I see what you mean. I also noticed the “probably” thing.
I agree it’s not what she meant, but even assuming she didn’t mean that, that doesn’t mean it’s not misandric.
Also, from the comments, a lot of commenters seemed ready to act like it was true of all men. The second comment with 1.2k likes is:
Delete men.
What do you think is misandrist about it? You yourself quoted a study about men being fairly likely to leave when their wife becomes disabled, and much more likely to leave than women are:
I think that what she was saying was essentially talking about that, which does have some statistical backing from studies, and lots of anecdotal stories from hospital staff and care providers.
You have made a lot of generalizations about women in this thread, including saying they are hypergamous, they shit test, and that they control access to sex. Do you consider those things to be misogynist?
Earlier when talking about abortion, you said it would be shitty of a woman to lie to get a free abortion. But when I asked why you didn’t turn it around, and think of it as shitty of the man to not be paying for the abortion, you said:
You seem sensitive to any kind of negative comments or generalizations about men. But you have been making a lot of negative comments and generalizations about women.
FYI the comments are in different orders for different people.
Is that comment a reply to the video or a reply to the point about men leaving their wives? If it is just a top level comment, I would take it as a comment replying to men horrifically raping their wives. It doesn’t mean they think that literally all men do this, but for a lot of women they don’t know how to avoid this kind of danger.
I see much worse comments about women on forums centered around men’s issues, and those comments are in response to women doing things much less-bad than rape. Do you notice those comments?
But you’d have to convince a judge that it was rape, and not consensual sex.
In the US, marital rape wasn’t a crime anywhere until the 1970s, and it wasn’t a crime in all states until 1993. People still view marital rape very different from other rapes (and especially differently from stranger rape).
I sent that video earlier about sexual pressure or coercion within marriage. It had mostly positive comments. People thought it was funny and true. Women being pressured into sex in marriage is very normalized, and most people do not consider it rape.
So if a woman was pressured into having sex with her husband after surgery, she would likely be partially blamed for it. She should have taken the danger more seriously. She should have explained to him better how dangerous it was. She should have said no more firmly.
Unless he literally held her down and forced her, or threatened her with a weapon, many people would not consider it rape if he pressured or coerced her into sex.
So that is part of the context of why feminists think that repealing no-fault divorce would be essentially allowing men to sexually assault and rape their wives. Many things that they consider rape or sexual assault are not considered rape by many people. So women would be stuck in those marriages with no way to escape.
I’m not sure what your overall views about government are, but you seem to be okay with them having a high level of control over people’s lives, and requiring very intimate and personal details about people’s private lives.
Overall, I think that the government should stay out of people’s personal lives more. The government can be there to help adjudicate when two people disagree, and someone believes their rights are being violated. But I don’t think that the government should have a say in decisions that consenting adults are making with each other, and they surely shouldn’t require those adults to plead their case to the court, providing incredibly intimate and personal details to do so.
In this specific example, you seem to think it is appropriate for the government to insert itself into the lives of married people, and decide for them whether or not they should be able to dissolve their marriage. This would require essentially the most personal and intimate details in many people’s lives, including things like details about their sex life, frequency of sex, enjoyment of sex, etc, since that sort of thing is often relevant in the breakdown of people’s relationship. I think that sort of thing is not the government’s business at all. In my opinion, they have no right to that kind of information about me.
Another example of this came up earlier with trans people playing sports, where you thought it was appropriate for the federal government to make the decision for all Americans about which sports trans people were allowed to play.
I’m not sure what exactly you mean here.
You seem to be saying that you think that possibly the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women. As in, women stand no chance against men with regards to intelligence, at least not in the top tier, similar to how women would stand no chance against men in certain physical competitions.
You do link the the variability hypothesis later in the post, so I think that may be what you are talking about. I didn’t see any clear explanation though. (I may have missed it – there is a lot in this thread, and I haven’t read it all.)
You think that maybe the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women. You don’t say how widespread you think this is, or what kind of gap you think it might be. Do you think it could be similar to the gap in strength or other physical things? Do you have ideas of percents? Do you think that maybe there are essentially no women who are smarter than the top 1%, 2.5%, 5%, etc of men?
