What's it like to be so autistic that you actually get upset when people say that men are taller than women, and can't understand that people mean "on average" when they say that?
I understand that in many cases people mean 'on average'. But the thing is that in many conversations that 'on average' part starts being a bit neglected.
The men larger than women thing is what some of us like to call 'an example'. An example can be an illustration that hopefully sheds light on a larger idea.
The men larger than women thing is what some of us like to call 'an example'. An example can be an illustration that hopefully sheds light on a larger idea.
Yes, it demonstrates the larger idea that you are autistic and wrong. As examples go it was a very good one, for doing that.
I understand that in many cases people mean 'on average'. But the thing is that in many conversations that 'on average' part starts being a bit neglected until the pure stereotype remains.
What I find interesting is that initially the question and the answer are perfectly symmetrical: one person asks why women are underrepresented in some field, another suggests that this might be because they are just less interested on average, and neither talks about all women.
But then you look at it and for some reason assume that the former and only the former actually does, freak out, and write a long response about how they are fundamentally wrong and therefore their response is wrong and therefore the question still stands and the answer is probably "sexism".
How about you follow your own advice about understanding that "women are less likely to be film directors to the point of grabbing a camera and filming Clerks" should not be interpreted as "all women"?
I didn't really freak out, I just wrote an observation in general about the way I sometimes see ideas shift from allegedly being about 'the average women' to 'women'. The balance of statistical understandings and the idea of 'the nature of things' happens to be a particular interest of mine, and this subject seemed to be fitting.
Besides, I wrote about a sentence
Women don't pursue leadership positions because they don't value their careers, unlike men
...which you need some effort to re-add "on average" to. That's also the point, they may have 'on average' in the back of their mind but the sentence starts living its own life.
Women don't pursue leadership positions because they don't value their careers, unlike men
...which you need some effort to re-add "on average" to.
The problem is, I'm pretty sure that you were aware of the context of that sentence, and within that context you weren't arguing in good faith. Here's how arguing in good faith would look like:
Alice: I wonder why there are so few women in leadership positions, I think it's because of the pervasive sexism.
Bob: Or maybe it's because women don't value their careers, unlike men.
/u/SteveThe7th: Here's the thing. You said "Women don't value their careers." This is wrong, you should've said "most women don't value their careers, that's why there are so few women in leadership positions", while the way you put it implies that there should be no women in leadership positions at all, which is obviously not true. But if we assume that only most women aren't interested, then that of course explains the observed situation very well.
Somehow I suspect that you wouldn't be caught dead making or just giving any credence to the "corrected" argument actually, now would you?
Sure, if I were talking to the person directly I wouldn't be so blunt and oratory. Being blunt is one of the perks of talking about stuff on another sub where there is a different context. You're right that if I were to say it to the person's face it would be a bad faith argument.
Somehow I suspect that you wouldn't be caught dead making or just giving any credence to the "corrected" argument actually, now would you?
You'd be wrong. I probably don't agree with the conclusions, but the statement as a whole is much better.
It allows the argument to breathe and we can nitpick over what % of women don't value their careers (what is "most"? 90%? 70%? 50.001%?) and how that same figure looks for men (are women 5% less likely to value their careers? 10%? 0.0001%?). Perhaps we can find other causes (socioeconomical) which have an influence on the %, too. Does age factor in? Does year of birth change the distribution?
You've moved the argument from simplistic stereotyping to a question which can be more comprehensively discussed.
Sure, if I were talking to the person directly I wouldn't be so blunt and oratory. Being blunt is one of the perks of talking about stuff on another sub where there is a different context. You're right that if I were to say it to the person's face it would be a bad faith argument.
Fair enough, though even ranting in abstract sort of promotes the lack of intellectual charity that, for a very egregious example, resulted in it becoming a "common knowledge" that James Damore wrote that women are bad at programming, and your rant would be much better directed at everyone who believes that.
It allows the argument to breathe and we can nitpick over what % of women don't value their careers
Idk, I think that it's the people who claim that the sole reason is sexism who should research that for starters. They've got a lot of money and they are supposed to be the ones most interested in diversity initiatives being actually effective rather than all for show.
