murphyslaw posted:

What's an MGTOW then, and what do they believe?

Cingulate posted:

I'm pretty confused by your post, but fwiw, it's absolutely clear and extremely well established that humans show some, and exceptionally little, sexual dimorphism with regards to physical, and even fewer dimorphism regarding cognitive capacities. Personality wise, it's still kind of up for grabs, with some evidence for very slim, and some for significant dimorphism.

INH5 posted:

MGTOW stands for Men Going Their Own Way and the short version is that they're the Western equivalent of Japan's herbivores, except they do it as a political statement and make lots of very sad Youtube videos telling everyone else that they're doing it.

Anyway, Return of Kings has multiple articles saying that they don't like MRAs, and MRA sites like A Voice For Men have posted more than one article vocally disagreeing with ROK, so describing them as MRAs is still disingenuous. But that's nothing new, since in a certain part of the internet, MRA has basically just come to mean "anyone who disagrees with me."

INH5 posted:

MGTOW stands for Men Going Their Own Way and the short version is that they're the Western equivalent of Japan's herbivores, except they do it as a political statement and make lots of very sad Youtube videos telling everyone else that they're doing it. Kind of like a gender flipped version of feminist separatism, except without the political homosexuality.

Anyway, Return of Kings has multiple articles saying that they don't like MRAs, and MRA sites like A Voice For Men have posted more than one article vocally disagreeing with ROK, so describing them as MRAs is still disingenuous. But that's nothing new, since in a certain part of the internet, MRA has basically just come to mean "anyone who disagrees with me."

INH5 posted:

MGTOW stands for Men Going Their Own Way and the short version is that they're the Western equivalent of Japan's herbivores, except they do it as a political statement and make lots of very sad Youtube videos telling everyone else that they're doing it. Kind of like a gender flipped version of feminist separatism, except without the political homosexuality.

Anyway, Return of Kings has multiple articles saying that they don't like MRAs, and MRA sites like A Voice For Men have posted more than one article vocally disagreeing with ROK, so describing them as MRAs is still disingenuous. But that's nothing new, since in a certain part of the internet, MRA has basically just come to mean "anyone who disagrees with me."

paranoid randroid posted:

"Slowly but surely, the Manosphere is gaining steam and extending its reach. Men in their late 30s and beyond who had the luxury of semi-rejecting the red pill while still finding moderate success are being outnumbered by a younger generation who realize they really don’t have a choice in the matter. Unlike the older men, these men didn’t choose to unplug; they were unplugged. Yet they thrive.

theyre red pill freakshows.

INH5 posted:

MGTOW stands for Men Going Their Own Way and the short version is that they're the Western equivalent of Japan's herbivores, except they do it as a political statement and make lots of very sad Youtube videos telling everyone else that they're doing it. Kind of like a gender flipped version of feminist separatism, except without the political homosexuality.

Anyway, Return of Kings has multiple articles saying that they don't like MRAs, and MRA sites like A Voice For Men have posted more than one article vocally disagreeing with ROK, so describing them as MRAs is still disingenuous. But that's nothing new, since in a certain part of the internet, MRA has basically just come to mean "anyone who disagrees with me."

Unrealistic Idea posted:

We are the most limited of course of about 15%. I did not imply male-master race in any form. I just said I could find papers saying that we are a sexual dimorphic species.

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full


Saying that is a "social construct and patently false" like she did is kind of out there. She could have easily said something more based in science then making poo poo up or denying reality.

Cingulate posted:

Compared to the rest of the animal world, we have very little dimorphism. Gorilla males are twice as big as females. Kangaroo males and females basically look like different species. Male anglerfish are tiny parasitic worms, female anglerfish are ... well, fish.