Kind of, it’s not as clear cut as that. I didn’t communicate the subtly very well before. Maybe you think that doesn’t matter but I feel that I should explain properly.
I think that, by gender, it’s plausible that IQ has slightly different distributions. If this is the case, I don’t think it matters for day-to-day life. The effect isn’t large enough to say anything when comparing individuals. I also think that thinking methods themselves can dominate, especially at the high end (but also most people don’t spend time trying to improve their thinking methods much, so maybe it’s moot).
Mean, mode, and median are all the same. So men and women are, on average, as intelligent as each other. Put another way, given two random people (one male, one female) then we cannot say anything about which is likely more intelligent.
However, variance differs. I don’t know the magnitude of this off the top of my head. (I checked wikipedia and the variance ratio is an average of 1.07, ranging from 0.88 to 1.34.)
This manifests as, in a large enough population, men being slightly overrepresented in the highest and lowest parts of the distribution.
As a visual comparison, here’s a desmos graph of what a 1.07 variance ratio looks like (red = female, blue = male):
Do you think that maybe there are essentially no women who are smarter than the top 1%, 2.5%, 5%, etc of men?
No. I think most of the time, men will be over represented in large population samples. But it’s purely statistical, so we should expect plenty of counter-examples in small populations (e.g., a cohort of 100 students).
I think there are other reasons for differences in populations, too. Like I’d guess chess is just less popular among women, so we’d expect less representation in all populations.
Do you think it could be similar to the gap in strength or other physical things?
No, I think the other physical stuff is a much bigger dimorphism. Those distributions usually have different modes, means, and medians. (Examples: height, muscle mass, jump height, grip strength, flexibility, etc)
Do you have ideas of percents?
Not off the top of my head. I’ll calculate some.
Using https://onlinestatbook.com/2/calculators/normal_dist.html with mean = 100, SD = 14.75 and 15.25 (calculated in the desmos screenshot), the area above 115 (the upper crossover) is 0.1546 vs 0.1627, so about 16.27 - 15.46 = 0.81 pct point difference. That works out to be about 5% of that population (with IQ >= 115).
Above 130, the global proportions are 2.1% and 2.46%. 246/210 \simeq 1.17
Above 145, globally it’s 0.11% vs 0.16% (av = 0.135). 16/11 \simeq 1.45
So in the top 0.1% or so, men are overrepresented approx 3:2 according to that distribution.
I’m not sure of the error in this calculation.
Assuming the variability hypothesis has merit, I’d expect this to be in the ballpark based on how I understand it.
For comparison, if the variance ratio were 1.3, then men would be \sim 3.5\times more common above 145 IQ. (SDs are around 14.02 and 15.98 in that case)
Edit: for the sake of completeness, here’s the desmos graph given a variance ratio of 1.3:
How about laying out your position on this in debate tree form?
Sure. It only has a few nodes.
I tried posting a SVG and it didn’t render the text for me
Posting SVGs works for me including with text in them. Example: Math for Business Analysis - #82 by Elliot
It sounds like she hates men. She generalizes about them leaving a partner as though the only thing men care about is sex with younger women. This is in a context where, earlier, she talks about male genital mutilation as revenge. The desire for justice is fine, but doing that via cutting off sex organs is not. It’s not an academic context, it’s an emotional context, and I think the her generalization reflects that. Making big sweeping generalizations about what people will do in the future, presenting it in a highly hostile context, and presenting it as an immutable characteristic feels hateful to me.
If the genders were reversed I’d be called out as sexist and misogynistic.
21% is not “fairly likely”. It is more likely than 3%, but the overwhelming majority of men don’t leave their partner. Using casual language, it is actually fairly unlikely that men will leave, and highly unlikely that women will.
I think, if pressed, she’d say the same. Though I think she’d be surprised that it’s only 1 in 5.
First, I don’t think these are generalizations in the same way. These aren’t binary (well, the last one maybe is binary, but it’s different from the first two, also).