I appreciate the irony of you calling me out on being too abstract when I complain about people being too abstract in their descriptions of gender behaviour. Probably I should have just pointed out a bit more that I did not mean my argument to be about the original film thing. I suppose I thought saying 'soap box' covered that.
My beef genuinely mostly is forgetting that individuals are statistical instead of have a nature. I think it is a genuinely problem within any debate about sexism, regardless of who is right or wrong.
Unfortunately a large part of the debate has to be about the role of society in shifting the distribution of what people care about and genes determining what people care about. Both are hard to prove statements and there isn't really a neutral point of view.
Probably I should have just pointed out a bit more that I did not mean my argument to be about the original film thing. I suppose I thought saying 'soap box' covered that.
Incidentally, that's called "grandstanding" and is strictly against SRD rules =)
Just some run-of-the-mill r/RedPill lolcow speging out and the rest of the thread attempting to correct him while occasionally laughing at his missing chromosome(s).
Don't worry, /u/matues49 is our resident neckbeard. Just tell him to neck himself and move on, he'll be euthanised soon after his parents take away his internet privileges and pull the plug.
Asking a question is the first step toward having to explain your beliefs. That's a big problem when you don't actually know why you believe something.
It's because people just REEEE at you muh diversity without ever thinking we don't need forced diversity, we need people willing and able to do the work.
All these idiots in the thread aren't just not understanding the guy asking why, they are all convinced we need diversity just for the sake of diversity.
yeah man, dont they get it? of course there arent more female directors, women dont give a fuck about that touchy-feely art stuff, theyre all analytical stemlords who just wanna look at circuit diagrams and shit all day.
/u/Pnnsnndlltnn - It is ambition alone. That's why some have been capable of doing it and others haven't. Either "we need more women directors" because women are inherently different, in which case, maybe most of them don't want to be a director, or don't have the ambition for it, or women are the same, in which case we don't need more of them because they bring in no additional perspective. You can pick whichever opinion you want and you reach the same conclusion: none of it matters. It doesn't matter who directs a movie. The director's job isn't even to bring "social perspective" to it. Maybe complain that there aren't more women writing scripts; you'd at least be a bit more on-point in your observations.
You keep saying there's sexist barriers that only affect women. But anyone can go buy a camera at a reasonable price. Anyone can rally their friends, hire local actors, write their own script, and learn to edit films. Software for doing so isn't unreasonable (or can be pirated) and it's the same stuff that the actual studios use. Films can be distributed free online. If you genuinely believe a woman's name on a film is a barrier to its success, use a pseudonym. It's never been easier to anonymously create your own film and distribute it. It's never been cheaper, either.
As for Hollywood? The place is a meatgrinder. It will take anyone who can make them a profit, and it will chew up and spit out everyone else. Do you really think the people in charge care about anything but money? Kathleen Kennedy is one of the most powerful people in the industry because she makes money.
You're delusional if you think there's barriers; I'd like to see you explain, step-by-step, what problems a woman who really wanted to be a director would face that a man in her position wouldn't.
I have absolutely no problem admitting that men, as a general rule, are biologically wired such that they don't find female-dominated professions as desirable. That's why there aren't as many male nurses or social workers or whatever. In fact, nobody has a problem admitting this.
I don't know why "women aren't as aggressive as men" is a forbidden opinion but "men aren't as nurturing as women" isn't.
Well, I do, but I don't know why people are this stupid, I mean.
ok i still don't see how you can see the disparity of women vs men as directors and evidence of systematic discrimination and think that it's all because "women don't want to be directors". like that doesn't even make any sense and yall are basically just using it to discredit any evidence of discrimination in hollywood. i get that this is an agendapost but it's not even good bc everyone in this thread (myself included) seems more triggered than either of the other two threads linked
Throughout most of history, women have been literally slaves, bought, bartered, bred, and beaten. They have been sold from one man to another specifically to be worked to death, unpaid, in the home or in childbed, at which point they would be replaced, or earlier than that if they were too independent minded or uppity, and could then be conveniently stored in an asylum. The very humanity of women was constantly questioned, her children not hers to keep, her labor unpaid and unappreciated and unending, without a bell at the end of a shift, her intellect forcibly arrested by lack of education, her sexuality sold to someone she had no part in choosing or just taken from her by rape, and now these dipshits get to pretend it never existed, women never worked at all. We aren't ever allowed to use the word slavery to describe the generational ownership of women, nor has anyone ever thought it wrong enough to have a war over it, and people accept it to the extent that many, even nice people, even those who don't live that way, still think that's the way things ought to be. That upper class women had less dangerous work doesn't mean they didn't work, and it doesn't mean their conditions reflected literally anyone else's situation.
