H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or better yet: The left-wing desperately tried to pretend that this sort of thing isn't really happening and that it's all made up!

 Peregrine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or better yet: The left-wing desperately tried to pretend that this sort of thing isn't really happening and that it's all made up!

It isn't made up, but it's real in the sense of "some random bloggers on the internet say things occasionally". Nobody with any real power is saying things like "facts in science are evil patriarchy, down with the scientific method". You only get that nonsense if you spend a lot of time looking for obscure sources that would struggle to get double-digit readers before being thrown up on some conservative new site as an example of everything that is wrong with society.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Considering I've personally run into this argument TWICE, in person, 15 years and 150 miles apart, I'd say it's a little more mainstream than you think.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
If it's common, you wouldn't mind providing some more evidence then?

Or are you just "outraged"?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
If it's common, you wouldn't mind providing some more evidence then?

Or are you just "outraged"?

Nice try at deflection. You know how to use google,, don't you?


It's not up to me to do your research for you just to prove a point in this thread. The information can be found easily online and from a variety of sites.


And no, I'm not "outraged". Just saddened to see our education system sink further down the crapper. First, we had to fight the racists in the education system in the 1950's. Then the wanna-be revolutionaries disrupting and rioting on campuses in the 1960's. Then the Jerry Falwell types in the 1980's. And now, the regressive leftists in the so-called "current year". What next, I wonder?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Nice try at deflection. You know how to use google,, don't you?

 General Annoyance wrote:
I don't know what the "right wing outrage machine" is

 cuda1179 wrote:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-science-sexist-not-subjective/#disqus_thread

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
No. You "get real". There is no burden of proof on my part for something that anybody, who spends any decent amount of time on the internet, should already know. The information, from both sides of the fence, is easy to find with no effort on your part. I shouldn't have to do your homework for you. I state how I see it, and if you are curious enough, you read up on it yourself. Simple as that.

Now, if we were talking about claims relating to little known facts or obscure topics, then yes, I would provide sources. But not in this case. I'm not debating. Nor am I trying to change anybody's mind, because people tend to be too balkanized nowadays to make it worth the effort (admittedly, sometimes, myself included). So, it would be a waste of time.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
It's not a matter of BELIEF. It's a matter of FACTS and common knowledge. If you don't believe in something that is well documented, then that's your choice. It's not up to me to correct your willful ignorance, since it would be a waste of my time. You are a big boy. If you are interested, look it up yourself. Simple as that.

But it appears to be a knee-jerk reaction on your part (though correct me if I'm wrong) to counter anything that conflicts with your political worldview, as some sort of mythological "right wing outrage machine".

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
And I stand by my statement regarding your worldview. You demonstrated it in the past. You demonstrate it in this thread. Anything that conflicts with your worldview is part of the "right wing outrage machine" or right wing propaganda/hysteria mongering. Against somebody who runs operates entirely with "muh feelz", you can't change their minds. And I have no patience for circular nonsense.

 redleger wrote:
Rather than rejecting this insulting view of women and minorities’ intellectual and rational capacities, Parson uses it as a pretext to advocate that science classes abandon the scientific method itself (which rests on the assumption that truth is unchanging and knowable) and all other “male” forms of oppression, such as “weed-out courses, courses that grade on a curve, a competitive environment, reliance on lecture as a teaching method, an individualistic culture, and comprehensive exams.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, she isnt WRONG, for along time people have used science and fact to further prejudices and sexism.
For example, remember when science said the black where where inferior?
Or when science thought that women where more likely to be hysterical?
Or when the science said homosexuality was a disease?
Science and "Facts" are very much often used to disparage people.
Hell, its being done TODAY with trans-people

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, she isnt WRONG, for along time people have used science and fact to further prejudices and sexism.
For example, remember when science said the black where where inferior?
Or when science thought that women where more likely to be hysterical?
Or when the science said homosexuality was a disease?
Science and "Facts" are very much often used to disparage people.
Hell, its being done TODAY with trans-people

 LordofHats wrote:
Something Third Wave Feminism spends a lot of time on is trying to differentiate what is "fact" from what is "thought to be fact." That's the essence of the paper in the OP article, not that the OP article seems to have read it. There are countless instances where things that are not fact have been taken as fact, because at the time they were fact they were seen as common sense.

 LordofHats wrote:

Welcome the post-modernism. The byproduct of centuries of bull gak being peddled as indisputable truth, and the ongoing questioning of present truth's reality.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
To be fair, grading on a curve is a bad idea regardless of sex and/or gender.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I think it's because even though the bulk of the kids probably aren't much smarter/dumber from one year to the next, the top 5% of the class can vary a lot and that filters down as students study together.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
But considering that many "old school" feminists of the "rationalist" school reject much of third wave feminism's dogma is very telling.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

"Empirical" is a generous term for it.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

The reasons I consider the "Third Wave" as dogmatic is because it lacks the clear goals and direction of the first and (for the most part) second waves.

 feeder wrote:
The regressive left and the alt-right share are two sides of the same ridiculous, irrationally outraged coin.

