Feminist man-haters

[Bottle]

What, the argument you lost already?

Reasons why I think this study is false:

-It was created by three female college students which possibly shows that it is biased towards feminism.

Um... irrational sexism much?

It's not "irrational" so much as "ingrained."

Remember, in Western culture, male is the default. A scientist is assumed to be male unless we specify "woman scientist" or "female scientist." Likewise, a group of scientists who all happen to be male is simply a group of scientists, but a group of scientists who all happen to be female is a group of FEMALE scientists. An all-male research team will virtually never be identified as being all-male, but an all-female team is likely to have pretty much everything they do scrutinized in terms of whether their gender creates bias.

This is no different from racial issues, like the ones surrounding the current US Supreme Court nominee. People assume that a white nominee will not have "racial bias," but non-white persons will, because "race" is defined in terms of deviation from the norm, and the norm is defined as being white.

[Concurria]

Reasons why I think this study is false:

-It was created by three female college students which possibly shows that it is biased towards feminism.

Um... irrational sexism much?

It's not "irrational" so much as "ingrained."

Remember, in Western culture, male is the default. A scientist is assumed to be male unless we specify "woman scientist" or "female scientist." Likewise, a group of scientists who all happen to be male is simply a group of scientists, but a group of scientists who all happen to be female is a group of FEMALE scientists. An all-male research team will virtually never be identified as being all-male, but an all-female team is likely to have pretty much everything they do scrutinized in terms of whether their gender creates bias.

This is no different from racial issues, like the ones surrounding the current US Supreme Court nominee. People assume that a white nominee will not have "racial bias," but non-white persons will, because "race" is defined in terms of deviation from the norm, and the norm is defined as being white.

Except that Sonia Sotomayor's call to question is based on statements she has made, not over hidden racist agendas that she secretly keeps. Whether or not we "expected" her to be racist is irrelevant because she made a questionable comment that has been thrown under scrutiny.

Your first comment doesn't address feminism specifically, by the way. So women scientists are going to be feminists automatically because it's compensating for egregious sexist gaps in the field?

[Fassitude]

Who is surprised?

Non-feminists being gits? Well, smack my ass and... well, just smack my ass.

[Galloism]

Who is surprised?

Non-feminists being gits? Well, smack my ass and... well, just smack my ass.

Say please.

[Concurria]

Who is surprised?

Non-feminists being gits? Well, smack my ass and... well, just smack my ass.

Say please.

The safety word is: "I consent."

[Bottle]

Except that Sonia Sotomayor's call to question is based on statements she has made, not over hidden racist agendas that she secretly keeps. Whether or not we "expected" her to be racist is irrelevant because she made a questionable comment that has been thrown under scrutiny.

Sigh, hijack, not going there. I had hope it would be a self-evident parallel and that nobody would actually debate how patently obvious it is, but since that's not the case I'm going to decline to follow this tangent.

Your first comment doesn't address feminism specifically, by the way. So women scientists are going to be feminists automatically because it's compensating for egregious sexist gaps in the field?

How the hell are you getting that from what I wrote?

Remember, FEMALE =/= FEMINIST. Just because I'm talking about biases against WOMEN or assumptions about FEMALE persons doesn't mean it's got buggerall to do with FEMINIST people.

In fact, that's exactly what I was talking about. People assume that female = feminist, or at least that a female scientist is a FEMALE scientist rather than simply a scientist who is female. Femaleness is assumed to carry with it an agenda, a bias, which maleness is not.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Reasons why I think this study is false:

-It was created by three female college students which possibly shows that it is biased towards feminism.

-It goes against my personal obeservations during debates with feminists, etc.

-It was created by students of some small time university, so it's not necessarily credible.

-It was based off of a single survey, so it's not credible.

Insufficient and ridiculous grounds for rejecting peer-reviewed published study -- particularly in the absence of anything other than your own prejudices as evidence to the contrary.

-Feminism in and of itself is an ideology that seeks to advance women in society over men. This is shown by both feminists of the past (Such as Andrea Dworkin) and by modern Feminist policies. Thus, such an ideology would begin to place a anti-male bias in the minds of feminists because they would begin to view males and their opinions as in the way of the advancement of "womens' rights".

-Anti-Feminism in and of itself is an ideology that views Feminism as anti-male and thus exists as a means of counter-combatting the anti-male feminist influence. Major anti-feminist organizations such as F4J (Fathers for Justice) seek to do a number of things via law such as reduce the amount of divorce cases in which the children go to the mother. That is what anti-feminism IS. It IS entirely biased towards the male.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

There is nothing in "modern Feminist policies" that "seeks to advance women in society over men" (emphasis added) or is anti-male.

