My Theory About Why Feminism is Currently Irrelevent to Millenials

[JurisDictum]

Pearson was doing damn good in that Cathy Newman interview...until it got the part where he had to admit that he was comparing trans protestors to Mao Zedong...and then obviously had to lie that this wasn't done to stir up controversy.

You can even see him fire up a bit when he starts talking about the THE LEFT TRYING TO DICTATE LANGUAGE!!

An acorn isn't an oak tree. And these bitches are no Mao Zedong. The segue from his lobster comments was masterful too.

Mao would never put up with any of this modern identity politics shit in his country*...and there is no parallel. If 1 women out of 100 men score the same on the tests...then there is 3 women and 297 men in that Chinese classroom.

That's how Mao rolled...that's how it still works.

He's also wrong that power doesn't make you happy...just because you have to cycle through partners doesn't mean you aren't happy as a clam. Serotonin make you happy, exerting power gives creates serotonin.

*He supported 2nd wave feminists concepts like everyone with half a brain in the 60s. The modern identity politics movement is a bastardization of identity politics as they existed in leftwing thought in 1800's-early 1900's.

[Mblake81]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So confucius say

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[JurisDictum]

I've completely replaced getting high with working out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izBKzh1Ni6A

[Mblake81]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've completely replaced getting high with working out

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[NachtMystium]

Women do not need the approval of men to get involved in STEM fields. I will even argue, even if they were "discouraged" into applying to STEM fields(since when have you heard a modern man discourage a woman into going into this field? in fact it's the opposite).

On another note, gender roles have done nothing but good for society. Scientifically speaking, gender roles as they are now, are paramount to happiness and social functionality.

Luxury as it creeps into the "Strong men make good times, good times create weak men" I feel we're going into this phase and we will repeat it.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by NachtMystium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Women do not need the approval of men to get involved in STEM fields. I will even argue, even if they were "discouraged" into applying to STEM fields(since when have you heard a modern man discourage a woman into going into this field? in fact it's the opposite).

On another note, gender roles have done nothing but good for society. Scientifically speaking, gender roles as they are now, are paramount to happiness and social functionality.

Luxury as it creeps into the "Strong men make good times, good times create weak men" I feel we're going into this phase and we will repeat it.

You go do labor, I’ll stay home and clean and play with the kids and be my own boss!


Fast forward 40 years and invent the desk job:woman gets on internet “ARG THE PATRIARCHY ARG MEN ARG WOMAN RUN THE WORLD!”

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Loramin you ever seen a black baby dance? You ever seen a horse give birth to a little baby horse? This is called genetic inheritance and it has to do with evolution. It’s how animals pass on survival instincts.

Wow Mick, that's a new low even for you. There is absolutely no science whatsoever behind your "genetic black baby dance" theory: it's pure and simple ignorant racism (just like craniometry).

Originally Posted by NachtMystium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Women do not need the approval of men to get involved in STEM fields. I will even argue, even if they were "discouraged" into applying to STEM fields(since when have you heard a modern man discourage a woman into going into this field? in fact it's the opposite).

On another note, gender roles have done nothing but good for society. Scientifically speaking, gender roles as they are now, are paramount to happiness and social functionality.

Luxury as it creeps into the "Strong men make good times, good times create weak men" I feel we're going into this phase and we will repeat it.

"Nothing but good" huh? So the women in Arab countries who can't leave the house without a male guardian ... that's good? Or the fact that women have been male property for most of human history ... that's good? Maybe if you're the gender that gets to do the owning, but not so much for the people being owned.

As for men discouraging women from STEM ... obviously it's not the way it was back in (say) the 20's, when men actually told women "you can't do _____." Back then it was explicit; nowadays it's (usually) far more subtle

Try to imagine if you went into a classroom and it was 95% female: would you feel out of place? What if every class in your major was like that?

Or what about long before you go to college: think about all the female scientists and engineers in movies. Studies have shown that only around 20% of scientists in movies are female, and even when women scientists are shown they're more often foils to male protagonists. And then there's:

Originally Posted by https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/24170/title/Female-scientists-on-the-big-screen/

Flicker has written about the cliché of the male scientist, who comes in various guises. He can be a hard and diligent worker, sometimes obsessively enthusiastic ... he tends not to be particularly attractive, typically resplendent in glasses, a lab coat, and tangled hair .... But it's with looks that the discrepancy becomes really obvious. The female film scientist tends to be gorgeous. In Flicker's words, she is "remarkably beautiful and, compared with her qualifications, unbelievably young. She has a model's body -- thin, athletic, perfect -- is dressed provocatively and is sometimes 'distorted' by wearing glasses."

In other words, there are no men saying "you can't be a scientist", there's just a whole society teaching us lessons through the movies we watch, lessons like "women don't belong in science, they belong looking pretty".

Thankfully, society is complex and we've evolved to the point where we also teach conflicting lessons like "grrrl power", which is why we have the women we do have in STEM (vs. almost none back in the 20's). We've made progress, but women are also still far under-represented, and it's not because "the man" is literally keeping women out of STEM, it's because of our society and the lessons it teaches us.

[Wonkie]

we need strong men like nacht in the fight for the right to say slurs online

[JurisDictum]

Men have dominated women historically because men are stronger and scary to women on a physical level. Even really tough women are scared of men when it comes to the prospect of getting a fist fight.

Until it was considered socially unacceptable to hit women under the vast majority of circumstances...women were just too damn scared. Even after that, high status men are scary on a social level (men experience this too).

So you don't need to know anything about the particular social circumstances to determine why women were not as accomplished historically as men. They weren't allowed to be.

Women are wired to appreciate protectors in the way men are wired to seek out young hot-bodied women. This is where some of the 3rd wave breaks down...because they don't want to admit this..and they want to say its all society.

None of that shit has anything to do with whether women want to be a doctor or not though...incidently they make great doctors.

But capitalism has created a problem...the problem is that men can't play protector for their dr. girlfriend/wife because they don't make half her money. The few guys that do are overloaded with options....not to mention fucking busy and have a tendency to prefer a more home-bound partner making sure the domestic scene doesn't go to hell.

That's kind of on women too...they interpret money as protection. That's their choice not their male counterparts.

The aside to all this that's confusing...a red herring IMO. Is that women generally don't seem to want to:

1) work with things (they tend to rather work with people)

2) devote themselves 100% to career...while only a small % of men do this...its like millions more then women in a planet with as many people as we have.

IDK if this is or is not social tbh. It is still just a tendency...lots of women work with things and can't stand people.

Another thing to confuse everyone is that some men have brains more like women and some women have brains more like men.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Men have dominated women historically because men are stronger and scary to women on a physical level.

and women historically have enjoyed the benifit of men taking care of them for hundreds of thousands of years since we began evolving.

which is why when someone says biologically there are reasons why women are not in leadership positions in society are true.

Genetic inheritance is science, its not absolute. LIke a midget may not give birth to a midget.

which is why fat short tempered girls who need to work to live comfortably try to remind us that its not biological. Which is half true, its not ALL biological. But most of it is, but thats an aside.

The reality is you just have to work within the system. Especially when you enter the work force.

Like men do.

But instead they form a union and try to discredit mens accoplishments and try to create a false narrative that men are out to get them and hold them back, when in reality we'd love to have more wome nin the work force, get over yourself and apply yourself while you do it please.

also juris is right, and his info comes from the same source as the google doc guy