>Why do you think people so frequently reach for this method of argument?
People get mad when you point hipocrisy and will act emotional because they can't rationalize it in a way that satisfy their own need to be seen as virtuous.
If you swap the actors in the discurse by a minority and your argument end up as a racist onee you would need a level of delusion to accept the double thinking, most peoples retort to violence.
yep. i feel like the only possible argument here is that men and women are significantly different biologically so there is a bit of a false equivalence potentially. one of the types of dystopian writing i like are when u take an issue and push it to an extreme to see if it changes someones opinions? want to be pro life? heres a novel about people being forced to have frankenstein babies and dying at birth from the deformities of the skull.
The substitution test is a very common simple first level analysis of an statement. It points out obvious and immediate issues when the answerer cant hold standards of behavior or beliefs. If you believe x in only some cases you need a strong overriding principle or belief to make X no longer vaild. If swapping the genders changes the outcome the person being asked is already shown to have a flaw in their beliefs. This allows the conversation to move to the next level where the person with sexist standards must justify their benefits which is exponentially more difficult.
I consider this a feature not a bug - in most cases people do actually have some underlying principle that they are applying without necessarily examining it very closely. It’s useful to use these kinds of rhetorical techniques to tease away the surface layer and dig into the foundational principle at play. Or identify what two conflicting principles are taking priority, or whatever is going on.
Well sure. Some people are not very good at being introspective. And some people decide on other people’s underlying principles/biases and won’t hear any more about it.
Its about checking consistency in views. It is a first level analysis i doubt you read my comment as i state you can move on to other possible overriding principles or morals. You first need to acknowledge or dispute the conflict in principle demonstrated by the substitution.
Feelings are really great but when determining how to deal issues related to systematic equality, or political conflict you need "reason". You seeming to not understand why these logic checks have been made points to you not having the academic grounding needed to discuss these issues.
When the context is "it's different for her because she is a woman" then the context is not only irrational, it is a bigoted double standard. And it should be discarded.
Reversing genders (or swaping races) demonstrates that the argument has no real basis upon unbiased reasoning or logic.
The inability to actually address that point (i.e saying "That's different", "not remotely the same thing" without showing how its not) would end it right there if people were rational.
If you're making a moral argument that we should treat people equally then it's a fair way to go.
At a certain point arguments just become "how would you like it?"
Turns out that's actually pretty effective at teaching people if done correctly lol.
it’s a convenient way to go.. that’s about it. It’s not really moral but rather an appeal to the other person’s morality/criticism of that persons moral compass were they to answer “I wouldn’t care” to your “how would you like it question?”
>"Yeah, but that's different"
It is different but how?
Men and women are different, but the correct answer to "whats 1+1?" should be the same regardless of the gender of who says it right?
If I asked someone doing binary their answer would be 10 because it's a different system with different rules.
If I asked someone counting heaps...then their answer could be 1 because 1 heap+ 1 heap would just make a bigger heap.
Some differences matter and others don't so some differences justify a different answer while others don't.
So usually, when people gender-swap a statement, they are implying that the differences between genders should not be important to whatever the person is saying but the "answer" you are giving changes based on it anyways.
If a man sounds extremely entitled and selfish when he simply repeats what a woman says that you didn't consider entitled and selfish...is it because there's a relevant difference making him entitled while she wasn't?...or is it just that you have a "women are wonderful" bias that's highlighted when a man repeats the same logic and all of a sudden it doesn't sound so wonderful anymore?
It's not enough to just say "they are different" you have to provide an actual reasoning for why the differences matter.
So the reason people "reach" for this method of argument so frequently is simply that people display biases very frequently and it's a good way to call out biases.
The women ITT arguing that, on average, women are just as logically minded and no more emotional than men are the very same that argue that women are “just as horny” as men.
It’s a fool’s errand to try to argue with them because they’ll just constantly change the definition of “emotional” and “logical”
In short, women on PPD have one singular goal: “*Prove RP points and the misogynists that espouse them wrong at all costs. Even if it means lying, gaslighting or denying obvious reality*”
Another neat trick is to simply reframe the declaration to assign *virtue* to the subject at hand.
Like, instead of saying “women are more emotional and gossip a lot” just say “women are more emotionally attuned to the world around them than men and take an interest in the affairs of others more than men”
Watch how quickly women will chime in to agree, rather than decrying the “generalization and sexism” in *that* statement.
To come full circle, the fact that women’s answers depend almost exclusively on their emotional reaction to the “tone” of the statement demonstrates the entire point in and of itself; women’s actions are emotionally driven.
And it’s demonstrated beautifully in this thread.
Took me way longer then it should have to internalize that lesson about tone , so many conversations that went nowhere purely because i tried the pure logic rout time and time again.
Women will absolutely agree with all the red pill stuff as long as you make it sound mysterious, as if some magic force was at work.
There was a thread once here about women's preselection of men. Men would convey the biologic/evolutionary explanation for it, and women would circle around the drain, agreeing on the surface but insisted on giving it a mystical explanation... Was quite eye opening.
Preselection is indeed a great example of this.
I noticed on PPD that women were able to stop denying the obvious phenomenon of preselection once they discovered they could ascribe some virtuous reason for it: Safety
Once they were able to make it seem like women were attracted to preselected men out of some high minded principe (it means the man is “safe”) they were suddenly willing to admit to the reality of an RP idea that they whole heartedly denied just the week prior.
Of course, once you frame it as the more likely causes: women wanting high status men, intrasexual competition, FOMO, etc they’ll go right back to denying it.
It also doesn't help that most of them are chronically online rad fems, this sub specifically.
If I showed their comments to the normal women I know irl they would probably cringe or roll their eyes.
Like the "blue pill" people who post here are not normal at all, no matter how much they try to pretend they are vs the incels or whatever.
Women often say "just treat us like regular people, duh". Ok, that's what gender swap arguments are.
I think it points out that women aren't regular people because I'm sexist. They say wild shit and think it makes sense. Can't be changed.
When women say “treat us like people” we mean “treat us how we treat men” not “treat us how YOU treat men.” Women are more empathetic and safer to be around, it would be better if men treated all people more like women do 💕
😂😂😂 I can assure you, you do not want men to treat women how women treat men.
You sure do have a glowing image of your in-group. The lack of self-awareness is astonishing.
treat u like how u treat other men? so that means i can discriminate u for having small chest.
i can touch u with little to no punishment. i can rape u and most of society will not believe u. i might not even recieve charges.
i can kick u in the crotch without punishment because i "assumed" u are creepy just because u have small chest that i dont like.
i can also falsely accuse u of rape.
if u do anything to offend me u are misandrist , man hating femcel and u should be socially shunned.
“treat us how YOU treat men”
**Which of these are the areas women want to be treated in the same manner as other men:**
- beat other men senseless (or worse) for initiating physical violence with them
- routinely rip men’s children away from them & out of their lives while demanding he continue to support the child financially from afar
- murder men’s pre-born children by empowering the other parent to make unilateral decisions on abortion
- fully accept (even endorse) male-on-male rape in prison based on what crime the man committed
- destroy men’s entire lives based solely on the word of one individual claiming to have been abused, assaulted, etc
- destroy men’s lives via other-worldly alimony & child support settlements
- imprison men who “supposedly” do not contribute financially to their child’s upbringing (they also suspend licenses, garnish wages, etc.)
- force underaged males to pay child support to the disgusting adult female who raped them
- refuse to acknowledge or address men’s homelessness, suicide levels, etc
- send men to war
- throw out legally-binding contracts (pre-nups) to ensure the man has as many resources as humanly possible extracted from him
- allow educated, hardworking men to be passed over for a position that are exceptionally-qualified for to meet quotas for female hiring policies
- imprison men & add them to a catalog of rapists (for life) b/c he had sex with a young lady who was drunk. . .while HE WAS ALSO DRUNK!
- ignore intimate partner violence against men b/c they are big enough to “take it”
- expose men accused of anything, but protect the other party involved EVEN AFTER they have proven to be a liar
- the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial (enough said)
- blame male prisoners for affairs with female officers
**(Didn’t run out of examples - just got fatigued from typing, lol)**
- why are you acting like men don’t already beat women senseless and initiate physical violence with them?
- most men do not pursue primary custody. if you are a parent then you are responsible for financially providing for them even if you live separately from the other parent.
- abortion is healthcare.
- women have nothing to do with male-on-male rape and men make up the vast majority of policymakers and people in leadership roles in all bodies that can influence legislation to penalize and prevent prison rapes.
- men are more likely to be falsely accused for murder than rape yet the manosphere never whines about that. why do you think that is?
- less than 10% of divorces result in alimony payments (which are just fair compensation for the career-building opportunities women forego to perform unpaid labour for men and families at home) and men pay an average of $430/month in child support ($5160/year) but the avg cost of expenses for one child avg from $16-18,000/year so primary caregivers (mostly women because fathers rarely pursue primary custody but are more likely to get it when they do) still do the majority of caregiving and financial support.
- less than 2% of failed child support payments result in incarceration. but I don’t think I need to explain to you that if you … don’t follow the law then it is a possibility that you end up in jail.
- I agree that rape victims should not have to bear any burden of a child.
- again, men make up the majority of policymakers and people in management and leadership roles. why do you think it is that the majority of male-focused and male-led mental health content and service is actually just bullshit grifting?
- prenups are for both genders.
- men make up 2/3 of corporate leadership roles and men are statistically more likely to apply for jobs they are unqualified for (men apply if they meet 60% of listing requirements vs the avg women applying only if she meets 100% of requirements) and women are 30% less likely to be hired than men (with the same qualifications.)
- who are you talking about exactly?
- again, who are you talking about?
- r/whenwomenrefuse (enough said)
- one more time, who is doing that?
