Return of Kings

[Henry]

http://www.returnofkings.com/

So I've heard about this group, called "Return of Kings", which is trying to hold meetings at various places around the world. Their basic idea is that society should return to being male-dominated, and that feminism and womens rights have emasculated men and caused a lot of problems.

The solution: Women shouldn't be able to vote. Rape should be legal. And so forth.

I imagine one or two will like their message.

Have a look. I kind of love weird fringe groups.

[Magic]

Bait cast.

[Toby]

The leader of this lot, who I only know by the alias 'RooshV', is apparently planning a visit to Scotland some time soon, which has caused a bit of a stir and seen the launch of umpteen petitions demanding he be banned.

I gathered they were 'anti-feminist' but I didn't realise they were proposing stuff like that. I thought he was just the sort of boring bastard Mert would wank over.

[Henry]

"If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can't resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she'll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn't want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied."

That's what he said about that.

[Magic]

I think we know where this will end up. Close it now.

[Pen]

:D

This 'RooshV' character sounds somewhat familiar from somewhere.

[TG09]

OZ and NZ are banning him coming over.

[Lewis]

Theodore Dalrymple reckons that young Muslims in the West cultivate their Islamic identity as a 'noble' cover for their wish to dominate women, and I'm increasingly reminded of that when I read this sort of thing. I know this is a rather extreme example of it all, but the whole alpha male, fragile masculinity thing is pretty lol.

[QE Harold Flair]

http://www.returnofkings.com/

So I've heard about this group, called "Return of Kings", which is trying to hold meetings at various places around the world. Their basic idea is that society should return to being male-dominated, and that feminism and womens rights have emasculated men and caused a lot of problems.

The solution: Women shouldn't be able to vote. Rape should be legal. And so forth.

I imagine one or two will like their message.

Have a look. I kind of love weird fringe groups.

Whilst the foundation of their message may have some merit, next time you want just my opinion, pm me.

[Spoonsky]

Some friends (mostly Facebook) friends are proposing a counter-protest to the meetup here. How are they supposed to identify the actual ROK folk though?

"To identify your fellow tribesmen, ask the following question to a man you suspect is there for the meetup: “Do you know where I can find a pet shop?” If you are asked this question, answer in the affirmative: “Yes, it’s right here.” You can then introduce yourself and get details about where to proceed at 8:20. If you ask someone for the pet shop and they appear confused or actually try to direct you to a real pet shop, they’re not there for the meetup."

So I guess the counterprotesters will be going undercover to 'out' the idiots? It should be pretty entertaining I guess.

[QE Harold Flair]

Some friends (mostly Facebook) friends are proposing a counter-protest to the meetup here. How are they supposed to identify the actual ROK folk though?

"To identify your fellow tribesmen, ask the following question to a man you suspect is there for the meetup: “Do you know where I can find a pet shop?” If you are asked this question, answer in the affirmative: “Yes, it’s right here.” You can then introduce yourself and get details about where to proceed at 8:20. If you ask someone for the pet shop and they appear confused or actually try to direct you to a real pet shop, they’re not there for the meetup."

So I guess the counterprotesters will be going undercover to 'out' the idiots? It should be pretty entertaining I guess.

That's all well and good, but what about if people like Henry go along, just to see what all the controversy is about? They will be deridede as filth......actually you should go, henners.

[Lewis]

How is this worthy of a counter-protest? Even if their message is as bad as a brief read of their website suggests, it will be twenty utter, utter dweebs. There must be more pressing things to hassle.

[Magic]

Spoon will be representing the pro-abstinance camp.

[Henry]

They also don't believe in democracy and want to go back to having kings. Hence their name.

[ItalAussie]

They're all a bit gross really. And the sexual insecurity is just palpable.

[QE Harold Flair]

You've said that because they're men, though. You would never say that about any group of women, would you?

[ItalAussie]

You've said that because they're men, though. You would never say that about any group of women, would you?
If I saw a group of women demonstrating that degree of sexual insecurity, I'd have no problems acknowledging it. But have you seen the rhetoric of these guys? It's oozing out of their pores.

All the talk of "alphas" and "betas" is just rationalising away crippling sexual insecurities. It's fine, as long as they don't act in a way that is dangerous to others, then they can be as insecure as suits them. Whatever gets them to sleep at night.

[QE Harold Flair]

If I saw a group of women demonstrating that degree of sexual insecurity, I'd have no problems acknowledging it. But have you seen the rhetoric of these guys? It's oozing out of their pores.

All the talk of "alphas" and "betas" is just rationalising away crippling sexual insecurities. It's fine, as long as they don't act in a way that is dangerous to others, then they can be as insecure as suits them. Whatever gets them to sleep at night.

Okay so all these butt ugly, man-hating, feminists (don't deny it, they're nearly always ugly cunts) - are they displaying their insecurity about their looks?

[Toby]

(don't deny it, they're nearly always ugly cunts)

:D

lDEMT.

[QE Harold Flair]

You can smile all you like, I am 100% correct.

[QE Harold Flair]

Everyone knows that becoming a feminist makes a woman less marriageable, more crass and generally just unpleasant to be around. But does it also make them uglier? Readers have been asking, so I delved into the science to find out.
Certainly, feminists in the public sphere have acquired a reputation for being brazen about their unconventional looks. The cult of “body positivity” has encouraged many young women to embrace excess weight (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/21/my-wedding-perfect-fat-woman). Feminist writers like Lindy West celebrate their fatness, while Lena Dunham has made a career out of looking wobbly and horrible.

While the sisterhood might not condemn women for piling on the pounds, men definitely do. But the weight gain, bizarre hair colour, piercings and “genderqueer” fashion trends in feminism aren’t, it seems to me, enough on their own to explain why women who strongly identify as feminists are so often either physically unappealing or mistaken for men.

There’s a persuasive line of reasoning that suggests women who are physically unattractive are more likely to have progressive politics, give up on blokes and retreat into feminism in the first place (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-gop-has-a-feminine-face-finds-238867). (The rule doesn’t hold for men (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/06/survey-says-gop-women-are-prettier.html).) Even liberal bloggers like West admit that conservative girls are hotter (http://jezebel.com/5950013/hot-or-not-why-conservative-women-are-prettier-than-liberal-ladies), and, crucially, that liberal women tend to have more masculine features. By way of example, here’s Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men.


