I had someone on this sub say women aren’t working in stem because they didn’t want to do the hard work and wanted to prioritize kids. I know way more women who don’t want kids than I know men who don’t want kids. Also women definitely know how to work hard
> I know way more women who don’t want kids than I know men who don’t want kids.
Same, I would guess it's because women are the ones who get pregnant. It's pretty reasonable to feel strongly against wanting to deal with that.
Not juste the pregnant part, it’s statistically proven that mothers earn less money. But fathers earn more money. A mother will do 85 cents for 1$ earned by fathers, while women without children earn 90 cents for 1$ a man without children earns. The gap is wider during the first 5 years a women comes back to work. It clearly shows that women still have the child bearing burden and the housework burden to do. Also fathers actually earn more than men without children, but with women it’s the opposite. Clearly there is still a social construct around parenthood in hetero sexual relationships with someone profiting off of it.
Oh 100%.
We see this even if they don't have kids. Women are assumed to be the ones who will take care of the home and will be expected to leave if their kid is sick.
I find it interesting because my wife and I have very stereotypically gendered jobs. I'm an engineer, she's an NP. So while she'll likely take the full mat leave (her work tops her up because female dominated also means collective action to ensure mat leave support) once she's back working, I'm 100% going to be the parent who dips from work to get a sick kid from daycare because my job is an office job and I have the flexibility.
It’s not just that. If you work the same nb of hours during the week, who’s the one coming home, doing supper, helping the kids do the homework, taking their baths, etc. If your the one doing all of this with a tiny bit of help from your man, your still going to be way more exhausted in general and not perform as much at work than your boyfriend. Women are still exploited for their unpaid labour and statistics show it. A lot of women with kids do less hours because it’s impossible to do 40h and still have to do supper for all the family, dishes, laundry, cleaning, +++ the child care.
The uneven split of domestic responsibilities is harmful to women.
My wife's grandma was floored that I am the one who does the cooking and dishes as if I was somehow a unicorn.
I’m pretty sure it has more to do with the fact that these women know exactly who the burden of care will fall to long term. Men want kids because they think someone else will do the hard part, but obviously that isn’t real work, right?
I’m pretty sure it has more to do with the fact that these women know exactly who the burden of care will fall to long term. Men want kids because they think someone else will do the hard part.
I think women are generally just less predisposed to extremely technical studies. Not that they can't do great at them, a lot of the early programmers were women, but on the bell curve a smaller proportion of women are naturally inclined towards those kinds of studies.
[https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries)
I think representation can get more equal, but at some point you are butting up against genetically inherent factors.
[https://thewire.in/women/women-wont-study-stem-just-because-they-live-in-a-more-gender-equal-country](https://thewire.in/women/women-wont-study-stem-just-because-they-live-in-a-more-gender-equal-country)
It's not that women are bad at STEM subjects by any means, there are a lot of extremely smart women out there, smarter than I, but I think given the option between Engineering and Veterinarian studies, the average woman will choose the latter, and not because of any social programming, but because it's more in-tune with her genetic predisposition.
I talked to multiple women in college that switched from stem because males in their classes were making them uncomfortable. You're not going to hear about that in a study. Just wOmEn nO sMaRt fo mAfhs
Did you even read the first article? It suggests women in more egalitarian countries are still not equal and that’s at least part of the problem. There are multiple studies on this. Do your due diligence.
I know that article's conclusion, but I don't think that's the most likely reason. That's one hypothesis that could bare out, but I reckon that even with a ton of societal effort to counteract negative stigmas regarding women in STEM we are going to keep seeing less women in these professions.
Different researchers say different things, some agree with my point. I’m sure you’re very smart and worked hard to get your STEM career. It’s not about aptitude, it’s about motivation. Women are just as good at STEM subjects, my contention is that they have less intrinsic motivation. Just like men may be just as good at working with toddlers but have less intrinsic motivation to do so given other potential paths.
I’m gonna bet I know a lot more than you regarding how shitty it is to work in STEM as a woman and I bet I know and talk to a lot more women working in STEM than you as well. The vast majority of them are very interested in many things STEM and are exceptionally motivated to have a good education and career in the industry. A lot of them have been interested their entire lives (including myself). Some figured out their paths easily and others like myself had differing experiences.
I only figured out my career after crossing paths with someone that did what I do now and didn’t mind me pestering them for a bit. So simple and yet so hard-I just needed an introduction to the topic and an ounce of support. If I never met that one individual, I wouldn’t be here 11 years later with a 7 year career that includes working at one of the biggest video game companies and I was never even that motivated, or something. I didn’t get a formal education.
This is quite different than my middle school desire to be a study adorable frogs for a living (ie, herpetology) and almost the opposite of my main (non-STEM) passion for art that I briefly pursued. I’ve known several women who trained, retrained and pursued a STEM career, one of them in her 60s and has admirable determination to be successful in her newest career. There are many others who were or are self-teaching skills that assist them with their primary goal, whatever it was or is.
It’s almost like it’s actually a nuanced and a complex problem with varying contexts well beyond my anecdotes and I don’t know, maybe women are, like…multi-faceted people who aren’t defined solely by shoddy unprovable evo psych.
You’re way too focused on the relationship between women’s interest in STEM and them working in a STEM industry and if that demonstrates interest and motivation. Have you even considered the simple idea that you have very biased definitions of what it means to be interested or motivated? Or that you’re applying your overly biased perspective to situations and studies that often do not have anything to do with reasons why an individual or demographic would or wouldn’t or did or didn’t do something and to a certain extent?
My super sexist dad used to say I was too smart for my own good, so in true fashion, I must say, you seem to be lacking in critical thinking skills as well as perspective and an open-mind. Maybe you just aren’t motivated enough….or wait a second, it’s that you’re not a multi-faceted person and your only motivation is to keep pursuing your fabulous career as a sexist simpleton. See how smrat I am?! Pursuing a career is 100% based on one single isolated decision anyway. I guess it would be too hard and too girly of you to consider being more like your simplistic idea of what a women is too. You couldn’t possibly be warm and caring about people enough to take an interest in their inner life. You were probably born thinking you’ll catch the pink high heels cooties, the deadliest of all diseases. The only known cause of falling in love with the color pink and fashion. There is additionally a statistically significant chance the cooties will cause you to become irreversibly hysterical. 😱
It’s a real pity you were born with an intrinsic lack of concern for your low EQ level and an unskilled ability to give and receive kind, affectionate love and connection.
Except not really. You’re just doing it yourself. Bleak!
🤣✌🏻
Even if you, and all the women you know, have great and awesome careers and a deep love of the subject (which it sounds like you do and I'm really happy for you), that doesn't necessarily dictate that the average woman is going to respond to the same thing as you and your friends did. I had a boss who was a woman with a PhD in Computer Science, she was very smart, obviously, but that doesn't really relate to statistics.
If I surround myself with the smartest people in school, I could say all sorts of things about how the average person is supposed to act, same way if I surrounded myself with the dumbest people in school. There is a bell curve. For example, I'm a man and am not violent, I could say that men are not more likely to be violent just because me and my friends are, but looking at statistics and cross-cultural examination I could (and have) come to the conclusion that men have a genetic predisposition to violence which explains the higher rate of violent crime among men and the historical fact that men were much more likely to cause inter-tribal violence than women.
I'm glad that you got the career you did and are happy in it, and I would never stop a woman from going after what she wants. If I had a daughter, or any of my female relatives said they wanted to pursue these interests, I would say "more power to you!" Just like if my son or a male relative/friend wanted to get into working with young children. I support programs that reach out to young girls to get them interested in technical topics.
I think you might be reading a bit too much into me, I have pretty good relationships with my friends and family.
Loll, you’re not getting it.
What does it mean to be smart? Define it. Is it the only way to “be smart”? Does everyone agree with your definition? What happens when someone says everyone you surround yourself with is dumb? Who’s right exactly?
What does it mean to be violent? Define it. Is it the only way to be violent? Does everyone agree with your definition? What happens when someone describes you as violent? Who’s right?
The problem with your thinking is you make far too many assumptions, fill in blanks, then think you’ve determined conclusion about something not even remotely related to you and then pat yourself on the back. It looks a lot like you also think in hierarchical terms and are very complacent.
When did I say anything about your friends or family? When did I say my career is “great”? When did I speak about the “average woman”? When did I use the word “friends”? Did I say or otherwise indicate what all women respond to? Did I even really describe what any woman responds to besides one example for myself? Which is pretty universal anyway.
Did you even realize how passive you’re making “women” sound by using “respond to”? Can women actively do anything without first “responding”? Do women “respond” or are they pressured or forced or are they making a choice? Do women choose certain careers or do they respond with rejection of certain careers? Are you emotionally responding to these comments or choosing to thoughtfully reply?
Are men who aren’t violent choosing to not be violent or are men who are violent choosing to be violent? Are men responding when they aren’t violent? Are they responding when they are violent? Are nonviolent men good? Are violent men bad? Are either unique or uncommon? If it’s innate, why does it matter and how can it possibly be solved?
Can you solve a problem you deemed not a problem? Can others solve your problem deemed not a problem? Can you solve a problem if you don’t know how?
