Definition of Sexism

[stroopwafel]

So, like, you didn't really read my post did you? This is exactly the kind of stereotypical, prejudiced and ignorant bullshit I talked about. No reflection about what life must be like as a woman, just some fucked up assumption that women have intrinsic value and that there's no peer pressure or competition among women. Have you watched Gossip Girl? Glee? Buffy the Vampire Slayer? OC? One Tree Hill? Any TV series in the last two decades that sort of featured young women interacting with young women on a regular basis? Did it ever occur to you that maybe women's peer groups have similar peer pressure and competitive dynamics as male peer groups, just with a different focus and other visible characteristics?

Let me be utterly blunt: My value as a woman is not intrinsic. To men it is entirely reliant on my appearance and my willingness to satisfy their dick. To women it is judged based on social pressures like my ability to conform to group expectations and my ability to exhibit the status symbols of the group. I'm sick of the gall that guys like you have, in that you claim that my value is somehow intrinsic but if I dare to actually exercise that right, to set boundaries and exhibit a personality that men might not like, then I'm a *****, slut, Karen or whatever slur is in vogue. Because what you perceive as intrinsic value is nothing of the sort. It is a value that you arbitrarily ascribe to me because you imagine that It'd be nice to stick your dick in me.

At the core of that problem of men ascribing arbitrary value to women is the basic assumption that women are essentially sex dispensers that men should be allowed to tap for some sweet pootang. And that when women refuse to be sex dispensers some men lose their shit because they are utterly unable to interact with women in a normal fashion and in such a way as to convince the woman that she'd enjoy fucking the guy too. You expect to bumble in, be an asshat (in the words of my wife "Even if these guys got on a date, their obvious contempt for women would ensure there'd be no second") and for the woman to, shit I don't know, take pity on you/see that your heart is in the right place/do her civic duty and let you dip it a little? When Jordan Peterson was advocating for forcing women to marry lonely men (yeah, yeah he backpedalled when confronted yadda yadda), that resonated with his followers and the Manosphere because that's literally how little value you think women have. We are not individuals with our own right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. No, we are your fucktoys and domestic servants and you're pissy because we've been given the freedom to reject that fucked up thinking. You call that value because the ability to put your dick in someone regularly has a value to you. But it has no value to whoever you are forcing your dick into. It is a supremely egocentric way of thinking of "value" when talking about other humans.

None of this makes any sense. I didn't even talk about sex only that even attention from women for most men is rare. You clearly have issues where you see objectification of women around every corner. You obviously don't like men which is your right but you're really showing your true colors here. Most men like female companionship they don't want a 'fucktoy' or sex slave. With value I meant that women are considered more important because of their reproductive abilities(ie women and children first). How many women are homeless compared to men? Women aren't considered dispensable like men are. You blame 'us' for not understanding women but it's actually you who base your view of men entirely on the frustrated rants of incels or red pillers. Even here you rather take everything at face value than see it for what it is; an impotent manifestation of deep loneliness behind the glow of a computer screen. Rather you pull the victim card with sweeping blanket statements how inherently evil men are to women so hypocritical white knights can come to the rescue again. You're not even heterosexual so you don't even have experience with male/female dating dynamics or what men really want or think. Yet you know it all ofcourse.

Jordan Peterson have orated hundreds of hours and written various books yet he always gets attacked for this one unlucky statement he may have made years ago. From what I understand the throughline of his speeches have always been for (young) men to take ownership of their lives and strive to be independent. Nothing wrong with that. His heart is in the right place.

 

[Buyetyen]

None of this makes any sense.

It does when you actually listen.

You blame 'us' for not understanding women but it's actually you who base your view of men entirely on the frustrated rants of incels or red pillers. Even here you rather take everything at face value than see it for what it is; an impotent manifestation of deep loneliness behind the glow of a computer screen. Rather you pull the victim card with sweeping blanket statements how inherently evil men are to women so hypocritical white knights can come to the rescue again. You're not even heterosexual so you don't even have experience with male/female dating dynamics or what men really want or think. Yet you know it all ofcourse.

Pity, party of one, your table is ready. Do you actually think any of us are impressed by this impotent, solipsistic whining? No dude, it's not malicious intent that causes people to disagree with you. You're just fucking wrong.

Jordan Peterson have orated hundreds of hours and written various books yet he always gets attacked for this one unlucky statement he may have made years ago. From what I understand the throughline of his speeches have always been for (young) men to take ownership of their lives and strive to be independent. Nothing wrong with that. His heart is in the right place.

