For nobles it generally meant beheading, while for commoners it meant various far more drawn out and painful deaths like being hanged, drawn and quartered, for instance.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    True, but even in death it's not always equal. For example, traditionally in many feudal European countries, the death penalty was not equal. For nobles it generally meant beheading, while for commoners it meant various far more drawn out and painful deaths like being hanged, drawn and quartered, for instance.
    Oi!

    I cling to hope that even the worse knob heads are going to die. Don't taker thata way from me

    I bet in the future when death defying gene therapy is a thing it will only be the rich that get it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    only weak men and cucks complain about misandry.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)

    So this entire post is you slamming academic research?

    If you've read multiple research papers which have addressed a hypothesis in a way that at least attempts to follow the scientific method, and has been replicated and supported by numerous other research institutions, then it is only logical to believe that, above a randomer on the internet who is motivated to believe a certain line of thinking.

    Yes, in a few years new research may prove the current research to be inaccurate. But in the mean time please forgive me for believing science above a single man.

    You don't believe in academic research, then you don't believe in science. Now that is concerning considering how often you use the products of science on a daily basis.

    Amazing. That is the best false equivalency I've seen in a long time - that is the equivalent of saying 'you think cars go wrong? You just must not believe in machinery'. As I pointed out numerous times I make no comment on this absolute load of claptrap, the OP is full of rubbish but my point is the numbers do not forgo the conclusion. Case in point. A study compared two cities. One had a homelessness figure of say 10,000 (I've forgotten the exact figures but they don't actually matter), the other 1,000. The study had perfect methodology (as close as can be gotten). It concluded that 10,000 is a bigger number than 1000 so therefore that town was worse for homelessness. But the 1000 town had a rate per 100 twice that of the town of 10,000 - to me the rate per 100 is worse because it means each individual is more likely to be homeless. So is the study correct? There is always a gap between the raw data and the assertion.

    Also weirdly for some reason you seem to presume I'm questioning gravity or something. Items such as that are pretty demonstrable. It's hard to skew the value of gravity due to ideological leaning or interpretative assertions because there is no confounding element or socially charged topic. Take for example during my law course we saw a study on criminality that used the scientific method to absolutely talk rubbish - if you broke down its figures (this was issued as a warning to us against citing sources without reading them properly) it concluded six out of every five people got assaulted because the way it categorised violence overlapped and the method used to measure didn't isolate repeat variables.

    Similarly how many 'studies' release saying they prove misogyny or some other such topic with near infinite confounding variables and then you have studies that use terrible methods, poor reasoning or are simply blatantly ideological (take the supposed 1 in 5 figure for rape on campuses which would actually make them (a) more dangerous than the surrounding areas, and (b) there has been every figure from 1 in 4 to 1 in 1000 presented by various studies. This is before you get into issues of how data was collected for example interpreting responses, self reporting, assumed evaluation (see the study in which it was claimed babies were racist because they stared at same race pictures for marginally longer on average) - studies are rife with issues which is why peer review and repeatable outcomes are crucial. But how do you establish a repeating method for a study in which they ask 'do you think we should stop affirmative action and just pursue meritocracy?' and class all affirmative answers as 'racist' (a study on the huffpost linked to here a while back) in which they manipulated the sharpness of the line of graph to claim race was the most important factor by using 'certainty' to set the gradient ie they said we are more certain people are openly racist than we are the census data on their income is correct.

    Also why is me saying we should be as skeptical of academics as we are of randomers an inherently incorrect statement? Why is the bizarre assumption because I dont inherently trust academics I therefore inherently trust a random on the internet? That isn't even close to logic. Obviously if I'm skeptical of someone who is qualified I'm just as skeptical of someone who is not qualified - the fact this isn't obvious to everyone astounds me.

    This is particularly the case as a law student where we see bad studies all the time. Such complex legal and social phenomenon cannot be simply boiled down to a single measurable statistic. The information is there but that gives you no insight to the causal link, for example the sentencing gap between black and white is argued to be 40% in 'a study' but when you remove the confounding factors ie prior charges it becomes 8% - if you reduce this further according to 'remorse shown' and 'aggressive courtroom behaviour' it becomes 4%. Ignoring the latter and using the harder data of the 8% figure that is a 32% disparity between the study and reality. Studies - and academics - are not inherently correct just because they are. Again read Aristotles theory of equity, it literally doesn't make sense but he was an academic so its correct? Nonsense.