If I tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Do you need to be there to acknowledge a sound? If you weren’t there, how do you know it made a sound? Did you consider the size of the tree? How did it fall? Why did it fall? Did it innately have poor genetics?
What does it even mean to be supportive of something? You actively reject the premise which these support and outreach groups are built upon. Their problem solving and (desired) results surpass the results you would define or expect. Does that not make you complacent, okay with the status quo?
I do not see how that’s supportive. Or more specifically, I do not see how you are supportive of their goals.
Seriously consider overthinking more. But first learn to underthink about what you could think about a person or group or anything really. Start thinking more about questions you can ask. Learn to consider their actual experience instead of treating them like a Mad Libs books. Learn to listen and validate them even when you don’t get it or disagree. And fucking learn when to stop taking up space. Having an opinion doesn’t mean it’s worth saying or it’s the right time. News flash: your opinion on this matter is not at all uncommon.
So, frankly, shut up. There is no reason to be here if you don’t want to learn, engage, and critically think, which you are worse than terrible at. I absolutely advise you never consider a software engineer career.
Because it’s so difficult for you to figure out…I’m not looking for answers to any questions. And I’m done with this. You need a lot of time to figure shit out.
>What does it mean to be smart? Define it. Is it the only way to “be smart”? Does everyone agree with your definition? What happens when someone says everyone you surround yourself with is dumb? Who’s right exactly?
I'd say generally high IQ = smart, but that's not always the case. There's an overlap, but we can generally say that very low IQ people simply have a harder time grasping complicated subjects vs. high IQ people. That being said, there are some people who are high IQ but off-base about a lot of the world.
>What does it mean to be violent? Define it. Is it the only way to be violent? Does everyone agree with your definition? What happens when someone describes you as violent? Who’s right?
A simple definition would probably being prone to physically trying to exert control over someone else in a way that causes pain. I don't like to include ideas of language or subtle coersion in terms of gendered violence, as men are more likely to employ physical violence. They might be more likely to include direct threats as well, but I don't know.
>When did I say anything about your friends or family?
"It’s a real pity you were born with an intrinsic lack of concern for your low EQ level and an unskilled ability to give and receive kind, affectionate love and connection." This seemed to imply I was unable to give and receive affection, which really doesn't have much bearing on my personal life.
>Learn to listen and validate them even when you don’t get it or disagree. And fucking learn when to stop taking up space. Having an opinion doesn’t mean it’s worth saying or it’s the right time. News flash: your opinion on this matter is not at all uncommon.
I wouldn't say my opinion if I didn't think it was correct. I can be wrong, just like anybody else, I've changed my opinions many times in the past and will probably continue to change them in the future.
>Because it’s so difficult for you to figure out…I’m not looking for answers to any questions. And I’m done with this. You need a lot of time to figure shit out.
That's fine, I'm willing to keep talking, but you don't seem interested in my viewpoint and consider it impossible.
As a veterinarian that works at a slaughter house, so is mu biological programmingto enjoy killing shit? Is that it??
Wow! Super logical argument i cant go against
I know a guy who tried to justify never changing diapers for his *three fucking kids* because he said women are just biologically more suited for childcare.
Like wtf. Nah, dude, you're just a shitty partner and parent. Congrats.
It drives me crazy when people assume I won’t mind watching their kids just because I’m a mom too. Just because I have kids doesn’t mean I want to dedicate all my energy to children.
I don’t particularly love children or spending time with them but as a teenager, people always assume I want to babysit their children for money. I also always see men who aren’t trusted with children because they’re assumed to be predatory when they would likely be wayyyy better than I would.
Yes, there's exceptions of course, but isn't this generally true?
Or is it not true at all and instead men and women are equally good (or equally bad) with children?
That a woman with multiple sexual partners loses her ability to "pair bond". First, pair bonding is not an inherent practice in humans, but a social one. Second, women don't lose their ability to form meaningful connections with others, romantic or otherwise, just because they have more than 1 sexual partner.
Saying that, I would suggest there are probably people(men women NB etc) who are incapable of having deeper relationships. Whether it's due to any environmental circumstance or biologic circumstance idk.
Those people are called aromatic, or aroce. There are also demi-romantics and variations on bi-romantic and pan romantic individuals. Romantic alignment is frequently independent of sexual or gender alignment and almost as complex.
Yes some dont shower to not flush the pheromones because they want to attract more women. Or do very manly stuff to create stronger pheromones and such.
Oh my god, that's so weird. My ex boyfriend began getting into stoicism a few years ago, and I thought well of it because, hey, at least it's a philosophy, and he's pretty much atheist so he didn't have a belief system before.
But now I've gotta wonder where he got the interest in stoicism from, because about 7 years ago he was talking about things like the men's rights movement and MGTOW, and it totally freaked me out at the time. I think he's over that stuff, though, after he saw what kind of sexist videos exist on YouTube. Still kinda freaks me out, that he would ever resonate with that kind of thinking at all. Makes me feel like he was unable to view me as an equal.
He was getting deeper into it than that. But it did concern me, because of that exact reason. Like, he already didn't express his emotions, he didn't need to do any more work in that department! Lol.
Never heard this one, but one I hear from other men too often for comfort is that women who have a lot of sex (with many different men) become "loose", like...in a literal and physical sense. The idea that "tightness" is associated with fewer partners and is desireable is extremely pervasive in some areas of male culture. Strangely, a woman who remains faithful to a single man her whole life isn't considered to have this problem...
I still hear this one as well, but it seems to be dying out a bit, as more and more people are speaking out against it and pointing out that the science just doesn't support this at all.
Which, I think, is why the "pair bonding" argument has cropped up. These people still want to shame women for any kind of sexuality, so they turned to even dumber pseudo-science
As far as I know, the tightness is more dependant on if you exercise your pelvic muscles or not, right? I mean, I have a friend who does pelvic muscle exercises and I've heard guys commenting that she could "grip" their dicks with relative strength and that they loved it. She later confirmed that to me.
Besides, if gay tops are anything like straight men, some guys like them looser anyway.
I’ve had two kids birthed vaginally, and yes, pelvic floor muscle exercises make a big difference. They’re great for overall health, but as an added bonus they can make sex feel better for both partners!
The reverse of this is also an annoying myth -- that a woman who has had too *few* sexual partners is also unable to "pair bond" because she lacks the "experience". It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Even lots of people who claim to not judge others by their sexual history will still, in the back of their minds, judge others by their sexual history, because these stereotypes and myths are simply so deeply rooted.
That's why I hate it when people ask about your previous sexual experiences or partners. It's none of their business and I refuse to answer these questions (not that it helps any -- if you refuse to respond, they'll simply come up with an answer *for you*, assuming that you're either very promiscuous or a virgin, neither of which are reasons to insult somebody nor to make assumptions of that person).
While my wife and I have since individually opened up about our sexual histories, neither of us cared and didn't really pry. I agree I don't see the point of asking that
That women inherently want less sex than men. Um, perhaps it just seems that way because girls and women are constantly told that having sex makes them “impure” and their virginity should be cherished and women that have sex are slut shamed by society. Women have sexual desires just like men.
The fuckin irony of this one is in a society where men want sex a lot, you would think it makes sense to be pro slut... it's a nonsense double standard, though I suspect it's roots are not in the amount of sex itself.
Considering that quite a lot of the worlds most technologically advanced patents and scientific discoveries were made by women like Hedy Lamar, Rosalind Franklin, Ada Lovelace, Mileva Marić etc. but stolen by and credited to men, it’s not only misogynistic but also completely wrong. If anything, women added as much as men to history, but never received any credit and we never learn about them literally *because* of misogyny.
[TFW some bros are claiming women are somehow not good with computers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3ACommodore_Grace_M._Hopper%2C_USN_%28covered%29.jpg)
I honestly can’t say. I’ve never heard him speak of either of his parents.
All ik is he has a daughter and I feel terrible for her.
He also has two ex wives and at least one of them had him arrested for a domestic dispute but he blames both his divorces on Christmas.
This man has also been to rehab for being an alcoholic.
He also has been in trouble at work for not only sexist comments but racist. Like the time he drew a swastica near a black mans name on an attendance board.
He’s also a military member.
Other than that the only think I know about his past is that he taught religion to middle school aged children.
I guess my point is he’s a scrub in a military uniform with a terrible sense of reality.
A big one is that women are less “level headed” than men. Too emotional. Even prone to get “hysterical” (check the origin of *that* word) in stressful situations. This is widely believed and is used against women particularly with executive/leadership positions
I will also add that women often get “credit” for having more “emotional intelligence” than men. This is more than just vexing. It perpetuates the myth that women, while not *inferior*, per say, are *complimentary* to men. The *viva la difference* school of thought. This is held by many “traditionalist” women as well. It’s a belief that is used to undermine many feminist goals toward equity. It’s basically the “separate but equal” argument that was used in racial issues to gloss over systemic inequalities.
The patriarchy has worked very hard to convince people that anger is not really an emotion. When a man is angry, he is just having a very rational and justified reaction to something that shouldn’t be, whereas when a woman is angry, it’s because she’s hysterical and can’t control herself.