"You have to listen to ALL of Jordan Peterson before you're allowed to say anything about him!"

BINGO! I got bingo!

 

[Buyetyen]

In terms of reproduction, eggs have high value, sperm is cheap. At least among humans. This is part of why men are disposable. Fine for them to make up 95% combat deaths, work place deaths, die ever younger as a gender longevity gap grows. Again Farrell: fertile women are genetic celebrities. After the "Bell Curve" came out, Pat Buchanan wrote that IQ is only part of the power equation. For every 50 year old CEO out there getting past the rope and into an exclusive club there is already a 20 year old woman in an slinky black dress.

IQ is also bad science. It only measures one's ability to take tests.

MRAs desperately want the credibility of science, but all you guys have is pseudo-science.

Also, you guys can't claim it's not about sex when the value you place on women is entirely dependent on your perception of their fertility.

 

[gorfias]

1) "You have to listen to ALL of Jordan Peterson before you're allowed to say anything about him!"

2) IQ is also bad science. It only measures one's ability to take tests.

3) MRAs desperately want the credibility of science, but all you guys have is pseudo-science.

4) Also, you guys can't claim it's not about sex when the value you place on women is entirely dependent on your perception of their fertility.

1) I hope you're kidding.
2) Doesn't one's ability to take a test mean anything?
3) How would you suggest that change? ITMT: This thread started with the observation that in 2019, we now again have someone reporting of a new definition for Sexism. Would you call it science to keep changing the definition of a crucial, central term in you movement over the course of some 70 years (around the start of 2nd wave Feminism).
4) I don't know what this statement means. The concept of evolutionary biology would suggest that there were un-discerning men that would have sex with non-fertile humans and maybe even animals. They became less likely to procreate. Others were attracted to other humans that happened to be fertile. They became more likely to procreate than the alternative. Pseudo-science but I think there is a logic to it.

 

[Buyetyen]

1) I hope you're kidding.
2) Doesn't one's ability to take a test mean anything?
3) How would you suggest that change? ITMT: This thread started with the observation that in 2019, we now again have someone reporting of a new definition for Sexism. Would you call it science to keep changing the definition of a crucial, central term in you movement over the course of some 70 years (around the start of 2nd wave Feminism).
4) I don't know what this statement means. The concept of evolutionary biology would suggest that there were un-discerning men that would have sex with non-fertile humans and maybe even animals. They became less likely to procreate. Others were attracted to other humans that happened to be fertile. They became more likely to procreate than the alternative. Pseudo-science but I think there is a logic to it.

1. I was deliberately taking the piss. Peterson's fans are permanently stuck on repeat, demanding the rest of us piss away hours of our lives listening to this hack before we're allowed to say we disagree with anything he says. It's nothing more than a tactic to waste time and avoid criticism.

2. Not really, no. Beating tests is a skill unto itself, one that translates poorly to other areas of life because there is no such thing as a standardized person. The truth is that we don't have any solid metrics for intelligence because it's so abstract and expressed through nature in a large variety of ways. Scientists currently studying the intelligence of corvids for example have already noted that smarts are expressed differently in birds than in humans. And that's not even bringing up octopuses.

3. The first thing to do would be to educate yourself on the fundamentals of science. The scientific process is predicated on the assumption that you try to falsify your hypothesis. It's the only way to be sure it stands up to scrutiny. Any asshole can find evidence to fit a preconceived theory, and indeed they often do. Further, good science changes over time. Definitions should change as our understanding expands. The opposite of this is scripture. Consider as an example that we went from the germ theory of disease being one of many to becoming the dominant model in less than a human lifetime following some sleuthing of a cholera outbreak in London. Or if you want to see a science that has undergone massive changes in a short period of time, psychology or neurology should fit the bill.

If you guys want to be scientific, you have to start trying to prove your hypotheses wrong with actual, rigorous research and a willingness to admit you don't know everything. My experience with MRAs unfortunately has shown that most of them are scientifically illiterate, and I largely blame our terrible education system for that, but that's another thread. Stroop for example has asserted more than once that he has data to back up his claims, but he has yet to actually post any of them. Mostly he's just gotten shitty with Gethsemeni for not agreeing with him.

4. What you are describing is, once again, evopsych, not evobio. Evolutionary biology studies the mechanisms by which organisms adapt and change over generations, as well as the environmental pressures that inform those adaptations. Sexual and gender expression are part of those studies, but the idea is not to point to an ideal breeding formula because there isn't one. Biology is a messy ad-hoc process with plenty of room for errors, mutations and other odds and ends to occur. Often, these are purely arbitrary. There is no evolutionary advantage to being either left-handed or right-handed for example, it's just a thing that happens.