I'm fucking sick and tired of hearing about how women lazed about while men invented everything. Men refused to admit the humanity of women or allow them to compete and worked and bred them to death for most of human history and this is still happening in some places and our VP would love it to happen again here so excuse me if it hurts their fee fees to have to tolerate the presence of a woman in the workplace.
Holy shit, this mentally retarded screed actually got upvoted in SRD. Nice to see it's still a hive of adult scene kids who think they're 10x smarter and more informed than they are. I wonder if this retard could name a single society where women as a whole were "literally slaves".
61 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-10-25
Buzzword is, itself, a buzzword now.
Snapshots:
This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is
movies thread - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is
Srd thread - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 nmx179 2017-10-25
u/SteveThe7th #NOTALLWOMEN lmao
1 SteveThe7th 2017-10-25
Yes, it is I, Steve the 7th, well known for such things as what-ever it is you are referencing.
1 nmx179 2017-10-25
soapbox time
What's it like to be so autistic that you actually get upset when people say that men are taller than women, and can't understand that people mean "on average" when they say that?
1 GeauxHouston22 2017-10-25
what's it like to shtink up /r/drama with your painfully unfunny agenda posts?
1 nunast 2017-10-25
That's a gigantic flame war in r/movies right now.
Is this the kind of amazing content you think will freshen up the smell?
1 GeauxHouston22 2017-10-25
that post is trash and it's still better than this one tbh fam
1 nunast 2017-10-25
I mean r/movies is lit up right now...it's full of drama.
1 nmx179 2017-10-25
Thanks for making your agenda-driven butthurt even more obvious, it wasn't quite yet visible from space 😊
1 nmx179 2017-10-25
Being able to trigger unfunny liberal agendacommenters like you with my $100% legit dramaposting feels pretty good, thanks for asking 😃😃😃
1 GeauxHouston22 2017-10-25
posting bussy would probably feel better...
1 nmx179 2017-10-25
Ebin meme!
1 gravely_offended 2017-10-25
literally kill yourself
1 ____________13 2017-10-25
Is such a thing even possible?
1 SteveThe7th 2017-10-25
I understand that in many cases people mean 'on average'. But the thing is that in many conversations that 'on average' part starts being a bit neglected.
The men larger than women thing is what some of us like to call 'an example'. An example can be an illustration that hopefully sheds light on a larger idea.
1 nmx179 2017-10-25
Yes, it demonstrates the larger idea that you are autistic and wrong. As examples go it was a very good one, for doing that.
1 SteveThe7th 2017-10-25
This is the part where I ask you if there's someone else I can talk with, for instance someone who is not so rude.
1 nmx179 2017-10-25
I can certainly understand why you'd prefer to talk to someone who doesn't correct your wrong opinions instead of someone who does.😸
1 SteveThe7th 2017-10-25
Oh, I gladly talk with people I disagree with. You're just a dick.
1 TheRootinTootinPutin 2017-10-25
Hi, I like puppies, and I think your opinion is retarded, but not yourself, necessarily.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
Shut the fuck up soap boy
1 SteveThe7th 2017-10-25
https://i.imgur.com/MEWraDA.gifv
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-10-25
Only if we have someone to talk to who's not so retarded
1 SteveThe7th 2017-10-25
Well, what a jolly bunch this sub is.
1 IneedSomeThrowaway 2017-10-25
You are talking with a /r/drama user. That means he's the autistic and retarded one.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-10-25
What I find interesting is that initially the question and the answer are perfectly symmetrical: one person asks why women are underrepresented in some field, another suggests that this might be because they are just less interested on average, and neither talks about all women.
But then you look at it and for some reason assume that the former and only the former actually does, freak out, and write a long response about how they are fundamentally wrong and therefore their response is wrong and therefore the question still stands and the answer is probably "sexism".
How about you follow your own advice about understanding that "women are less likely to be film directors to the point of grabbing a camera and filming Clerks" should not be interpreted as "all women"?