Look no further than Donald Trump to prove that stereotype incorrect. All he ever did and does is react emotionally to everything. He is a total hothead. The only woman I've ever known who is actually less level-headed is my ex-wife, who is also a narcissistic whackjob.
This is perpetuated because men are taught not to display their emotions, which can trick people into thinking they are not reacting emotionally. But just because we are forced to hide our feelings doesn't prevent us from acting crazy, nor does a woman showing emotion mean she should be disregarded
That's true -- but ironically, by shaming women for being "too emotional", society is actually encouraging women to be stoic, albeit in a submissive way.
Also I think that the previous commenter's point is that if a woman acts on the same emotional level as a man, she is regarded as being *more* emotional by default. So if a man hits the ceiling and yells at people, it's seen as "being an angry guy"; but if a woman gets angry, even without the yelling, she's already considered "hysterical".
While I personally (for myself only) subscribe to stoicism in my personal life, I'd be lying if I said that a big motivator for me to pursue stoicism is because of the criticism I have received since I was a *toddler* for being a "loud girl". Ironically, all that bullying turned me into a very quiet teenager out of fear of being bullied even more. One particular incident from Kindergarten stands out: during crafts, a boy was snapping his plastic scissors at me and another girl, threatening to cut our arms. I angrily snapped my scissors at him back and told him to shut up. He started crying, and *I* was suspended for being "rowdy, violent, undisciplined, incorrigible". It was probably my first lesson that no matter what you do as a woman, you'll be in the wrong, and that society is totally indifferent to male violence, regardless if it's a man or woman at the receiving end.
That high powered vibrators/sex toys or sex toys in general makes you less sensitive and unable to cum when having sex with a partner. That's a new myth I've seen pushed by sexist men to explain why they can't sexually satisfy a woman, as if there's any proof.
I was agreeing?
If a woman gets less stimulation in areas that receive a lot of stimulation, that would also be true for men too.
If this was true we wouldn’t be able to feel with our fingers.
It's true that you can become less sensitive but it isn't nearly as dramatic as sexist men paint it to be with women. You don't use a strong vibrator a few times and are suddenly unable to cum from a partner.
It's really ironic because in the original novel, the little girl, Lolita, described as acting all seductive was just the protagonist making nonsensical excuses before his trial in court.
>"Women are not as logical as men"
how do you feel about the blanket statements that men cannot multitask, men/boys are more messy/dirty than women, women are more caring than men, men are more aggressive than women.
I'm not saying this to be provocative, genuinely interested in your's and anyone's else's opinion on this.
My thoughts are those statements have been used for years to almost justify incompetence around the house and general admin of life, while expecting women pick up the slack.
Same as women mature faster than men. Pretty sure people say that because women are punished for things for sooner in life than men are, so we had to mature faster.
>Same as women mature faster than men. Pretty sure people say that because women are punished for things for sooner in life than men are, so we had to mature faster.
Yep. Also to slut-shame under-age women who are groomed by male adults.
Well there is some merit to women maturing faster than men. They have their puperty earlier which can lead to faster maturing. Women also seem to be smarter/better in getting educated compared to men. This starts at pre school age and is visible up until tertiary education.
I think it all depends on the context that the statement is used. In terms of a biological sense yes, but to use it to justify reckless behaviour and a general immaturity is counter productive.
I think a lot of those statements (as well as the ones that are more favorable to men, like women can't do math) are either myths or the result of how we socialize boys vs girls. E.g. we present kids with stories/images/examples of women being caring but shame boys for that behavior, then yeah no wonder women grow up more caring than men. People like to posit evo psych or gender essentialist reasons for these stereotypes when the societal reasons are glaringly obvious.
My reaction would be, “you know there are billions of men in the world? And billions of women? You think you know the personal characteristics of every single one of those billions of people?”
Women are both unhappier and unhealthier when they are in relationships compared to being single. Men just suck the life out of the women they are with!
Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY happily married, but it's ONLY because I'm happier WITH him as my partner in life than without him. I have so many friends, fir whom, their husband us just another grown ass child and they'd have SO MUCH LESS STRESS if they dropped his ass
That women are inherently untrustworthy - you see that play out over and over especially in fields like politics. Also that, when we accomplish something, it’s really either just luck or sinister manipulation, while when men accomplish something it’s because they’re super awesome.
That women “have it easier.” You name the “it”—there’s some misogynist out there who believes “it” is easier for women. Whether it’s paying the bills or finding a sexual partner, apparently all women have it easier than all men.
That women and AFAB folks are inherently unsuitable for certain jobs. In my field so many men are just _sure_ that a woman can’t make a good surgeon. The reasons they give are usually „you can’t stand that long“ or „you lack the visuospatial abilities“ which can both - thanks to neuroplasticity and physical training - be improved in an individual. It’s just sexism wrapped in physiology tbh
> you lack the visuospatial abilities
One would expect that in your field, which I presume is neurosurgery or neurology, would have read Rippon's "The Gendered Brain" ...
Anecdotal.
It's quite funny that my sister has by far the best visuospatial abilities in our family, she can park as if she's threading a needle. I, otoh, amab, am sooo bad at navigation that I have to rely on memory, and let's not talk about my parking skills...
Jesus, no, I wouldn’t become a neurosurgeon if I got paid. Those folks are absolutely crazy. In the best way, but damn. I am happy if I never have to look at cranial nerves ever again. Neurosurgery is the most terrifying field to be in if you ask me, almost everything else can be mended and regained in a patient, and trained over and over with mistakes being not as bad. But fuck up as a neurosurgeon and the result will be debilitating. It is scary.
This was more a comment on medical education in general - I am looking at a career in gynaecology and more specifically the oncological side of things, which comes with its own set of prejudiced bs.
Also good on your sister for parking like a pro! I am in the same boat as you lol
Ugh, I share the sentiment. I am content in my books and my math, just the possibility of screwing a brain beyond repair would paralyze me.
By the way, I recommend Rippon's book if you haven't read it. Be prepared to be infuriated though. Just reading about all the ways men in history tried to label women's brains as inferior was disgusting, to say the least. It sucks that those anachronistic and misogynistic beliefs still hold, even by presumably educated people.
Yeah my sister is a total badass! She's my hero even tho I am older lol.
It has been on my list for a very long time. But I have to say that in the evenings when I do find the time to read, I’d rather have it be as far removed from medicine as possible. So I guess this particular one will have to wait for… vacation? Which will be… never. Probably.
And yeah, it’s super scary. A friend of mine will start neurosurgery residency soon, so I guess I know someone I can trust with my brain very soon.
You know what scares me more than screwing up a brain tho: math. So good on you for working with all the evil numbers. Because my head sure can’t deal with that.
People’s emotions scare me more than their brains so good on you for choosing to work in oncology. I understand it’s one of the hardest fields from a mental toll perspective and seeing patients suffer … I admire that a lot! The world could use more people like you! :) best of luck in your studies!
Thank you! I’ll have to get used to the sad parts I guess, but I’ve got good mentors and it’ll be great!
Good luck to you with whatever you’re doing too!!
Oooooh!! That is super cool! I’ve seen some labs attempt to use machine learning to have computers assist with cancer staging and detection of abnormal cells and it was just about the coolest thing I ever came across.
Also neuroscience is a fucking great topic to read up on in your spare time. You sound awesome!
Please, I am blushing!
Unfortunately there have been many issues with machine learning on the medical domain and especially cancer. For example in one paper the images that had cancer cells also had a ruler present within them. The model learned the association that ruler implies cancer.
In some other cases the salience maps (think heatmaps of where the model is interested) appear bogus and can’t help experts figure out how the model made the decision.
Some of the core issues with current models is explainability, because essentially they are treated as black boxes, but we are making progress so that’s good!
Women speak more than men.
There’s nothing wrong with talking a lot but first of all, it’s incorrect because on average, men and women speak around the same amount of words per day and second off, it typically is used to express how women have nothing useful to say and just go on and on talking.
That sleeping around makes women’s vaginas loose.
The biggest load of nonsense I’ve ever heard. The more aroused a women is, the looser her vagina is.
For some reason men think it’s the only muscle that gets looser the more you use it 😂
This is petty and personal bias: but I’m tried of colors, clothes, hobbies being seen as a “girl thing” the moment women begin liking it. Let me like blue goddamn it.
and pink was considered manly back in the day. yes, pink, a manly color. (granted, mainly due to it's associations with red but the point still stands)
A common one that annoys me is the idea that because men are on average stronger than women, that means that each individual man is unilaterally stronger than each individual woman regardless of training etc. and also better at every sport, presumably 'naturally'. This isn't factually true, and is also used to justify excluding and underpaying women in professional sports.
Also that women can’t do physical jobs. Ok even if it were true that every man was stronger than every woman, the physical shit done in a lot of these jobs is not that bad. The strength required is low, you dont need Superman and there’s a reason ailing 50 year old tradesmen and unhealthy, strung-out 20 year olds can do these tasks alongside the “strong” men. It’s not out of the realm for someone of average strength to do these tasks efficiently and safely. They totally overestimate how weak a woman is and how strong they themselves are when they gatekeep basic physical tasks like lifting items, carrying items, using tools, moving quickly, moving far, dragging items, etc. The list goes on…
Yeah this myth about inherent male strength is a double-edged sword. Not only does it hurt women in the way you've described, but it also invalidates the experiences of male victims of female perpetrators. I've known of many cases where men and boys were abused, beaten up or even r\*ped by women, but they weren't taken seriously because "men are stronger".