The larger point I was trying to make is that you assert these pseudo-scientific ideas about fertility, which is about sex, while trying to claim it's actually not about sex because something something science. This is not how science works.

It's not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo. You have to be right.

 

[gorfias]

1. I was deliberately taking the piss. Peterson's fans are permanently stuck on repeat, demanding the rest of us piss away hours of our lives listening to this hack before we're allowed to say we disagree with anything he says. It's nothing more than a tactic to waste time and avoid criticism.

2. Not really, no. Beating tests is a skill unto itself, one that translates poorly to other areas of life because there is no such thing as a standardized person. The truth is that we don't have any solid metrics for intelligence because it's so abstract and expressed through nature in a large variety of ways. Scientists currently studying the intelligence of corvids for example have already noted that smarts are expressed differently in birds than in humans. And that's not even bringing up octopuses.

3. The first thing to do would be to educate yourself on the fundamentals of science. The scientific process is predicated on the assumption that you try to falsify your hypothesis. It's the only way to be sure it stands up to scrutiny. Any asshole can find evidence to fit a preconceived theory, and indeed they often do. Further, good science changes over time. Definitions should change as our understanding expands. The opposite of this is scripture. Consider as an example that we went from the germ theory of disease being one of many to becoming the dominant model in less than a human lifetime. Or if you want to see a science that has undergone massive changes in a short period of time, psychology or neurology should fit the bill.

If you guys want to be scientific, you have to start trying to prove your hypotheses wrong with actual, rigorous research and a willingness to admit you don't know everything. My experience with MRAs unfortunately has shown that most of them are scientifically illiterate, and I largely blame our terrible education system for that, but that's another thread. Stroop for example has asserted more than once that he has data to back up his claims, but he has yet to actually post any of them. Mostly he's just gotten shitty with Gethsemeni for not agreeing with him.

4. What you are describing is, once again, evopsych, not evobio. Evolutionary biology studies the mechanisms by which organisms adapt and change over generations, as well as the environmental pressures that inform those adaptations. Sexual and gender expression are part of those studies, but the idea is not to point to an ideal breeding formula because there isn't one. Biology is a messy ad-hoc process with plenty of room for errors, mutations and other odds and ends to occur. Often, these are purely arbitrary. There is no evolutionary advantage to being either left-handed or right-handed for example, it's just a thing that happens.

The larger point I was trying to make is that you assert these pseudo-scientific ideas about fertility, which is about sex, while trying to claim it's actually not about sex because something something science. This is not how science works.

It's not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo. You have to be right.

I think I am right because I think the logic of it follows. Are you writing I should try to prove having potent men have sex only with vegetables will help me prove a hypothesis that men who are primarily sexually attracted to fertile women are more likely to procreate than they guy who schtups hollowed out cantaloupes?

 

[Buyetyen]

I think I am right because I think the logic of it follows.

It's very shallow logic that doesn't take the whole picture into account. One can make a syllogism work in isolation, but nothing exists in isolation. This is not so much science as critical thought, another skill most people lack, MRAs especially.

Let's take Aristotelean logic as an example. For the most part, it gets the job done. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefor Socrates is mortal. But it doesn't apply all the time. All squares have 4 sides, this rectangle has 4 sides, therefore this rectangle must be a square. See what I mean?

Are you writing I should try to prove having potent men have sex only with vegetables will help me prove a hypothesis that men who are primarily sexually attracted to fertile women are more likely to procreate than they guy who schtups hollowed out cantaloupes?

You have to be scientifically illiterate to say something this profoundly ignorant. Your gross strawman aside, I'm saying you should examine your beliefs more closely. Right now, you have expressed all the self-reflection of a rock. All you've done is prove me right that it all comes back to sex with you.

Besides, I can falsify the statement, "Men only want young, fertile women," by pointing to the number of childless couples, cougars, gay people in general, and the ace/aro crowd. The human condition is far more complicated than "insert Penis A into Cooter B." Anyone trying to boil it down to just that is trying to sell you something.

 

[gorfias]

It's very shallow logic that doesn't take the whole picture into account. One can make a syllogism work in isolation, but nothing exists in isolation. This is not so much science as critical thought, another skill most people lack, MRAs especially.

Let's take Aristotelean logic as an example. For the most part, it gets the job done. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefor Socrates is mortal. But it doesn't apply all the time. All squares have 4 sides, this rectangle has 4 sides, therefore this rectangle must be a square. See what I mean?



