(December 25, 2017 at 2:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't have an issue with your posts lol. It's mainly meanness that I can't stand, and you're not mean.

Awwww thanks! That's really nice of you to say!

Awe thank you! That was very pleasant of you to write!

cheers! Your statement to me was an especially lovely thing for you to communicate to me!

Lol!!

(December 25, 2017 at 11:58 am)Hammy Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 11:51 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Regardless if he is more offensive, there's still something to be said for being soft spoken. TJ is so loud as fuck-- I can barely take 5 minutes of him. Thunderf00t at least has some good sciencey stuff and some debunking vids that are worth watching.

I guess we find different things off-putting. I find the loudness of The Amazing Arsehole more like a natural YouTuber where it seems like every softspoken line from Thunderf00t contains an air of smugness that says "Damn I'm good aren't I? Look how smart I sound! I know science too! I'm better than everyone else! And I'm not even going to try to be funny or gimicky about it."

I guess I actually find loud obnoxious arrogance less annoying than smarmy quiet smug arrogance lol.

I guess we can agree they're both total buttlholes

Thunderfoot and TJ are not really even the height of MRA scum on youtube . The youtube manosphere has many a reprehensible citizen .





And someone has been brave enough to do a series on it.

(December 25, 2017 at 11:28 am)SaStrike Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 11:02 am)Grandizer Wrote: Study results trump your individual opinion that may or may not be partly dishonest. Regardless, your example involves one man vs. one woman. Hardly a conclusive example that proves your point.

Furthermore, bouncer is not a high status job anyway, so prob not a loss for either Shell or Thump.

You're just nitpicking in order to skew the stats into favouring the point you are trying to force. A job is a job, it was only an example anyway. Why not mention the many ads that require PA's or secretary which state female only? Had it said male only  I'm sure somehow those would be included in your range of things to point out. But all of a sudden it's "prob not a loss" (just one example of the excuses and selective logic made by both feminists and mra).

Actually, yes, I am nitpicking. Because my argument here isnt that women cant get relatively low-status jobs like secretary or nurse. Its that they are less likely to be CEOs or surgeons. And in the example you provided earlier, even in the case of a low status job like bouncer, you wouldve still gone for men over women in most cases. You were being selective yourself by conveniently selecting between two specific members.

(December 25, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 11:28 am)SaStrike Wrote: You're just nitpicking in order to skew the stats into favouring the point you are trying to force. A job is a job, it was only an example anyway. Why not mention the many ads that require PA's or secretary which state female only? Had it said male only  I'm sure somehow those would be included in your range of things to point out. But all of a sudden it's "prob not a loss" (just one example of the excuses and selective logic made by both feminists and mra).

Actually, yes, I am nitpicking. Because my argument here isnt that women cant get relatively low-status jobs like secretary or nurse. Its that they are less likely to be CEOs or surgeons. And in the example you provided earlier, even in the case of a low status job like bouncer, you wouldve still gone for men over women in most cases. You were being selective yourself by conveniently selecting between two specific members.

Perhaps women are "less likely" to be those things because less women WANT to be those things. I don't see why you would immediately rule that out as a possibility.

(December 25, 2017 at 2:15 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 2:13 pm)LastPoet Wrote: As it is your right to ignore. I can not.

Are there people you'd like to have on ignore?

Never had. When I say I cannot its because of my nature. If I think people are plain stupid, might just scroll past their posts. But given staff duties it becomes important to get in context to formulate a decision if a rule is being broken. Usually no.

Quote:Perhaps women are "less likely" to be those things because less women WANT to be those things. I don't see why you would immediately rule that out as a possibility.

This is overwhelmingly not the case . And social pressures to conform to societal standards overtly influence decisions of either sex. So pulling the" different life choices" card does not work.

(December 25, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 11:28 am)SaStrike Wrote: You're just nitpicking in order to skew the stats into favouring the point you are trying to force. A job is a job, it was only an example anyway. Why not mention the many ads that require PA's or secretary which state female only? Had it said male only  I'm sure somehow those would be included in your range of things to point out. But all of a sudden it's "prob not a loss" (just one example of the excuses and selective logic made by both feminists and mra).

Actually, yes, I am nitpicking. Because my argument here isnt that women cant get relatively low-status jobs like secretary or nurse. Its that they are less likely to be CEOs or surgeons. And in the example you provided earlier, even in the case of a low status job like bouncer, you wouldve still gone for men over women in most cases. You were being selective yourself by conveniently selecting between two specific members.

The bouncer example wasn't that serious.

I know there are less women in engineering as I personally saw this as a student and see it in the field. But it isn't because an even number of men and women applied for the job (as I said it is from college that the numbers were already like that). Unless you want women to apply for engineering jobs that they don't qualify for? As Cath_Lady said, it is most of the time the women's choice not to study it.

It can be nitpicked again as in WHY not as much women as men study it, so feminism has a point (and so does mra with other factors), but to say it's discrimination in job applications doesn't tell the full story.

I'm not saying there is NO discrimination, in any part of society there is. But feminism and MRA is like choosing what discrimination you prefer and then focusing and exaggerating on that. Feminism and MRA are good, just not the radical stuff. I don't get why the two seem to butt heads frequently and don't agree with eachother's existence (not all fems/mras, but I've seen it a lot, even in this thread)

Bullocks this is a tired rehatch of the "life choices argument " And while their is no legal way of keeping woman out of these fields. Their is a cultural one  . That does keep women from not taking the subject up in the first place .

As for the idea men are not becoming nurses once again that patriarchy as our society pressures men into taking certain professions . But the kicker is a great many MRA advocates are the ones pressuring men to take "masculine jobs " it's a vast part of MRA culture . While feminists overwhelmingly have no such qualms . So who is discriminating selectively again?

(December 25, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Because my argument here isnt that women cant get relatively low-status jobs like secretary or nurse.

Nursing is hardly a "low-status" job. It's difficult and thankless work, but it carries respect and salary here.