I also don’t think they’re necessarily misogynistic because they are labels for things that women do in some situations. They aren’t saying that women will always do a thing. (Also, men can be hypergamous and do shit-tests, it’s just not as common and the shit-tests are IMO different.)
Like, for hypergamy, I don’t think anyone is seriously saying that all women do this all the time. It’s a mating strategy and affects their preferences. I don’t even think it’s universally bad, but at the moment the bad things about it are prevalence and intensity.
Those things could be misogynistic if they’re contradicted by the evidence, applied too broadly and as though they’re an immutable characteristic, used to justify restricting women’s autonomy, etc.
I did say somewhere else that I thought many men would be willing to help out.
Going back to the original context, I’m not sure exactly what I meant. I think I was maybe in part reacting to the opinion rather than the content.
If she couldn’t afford it, and he was unwilling to help, yeah I think that’s shitty and hostile on his part.
Okay thanks. It was the 2nd top level comment replying to the video.
Yeah it makes sense that the commenter wasn’t replying to the leaving disabled partners thing specifically. It is misandric though.
Well I’m not sure (I don’t read many forums), but I occasionally see misogynistic stuff in YT comments (mostly I don’t read those) and I notice that. I notice misogynistic stuff in redpill videos, too.
Yeah maybe. If we were changing divorce law then that could be fixed. In general it seems like an adversarial legal system isn’t necessarily the best way to mediate divorce stuff. But in the case one party is dishonest or malicious then whatever system we have needs to be able to handle it.
Yeah okay. I agree the culture is problematic here.
I’m generally against government involvement. If people can manage a separation themselves then they should.
There’s two reasons I was only thinking about court/government stuff: it’s what would be close to today’s system (if we’re thinking about modifying divorce laws), and because even in a free-er system, there’d be disputes that need some kind of mediation, so it feels inevitable that courts would be involved in some way.
I agree. FWIW I think mutually wanting to get a divorce should be enough grounds. The govt shouldn’t be forcing people to stay in relationships (legal or otherwise).
The main problem I have is with some of the attitudes around marriage and divorce. I don’t think people take it very seriously anymore and as kids grow up they are less frequently seeing it as important (along with other pro-natalist things).
Personally I don’t think the govt should really be involved in marriage, but we have a bunch of legal infrastructure built around it so it doesn’t seem realistic that we get rid of it overnight. I also think there’s some traditional knowledge in the institution of marriage that is lost or compromised by modern culture.
Storytime: men, shopping and gifts:
Treatment by food delivery drivers varies by gender of the name on the order: https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1n1w2so/it\_worked/
What knowledge do you think that is? When people say this, sometimes they mean stuff like “tradwives” and sometimes they mean totally different stuff.
Also is this a fully-baked or half-baked opinion?
It’s half-baked. I don’t know specifically, it’s more like a feeling. Maybe not all of these examples are important, but we often don’t have replacements for them, or don’t acknowledge the knowledge in what we had, and we often don’t end up replacing that knowledge with better ideas. Instead they just kinda get dropped and ignored.
By traditional knowledge I mean stuff like:
I made similar notes when reading BFITF too, GWS doesn’t talk about or acknowledge any traditional knowledge in what we had, and there seems to be no concern that we might be losing anything along with patriarchy and no desire to even look.
In general, would you label which of the ideas you post are half-baked and fully-baked? I think most people prefer to argue with the ones that you think are fully-baked, and also tend to assume that people don’t post half-baked ideas on purpose without disclosing that.
For debate and critical discussion, I think it usually makes sense to start with ideas that you’ve put a lot of thought into, believed for a long time, feel confident about, would find it really valuable to get an error correction for, etc. Which of your ideas in this topic are like that?
Yeah, I can. Though I’m not sure I’d say much is fully-baked. I would have been more confident a month ago, though. I’ll try and keep age of the beliefs in mind when considering bakedness.
Some that come to mind are, at least that I’ve believed for a long time:
Then maybe it’s time to analyze what persuades you and gets you to believe and express opinions and form a negative opinion about alternatives. Like why did you find some things persuasive if you now see them as inadequate? How were you picking ideas?