You are correct that most, if not all, anti-feminism is biased and anti-female.

But the two are not mirror equivalents.

So therefore, knowing all this: The study's results are a lie and likely feminist propaganda.

What you "know" appears to be lies and anti-feminist propaganda.

[Concurria]

Except that Sonia Sotomayor's call to question is based on statements she has made, not over hidden racist agendas that she secretly keeps. Whether or not we "expected" her to be racist is irrelevant because she made a questionable comment that has been thrown under scrutiny.

Sigh, hijack, not going there. I had hope it would be a self-evident parallel and that nobody would actually debate how patently obvious it is, but since that's not the case I'm going to decline to follow this tangent.

What a sad day it is when, quote: "Your example doesn't work in this context" becomes an unacceptable response.

How the hell are you getting that from what I wrote?

Remember, FEMALE =/= FEMINIST. Just because I'm talking about biases against WOMEN or assumptions about FEMALE persons doesn't mean it's got buggerall to do with FEMINIST people.

In fact, that's exactly what I was talking about. People assume that female = feminist, or at least that a female scientist is a FEMALE scientist rather than simply a scientist who is female. Femaleness is assumed to carry with it an agenda, a bias, which maleness is not.

Ahh, okay.

And that carries little veracity from where I'm sitting. Because I don't believe that or think that and--even though it has yet to be proven or disproved--I'd think it more likely to be a incorrect. THE POINT IS: therefore, I don't see how that proves the original assumption: "They are college women, they have a feminist agenda."

[Fassitude]

Say please.

I never use pleasantries in this context.

[Galloism]

Say please.

I never use pleasantries in this context.

No spankings for you, then.

[Allbeama]

Since when is disagreement considered a come-on?

Well actually, around here it probably is.

"That's right baby, debate the merits of the capital gains tax at me! Oooh yeah, debate it hard. Now tell me about your thoughts on socialized medicine. Oh god, I think my paradigm is about to shift..."

[Soheran]

What, you mean conservative caricatures of feminism don't actually hold water?

Next you'll be telling me that same-sex marriage won't cause social catastrophe....

[Muravyets]

What a sad day it is when, quote: "Your example doesn't work in this context" becomes an unacceptable response.

Except that was not Bottle's point. The point was that it is blindingly obvious that the doubts raised about Sotomayor were in fact based on nothing other than her ethnicity and her sex (and the fact that she was picked by Obama). Anyone who watched the confirmation hearings would have seen that, plain as day. But the Sotomayor matter is an entire issue unto itself, and engaging in a debate against the usual rightwing talking points against her would, indeed, be a hijack of this thread. Hence Bottle's decision not to engage you on it.

I'm not going to engage you on it, either.

Ahh, okay.

And that carries little veracity from where I'm sitting. Because I don't believe that or think that and--even though it has yet to be proven or disproved--I'd think it more likely to be a incorrect. THE POINT IS: therefore, I don't see how that proves the original assumption: "They are college women, they have a feminist agenda."

Which also misses the point, since Bottle did not raise that point in response to YOU but rather in response to someone else. While her point may not be applicable to YOU, it is applicable to that other person.

[Concurria]

Anyone who watched the confirmation hearings would have seen that

This point can addressed in two ways. My first response: If someone were to read about Sotomayor's comment about a "wise Latina woman," they could (mis)construe her comment as racist.

But the second point: not "anyone" watched those hearings. Do you think FOX News was appealing to people that sat through and watched the confirmation hearings being broadcasted those three days? I don't think so.

Which also misses the point, since Bottle did not raise that point in response to YOU but rather in response to someone else. While her point may not be applicable to YOU, it is applicable to that other person.

Bottle said, to quote: "People assume." Well I'm part of these aforementioned "people" and no, I don't assume anything about most professional women being feminists. So the "it's common knowledge!" arguments goes right out the window along with those eggs that have been sitting in my fridge for a few weeks now.

[Greater Americania]

Careful, the feminazis will have your balls for this.

Yeah, however whenever I see feminazi ignorance to this degree, I must comment.

[Greater Americania]

Um... irrational sexism much?

*facepalm* Only a liberal would call that sexism.

[Greater Americania]

Insufficient and ridiculous grounds for rejecting peer-reviewed published study -- particularly in the absence of anything other than your own prejudices as evidence to the contrary.

