So the regulars in the Men’s Rights subreddit are currently discussing one of the most important — if often overlooked — issues of our time, which is: How come nobody but us sees that the ladies aren’t oppressed any more? Or, as paranoiarodeo497, looking hopefully towards the future, has chosen to put the question: “What future event/tragedy do you think will happen that will make people realize not only are women no longer deprived but in fact equal to men?”
Alas, the Men’s Rightsers aren’t hopeful that anything will wake up the snoozing sheeple. BrambleEdge, for his part, worries that men will remain oppressed forever.
![BrambleEdge 17 points 15 hours ago (18|1) Seeing as men are deprived and far from equal to women, and people don't see it now, I doubt they ever will. I sometimes fear that gynocentrism is biological and not cultural. [–]Demonspawn [-1] 1 point 52 minutes ago (1|0) gynocentrism is biological Treating women as human beings and men as human doings? Yes, it is biological. It's also why "equality" isn't, and seeking it creates a system of female supremacy.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bramble.png?resize=573%2C230&ssl=1)
Shrekem, meanwhile, turns to the work of eminent historian GirlWritesWhat for evidence that women were never oppressed in the first place:
![Shrekem 9 points 13 hours ago (12|3) The problem is that women were never oppressed or deprived, they just had different roles. Women are certainly not "equal" to men today, they receive special treatment and are immune to many laws that would get a man locked up for life. I recommend you watch Karen Straughan's video on "When female privilege backfires". permalink source save give gold hide child comments [–]villevillakulla -4 points 11 hours ago (4|8) I guess it depends on how you define oppressed or deprived, but it kind of sounds like you're full of shit, and "different roles" can be a blanket statement to mean anything you want it to mean. permalink source save parent give gold [–]Shrekem 5 points 8 hours ago (6|1) I would define oppression as "the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner" just like everybody else. I challenge you to come up with one example of women being oppressed in western society in the past few centuries. The treatment of women is nothing compared to real oppression like that of blacks during slavery.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/shrekem.png?resize=567%2C377&ssl=1)
IHaveALargePenis, in addition to being highly confident about his relative penis size, is also a bit more optimistic than his peers, suggesting that the irresponsibility of evil slutty single moms will eventually end up annoying not only single men but other women as well and thus, I guess, help to spark a new wave of antifeminism:
![IHaveALargePenis [+3] 5 points 12 hours ago (6|1) Government taxing bachelors to sponsor single moms/women in general. If shit keeps going the way it's going, everything women need will be provided by a government, while working less and claiming there's still a pay gap. It won't take a genius to put two and two together and realize that the benefits women get from the government, plus the benefits they get from working are huge compared to what men pay/get out of it. But that's not when things will change, not yet. What we're going to see is a rise of single, irresponsible moms who breed and have their lives paid for by taxpayers. And part of those taxpayers will be other women, who can't find men willing to "breed with them" or marry them, etc. These women will be working 40+ hours a week easy, will sacrifice greatly, miss their chance to have kids, and realize they're paying for all these irresponsible women to have their cake and eat it to (our society is pretty good at rewarding the irresponsible). That's when things will change.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ihavealarge.png?resize=580%2C276&ssl=1)
But Scoundrel, a more pessimistic sort, can’t imagine any scenario that would get the evil femmies to admit that men are oppressed:
Sorry, IHaveALargePenis, but you’ve been outvoted.
Meanwhile, loose-dendrite, off on a bit of a tangent, warns those who might otherwise be susceptible to feminist-think that seeing similar numbers of men and women in positions of power would not be a sign of gender equality — but rather a symptom of FEMALE TYRANNY!
Huh. I was unaware that high IQ was a prerequisite to power in our society. Did anyone tell George W. Bush?
In conclusion, MRAs have once against shown that they can use any and all evidence to “prove” what they already believe. Another flawless victory over the forces of reality.
I already wear no makeup, and usually neglect shaving (especially in the winter). What do I win?!?!
