The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Alyakia]

secret service slapped

though admittedly this is based on one case from a while ago

Really? Got sauce?

i can't find specifics but i know a bunch of people on the something awful forums got banned after the secret service contacted them over some posts there

e: and i'm fairly certain not all of them were "i personally want to kill obama"

[Galloism]

Really? Got sauce?

i can't find specifics but i know a bunch of people on the something awful forums got banned after the secret service contacted them over some posts there

So "got slapped" is in reference to an, possibly imaginary, incident where a forum owner voluntarily banned some people because the secret service made a phone call to ask a few questions about some posts.

That's "slapped" in your mind?

[Conserative Morality]

So "got slapped" is in reference to an, possibly imaginary, incident where a forum owner voluntarily banned some people because the secret service made a phone call to ask a few questions about some posts.

That's "slapped" in your mind?

There is this incident.

[Alyakia]

i can't find specifics but i know a bunch of people on the something awful forums got banned after the secret service contacted them over some posts there

So "got slapped" is in reference to an, possibly imaginary, incident where a forum owner voluntarily banned some people because the secret service made a phone call to ask a few questions about some posts.

That's "slapped" in your mind?

possibly imaginary ahahaha you know what my response to that is even if the rules prevent me from explicitly stating it (hey, that's sorta related to this conversation!)

i dunno. i'd rather have the police investigating my posts than the secret service investigating my posts. either one seems like a pretty big deal, and even if if nothing else happens is definitely the first step towards it. does that happen to you regularly or something? the point is that if they decide they're worried about you that "i never said i wanted to kill him i said i wanted someone else to kill him" isn't that useful.

[Galloism]

So "got slapped" is in reference to an, possibly imaginary, incident where a forum owner voluntarily banned some people because the secret service made a phone call to ask a few questions about some posts.

That's "slapped" in your mind?

There is this incident.

That picture sounds threatening as hell.

I'll also note no one was arrested. SS just did some follow up.

[Galloism]

So "got slapped" is in reference to an, possibly imaginary, incident where a forum owner voluntarily banned some people because the secret service made a phone call to ask a few questions about some posts.

That's "slapped" in your mind?

possibly imaginary ahahaha you know what my response to that is even if the rules prevent me from explicitly stating it (hey, that's sorta related to this conversation!)

i dunno. i'd rather have the police investigating my posts than the secret service investigating my posts. either one seems like a pretty big deal, and even if if nothing else happens is definitely the first step towards it. does that happen to you regularly or something? the point is that if they decide they're worried about you that "i never said i wanted to kill him i said i wanted someone else to kill him" isn't that useful.

I mean, given to effect one of the supposed "threats" would require mind controlling a legislator, I think we can safely say it's noncredible. Threats should be investigated (and that fantasy about molten lead should probably lead to a mental health examination), and even specific fantasies that are credibly probative of possibly being an indicator of future violence.

But let's be clear: there's been no evidence of any threats.

I guess I'm a little jaded too. In my other internet persona (which I will not share), I get a few death threats - actual threats mind you - a month. Have for months.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

possibly imaginary ahahaha you know what my response to that is even if the rules prevent me from explicitly stating it (hey, that's sorta related to this conversation!)

i dunno. i'd rather have the police investigating my posts than the secret service investigating my posts. either one seems like a pretty big deal, and even if if nothing else happens is definitely the first step towards it. does that happen to you regularly or something? the point is that if they decide they're worried about you that "i never said i wanted to kill him i said i wanted someone else to kill him" isn't that useful.

I mean, given to effect one of the supposed "threats" would require mind controlling a legislator, I think we can safely say it's noncredible. Threats should be investigated (and that fantasy about molten lead should probably lead to a mental health examination), and even specific fantasies that are credibly probative of possibly being an indicator of future violence.

But let's be clear: there's been no evidence of any threats.

I guess I'm a little jaded too. In my other internet persona (which I will not share), I get a few death threats - actual threats mind you - a month. Have for months.

I've gotten several death threats, and other kinds of harmful threats myself over the period in which I have been online, especially with my current bashful presence online when it comes to discussing actual social stuff online under my name.

I've become apathetic to it, but not everyone is me of course.

[Tahar Joblis]

The sentence gap disparity is larger for men/women than black/white.
Men have less social mobility.
Men are demonized in the media.