1 SteveThe7th 2017-10-25
I didn't really freak out, I just wrote an observation in general about the way I sometimes see ideas shift from allegedly being about 'the average women' to 'women'. The balance of statistical understandings and the idea of 'the nature of things' happens to be a particular interest of mine, and this subject seemed to be fitting.
Besides, I wrote about a sentence
...which you need some effort to re-add "on average" to. That's also the point, they may have 'on average' in the back of their mind but the sentence starts living its own life.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-10-25
The problem is, I'm pretty sure that you were aware of the context of that sentence, and within that context you weren't arguing in good faith. Here's how arguing in good faith would look like:
Somehow I suspect that you wouldn't be caught dead making or just giving any credence to the "corrected" argument actually, now would you?
1 SteveThe7th 2017-10-25
Sure, if I were talking to the person directly I wouldn't be so blunt and oratory. Being blunt is one of the perks of talking about stuff on another sub where there is a different context. You're right that if I were to say it to the person's face it would be a bad faith argument.
You'd be wrong. I probably don't agree with the conclusions, but the statement as a whole is much better.
It allows the argument to breathe and we can nitpick over what % of women don't value their careers (what is "most"? 90%? 70%? 50.001%?) and how that same figure looks for men (are women 5% less likely to value their careers? 10%? 0.0001%?). Perhaps we can find other causes (socioeconomical) which have an influence on the %, too. Does age factor in? Does year of birth change the distribution?
You've moved the argument from simplistic stereotyping to a question which can be more comprehensively discussed.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-10-25
Fair enough, though even ranting in abstract sort of promotes the lack of intellectual charity that, for a very egregious example, resulted in it becoming a "common knowledge" that James Damore wrote that women are bad at programming, and your rant would be much better directed at everyone who believes that.
Idk, I think that it's the people who claim that the sole reason is sexism who should research that for starters. They've got a lot of money and they are supposed to be the ones most interested in diversity initiatives being actually effective rather than all for show.
1 SteveThe7th 2017-10-25
I appreciate the irony of you calling me out on being too abstract when I complain about people being too abstract in their descriptions of gender behaviour. Probably I should have just pointed out a bit more that I did not mean my argument to be about the original film thing. I suppose I thought saying 'soap box' covered that.
My beef genuinely mostly is forgetting that individuals are statistical instead of have a nature. I think it is a genuinely problem within any debate about sexism, regardless of who is right or wrong.
Unfortunately a large part of the debate has to be about the role of society in shifting the distribution of what people care about and genes determining what people care about. Both are hard to prove statements and there isn't really a neutral point of view.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-10-25
Incidentally, that's called "grandstanding" and is strictly against SRD rules =)
1 SteveThe7th 2017-10-25
I don't think contributing my thoughts on a subject I care about closely related to the subject at hand is grandstanding.
1 ERRBODYGetAligned 2017-10-25
What's wrong with tall women?
1 Country-asshole 2017-10-25
They have to bend over more to suck my dick.
1 Matues49 2017-10-25
Yeah... not seeing what OP describes.
Just some run-of-the-mill r/RedPill lolcow speging out and the rest of the thread attempting to correct him while occasionally laughing at his missing chromosome(s).
1 nmx179 2017-10-25
You seem to have gotten lost on your way to your [home subreddit](r/subredditdrama) my fishy-smelling chum.
1 Matues49 2017-10-25
Thanks, for a while, I feared I had lost my way.
I'd redirect you back to your own home subreddit, but I suspect even r/Incels wouldn't be too happy to see you back.
1 nmx179 2017-10-25
Friendly reminder that m'lady is never going to fuck you no matter how much of a noble feminist gentlesir your reddit comments prove you to be.
We can only hope that when this realization finally sinks in you don't resort to rape and sexual assault like every other manfem does.
1 nunast 2017-10-25
He's a notorious white knight for Ed Butteredtoast. Check out the Ed thread.
1 Matues49 2017-10-25
Your meme-speak is older than all those meds you've neglected to take. Step up.
1 John_Kvetch 2017-10-25
Don't worry, /u/matues49 is our resident neckbeard. Just tell him to neck himself and move on, he'll be euthanised soon after his parents take away his internet privileges and pull the plug.