I just gave a whole list of reasons for why I think the study is false. I can't prove it. If I knew it's makers and more about it, I could pronounce it such with much more certainty.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

There is nothing in "modern Feminist policies" that "seeks to advance women in society over men" (emphasis added) or is anti-male.

You are correct that most, if not all, anti-feminism is biased and anti-female.

But the two are not mirror equivalents.

Hah! Bullshit! Feminism:

-Pro-choice policies that give the woman the entire control over the fetus.

-Could care less about establishing equal responsibility along with equal rights thus or course making the rights not equal.

-Does not campaign about women not having equal rights in the military by being barred from combat positions.

-Does not make any serious attempt at bringing the draft to include women.

-Will fight and fight against social issues such as rape that hurt women but will not fight against social rules such as the "men never hit women" rule, because such rules do benefit them.

The bottomline is that Feminism has based itself off of bringing women up in society and in doing so has forgotten equality. It has focused entirely on women. Anti-feminism focuses both on equality and anti-female bias. Anti-feminism in and of itself is very diverse in it's stances. And thank you for rasing that bolded statement. If Anti-feminists are anti-female then how are they anti-male as well? Do they just hate all people? If so what proof do you have to offer for this?

What you "know" appears to be lies and anti-feminist propaganda.

Likewise, except for you with feminist propaganda.

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987)

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Actually, your signature is quite easy. There's a lot of partial derivatives in that "homework" thing though. You'll need it to be a little harder, and less square/Chi distributions, as well as term variance. Statistics and gravitation.

You can't really trust Wikipedia that much. Its full of crap that users made up. Some can be trusted, like math (I proved it right), and some scientific topics.

You don't find that tensor-filled Lagrangian to be even the slightest bit unwieldy? Also, it looks like that because that is how the standard model predicts particle physics to act. There is no need to throw in stuff to make it "harder." To do so is to miss the point of physics entirely.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

So because it contradicts your anecdotal evidence and preconceived notions, it's a flawed study?

Because it contradict my previous observations, I don't believe it. I know I'm right from what I've seen. I can't prove it, but I believe it because of what I've observed. Also, look at my argument over why it's possibly biased.

You don't seem to grasp why anecdotal evidence counts for jack-shit.

[Greater Americania]

You don't seem to grasp why anecdotal evidence counts for jack-shit.

I could care less about what you think about my observations. You may not see me as credible but when I see it all with my own eyes, the reality become apparent to me. Feminism's actions speak for themselves in showing that I'm right.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

You don't seem to grasp why anecdotal evidence counts for jack-shit.

I could care less about what you think about my observations. You may not see me as credible but when I see it all with my own eyes, the reality become apparent to me. Feminism's actions speak for themselves in showing that I'm right.

Do you know what anecdotal evidence is? Do you know why it is largely rejected in science? Do you even care about scientific accuracy, or is ideology more important to you? If ideology is more important to you than scientific accuracy, then you are not worth my time.

[Greater Americania]

Do you know what anecdotal evidence is? Do you know why it is largely rejected in science? Do you even care about scientific accuracy, or is ideology more important to you? If ideology is more important to you than scientific accuracy, then you are not worth my time.

If you're going to try and apply physical science to a area where it has nothing to do with physical/natural science then you're not worth my time and belong on a scientific forum, rather than political one. Determining who hates men more, pro-women feminists or pro-male anti-feminists is a matter of social science not physical science. Take that subject elsewhere.

However, I'm quite simply getting tired of your 'more intelligent than thou' attitude. I'm also getting tired of having to explain to you what the concepts you bring up in your posts mean because you can't tell when I respond with them.

"Clearly you don't understand what a scientific law is."

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that always applies under the same conditions.

"Clearly you don't understand what a default position is."

A default position is a position one takes automatically or by default.

"Clearly you don't understand what anecdotal evidence is."

Yes, I know what anecdotal evidence is. There's a reason I made a reference to the concept of an observation in my post. I am not an idiot. If you can't make the logical connection, you're not worth my time.

Another point you need to understand is that I do focus more on Philosophy and Ideology. The two interest me the same way physical science interests you. I like to learn about them and study them. You like to learn about and study physical science. However another thing you need to understand is that the two walk hand in hand with physical science and depend upon it as physical science aids in determining the truth to matters. If you will not understand this, you are not worth my time not the other way around.