That is not to say the overlap between men in women with regards to characteristics like upper body strength and (baring extreme obesity) chest fat deposits isn't very little, but compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, we have little dimorphism.

paranoid randroid posted:

well Roosh V has written about how women in scandinavian countries have insufficient fear of being destitute and alone to be fuckable, so how about i call them "sex predators" instead

Cingulate posted:

I'm pretty confused by your post, but fwiw, it's absolutely clear and extremely well established that humans show some, and exceptionally little, sexual dimorphism with regards to physical, and even fewer dimorphism regarding cognitive capacities. Personality wise, it's still kind of up for grabs, with some evidence for very slim, and some for significant dimorphism.

Unrealistic Idea posted:

We are the most limited of course of about 15%. I did not imply male-master race in any form. I just said I could find papers saying that we are a sexual dimorphic species.

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full


Saying that is a "social construct and patently false" like she did is kind of out there. She could have easily said something more based in science then making poo poo up or denying reality.

Jack Gladney posted:

Why don't they like MRAs? Why don't MRAs like them?

Dapper Dan posted:

Yeah, this is very true. I just know male/female human sexual dimorphisim is a controversial topic and some people just refuse to acknowledge it and just deny reality.

Jack Gladney posted:

The video says that the socially constructed myth is that women are "a naturally weaker gender [...] frail, fragile, and vulnerable," which doesn't sound like denial of sexual dimorphism to me. it sounds like she's talking about beliefs about women, unless you believe that sexual dimorphism makes women physically frail and fragile or weak.

Zodium posted:

You need less than a hundred participants to reliably detect that men are heavier than women on average

INH5 posted:

ROK doesn't like MRAs because they think MRAs are beta cucks. Read this article if you want to know more details. MRAs, meanwhile, tend not to like ROK and other Red Pill types because they see them as helping perpetuate various social structures that harm men. In particular, one AVFM writer criticized ROK for supporting "alpha male" Vladimir Putin.

Cingulate posted:

Literally nobody denies humans show sexual dimorphism. Anybody who either thinks so, or thinks other people thinks so, does not understand what the word means.
Well women being physically weak compared to men is one of the more salient sexual dimorphisms we show.

Cingulate posted:

See the problem is you are extremely confused about this scientific concept. There is no meaningful question of if humans are a "dimorphic species". All mammals show some degree of sexual dimorphism. Every species with sexes shows dimorphism. Humans are mammals, etc.

Science has pretty well established that humans have nearly negligible cognitive sex dimorphism, but at a minimum, the fact that penises and vaginas are not the same thing is something Anita will never deny.

You're just confused about what these terms mean.

Cingulate posted:

Literally nobody denies humans show sexual dimorphism. Anybody who either thinks so, or thinks other people thinks so, does not understand what the word means.

Jack Gladney posted:

She didn't deny that women on average are physically weaker than men. She said the myth is that women are weak, fragile, vulnerable, and frail in an absolute sense, in the context of beliefs that women need men to shelter and protect them. Unless that is the biological truth you're asserting here, I don't think you're seeing a denial of biology.

Dapper Dan posted:

There are differences in the brain with regard to sex, but there hasn't been enough research to see how these differences effect us: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/577.full

In terms of intelligence, that's more genetic and environment than gender.

Dapper Dan posted:

I am talking more about things besides the obvious penis/vagina and secondary sexual characteristics. I mean, these aren't influential people, they're just people on the internet.

Cingulate posted:

Oh, we know how it affects most of cognition: next to nothing. Sex differences in cognitive capacities are very well researched and known to be almost across the board very small..

Dapper Dan posted:

True, I remember the best example of this was that men were better at spacial tasks than women, but this was disproved.

More on video games and slightly relevant to Anita, this is going to make people absolutely lose their poo poo:

for pixelated boobs: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sjw-riot-troops-vs-women-in-video-game#/story

Jack Gladney posted:

The video says that the socially constructed myth is that women are "a naturally weaker gender [...] frail, fragile, and vulnerable," which doesn't sound like denial of sexual dimorphism to me. it sounds like she's talking about beliefs about women, unless you believe that sexual dimorphism makes women physically frail and fragile or weak.

Dapper Dan posted:

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/577.full

Dapper Dan posted:

True, I remember the best example of this was that men were better at spacial tasks than women, but this was disproved.