Yeh go ahead alykia, lol some more. Continue to show that you think it's a funny issue.

are we really going to have another "ostroeuropa misinterprets my lol" fight? the issues facing men aren't funny, the fact you think they're comparable is funny. men cannot walk the streets without fear o being gunned by the femgovernment, takes us back to when women owned men as slaves. wait you mean it's a completely different situation in almost every way?

Police overwhelmingly shoot men, rather than women. This gap is, in fact, more dramatic than the police shooting gap between blacks and whites; blacks are merely 2-3 times as likely to get shot by those figures, while men are over ten times as likely to get shot as women.

You want to talk about being gunned down in the streets by the government? It's a man problem much more than it's a black problem. How about slavery?

Do you know what the most common forms of modern-day forced labor are in the modern developed world? In the US?

Illegal: "Forced migrant laborer." That's mostly men (and mostly men from Latin America.)
Legal: Prison labor. That's mostly men (and disproportionately black men, but more disproportionately male than disproportionately black.)

These problems are racial and ethnic problems... but they are also men's problems.

[Ostroeuropa]

Experiment in progess. Zombies gathering cash for charity. Two mens groups two womens one mixed. Result a foregone conclusion. Brains. (No, not scientific or rigorous.)

[Forsher]

As we see, people talk at cross purposes all the time. In this case I am not. I was trying to point out that not all assessment shouldn't consider behaviour. You said the opposite. That's a flaw in your worldview. It means that your conclusion was more absolute than it should've been. It's on topic, you just didn't read it any other way than what it wasn't saying.

Do you understand the difference between academic and behavioural assessments?

[EDIT] Because I have been exceedingly clear: teachers are letting a male student's behaviour influence assessments of their academic ability more so than they do with female students. Ideally, my behaviour should have no influence on assessments of my academic ability, and my academic ability should have no influence on assessments of my behaviour; but, this being the real world, we have to acknowledge that there is going to be some slippage. The problem isn't so much that there is slippage, but that this slippage is effecting boys more than girls, and it is effecting them in a decidedly negative manner. Understand?

Compare and Contrast, this

Why should the way a student behaves outside of an assessment affect the mark of that assessment?

It shouldn't.

with this:

teachers are letting a male student's behaviour influence assessments of their academic ability

Congratulations, we now agree. I wanted you to shift the goalposts, you've done so and now present a qualified rather than absolute statement. On the other hand there's now this:

Do you understand the difference between academic and behavioural assessments?

I understand that you want to work in a primary school environment. In my experience, when it comes to writing reports and interviews with teachers when you start talking about academic behaviour and want to qualify statements, you will be incorporating attitudes about learning into these. This is because you're not catering to an audience that wants nothing more than a raw measure of academic performance.

Sometimes, in this crazy mixed up world, an assessment can be both. That was and is my point, my only point... the specific context? Well, I made my comments in relation to where it initially arose. I don't give a crap about what you think about boys and behaviours, understand, that's not the conversation I tried to have with you (as I am pointing out for the umpteenth time since you've just not realised this).

I mean, Jesus Christ, from the part of my post just above the bit where I pointed out your absolutist statement...

It doesn't show that at all.

It may show that certain behaviours cause lower marks in some types of scoring (not the standardised tests) - but those types of behaviours are punished because of the behaviour, NOT because of gender.

I don't see why you keep saying that those behaviours are male, except to excuse badly behaved males.

According to Galloism, we have a situation where expected male behaviour is a negative pattern of behaviour, and where expected female behaviour is a positive pattern of behaviour. Male = Bad, Female = Good, savvy?

That is, if we have a male pupil we predict that their behaviour is bad. This is a misbehaving child... we are assuming that boys will behave worse and for some reason we are not thinking about this assumption at all. Sure, you might say "But it's based on facts". Yeah, so what? The expected gender of a politician, based on facts, is male.

Now, you're saying that what we've really got is there's a bad pattern behaviour and a good pattern of behaviour. And you're saying that the difference being noticed is due to this.

Now, for sake of argument, imagine that boys who meet the expectation get given 50. Girls who meet the expectation get given 60. That's cool. That's what you'd both agree on. However, the problem is that boys who don't meet the expectation and instead "conform" to the other pattern of behaviour (the positive one), get given 65. See:

In other words, boys who match girls on both test scores and behavior get better grades than girls do, but boys who don’t are graded more harshly.