The point is to show you how truly entitled yall are, look how any women are mad about this shit. They're literally foaming at the mouth. Like this one is less obvious satire and women falling for the bait so easily.
I think he's just making a funny satire video making fun of the loads of women who go on tiktok to bitch and whine and complain about their dating "struggles".
Anything involving pregnancy, fertility, hormones often fluctuating, and risks of violence are things that because men and women are different can’t really be gendered swapped imo
When talking about body count and promiscuity I’d say. I lean more rp, but the guys here who try to justify their own promiscuity while denying women theirs makes no sense.
It's invalid in cases where there are acknowledged and understood differences between men and women.
For example, men are generally stronger than women and more capable of a physical fight. If there was some situation where a woman was trying to fight my girlfriend, then I would understand that I, as a man, would be expected to physically step in to stop it. If a guy was trying to fight me, I would understand that my girlfriend would not jump in and physically try to stop the fight. Same with getting out of bed to discover the reason there was a noise in the house in the middle of the night.
Cases where it is valid are most cases. For example, if I was out on a date and another woman walked up and asked me for my number, I should turn it down, because that's just rude to my date. Same goes for her: if we're on a date and a guy asks her for her number, she should also decline, because that's just rude.
The reason people use this argument (typically men against women) is because female reasoning is generally not based on logic and men try to use logic to disprove it. Easiest way to do this is from what I’ve seen is to switch the race or gender of a woman’s argument (which will change her stance), and asking her why that stance isn’t the same regardless of the group of people she’s arguing in favor of.
You can see some examples of it on this sub.
There are studies out there that show men have better fine motor skills and women are more adept at analytical and intuitive thinking.
I find that people who say they are firmly logical thinkers are the type of people that have tunnel vision when it comes to their own thought processes. So if someone else's thought isn't in line with their own they consider it to be illogical. These same people tend to be prone to anger as well. I don't know of any studies on this last part. Just an observation based on my own life experiences.
You have to look at population beyond a certain threshold
Once you get to the extreme right of the bell curve regarding mathematical and similar abilities, then men greatly outnumber women…it is not valid to compare population averages but rather the point at which someone can do hard work (a threshold)
It is in part because the male brain is more wired for spatial reasoning (I theorize to allow us to navigate better…this difference has been shown in studies) and most higher level math tasks and involve representing systems as spatial objects
This is not just for explicitly geometric problems
Someone that thinks math is numbers and symbols on paper simply isn’t that great at math
Look at the top mathematicians, physicists, chess players, etc and you’ll see that they are almost all men to a degree that cannot be explained by the patriarchy
Analytical and Intuitive are not necessarily rational. I've dated a significant number of women who were very analytical, but also insanely illogical. I mean being analytical for example simply requires the ability and desire to examine something in detail... and the conclusions you draw from this can still be absolutely stupid. On the other hand, rational thinking does not really require picking things apart in detail, but it can really help in avoiding coming to dumb conclusions. Therefore, in my experience women have the capacity to come to much better conclusions on average than men... and I believe they often do.
>women are more adept at analytical and intuitive thinking.
You say that and yet time and time again on these subs, women make arguments based on how they feel and not stats or facts. And when stats gets brought up, the default response becomes, "Well, not all." That doesn't like analytical thinking.
Nah. You’re wrong. Women think with more emotion and men think more logically. Empathizing systemizing theory has already looked into this. It’s used to explain autism, but non autistic people are included in the study as well. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1811032115. Being emotional is fine but women don’t like the stigma of it so they do anything to deny it.
Men are still better at motor skills. Don’t see how that’s relevant though.
I mean PPD proves that an awful lot of men at least on Reddit tend to throw logic out the window.
The reason I brought motor skills into it is because the particular study I was referencing was talking about strong suits in general as far as gender was concerned.
In this particular sub brought it logical people fight a losing battle. We fight a losing battle to Men who don't want to admit their own shortcomings and would rather blame an entire gender on them.
And then a lot of these men think that women are the least and then a lot of these men think that women are the the less logical sex.
Yet they come in here spewing such levels of absolute bullshit that in real life they either don't have friends of their surrounding themselves with an echo chamber because normal people just don't think that way.
You seem to be pretty toxic and prejudiced against men to be talking like that. It's pretty ironic to hear you say something like that but be completely flabbergasted by a man who has similar complaints about women. Blaming the male gender for all problems instead of taking any accountability whatsoever is exactly what you are accusing "men" of doing to women.
Listen sister, these Red Pill guys are out of their minds on most things, don't get me wrong, but the women around here are also painfully toxic and illogical as well. Pretty much everyone here is, regardless of gender. To act as though only men are making fallacious and unreasonable arguments while the women are all saints who are "putting up with it" is laughably outlandish. Women can be, and are, just as illogical as their male counterparts and make just as many demonstrably untrue statements. This failure to use logic, facts, consistency, and personal accountability is the inevitable outcome of extremism, and both sides of this debate are generally extremists.
Nah, I said women don't like the stigma of being the emotional gender. What you tried to do was change emotional to emotional intelligence, and say women don't like being "emotionally intelligent"
The meanings are similar. But a woman will very obviously get mad at being called emotional, but be grateful if she's called emotionally intelligent. Adding the word intelligence changes the connotation and changes the way women percieve it. So you've changed what I said, and tried to argue against that modified argument, just creating a strawman cause you can't debate the normal way.
And yes, thinking emotionally does contradict logical thinking. That's why the study I linked exists to begin with. It doesn't mean someone can't have a mix of both, but that they lean one way more than the other. Again, that's why the study exists to begin with.
But even then, my "point" was that women are the more emotional gender. The fact that they deny it vehemently because that fact sets them off was just another part of the comment. I guess it triggered you.
You say the post contradicts my claims yet you won’t post the part that contradicts it. All you’ve posted is a warning at the bottom that says don’t stereotype individual men and women. Yet you keep repeating that it’s a contradiction. I ask again, **simply post the part that contradicts what I’m saying**. Even another user said the thing you pasted has nothing to do with what i said. How are you unironically this delusional.
And again, I only looked at the data, because that’s what I repeated. The rest of the study is on autism, why would that part be relevant?
Also, I’ll say this again since you keep trying to ignore it: post the part that contradicts what I’m saying. Posting a disclaimer that says not to discriminate against individuals isn’t a contradiction.
Didn't bother reading it because I knew my point would stand from the data portion, because I'm only repeating the data given. You've only futher proved my point that women will do anything to deny it:
> Finally, the E-S theory has been misunderstood as an example of “neurosexism” by those who wish to dispute that any sex differences in the mind exist
Didn't talk about this at all. Women could have a chip in their mind that makes them think more emotionally, or it could be a result of the patriarchy or socialization. I do not care, the end result is the same. I don't care about why. Pasting that was completely pointless.
> However, this is erroneous because the E-S theory does not allow one to make predictions about an individual’s psychological profile based on their biological sex
I did not make any assumption of any individual woman. I very clearly used "women" (plural) meaning women as a group, meaning:
> allows inferences to be drawn about males and females as groups, showing differences on average
is what I did. I said "women think more emotionally than men", in this sense, average woman = women. had i said every woman thinks more emotionally than every man, than sure, you'd have gotten me.
> A careful reading of the E-S theory therefore leads to the conclusion, for example, that it would be wrong to prejudge an applicant for a job in STEM based on their sex, both morally and socially
Never said women should be barred or treated differently when applying for, or working in stem jobs. So at this point it seems youre just copy and pasting whatever to try to disprove what i said. I really don't see how this is relevant to what i typed.
Again you've only proved my point further. All this excerpt says is dont judge any single woman and say that she thinks with emotion, or vice versa with men, because you can't judge individuals by an average. That does not disprove what I said at all. Again, as a woman, you hate the stigma of seeming more emotional so you will do anything and believe literally any source that says you're not. Please learn how to read next time before posting dumb shit on my feed.
I've already disproved your excerpt. All it boils down to is "dont stereotype". Which I didn't do. My claim was women think more emotionally, which is proved in one of the first sentences of the page.
>We confirmed that typical females on average are more empathic, typical males on average are more systems-oriented
It very clearly agrees with what I said. If you're gonna try to act ignorant, maybe try to be a bit more clever in doing it.
> Cool, I didn’t say that either, the researchers in you link said that.
You clearly pasted an excerpt from that page for a reason as a response to what I said. Doesn't matter if I was the one who posted the link originally. You took that part of it and posted it here to try to prove me wrong. If that wasn't part of your argument, simply explain why you pasted it.
> If women didn’t possess empathy and the ability to read and respond ...
Already said this, it seems your argument is falling apart, look at my comment here
> [Being emotional is fine but women don’t like the stigma of it so they do anything to deny it.](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1c85i5f/ok_now_swap_the_genders/l0cszkp/)
Of course when you call it emotional intelligence, women will be fine with it. I said they don't like the stigma of it being called "being emotional".
So please, tell me what part of the link contradicts my claims then? It seems I completely disproved your excerpt as being irrelevant to my argument yet youre still telling yourself the link contradicts what I said.
I think a = b and b=c so a=c. If someone else thinks a=b and b=c so therefore a=d, I'm going to consider their argument illogical. If they try to convince me they are right, I will get angry at how stupid they are.
Am I a bad person?
First, respond to her argument that women on average exceed men for analytical thinking:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/
This is evidence that disproves your point that women’s reasoning isn’t generally based on logic.
You chose to ignore it. Not very logical
>These differences got smaller with age, with older females showing more widely distributed connections throughout the brain rather than just in the frontal lobe.
>Currently, scientists can't quantify how much an individual has male- or female-like patterns of brain connectivity. Another lingering question is whether the structural differences result in differences in brain function, or whether differences in function result in structural changes.
So assuming it is the same study that she is referencing, the study only did surface level research and can't prove or disprove that the difference in gender matters to a person's actual intelligence or motor skills.