You have to be scientifically illiterate to say something this profoundly ignorant. Your gross strawman aside, I'm saying you should examine your beliefs more closely. Right now, you have expressed all the self-reflection of a rock. All you've done is prove me right that it all comes back to sex with you.

Besides, I can falsify the statement, "Men only want young, fertile women," by pointing to the number of childless couples, cougars, gay people in general, and the ace/aro crowd. The human condition is far more complicated than "insert Penis A into Cooter B." Anyone trying to boil it down to just that is trying to sell you something.

I appreciate the Aristotelean logic you site. And appreciate your geometry example. But it helps to be able to spot obvious logic.

I'm aware gay people are a thing. But gay sex doesn't cause procreation. Potent men having sex with fertile women are much more likely to procreate than others. If sexual attraction is heritable (a man will tend to like what dad liked) you'd end up with more straight men than gay (and other non-straight). And so social science tell us it is. Maybe about 5%? https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx

 

[Buyetyen]

I appreciate the Aristotelean logic you site. And appreciate your geometry example. But it helps to be able to spot obvious logic.

In other words, you wipe your ass with what I just said. Have you ever once considered the idea that maybe you don't understand the science like you think you do?

 

[gorfias]

In other words, you wipe your ass with what I just said. Have you ever once considered the idea that maybe you don't understand the science like you think you do?

This seems pretty good... I'll try to apply what I wrote earlier to it... and get back to you.


EDIT: What question are we trying to answer? Do you concede most men are sexually attracted to young women or do you dispute that? If not, our question would be why are they?

 

[Buyetyen]

This seems pretty good... I'll try to apply what I wrote earlier to it... and get back to you.

View attachment 3793

It won't help with the fact that you're asking the wrong questions.

 

[gorfias]

It won't help with the fact that you're asking the wrong questions.

Edited above: What question are we trying to answer? Do you concede most men are sexually attracted to young women or do you dispute that? If not, our question would be why are they? If you do dispute that...?

 

[Buyetyen]

Edited above: What question are we trying to answer? Do you concede most men are sexually attracted to young women or do you dispute that? If not, our question would be why are they? If you do dispute that...?

I concede the majority of people are heterosexual, but that does absolutely nothing to explain a lot of the societal issues that MRAs point out but never do anything about.

If you want to start with a question, perhaps reevaluate your stance that the only reason so many of us disagree with you is because we hate men.

 

[gorfias]

I concede the majority of people are heterosexual, but that does absolutely nothing to explain a lot of the societal issues that MRAs point out but never do anything about.

If you want to start with a question, perhaps reevaluate your stance that the only reason so many of us disagree with you is because we hate men.

Hmmmm. That would not be my position. While hatred of men is huge among feminists (S.ociety for C.utting U.p M.en, #kill all men) I think there are other things at issue, such as I wrote earlier, men are relatively dispensable and disposable utilities. In the modern world, that should not be so.

 

[SilentPony]

If you want to start with a question, perhaps reevaluate your stance that the only reason so many of us disagree with you is because we hate men.

Like a good example would be when MRA bring up that there is only one male-centered domestic violence shelter in America, and hundreds of female ones. And the question they ask is why can't we take a few of those female shelters and funding and turn them into male shelters, when the real question is why can't we take some military funding and use it to make more men and women abuse shelters.

 

[Buyetyen]

men are relatively dispensable and disposable utilities.

Prove it. You keep asserting this, but you never back it up with anything of substance. This leads me to the conclusion you just get off on the secondary emotional payoff of being the victim in the equation. Prove me wrong.

Thing is, you're going to have to show a lack of valuation of men in a society where men control the majority of the levers of power.

Like a good example would be when MRA bring up that there is only one male-centered domestic violence shelter in America, and hundreds of female ones. And the question they ask is why can't we take a few of those female shelters and funding and turn them into male shelters, when the real question is why can't we take some military funding and use it to make more men and women abuse shelters.

That's another thing about MRAs. They have no imagination. Everything is a zero-sum game to them.

 

[gorfias]

Prove it. You keep asserting this, but you never back it up with anything of substance. This leads me to the conclusion you just get off on the secondary emotional payoff of being the victim in the equation. Prove me wrong.

Thing is, you're going to have to show a lack of valuation of men in a society where men control the majority of the levers of power.



That's another thing about MRAs. They have no imagination. Everything is a zero-sum game to them. I would not be at all surprised to find out that stroop's bitterness toward Gethsemeni is at least partially informed by the fact she's married and not into dick. By MRA logic, that's 2 pussies men no longer have access to.