What Galloism is doing (and if he disagrees with what I am saying he is doing, I am sure Galloism will correct me) is taking what we notice here (i.e. an interaction, if we want to be statistical, between the effects of gender and behaviour) and using that to conclude that there is a male behaviour.

Even if he isn't doing that, your interpretation of this is flawed.

Next time, don't tell me what I've already written when I am trying to make a separate point... it annoys me.

1. Neither does the MRM?

I told you why I think this (well, technically, no I didn't because I had no idea that you existed when I wrote it but you know what I mean) and given that it's not an assertion, you really need to actually point out where and why you think I am wrong.

General Point... if you're dealing with an assertion it's fine to assert that it's wrong. If you're dealing with a reasoned statement, then you have to deal with the reasoning. A conversation should have fairly equal participation.

2. It's relevant in the sense that it counters the feminist claim that women have it worse.

And you're trying to tell me that the following isn't true?

When you want to engage with this topic and your first port of call is, "Men have it so much worse then women, here are x, y and z examples" do you know what happens? Well, firstly, no-one starts talking about solutions. What everyone is interested in is dealing the claim. Now, you'll get lots of people who agree and disagree and they'll all come crawling out of the woodwork (we're assuming, for completeness, that our medium of conversation is online). And tempers will flare because you're often challenging pretty fundamental narratives that people care more about than establishing the correctness of. No-one trying to discuss the solutions, they're just trying to make their point of view known in a race to the bottom. It's like The Four Yorkshiremen sketch but horribly depressing.

There's also the further problem in that you're now negatively defining what you're doing. A dog isn't "not a cat". Your philosophy shouldn't be "not feminism".

The feminist point of view is one that approaches inequality from a female perspective. I'm sure everyone in this thread can accept that idea pretty simply. Now, perhaps more to the point right here is that women as victim is pretty ingrained. What you don't do if you want to challenge someone's deeply held beliefs is aggressively attack their entire framework. That never works and inevitably leads to the above (see: GMOs, abortion, evolution, deism etc. etc.). What you do is point out that this framework misses things and you focus on those things. Feminism isn't the enemy. It's not some devious villain sitting on a throne somewhere dispatching minions of oppression. It's some misguided do-gooder whose framework consistently leads it to ignore basically half the population. The enemy is nothing more than the reasons for why, say, there are hardly any male teachers.*

*Admittedly, these can be traced back to feminism in some/many (it's unquantifiable) cases, but that's not evidence of devious minds. Hanlon's razor, which ironically enough Ostro is/was quite keen on.

The MRM really only exists because the woman-centric narrative left everyone else out.

Whereas father's rights groups generally exist to fight for something specific... which is why such real world things are distinct to the MRM which doesn't have any substance in trying to suggest that such things are part of it.

i would totally make a minister for mens rights though as long as you promise not to claim victory over it

Why?

Ministry for Gender Affairs is much more to the point.

Can I just say something? Masculinism is not a thing and masculinists do not exist.

Feminism is a thing, and feminists do exist. Rightfully so as well since men are not oppressed and women are. Trans men are more accepted in society as men as opposed to trans women being brutally murdered for simply just wanting to become themselves.

Now, if you wanted to take moronic statements like this ("since men are not oppressed and women are"*) you could point out that the narrative is flawed or you could just condemn the narrative without bothering to try and understand its (admittedly stupid) point of view. People are human, act like you know that.

*We can assume that by oppressed we are using language which is broader than the standard meaning of oppressed, as with rights.

Why not form a movement that promotes the rights of both men and women, instead of the divisionary trash between the two groups eh?

You have two options:

One, people don't understand what the consequences of what I was talking about hereare, or

Two, people do understand that and are more interested in anti-feminism than anything else.

If you look at the above, it's one. Which is arguably more depressing.

[Forsher]

are we really going to have another "ostroeuropa misinterprets my lol" fight? the issues facing men aren't funny, the fact you think they're comparable is funny. men cannot walk the streets without fear o being gunned by the femgovernment, takes us back to when women owned men as slaves. wait you mean it's a completely different situation in almost every way?

Police overwhelmingly shoot men, rather than women. This gap is, in fact, more dramatic than the police shooting gap between blacks and whites; blacks are merely 2-3 times as likely to get shot by those figures, while men are over ten times as likely to get shot as women.

You want to talk about being gunned down in the streets by the government? It's a man problem much more than it's a black problem. How about slavery?