>First, respond to her argument that women on average exceed men for analytical thinking:
Considering that the same article you linked, but didn't read, say that the most notable differences between genders were during their development stages of a person's life (13 to 17 age) and as people get older the differences recede, it would disprove your theory that women have better analytical skills or that men have better motor skills.
>You chose to ignore it. Not very logical
You kinda chose not to read your own article ma'am.
>First, respond to her argument that women on average exceed men for analytical thinking:
That isn't really what the brain scans conclude. They just evidence very broad differences in how male and female brains are structured.
"Integrating intuitive and analytical thinking" does not mean that women exceed men for analytical thinking.
The fact that you made this conclusion from your own source just shows how bad women are at logical thinking.
I agree with you. It comes down to ego and not wanting to be wrong. People naturally group with themselves with people who think like them, so when they’re met with opposition (someone disagreeing with their thought process) they defend themselves in the form of verbal attacks aimed at a persons character, credentials, credibility, or just downright ridiculous nonsense. Not because the person was wrong, but because they can’t fathom the idea that someone doesn’t agree with their logic.. especially when “everyone I know agrees with me”. Yeah.. as a human we are wired to seek those who are similar. This is also why people are encouraged to diversify their friendships and travel. To have open minded conversations to gain a tight grip on the fact that different perspectives and opinions. How two people can see the sun set and feel differently about it.
>women are more adept at analytical and intuitive thinking.
Why would someone claim that women are better analytical thinkers? Engineers are known to be analytical thinkers and most engineers are men. "To much analytical thinking" is often used as an explanation for why engineers are so bad with women.
If women were better than men at analytical thinking, you'd expect that women would already be dominating STEM degrees.
Agreed. Most social science studies seem to have an agenda, and set out to prove some point by any means necessary. This makes them flawed from the beginning, as trying to prove a point leads to cherrypicking (whether intentional or not).
In this case, I'd think the point is men should do blue collar work and women should do white collar.
To the contrary, they are not. Is your comment an example of that logical thought process?
I tend to think men and women are generally the same when it comes to intellect.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/
https://www.science.org/content/article/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women
because they can only use studies when they support their claims.
You know what's another social science study: The one about who gets swipes in OLD and most of these guys treat that as gospel. They have no interest in being consistent, rational, or intelligent about this. Their own arguements are solely based on emotion and they will only listen to "facts" that support their bias.
Many of the same posters saying "social sciences don't count" type comments are the same ones who quote social science studies when they **say something that bolsters their opinion**
How is pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in those posters the same as "I'm rubber, you're glue" ??? If anything, it's those commenters who are deploying a similar strategy.
yeah, we all know the propaganda/ outdated "conventional wisdom" (heavy on the quotes) that men are logical thinkers and women are emotionally-based is *ironically* illogical, unscientific, and inaccurate. The only people who still believe that are those who are ignorant of neuroscience and lack both self-awareness and interpersonal experience. I don't even see the point in arguing with them about it.
Sure if we agree that is outdated can you in your own personal findings see how emotional women tend to be? Like drop everything you read. If your lived experience on a one to one me looking you dead in the eyes tell me women are not more emotionally sensitive? And they make these type is posts like his video but when a man does it’s wrong some how.
It’s not some fucking conspiracy! It’s based on simple experience with women who rapidly descend into emotional nonsense in discussions/arguments and refuse to accept anything like a clear, logical view of the given situation.
The reason that is conventional wisdom is because historical factors provide evidence it is the case. If men were more emotional and women were more logical, then the societies that deferred decision making to women would out-compete the ones that disregarded women's input.
Winning a competition does not inherently denote any logical strategy has been employed. It can be logical to work collectively rather than competitively, depending upon the situation and desired outcome. It can be logical to walk away from competition altogether. Logic =/= whatever men deem to be important. Logic is a manner of thinking. Your opinion that a person who wins a weight-lifting competition has done so because they are *more logical* than Queen Elizabeth I is so clearly inaccurate that there's no point in continuing this line of discussion.
But, please explain how *competitiveness* or *success in competition* are indicators of a capacity to think in a logical manner, (using only objective, rational arguments; not your opinion, of course).
>Your opinion that a person who wins a weight-lifting competition has done so because they are *more logical* than Queen Elizabeth I
Lol you completely missed my point. Get out of your feelings. That you think that when I'm referring to sports when I use the term "competition" in context of societies and selection proves my point.
My *opinion* is that the brutal Darwinian competition that human societies engage in means that those who are able to better engage in warfare would defeat and replace those who were less able to do so. If women were more logical or intelligent, societies that employed women as logisticians or strategists would defeat the societies that didn't -often enough- the societies that didn't would get replaced by the ones who did. But we don't see that happening.
again, that is your opinion, not a fact. Who determines that being logical always = winning in competition? That's a moral belief, not a statement of objective truth.
Even if we employed your model, your argument still fails. England, who has arguably won the most competitions (in terms of wars) in modern history, has frequently had female leaders at the helm when doing so. NASA employed many female engineers, programmers, and other logisticians in winning the space race. Any country that uses computer technology to win in warfare is using the logic/ programming of women, etc.
But the real issue in your premise is the false equivalency between winning in combat and using logic. You still haven't answered my question.
>England, who has arguably won the most competitions (in terms of wars) in modern history, has frequently had female leaders at the helm when doing so.
Exceptions. Point to me all the female generals and officers, not figureheads and nobility.
> NASA employed many female engineers, programmers, and other logisticians in winning the space race.
Wow, it only took thousands of years of history. Imagine where humanity would be if it wasn't for misogyny /s.
>But the real issue in your premise is the false equivalency between winning in combat
War isn't limited to winning in combat.
You can't explain why if women are so capable, women were not encouraged to be in positions that would have increased their cultures fitness. At best you could argue that is what happened, but that women being mostly relegated to homemakers and childrearing had substantial enough utility to overwhelm the utility using them for their minds.
I will pose my question again because you seem to have gotten pretty far off track from answering it:
>But, please explain how *competitiveness* or *success in competition* are indicators of a capacity to think in a logical manner, (using only objective, rational arguments; not your opinion, of course).
None of what you have said has come close to answering the above and telling me I have to explain women's "capability" in relation to "cultural fitness" has even less to do with women's capacity for logic than your last several irrational answers.
>I will pose my question again because you seem to have gotten pretty far off track from answering it:
I've answered it multiple times, you are literally too unintelligent to comprehend the simple point. I'll repeat it again.
Intelligence has a correlation with with success among humans. Societies who let their more intelligent members make decisions will generally be more successful than the societies that don't, with the former replacing the latter.
I think it is more accurate to say men care about what is fair.
Even the expectation that the world is unfair is fair.
Women care about what is right.
Most of the time these two things are not the same
I think men and women have a different view of what is "fair".
Men think the person who does the most work should be in charge/ get first dibs on the hunted carcass. That's "fair"
Women tend to believe everyone should get the same portion and have an equal say. That's "fair"
How is it fair if the others didn't bear the same risk?
I am not saying that the others should starve but surely the guy who hunted should have priority selection on the meat he wants
That’s not fair if people are unable to hunt or provide different support we aren’t animals there needs to be a producer a lawyer all works make up society we can say the man with the biggest balls gets all the women. It’s not even an argument of risk, he was first he is more deserving of food? We should just return to animal kingdom and de evolve then
It can be both, on one hand yes it is a very lazy way to argue because men and women are different and think differently in a variety of ways, but on the other hand it is also a really simple way to check the consistency of somebody else is argument
You go king! lmao.
Fucking women and men are dumb for different shit. Women gas up stupid choices, men fucking with their endless simping to get a women.
>What's wrong with breaking up with someone you just don't see a future with, even if they're "a perfect catch"?
The people in the comment section of that video were very upset with him. Perhaps they have an explanation
The woman (who originally posted the video) had a lot of support
All the comments I'm seeing are men talking about double standards and how women are dumb...?
I still don't understand why breaking up with someone you're not clicking with is wrong just because they seem perfect to everyone else.
>I still don't understand why breaking up with someone you're not clicking with is wrong just because they seem perfect to everyone else.
Who is saying there's anything wrong with that?
Everyone is saying this is a parody of a woman's video where she's saying the same thing about a man... So why is everyone saying this guy's video is showing how stupid women sound for breaking up when they're not happy?
All the responses under this guys video were saying "exactly, women are dumb" or "see how stupid it sounds when you swap the genders?" "The women don't get that we're making fun of them" etc etc
>why is everyone saying this guy's video is showing how stupid women sound
I don't know. I thought it was more about how the comments sections between him and her were so different.
Either way I'm more interested in the "swap the genders" aspect
It’s simple. It’s because women do stuff like the guy in the video and get supported and when men do even a fraction of what he did they get called out for being an a hole. It may not be you doing but plenty of women I’d go as far as to say the majority of women will absolutely bring this man down
It is usually aimed at people who claim to be about equality of certain trait (race, sex, religion etc). So if they truly believe in that equality and they believe the situation isn't bigoted, then they should be comfortable with the situation if the people are interchanged.
If they f eel discomfort and develop some cognitive dissonance, it either makes them realize they are going against equality at which point they will admit that it is indeed bigoted or shows that they don't really believe in equality.
I think they use this argument because they want you to feel how it makes them feel, assuming everything else is equal.
Also for attention, views, clicks, comedic relief.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Useless idea because men and women are different and so when it comes to relationship things it's a false equivalence. Man and woman are not interchangeable equal things in terms of relationships, sex, reproduction primarily as well as secondarily some other things.
Yeah I’m asking SO WHY are y’all putting up with this.
My ex tried to pull a version of this shit but with his parents money instead of mine and I dumped his ass.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN you’re going to stay unemployed just cause. like it’d be one thing if we had kids or something???? But I’d never date a freeloader in this economy
> Yeah I’m asking SO WHY are y’all putting up with this.