The main difference between the two is, while the regressive left has random bloggers with triple digit readers as their champions, the alt-right has the GoP nominee as their banner bearer. And he can be described as a serial con man and pathological liar at best. At best.

 Ahtman wrote:
We are are all in the top 5% (or 1%) on the internet. Everyone here is brilliant, everyone else is dumb.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
We are are all in the top 5% (or 1%) on the internet. Everyone here is brilliant, everyone else is dumb.

I'm just amazed when I remember to wear pants.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
"Empirical" is a generous term for it. The reasons I consider the "Third Wave" as dogmatic is because it lacks the clear goals and direction of the first and (for the most part) second waves. It's nothing more than an aimless continuation of the second wave, and is a product of an age where young women grew up under the fruits of past feminist activism, the fall-out from the counter-culture and consumerist/pop culture of the 1970's and 80's. In other words, they try to parrot the slogans and causes of the second wave feminists in a time when those issues are either less relevant, or irrelevant, and has too much of a consumerist/pop culture vibe to it to be taken seriously. Add sexual and identity politics into the mix, and it has degraded into a jumbled mess in my mind. And out of this comes the nonsensical garbage of so-called "fourth wave feminism" of the internet/social media age.

Another issue I see with the "third wave" is that many who identify with it don't consider the idea of "equity" feminism, much in the same way many in the second wave tended to do, and overly focuses on "sexual feminism" or "gender feminism". The ideals of feminism, during the first and second waves, has been sold as a movement for equality, and that is a goal that I very much support. But instead of that, we get conspiracy theories regarding some nebulous "patriarchy" that works to keep women submissive and under the thumb of males (who supposedly have an innate hatred and contempt for women) in the West even today, continued infusion of radical thought, as opposed to rationalism, too much emphasis of post-structuralist "queer theory" in modern feminism,too much cross-fusion of identity politics, and idea of equality being buried in post-modernist rhetoric.

 sebster wrote:
The next year I got a score that gave me a certificate of participation. Mum doesn't ever mention that

 feeder wrote:
Carrying on the MRA discussion from the politics thread, a good portion of the angst around men's rights and their place in society comes from the provisional nature of manhood.

Basically, a woman's womanhood is absolute, it is implicit in her status as a woman.

Contrast that with a man's manhood, which must be earned. Things like "man card' , "man up", and 'throw like a girl", instruct boys that their status as a man is always in jeopardy.

sirlynchmob wrote:
oh the LOL, so after I get done showing hats how wrong he is,

There you go, the world would be a much more peaceful place with less women.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Carrying on the MRA discussion from the politics thread, a good portion of the angst around men's rights and their place in society comes from the provisional nature of manhood.

Basically, a woman's womanhood is absolute, it is implicit in her status as a woman.

Contrast that with a man's manhood, which must be earned. Things like "man card' , "man up", and 'throw like a girl", instruct boys that their status as a man is always in jeopardy.

Jeez put on your big girl panties already... hahahahahahah

I think "Men's rights" need to be a defined a bit here. I believe in equality before the law. I am confused about what other rights we are talking about.

You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. You have the right to disco. You have the right to fight for your right to party.

"Men's Rights" is an umbrella term referring to many varied groups that broadly seek to advance causes that pertain specifically to men.

sirlynchmob wrote:
oh the LOL, so after I get done showing hats how wrong he is, I come across this on my facebook feed. it goes along with feminists and science so I'd thought I'd share:

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/men-commit-more-violent-crimes-when-they-are-surrounded-by-women-claims-study/

Spoiler:

Men Commit More Violent Crimes When They Are Surrounded By Women, Claims Study

Contrary to what many people may expect, men are actually less violent and much better behaved when in each other’s company than when outnumbered by women, according to a study published last week in the journal Human Nature.

The study authors set out to investigate the assumption that societies with more men than women would suffer from “elevated levels of aggression driven by a glut of testosterone-fueled, unmarried men.” However, somewhat surprisingly, they found the exact opposite to be true, discovering that violent crime committed by males actually rises when women are in the numerical ascendancy.

To conduct their investigation, the researchers used data from the 2010 US Census to determine the sex ratio in each of the country’s 3,082 counties. They then cross-referenced this with figures obtained from the FBI in order to examine how these ratios correlated with levels of violent crimes between men – such as murders and assaults – and sexual crimes like rape, prostitution, and other sexual offenses.

“We find rates of homicide, aggravated assault, rape, sex offenses, and prostitution/commercial vice to be more common in counties with more women than men,” explain the authors, adding that “counties with more men have lower rates of crime and violent behavior.” These findings, they say, “challenge conventional claims of male excess leading to elevated levels of violence.”