And pink was NEVER the male-coded color, right?
*sigh*
And no men EVER rock pink shirts.
These are
trueassfax.I’d love to read the academic papers demonstrating men’s ‘more extreme’ IQ. I’ve read the claim in a lot of MRA stuff, but never a citation. I have read a couple biologists blog posts debunking it. Not that it proves anything, but I’d really like to know where it comes from (other than their ass).
@chie
A cat? Or a penguin. Idk, taking random guesses here.
I don’t shave my legs, but I do shave my armpits, and I wear make up often. (especially fancy shiny sparkly make up.) So I’ve got no idea where I fall on the scale.
I’ve got 2/3 right there! (I don’t know what a gunny sack is)
Not that I don’t like makeup; i just don’t wear it often because it takes effort to put on.
Tho you know then they’d say “ALL THESE UGLY BITCHES HAVE FAILED THEIR NATURAL DUTY TO GIVE ME BONERZZZ!!!!”
You can see the claim in a discussion thread wherein Strung Out Cyclist showed up.
And because men have greater variance, men should always get every posts, of importance, right right?
No.
The main thesis is that based on studies of young people doing mathematical tests, you got a greater variance for the IQ of males. So there’d be – according to the math – slightly more geniuses and slightly more Fibinachis.
Wink, smile.
That’d actually make the average woman smarter than the average man, since the greater prevalence of low IQ men in that mathematical model drags everyone average down by a notch, and the high IQ people aren’t as significantly higher up the scale enough to tip it ( The difference between 120 and 160 is less important than the difference between 120 and 50-60, and cognitive abilities of humans have a much more significant lower treshold where faults become obvious than they immediately have a higher point of perfection )
The problem becomes obvious once you realize that the data was based on small groups of people (the largest I’ve seen was 50.000 ) and then extrapolated from there to include everyone, but also for a less obvious reason.
Even if – and that is a BIG IF – men have a greater variance of cognitive abilities, that has very little bearing on anything. That’s why we have requirements for jobs. The MRA’s like the easy handwave that goes with the assumption, because it allows them to make the mental leap that they’re obviously “variated better” (ie: they got the random coin flip that made them smarter than everyone else), and that men in general should then rule everything. But, no.
If there’s greater variance in individual ability, it’s even more important that you test for jobs and make damn sure to get reliable metrics. And if, statistically, your number one male is as likely to be better as he is to be a damn sight poorer, you really want to make damn sure it all works. But, of course, being unable to see other people as people, MRA repeat the talking point with the blithe reassurance that they’d come out on top in a world where it was actually true.
Nevermind the fact that, as a general rule, extrapolating specific traits from small, homogenized groups to large populations is always a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.
And that, even assuming one out of every billion man is the smartest possible human being, you’d still get brilliant women. Somehow men being smart cancels out women also being smart. And remember, too, no one says there’s no variance in cognitive abilitiy among women, just that there’s a slightly higher one according to the data they’re touting.
But no, no, they bring out the dead horse and beat it time and time again, claiming they’re smarter and better and smarter and sharper.
Sigh.
Dear god that got long. Sorry!
I can see what they mean with the “government killing men” thing. “Hey, if there’s an intruder in the house, traditional gender roles say the MAN should confront him and not the woman!” “Hey, according to society, MEN are the ones who get drafted into war!” That point, if I’m right, isn’t THAT bizarre. Gender roles are restrictive and have downsides, sure.
The bizarre part is they seem to be insisting that, of all the different groups in society, the ones most rigidly supporting traditional gender roles are, uh, feminists. That’s the thing about these guys, they’re sometimes like 70% on our side and 30% completely insane. What the hell causes this?
@hometeampaper
You don’t understand. If men wear pink too much, their penis falls off. It’s true, I read it on the interweb.
Fibinichi: Another big problem with the “Variability Hypothesis” is that it’s mostly based on 19th century data. Meaning the researchers usually looked at society, noticed that most of the college professors were male, and then noticed that most of the people in mental hospitals because of low intelligence were male, and said that’s that.