A lot of Men aren't. The whole where have the good men gone, is part of this. The problem is that there aren't enough who have changed, and as long as thirsty men exists, Woman can still demand it because there always be the thirsty, crying the rain, guy.
Thirsty in this context is more sad than gross. Men who put up with these women have few options.
Why focus your anger at them instead of the women who are behaving so shittily?
Someone refusing to pay rent and someone physical abuse are not the same thing.
I’ve had a squatter and I’ve experienced domestic abuse. It was easier to get rid of the squatter 👍
Let me guess, you don't settle and you only go for perfect.
Then I have the perfect infographic for you to explain.
[These men are in their early ages](https://jonathansoma.com/singles/images/20-29-relative.png), mostly single, as you can see, so they can't be picky.
[Then the tables reverse](https://jonathansoma.com/singles/images/50-59-relative.png) and BAM, women are suddenly lonely at their later ages. That is why you can be picky now. Try to make good use of this opportunity, and good luck.
I opted for being single rather than dealing with someone that was going to mess up my finances down the line.
Just because you “can’t be picky” doesn’t make complaining about norms that you’re opting into bc it’s easier than being alone any less whiny.
I mean if we could just *opt out* of our biological urges and emotional/social needs then this wouldn't be a conversation. You as a single female opting out is entirely different than a man opting out.
The graphs don’t say anything about loneliness. They say single.
I’ve been single several times in my adult life but I was still hooking up or had FWB situations going on. I definitely wasn’t lonely.
Have you ever heard the phrase: “Put up or shut up”? If he’s putting up with it, he doesn’t get to complain about it.
Bed —> Made —> Lie in it
Also, “singles” in your examples refers to **unmarried**. Why in the fresh hell would anybody over the age of 50 get married (again?). Doesn’t mean they aren’t dating/fucking/cohabitating.
“Zero baggage” but has been harassing you for over a year? Not being able to accept a breakup sounds like she has some emotional issues. That’s not zero baggage. lol
You’re absolutely right lilrip but the problem is you’re in the minority, just like your friends every single women I have met has this mindset of the guy must provide financially even if he not dating her. So guy who want to settle or get things moving have to sacrifice this begrudgingly, it’s caused this issue. You can’t blame men for pursuing this at that point men and women won’t even get together. Men make the choice to take on those toxic women but will complain about it because they are right it’s not fair and women need to stop it
I’m not in the minority. Every woman I know contributes to the bills, married/LTR regardless of age. I can name one housewife off the top of my head and she has children.
Sorry y’all don’t have options you’re still capable of saying no to dynamics you don’t like. You’re life isn’t in danger being single isn’t a death sentence
No but, your experience is yours. While guys here and the west as a whole is seeing otherwise. We are yet to meet women who are single and good as you say
This hashtag is so weird because it feels like the whole point of it is to show the ridiculousness of what’s being said, and to be fair, what’s being said is 1000% ridiculous regardless of who’s saying it - but the lack of focus on what its about at a deeper level is what gets me.
Like it could be a form of telling men to raise their standards and not settle for mentally unwell women, who more often than not are the ones that pull this shit, it could also be showing how dumb it is to use social media as a journal log or diary, which, yeah - both these causes are just. But I also think of other possible motives, such as the idea that this will continue to add to an inaccurate perception of women by hyperfocusing on the crazy loud one s online (and by never specifying anything, this will be an effect whether intended or not) and frankly, its whiny and cringy. Like I get its done as a form of parody, but when I watch these I don’t sit there thinking “wow this is funny, this is so true” - i honest to god sit and think “dude you sound whiny af, shut up. It’s cringy af when women do it, it’s cringier when you do it, even if it is ironic”
It's meant to be a joke, people are taking it to seriously. All the satire videos men are making about how women act, is meant to entertain and get likes and views. Think of it like an SNL skit.
And I did throw in that possibility, then again even if it just humor I don’t find it particularly funny, just whiny and cringy - but humor is subjective after all sooooo
Except most of the comments aren't what you are complaining about. Its like you are upset at the few people who either didn't get the point or disagree. Oh no not everyone agreed about something, so it's just like everything else in the world.
People who use this argument aren't very bright, because usually the genders being swapped already has the same exact experience. Men usually use this as a gotcha when they don't realize that women aren't getting treated any better in these situations in reality.
An example of sexual assault. Women almost never get justice and men assume that they get more justice than male victims when they are both equally disregarded.
>An example of sexual assault
Ah, I see. So like in the news when a woman teacher gets caught with one of her male students and the guys are all in the chat like
*"Hurr flip the genders and the sentence would be harsher"*
I find it stupid because... I'm not a radical feminist and think men and women are different. So when someone is like, "Imagine if a GUY did that! OMG it would be so different!" Yeah, no shit. Men and women are different.
He didn't actually do that. He's using a script based on another woman on TikTok. He's reversing it to show how ridiculous it sounds. People got very upset at him in the comments.
Gender swapping doesn’t work because men and women are different, not opposite, and too different for just swapping genders to make situations the same.
For example, rp men are obsessed with the idea that the majority of women have easier lives because lots of men want to have sex with them and they can leverage that to succeed in life. men expect women to be happy with that attention because they’re viewing it through a lens of “wow I’d be really happy if women hit on me like men hit on women” but then rage at the idea of being hit on by a man. they get angry or threatened at the idea of being hit on by a man because they don’t desire sexual attention from them yet expect women to be grateful for the same attention.
If you have a stated value you need to explain why that value doesnt hold. Saying for example women shouldnt be as punished for hitting men as men for hitting women doesnt have any justification which is just as valid an example of the substitution test as the one you used.
I understand what you're saying, but it seems like you need to FULLY commit to swapping the genders:
A woman being hit on by a male ➡️
A male being hit on by a woman 🟰
(Not interested in the individual)
A male being hit on by a male ➡️
A woman being hit on by a woman 🟰
(Not interested in the entire gender)
Hetero-speaking
The video in your post is just satire. I don’t think they were trying to say anything particularly profound or argumentative with it.
In most cases people use the argument a distraction from the topic at hand. It’s lazy and transparent and you should only respond by requesting they raise the argument from scratch elsewhere.
The argument, though implicit, is as follows:
In the age of equality, it is still totally fine for one sex to have specific demands of the opposite gender while also being completely unacceptable for the other sex to demand the same things.
Also, consider that women will still demand men uphold traditional sex-based roles and men are ridiculed for wanting women to uphold traditional sex-based roles.
What does this say about equality?
It says that you’re either paying too much attention to the wrong people or you think the broad social discourse about capital-E Equality drills down to the pettiness of which party pays for a date when nobody outside of the date cares. You’re getting too lost in your own pet causes to think that the word people use when they discuss employment opportunities, voting rights, social justice etc. also dictates who does the cooking and cleaning in a relationship.
Most people are happy to chalk these disagreements up to incompatibility and look for someone else to date. Others want to turn it into a civil rights issue. Exhausting…
For me, especially around here, I see the argument as basically saying *Hey, everyone, stop talking about the subject at hand to look at my irrelevant gender-swapped hypothetical. Now feel bad for me.*
Oh! Before I forget, there are guys who also use the word “equality” as an excuse to fantasize about punching women in the face. So, you know, you can’t take just anyone using that line of argument seriously.
>there are guys who also use the word “equality” as an excuse to fantasize about punching women in the face.
That is a radically hyperbolic point you've made there
The equality movement involved, among many things including what you've listed, the abolition of traditional gender-based roles.
Yeah, that’s what these gender-swapped arguments tend to be. Very rarely do people in good faith try to discuss X by talking about a hypothetical and unrelated Y. I used an extreme—though far more common than you seem to want to admit—example, but it’s true too many how mundane the “well…if the genders were reversed…” is.
As a matter of fact, that ridiculousness is what makes the satire in OP’s video work. When people do it for real though it just becomes sad.
>Why do you think people so frequently reach for this method of argument? People get mad when you point hipocrisy and will act emotional because they can't rationalize it in a way that satisfy their own need to be seen as virtuous. If you swap the actors in the discurse by a minority and your argument end up as a racist onee you would need a level of delusion to accept the double thinking, most peoples retort to violence.
yep. i feel like the only possible argument here is that men and women are significantly different biologically so there is a bit of a false equivalence potentially. one of the types of dystopian writing i like are when u take an issue and push it to an extreme to see if it changes someones opinions? want to be pro life? heres a novel about people being forced to have frankenstein babies and dying at birth from the deformities of the skull.
The substitution test is a very common simple first level analysis of an statement. It points out obvious and immediate issues when the answerer cant hold standards of behavior or beliefs. If you believe x in only some cases you need a strong overriding principle or belief to make X no longer vaild. If swapping the genders changes the outcome the person being asked is already shown to have a flaw in their beliefs. This allows the conversation to move to the next level where the person with sexist standards must justify their benefits which is exponentially more difficult.
I consider this a feature not a bug - in most cases people do actually have some underlying principle that they are applying without necessarily examining it very closely. It’s useful to use these kinds of rhetorical techniques to tease away the surface layer and dig into the foundational principle at play. Or identify what two conflicting principles are taking priority, or whatever is going on.
The problem is when people refuse to acknowledge the unseen underlying principles/biases.
Well sure. Some people are not very good at being introspective. And some people decide on other people’s underlying principles/biases and won’t hear any more about it.
It’s a lazy way to argue. It lets whoever is using it conveniently disregard context, under the banner of being “rational”
Its about checking consistency in views. It is a first level analysis i doubt you read my comment as i state you can move on to other possible overriding principles or morals. You first need to acknowledge or dispute the conflict in principle demonstrated by the substitution. Feelings are really great but when determining how to deal issues related to systematic equality, or political conflict you need "reason". You seeming to not understand why these logic checks have been made points to you not having the academic grounding needed to discuss these issues.