Do you know what the most common forms of modern-day forced labor are in the modern developed world? In the US?

Illegal: "Forced migrant laborer." That's mostly men (and mostly men from Latin America.)
Legal: Prison labor. That's mostly men (and disproportionately black men, but more disproportionately male than disproportionately black.)

These problems are racial and ethnic problems... but they are also men's problems.

Imagine that our baseline is for a white middle-class women and that they have a 10% chance of being in prison. Say, if we make them lower class that goes up to 15% and down to 5% if they're wealthy. Also, say, that blacks get a 10% increase and all other ethnicities 5%.

So, using these hypothetical numbers, the chance of a randomly selected lower class black woman being in prison is 25%.

Now, there's also a male effect which is 10% as well. This means that for a lower class black male the chance that he's in prison is 10 (baseline) + 10 (male) + 10 (black) + 5 (lower class) = 35% (again, to reiterate, numbers are all examples), compared to 25% for his female equivalent.

That's one way of looking at it. But what if there's an interaction? What if being male means that the effect of being black changes? Could it be that this is the case? Maybe there's only a 5% main effect for men as a class. Imagine this effect is, coincidentally, 5. Thus:

10 (baseline) + 5 (male) + [ 10 (black) + 5 (male) ] + 5 (lower class) = 35% again.

However, in these two situations we've got a quite different interpretation.

Point is: you can't just look at the numbers... especially these made up ones.

[Camicon]

Do you understand the difference between academic and behavioural assessments?

[EDIT] Because I have been exceedingly clear: teachers are letting a male student's behaviour influence assessments of their academic ability more so than they do with female students. Ideally, my behaviour should have no influence on assessments of my academic ability, and my academic ability should have no influence on assessments of my behaviour; but, this being the real world, we have to acknowledge that there is going to be some slippage. The problem isn't so much that there is slippage, but that this slippage is effecting boys more than girls, and it is effecting them in a decidedly negative manner. Understand?

Compare and Contrast, this

Why should the way a student behaves outside of an assessment affect the mark of that assessment?

It shouldn't.

with this:

teachers are letting a male student's behaviour influence assessments of their academic ability

Congratulations, we now agree. I wanted you to shift the goalposts, you've done so and now present a qualified rather than absolute statement. On the other hand there's now this:

Do you understand the difference between academic and behavioural assessments?

I understand that you want to work in a primary school environment. In my experience, when it comes to writing reports and interviews with teachers when you start talking about academic behaviour and want to qualify statements, you will be incorporating attitudes about learning into these. This is because you're not catering to an audience that wants nothing more than a raw measure of academic performance.

Sometimes, in this crazy mixed up world, an assessment can be both. That was and is my point, my only point... the specific context? Well, I made my comments in relation to where it initially arose. I don't give a crap about what you think about boys and behaviours, understand, that's not the conversation I tried to have with you (as I am pointing out for the umpteenth time since you've just not realised this).

I mean, Jesus Christ, from the part of my post just above the bit where I pointed out your absolutist statement...

Right, so, your reading comprehension is apparently complete shit, because I repeatedly stated that teachers are, and should not be, letting a male student's behaviour effect their academic assessments.

... Lower marks are supposed indicate a lack of knowledge; however, this is not the case for male students. They are given lower marks because the teacher doesn't like how they behave, not because they lack knowledge of the material being assessed.

What I do outside of a test should have no bearing when my teacher is grading that test, because that mark is supposed to be an assessment of my understanding of course material. End of. That is not how it currently works for boys with female teachers.

Boys are receiving lower grades than girls, on assessments meant to test their subject knowledge, for things unrelated to their subject knowledge. If you're not able to stay on topic, that's not my problem.

I never shifted goalposts, I never strayed from the point you so stubbornly refuse to see that I was repeating. The only one who tried to change the conversation was you, and I'm having none of it.

And as a teacher, if I am speaking to a student's parent, I am going to make a clear delineation between their academic grades and their behaviour, because an assessment of a student's performance in one should never influence the other. That is a terribly irresponsible way grade someone, because what I am currently doing does not change what I currently know. Behavioural and academic assessments must remain independent of each other so that teachers and parents can accurately and comprehensively understand where a student struggles and where they excel.

[Geilinor]

The people whining over her rape threats are no different than fox news being super butthurt about a minority of BLM protestors chanting to kill the police.
They're just prejudicial.

...

Is this a bad joke?