    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Edit:

    Just read your argument to Youdothis. In regards to papers being peer reviewed, well obviously I'm referring to research that comes from a reputable source. I.e peer-reviewed research publications. I find it odd that you assumed that not to be the case.
    For some reason your default belief was research from a poor source, why? I don't think I've ever used research that hasn't been peer-reviewed.
    Because you're on a thread about misandry. There is no concrete evidence from a study or otherwise for such complex social interpretations. No study will prove misandry or misogyny or racism, it may highlight causal issues but never the direct source. You need a whole load of these indicators to paint a broader picture and more social insight still to reach full conclusions. Also that's a very personal response to a very broad statement - as if its specifically about you.

    (Original post by Twinpeaks)

    Also, I don't understand why in your persuit for "correctness" you prefer a single man on the internet, to experts.
    Again, illogical.
    I don't. That's obviously illogical and a stupid thing to say.


    (Original post by Twinpeaks)

    Say if you wanted to learn about Alzheimer's (picked because it's a hot topic at the minute). In your persuit for "correct" information regarding its aetiology, how would you go about it?

    You clearly wouldn't trust the current research, so you wouldn't consult the experts? Would you go to clinicians? But then their practice is based on academic research?

    Going by your logic in this thread, you'd take an online individual as correct above all that.

    The point is, yes the current research we have on Alzheimer's might not sometime in the future be seen as 100% "correct", it very likely wouldn't. But at the minute, that is the closest to it we have.
    If that's what you think then you clearly haven't been reading what I've actually written. This whole thing is a misrepresentation. The point is if you ask who knows more about pregnancy, a male doctor or a woman who has had a child? The answer is it depends on your question. If it's a personal question, how does it feel then she gives the more appropriate answer. If it's a general question about health or anatomy then I'd be more inclined to ask the doctor. My point being in an all encompassing study you can't just take one data source and go 'f**k it that'll do'.

    If I was researching altzeimers it depends on the question. If I wanted to know just the facts I'd ask a clinician. If I wanted to create social policy say for a government department I'd ask NHS accountants, doctors, clinicians, carers, those who have lived with a relative with altzeimers, a cross section of the general population, I'd take assessments of the financial impact and compare that to groups most heavily linked with the disease etc etc - my point is I wouldn't just ask a doctor and make my policy based on that alone because that is when you reach unreasonable conclusions for example presume their expert testimony told me 'it's most efficient to defund care and shift the burden to families, it'll cause a rise in the housing market as they're forced to move back in with family and save the NHS millions by splitting the burden of care as well as meaning the number of related injuries and accidents would be reduced by close family attention'. On this evidence alone I would act. Six months later my policy would cause untenable debt to the poorest families, likely a rise in poor care resulting in more deaths, more mental health issues for already stressed family members etc because I didn't bother taking a full suite of information into my conclusion.

    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    The entire basis of science is the persuit of truths, this is why I am flabbergasted that you seem to think it's the opposite.
    A very noble view. Bit simplistic. A study is only as good as the person carrying it out, as soon as the data gets interpreted that person is adding their life experiences, their lived biases onto the raw data and therein formulating a conclusion. But again this depends on the type of study. If it's about social issues the propensity is much higher, nobody is going to get political about an experiment to say test the melting point of steel beams and therefore the data is the data. It's also a much simpler data set and methodology, a thing happens, you measure it, repeat, that's your answer. All studies are not created equal.