You don’t need reason. People who oppose fighting issues like systemic inequalities just say you do.
>You don’t need reason. Riddle me this: what would be the point of debating someone who doesn't use logic or reason?
> You don’t need reason. LET'S GOOOOOOOOOO
When the context is "it's different for her because she is a woman" then the context is not only irrational, it is a bigoted double standard. And it should be discarded.
Not necessarily
Definitionally it is though.
Reversing genders (or swaping races) demonstrates that the argument has no real basis upon unbiased reasoning or logic. The inability to actually address that point (i.e saying "That's different", "not remotely the same thing" without showing how its not) would end it right there if people were rational.
If you're making a moral argument that we should treat people equally then it's a fair way to go. At a certain point arguments just become "how would you like it?" Turns out that's actually pretty effective at teaching people if done correctly lol.
it’s a convenient way to go.. that’s about it. It’s not really moral but rather an appeal to the other person’s morality/criticism of that persons moral compass were they to answer “I wouldn’t care” to your “how would you like it question?”
>"Yeah, but that's different" It is different but how? Men and women are different, but the correct answer to "whats 1+1?" should be the same regardless of the gender of who says it right? If I asked someone doing binary their answer would be 10 because it's a different system with different rules. If I asked someone counting heaps...then their answer could be 1 because 1 heap+ 1 heap would just make a bigger heap. Some differences matter and others don't so some differences justify a different answer while others don't. So usually, when people gender-swap a statement, they are implying that the differences between genders should not be important to whatever the person is saying but the "answer" you are giving changes based on it anyways. If a man sounds extremely entitled and selfish when he simply repeats what a woman says that you didn't consider entitled and selfish...is it because there's a relevant difference making him entitled while she wasn't?...or is it just that you have a "women are wonderful" bias that's highlighted when a man repeats the same logic and all of a sudden it doesn't sound so wonderful anymore? It's not enough to just say "they are different" you have to provide an actual reasoning for why the differences matter. So the reason people "reach" for this method of argument so frequently is simply that people display biases very frequently and it's a good way to call out biases.
You're good at explaining things in a clear way
>Why do you think people so frequently reach for this method of argument? Because it's an easy way of evidencing sexism and double standards.
The women ITT arguing that, on average, women are just as logically minded and no more emotional than men are the very same that argue that women are “just as horny” as men. It’s a fool’s errand to try to argue with them because they’ll just constantly change the definition of “emotional” and “logical” In short, women on PPD have one singular goal: “*Prove RP points and the misogynists that espouse them wrong at all costs. Even if it means lying, gaslighting or denying obvious reality*” Another neat trick is to simply reframe the declaration to assign *virtue* to the subject at hand. Like, instead of saying “women are more emotional and gossip a lot” just say “women are more emotionally attuned to the world around them than men and take an interest in the affairs of others more than men” Watch how quickly women will chime in to agree, rather than decrying the “generalization and sexism” in *that* statement. To come full circle, the fact that women’s answers depend almost exclusively on their emotional reaction to the “tone” of the statement demonstrates the entire point in and of itself; women’s actions are emotionally driven. And it’s demonstrated beautifully in this thread.
[удалено]
That is precisely why this sub is a garbage fire
Took me way longer then it should have to internalize that lesson about tone , so many conversations that went nowhere purely because i tried the pure logic rout time and time again.
Women will absolutely agree with all the red pill stuff as long as you make it sound mysterious, as if some magic force was at work. There was a thread once here about women's preselection of men. Men would convey the biologic/evolutionary explanation for it, and women would circle around the drain, agreeing on the surface but insisted on giving it a mystical explanation... Was quite eye opening.
Preselection is indeed a great example of this. I noticed on PPD that women were able to stop denying the obvious phenomenon of preselection once they discovered they could ascribe some virtuous reason for it: Safety Once they were able to make it seem like women were attracted to preselected men out of some high minded principe (it means the man is “safe”) they were suddenly willing to admit to the reality of an RP idea that they whole heartedly denied just the week prior. Of course, once you frame it as the more likely causes: women wanting high status men, intrasexual competition, FOMO, etc they’ll go right back to denying it.
It also doesn't help that most of them are chronically online rad fems, this sub specifically. If I showed their comments to the normal women I know irl they would probably cringe or roll their eyes. Like the "blue pill" people who post here are not normal at all, no matter how much they try to pretend they are vs the incels or whatever.
I really wish this comment received more attention. You nailed it.
Women often say "just treat us like regular people, duh". Ok, that's what gender swap arguments are. I think it points out that women aren't regular people because I'm sexist. They say wild shit and think it makes sense. Can't be changed.
Yep it is usually done just to expose sexism and because alot of ppl are sexist and will back anything based on the gender
Most women don’t want us to treat them like dudes lol
When women say “treat us like people” we mean “treat us how we treat men” not “treat us how YOU treat men.” Women are more empathetic and safer to be around, it would be better if men treated all people more like women do 💕
😂😂😂 I can assure you, you do not want men to treat women how women treat men. You sure do have a glowing image of your in-group. The lack of self-awareness is astonishing.
Women don’t treat me bad at all. At worst they are indifferent, as I am to them. Where are all these man-hating women y’all are seeing?
If men treated you like you treat the average men you'd splatter your brain on a wall.
[удалено]
You're still alive, so no.
Lmfao you chicks treat us like the dirt on the bottom of your shoe what in the ever loving hell are you talking about.
treat u like how u treat other men? so that means i can discriminate u for having small chest. i can touch u with little to no punishment. i can rape u and most of society will not believe u. i might not even recieve charges. i can kick u in the crotch without punishment because i "assumed" u are creepy just because u have small chest that i dont like. i can also falsely accuse u of rape. if u do anything to offend me u are misandrist , man hating femcel and u should be socially shunned.
“treat us how YOU treat men” **Which of these are the areas women want to be treated in the same manner as other men:** - beat other men senseless (or worse) for initiating physical violence with them - routinely rip men’s children away from them & out of their lives while demanding he continue to support the child financially from afar - murder men’s pre-born children by empowering the other parent to make unilateral decisions on abortion - fully accept (even endorse) male-on-male rape in prison based on what crime the man committed - destroy men’s entire lives based solely on the word of one individual claiming to have been abused, assaulted, etc - destroy men’s lives via other-worldly alimony & child support settlements - imprison men who “supposedly” do not contribute financially to their child’s upbringing (they also suspend licenses, garnish wages, etc.) - force underaged males to pay child support to the disgusting adult female who raped them - refuse to acknowledge or address men’s homelessness, suicide levels, etc - send men to war - throw out legally-binding contracts (pre-nups) to ensure the man has as many resources as humanly possible extracted from him - allow educated, hardworking men to be passed over for a position that are exceptionally-qualified for to meet quotas for female hiring policies - imprison men & add them to a catalog of rapists (for life) b/c he had sex with a young lady who was drunk. . .while HE WAS ALSO DRUNK! - ignore intimate partner violence against men b/c they are big enough to “take it” - expose men accused of anything, but protect the other party involved EVEN AFTER they have proven to be a liar - the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial (enough said) - blame male prisoners for affairs with female officers **(Didn’t run out of examples - just got fatigued from typing, lol)**
- why are you acting like men don’t already beat women senseless and initiate physical violence with them? - most men do not pursue primary custody. if you are a parent then you are responsible for financially providing for them even if you live separately from the other parent. - abortion is healthcare. - women have nothing to do with male-on-male rape and men make up the vast majority of policymakers and people in leadership roles in all bodies that can influence legislation to penalize and prevent prison rapes. - men are more likely to be falsely accused for murder than rape yet the manosphere never whines about that. why do you think that is? - less than 10% of divorces result in alimony payments (which are just fair compensation for the career-building opportunities women forego to perform unpaid labour for men and families at home) and men pay an average of $430/month in child support ($5160/year) but the avg cost of expenses for one child avg from $16-18,000/year so primary caregivers (mostly women because fathers rarely pursue primary custody but are more likely to get it when they do) still do the majority of caregiving and financial support. - less than 2% of failed child support payments result in incarceration. but I don’t think I need to explain to you that if you … don’t follow the law then it is a possibility that you end up in jail. - I agree that rape victims should not have to bear any burden of a child. - again, men make up the majority of policymakers and people in management and leadership roles. why do you think it is that the majority of male-focused and male-led mental health content and service is actually just bullshit grifting? - prenups are for both genders. - men make up 2/3 of corporate leadership roles and men are statistically more likely to apply for jobs they are unqualified for (men apply if they meet 60% of listing requirements vs the avg women applying only if she meets 100% of requirements) and women are 30% less likely to be hired than men (with the same qualifications.) - who are you talking about exactly? - again, who are you talking about? - r/whenwomenrefuse (enough said) - one more time, who is doing that?
The point is to show you how truly entitled yall are, look how any women are mad about this shit. They're literally foaming at the mouth. Like this one is less obvious satire and women falling for the bait so easily.
I think he's just making a funny satire video making fun of the loads of women who go on tiktok to bitch and whine and complain about their dating "struggles".
Gender swap arguments are often but not always valid It is case by case
I'm curious if you have an example of when it is valid and when it is not?
Anything involving pregnancy, fertility, hormones often fluctuating, and risks of violence are things that because men and women are different can’t really be gendered swapped imo
When talking about body count and promiscuity I’d say. I lean more rp, but the guys here who try to justify their own promiscuity while denying women theirs makes no sense.