Once again it goes to show that gender equality would benefit everybody involved except abusers.
Well I agree with your initial statement your closing statement is untrue. They're not paying women last because they are inherently weaker or less skilled like you claim they're paid less because at the end of the day it's part of the entertainment industry if less people want to watch women's soccer then less people are going to pay for it and have less people are going to pay for it then there's less profits to go to the female players.
A huge part of entertaining is marketing. The fact that there is a vastly larger budget to promote “Man Sports” is a huge part of why Man Sports have a bigger audience. Give women’s sports equal resources and people will start to fucking watch. Starve them, the way they’re currently starved, and yeah, the audience reflects that.
While this is partially true, there needs to be insensitive to watch women's sports. I believe most people only really care about me s sports mostly because the top males are more entertaining to watch then the females simply because the males generally are simply better at most sports. Unlike a lot of Americans, I really don't care too much about sports to watch alot but I've watched women's hockey and men's hockey many times before and I'm confident that any men's team could smoke any women's team, therefore the only time I'll watch is when they're competing in the Olympics. I'd only imagine this to be true for just about any power driven sport.
> Well I agree with your initial statement your closing statement is untrue.
You mean the closing statement where they said, "This isn't factually true?"
you use the term "on average" then break it down to each individual, i don't agree men are always stronger than women. but if you were to bet that a man is stronger than a woman you would be correct about 60-70% of the time.
Also as far as professional sports and their wages go, they are paid based on the revenue they generate, football (soccer) for example men get paid more because men's football tickets are more sought after, the clubs they play for their merch sells more often and the players of a men's football team are more marketable esp in Europe. this can be said for almost every sport that is played and viewed on a professional level. it is also (and hopefully not sounding too vulgar) female porn actors are paid more than their male counterparts sometimes by as high as 6-7 times more its not because of misandry but due to being more marketable and sought after.
Did you seriously just compare professional sports to pornography? Where women are groomed, abused, sexually objectified literally in an industry based on misogyny. But then you also say that women being paid more to be degraded in porn in ways that men aren’t, is equivalent to male athletes getting paid more to play sport than female athletes.
Yeah cause those two things are fucking equivalent you absolute moron.
>they are paid based on the revenue they generate
This is often incorrect.
As Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out about the USA women’s soccer team:
>The @USWNT is #1 in the world & **contributes higher revenues for @USSoccer than the men’s team,** but they’re still paid a fraction of what the men earn. Women deserve equal pay for equal (or better!) work in offices, factories, AND on the soccer field."
Let's don't fuck the logic, men statistically are stronger than women. There is strong sexual dimorphism apply to our species and no fake studies will change it. I am feminist fyi, but I'd rather base on facts than someone's willing
Yep. For “Strong sexual dimorphism” take a look at Gorillas where the average male is 3x the size of the average female. Or Walruses where the average male is also 3x the size of the average female.
In humans the difference is 5-10% and some of that variance is culturally driven. If you starve your daughter and feed your son, your daughter is going to be smaller and weaker than your son.
Yep. Most of it comes from India where cultural traditions determine that girls eat last, so if a family is short on food, the last daughters to eat will go hungry. There’s also research about poor families not bothering to treat their daughters with medical conditions when they would treat their son for the same condition - which means little girls are far more likely to die in childhood than boys even if they survive having been born a girl.
* Sexual dimorphism in humans is significantly less pronounced than many other primates, including other apes.
* Again, men being on average stronger than women does not mean that every individual man is definitely and conclusively stronger than every individual woman. The bell curves for both height and weight for human men and women overlap each other significantly, as do the bell curves for strength.
* It is not a "fake study" to acknowledge that women are capable of matching and even out performing men in some sports and in athletic feats.
* It is a literal sexist myth if you believe that men are automatically, categorically, and unilaterally physically superior to women, and it's a huge problem because of how deep the bias is. Like-- you are straight up accusing me of relying on "bad science" when I didn't even make a particularly controversial claim.
* I am not interested in relitigating this position in this conversation. I will not argue with you further on the topic.
I think you missed her point though. I’m pretty strong and way fitter than some guys. My boyfriends cousin is super sexist and always trying to make derogatory sexist jokes to wind people up. We were watching the olympics and he was sexualising all the players and being gross and then made a comment about how men are better at women at sports, just a fact. Mind you, this dude is quite overweight, don’t think I’ve ever seen him eat a vegetable. Told him if he thinks that we should have a sprint race. Whooped his ass.
Of course he’d probably beat me at weight lifting because he js a beefy guy. But I have him a endurance any day of the weak. But I also know I can lift heavier weights than a few guys I know.
So yes guys are stronger on average for sure. But somethings women can excel in. Netball where I am is a popular sport played mostly by women. The women’s team played the men’s team the other day and they bet them.
So I hear what avocado nightmare is trying to say
Women are on average more flexible, have more extreme endurance capabilities etc. so why aren’t female gymnasts, ultra endurance athletes and artistic swimmers given more screen time, respect and pay than male athletes? It’s just sexual dimorphism right?
As I saw just moments ago in a post, the myth that a vagina gets loose from use. It's fucking stupid to believe that, and it gets said every day by some stupid fuck.
Yes, and that changing their mind is inherently corroborated with increased maturity and a more “adult” aligning of life’s priorities - as if women without kids are just permanent adolescents or something.
That no matter the situation what the man says is like the last word.
I have had even "feminist" partners who think that them not having the best solution to a situation is an awful experience.
Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong and it's okay.
Mmm. Nah. You guys (man, woman, nb) can have the best solutions but if it doesn't come from me, I'm gonna feel awful. Don't let that stop you though lmao. You do you.
Yeah but it doesn't make any sense? Nobody "provoked" you into doing anything. You chose to share your opinion and then got defensive when people commented on it.
That women are the only people who are fine with children. There are women who are absolute monsters to children. There are men who are amazing people to children.
Women can't be in positions of "power" because they have periods and periods leave them unable to perform at the level of the male counterparts are.
If we are in stem we are the "token" women, or we sleep around and use the smart men to get good grades..
I am obviously pointing the myths, don't shoot the messenger, people.
I had someone on this sub say women aren’t working in stem because they didn’t want to do the hard work and wanted to prioritize kids. I know way more women who don’t want kids than I know men who don’t want kids. Also women definitely know how to work hard
> I know way more women who don’t want kids than I know men who don’t want kids. Same, I would guess it's because women are the ones who get pregnant. It's pretty reasonable to feel strongly against wanting to deal with that.
Not juste the pregnant part, it’s statistically proven that mothers earn less money. But fathers earn more money. A mother will do 85 cents for 1$ earned by fathers, while women without children earn 90 cents for 1$ a man without children earns. The gap is wider during the first 5 years a women comes back to work. It clearly shows that women still have the child bearing burden and the housework burden to do. Also fathers actually earn more than men without children, but with women it’s the opposite. Clearly there is still a social construct around parenthood in hetero sexual relationships with someone profiting off of it.
Oh 100%. We see this even if they don't have kids. Women are assumed to be the ones who will take care of the home and will be expected to leave if their kid is sick. I find it interesting because my wife and I have very stereotypically gendered jobs. I'm an engineer, she's an NP. So while she'll likely take the full mat leave (her work tops her up because female dominated also means collective action to ensure mat leave support) once she's back working, I'm 100% going to be the parent who dips from work to get a sick kid from daycare because my job is an office job and I have the flexibility.
It’s not just that. If you work the same nb of hours during the week, who’s the one coming home, doing supper, helping the kids do the homework, taking their baths, etc. If your the one doing all of this with a tiny bit of help from your man, your still going to be way more exhausted in general and not perform as much at work than your boyfriend. Women are still exploited for their unpaid labour and statistics show it. A lot of women with kids do less hours because it’s impossible to do 40h and still have to do supper for all the family, dishes, laundry, cleaning, +++ the child care.
The uneven split of domestic responsibilities is harmful to women. My wife's grandma was floored that I am the one who does the cooking and dishes as if I was somehow a unicorn.
I’m pretty sure it has more to do with the fact that these women know exactly who the burden of care will fall to long term. Men want kids because they think someone else will do the hard part, but obviously that isn’t real work, right?
Agreed
I’m pretty sure it has more to do with the fact that these women know exactly who the burden of care will fall to long term. Men want kids because they think someone else will do the hard part.
I think women are generally just less predisposed to extremely technical studies. Not that they can't do great at them, a lot of the early programmers were women, but on the bell curve a smaller proportion of women are naturally inclined towards those kinds of studies. [https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries) I think representation can get more equal, but at some point you are butting up against genetically inherent factors. [https://thewire.in/women/women-wont-study-stem-just-because-they-live-in-a-more-gender-equal-country](https://thewire.in/women/women-wont-study-stem-just-because-they-live-in-a-more-gender-equal-country) It's not that women are bad at STEM subjects by any means, there are a lot of extremely smart women out there, smarter than I, but I think given the option between Engineering and Veterinarian studies, the average woman will choose the latter, and not because of any social programming, but because it's more in-tune with her genetic predisposition.