    This whole principle of me thinking 'the opposite' is just making a binary out of a nuanced issue. Why is it if I disagree with something I automatically think the complete opposite. I don't much like antifa beating up innocent people and stopping working class people getting to work on time, does that mean I'm automatically far right? I don't think boycotting the dear white people film is anything but pointless hypocrisy actively against the goals of comedic freedom and a society in which we are all free to make commentary on each other and everyone can enjoy it, does that make me a racist? This binary thinking is dumb and leads to stupid conclusions that indeed would be flabbergasting were they remotely close to true
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Amazing. That is the best false equivalency I've seen in a long time - that is the equivalent of saying 'you think cars go wrong? You just must not believe in machinery'. As I pointed out numerous times I make no comment on this absolute load of claptrap, the OP is full of rubbish but my point is the numbers do not forgo the conclusion. Case in point. A study compared two cities. One had a homelessness figure of say 10,000 (I've forgotten the exact figures but they don't actually matter), the other 1,000. The study had perfect methodology (as close as can be gotten). It concluded that 10,000 is a bigger number than 1000 so therefore that town was worse for homelessness. But the 1000 town had a rate per 100 twice that of the town of 10,000 - to me the rate per 100 is worse because it means each individual is more likely to be homeless. So is the study correct? There is always a gap between the raw data and the assertion.

    Also weirdly for some reason you seem to presume I'm questioning gravity or something. Items such as that are pretty demonstrable. It's hard to skew the value of gravity due to ideological leaning or interpretative assertions because there is no confounding element or socially charged topic. Take for example during my law course we saw a study on criminality that used the scientific method to absolutely talk rubbish - if you broke down its figures (this was issued as a warning to us against citing sources without reading them properly) it concluded six out of every five people got assaulted because the way it categorised violence overlapped and the method used to measure didn't isolate repeat variables.

    Similarly how many 'studies' release saying they prove misogyny or some other such topic with near infinite confounding variables and then you have studies that use terrible methods, poor reasoning or are simply blatantly ideological (take the supposed 1 in 5 figure for rape on campuses which would actually make them (a) more dangerous than the surrounding areas, and (b) there has been every figure from 1 in 4 to 1 in 1000 presented by various studies. This is before you get into issues of how data was collected for example interpreting responses, self reporting, assumed evaluation (see the study in which it was claimed babies were racist because they stared at same race pictures for marginally longer on average) - studies are rife with issues which is why peer review and repeatable outcomes are crucial. But how do you establish a repeating method for a study in which they ask 'do you think we should stop affirmative action and just pursue meritocracy?' and class all affirmative answers as 'racist' (a study on the huffpost linked to here a while back) in which they manipulated the sharpness of the line of graph to claim race was the most important factor by using 'certainty' to set the gradient ie they said we are more certain people are openly racist than we are the census data on their income is correct.

    Also why is me saying we should be as skeptical of academics as we are of randomers an inherently incorrect statement? Why is the bizarre assumption because I dont inherently trust academics I therefore inherently trust a random on the internet? That isn't even close to logic. Obviously if I'm skeptical of someone who is qualified I'm just as skeptical of someone who is not qualified - the fact this isn't obvious to everyone astounds me.

    This is particularly the case as a law student where we see bad studies all the time. Such complex legal and social phenomenon cannot be simply boiled down to a single measurable statistic. The information is there but that gives you no insight to the causal link, for example the sentencing gap between black and white is argued to be 40% in 'a study' but when you remove the confounding factors ie prior charges it becomes 8% - if you reduce this further according to 'remorse shown' and 'aggressive courtroom behaviour' it becomes 4%. Ignoring the latter and using the harder data of the 8% figure that is a 32% disparity between the study and reality. Studies - and academics - are not inherently correct just because they are. Again read Aristotles theory of equity, it literally doesn't make sense but he was an academic so its correct? Nonsense.



    Because you're on a thread about misandry. There is no concrete evidence from a study or otherwise for such complex social interpretations. No study will prove misandry or misogyny or racism, it may highlight causal issues but never the direct source. You need a whole load of these indicators to paint a broader picture and more social insight still to reach full conclusions. Also that's a very personal response to a very broad statement - as if its specifically about you.



    I don't. That's obviously illogical and a stupid thing to say.




    If that's what you think then you clearly haven't been reading what I've actually written. This whole thing is a misrepresentation. The point is if you ask who knows more about pregnancy, a male doctor or a woman who has had a child? The answer is it depends on your question. If it's a personal question, how does it feel then she gives the more appropriate answer. If it's a general question about health or anatomy then I'd be more inclined to ask the doctor. My point being in an all encompassing study you can't just take one data source and go 'f**k it that'll do'.