Cingulate posted:

Nah that's still a decent contender. Nobody expects there to be any large differences hiding, but maybe some moderate ones.

Zodium posted:

It also doesn't matter because existence is a meaningless and unfunny joke. Eat Arby's.

Jack Gladney posted:

Why don't they like MRAs? Why don't MRAs like them?

Cingulate posted:

Oh, and just so I'm getting this one out of my system - the Ingalhalikar et al study this lovely write-up is about is not good science. They basically took a nice number of brain scans, looked for all the differences between men and women (I'm ignoring that their actual dependent measure was a derived one regarding connectivity here), painted the differences in colors and the rest grey and said "look at all the differences!".

If you actually quantify their effect size, you come up with a number that is much better interpreted as "the differences between men and women with regards to the vague connectivity measure we came up with are pretty small".
But that makes for a much less interesting paper.

See this for more words: http://lindeloev.net/?p=64
Nah that's still a decent contender. Nobody expects there to be any large differences hiding, but maybe some moderate ones.

Dapper Dan posted:

And my mistake

Cingulate posted:

Compared to the rest of the animal world, we have very little dimorphism. Gorilla males are twice as big as females. Kangaroo males and females basically look like different species. Male anglerfish are tiny parasitic worms, female anglerfish are ... well, fish.

Unrealistic Idea posted:

No I don't think women are physical frail, fragile, or weak.

This is the quote you were looking for.

"The belief that women are somehow a "naturally weaker gender" is a deeply ingrained, socially constructed myth, which is of course is completely false."

15% is still 15%


The quote you stated was hyperbole to drive the fact. "That this notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile and vulnerable creatures." *citation desperately needed to link social behaviors to video games.*

Jack Gladney posted:

The video says that the socially constructed myth is that women are "a naturally weaker gender [...] frail, fragile, and vulnerable," which doesn't sound like denial of sexual dimorphism to me. it sounds like she's talking about beliefs about women, unless you believe that sexual dimorphism makes women physically frail and fragile or weak.

Bholder posted:

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/613153475845709824

She's really weird about this.

Jack Gladney posted:

Forgive me for getting in the way of your belief that crazy old feminist refuses to believe that girls are different from boys. Boy, she sure is crazy to deny obvious reality!

Let us English posted:

Compared to other primates we have a moderate amount of sexual dimorphism. Far more than baboons

Bholder posted:

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/613153475845709824

She's really weird about this.

Motto posted:

I could understand wanting there to be a Free Play mode or something where you could mix leagues, but I don't get the "features in videogames will change major organizational rules in pro sports" train of thought.

Unrealistic Idea posted:

You miss my motive. Everyone lies. Everything is driven by money.

I actually adore this woman and how she sold the masses hook line sinker.

She simply reinvigorated my genuine disbelief and total lack of faith in my fellow humans.

You will never see me a believer in Truth and Justice. I just want people to admire what's in front of them.

Cingulate posted:

SedanChair posted:

It's a good idea. It would really be no different from Ali versus Tyson in Fight Night or whatever. Pro sports games already transgress against the boundary of time itself in order to construct fantasy scenarios; how is gender any more absurd or insurmountable a barrier?

Cingulate posted:

What does it imply that you're even asking for this? It seems like for you, equality entails that women are seen as just as physically capable, in every aspect, as men. The problem is that women are with regards to most physical competitions absolutely inferior to men, so this will not be true before massive cybernetics hit.

You're suggesting a wrong kind of equality ideal. The correct approach is to never give any credence to the sexist concept that physical superiority should form the basis of social rankings.

Cingulate posted:

What does it imply that you're even asking for this? It seems like for you, equality entails that women are seen as just as physically capable, in every aspect, as men. The problem is that women are with regards to most physical competitions absolutely inferior to men, so this will not be true before massive cybernetics hit.

You're suggesting a wrong kind of equality ideal. The correct approach is to never give any credence to the sexist concept that physical superiority should form the basis of social rankings.

SedanChair posted:

drat relax bro, your penis is safe.