I think he's referring to how groups are being generalized.

[Forsher]

Right, so, your reading comprehension is apparently complete shit, because I repeatedly stated that teachers are, and should not be, letting a male student's behaviour effect their academic assessments.

If you look closely you will notice something...

I am saying that I wanted you to shift the goalposts from "all assessments do not include behavioural considerations" to "some assessments do include behavioural considerations."

This conversation is really unbecoming because you consistently think that I am trying to talk about your point. I don't care about your point as I have stated repeatedly. I was trying to do nothing more than point out that you needed a qualification in your original statement. Got it?

I never shifted goalposts, I never strayed from the point you so stubbornly refuse to see that I was repeating. The only one who tried to change the conversation was you, and I'm having none of it.

No, you are trying to have a conversation. Normally, there would be no posts. You would've read my initial post and thought, "Oh, yeah, he's right, sometimes there are assessments where behaviour matters as well." For whatever reason you seem to think that I've tried to say something about your conclusions which is patently untrue.

You can have whatever you want if you persist in assuming something about what I have been trying to say which is not the case.

You're again being too absolutist and imposing a dimension on my post that didn't exist to boot.

I was trying to point out that not all assessment shouldn't consider behaviour.

Next time, don't tell me what I've already written when I am trying to make a separate point... it annoys me.

Sadly, this post I have just written is replying to the "next time" and the same thing happened again. I know what you've been trying to say. I understand that... I've written, as I quoted a post ago, exactly the same points as you myself. You, though, have repeatedly shown, no willingness to try and understand exactly what I am saying. Below you kinda make an attempt but given that I used, in the initial post I made in response to your absolute, an example it really should've come a long time ago. And if you (re?-) read that initial post you'll notice something else important...

But, if you're dealing with something like a maths test which is really nothing more than a test of knowledge, then that's not a valid factor to take into account. This is probably more common, at least in secondary, than the earlier scenario where academic performance isn't just part of the assessment.

And as a teacher, if I am speaking to a student's parent, I am going to make a clear delineation between their academic grades and their behaviour, because an assessment of a student's performance in one should never influence the other. That is a terribly irresponsible way grade someone, because what I am currently doing does not change what I currently know. Behavioural and academic assessments must remain independent of each other so that teachers and parents can accurately and comprehensively understand where a student struggles and where they excel.

That's not true and you know it. It depends entirely on what you are trying to assess. When a parent comes up to you, what that parent wants to know about is their child. They want to know what their child knows, thinks and does. To this end, people develop assessments or have assessments which incorporate various measures. Most assessments, notice the most because you haven't so far (see this entire "conversation"), are strictly academic... they only exist to see what someone "knows" about some thing. Whereas you might have an informal assessment of a pupil's homework which is as much about, particularly at lower year levels/ages, developing good practice when it comes to school as it is about reinforcement of knowledge, in which case it is entirely appropriate to alter the "mark" (which probably isn't a 50% or an A or whatever, rather a comment) that you give based on the attitude to the work and the behaviour around it. Similar things occur at universities as well (I know of rather substantial assignments which require an estimate of the amount of work put into them).

What you are trying to do (function) almost universally dictates form (in anything that is thought out before its form is developed at any rate).

Oh, and by the way, if you fail to take into account behaviour as it manifests in the idea of engagement... good luck in figuring out where the pupil actually excels.

[Ostroeuropa]

K so.
Didn't go as expected and abandoned part way.

PREDICTION:
Women will raise most.
Mixed will raise next most.
Men will raise least.

ACTUAL SHENANIGANS:
Womens group for collection kept getting bogged down in people talking to them after donating.
Mens group raised more than them.
Mixed group raised most, by a large margin.
Part way through I evaluated what was going on, told my bro who is organizing, and we decided to mix the mens and womens group to maximize collection. So experiment abandoned.

After mixing, all the groups managed to raise more.

My explanation, prediction:

"Well women will raise more because misandry. Mixed group will raise least because men/women are paired and people will think they can't fuckem. Men will be middle ground."

My explanation, results:

"Women raised less due to people wanting to fuck em and bogging them down in conversations. No idea how to explain other results."


After I noticed the mixed group was raising most, we merged the men/women groups.

(Fucked the experiment, but fuck it. MOAR FOR CHARITY.)

...
If YOU are around, telegram me. You know who you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAgL3J_dvc

[Forsher]

Why not form a movement that promotes the rights of both men and women, instead of the divisionary trash between the two groups eh?