    If I was researching altzeimers it depends on the question. If I wanted to know just the facts I'd ask a clinician. If I wanted to create social policy say for a government department I'd ask NHS accountants, doctors, clinicians, carers, those who have lived with a relative with altzeimers, a cross section of the general population, I'd take assessments of the financial impact and compare that to groups most heavily linked with the disease etc etc - my point is I wouldn't just ask a doctor and make my policy based on that alone because that is when you reach unreasonable conclusions for example presume their expert testimony told me 'it's most efficient to defund care and shift the burden to families, it'll cause a rise in the housing market as they're forced to move back in with family and save the NHS millions by splitting the burden of care as well as meaning the number of related injuries and accidents would be reduced by close family attention'. On this evidence alone I would act. Six months later my policy would cause untenable debt to the poorest families, likely a rise in poor care resulting in more deaths, more mental health issues for already stressed family members etc because I didn't bother taking a full suite of information into my conclusion.



    A very noble view. Bit simplistic. A study is only as good as the person carrying it out, as soon as the data gets interpreted that person is adding their life experiences, their lived biases onto the raw data and therein formulating a conclusion. But again this depends on the type of study. If it's about social issues the propensity is much higher, nobody is going to get political about an experiment to say test the melting point of steel beams and therefore the data is the data. It's also a much simpler data set and methodology, a thing happens, you measure it, repeat, that's your answer. All studies are not created equal.

    This whole principle of me thinking 'the opposite' is just making a binary out of a nuanced issue. Why is it if I disagree with something I automatically think the complete opposite. I don't much like antifa beating up innocent people and stopping working class people getting to work on time, does that mean I'm automatically far right? I don't think boycotting the dear white people film is anything but pointless hypocrisy actively against the goals of comedic freedom and a society in which we are all free to make commentary on each other and everyone can enjoy it, does that make me a racist? This binary thinking is dumb and leads to stupid conclusions that indeed would be flabbergasting were they remotely close to true
    If you want a reply, you need to significantly cut that down, by well over 50%. Why on earth do you think I'd waste my time reading any of that?

    Please keep it simple, your argument-


    Psychological research is bad, and a random guys thoughts on the internet should be considered as "true" as a published research study.

    That was what you said, if you are now going to say any different you are completely back tracking. So if that is the case, do not even bother reply.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Prevailing culture in almost every country around the world puts the burden on men to approach and propose relationships to women. A man who likes a woman has to go up to a woman and ask her out. A woman who likes a guy has to give him signals so that he comes up to her and asks her out.

    Seeking approval (men) is not like being sought for approval (women). The person seeking approval has to please the one being sought for that approval. He is therefore of less worth.

    This culture puts men in a vulnerable position that exposes them to rejection, whilst shielding women from rejection. This culture puts women in a position of power and control over men. In the west this culture goes so far as teaching men to bow to women when proposing to them for marriage and in some African cultures men and their friends are made to crawl on all fours when proposing to women and their families.

    This is extremely subjugating and sexist towards men.

    Have you ever thought about or questioned this issue? Should society start teaching women to do the hard work and approach men with the proposition for marriage or a relationship? what gender are you and what would you prefer and why?

    Attachment 615532
    Attachment 615532615534
    Yes there's truth in it but cultural Marxism teaches people that only women's issues matter not men's. Black issues matter not white. Muslim not Christian etc etc. And hence double standards are allowed to exist.

    You can apply logic but a cultural Marxist (most of the country plus the people confirming out of fear) is impermeable to logic.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Free_speech)
    Yes there's truth in it but cultural Marxism teaches people that only women's issues matter not men's. Black issues matter not white. Muslim not Christian etc etc. And hence double standards are allowed to exist.

    You can apply logic but a cultural Marxist (most of the country plus the people confirming out of fear) is impermeable to logic.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    "Our cultural understanding of gender is shaped by a relentless, binary narrative that maintains our unconscious, collective belief that men are problems and women have problems. It’s a cultural meme that seems to have taken up permanent residence in the mindsets of both social conservatives and progressive liberals. Traditionalists think men should protect women and children from the unpleasantness of the manmade world, while progressives think women and children should be protected from men and their patriarchy.