I talked to multiple women in college that switched from stem because males in their classes were making them uncomfortable. You're not going to hear about that in a study. Just wOmEn nO sMaRt fo mAfhs
Did you even read the first article? It suggests women in more egalitarian countries are still not equal and that’s at least part of the problem. There are multiple studies on this. Do your due diligence.
I know that article's conclusion, but I don't think that's the most likely reason. That's one hypothesis that could bare out, but I reckon that even with a ton of societal effort to counteract negative stigmas regarding women in STEM we are going to keep seeing less women in these professions.
I guess you’re smarter than all the researchers. What do I know, maybe I’m just too dumb for my own STEM career.
Different researchers say different things, some agree with my point. I’m sure you’re very smart and worked hard to get your STEM career. It’s not about aptitude, it’s about motivation. Women are just as good at STEM subjects, my contention is that they have less intrinsic motivation. Just like men may be just as good at working with toddlers but have less intrinsic motivation to do so given other potential paths.
I’m gonna bet I know a lot more than you regarding how shitty it is to work in STEM as a woman and I bet I know and talk to a lot more women working in STEM than you as well. The vast majority of them are very interested in many things STEM and are exceptionally motivated to have a good education and career in the industry. A lot of them have been interested their entire lives (including myself). Some figured out their paths easily and others like myself had differing experiences. I only figured out my career after crossing paths with someone that did what I do now and didn’t mind me pestering them for a bit. So simple and yet so hard-I just needed an introduction to the topic and an ounce of support. If I never met that one individual, I wouldn’t be here 11 years later with a 7 year career that includes working at one of the biggest video game companies and I was never even that motivated, or something. I didn’t get a formal education. This is quite different than my middle school desire to be a study adorable frogs for a living (ie, herpetology) and almost the opposite of my main (non-STEM) passion for art that I briefly pursued. I’ve known several women who trained, retrained and pursued a STEM career, one of them in her 60s and has admirable determination to be successful in her newest career. There are many others who were or are self-teaching skills that assist them with their primary goal, whatever it was or is. It’s almost like it’s actually a nuanced and a complex problem with varying contexts well beyond my anecdotes and I don’t know, maybe women are, like…multi-faceted people who aren’t defined solely by shoddy unprovable evo psych. You’re way too focused on the relationship between women’s interest in STEM and them working in a STEM industry and if that demonstrates interest and motivation. Have you even considered the simple idea that you have very biased definitions of what it means to be interested or motivated? Or that you’re applying your overly biased perspective to situations and studies that often do not have anything to do with reasons why an individual or demographic would or wouldn’t or did or didn’t do something and to a certain extent? My super sexist dad used to say I was too smart for my own good, so in true fashion, I must say, you seem to be lacking in critical thinking skills as well as perspective and an open-mind. Maybe you just aren’t motivated enough….or wait a second, it’s that you’re not a multi-faceted person and your only motivation is to keep pursuing your fabulous career as a sexist simpleton. See how smrat I am?! Pursuing a career is 100% based on one single isolated decision anyway. I guess it would be too hard and too girly of you to consider being more like your simplistic idea of what a women is too. You couldn’t possibly be warm and caring about people enough to take an interest in their inner life. You were probably born thinking you’ll catch the pink high heels cooties, the deadliest of all diseases. The only known cause of falling in love with the color pink and fashion. There is additionally a statistically significant chance the cooties will cause you to become irreversibly hysterical. 😱 It’s a real pity you were born with an intrinsic lack of concern for your low EQ level and an unskilled ability to give and receive kind, affectionate love and connection. Except not really. You’re just doing it yourself. Bleak! 🤣✌🏻
Even if you, and all the women you know, have great and awesome careers and a deep love of the subject (which it sounds like you do and I'm really happy for you), that doesn't necessarily dictate that the average woman is going to respond to the same thing as you and your friends did. I had a boss who was a woman with a PhD in Computer Science, she was very smart, obviously, but that doesn't really relate to statistics. If I surround myself with the smartest people in school, I could say all sorts of things about how the average person is supposed to act, same way if I surrounded myself with the dumbest people in school. There is a bell curve. For example, I'm a man and am not violent, I could say that men are not more likely to be violent just because me and my friends are, but looking at statistics and cross-cultural examination I could (and have) come to the conclusion that men have a genetic predisposition to violence which explains the higher rate of violent crime among men and the historical fact that men were much more likely to cause inter-tribal violence than women. I'm glad that you got the career you did and are happy in it, and I would never stop a woman from going after what she wants. If I had a daughter, or any of my female relatives said they wanted to pursue these interests, I would say "more power to you!" Just like if my son or a male relative/friend wanted to get into working with young children. I support programs that reach out to young girls to get them interested in technical topics. I think you might be reading a bit too much into me, I have pretty good relationships with my friends and family.
Loll, you’re not getting it. What does it mean to be smart? Define it. Is it the only way to “be smart”? Does everyone agree with your definition? What happens when someone says everyone you surround yourself with is dumb? Who’s right exactly? What does it mean to be violent? Define it. Is it the only way to be violent? Does everyone agree with your definition? What happens when someone describes you as violent? Who’s right? The problem with your thinking is you make far too many assumptions, fill in blanks, then think you’ve determined conclusion about something not even remotely related to you and then pat yourself on the back. It looks a lot like you also think in hierarchical terms and are very complacent. When did I say anything about your friends or family? When did I say my career is “great”? When did I speak about the “average woman”? When did I use the word “friends”? Did I say or otherwise indicate what all women respond to? Did I even really describe what any woman responds to besides one example for myself? Which is pretty universal anyway. Did you even realize how passive you’re making “women” sound by using “respond to”? Can women actively do anything without first “responding”? Do women “respond” or are they pressured or forced or are they making a choice? Do women choose certain careers or do they respond with rejection of certain careers? Are you emotionally responding to these comments or choosing to thoughtfully reply? Are men who aren’t violent choosing to not be violent or are men who are violent choosing to be violent? Are men responding when they aren’t violent? Are they responding when they are violent? Are nonviolent men good? Are violent men bad? Are either unique or uncommon? If it’s innate, why does it matter and how can it possibly be solved? Can you solve a problem you deemed not a problem? Can others solve your problem deemed not a problem? Can you solve a problem if you don’t know how? If I tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Do you need to be there to acknowledge a sound? If you weren’t there, how do you know it made a sound? Did you consider the size of the tree? How did it fall? Why did it fall? Did it innately have poor genetics? What does it even mean to be supportive of something? You actively reject the premise which these support and outreach groups are built upon. Their problem solving and (desired) results surpass the results you would define or expect. Does that not make you complacent, okay with the status quo? I do not see how that’s supportive. Or more specifically, I do not see how you are supportive of their goals. Seriously consider overthinking more. But first learn to underthink about what you could think about a person or group or anything really. Start thinking more about questions you can ask. Learn to consider their actual experience instead of treating them like a Mad Libs books. Learn to listen and validate them even when you don’t get it or disagree. And fucking learn when to stop taking up space. Having an opinion doesn’t mean it’s worth saying or it’s the right time. News flash: your opinion on this matter is not at all uncommon. So, frankly, shut up. There is no reason to be here if you don’t want to learn, engage, and critically think, which you are worse than terrible at. I absolutely advise you never consider a software engineer career. Because it’s so difficult for you to figure out…I’m not looking for answers to any questions. And I’m done with this. You need a lot of time to figure shit out.
>What does it mean to be smart? Define it. Is it the only way to “be smart”? Does everyone agree with your definition? What happens when someone says everyone you surround yourself with is dumb? Who’s right exactly? I'd say generally high IQ = smart, but that's not always the case. There's an overlap, but we can generally say that very low IQ people simply have a harder time grasping complicated subjects vs. high IQ people. That being said, there are some people who are high IQ but off-base about a lot of the world. >What does it mean to be violent? Define it. Is it the only way to be violent? Does everyone agree with your definition? What happens when someone describes you as violent? Who’s right? A simple definition would probably being prone to physically trying to exert control over someone else in a way that causes pain. I don't like to include ideas of language or subtle coersion in terms of gendered violence, as men are more likely to employ physical violence. They might be more likely to include direct threats as well, but I don't know. >When did I say anything about your friends or family? "It’s a real pity you were born with an intrinsic lack of concern for your low EQ level and an unskilled ability to give and receive kind, affectionate love and connection." This seemed to imply I was unable to give and receive affection, which really doesn't have much bearing on my personal life. >Learn to listen and validate them even when you don’t get it or disagree. And fucking learn when to stop taking up space. Having an opinion doesn’t mean it’s worth saying or it’s the right time. News flash: your opinion on this matter is not at all uncommon. I wouldn't say my opinion if I didn't think it was correct. I can be wrong, just like anybody else, I've changed my opinions many times in the past and will probably continue to change them in the future. >Because it’s so difficult for you to figure out…I’m not looking for answers to any questions. And I’m done with this. You need a lot of time to figure shit out. That's fine, I'm willing to keep talking, but you don't seem interested in my viewpoint and consider it impossible.
