Comment by tornadoboy55 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tornadoboy55 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Aren't those generalities true though? Remember when those female talk show hosts laughed on live TV about a dudes' dick getting cut off by his partner?

Or what about the ESA engineer that helped landing on a comet and all the media could talk about is that he wore a shirt with stylized naked ladies on them. Imagine giving a women researching cancer shit because she wore a shirt with 'If a man ain't got muscle I ain't gonna tussle' in a interview. And you give her shit profusely, for a week, until she is depressed and feels the need to apologize on TV, for wearing a shirt.

Bonus points (although not entirely related): women like Anita Sarkeesian that say games (still predominantly a male pasttime if you discount mobile/casual games) like Mortal Kombat promote violence agains women.. no shit, it's a fighting game, where the core gameplay revolves around beating people up. Glad I mentioned casual game since there's plenty of dating games where the goal for the girl is to date the most successful and popular men.

Or what about Disney movies.. The princesses are seen as portraying impossible beauty and standards, whereas you hear nothing about the men in these movies (jaw like an anvil, super muscular, usually smart and rich).

Combine that with the fact that these days there's still campaigns to get more women to university (university is 40/60 men/women these days), there are special women only grants.

Also, Obama touted the 33% wage gap myth and the 1 in 5 rape/sexual assault statistic that are both completely botched.

See what I'm getting at? Society in the West, and especially America, is crazy tilted towards women, and it needs to stop.

Edit: the parent comment went from +7 to -1 in the span of a few minutes. Seems my preemption about downvote brigading by SJWs/white knights wasn't so silly after all, hmm?

> Aren't those generalities true though?

They're really not. What's true are the experiences that led you to feel the way you do and the fact that you feel that way. But retrofitting that into a social theory with a grab-bag of data points doesn't yield truth. It's just a form of intellectual armor so you can make aggressive claims without being vulnerable where it hurts.

If you gear up with that armor and then charge into HN threads and throw your weight around, that's not dialog, that's battle. It'll get angry disagreement from those who don't align with you and angry agreement from those who do, but what we won't get is thoughtful discussion. That's a problem for two reasons: (1) it's predictable and therefore boring—the true sin on HN; (2) it produces more of itself and destroys everything else. Flames are a good metaphor for this, so the term flame+war is about perfect for it.

> They're really not. What's true is the experiences that led you to feel the way you do and the fact that you feel that way.

But I didn't name a single experience or anecdote. These are all googleable facts..

Facts are data points. There are infinitely many, and they don't select themselves. Humans do that. You could as easily construct an opposite generality by picking different facts.

The energy behind comments like this isn't intellectual curiosity. It's pain left over from painful experiences. That's important, maybe more important than intellectual curiosity. Almost certainly more important. But we don't get anywhere when we argue about this through the armor of ideological categories, because that's not really what it's about. All that happens is that those with similar pain line up on one side and those with opposite pain line up on the other, each seeing the other as the culprit. What dialog is possible then? None.

So anyone with a painful experience is not allowed to participate in discussion? Are you going to ban rape victims from working to improve handling for rape cases next? You aren't even approaching these people from a neutral position and evaluating their data honestly, so if anyone should be disqualified from commenting, I think it is you at this point.

Those generalities are true. We just often don't have the statistics to prove them. It's either because the research isn't funded, either because it is undercommunicated (journalists extract the one sentence that is profitable to women and so on), either they're entirely banned (ever tried advertising on Twitter for a male cause? Yes, it's banned, "sensitive topics" can't be advertised whereas feminism can), or either because such researchers would be afraid to nail the coffin on their career.

Research on male problems needs equal funding to women, throughout the world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com