Valerie Solanas, founder of the Society for Cutting Up Men and author of the SCUM Manifesto — and the woman who shot Andy Warhol — falls into the aforesaid “genderqueer” category. This may explain why so many angry, lesbianic placard-wavers look like they’ve been hit by a bus. As West puts it (http://jezebel.com/5950013/hot-or-not-why-conservative-women-are-prettier-than-liberal-ladies): “I can imagine that liberalism actively attracts people who are shut out of that old-timey paradigm… The women who can’t ‘pass’ for hot are forced to consider why.”


We still haven’t answered the question, though, as to whether a particular philosophical or political position can change how sexually attractive you are, if, say, you come to it later in life. So here goes.
What you probably don’t know is that under certain circumstances behaviour can affect your hormonal levels (http://nobaproject.com/modules/hormones-behavior). Hormones are powerful substances: they are the chemicals which tell our bodies how to express gender, and which gender to express.

It turns out that adopting aggressive, masculine postures (http://blog.ted.com/10-examples-of-how-power-posing-can-work-to-boost-your-confidence/) and developing combative psychological reflexes can boost testosterone levels (http://blog.ted.com/10-examples-of-how-power-posing-can-work-to-boost-your-confidence/) by significant percentages. In many cases, women with a predilection for activism have high testosterone levels in the first place: consider the “high-T jawline” so many feminist journalists, newsreaders and actresses share. Radical feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte has a classic example of this.

Increased testosterone also makes you leaner, so jaws can appear more defined. And of course the male hormone increases acne and promotes baldness, while estrogen clears the skin, adds collagen and generally makes a person look fresher and more youthful (http://www.dermalinstitute.com/us/library/76_article_Hormones_and_Your_Skin.html).

So the research suggests that relentlessly assertive women, particularly women in positions of authority, are unwittingly throwing their hormones out of whack. Higher testosterone levels can produce dramatic changes, most noticeably to a woman’s face. Muscle mass and distribution can shift and hair grows faster and more thickly.

There’s no clear evidence (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22a1zj/how_can_hormones_change_the_facial_structure_of_a/) on whether prolonged increases in testosterone over time can change the growth trajectory of bones enough to produce changes in face shape. But if true, it would go some way to explaining Guardian blogger Jessica Valenti’s dramatic transformation in the last ten years. Transgender forums seem to concur that there’s no real change to bone structure but that testosterone does lead to changes in fat distribution (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php?topic=93908.0).


High-testosterone women are more likely to get guts because it’s estrogen that controls fat around the waist, hips and rear. Lena Dunham’s body shape — and perhaps her behaviour — would appear to be a result of very high testosterone.

As for the other changes women go through when they discover you can make a career out of hating men, well. I can’t explain why it seems as though feminist’s eyes go glassy and dead the longer they are incentivised to behave like bros while sloshing about in misandry for pay. I’m sure an entertaining gallery could be assembled showing how the process takes its toll; perhaps a reader can oblige.
But the power of hormones to radically alter physiology is well-documented. Trans patients attest to the extraordinary shifts in appearance and even personality that can be brought about by changes in hormone levels — as do older women on hormone replacement therapy.

Here’s a dirty secret feminists like to sweep under the carpet: there are objective standards for beauty, and some of them are shared by both sexes. Symmetry is the most obvious and the most commonly cited. (http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/features/report/6870/scientific-proof-louis-is-the-hottest-member-of-1d/) But there are also differences in priorities between the sexes that seem to hold across cultures: men are more visual animals (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/20/why-men-cheat-with-me-but-not-on-me/), for instance.
That means heterosexual men, even socially conditioned liberal metrosexuals with nice loft apartments in Brooklyn, are reluctant to approach even well-groomed women over a certain size, which is perhaps why Lindy West appears to have married a nancy boy.

Lena Dunham has styled herself as the entertainment industry’s high priestess of defiant ugliness, turning her laziness and mannish demeanour into a virtue. But ordinary women who take West and Dunham at face value, and let themselves go, chop their hair off, dress like a dude and stop bothering to depilate, find it nearly impossible to secure an attractive, well-adjusted, financially secure boyfriend.


Irresponsible celebrity feminists tell women, in a constant orgy of affirmation, to love themselves no matter what their size or shape and that no matter what they look like, they are beautiful and “real.” These supposed role models also encourage women to swarm into traditionally male occupations and hobbies to prove that women are just as capable of being computer programmers or lumberjacks as men.
Such advice is selfish, cruel, and a lie. In fact, if you want to attract the attention of a high-value potential husband, you’re much better off doing things that will make you pretty — spending time with puppies, children and flowers and listening to Mariah Carey ballads — rather than indulging in today’s dykeish and profanity-laced female empowerment culture.

So, on balance, the evidence suggests that rather than feminism producing ugliness, it’s less attractive women who are drawn to feminism (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/06/survey-says-gop-women-are-prettier.html), although hormones may play a part over the longer term. Still, if feminist activism, the last resort of the unfuckable, threatens to accelerate the ageing process, thicken the caterpillar on your top lip and isolate you even further from men… well, why take the risk?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/26/does-feminism-make-women-ugly/

[Toby]

Cool. Cool cool cool.

[QE Harold Flair]

A brilliant piece, backed up beautifully.

[ItalAussie]

Exhibit B.

[Spoonsky]

How is this worthy of a counter-protest? Even if their message is as bad as a brief read of their website suggests, it will be twenty utter, utter dweebs. There must be more pressing things to hassle.

Virtue signalling. You were on to something.

Part of the idea is to make sure that random women don't get raped wandering around library square, which is fair enough but probably doesn't require the 187 marked as "going" on Facebook.

[Lewis]

I'm not sure the protesters are any more capable of protecting anybody than the dweebs are of raping them. Take your camera.

[QE Harold Flair]

Exhibit B.

I note that you didn't actually deny what I said. How sexually fustrated do you think Valerie Solanas is, Ital? Just out of interest.

[ItalAussie]

I note that you didn't actually deny what I said. How sexually fustrated do you think Valerie Solanas is, Ital? Just out of interest.

I certainly think someone involved in that article is sexually frustrated.

Look, we're never going to agree on this. Suffice it to say that we both think your article supports our points, in very different ways. :nodd:

[QE Harold Flair]

I certainly think someone involved in that article is sexually frustrated.

Look, we're never going to agree on this. Suffice it to say that we both think your article supports our points, in very different ways. :nodd:

Which article? The Milo one? I hope not for your sake, since that would be a rather large e-own goal

[ItalAussie]

Which article? The Milo one? I hope not for your sake, since that would be a rather large e-own goal

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realise he was the author - fair play. Still, you can imagine why an article purely devoted to writing off peoples' opinions because of perceived unattractiveness might come across that way, and is aimed at people who do.