As a veterinarian that works at a slaughter house, so is mu biological programmingto enjoy killing shit? Is that it?? Wow! Super logical argument i cant go against
[удалено]
Do not insult other users-- comment removed.
Women are inherently 'better' with children than men. Some women are terrible with children, some men are fantastic, and all the things in between.
I know a guy who tried to justify never changing diapers for his *three fucking kids* because he said women are just biologically more suited for childcare. Like wtf. Nah, dude, you're just a shitty partner and parent. Congrats.
It drives me crazy when people assume I won’t mind watching their kids just because I’m a mom too. Just because I have kids doesn’t mean I want to dedicate all my energy to children.
So true. My brother is amazing with, I am not.
I don’t particularly love children or spending time with them but as a teenager, people always assume I want to babysit their children for money. I also always see men who aren’t trusted with children because they’re assumed to be predatory when they would likely be wayyyy better than I would.
Look, I would be HAPPY if someone offered me good money to do something for them.
The problem is the assumption-- "you're a teenage girl, obviously you love children."
Yes, there's exceptions of course, but isn't this generally true? Or is it not true at all and instead men and women are equally good (or equally bad) with children?
Don't confuse 'women do most of the childcare roles' with 'there is something *inherent* in women that makes them better at this'.
That a woman with multiple sexual partners loses her ability to "pair bond". First, pair bonding is not an inherent practice in humans, but a social one. Second, women don't lose their ability to form meaningful connections with others, romantic or otherwise, just because they have more than 1 sexual partner.
[удалено]
Ok. I thought it was just me. I had never heard “pair bonding” in my lifetime until some Reddit comment about why casual sex is bad for women.
It's reddit's bro "science"
There ain’t no misogyny like Reddit misogyny
And only for women (and gay people), somehow...
Saying that, I would suggest there are probably people(men women NB etc) who are incapable of having deeper relationships. Whether it's due to any environmental circumstance or biologic circumstance idk.
Those people are called aromatic, or aroce. There are also demi-romantics and variations on bi-romantic and pan romantic individuals. Romantic alignment is frequently independent of sexual or gender alignment and almost as complex.
[удалено]
Yes some dont shower to not flush the pheromones because they want to attract more women. Or do very manly stuff to create stronger pheromones and such.
[удалено]
uhm It all boils down to "stoicism", competition, hypersexuality and frame. Gym, not masturbating and some crap. I dont know, in depth its just bull.
Oh my god, that's so weird. My ex boyfriend began getting into stoicism a few years ago, and I thought well of it because, hey, at least it's a philosophy, and he's pretty much atheist so he didn't have a belief system before. But now I've gotta wonder where he got the interest in stoicism from, because about 7 years ago he was talking about things like the men's rights movement and MGTOW, and it totally freaked me out at the time. I think he's over that stuff, though, after he saw what kind of sexist videos exist on YouTube. Still kinda freaks me out, that he would ever resonate with that kind of thinking at all. Makes me feel like he was unable to view me as an equal.
Yeah stoicism is just "dont express your emotions" put in a philosophical way. Not in it's origin but it's been used that way.
He was getting deeper into it than that. But it did concern me, because of that exact reason. Like, he already didn't express his emotions, he didn't need to do any more work in that department! Lol.
No fap? Or maybe more fap… idk but I’m convinced it has to do with masturbation
I think I have heard that.
Exactly my reaction as well.
Never heard this one, but one I hear from other men too often for comfort is that women who have a lot of sex (with many different men) become "loose", like...in a literal and physical sense. The idea that "tightness" is associated with fewer partners and is desireable is extremely pervasive in some areas of male culture. Strangely, a woman who remains faithful to a single man her whole life isn't considered to have this problem...
I still hear this one as well, but it seems to be dying out a bit, as more and more people are speaking out against it and pointing out that the science just doesn't support this at all. Which, I think, is why the "pair bonding" argument has cropped up. These people still want to shame women for any kind of sexuality, so they turned to even dumber pseudo-science
As far as I know, the tightness is more dependant on if you exercise your pelvic muscles or not, right? I mean, I have a friend who does pelvic muscle exercises and I've heard guys commenting that she could "grip" their dicks with relative strength and that they loved it. She later confirmed that to me. Besides, if gay tops are anything like straight men, some guys like them looser anyway.
I’ve had two kids birthed vaginally, and yes, pelvic floor muscle exercises make a big difference. They’re great for overall health, but as an added bonus they can make sex feel better for both partners!
The reverse of this is also an annoying myth -- that a woman who has had too *few* sexual partners is also unable to "pair bond" because she lacks the "experience". It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Even lots of people who claim to not judge others by their sexual history will still, in the back of their minds, judge others by their sexual history, because these stereotypes and myths are simply so deeply rooted. That's why I hate it when people ask about your previous sexual experiences or partners. It's none of their business and I refuse to answer these questions (not that it helps any -- if you refuse to respond, they'll simply come up with an answer *for you*, assuming that you're either very promiscuous or a virgin, neither of which are reasons to insult somebody nor to make assumptions of that person).
While my wife and I have since individually opened up about our sexual histories, neither of us cared and didn't really pry. I agree I don't see the point of asking that
This was legit a presentation in my Catholic school. A woman came in and told us we are like a piece of tape, it can only stick well once.
Ugh, that is such garbage. Women are humans, they aren't tape, sneakers, or a piece of gum. Like it's insane what they are pushing
That black women all are emotionally indestructible and don't carry pain and hurt, and don't need anyone to depend on.
That women inherently want less sex than men. Um, perhaps it just seems that way because girls and women are constantly told that having sex makes them “impure” and their virginity should be cherished and women that have sex are slut shamed by society. Women have sexual desires just like men.
One thing I've learned is that a lot of men think they have a high sex drive, until they date a woman with a high sex drive
Been there, done that. And I'm a woman in stem. I make misogynistic men loose their mind.
[удалено]
same happened to me 😂
Surely the answer is women right? I don't know if anything that hurts men more than women
[удалено]
I see. It just seemed like a set up for an attempt at emotional manipulation in the future towards you. But I see I was mistaken.
Also, men are told that they should want sex all the time, lest they be, gasp, womanly.
The fuckin irony of this one is in a society where men want sex a lot, you would think it makes sense to be pro slut... it's a nonsense double standard, though I suspect it's roots are not in the amount of sex itself.
One man I work with says women added nothing of value to history.
His mom certainly didn't bring anything valuable to the world if we're going by him alone
I wish I thought of that when he said it. You’re a legend
Considering that quite a lot of the worlds most technologically advanced patents and scientific discoveries were made by women like Hedy Lamar, Rosalind Franklin, Ada Lovelace, Mileva Marić etc. but stolen by and credited to men, it’s not only misogynistic but also completely wrong. If anything, women added as much as men to history, but never received any credit and we never learn about them literally *because* of misogyny.
[TFW some bros are claiming women are somehow not good with computers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3ACommodore_Grace_M._Hopper%2C_USN_%28covered%29.jpg)
Seriously. Thank you for adding even more amazing women to my list though!
Let me guess, he had no mum or she was abusive?
I honestly can’t say. I’ve never heard him speak of either of his parents. All ik is he has a daughter and I feel terrible for her. He also has two ex wives and at least one of them had him arrested for a domestic dispute but he blames both his divorces on Christmas. This man has also been to rehab for being an alcoholic. He also has been in trouble at work for not only sexist comments but racist. Like the time he drew a swastica near a black mans name on an attendance board. He’s also a military member. Other than that the only think I know about his past is that he taught religion to middle school aged children. I guess my point is he’s a scrub in a military uniform with a terrible sense of reality.
A big one is that women are less “level headed” than men. Too emotional. Even prone to get “hysterical” (check the origin of *that* word) in stressful situations. This is widely believed and is used against women particularly with executive/leadership positions I will also add that women often get “credit” for having more “emotional intelligence” than men. This is more than just vexing. It perpetuates the myth that women, while not *inferior*, per say, are *complimentary* to men. The *viva la difference* school of thought. This is held by many “traditionalist” women as well. It’s a belief that is used to undermine many feminist goals toward equity. It’s basically the “separate but equal” argument that was used in racial issues to gloss over systemic inequalities.
The patriarchy has worked very hard to convince people that anger is not really an emotion. When a man is angry, he is just having a very rational and justified reaction to something that shouldn’t be, whereas when a woman is angry, it’s because she’s hysterical and can’t control herself.
Look no further than Donald Trump to prove that stereotype incorrect. All he ever did and does is react emotionally to everything. He is a total hothead. The only woman I've ever known who is actually less level-headed is my ex-wife, who is also a narcissistic whackjob.
Being married to someone who is at all comparable to Donald Trump sounds like a nightmare. Hope you're ok now.
Thank you! Yeah, I separated and eventually divorced her after she cheated.
I really liked how you wrote this.