But of course, there were social factors that kept women out of both places. Women were less likely to be professors for a host of reasons. They were also less likely to be committed because their parents were less likely to notice an unintelligent female child than a male one, and they were less concerned with it, given gender-based parental expectations.
It’s crazy that this has maintained, even in that Harvard dude in that speech, who kind of resurrected the theory from what I understand. My main reaction is always: Even if this is true, you guys are dramatically overstating how intelligent someone has to be to do whatever you’re talking about. Is there any job that will be performed THAT much better if its holders are in the .999 percentile instead of the .99 percentile?
I mean also the other problem is that intelligence as a single unifying, lifelong, innate thing is a useless, false concept, and IQ is an incredibly flawed operationalization of it, anyway.
auggziliary, you can find the kitty avatar instructions here.
@tedthefed
Any jobs where the difference between .99 and .999 are are at all significant aren’t leadership jobs anyway. (Very abstract academic disciplines might distinguish between the two. But then those with very high IQs don’t necessarily go into those fields. The three people I know with the highest IQs that they’ve divulged are, respectively, a translator, a software engineer, and a special education teacher.)
Is anyone else having trouble with wordpress sites not loading properly on an iPhone? For me, the dark background loads, but not the white background for the text part so it’s hard to read. I’m trying to work out if it’s just me.
Same as auggziliary. Your internet in general is working? You don’t just have a shitty connection?
I really, REALLY hate the stupid IQ argument. Guys, IQ doesn’t actually say how smart you are. It measures a very specific type of intelligence, and it’s culture-coded and has a history of being horrifically misused in the past to “prove” the superiority of certain races/genders. Check out ‘The Mismeasure of Man,’ you can learn allll about it.
Also, IQ is not a guideline of success. Because believe it or not, lots of jobs are reliant on more than just the kind of intelligence measured by IQ. Jobs I’ve had in the past rested on my ability to be timely, reliable, polite, pleasant to people even if they were assholes. THAT’s how I made my money, not through what people would call my ‘intelligence.’
Hello, everybody. I’ve literally been lurking on manboobz for years now… Finally decided to start contributing. I found this site to be a nice catharsis after all the abuse I’ve been through… It never ceases to amaze me how MRAs think in such an alternate reality. What’s sad is that their “message” seems to be permeating a lot of young, entitled men nowadays. I’m so tired of watching and listening to these young men talk about women like they’re nothing but sex-bags to stick their dicks in and their value ends there… I’ve departed from so many collective “groups” that includes this demographic because of the misogyny (like atheism and gaming). It’s endlessly frustrating. Do so many men internally just love to hate women?
I greatly apologise for my abrupt rambling.
I’m just popping in to say, by sheer coincidence, I posted this new design to my Zazzle store yesterday. It’s a spoof on those annoying “don’t laugh, it’s your girlfriend’s shirt” t-shirts I see everywhere.
http://www.zazzle.com/dont_laugh_pink_is_a_fine_color_t_shirt-235468692048791277
I love etymology. I guess you could also say “hessian sack”. It would be demeaning to make someone wear one, but not because it would make them unattractive.
Also, I thought the “more extreme IQ” argument was to do with more men being on the autistic spectrum than women, but that it was used to explain more divergence in mathematical ability.
Today, btw, is the last Fibinachi day (5, 13, 13) in this century.
Yep, pink is totally demeaning. So demeaning ambassadors have their portraits painted wearing it, or a century later, a prince can wear it for his wedding.
Blue was avoided among the aristocracy often enough (at least in France) at that time; it was associated with servants’ livery.
If your self-esteem is so fragile that it can be shaken by the prospect of wearing clothes of the wrong color then that’s something you should probably work on.
Noes, noes, not orange and yellow! Save meeeeee!
Pecunium — depends your date format 5 (8 / August) 13 ok, but go the other way and (8 / August) 13 21 works. And then we need a 13th month.