    There is little room for the female perpetrator or the male victim in mainstream modern discourse around gender. It’s a story where there are only two major roles on offer to men – the unhealthy masculine perpetrator or the healthy masculine protector." (In this thread I wanted to challenge these roles both of which disadvantage men and benefit women. I want people to look at life differently, I want people to consider the possibility of men being victims and women being victimisers, men being disadvantaged and women being in a state of benefit....men need change Free_ speech. I think that we can achieve this change by making people think differently/fairly and feminism is a barrier to this).

    The quote written above (with the exception of the bit in brackets at the end), which I think is relevant to your comment, is by Glen Poole. He is an equal rights activist/journalist. I encourage people to read his books and his articles....His work is truly amazing.

    (https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ctims-violence)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)

    "Our cultural understanding of gender is shaped by a relentless, binary narrative that maintains our unconscious, collective belief that men are problems and women have problems. It’s a cultural meme that seems to have taken up permanent residence in the mindsets of both social conservatives and progressive liberals. Traditionalists think men should protect women and children from the unpleasantness of the manmade world, while progressives think women and children should be protected from men and their patriarchy.

    There is little room for the female perpetrator or the male victim in mainstream modern discourse around gender. It’s a story where there are only two major roles on offer to men – the unhealthy masculine perpetrator or the healthy masculine protector." (In this thread I wanted to challenge these roles both of which disadvantage men and benefit women. I want people to look at life differently, I want people to consider the possibility of men being victims and women being victimisers, men being disadvantaged and women being in a state of benefit....men need change Free_ speech. I think that we can achieve this change by making people think differently/fairly and feminism is a barrier to this).

    The quote written above (with the exception of the bit in brackets at the end), which I think is relevant to your comment, is by Glen Poole. He is an equal rights activist/journalist. I encourage people to read his books and his articles....His work is truly amazing.

    (https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ctims-violence)
    Or another way of saying what you're saying it's that all those talking heads, and people chattering in coffee shops and lecturers teaching feminist studies are all talking a bunch of complete drivel, and the only meaningful knowledge (I won't say truth as this is a very relative term) is when people ignore all of this drivel, stop acting like a brainwashed lemming (I know it's hard for people than can see past the media) and use neutral observation and objective thinking to form their own conclusions.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Free_speech)
    Or another way of saying what you're saying it's that all those talking heads, and people chattering in coffee shops and lecturers teaching feminist studies are all talking a bunch of complete drivel, and the only meaningful knowledge (I won't say truth as this is a very relative term) is when people ignore all of this drivel, stop acting like a brainwashed lemming (I know it's hard for people than can see past the media) and use neutral observation and objective thinking to form their own conclusions.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    +1

    Your comment is spot on perfect.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    If you want a reply, you need to significantly cut that down, by well over 50%. Why on earth do you think I'd waste my time reading any of that?

    Please keep it simple, your argument-


    Psychological research is bad, and a random guys thoughts on the internet should be considered as "true" as a published research study.

    That was what you said, if you are now going to say any different you are completely back tracking. So if that is the case, do not even bother reply.
    You're an idiot. If you can't be bothered to read responses don't take part in a forum discussion. If you are proud enough to actually freely write that you're happy you're ignorant and would rather pretend to know everything than engage with reasoned debate then you've basically defamed yourself. Ironically it actually cements what I wrote in that you clearly either can't read properly or can't be bothered, both of which are an indictment of you as a person. Maybe the intellectual capacity is lacking so you'd rather throw out stupid accusations like I said something I didn't because either (a) you can't read, or (b) you did read it and don't have a proper response.

    You think in binaries, you're too lazy to read responses and you think studies are immutable gods free from criticism for no reason you can actually defend other than criticising 'er you should believe some randomer on the internet' which wasn't my point and, again, if you'd read my posts to the other person properly - as you edited to claim you did (see your first response) - then you'd have seen that in those posts.