Without wanting to delve too deeply into the mess that is that article, being as the fundamental premise does not warrant it, suffice it to say that the hormonal effects that are the basis of his argument are minute (not that you'd know it from the highly reliable science journal that is ted.com). Hence conclusions drawn from them are entirely spurious. Still, he knows what gets clicks from rubes, who aren't likely to go fact-checking things that corroborate their pre-existing biases.

Not that any of it matters. "Feminists are ugly" really is stupid playground stuff that doesn't deserve even the paragraph above.

[Shindig]

Counter protest? Get some lasses around, hand out the 20 inch dildos and instruct the girls to 'pick a target'.

[QE Harold Flair]

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realise he was the author - fair play. Still, you can imagine why an article purely devoted to writing off peoples' opinions because of perceived unattractiveness might come across that way, and is aimed at people who do.

Without wanting to delve too deeply into the mess that is that article, being as the fundamental premise does not warrant it, suffice it to say that the hormonal effects that are the basis of his argument are minute (not that you'd know it from the highly reliable science journal that is ted.com). Hence conclusions drawn from them are entirely spurious. Still, he knows what gets clicks from rubes, who aren't likely to go fact-checking things that corroborate their pre-existing biases.

Not that any of it matters. "Feminists are ugly" really is stupid playground stuff that doesn't deserve even the paragraph above.

Only as playground as making unsubstantiated claims about a group of men. The shaming tactic of calling men 'sexually frustrated' is typical of feminists. At least Milo puts some weight and evidence behind what he says. 'Mysogynists are sexually frustrated' ----- 'radical, man hating feminists are ugly women'. I see no difference there.

You also still haven't answered my question regarding man-hating femists such as Valerie Solanas.

[Toby]

There's no such thing as a "man hating feminist". Those are just misandrists, whatever title they themselves apply.

[Boydy]

Does 'RooshV' think that stealing purses and smartphones is legal?

[Mazuuurk]

Their website seems to have DDoS protection on it, I'm guessing they are just waiting for someone like Anonymous to fuck them over :D

[Jimmy Floyd]

If they're going around saying rape should be legal I reckon there's a case for chucking them in prison for a day and seeing how they like the showers. Reasoned argument just pointless.

[phonics]

I do like that everyones not taking this too seriously.


During an urgent question in the House of Commons on the pick-up artist's planned tour of the UK, Newcastle MP Chi Onwurah said Mr V was "an attention seeker so insecure in his own masculinity that he goes to these lengths to augment the size of his...following."

Speaking for the Government, Tory Karen Brady replied: "Can I join her in her comments about perhaps the reasons why this individual is doing what he's doing. Certainly ensuring he's getting publicity that perhaps he needs for other reasons.
"I'll say no more."

I'm sure Harold will be DISGUSTED at the HYPOCRISY of these WOMEN mentioning the genatalia of MEN but I got a lol out of it.

[Toby]

They've issued a statement saying the "meet up" has been cancelled, at least as far as official organisation through this group's public channels goes.

[Spammer]

They're turning up in Leeds on Saturday. It looks like a laugh so i'm gutted I'm not around.

[Boydy]

Also, the return of some kind of medieval king governance wouldn't be any good for these dweebs as they'd all be fucking serfs like 99% of the population.

[Boydy]

695260957010960384

[QE Harold Flair]

There's no such thing as a "man hating feminist". Those are just misandrists, whatever title they themselves apply.

If there's women haters then why aren't there man haters? Clearly there are both.

[Toby]

If there's women haters then why aren't there man haters? Clearly there are both.

Read again and have another stab at that.

[QE Harold Flair]

If they're going around saying rape should be legal I reckon there's a case for chucking them in prison for a day and seeing how they like the showers. Reasoned argument just pointless.

He's just attention seeking and is probably just being satirical. There are also feminists who say 'kill all white men' and those who claim the make sex should be eliminated. I'm not sure all these are even satirical but most surely are.

[phonics]

There's no such thing as a "man hating feminist". Those are just misandrists, whatever title they themselves apply.


If there's women haters then why aren't there man haters? Clearly there are both.

http://i.giphy.com/SEp6Zq6ZkzUNW.gif

[QE Harold Flair]

Read again and have another stab at that.

Why aren't feminists also misandrists? They can be both. Feminism, to these people, is about female superiority. If you look at what feminists often ask and demand it's not about equality, it's about the promotion of one sex over another. Often in the form of quotas, which can't exist without discrimination, of course.

[Toby]

Why aren't feminists also misandrists? They can be both.

They cannot.

They can call themselves feminists all they like, but if they genuinely hate men and genuinely propose things to actively harm men, they are misandrists, not feminists.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's great, but they are still labeled as feminists and seen as such. Surely a woman should have the right to define herself how she likes!

[Toby]

They do, I said that already. Doesn't mean other people have to accept it. You can call yourself "man of the people" every day forever if you like. People disagreeing with it doesn't mean you can't say it. Anybody can call themselves anything they like but people who hate men can't really pursue the actual feminist goal of gender equality.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well it's great that you will no longer be accepting of the claims of those promoting women above men (nearly all modern feminists) as feminists, as it's defined. We are in agreement there. I'm still happy to call them 'man-hating 'feminists', in that way. Likewise, men's rights activists will also not be deemed as women haters or somehow sexually dysfunctional, I presume? Of course the outrageously shit, proven liar and fraud, Laurie Penny, has to resort to outright lies, such as claiming her opponents are homeless and jobless. And she's the poster girl of modern feminism.

[Toby]

You really are beyond caricature on this topic.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yawn. It's easy to say that without backing it up or explaining why you think that. Nothing I have said is wrong.

Again, are men's rights activists all about equality? Or is that just reserved for the other sex?

[Toby]

You've never shown any indication that you actually interact with feminists. All you do is post second hand information from the likes of Breitbart. So how you think you can make a claim about what "most feminists" believe is completely beyond logical reasoning.

In response to your edit, I don't think the sort of people who call themselves "men's rights activists" actually are about equality, no. There are certainly men campaigning to have more equality with women on certain issues - especially parenthood - but I don't recall ever seeing them refer to themselves as that.

[QE Harold Flair]

Modern feminism, as demonstrated in universities and by cunts such as Laurie Penny, make their views perfectly clear. I do not need to interact with them personally. What a bizarre line of attack.