Using “mating market theory,” the team explain these results by suggesting that violence should not be considered an inherent characteristic of “maleness,” but is instead used only when doing so brings “reproductive payoffs”.

For instance, they claim that in societies in which women are rare, men who are lucky enough to have a wife or girlfriend have to invest more in their relationships in order to hold on to their partners, and are therefore more likely to settle down and live a family life.

In contrast, when women are more abundant, this theory states that men are likely to act more promiscuously and therefore come into regular competition with each other over females, often leading to violence.

The researchers say their findings are supported by the existing literature on the subject, with studies revealing that prostitution and trafficking of women in China tend to be less common in areas where men outnumber women.

Expanding on their results, the study authors warn against “'tough on crime' policies in highly policed areas of the United States,” where soaring rates of male incarceration are skewing population ratios, resulting in female-dominated communities and potentially encouraging the very sorts of violence these policies are supposedly trying to combat.

There you go, the world would be a much more peaceful place with less women.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
oh the LOL, so after I get done showing hats how wrong he is, I come across this on my facebook feed. it goes along with feminists and science so I'd thought I'd share:

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/men-commit-more-violent-crimes-when-they-are-surrounded-by-women-claims-study/

Spoiler:

Men Commit More Violent Crimes When They Are Surrounded By Women, Claims Study

Contrary to what many people may expect, men are actually less violent and much better behaved when in each other’s company than when outnumbered by women, according to a study published last week in the journal Human Nature.

The study authors set out to investigate the assumption that societies with more men than women would suffer from “elevated levels of aggression driven by a glut of testosterone-fueled, unmarried men.” However, somewhat surprisingly, they found the exact opposite to be true, discovering that violent crime committed by males actually rises when women are in the numerical ascendancy.

To conduct their investigation, the researchers used data from the 2010 US Census to determine the sex ratio in each of the country’s 3,082 counties. They then cross-referenced this with figures obtained from the FBI in order to examine how these ratios correlated with levels of violent crimes between men – such as murders and assaults – and sexual crimes like rape, prostitution, and other sexual offenses.

“We find rates of homicide, aggravated assault, rape, sex offenses, and prostitution/commercial vice to be more common in counties with more women than men,” explain the authors, adding that “counties with more men have lower rates of crime and violent behavior.” These findings, they say, “challenge conventional claims of male excess leading to elevated levels of violence.”

Using “mating market theory,” the team explain these results by suggesting that violence should not be considered an inherent characteristic of “maleness,” but is instead used only when doing so brings “reproductive payoffs”.

For instance, they claim that in societies in which women are rare, men who are lucky enough to have a wife or girlfriend have to invest more in their relationships in order to hold on to their partners, and are therefore more likely to settle down and live a family life.

In contrast, when women are more abundant, this theory states that men are likely to act more promiscuously and therefore come into regular competition with each other over females, often leading to violence.

The researchers say their findings are supported by the existing literature on the subject, with studies revealing that prostitution and trafficking of women in China tend to be less common in areas where men outnumber women.

Expanding on their results, the study authors warn against “'tough on crime' policies in highly policed areas of the United States,” where soaring rates of male incarceration are skewing population ratios, resulting in female-dominated communities and potentially encouraging the very sorts of violence these policies are supposedly trying to combat.

There you go, the world would be a much more peaceful place with less women.

But it is still men causing the violence and doing so in order to better their odds of "reproductive payoffs" so the problem still seems to center around men and our dastardly devious dongs.

Interesting about the "tough on crime" policies, though.

 Frazzled wrote:



I think "Men's rights" need to be a defined a bit here. I believe in equality before the law. I am confused about what other rights we are talking about.

You have the right to disco.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:



I think "Men's rights" need to be a defined a bit here. I believe in equality before the law. I am confused about what other rights we are talking about.

"Men's Rights" is an umbrella term referring to many varied groups that broadly seek to advance causes that pertain specifically to men.

Like all things that are vaguely political, it has been in large part overrun by awful, horrible people.

You have the right to disco.

From my cold, dead platform boots!

 feeder wrote:
Well, yeah, pretty much. Hence why I said it has been largely overrun by awful, horrible people.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I've got the impression that the MRA is generally more of an anti-women movement.

sirlynchmob wrote:


I see a lot that's objectionable, we have one womans opinion with no data to back it up.

sirlynchmob wrote:


who cares if it's a dissertation or not? does that make any difference?

What exactly is the feminist research method?

and to answer her question "are stem syllabi gendered?" the only conclusion that can be reached is "maybe, but only at that one school" if we were to be generous and ignore her data collection methods.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I see a lot that's objectionable, we have one womans opinion with no data to back it up. Where's the case study on how the language used discourages anyone from taking those courses, where the trial program to test out new wording?

sirlynchmob wrote:
That was my point, if you can't disprove the point, nor make a coherent one, just slander the one not agreeing eh?