    This is why I assume you just read it and have no idea what to say because for someone who won't stop talking about the importance of thoroughness and due diligence you seem to be totally incapable of doing either
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    You're an idiot. If you can't be bothered to read responses don't take part in a forum discussion. If you are proud enough to actually freely write that you're happy you're ignorant and would rather pretend to know everything than engage with reasoned debate then you've basically defamed yourself. Ironically it actually cements what I wrote in that you clearly either can't read properly or can't be bothered, both of which are an indictment of you as a person. Maybe the intellectual capacity is lacking so you'd rather throw out stupid accusations like I said something I didn't because either (a) you can't read, or (b) you did read it and don't have a proper response.

    You think in binaries, you're too lazy to read responses and you think studies are immutable gods free from criticism for no reason you can actually defend other than criticising 'er you should believe some randomer on the internet' which wasn't my point and, again, if you'd read my posts to the other person properly - as you edited to claim you did (see your first response) - then you'd have seen that in those posts.

    This is why I assume you just read it and have no idea what to say because for someone who won't stop talking about the importance of thoroughness and due diligence you seem to be totally incapable of doing either
    You are obviously upset because you wasted a lot of time on something which I didn't read. Do you know how long your post was? Approaching 1,400 words. Why on earth would I waste my time reading and responding to a post on an online forum?

    I asked you to present your argument in a concise manner and you haven't bothered. Surely as a law student you'd have learned long ago the importance of presenting arguments in such a way?

    Your first paragraph in this post consists of nothing other than whiny insults. I see no argument.

    Research is far from free from criticism my friend. In fact criticism is central to scientific progression. You are the one who must think in binaries if you actually believe that because I prefer a published, peer reviewed study to an online randomer, that I must think research studies are immune to criticism. Blatant hypocrisy there.

    I think you seem to think you're the only one with an education, I spent 4 years critically analysing research studies, so your assumptions are bordering ridiculous.



    No my point completely stands. If you want to comfort your fragile ego by telling yourself that I read your post, then feel free. I'm not going to stop you from believing what you want.

    I'm sorry I didn't read your post, you could well have raised some perfectly decent and valid points. But it would take me so long to respond to it that I just don't think it worthwhile.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    You are obviously upset because you wasted a lot of time on something which I didn't read. Do you know how long your post was? Approaching 1,400 words. Why on earth would I waste my time reading and responding to a post on an online forum?

    I asked you to present your argument in a concise manner and you haven't bothered. Surely as a law student you'd have learned long ago the importance of presenting arguments in such a way?

    Your first paragraph in this post consists of nothing other than whiny insults. I see no argument.

    Research is far from free from criticism my friend. In fact criticism is central to scientific progression. You are the one who must think in binaries if you actually believe that because I prefer a published, peer reviewed study to an online randomer, that I must think research studies are immune to criticism. Blatant hypocrisy there.

    I think you seem to think you're the only one with an education, I spent 4 years critically analysing research studies, so your assumptions are bordering pathetic.



    No my point completely stands. If you want to comfort your fragile ego by telling yourself that I read your post, then feel free. I'm not going to stop you from believing what you want.

    I'm sorry I didn't read your post, you could well have raised some perfectly decent and valid points. But it would take me so long to respond to it that I just don't think it worthwhile.

    The importance is also presenting facts to support your opinions. I guess as someone who isn't a law student that passed you by. Also if you ever got to write a 1400 word essay consider yourself lucky, law has no such luxuries. That's a plan, not the full body.

    I was having a go at your simplifying everything game - it seemed fun. Plus how else do you argue with someone who can't be bothered to read arguments. That was your choice of degree and you still don't understand (or are ignoring) how ideology can affect studies especially on complex social issues and that data is interpreted? What a waste of your time.

    Projection. Also read it, don't read it, I don't really care but if we're talking about pathetic you comment on something, misrepresent the opinion, write a diatribe, don't read the response and then say 'I'm an academic I studied something' (as proof of what exactly?) and are happy to share that you'll write a load of stuff but can't be bothered to engage with something surely miles shorter than all those studies you had to read, but you're happy to respond with non-sequiturs and ad hominems because you won't read an argument. You'd rather argue meaningless drivel than anything academic. I really don't need to say anything else at this point.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.