Have you ever persoanlly interracted with Men's Rights activists? Hmmmmm. More hypocrisy, I fear.

[igor_balis]

Harold, have you had much success with women?

[phonics]

IIRC he was dating a Portuguese immigrant for a while.

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold, have you had much success with women?

Yes, I have. As much as Mert is a complete idiot, it is indeed true that most women love dominant men.

Interesting that you choose this line, though. It's the standard line - oh you're for men's rights? Must be sexually or socially dysfunctional, innit.

[Toby]

Modern feminism, as demonstrated in universities and by cunts such as Laurie Penny, make their views perfectly clear. I do not need to interact with them personally. What a bizarre line of attack.

It's not. You can't claim to know much about "most feminists" if you're only engaged with a very small sample and only via obviously anti-feminists sources such as columns by 'Milo'.


Have you ever persoanlly interracted with Men's Rights activists? Hmmmmm. More hypocrisy, I fear.

Well, there's you for one, and various other huge subsets of the internet. It's a term that is fairly widely written about and acknowledged, and I think generally associated with misogynists rather than anybody seeking equality. I'm happy to accept there are men actually campaigning for equality, but I think they'd be silly to use a term with such poisonous associations as "men's rights activists". Maybe in a similar vein it's time for actual feminists to rebrand, but I think most sensible people can separate feminism from misandry without getting into a semantics wank off.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's not. You can't claim to know much about "most feminists" if you're only engaged with a very small sample and only via obviously anti-feminists sources such as columns by 'Milo'.

Through doing so I have seen many debates and articles from leading feminists. Much more than you, I reckon.


Well, there's you for one, and various other huge subsets of the internet. It's a term that is fairly widely written about and acknowledged, and I think generally associated with misogynists rather than anybody seeking equality. I'm happy to accept there are men actually campaigning for equality, but I think they'd be silly to use a term with such poisonous associations as "men's rights activists". Maybe in a similar vein it's time for actual feminists to rebrand, but I think most sensible people can separate feminism from misandry without getting into a semantics wank off.

Pretty 'small sample' then, eh? Just take a good look at what you said directly above this. Either you're guilty of what you accuse me of or your assertion was wrong. Which is it?

And why is it poisonous? Would you say 'women's rights' sound poisonous?

[Lewis]

You really are beyond caricature on this topic.

Lad's actually SEETHING. It's like when somebody used to shut Jeremy Paxman down before he could wind himself up.

[Henry]

Bait cast.

:harold:

But we need mert...

[QE Harold Flair]

Why would I be seething? I'm doimnating Tobes here.

[wullie]

Saying feminists are nearly always ugly cunts seems a bit of a standard line.

[QE Harold Flair]

A true line, backed up be good reasoning.

[wullie]

You can't argue with science.

[Toby]

Through doing so I have seen many debates and articles from leading feminists. Much more than you, I reckon.

I cannot claim to know what you do when you're not on this board, but everything you post suggests you only engage with feminist arguments through the filter of anti-feminist figures. I very much doubt you've read any feminist literature (or watched any feminist speak) that wasn't initially selected by one of those people for mockery. As such, you're always going to see a certain type of comment and probably are going to see a selection bias towards those that make misandrist or otherwise unsubstantiated claims.


Pretty 'small sample' then, eh? Just take a good look at what you said directly above this. Either you're guilty of what you accuse me of or your assertion was wrong. Which is it?

Not really. It's still a pretty small and nascent 'movement', and one that was largely created - or at least gained a lot of its popularity - in response to feminism. As such as it's inherently going to take a somewhat anti-feminist tone, and I don't think those who genuinely seek gender equality would want to associate themselves with the term.


And why is it poisonous? Would you say 'women's rights' sound poisonous?

It's not the words themselves that are the issue.

[QE Harold Flair]

I cannot claim to know what you do when you're not on this board, but everything you post suggests you only engage with feminist arguments through the filter of anti-feminist figures. I very much doubt you've read any feminist literature (or watched any feminist speak) that wasn't initially selected by one of those people for mockery. As such, you're always going to see a certain type of comment and probably are going to see a selection bias towards those that make misandrist or otherwise unsubstantiated claims.

But I'm one person. Surely you wouldn't make judgments on one person? Through anti-feminst figures (anti modern feminists actually since I respect proper ones who fought for actual good reasons) you get to read and listen to the utter bilge and man-hating of these people. There's the odd 1 or 2 who are alright, but it really is the exception. Laurie Penny, proven liar and fraud, writes for mainstream publications like the Guardian and New Statesman. She is very much at the forefront of modern feminism, so I couldn't really have brought upm someone more relevant.


Not really. It's still a pretty small and nascent 'movement', and one that was largely created - or at least gained a lot of its popularity - in response to feminism. As such as it's inherently going to take a somewhat anti-feminist tone, and I don't think those who genuinely seek gender equality would want to associate themselves with the term.

In response to modern feminism, or what passes for it, yes. You won't find anyone trying to repeal the vote for women, for example.



It's not the words themselves that are the issue.

Well what the fuck is it, then?

[Henry]

You won't find anyone trying to repeal the vote for women, for example.

Did you bother reading the opening post in the thread?

[QE Harold Flair]

They're not a real Men's rights group any more than Valerie Solanes and her supporters are women's rights groups.

Again, he's an attention seeker making money off of it. No more, no less.

[Boydy]

https://media.giphy.com/media/9ohlKnRDAmotG/giphy.gif

[Henry]

So, we won't find anyone who want to repeal womens suffrage. And if we do, they don't count? Stunning logic.

[QE Harold Flair]

So, we won't find anyone who want to repeal womens suffrage. And if we do, they don't count? Stunning logic.

The point being, as you must surely have gleaned, that the real fight for feminism was a just cause. The modern version is spoilt, privileged cunts from well off backgrounds wanting something to get chippy about.

[Toby]

But I'm one person. Surely you wouldn't make judgments on one person?

:cab:

The you thing was a joke, and I mentioned elsewhere anyway. Like fuck I would actually judge anything based on what you say.


Through anti-feminst figures (anti modern feminists actually since I respect proper ones who fought for actual good reasons) you get to read and listen to the utter bilge and man-hating of these people.

The man haters, yes. That's basically what I said. You're not seeing those making respectable arguments similar to "proper ones" in the past.