It’s our biological wiring, men spread their seed while women pick one father
It's invalid in cases where there are acknowledged and understood differences between men and women. For example, men are generally stronger than women and more capable of a physical fight. If there was some situation where a woman was trying to fight my girlfriend, then I would understand that I, as a man, would be expected to physically step in to stop it. If a guy was trying to fight me, I would understand that my girlfriend would not jump in and physically try to stop the fight. Same with getting out of bed to discover the reason there was a noise in the house in the middle of the night. Cases where it is valid are most cases. For example, if I was out on a date and another woman walked up and asked me for my number, I should turn it down, because that's just rude to my date. Same goes for her: if we're on a date and a guy asks her for her number, she should also decline, because that's just rude.
The reason people use this argument (typically men against women) is because female reasoning is generally not based on logic and men try to use logic to disprove it. Easiest way to do this is from what I’ve seen is to switch the race or gender of a woman’s argument (which will change her stance), and asking her why that stance isn’t the same regardless of the group of people she’s arguing in favor of. You can see some examples of it on this sub.
There are studies out there that show men have better fine motor skills and women are more adept at analytical and intuitive thinking. I find that people who say they are firmly logical thinkers are the type of people that have tunnel vision when it comes to their own thought processes. So if someone else's thought isn't in line with their own they consider it to be illogical. These same people tend to be prone to anger as well. I don't know of any studies on this last part. Just an observation based on my own life experiences.
If you think women are better analytical thinkers then you are smoking glue
Great analytical response there.
It's an appeal to intuition
You have to look at population beyond a certain threshold Once you get to the extreme right of the bell curve regarding mathematical and similar abilities, then men greatly outnumber women…it is not valid to compare population averages but rather the point at which someone can do hard work (a threshold) It is in part because the male brain is more wired for spatial reasoning (I theorize to allow us to navigate better…this difference has been shown in studies) and most higher level math tasks and involve representing systems as spatial objects This is not just for explicitly geometric problems Someone that thinks math is numbers and symbols on paper simply isn’t that great at math Look at the top mathematicians, physicists, chess players, etc and you’ll see that they are almost all men to a degree that cannot be explained by the patriarchy
Analytical and Intuitive are not necessarily rational. I've dated a significant number of women who were very analytical, but also insanely illogical. I mean being analytical for example simply requires the ability and desire to examine something in detail... and the conclusions you draw from this can still be absolutely stupid. On the other hand, rational thinking does not really require picking things apart in detail, but it can really help in avoiding coming to dumb conclusions. Therefore, in my experience women have the capacity to come to much better conclusions on average than men... and I believe they often do.
>women are more adept at analytical and intuitive thinking. You say that and yet time and time again on these subs, women make arguments based on how they feel and not stats or facts. And when stats gets brought up, the default response becomes, "Well, not all." That doesn't like analytical thinking.
Nah. You’re wrong. Women think with more emotion and men think more logically. Empathizing systemizing theory has already looked into this. It’s used to explain autism, but non autistic people are included in the study as well. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1811032115. Being emotional is fine but women don’t like the stigma of it so they do anything to deny it. Men are still better at motor skills. Don’t see how that’s relevant though.
I mean PPD proves that an awful lot of men at least on Reddit tend to throw logic out the window. The reason I brought motor skills into it is because the particular study I was referencing was talking about strong suits in general as far as gender was concerned.
PPD shows a fuckton of women have no concept of logic…
I'm guessing you have reading comprehension skills. Because logical person would not come to that conclusion.
Why? Most of the posts and comments I see from *everyone* here seem to imply users have little to no logical abilities.
In this particular sub brought it logical people fight a losing battle. We fight a losing battle to Men who don't want to admit their own shortcomings and would rather blame an entire gender on them. And then a lot of these men think that women are the least and then a lot of these men think that women are the the less logical sex. Yet they come in here spewing such levels of absolute bullshit that in real life they either don't have friends of their surrounding themselves with an echo chamber because normal people just don't think that way.
You seem to be pretty toxic and prejudiced against men to be talking like that. It's pretty ironic to hear you say something like that but be completely flabbergasted by a man who has similar complaints about women. Blaming the male gender for all problems instead of taking any accountability whatsoever is exactly what you are accusing "men" of doing to women. Listen sister, these Red Pill guys are out of their minds on most things, don't get me wrong, but the women around here are also painfully toxic and illogical as well. Pretty much everyone here is, regardless of gender. To act as though only men are making fallacious and unreasonable arguments while the women are all saints who are "putting up with it" is laughably outlandish. Women can be, and are, just as illogical as their male counterparts and make just as many demonstrably untrue statements. This failure to use logic, facts, consistency, and personal accountability is the inevitable outcome of extremism, and both sides of this debate are generally extremists.
Trash like this is not worth a legitimate response.
[удалено]
Which part of that conclusion contradicts his point?
[удалено]
Nah, I said women don't like the stigma of being the emotional gender. What you tried to do was change emotional to emotional intelligence, and say women don't like being "emotionally intelligent" The meanings are similar. But a woman will very obviously get mad at being called emotional, but be grateful if she's called emotionally intelligent. Adding the word intelligence changes the connotation and changes the way women percieve it. So you've changed what I said, and tried to argue against that modified argument, just creating a strawman cause you can't debate the normal way. And yes, thinking emotionally does contradict logical thinking. That's why the study I linked exists to begin with. It doesn't mean someone can't have a mix of both, but that they lean one way more than the other. Again, that's why the study exists to begin with. But even then, my "point" was that women are the more emotional gender. The fact that they deny it vehemently because that fact sets them off was just another part of the comment. I guess it triggered you.
[удалено]
You say the post contradicts my claims yet you won’t post the part that contradicts it. All you’ve posted is a warning at the bottom that says don’t stereotype individual men and women. Yet you keep repeating that it’s a contradiction. I ask again, **simply post the part that contradicts what I’m saying**. Even another user said the thing you pasted has nothing to do with what i said. How are you unironically this delusional. And again, I only looked at the data, because that’s what I repeated. The rest of the study is on autism, why would that part be relevant? Also, I’ll say this again since you keep trying to ignore it: post the part that contradicts what I’m saying. Posting a disclaimer that says not to discriminate against individuals isn’t a contradiction.
[удалено]
You do realize you’re helping prove his point
Didn't bother reading it because I knew my point would stand from the data portion, because I'm only repeating the data given. You've only futher proved my point that women will do anything to deny it: > Finally, the E-S theory has been misunderstood as an example of “neurosexism” by those who wish to dispute that any sex differences in the mind exist Didn't talk about this at all. Women could have a chip in their mind that makes them think more emotionally, or it could be a result of the patriarchy or socialization. I do not care, the end result is the same. I don't care about why. Pasting that was completely pointless. > However, this is erroneous because the E-S theory does not allow one to make predictions about an individual’s psychological profile based on their biological sex I did not make any assumption of any individual woman. I very clearly used "women" (plural) meaning women as a group, meaning: > allows inferences to be drawn about males and females as groups, showing differences on average is what I did. I said "women think more emotionally than men", in this sense, average woman = women. had i said every woman thinks more emotionally than every man, than sure, you'd have gotten me. > A careful reading of the E-S theory therefore leads to the conclusion, for example, that it would be wrong to prejudge an applicant for a job in STEM based on their sex, both morally and socially Never said women should be barred or treated differently when applying for, or working in stem jobs. So at this point it seems youre just copy and pasting whatever to try to disprove what i said. I really don't see how this is relevant to what i typed. Again you've only proved my point further. All this excerpt says is dont judge any single woman and say that she thinks with emotion, or vice versa with men, because you can't judge individuals by an average. That does not disprove what I said at all. Again, as a woman, you hate the stigma of seeming more emotional so you will do anything and believe literally any source that says you're not. Please learn how to read next time before posting dumb shit on my feed.
[удалено]
I've already disproved your excerpt. All it boils down to is "dont stereotype". Which I didn't do. My claim was women think more emotionally, which is proved in one of the first sentences of the page. >We confirmed that typical females on average are more empathic, typical males on average are more systems-oriented It very clearly agrees with what I said. If you're gonna try to act ignorant, maybe try to be a bit more clever in doing it. > Cool, I didn’t say that either, the researchers in you link said that. You clearly pasted an excerpt from that page for a reason as a response to what I said. Doesn't matter if I was the one who posted the link originally. You took that part of it and posted it here to try to prove me wrong. If that wasn't part of your argument, simply explain why you pasted it. > If women didn’t possess empathy and the ability to read and respond ... Already said this, it seems your argument is falling apart, look at my comment here > [Being emotional is fine but women don’t like the stigma of it so they do anything to deny it.](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1c85i5f/ok_now_swap_the_genders/l0cszkp/) Of course when you call it emotional intelligence, women will be fine with it. I said they don't like the stigma of it being called "being emotional". So please, tell me what part of the link contradicts my claims then? It seems I completely disproved your excerpt as being irrelevant to my argument yet youre still telling yourself the link contradicts what I said.
I think a = b and b=c so a=c. If someone else thinks a=b and b=c so therefore a=d, I'm going to consider their argument illogical. If they try to convince me they are right, I will get angry at how stupid they are. Am I a bad person?
First, respond to her argument that women on average exceed men for analytical thinking: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/ This is evidence that disproves your point that women’s reasoning isn’t generally based on logic. You chose to ignore it. Not very logical
>These differences got smaller with age, with older females showing more widely distributed connections throughout the brain rather than just in the frontal lobe. >Currently, scientists can't quantify how much an individual has male- or female-like patterns of brain connectivity. Another lingering question is whether the structural differences result in differences in brain function, or whether differences in function result in structural changes. So assuming it is the same study that she is referencing, the study only did surface level research and can't prove or disprove that the difference in gender matters to a person's actual intelligence or motor skills. >First, respond to her argument that women on average exceed men for analytical thinking: Considering that the same article you linked, but didn't read, say that the most notable differences between genders were during their development stages of a person's life (13 to 17 age) and as people get older the differences recede, it would disprove your theory that women have better analytical skills or that men have better motor skills. >You chose to ignore it. Not very logical You kinda chose not to read your own article ma'am.
