Are you trying to lose your own debate by making people laugh at you?
These comments are utterly stupid. Women are already doing every one of the tasks that you imply only men will do. As to being freaked out by a roach, you can get most guys to faint by putting them in the same room as a dirty diaper, much less asking them to change one.*
I am aware that a very large number of fathers change their babies’ diapers, but if we have to rely on dumb stereotypes to argue this thread, then all dumb stereotypes are fair game.
This is just an aside but that isn’t a reasonable request for anything other than theories that specify genetics and that isn’t the case with IQ tests. It also isn’t the case for the vast majority of medical and other behavioral tests either.
It is easy to imagine (because it is done all the time by scouting agents) that someone could invent a comprehensive test of overall athletic performance that has a strong positive correlation with performance in many different sporting skills. The subtests would be things like sprint performance, reaction time, jumping ability, long distance running ability, throwing accuracy and other distinct abilities that may make up a significant portion of something that can be called ‘general athletic ability’. Coaches and teams that use this selection tool see greatly increased performance overall from their picks when they use this new test as part of the selection criteria.
Would you think that was controversial? This test doesn’t even attempt to explain how or why the results are what they are let alone delve into the genetic realm for a full explanation because that isn’t what it is for. Its job is to be able to predict performance on other complex tasks and it does it as well as possible based on the complex and sophisticated statistics behind it.
However, it doesn’t even attempt to tell you which athletes are going to perform much worse than expected because they have personal issues, poor work ethic or just a nasty disposition. It also won’t tell you which ones will overperform because they have a tenacious work ethic or some other unusual factor but none of that is what it was designed for.
IQ tests are exactly the same as this fictional test of athletic performance that I just described. They are only interested in measuring certain broad traits at a the behavioral level and the root biological or genetic reasons for it are not of concern at least for most clinical and practical applications.
Intelligence seems to me to be orders-of-magnitude more complex than athletic ability. And as to all the other factors (“personal issues, poor work ethic”, etc.), they could very well include societal and cultural factors which could be indications that the tests are not entirely objective and unbiased with regards to categories like ethnicity, gender, race, etc. But I think IQ test validity is a bit of a hijack for this thread, so perhaps we shouldn’t continue in this thread.
Breast cancer gets so much attention because it’s a common form of cancer and (perhaps more importantly) Susan G. Komen is really good at promoting itself. Ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancer don’t get anywhere near that level of attention despite being cancers that only affect women.
They do admittedly get more attention than the ending of Titanic, so I guess there’s that. Diseases that kill real women today are taken more seriously than the deaths of fictional men in movies from nearly 20 years ago. But if you expect me to share your outrage about that then I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed.
Coaches and scouts do all sorts of things that really do not demonstrate te “best” athlete. They do an OK, (not great), job picking athletes who do well in one sport.
There is no g[Sup]p[/Sup], in the way that the imaginary g of intelligence is bandied about.
Of course. Many do know such people. And many contribute to research for those. Maybe more people donate more money to breast cancer, but I’m not sure what that proves. I know more people who have had breast cancer than any other single cancer, although I have known people with all kinds of cancer. Personally, although I am a man, I have contributed money to ovarian cancer research. I’m losing your point somewhere.
I think people are sniping on LinusK for little reason other than petty retaliation for even insinuating that a legacy movement just might have some serious problems today. Some of his arguments were not that good but others are perfectly legitimate and have not been addressed. I expect this board to behave at a higher standard than just a ‘you are either for us or against all us’ response.
I have already given my reasons for not calling myself a feminist even though I support many of the same issues that they support. The main reason is because the label doesn’t mean anything in particular as admitted by the feminists in this thread. That is a bad sign for any coherent movement and a signal that maybe it is time to rethink and regroup if necessary with possible delineations between the differing factions so that self-contradictory groups aren’t lumped under one broad label that others can’t easily tell the difference between.
Another gigantic criticism that should be a red flag for everyone is the wide-spread disinformation campaigns that public facing feminism uses a go-to strategy. Everything from pay inequality to rape statistics so frequently paraded out by feminist organizations are complete bullshit and the SDMB of all places should have no tolerance for that.
A better strategy would be to break things down by single issues and stop relying on an umbrella term that includes people that don’t agree on much of anything including many nutty extremists. You would find a lot better support if you didn’t have to depend on the mental crutch of declaring everyone that didn’t accept the label ‘feminist’ as your enemy. The political landscape and people in general are a lot more nuanced than that.
Like what? Several of us have disagreed (in a respectful tone, it seems to me), without response from LinusK. So we’ve continued to disagree and make arguments to support our views.
Which posts are you referring to?
I assume you have some cites to back up that these statistics are “complete bullshit” and not just, you know, contested by other statistics that may be different.
Who are you referring to? Who is labeling “everyone that didn’t accept the label ‘feminist’” as the enemy? Are you sure this isn’t just a straw-man?
The cites for the first are all of them full stop. Women do not make 72 cents on the dollar for the same work as a man. 1 in 5 or 4 college women do not get raped. That is a complete fabrication. You can come up with some cites of your own to support those if you truly believe otherwise but I am not interested in debating people that make up statistics to incite shock. Next up - Flat Earthers versus Sphereists - Who is right?
For point #2, it isn’t a straw-man at all. I am the loving father of two daughters raised by a very strong and successful single mother. I don’t consider myself a feminist (neither does my mother) even though we don’t put up with any sex discrimination. All the females in my life do whatever they want because they can. Yes, there is pressure to call yourself a feminist on this board and other left-leaning arenas. It isn’t that simple. People like me try to be fair and look at single issues one at a time rather than using umbrella terms. I am certainly not an MRA either but I am sympathetic to some of their concerns as well. Everyone needs to adopt this approach. Attaching team names to the back of your jersey is counterproductive.
If most of these changes happened, it would make me (for one) much less sympathetic towards feminism, not more. And I’m pretty far from being a feminist.
There are very good reasons for why there should be a general social understanding that, at some level, men’s lives actually are less valuable than women. Start from the fact that, in an evolutionary sense, the vast majority of men in a society are, uh, expendable. Women aren’t.
That is one controversial opinion. I respect that (honestly) and I believe it is probably true. That particular opinion would explain a lot of things if were proven to be accurate and it probably is.