There's the odd 1 or 2 who are alright, but it really is the exception. Laurie Penny, proven liar and fraud, writes for mainstream publications like the Guardian and New Statesman. She is very much at the forefront of modern feminism, so I couldn't really have brought upm someone more relevant.

That's one person. Whatever your view of her, in this thread you said "most feminists".


In response to modern feminism, or what passes for it, yes. You won't find anyone trying to repeal the vote for women, for example.

Not really. The men's rights movement kicked off in the 1970s. Was 1960s and 70s feminism "modern feminism"? But it has had a resurgence lately and a lot of that sentiment is unquestionably anti-feminist, often to extremes.

This very thread is about a group advocating repealing the vote for women. I accept you may say they're not legitimately men's rights activists in the same sense misandrists aren't legitimately feminists, but I don't think the movement is mature enough to fully distance itself from it, especially when so much of what comes from it as at least a little anti-feminist.


Well what the fuck is it, then?

I've said quite clearly, if you bother to read. A "women's rights movement" wouldn't necessarily be directly comparable to "men's rights", even though the terms are the same. I never said there was an issue with the words themselves, so it's just another example of you not understanding context.

[Pepe]

https://media.giphy.com/media/9ohlKnRDAmotG/giphy.gif

:cool:

[Henry]

The point being, as you must surely have gleaned, that the real fight for feminism was a just cause. The modern version is spoilt, privileged cunts from well off backgrounds wanting something to get chippy about.

That's an independent issue from whether there exist those who want to reverse progress on womens rights. There are, and the thread is about them, your ignorance of that obvious fact notwithstanding.

[Lewis]

How exactly do you define 'modern feminism', Harold? You were agreeing with 'Milo' the other day that third-wave feminism is redundant, so which aspects of that you don't see the need for?

[QE Harold Flair]

The man haters, yes. That's basically what I said. You're not seeing those making respectable arguments similar to "proper ones" in the past.

Good, well perhsps we should club togther and tell the Guardian and New Statesman that Laurie Penny, and those like her, are man hating frauds and liars and not feminists?



That's one person. Whatever your view of her, in this thread you said "most feminists"

I've posted a lot more than just her in the past and even in this thread.



Not really. The men's rights movement kicked off in the 1970s. Was 1960s and 70s feminism "modern feminism"? But it has had a resurgence lately and a lot of that sentiment is unquestionably anti-feminist, often to extremes

How many men's rights people are there now who are looking to repeal things like votes for women? Equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of outcome. Each time modern feminists see that there's a disparity in men in boardrooms they claim it's because of inequality - ignoring the fact, born out by clear evidence, that men just tend to be better at it and gravitate towards such roles.


This very thread is about a group advocating repealing the vote for women.

Isn't it just 1 man rather than a group? He's a twat, and is not even claiming to be fighting for men's rights as far as I can tell. He has nothing, whatsoever to do with The Men's Right's Movement.


I accept you may say they're not legitimately men's rights activists in the same sense misandrists aren't legitimately feminists, but I don't think the movement is mature enough to fully distance itself from it, especially when so much of what comes from it as at least a little anti-feminist.

Sorry, it has to work both ways or not at all.


I've said quite clearly, if you bother to read. A "women's rights movement" wouldn't necessarily be directly comparable to "men's rights", even though the terms are the same. I never said there was an issue with the words themselves, so it's just another example of you not understanding context.

I'm well aware that's what you're saying. You haven't yet said why that's the case.

[QE Harold Flair]

How exactly do you define 'modern feminism', Harold? You were agreeing with 'Milo' the other day that third-wave feminism is redundant, so which aspects of that you don't see the need for?

The type of twats who are standing up for women proven to have made false rape claims. The type who claim man-spreading is actually a concern. The type who claim that all white males are born with privillege and thuise whould be discriminated against. I mean I could go on, but as is customary, I don't believe in the sincerity of your question.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's an independent issue from whether there exist those who want to reverse progress on womens rights. There are, and the thread is about them, your ignorance of that obvious fact notwithstanding.

Again, they nothing to do with the Men's Right Movement. How many times does this fact need to be pointed out? It's akin to claiming you're a massive fan of Stalin.

In fact, he has criticised the Men's Rights Movement, repeatedly. This has all the ring of UKIP and BNP conflation by the usual idiots.

[Toby]

Sorry, it has to work both ways or not at all.

Nonsense. Feminism has existed for long enough as a self-contained movement to have a clearly defined purpose: the pursuit of gender equality. The men's rights movement doesn't have that, because it's never gained the profile or shown the consistency of message for people to really know what it's about. That it has always been to at least some extent an anti-feminism movement means it doesn't have a clear and consistent message of it's own.


I'm well aware that's what you're saying. You haven't yet said why that's the case.

It seems you aren't aware of what I'm saying because it's a perfectly understandable difference. There would be nothing inherently wrong with a "women's rights movement", but if it followed a similar tone to the men's rights movement it would probably become a somewhat undesirable term for those actually looking for gender equality to apply to themselves. Context means similar terms can mean different things - if you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can say to help you.

[Boydy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=ap0T4ynurvg

[Lewis]

The type of twats who are standing up for women proven to have made false rape claims. The type who claim man-spreading is actually a concern. The type who claim that all white males are born with privillege and thuise whould be discriminated against. I mean I could go on, but as is customary, I don't believe in the sincerity of your question.

What do they have to do with modern/third-wave feminism? You defend convicted rapists; 'man-spreading' is kind of unnecessary, like putting a bag on a seat; and the whole 'privilege' shit is as much about race and other collectivist shit as it is gender.

[QE Harold Flair]

Nonsense. Feminism has existed for long enough as a self-contained movement to have a clearly defined purpose: the pursuit of gender equality. The men's rights movement doesn't have that, because it's never gained the profile or shown the consistency of message for people to really know what it's about. That it has always been to at least some extent an anti-feminism movement means it doesn't have a clear and consistent message of it's own.

And the men's rights stands for the same thing. It doesn't take 50 years for such an obvious purpose to become obvious, does it?


It seems you aren't aware of what I'm saying because it's a perfectly understandable difference. There would be nothing inherently wrong with a "women's rights movement", but if it followed a similar tone to the men's rights movement it would probably become a somewhat undesirable term for those actually looking for gender equality to apply to themselves. Context means similar terms can mean different things - if you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can say to help you.

You still haven't explained why that is. What is it that the Men's Right's Movement says that you dislike so much?