Exactly. Unfortunately, it seems impractical radicalism's been in vogue lately.

Well, the thing is that feminist groups have respected voices and organisational influence... it's just that these groups don't notice male-sided inequalities because, historically, feminism has just been about women (and, to some extent, middle and upper class majority women). This is problematic because there have been two responses to it. Firstly, you get people who focus on what they want to achieve and try to do it. Secondly, you get people who have operated from the premise that feminism uses a women as victims narrative and then tried to point out that men are victims. This is a radicalising notion and has plenty of controversy to keep people interested and involved... hence the manosphere being how it is, and feminism discussions online being the way they are.

It's important to note, that when you get things like "ban bossy" who is actually asked for opinions in mainstream news.

There are areas where men have fewer or lesser rights then women, or are treated differently. They primarily deal with two areas, the justice system, where men are often treated more harshly then women, and childcare, where men are often looked down upon or do not have the same access to their children. These are things that need to be changed for equality and is something feminists should work with their men's rights cohorts to fix.

Yes and there are also areas of the world where 2 women only make up 1 man in the courtroom from the testimonies and therefore male supremacy exists.

Which matters how? What do you want to do and how does this understanding help you do it?

[Natapoc]

K so.
Didn't go as expected and abandoned part way.

PREDICTION:
Women will raise most.
Mixed will raise next most.
Men will raise least.

ACTUAL SHENANIGANS:
Womens group for collection kept getting bogged down in people talking to them after donating.
Mens group raised more than them.
Mixed group raised most, by a large margin.
Part way through I evaluated what was going on, told my bro who is organizing, and we decided to mix the mens and womens group to maximize collection. So experiment abandoned.

After mixing, all the groups managed to raise more.

My explanation, prediction:

"Well women will raise more because misandry. Mixed group will raise least because men/women are paired and people will think they can't fuckem. Men will be middle ground."

My explanation, results:

"Women raised less due to people wanting to fuck em and bogging them down in conversations. No idea how to explain other results."


After I noticed the mixed group was raising most, we merged the men/women groups.

(Fucked the experiment, but fuck it. MOAR FOR CHARITY.)

...
If YOU are around, telegram me. You know who you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAgL3J_dvc

Questioning your world view? Perhaps the red pill you were sold is nothing but placebo?

[Ostroeuropa]

K so.
Didn't go as expected and abandoned part way.

PREDICTION:
Women will raise most.
Mixed will raise next most.
Men will raise least.

ACTUAL SHENANIGANS:
Womens group for collection kept getting bogged down in people talking to them after donating.
Mens group raised more than them.
Mixed group raised most, by a large margin.
Part way through I evaluated what was going on, told my bro who is organizing, and we decided to mix the mens and womens group to maximize collection. So experiment abandoned.

After mixing, all the groups managed to raise more.

My explanation, prediction:

"Well women will raise more because misandry. Mixed group will raise least because men/women are paired and people will think they can't fuckem. Men will be middle ground."

My explanation, results:

"Women raised less due to people wanting to fuck em and bogging them down in conversations. No idea how to explain other results."


After I noticed the mixed group was raising most, we merged the men/women groups.

(Fucked the experiment, but fuck it. MOAR FOR CHARITY.)

...
If YOU are around, telegram me. You know who you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAgL3J_dvc

Questioning your world view? Perhaps the red pill you were sold is nothing but placebo?

My worldview is unchanged. I'm not a TRPer, in addition. The fact you don't know the difference suggests you are impervious to information from outside of your movement and are largely pointless to talk to.

[Fartsniffage]

K so.
Didn't go as expected and abandoned part way.

PREDICTION:
Women will raise most.
Mixed will raise next most.
Men will raise least.

ACTUAL SHENANIGANS:
Womens group for collection kept getting bogged down in people talking to them after donating.
Mens group raised more than them.
Mixed group raised most, by a large margin.
Part way through I evaluated what was going on, told my bro who is organizing, and we decided to mix the mens and womens group to maximize collection. So experiment abandoned.

After mixing, all the groups managed to raise more.

My explanation, prediction:

"Well women will raise more because misandry. Mixed group will raise least because men/women are paired and people will think they can't fuckem. Men will be middle ground."

My explanation, results:

"Women raised less due to people wanting to fuck em and bogging them down in conversations. No idea how to explain other results."