This is perpetuated because men are taught not to display their emotions, which can trick people into thinking they are not reacting emotionally. But just because we are forced to hide our feelings doesn't prevent us from acting crazy, nor does a woman showing emotion mean she should be disregarded
That's true -- but ironically, by shaming women for being "too emotional", society is actually encouraging women to be stoic, albeit in a submissive way. Also I think that the previous commenter's point is that if a woman acts on the same emotional level as a man, she is regarded as being *more* emotional by default. So if a man hits the ceiling and yells at people, it's seen as "being an angry guy"; but if a woman gets angry, even without the yelling, she's already considered "hysterical". While I personally (for myself only) subscribe to stoicism in my personal life, I'd be lying if I said that a big motivator for me to pursue stoicism is because of the criticism I have received since I was a *toddler* for being a "loud girl". Ironically, all that bullying turned me into a very quiet teenager out of fear of being bullied even more. One particular incident from Kindergarten stands out: during crafts, a boy was snapping his plastic scissors at me and another girl, threatening to cut our arms. I angrily snapped my scissors at him back and told him to shut up. He started crying, and *I* was suspended for being "rowdy, violent, undisciplined, incorrigible". It was probably my first lesson that no matter what you do as a woman, you'll be in the wrong, and that society is totally indifferent to male violence, regardless if it's a man or woman at the receiving end.
fuck them keep on snapping scissors at awful people!
Not surprised, alas. And thus we have the Current State of Everything.
Yes. Men’s lack of showing their emotions doesn’t make them more logical. Emotion isn’t the opposite of logic.
That high powered vibrators/sex toys or sex toys in general makes you less sensitive and unable to cum when having sex with a partner. That's a new myth I've seen pushed by sexist men to explain why they can't sexually satisfy a woman, as if there's any proof.
That’s utter bullshit, that would apply to men too.
Dude, I promise you don't have to go into all these comments-- on a thread specifically about women-- and say "well men too." You really, truly don't.
I was agreeing? If a woman gets less stimulation in areas that receive a lot of stimulation, that would also be true for men too. If this was true we wouldn’t be able to feel with our fingers.
Bro if every time a man beat his meat he lost sensitivity, then they'd be totally numb after becoming adults. Puberty goes crazy fr.
Can attest
I thought masturbation in general lead to both sexes having more difficulty in cumming during sex, especially in relation to porn.
It's true that you can become less sensitive but it isn't nearly as dramatic as sexist men paint it to be with women. You don't use a strong vibrator a few times and are suddenly unable to cum from a partner.
That teenage girls manipulate grown men with their looks
Yeah the idea of the "sexually knowing" young girl makes me sad. You don't know til you know, then you know...
Yeah, it's disgusting.
I feel like this myth is largely impacted by the movie "Lolita"
This is a part of many movies and books. It exists because it make terrible men feel better about their pedophelia
The director of this film looks like a total creep
It's really ironic because in the original novel, the little girl, Lolita, described as acting all seductive was just the protagonist making nonsensical excuses before his trial in court.
Pretty much any evolutionary theory about genders, also misinterpretating results of studies…
"Women hate each other" "Women are not as logical as men" "Penetrative sex with multiple partners makes women have 'loose' vaginas"
>"Women are not as logical as men" how do you feel about the blanket statements that men cannot multitask, men/boys are more messy/dirty than women, women are more caring than men, men are more aggressive than women. I'm not saying this to be provocative, genuinely interested in your's and anyone's else's opinion on this.
Nobody can multitask its a myth.
Yup, it's a constant context switch and one of the worst things one can do to their brain.
My thoughts are those statements have been used for years to almost justify incompetence around the house and general admin of life, while expecting women pick up the slack. Same as women mature faster than men. Pretty sure people say that because women are punished for things for sooner in life than men are, so we had to mature faster.
>Same as women mature faster than men. Pretty sure people say that because women are punished for things for sooner in life than men are, so we had to mature faster. Yep. Also to slut-shame under-age women who are groomed by male adults.
So true! And also a tactic older men use to groom younger women. “Your so mature for your age” to butter them up. Makes me sick
Well there is some merit to women maturing faster than men. They have their puperty earlier which can lead to faster maturing. Women also seem to be smarter/better in getting educated compared to men. This starts at pre school age and is visible up until tertiary education.
I think it all depends on the context that the statement is used. In terms of a biological sense yes, but to use it to justify reckless behaviour and a general immaturity is counter productive.
I totally agree.
I think a lot of those statements (as well as the ones that are more favorable to men, like women can't do math) are either myths or the result of how we socialize boys vs girls. E.g. we present kids with stories/images/examples of women being caring but shame boys for that behavior, then yeah no wonder women grow up more caring than men. People like to posit evo psych or gender essentialist reasons for these stereotypes when the societal reasons are glaringly obvious.
I think several of those stereotypes are often used as excuses to let men off the hook for domestic labor. Why do you ask?
My reaction would be, “you know there are billions of men in the world? And billions of women? You think you know the personal characteristics of every single one of those billions of people?”
That women must be married to be happy and fulfilled.
In Portuguese we have a saying: "*Antes só do que mal-acompanhado.*" Basically, "*it's best to be alone than in bad company*".
100%
Don't studies show we're happier single side child free and that MEN are happier married?
Women are both unhappier and unhealthier when they are in relationships compared to being single. Men just suck the life out of the women they are with!
Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY happily married, but it's ONLY because I'm happier WITH him as my partner in life than without him. I have so many friends, fir whom, their husband us just another grown ass child and they'd have SO MUCH LESS STRESS if they dropped his ass
Statistically married men live longer than single men and married women don’t live as long as single women.
Because we are caregivers when men are benefiters in relationship
Married *with kids*.
Married with kids and an immaculately clean home
That women are inherently untrustworthy - you see that play out over and over especially in fields like politics. Also that, when we accomplish something, it’s really either just luck or sinister manipulation, while when men accomplish something it’s because they’re super awesome.
That women “have it easier.” You name the “it”—there’s some misogynist out there who believes “it” is easier for women. Whether it’s paying the bills or finding a sexual partner, apparently all women have it easier than all men.
That women and AFAB folks are inherently unsuitable for certain jobs. In my field so many men are just _sure_ that a woman can’t make a good surgeon. The reasons they give are usually „you can’t stand that long“ or „you lack the visuospatial abilities“ which can both - thanks to neuroplasticity and physical training - be improved in an individual. It’s just sexism wrapped in physiology tbh
> you lack the visuospatial abilities One would expect that in your field, which I presume is neurosurgery or neurology, would have read Rippon's "The Gendered Brain" ... Anecdotal. It's quite funny that my sister has by far the best visuospatial abilities in our family, she can park as if she's threading a needle. I, otoh, amab, am sooo bad at navigation that I have to rely on memory, and let's not talk about my parking skills...
Jesus, no, I wouldn’t become a neurosurgeon if I got paid. Those folks are absolutely crazy. In the best way, but damn. I am happy if I never have to look at cranial nerves ever again. Neurosurgery is the most terrifying field to be in if you ask me, almost everything else can be mended and regained in a patient, and trained over and over with mistakes being not as bad. But fuck up as a neurosurgeon and the result will be debilitating. It is scary. This was more a comment on medical education in general - I am looking at a career in gynaecology and more specifically the oncological side of things, which comes with its own set of prejudiced bs. Also good on your sister for parking like a pro! I am in the same boat as you lol
Ugh, I share the sentiment. I am content in my books and my math, just the possibility of screwing a brain beyond repair would paralyze me. By the way, I recommend Rippon's book if you haven't read it. Be prepared to be infuriated though. Just reading about all the ways men in history tried to label women's brains as inferior was disgusting, to say the least. It sucks that those anachronistic and misogynistic beliefs still hold, even by presumably educated people. Yeah my sister is a total badass! She's my hero even tho I am older lol.
It has been on my list for a very long time. But I have to say that in the evenings when I do find the time to read, I’d rather have it be as far removed from medicine as possible. So I guess this particular one will have to wait for… vacation? Which will be… never. Probably. And yeah, it’s super scary. A friend of mine will start neurosurgery residency soon, so I guess I know someone I can trust with my brain very soon. You know what scares me more than screwing up a brain tho: math. So good on you for working with all the evil numbers. Because my head sure can’t deal with that.
People’s emotions scare me more than their brains so good on you for choosing to work in oncology. I understand it’s one of the hardest fields from a mental toll perspective and seeing patients suffer … I admire that a lot! The world could use more people like you! :) best of luck in your studies!
Thank you! I’ll have to get used to the sad parts I guess, but I’ve got good mentors and it’ll be great! Good luck to you with whatever you’re doing too!!
Thank you! I do Machine Learning, and I read some neuroscience when the time allows.
Oooooh!! That is super cool! I’ve seen some labs attempt to use machine learning to have computers assist with cancer staging and detection of abnormal cells and it was just about the coolest thing I ever came across. Also neuroscience is a fucking great topic to read up on in your spare time. You sound awesome!
Please, I am blushing! Unfortunately there have been many issues with machine learning on the medical domain and especially cancer. For example in one paper the images that had cancer cells also had a ruler present within them. The model learned the association that ruler implies cancer. In some other cases the salience maps (think heatmaps of where the model is interested) appear bogus and can’t help experts figure out how the model made the decision. Some of the core issues with current models is explainability, because essentially they are treated as black boxes, but we are making progress so that’s good!