[QE Harold Flair]

What do they have to do with modern/third-wave feminism? You defend convicted rapists; 'man-spreading' is kind of unnecessary, like putting a bag on a seat; and the whole 'privilege' shit is as much about race and other collectivist shit as it is gender.

I defended one convicted rapist after I saw the evidence. I do not defend men I actually think are guilty of rape. 'Man spreading' is a perfectly normal way of men sitting. Regardless, it's not worth a fucking campaign, is it? White males are now the most discrimated against demographic.

[Lewis]

I defended one convicted rapist after I saw the evidence. I do not defend men I actually think are guilty of rape. 'Man spreading' is a perfectly normal way of men sitting. Regardless, it's not worth a fucking campaign, is it? White males are now the most discrimated against demographic.

There was also this (http://www.thedugout.net/community/showpost.php?p=4074961&postcount=27), and many things aren't worth a campaign (which I don't think is entirely serious anyway). You've just taken some examples of women being idiots and decided that that is 'modern feminism', which was why I asked how you defined and understood it.

'White males' is too broad a demographic for that sort of statement. Poor white boys are shit at school (for example), but that is not due to discrimination, and you're just using the 'privilege' logic of looking at it in relation to race/gender rather than economic and cultural factors.

[QE Harold Flair]

There was also this (http://www.thedugout.net/community/showpost.php?p=4074961&postcount=27)

Which I stand by. The woman who made money off of him already made one false rape allegation. Tyson also turned down a 6 month probation if he pleaded guilty, to which he flatly refused because nobody pleads guilty to something they didn't do. He now refuses to be alone in a room with any other woman besides his daughter and wife.


'White males' is too broad a demographic for that sort of statement. Poor white boys are shit at school (for example), but that is not due to discrimination, and you're just using the 'privilege' logic of looking at it in relation to race/gender rather than economic and cultural factors.

That's fine by me - just as long as blacks not doing well, or any other demographic not doing well is also listed as having nothing to do with discrimination. But that won't happen, of course.

[Toby]

You still haven't explained why that is. What is it that the Men's Right's Movement says that you dislike so much?

Shit like this mostly:


White males are now the most discrimated against demographic.

[QE Harold Flair]

They are. Women and ethnic minorities are given privileges and 'leg ups' that white males are not. This is a fact in America, at least. And I will research it, but I fully expect it to be the case here. I know it is the case for women in certain jobs. Having a vagine will see me have better job prospects, as dictated by the state, in many fields. Again, a fact. I dare you to deny it.

[Shindig]

White males don't need leg-ups, surely? We won.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, we don't. But then neither do women or ethnics. Achievments have to be earned, not handed to you.

[Lewis]

Which I stand by. The woman who made money off of him already made one false rape allegation. Tyson also turned down a 6 month probation if he pleaded guilty, to which he flatly refused because nobody pleads guilty to something they didn't do. He now refuses to be alone in a room with any other woman besides his daughter and wife.

That's fine by me - just as long as blacks not doing well, or any other demographic not doing well is also listed as having nothing to do with discrimination. But that won't happen, of course.

When I'm in charge of how things are 'listed' I'll bear it in mind. But why would that turn you against 'modern feminism'?

[QE Harold Flair]

There's many reasons I'm against modern feminism. I believe most have already been stated.

[Lewis]

None of which have really shown that you understand what you're against. It's like being against leaving the European Union because of how some UKIP idiots behave on Twitter.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well no, it isn't. Find me some young feminists who are not the way I say. You might find that not to be an easy task.

[Lewis]

What about normal people who believe what 'modern feminists' believe (whether they self-identify as such or not)? You're actually arguing that some vocal dickheads (and one journalist) represent and discredit an entire group of people and what they supposedly believe. You know, like 'modern feminists' do when they think that all [white] men are associated with the idiots amongst us?

[QE Harold Flair]

What about normal people who believe what 'modern feminists' believe (whether they self-identify as such or not)? You're actually arguing that some vocal dickheads (and one journalist) represent and discredit an entire group of people and what they supposedly believe. You know, like 'modern feminists' do when they think that all [white] men are associated with the idiots amongst us?

What about them? They will be wrong as well. If they believe those same things then they're already idiots.

https://cdn.liveleak.com/80281E/ll_a_s/2016/Feb/4/LiveLeak-dot-com-9bf_1454623137-1453777501929_1454623136.jpg.resized.jpg?d5e8cc8ec cfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bdd2924b4 6ded33b26&ec_rate=230

[Boydy]

Lol good one mate.

[Magic]

:D

You're a mess.

[QE Harold Flair]

It is cracking, isn't it?

[Magic]

I think we're chuckling for different reasons, m8.

[Pepe]

I lolled.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think we're chuckling for different reasons, m8.

Yes, I'm well aware you're a cuck.

You've already lost any integrity by admitting what people here thought of you changed you.

[Magic]

Yes, I'm well aware you're a cuck.

You've already lost any integrity by admitting what people here thought of you changed you.

:D

I see you still are struggling to comprehend fact and real life and instead replace it with imaginary perceptions suited to your own beliefs.

[QE Harold Flair]

:D

I see you still are struggling to comprehend fact and real life and instead replace it with imaginary perceptions suited to your own beliefs.

It's what you said. You noted how you were the 'second worst poster' here and then had to change your ways. So if what you were doing before was all an act and you didn't really mean it, then how can I be sure what you're doing now isn't? It wasn't very long ago, after all. You've no integrity. None.

[Magic]

:cab:

It's a forum, mate.

[Toby]

They are. Women and ethnic minorities are given privileges and 'leg ups' that white males are not. This is a fact in America, at least. And I will research it, but I fully expect it to be the case here. I know it is the case for women in certain jobs. Having a vagine will see me have better job prospects, as dictated by the state, in many fields. Again, a fact. I dare you to deny it.

Positive discrimination (affirmative action) is illegal in Europe. The Equality Act allows very specific circumstances where employers can give preference depending on gender if it leads to the make up of their staff more closely matching that of society (e.g. hiring a man to an office full of women, or vice versa), but it's pretty strictly covered by law and most employers probably wouldn't want to risk being drawn up on getting it wrong. I'm not sure what other leg ups people get in this country, or Europe as a whole. Any funding favourability may be targeted at poorer areas with a greater proportion of people from ethnic minorities, but that's about the extent of it.