After I noticed the mixed group was raising most, we merged the men/women groups.

(Fucked the experiment, but fuck it. MOAR FOR CHARITY.)

...
If YOU are around, telegram me. You know who you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAgL3J_dvc

You started with a faulty premise. Wit and humour get more donations to charity than just being a girl.

[Natapoc]

Questioning your world view? Perhaps the red pill you were sold is nothing but placebo?

My worldview is unchanged. I'm not a TRPer, in addition. The fact you don't know the difference suggests you are impervious to information from outside of your movement and are largely pointless to talk to.

Misogynist reddit groups do not have a monopoly on matrix analogies.

[Camicon]

*snip*

I don't want to tell you how to do things, but if you're not going to read my posts then you might not want to invest so much time in your response. I, for one, am done reiterating myself to someone who clearly has no interest in having an actual conversation.

[Ostroeuropa]

K so.
Didn't go as expected and abandoned part way.

PREDICTION:
Women will raise most.
Mixed will raise next most.
Men will raise least.

ACTUAL SHENANIGANS:
Womens group for collection kept getting bogged down in people talking to them after donating.
Mens group raised more than them.
Mixed group raised most, by a large margin.
Part way through I evaluated what was going on, told my bro who is organizing, and we decided to mix the mens and womens group to maximize collection. So experiment abandoned.

After mixing, all the groups managed to raise more.

My explanation, prediction:

"Well women will raise more because misandry. Mixed group will raise least because men/women are paired and people will think they can't fuckem. Men will be middle ground."

My explanation, results:

"Women raised less due to people wanting to fuck em and bogging them down in conversations. No idea how to explain other results."


After I noticed the mixed group was raising most, we merged the men/women groups.

(Fucked the experiment, but fuck it. MOAR FOR CHARITY.)

...
If YOU are around, telegram me. You know who you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAgL3J_dvc

You started with a faulty premise. Wit and humour get more donations to charity than just being a girl.

I expected the women to raise more.
But once I saw that they were being talked to more and bogged down in people trying to get to know them, it seemed obvious that would happen.
So I evaluated, men-women-mixed.

I was shocked the mixed got most. In terms of wit/humour, I THINK we're all roughly equal.

Best Guess Explanation:
Women get talked to more often because of pressure on men/women. Hinders raising.
Men get talked to less, and can raise more.
Mixed can appeal to both men/women donaters and raise more.

(Heternormativity assumed because, statistics.)

[Ostroeuropa]

Misogynist

Ahahaha.

[Fartsniffage]

You started with a faulty premise. Wit and humour get more donations to charity than just being a girl.

I expected the women to raise more.
But once I saw that they were being talked to more and bogged down in people trying to get to know them, it seemed obvious that would happen.
So I evaluated, men-women-mixed.

I was shocked the mixed got most. In terms of wit/humour, I THINK we're all roughly equal.

Best Guess Explanation:
Women get talked to more often because of pressure on men/women. Hinders raising.
Men get talked to less, and can raise more.
Mixed can appeal to both men/women donaters and raise more.

(Heternormativity assumed because, statistics.)

....You really need to hold a job in sales at some point. Or even just spend some time collecting for a charity for more than just a random evening. The reality is that men are just generally better at it, more likely to close a sale/donation. Now we can start to ascribe societal reasons to that but it's true. And the reason it's true is not due to the people they speak to, it's due to the sellers themselves.

[Ostroeuropa]

I expected the women to raise more.
But once I saw that they were being talked to more and bogged down in people trying to get to know them, it seemed obvious that would happen.
So I evaluated, men-women-mixed.

I was shocked the mixed got most. In terms of wit/humour, I THINK we're all roughly equal.

Best Guess Explanation:
Women get talked to more often because of pressure on men/women. Hinders raising.
Men get talked to less, and can raise more.
Mixed can appeal to both men/women donaters and raise more.

(Heternormativity assumed because, statistics.)

....You really need to hold a job in sales at some point. Or even just spend some time collecting for a charity for more than just a random evening. The reality is that men are just generally better at it, more likely to close a sale/donation. Now we can start to ascribe societal reasons to that but it's true. And the reason it's true is not due to the people they speak to, it's due to the sellers themselves.

I'll admit, the gals I know round here aren't exactly normal.
What you're saying seems possible because of the pressure to be assertive and such. So it doesn't apply to men who aren't assertive.