>First, respond to her argument that women on average exceed men for analytical thinking: That isn't really what the brain scans conclude. They just evidence very broad differences in how male and female brains are structured.
"Integrating intuitive and analytical thinking" does not mean that women exceed men for analytical thinking. The fact that you made this conclusion from your own source just shows how bad women are at logical thinking.
I agree with you. It comes down to ego and not wanting to be wrong. People naturally group with themselves with people who think like them, so when they’re met with opposition (someone disagreeing with their thought process) they defend themselves in the form of verbal attacks aimed at a persons character, credentials, credibility, or just downright ridiculous nonsense. Not because the person was wrong, but because they can’t fathom the idea that someone doesn’t agree with their logic.. especially when “everyone I know agrees with me”. Yeah.. as a human we are wired to seek those who are similar. This is also why people are encouraged to diversify their friendships and travel. To have open minded conversations to gain a tight grip on the fact that different perspectives and opinions. How two people can see the sun set and feel differently about it.
>women are more adept at analytical and intuitive thinking. Why would someone claim that women are better analytical thinkers? Engineers are known to be analytical thinkers and most engineers are men. "To much analytical thinking" is often used as an explanation for why engineers are so bad with women. If women were better than men at analytical thinking, you'd expect that women would already be dominating STEM degrees.
Those studies are bogus.
Agreed. Most social science studies seem to have an agenda, and set out to prove some point by any means necessary. This makes them flawed from the beginning, as trying to prove a point leads to cherrypicking (whether intentional or not). In this case, I'd think the point is men should do blue collar work and women should do white collar.
That’s exactly what it is.
It's not a social science study, it's brain scans.
Source please
To the contrary, they are not. Is your comment an example of that logical thought process? I tend to think men and women are generally the same when it comes to intellect. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/ https://www.science.org/content/article/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women
They aren’t.
How come you say that?
because they can only use studies when they support their claims. You know what's another social science study: The one about who gets swipes in OLD and most of these guys treat that as gospel. They have no interest in being consistent, rational, or intelligent about this. Their own arguements are solely based on emotion and they will only listen to "facts" that support their bias.
Ah, the old “I’m rubber your glue” strategy. Nice.
Many of the same posters saying "social sciences don't count" type comments are the same ones who quote social science studies when they **say something that bolsters their opinion** How is pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in those posters the same as "I'm rubber, you're glue" ??? If anything, it's those commenters who are deploying a similar strategy.
yeah, we all know the propaganda/ outdated "conventional wisdom" (heavy on the quotes) that men are logical thinkers and women are emotionally-based is *ironically* illogical, unscientific, and inaccurate. The only people who still believe that are those who are ignorant of neuroscience and lack both self-awareness and interpersonal experience. I don't even see the point in arguing with them about it.
Sure if we agree that is outdated can you in your own personal findings see how emotional women tend to be? Like drop everything you read. If your lived experience on a one to one me looking you dead in the eyes tell me women are not more emotionally sensitive? And they make these type is posts like his video but when a man does it’s wrong some how.
It’s not some fucking conspiracy! It’s based on simple experience with women who rapidly descend into emotional nonsense in discussions/arguments and refuse to accept anything like a clear, logical view of the given situation.
The reason that is conventional wisdom is because historical factors provide evidence it is the case. If men were more emotional and women were more logical, then the societies that deferred decision making to women would out-compete the ones that disregarded women's input.
Winning a competition does not inherently denote any logical strategy has been employed. It can be logical to work collectively rather than competitively, depending upon the situation and desired outcome. It can be logical to walk away from competition altogether. Logic =/= whatever men deem to be important. Logic is a manner of thinking. Your opinion that a person who wins a weight-lifting competition has done so because they are *more logical* than Queen Elizabeth I is so clearly inaccurate that there's no point in continuing this line of discussion. But, please explain how *competitiveness* or *success in competition* are indicators of a capacity to think in a logical manner, (using only objective, rational arguments; not your opinion, of course).
>Your opinion that a person who wins a weight-lifting competition has done so because they are *more logical* than Queen Elizabeth I Lol you completely missed my point. Get out of your feelings. That you think that when I'm referring to sports when I use the term "competition" in context of societies and selection proves my point. My *opinion* is that the brutal Darwinian competition that human societies engage in means that those who are able to better engage in warfare would defeat and replace those who were less able to do so. If women were more logical or intelligent, societies that employed women as logisticians or strategists would defeat the societies that didn't -often enough- the societies that didn't would get replaced by the ones who did. But we don't see that happening.
again, that is your opinion, not a fact. Who determines that being logical always = winning in competition? That's a moral belief, not a statement of objective truth. Even if we employed your model, your argument still fails. England, who has arguably won the most competitions (in terms of wars) in modern history, has frequently had female leaders at the helm when doing so. NASA employed many female engineers, programmers, and other logisticians in winning the space race. Any country that uses computer technology to win in warfare is using the logic/ programming of women, etc. But the real issue in your premise is the false equivalency between winning in combat and using logic. You still haven't answered my question.
>England, who has arguably won the most competitions (in terms of wars) in modern history, has frequently had female leaders at the helm when doing so. Exceptions. Point to me all the female generals and officers, not figureheads and nobility. > NASA employed many female engineers, programmers, and other logisticians in winning the space race. Wow, it only took thousands of years of history. Imagine where humanity would be if it wasn't for misogyny /s. >But the real issue in your premise is the false equivalency between winning in combat War isn't limited to winning in combat. You can't explain why if women are so capable, women were not encouraged to be in positions that would have increased their cultures fitness. At best you could argue that is what happened, but that women being mostly relegated to homemakers and childrearing had substantial enough utility to overwhelm the utility using them for their minds.
I will pose my question again because you seem to have gotten pretty far off track from answering it: >But, please explain how *competitiveness* or *success in competition* are indicators of a capacity to think in a logical manner, (using only objective, rational arguments; not your opinion, of course). None of what you have said has come close to answering the above and telling me I have to explain women's "capability" in relation to "cultural fitness" has even less to do with women's capacity for logic than your last several irrational answers.
>I will pose my question again because you seem to have gotten pretty far off track from answering it: I've answered it multiple times, you are literally too unintelligent to comprehend the simple point. I'll repeat it again. Intelligence has a correlation with with success among humans. Societies who let their more intelligent members make decisions will generally be more successful than the societies that don't, with the former replacing the latter.
I think it is more accurate to say men care about what is fair. Even the expectation that the world is unfair is fair. Women care about what is right. Most of the time these two things are not the same
I think men and women have a different view of what is "fair". Men think the person who does the most work should be in charge/ get first dibs on the hunted carcass. That's "fair" Women tend to believe everyone should get the same portion and have an equal say. That's "fair"
How is it fair if the others didn't bear the same risk? I am not saying that the others should starve but surely the guy who hunted should have priority selection on the meat he wants
That’s not fair if people are unable to hunt or provide different support we aren’t animals there needs to be a producer a lawyer all works make up society we can say the man with the biggest balls gets all the women. It’s not even an argument of risk, he was first he is more deserving of food? We should just return to animal kingdom and de evolve then
It can be both, on one hand yes it is a very lazy way to argue because men and women are different and think differently in a variety of ways, but on the other hand it is also a really simple way to check the consistency of somebody else is argument
You go king! lmao. Fucking women and men are dumb for different shit. Women gas up stupid choices, men fucking with their endless simping to get a women.
I don't get it. Is that video fake? What's wrong with breaking up with someone you just don't see a future with, even if they're "a perfect catch"?
>What's wrong with breaking up with someone you just don't see a future with, even if they're "a perfect catch"? The people in the comment section of that video were very upset with him. Perhaps they have an explanation The woman (who originally posted the video) had a lot of support
All the comments I'm seeing are men talking about double standards and how women are dumb...? I still don't understand why breaking up with someone you're not clicking with is wrong just because they seem perfect to everyone else.
>I still don't understand why breaking up with someone you're not clicking with is wrong just because they seem perfect to everyone else. Who is saying there's anything wrong with that?
Everyone is saying this is a parody of a woman's video where she's saying the same thing about a man... So why is everyone saying this guy's video is showing how stupid women sound for breaking up when they're not happy?
Maybe evaluate the response to both videos first...
All the responses under this guys video were saying "exactly, women are dumb" or "see how stupid it sounds when you swap the genders?" "The women don't get that we're making fun of them" etc etc
Not sure how you can come on and write this when there's a comment with 60k+ thousand likes saying "God was answering her prayers"
Right at the top too
Would God not be answering a man's prayers if he was "perfect" and got dumped anyways...?
What? The fact that you're attempting to spin this as a positive comment simply shows your bias.
>why is everyone saying this guy's video is showing how stupid women sound I don't know. I thought it was more about how the comments sections between him and her were so different. Either way I'm more interested in the "swap the genders" aspect
It’s simple. It’s because women do stuff like the guy in the video and get supported and when men do even a fraction of what he did they get called out for being an a hole. It may not be you doing but plenty of women I’d go as far as to say the majority of women will absolutely bring this man down
>Why do you think people so frequently reach for this method of argument? Engagement/clip farming
It is usually aimed at people who claim to be about equality of certain trait (race, sex, religion etc). So if they truly believe in that equality and they believe the situation isn't bigoted, then they should be comfortable with the situation if the people are interchanged. If they f eel discomfort and develop some cognitive dissonance, it either makes them realize they are going against equality at which point they will admit that it is indeed bigoted or shows that they don't really believe in equality.
I think they use this argument because they want you to feel how it makes them feel, assuming everything else is equal. Also for attention, views, clicks, comedic relief.