You can't have grants specifically for women as you might see in America, and even those generally seek to encourage women to take up subjects in which they have for a very long time been underrepresented. Yes, that is because they choose not to do those subjects, and I'm sure you won't acknowledge there are cultural reasons that that might be the case - we could bang our heads against the wall discussing it but I don't see much upside to that. Whatever happens, more people from more backgrounds studying and taking up jobs in these areas is for the benefit of everybody, so I'm mostly okay with attempts to correct the cultural imbalance.

Whatever happens, men (and especially white men) really don't have it in any way difficult, and it's hilarious that you make comments like that having whinged throughout the thread about victim status seeking.

[Magic]

https://cdn.liveleak.com/80281E/ll_a_s/2016/Feb/4/LiveLeak-dot-com-db4_1454621344-Untitled-2_1454621352.gif?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06 c91b4db65f5e99818bdd2924b46d3d3837f&ec_rate=230

[Lewis]

What about them? They will be wrong as well. If they believe those same things then they're already idiots.

https://cdn.liveleak.com/80281E/ll_a_s/2016/Feb/4/LiveLeak-dot-com-9bf_1454623137-1453777501929_1454623136.jpg.resized.jpg?d5e8cc8ec cfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bdd2924b4 6ded33b26&ec_rate=230

You don't actually know what 'modern feminism' (or third-wave feminism) believes do you? The incoherent outrage of vocal activists doesn't represent the loosely-defined movement.

I can't even see that image. What was it?

[Toby]

I can't even see that image. What was it?

An embarrassment.

[Lewis]

That doesn't really help.

[QE Harold Flair]

Positive discrimination (affirmative action) is illegal in Europe. The Equality Act allows very specific circumstances where employers can give preference depending on gender if it leads to the make up of their staff more closely matching that of society (e.g. hiring a man to an office full of women, or vice versa), but it's pretty strictly covered by law and most employers probably wouldn't want to risk being drawn up on getting it wrong. I'm not sure what other leg ups people get in this country, or Europe as a whole. Any funding favourability may be targeted at poorer areas with a greater proportion of people from ethnic minorities, but that's about the extent of it.[/QUOTE]

In employment yes, I read the same wiki as you. But in relaity no 2 candidates are EVER exactly matched. In reality this caveat of couyrse leads to positive discrimination. It's also rife in education. And how comes the massive majority of primary school teachers are women? Where's the equality there? What do you think the reaction would be if it was said there are too many black teachers in a particular school? Or too many women at board level?



so I'm mostly okay with attempts to correct the cultural imbalance.

I'll be looking forward to see you campaigning for more male nurses and more women in dangerous jobs.


Whatever happens, men (and especially white men) really don't have it in any way difficult, and it's hilarious that you make comments like that having whinged throughout the thread about victim status seeking.

I'm talking about the generation up coming now, not mine. The latest stattistics about white boys in schools ought to at least give you pause for thought.

[QE Harold Flair]

That doesn't really help.

It features a mannish woman looking at 'how to play chess'

1. Whites go first
2. The Queen protecs the king
3. TRIGGERED! (angry looking, mannish woman)

Of course it loses it quite excellent effect when written in this way. But I'm glad to see the offence merchants arequick to take it as seriously as it was intended.

[QE Harold Flair]

You don't actually know what 'modern feminism' (or third-wave feminism) believes do you? The incoherent outrage of vocal activists doesn't represent the loosely-defined movement.

I can't even see that image. What was it?

Yes, I do. And I have already stated a lot of the nonsense. Is this something else you're going to pretend to be an expert in? If it's a 'loosely defined movement' (tobes disagrees) then nobody can know what 'it' believes.

[Toby]

It's also rife in education. And how comes the massive majority of primary school teachers are women? Where's the equality there?

That's precisely because of outdated views of gender roles, where women take on care-giving roles and any man who does so is effeminate or weird.


What do you think the reaction would be if it was said there are too many black teachers in a particular school?

In comparison to what?


Or too many women at board level?

If women significantly outnumbered men I'd expect it to be fair minded, and if it wasn't I'd accuse those getting pissy about it of at best being hypocritical.


I'll be looking forward to see you campaigning for more male nurses and more women in dangerous jobs.

As in the teacher scenario, yes, there should be more male nurses. That there isn't is due to sexism still existing in society.

[Toby]

If it's a 'loosely defined movement' (tobes disagrees)

I really don't, you've hugely misunderstood me if you think that.

[Lewis]

I've checked the Wikipedia on it just now, and it doesn't say anything about defending false rape claimants or how men sit on trains (it doesn't even name Laurie Penny as its ambassador). Wot it sez is that third-wave feminism strives towards 'abolishing gender role expectations and stereotypes'. Whilst people will naturally interpret that general mission statement differently (what I meant by 'loosely-defined', which was probably a careless choice of words), I would have thought a free-thinker such as yourself would support the general idea of challenging structures that limit the potential of the individual.

[Boydy]

https://frinkiac.com/meme/S13E12/1143809.jpg?lines=Harold+has+no+dick

[QE Harold Flair]

That's precisely because of outdated views of gender roles, where women take on care-giving roles and any man who does so is effeminate or weird.

It's not outdated, though. This is biological. It happens in other species. It's obviously not all-eccompassing, but it still remains the case that women gravitate to that line of work and life more than men. Because we are DIFFERENT.


In comparison to what?

You can't be this stupid. In comparison to there being too many white teachers, therefor 'needing more ethnic diversity'.


If women significantly outnumbered men I'd expect it to be fair minded, and if it wasn't I'd accuse those getting pissy about it of at best being hypocritical.

:happycry: So you're just conditioned to believe that only women need our help? You're actually the sexist here, not me. There will be absolutely nothing I could say or do to convince you if you are that deeply entrenched in your position that women are perenial victims by default. So too many women = that would be fair. Too many men = that's unfair. :happycry:


As in the teacher scenario, yes, there should be more male nurses. That there isn't is due to sexism still existing in society.

Either that or men not wanting to go into those roles. We are DIFFERENT. Our brains are different. Even before any possible social conditioning has taken place it has been shown in experiments that girls and boys go for different toys, with giorls goin g. This is clearly biological, and if you deny it you're flying in the face of the evidence. Which I can produce if you're actually interested and not entrenched? Actually I just will, anyway:

Hormones Explain Why Girls Like Dolls & Boys Like Trucks (http://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html)



When offered the choice of playing with either a doll or a toy truck, girls will typically pick the doll and boys will opt for the truck. This isn't just because society encourages girls to be nurturing and boys to be active, as people once thought. In experiments, male adolescent monkeys also prefer to play with wheeled vehicles while the females prefer dolls — and their societies say nothing on the matter.