1 glmox 2017-10-25
1 kryonik 2017-10-25
The guy's not necessarily wrong but he phrases some of his comments super poorly.
1 SonyXboxNintendo11 2017-10-25
I love how a simple "Why?" makes a rain of downvotes fall over him. Asking is too much for certain people.
1 SpectroSpecter 2017-10-25
Asking a question is the first step toward having to explain your beliefs. That's a big problem when you don't actually know why you believe something.
1 Sophistrycated 2017-10-25
I thought we talked about not downvoting these people.
1 icyhat 2017-10-25
So, it's like a cult?
1 Thulean-Dragon 2017-10-25
I further like how no one is able to prove him wrong and resorts to changes the subject.
1 Metatron58 2017-10-25
It's because people just REEEE at you muh diversity without ever thinking we don't need forced diversity, we need people willing and able to do the work.
All these idiots in the thread aren't just not understanding the guy asking why, they are all convinced we need diversity just for the sake of diversity.
1 glmox 2017-10-25
yeah man, dont they get it? of course there arent more female directors, women dont give a fuck about that touchy-feely art stuff, theyre all analytical stemlords who just wanna look at circuit diagrams and shit all day.
1 nanonan 2017-10-25
You'll find plenty of female directors in theatre. Perhaps it is the technical aspects of filmmaking that selects for men.
1 TheCodexx 2017-10-25
/u/Pnnsnndlltnn - It is ambition alone. That's why some have been capable of doing it and others haven't. Either "we need more women directors" because women are inherently different, in which case, maybe most of them don't want to be a director, or don't have the ambition for it, or women are the same, in which case we don't need more of them because they bring in no additional perspective. You can pick whichever opinion you want and you reach the same conclusion: none of it matters. It doesn't matter who directs a movie. The director's job isn't even to bring "social perspective" to it. Maybe complain that there aren't more women writing scripts; you'd at least be a bit more on-point in your observations.
You keep saying there's sexist barriers that only affect women. But anyone can go buy a camera at a reasonable price. Anyone can rally their friends, hire local actors, write their own script, and learn to edit films. Software for doing so isn't unreasonable (or can be pirated) and it's the same stuff that the actual studios use. Films can be distributed free online. If you genuinely believe a woman's name on a film is a barrier to its success, use a pseudonym. It's never been easier to anonymously create your own film and distribute it. It's never been cheaper, either.
As for Hollywood? The place is a meatgrinder. It will take anyone who can make them a profit, and it will chew up and spit out everyone else. Do you really think the people in charge care about anything but money? Kathleen Kennedy is one of the most powerful people in the industry because she makes money.
You're delusional if you think there's barriers; I'd like to see you explain, step-by-step, what problems a woman who really wanted to be a director would face that a man in her position wouldn't.
1 SpectroSpecter 2017-10-25
I have absolutely no problem admitting that men, as a general rule, are biologically wired such that they don't find female-dominated professions as desirable. That's why there aren't as many male nurses or social workers or whatever. In fact, nobody has a problem admitting this.
I don't know why "women aren't as aggressive as men" is a forbidden opinion but "men aren't as nurturing as women" isn't.
Well, I do, but I don't know why people are this stupid, I mean.
1 lincoln1222 2017-10-25
ok i still don't see how you can see the disparity of women vs men as directors and evidence of systematic discrimination and think that it's all because "women don't want to be directors". like that doesn't even make any sense and yall are basically just using it to discredit any evidence of discrimination in hollywood. i get that this is an agendapost but it's not even good bc everyone in this thread (myself included) seems more triggered than either of the other two threads linked
1 Country-asshole 2017-10-25
Why do you hate freedom so much?
1 Atimo3 2017-10-25
Saying that women should be allowed to to stuff is restricting Harvey Weinstein freedom.
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-10-25
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
1 TheRootinTootinPutin 2017-10-25
fire bitmoji fam, you even got the beard right
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-10-25
:)
1 SethRichOrDieTryin 2017-10-25
They don't even have to be actors as long as the women don't know you're filming them.
1 ason 2017-10-25
Holy shit, this mentally retarded screed actually got upvoted in SRD. Nice to see it's still a hive of adult scene kids who think they're 10x smarter and more informed than they are. I wonder if this retard could name a single society where women as a whole were "literally slaves".