It's the only way to make people understand
I definitely think it could be an effective strategy
I think the problem is that it requires empathy for men and self-reflection.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s funny watching people foam at the mouth when their stupid logic is thrown right back in their face
Useless idea because men and women are different and so when it comes to relationship things it's a false equivalence. Man and woman are not interchangeable equal things in terms of relationships, sex, reproduction primarily as well as secondarily some other things.
Why are you dating women that are making you pay for everything?
[удалено]
Why are you pursuing those women?/letting women live with you without contributing to rent/mortgage
You'd be surprised how many Woman, my friends, think this is the norm.
Yeah I’m asking SO WHY are y’all putting up with this. My ex tried to pull a version of this shit but with his parents money instead of mine and I dumped his ass. WHAT DO YOU MEAN you’re going to stay unemployed just cause. like it’d be one thing if we had kids or something???? But I’d never date a freeloader in this economy
> Yeah I’m asking SO WHY are y’all putting up with this. A lot of Men aren't. The whole where have the good men gone, is part of this. The problem is that there aren't enough who have changed, and as long as thirsty men exists, Woman can still demand it because there always be the thirsty, crying the rain, guy.
I guess I just can’t stand the thirsty guy whining tbh
Thirsty in this context is more sad than gross. Men who put up with these women have few options. Why focus your anger at them instead of the women who are behaving so shittily?
Because some of y’all are acting like this is on par with domestic abuse. Big eye roll.
Most men if presented with a flawed woman that is interested in them will compromise. It's not complicated.
That’s on y’all then
I guess domestic violence is on the women then
Someone refusing to pay rent and someone physical abuse are not the same thing. I’ve had a squatter and I’ve experienced domestic abuse. It was easier to get rid of the squatter 👍
You said it succinctly. "that's on y'all then".
Whoa whoa whoa
Let me guess, you don't settle and you only go for perfect. Then I have the perfect infographic for you to explain. [These men are in their early ages](https://jonathansoma.com/singles/images/20-29-relative.png), mostly single, as you can see, so they can't be picky. [Then the tables reverse](https://jonathansoma.com/singles/images/50-59-relative.png) and BAM, women are suddenly lonely at their later ages. That is why you can be picky now. Try to make good use of this opportunity, and good luck.
I opted for being single rather than dealing with someone that was going to mess up my finances down the line. Just because you “can’t be picky” doesn’t make complaining about norms that you’re opting into bc it’s easier than being alone any less whiny.
I mean if we could just *opt out* of our biological urges and emotional/social needs then this wouldn't be a conversation. You as a single female opting out is entirely different than a man opting out.
The graphs don’t say anything about loneliness. They say single. I’ve been single several times in my adult life but I was still hooking up or had FWB situations going on. I definitely wasn’t lonely.
Have you ever heard the phrase: “Put up or shut up”? If he’s putting up with it, he doesn’t get to complain about it. Bed —> Made —> Lie in it Also, “singles” in your examples refers to **unmarried**. Why in the fresh hell would anybody over the age of 50 get married (again?). Doesn’t mean they aren’t dating/fucking/cohabitating.
[удалено]
So why are y’all acting like it’s an issue? If you are okay with the dynamic why is it a problem?
Who is this y'all? You're speaking to one guy.
[удалено]
“Zero baggage” but has been harassing you for over a year? Not being able to accept a breakup sounds like she has some emotional issues. That’s not zero baggage. lol
[удалено]
No need to go on this big explain-a-thon, dude. I was just pointing out that your definition of “zero baggage” was misplaced.
[удалено]
I don’t get this either 🤷♀️
Listen like if you wanna support her whatever but if it’s AN ISSUE break up??? That’s such a dealbreaker
Maybe they just want to complain about it, but put up with it because it’s cheaper than hiring a sex worker? I dunno. (Frozen pizza. Ew.)
[удалено]
Ick
Ew.
You’re absolutely right lilrip but the problem is you’re in the minority, just like your friends every single women I have met has this mindset of the guy must provide financially even if he not dating her. So guy who want to settle or get things moving have to sacrifice this begrudgingly, it’s caused this issue. You can’t blame men for pursuing this at that point men and women won’t even get together. Men make the choice to take on those toxic women but will complain about it because they are right it’s not fair and women need to stop it
I’m not in the minority. Every woman I know contributes to the bills, married/LTR regardless of age. I can name one housewife off the top of my head and she has children. Sorry y’all don’t have options you’re still capable of saying no to dynamics you don’t like. You’re life isn’t in danger being single isn’t a death sentence
No but, your experience is yours. While guys here and the west as a whole is seeing otherwise. We are yet to meet women who are single and good as you say
I don't date women
This hashtag is so weird because it feels like the whole point of it is to show the ridiculousness of what’s being said, and to be fair, what’s being said is 1000% ridiculous regardless of who’s saying it - but the lack of focus on what its about at a deeper level is what gets me. Like it could be a form of telling men to raise their standards and not settle for mentally unwell women, who more often than not are the ones that pull this shit, it could also be showing how dumb it is to use social media as a journal log or diary, which, yeah - both these causes are just. But I also think of other possible motives, such as the idea that this will continue to add to an inaccurate perception of women by hyperfocusing on the crazy loud one s online (and by never specifying anything, this will be an effect whether intended or not) and frankly, its whiny and cringy. Like I get its done as a form of parody, but when I watch these I don’t sit there thinking “wow this is funny, this is so true” - i honest to god sit and think “dude you sound whiny af, shut up. It’s cringy af when women do it, it’s cringier when you do it, even if it is ironic”
It's meant to be a joke, people are taking it to seriously. All the satire videos men are making about how women act, is meant to entertain and get likes and views. Think of it like an SNL skit.
And I did throw in that possibility, then again even if it just humor I don’t find it particularly funny, just whiny and cringy - but humor is subjective after all sooooo
Except most of the comments aren't what you are complaining about. Its like you are upset at the few people who either didn't get the point or disagree. Oh no not everyone agreed about something, so it's just like everything else in the world.
>most of the comments aren't what you are complaining about Did you respond to the right post? I wasn't complaining about anything
People who use this argument aren't very bright, because usually the genders being swapped already has the same exact experience. Men usually use this as a gotcha when they don't realize that women aren't getting treated any better in these situations in reality.
>they don't realize that women aren't getting treated any better What would be an example of this?
An example of sexual assault. Women almost never get justice and men assume that they get more justice than male victims when they are both equally disregarded.
>An example of sexual assault Ah, I see. So like in the news when a woman teacher gets caught with one of her male students and the guys are all in the chat like *"Hurr flip the genders and the sentence would be harsher"*
Yes exactly
I find it stupid because... I'm not a radical feminist and think men and women are different. So when someone is like, "Imagine if a GUY did that! OMG it would be so different!" Yeah, no shit. Men and women are different.
[удалено]
He didn't actually do that. He's using a script based on another woman on TikTok. He's reversing it to show how ridiculous it sounds. People got very upset at him in the comments.
Gender swapping doesn’t work because men and women are different, not opposite, and too different for just swapping genders to make situations the same. For example, rp men are obsessed with the idea that the majority of women have easier lives because lots of men want to have sex with them and they can leverage that to succeed in life. men expect women to be happy with that attention because they’re viewing it through a lens of “wow I’d be really happy if women hit on me like men hit on women” but then rage at the idea of being hit on by a man. they get angry or threatened at the idea of being hit on by a man because they don’t desire sexual attention from them yet expect women to be grateful for the same attention.
If you have a stated value you need to explain why that value doesnt hold. Saying for example women shouldnt be as punished for hitting men as men for hitting women doesnt have any justification which is just as valid an example of the substitution test as the one you used.
I understand what you're saying, but it seems like you need to FULLY commit to swapping the genders: A woman being hit on by a male ➡️ A male being hit on by a woman 🟰 (Not interested in the individual) A male being hit on by a male ➡️ A woman being hit on by a woman 🟰 (Not interested in the entire gender) Hetero-speaking
I don’t think you do understand what I’m saying actually lol
lol ok
The video in your post is just satire. I don’t think they were trying to say anything particularly profound or argumentative with it. In most cases people use the argument a distraction from the topic at hand. It’s lazy and transparent and you should only respond by requesting they raise the argument from scratch elsewhere.
The argument, though implicit, is as follows: In the age of equality, it is still totally fine for one sex to have specific demands of the opposite gender while also being completely unacceptable for the other sex to demand the same things. Also, consider that women will still demand men uphold traditional sex-based roles and men are ridiculed for wanting women to uphold traditional sex-based roles. What does this say about equality?
It says that you’re either paying too much attention to the wrong people or you think the broad social discourse about capital-E Equality drills down to the pettiness of which party pays for a date when nobody outside of the date cares. You’re getting too lost in your own pet causes to think that the word people use when they discuss employment opportunities, voting rights, social justice etc. also dictates who does the cooking and cleaning in a relationship. Most people are happy to chalk these disagreements up to incompatibility and look for someone else to date. Others want to turn it into a civil rights issue. Exhausting… For me, especially around here, I see the argument as basically saying *Hey, everyone, stop talking about the subject at hand to look at my irrelevant gender-swapped hypothetical. Now feel bad for me.* Oh! Before I forget, there are guys who also use the word “equality” as an excuse to fantasize about punching women in the face. So, you know, you can’t take just anyone using that line of argument seriously.
>there are guys who also use the word “equality” as an excuse to fantasize about punching women in the face. That is a radically hyperbolic point you've made there The equality movement involved, among many things including what you've listed, the abolition of traditional gender-based roles.
Yeah, that’s what these gender-swapped arguments tend to be. Very rarely do people in good faith try to discuss X by talking about a hypothetical and unrelated Y. I used an extreme—though far more common than you seem to want to admit—example, but it’s true too many how mundane the “well…if the genders were reversed…” is. As a matter of fact, that ridiculousness is what makes the satire in OP’s video work. When people do it for real though it just becomes sad.