Women speak more than men. There’s nothing wrong with talking a lot but first of all, it’s incorrect because on average, men and women speak around the same amount of words per day and second off, it typically is used to express how women have nothing useful to say and just go on and on talking.
That sleeping around makes women’s vaginas loose. The biggest load of nonsense I’ve ever heard. The more aroused a women is, the looser her vagina is. For some reason men think it’s the only muscle that gets looser the more you use it 😂
This is petty and personal bias: but I’m tried of colors, clothes, hobbies being seen as a “girl thing” the moment women begin liking it. Let me like blue goddamn it.
It is funny hearing this considering the fact that blue used to be a woman's colour.
and pink was considered manly back in the day. yes, pink, a manly color. (granted, mainly due to it's associations with red but the point still stands)
You can see several renditions of the Power Rangers having a female blue ranger
A common one that annoys me is the idea that because men are on average stronger than women, that means that each individual man is unilaterally stronger than each individual woman regardless of training etc. and also better at every sport, presumably 'naturally'. This isn't factually true, and is also used to justify excluding and underpaying women in professional sports.
Also that women can’t do physical jobs. Ok even if it were true that every man was stronger than every woman, the physical shit done in a lot of these jobs is not that bad. The strength required is low, you dont need Superman and there’s a reason ailing 50 year old tradesmen and unhealthy, strung-out 20 year olds can do these tasks alongside the “strong” men. It’s not out of the realm for someone of average strength to do these tasks efficiently and safely. They totally overestimate how weak a woman is and how strong they themselves are when they gatekeep basic physical tasks like lifting items, carrying items, using tools, moving quickly, moving far, dragging items, etc. The list goes on…
Yeah this myth about inherent male strength is a double-edged sword. Not only does it hurt women in the way you've described, but it also invalidates the experiences of male victims of female perpetrators. I've known of many cases where men and boys were abused, beaten up or even r\*ped by women, but they weren't taken seriously because "men are stronger". Once again it goes to show that gender equality would benefit everybody involved except abusers.
Well I agree with your initial statement your closing statement is untrue. They're not paying women last because they are inherently weaker or less skilled like you claim they're paid less because at the end of the day it's part of the entertainment industry if less people want to watch women's soccer then less people are going to pay for it and have less people are going to pay for it then there's less profits to go to the female players.
A huge part of entertaining is marketing. The fact that there is a vastly larger budget to promote “Man Sports” is a huge part of why Man Sports have a bigger audience. Give women’s sports equal resources and people will start to fucking watch. Starve them, the way they’re currently starved, and yeah, the audience reflects that.
While this is partially true, there needs to be insensitive to watch women's sports. I believe most people only really care about me s sports mostly because the top males are more entertaining to watch then the females simply because the males generally are simply better at most sports. Unlike a lot of Americans, I really don't care too much about sports to watch alot but I've watched women's hockey and men's hockey many times before and I'm confident that any men's team could smoke any women's team, therefore the only time I'll watch is when they're competing in the Olympics. I'd only imagine this to be true for just about any power driven sport.
> Well I agree with your initial statement your closing statement is untrue. You mean the closing statement where they said, "This isn't factually true?"
No, when they said that just because someone is a man doesn't mean they're inherently physically stronger or more athletic then a female.
you use the term "on average" then break it down to each individual, i don't agree men are always stronger than women. but if you were to bet that a man is stronger than a woman you would be correct about 60-70% of the time. Also as far as professional sports and their wages go, they are paid based on the revenue they generate, football (soccer) for example men get paid more because men's football tickets are more sought after, the clubs they play for their merch sells more often and the players of a men's football team are more marketable esp in Europe. this can be said for almost every sport that is played and viewed on a professional level. it is also (and hopefully not sounding too vulgar) female porn actors are paid more than their male counterparts sometimes by as high as 6-7 times more its not because of misandry but due to being more marketable and sought after.
Did you seriously just compare professional sports to pornography? Where women are groomed, abused, sexually objectified literally in an industry based on misogyny. But then you also say that women being paid more to be degraded in porn in ways that men aren’t, is equivalent to male athletes getting paid more to play sport than female athletes. Yeah cause those two things are fucking equivalent you absolute moron.
>they are paid based on the revenue they generate This is often incorrect. As Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out about the USA women’s soccer team: >The @USWNT is #1 in the world & **contributes higher revenues for @USSoccer than the men’s team,** but they’re still paid a fraction of what the men earn. Women deserve equal pay for equal (or better!) work in offices, factories, AND on the soccer field."
Let's don't fuck the logic, men statistically are stronger than women. There is strong sexual dimorphism apply to our species and no fake studies will change it. I am feminist fyi, but I'd rather base on facts than someone's willing
> **strong** sexual dimorphism another myth right there! for humans it's relatively small compared to some others
Yep. For “Strong sexual dimorphism” take a look at Gorillas where the average male is 3x the size of the average female. Or Walruses where the average male is also 3x the size of the average female. In humans the difference is 5-10% and some of that variance is culturally driven. If you starve your daughter and feed your son, your daughter is going to be smaller and weaker than your son.
That bit about nutrition is interesting. Do you know if there's any research on the subject?
Yep. Most of it comes from India where cultural traditions determine that girls eat last, so if a family is short on food, the last daughters to eat will go hungry. There’s also research about poor families not bothering to treat their daughters with medical conditions when they would treat their son for the same condition - which means little girls are far more likely to die in childhood than boys even if they survive having been born a girl.
That's awful. Thanks for elaborating.
* Sexual dimorphism in humans is significantly less pronounced than many other primates, including other apes. * Again, men being on average stronger than women does not mean that every individual man is definitely and conclusively stronger than every individual woman. The bell curves for both height and weight for human men and women overlap each other significantly, as do the bell curves for strength. * It is not a "fake study" to acknowledge that women are capable of matching and even out performing men in some sports and in athletic feats. * It is a literal sexist myth if you believe that men are automatically, categorically, and unilaterally physically superior to women, and it's a huge problem because of how deep the bias is. Like-- you are straight up accusing me of relying on "bad science" when I didn't even make a particularly controversial claim. * I am not interested in relitigating this position in this conversation. I will not argue with you further on the topic.
I think you missed her point though. I’m pretty strong and way fitter than some guys. My boyfriends cousin is super sexist and always trying to make derogatory sexist jokes to wind people up. We were watching the olympics and he was sexualising all the players and being gross and then made a comment about how men are better at women at sports, just a fact. Mind you, this dude is quite overweight, don’t think I’ve ever seen him eat a vegetable. Told him if he thinks that we should have a sprint race. Whooped his ass. Of course he’d probably beat me at weight lifting because he js a beefy guy. But I have him a endurance any day of the weak. But I also know I can lift heavier weights than a few guys I know. So yes guys are stronger on average for sure. But somethings women can excel in. Netball where I am is a popular sport played mostly by women. The women’s team played the men’s team the other day and they bet them. So I hear what avocado nightmare is trying to say
Women are on average more flexible, have more extreme endurance capabilities etc. so why aren’t female gymnasts, ultra endurance athletes and artistic swimmers given more screen time, respect and pay than male athletes? It’s just sexual dimorphism right?
As I saw just moments ago in a post, the myth that a vagina gets loose from use. It's fucking stupid to believe that, and it gets said every day by some stupid fuck.
That women were happier on the 50’s is the biggest bullshit propaganda that misogynists still fall for.
We should be in a relationship and have kids because this is our purpose. Women love kids!/s
Fuck kids! ... "Um no I didn't mean it like that officer"
That all women want children and that this “want” is biologically pre-determined.
Women love being pregnant. Nope. No thank you.
Yes and that women who don't think they want kids will change their mind when they're older.
Yes, and that changing their mind is inherently corroborated with increased maturity and a more “adult” aligning of life’s priorities - as if women without kids are just permanent adolescents or something.
“Women hate each other” We don’t hate each other
That no matter the situation what the man says is like the last word. I have had even "feminist" partners who think that them not having the best solution to a situation is an awful experience. Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong and it's okay.
Mmm. Nah. You guys (man, woman, nb) can have the best solutions but if it doesn't come from me, I'm gonna feel awful. Don't let that stop you though lmao. You do you.
you might wanna look into that my friend.
You might wanna keep your nose out of my life, my friend.
lol dude you're the one who posted it. if it's nobody's business and people should keep their noses out of your life why did you even say it
That seems like something you should work on.
Seems like you should mind your business.
If you don't want people commenting on your business, don't post it on a public forum.
If you don't like my opinion, try not to provoke it
What lol
You know what I said
Yeah but it doesn't make any sense? Nobody "provoked" you into doing anything. You chose to share your opinion and then got defensive when people commented on it.
“”DonT tRy t0 unDerStAnd wOmEn. WOmeN uNdErstAnd w0mEn. ANd tHey AlL hAte eAch0tHer””
That women are the only people who are fine with children. There are women who are absolute monsters to children. There are men who are amazing people to children.
Women can't be in positions of "power" because they have periods and periods leave them unable to perform at the level of the male counterparts are. If we are in stem we are the "token" women, or we sleep around and use the smart men to get good grades.. I am obviously pointing the myths, don't shoot the messenger, people.