I think we can agree, one man can make many women pregnant in a month. A woman can give birth only once in about 9 months. Do we agree on that?
Scarcity adds value. A woman's contribution to procreation is scarcer than a man's, hence more valuable. Still with me? Let me know when I have something wrong.

Feminism holds that as men control the leavers of power, the society is one that is made to benefit men. I would write, it benefits powerful men.
Men are also competitive with each other. Some societies are polygamous. One male can have a number of women. Given procreation age of people of both sexes is about equal, this means you end up with surplus men.

Do we agree 95% of combat deaths are male? 95% workplace deaths are male? More later... but for the meantime watch this based on true story movie clip of a jr. officer telling sr. officer a certain military attack is suicide. sr. then says, (paraphrasing) but there's a possible promotion and pay raise in it for you! after which jr. officer says, "you know, I think it can be done!" and gets something like 800 of his men killed when he should of known better.

 

[Buyetyen]

I think we can agree, one man can make many women pregnant in a month. A woman can give birth only once in about 9 months. Do we agree on that?
Scarcity adds value. A woman's contribution to procreation is scarcer than a man's, hence more valuable. Still with me? Let me know when I have something wrong.

Where you get it wrong is the assumption that all of society is built on our junk. You start with a premise and immediately leap to the conclusion because it makes sense to you. But you're not trying to persuade yourself, you are trying to persuade me. And shitty logic doesn't fly with me.

Feminism holds that as men control the leavers of power, the society is one that is made to benefit men. I would write, it benefits powerful men.
Men are also competitive with each other. Some societies are polygamous. One male can have a number of women. Given procreation age of people of both sexes is about equal, this means you end up with surplus men.

There's a leap between each of those sentences, none of which make a lot of sense. Again, you're basing this all on assumption, not logic.

Do we agree 95% of combat deaths are male? 95% workplace deaths are male? More later... but for the meantime watch this based on true story movie clip of a jr. officer telling sr. officer a certain military attack is suicide. sr. then says, (paraphrasing) but there's a possible promotion and pay raise in it for you! after which jr. officer says, "you know, I think it can be done!" and gets something like 800 of his men killed when he should of known better.

Prove that this is because it is men specifically who are unvalued and not because powerful people tend not to value the disempowered, regardless of their gender. Of course men are going to make up the majority of combat fatalities because they're the majority in military service! This is basic math. A much more worthwhile question would be why we're getting involved in military adventurism at all.

 

[McElroy]

Oh, it must be fun being involved in real evopysch, and having to say "No, not like that, the genuine stuff" to everyone all the time.

My opinion could be biased, for the guy who's made our national headlines a few times for evo-psych stuff, Markus J. Rantala, seems incredibly smart and knows exactly when to say "the data shows this" and when "there are huge differences between individuals" is the better call.

Anyway, on to the sexism again. There are caveman fundamentals in our psychology for sure, but intricate parts of relationships require intricate explanations. Stuff like personal history, family, community, culture. Something as simple as contraception has revolutionized sexual relationships completely and it's hardly a "slut" move to have it at one's disposal.

Terminal Blue brought up the famous OKCupid data about attraction and age, but forgot to include that men don't pursue these 20-year-olds when they themselves get older. Statistically speaking other things become more important than looks (if they weren't already). But to get into the problem (the biggest problem I find myself thinking about) we need to look at the chunk of men, about 18 to 24, who are left out of sexual relationships (and relationships in general, I'd guess). This group has grown significantly compared to women of the same age. This being [current year] we know what guys do in their free time and it's a bad way to get to know many girls. Going to Tinder or student parties for the first time at 24 can be a heartbreaking experience. The inexperience is a turn-off, gaming is a turn-off, so is warhammer or whatever nerdy shit you can think of, jerking off to porn for years is a mega turn-off for the guy too, and floating above mentioning those things is impossible or at least requires tons of practice. It's unimaginable to compare the sonder between 3000 hours perfecting your RuneScape character and having a life. Personally I don't know a way to reconcile this, because somehow it seems to even out later as most people who are on the lookout find someone by their mid-30s.

While there is data to support, my anecdotal experience of the matter is why I keep coming back to it. I'd even take it further: women avoid inexperienced men not because they are "picky" but because they have little in common with adult children of their age. This in turn raises the incentive for guys to lie about their hobbies and their past. And so on. Expectations are never meeting reality.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Definition of sexism?

This thread