Now to directly respond to what you said, I understand that observations are not considered credible in science. That irrelevant, because this is not science, this is social science and demographics. However, I agree observations are not always a reliable source of evidence. However when one sees them for oneself they are reliable for that particular individual simply because he just witnessed them. The only way that something that is happening can be proved wrong is to say that on the grand scale, such incidents do not occur. However, on the grand scale feminists go about with their pro-woman policies which tend to supercede pro-male policies. A small study such as this one written by three females is not one that is credible enough to show that on the grand scale something that goes entirely against the rules of ideology is a fact.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Do you know what anecdotal evidence is? Do you know why it is largely rejected in science? Do you even care about scientific accuracy, or is ideology more important to you? If ideology is more important to you than scientific accuracy, then you are not worth my time.

If you're going to try and apply physical science to a area where it has nothing to do with physical/natural science then you're not worth my time and belong on a scientific forum, rather than political one. Determining who hates men more, pro-women feminists or pro-male anti-feminists is a matter of social science not physical science. Take that subject elsewhere.

However, I'm quite simply getting tired of your 'more intelligent than thou' attitude. I'm also getting tired of having to explain to you what the concepts you bring up in your posts mean because you can't tell when I respond with them.

"Clearly you don't understand what a scientific law is."

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that always applies under the same conditions.

"Clearly you don't understand what a default position is."

A default position is a position one takes automatically or by default.

"Clearly you don't understand what anecdotal evidence is."

Yes, I know what anecdotal evidence is. There's a reason I made a reference to the concept of an observation in my post. I am not an idiot. If you can't make the logical connection, you're not worth my time.

Another point you need to understand is that I do focus more on Philosophy and Ideology. The two interest me the same way physical science interests you. I like to learn about them and study them. You like to learn about and study physical science. However another thing you need to understand is that the two walk hand in hand with physical science and depend upon it as physical science aids in determining the truth to matters. If you will not understand this, you are not worth my time.

Now to directly understand what you said, I understand that observations are not considered credible in science. That irrelevant, because this is not science, this is social science and demographics. However, I agree observations are not always a reliable source of evidence. However when one sees them for oneself they are reliable for that particular individual simply because he just witnessed them. The only way that something that is happening can be proved wrong is to say that on the grand scale, such incidents do not occur. However, on the grand scale feminists go about with their pro-woman policies which tend to supercede pro-male policies. A small study such as this one written by three females is not one that is credible enough to show that on the grand scale something that goes entirely against the rules of ideology is a fact.

You are aware that social science requires statistically valid evidence and rejects anecdotal evidence just like natural science, aren't you? Demographics are a matter of statistical inference. Valid statistical inference is not based on anecdotes. Just because it's not a natural science doesn't mean you get to relax your standards.

[Muravyets]

Anyone who watched the confirmation hearings would have seen that

This point can addressed in two ways. My first response: If someone were to read about Sotomayor's comment about a "wise Latina woman," they could (mis)construe her comment as racist.

But the second point: not "anyone" watched those hearings. Do you think FOX News was appealing to people that sat through and watched the confirmation hearings being broadcasted those three days? I don't think so.

You're not expecting a counter-argument right? Because I'm assuming you understood what the words "I'm not going to engage with you on it, either" meant.

Which also misses the point, since Bottle did not raise that point in response to YOU but rather in response to someone else. While her point may not be applicable to YOU, it is applicable to that other person.

Bottle said, to quote: "People assume." Well I'm part of these aforementioned "people" and no, I don't assume anything about most professional women being feminists. So the "it's common knowledge!" arguments goes right out the window along with those eggs that have been sitting in my fridge for a few weeks now.

Fail. She was talking neither to you, nor about you, as is proven by your utter misunderstanding (or perhaps misrepresentation) of her point.

You may be hoping to make this thread be all about whatever pet topic you would rather talk about than the real topic, but you won't get any cooperation from me.

[Greater Americania]

Another point you need to understand is that I do focus more on Philosophy and Ideology. The two interest me the same way physical science interests you. I like to learn about them and study them. You like to learn about and study physical science. However another thing you need to understand is that the two walk hand in hand with physical science and depend upon it as physical science aids in determining the truth to matters. If you will not understand this, you are not worth my time.

Now to directly understand what you said, I understand that observations are not considered credible in science. That irrelevant, because this is not science, this is social science and demographics. However, I agree observations are not always a reliable source of evidence.
However when one sees them for oneself they are reliable for that particular individual simply because he just witnessed them. The only way that something that is happening can be proved wrong is to say that on the grand scale, such incidents do not occur. However, on the grand scale feminists go about with their pro-woman policies which tend to supercede pro-male policies. A small study such as this one written by three females is not one that is credible enough to show that on the grand scale something that goes entirely against the rules of ideology is a fact.