[QE Harold Flair]

I've checked the Wikipedia on it just now, and it doesn't say anything about defending false rape claimants or how men sit on trains (it doesn't even name Laurie Penny as its ambassador). Wot it sez is that third-wave feminism strives towards 'abolishing gender role expectations and stereotypes'. Whilst people will naturally interpret that general mission statement differently (what I meant by 'loosely-defined', which was probably a careless choice of words), I would have thought a free-thinker such as yourself would support the general idea of challenging structures that limit the potential of the individual.

But surely it's so looosely defined that whatever wiki says won't make any difference? Right?

Sexism doesn't exist any more. Or more accurate would be to say it's equal from both directions. The same with racism. It used to be an issue and now isn't, unless you want something to feel offended about, of course. So just championing the rights of women (have you ever heard a feminist champion any cause which affects men more, such as suicide rates?) is asking for preference, not equality.

[Chrissy]

I actually wanted to read Mert's views on this. Instead I got Harold's.

Feel somewhat let down.

Oh on what Harold said about women liking dominant men. Kinda correct, they like strong men. Both in physicality and/or in character.

As for Roosh V, well he's massively climbed down in this retraction;

http://www.returnofkings.com/79719/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-roosh-but-were-afraid-to-ask

Maybe folk should remember there is no crime in just being a bit of a mixing cunt now and again. He wanted to create a wee storm of outrage, he got it. Job well done his end.

[Toby]

It's not outdated, though. This is biological. It happens in other species. It's obviously not all-eccompassing, but it still remains the case that women gravitate to that line of work and life more than men. Because we are DIFFERENT.

Perhaps there would be a disparity whatever the case, but there are certainly cultural stereotypes that would put off even males well-suited to care work form applying, just as similar cultural stereotypes may put women off of traditionally masculine jobs.


You can't be this stupid. In comparison to there being too many white teachers, therefor 'needing more ethnic diversity'.

Well I thought we were talking about feminism so I assumed you were bringing up something relevant.


:happycry: So you're just conditioned to believe that only women need our help?

How have you reached that conclusion? I fear yet another case of "Harold can't read".


Either that or men not wanting to go into those roles.

Yes, men don't want to do those roles, that's actually what I said if you concentrate long enough to read a sub-20 word sentence.

[QE Harold Flair]

Perhaps there would be a disparity whatever the case, but there are certainly cultural stereotypes that would put off even males well-suited to care work form applying, just as similar cultural stereotypes may put women off of traditionally masculine jobs.

There is no perhaps. You are wrong, deal with it. When does a normal, natural behaviour become a 'stereotype'? I never said all this. or all that. Most women tend to go for caring roles, most men go for dangerous jobs. Which is precisely what you would expect given the evidence I have brought forwwaqrd, and which you cannot deny.


Well I thought we were talking about feminism so I assumed you were bringing up something relevant.

Well it also works in the example of too many female teachers, if you want to be pedantic about it.



How have you reached that conclusion? I fear yet another case of "Harold can't read".

Because you've already decided before hand that too many women oin the board would have been 'fair minded'. Too many men wouldn't. So you've already decided that sexism exists only one way, no matter what the results show.


Yes, men don't want to do those roles, that's actually what I said if you concentrate long enough to read a sub-20 word sentence.

Yes, they don't want to because it's biological. It has barely anything to do with social conditioning or sexism, which is what you claimed. You have been proven wrong.

[QE Harold Flair]

http://www.returnofkings.com/79719/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-roosh-but-were-afraid-to-ask

Maybe folk should remember there is no crime in just being a bit of a mixing cunt now and again. He wanted to create a wee storm of outrage, he got it. Job well done his end.

So he was just a twat looking for attention and nothing to do with Men's Rights? Hmm, I think someone said that.

[Lewis]

But surely it's so looosely defined that whatever wiki says won't make any difference? Right?

Sexism doesn't exist any more. Or more accurate would be to say it's equal from both directions. The same with racism. It used to be an issue and now isn't, unless you want something to feel offended about, of course. So just championing the rights of women (have you ever heard a feminist champion any cause which affects men more, such as suicide rates?) is asking for preference, not equality.

There are still 'gender role expectations and stereotypes' that can restrict people. I would argue, as an individualist, that the best way to challenge those is to stop treating people as groups and let them get on with it. Ban-happy pinko sorts would disagree with that approach. However, we would both agree that there is an issue.

That is what I meant by 'loosely-defined', which I have acknowledged was a bad way of putting it. You seem to think Jess Phillips (a politician, and a thick one at that) sours the entire concept.

[QE Harold Flair]

And if you let them get on with it you will see a lot more housewives than you currently do. Feminism has taught women that they must have a career. The ones who want to stay at home and raise children are often looked down upon. Now that's social engineering.

[Chrissy]

So he was just a twat looking for attention and nothing to do with Men's Rights? Hmm, I think someone said that.

Yep you did.

[Toby]

(have you ever heard a feminist champion any cause which affects men more, such as suicide rates?)

Yes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/unwritten/feminism-its-not-about-blaming-men-its-about-equality_b_6724118.html

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/07/men-gender-divide-feminism

http://www.dailywire.com/entertainment/1310/do-men-need-check-their-privilege-feminist-scholar-chase-stephens

https://www.thecalmzone.net/2011/04/a-call-to-feminists/

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/unwritten/feminism-its-not-about-blaming-men-its-about-equality_b_6724118.html

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/07/men-gender-divide-feminism

Well you can find anything through a google search. I asked if he had heard of anything, not could find a result or two through google. I could find a hell of a lot more supporting what I said, and we both know that.

[Lewis]

And if you let them get on with it you will see a lot more housewives than you currently do. Feminism has taught women that they must have a career. The ones who want to stay at home and raise children are often looked down upon. Now that's social engineering.

Possibly, but you don't know until you find out; hence third-wave feminism. I'm glad you've recognised its importance.

[Toby]

Well you can find anything through a google search. I asked if he had heard of anything, not could find a result or two through google. I could find a hell of a lot more supporting what I said, and we both know that.

Yes, I had to Google to find those, because shockingly there are quite a lot of articles on this here internet. I knew what to look for because I had read them previously. They're not just the old Harold-staple of vaguely suitable headlines, but I don't expect you'll actually read them to realise that.

[QE Harold Flair]

Possibly, but you don't know until you find out; hence third-wave feminism. I'm glad you've recognised its importance.

Its importance in a bad way, yes.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, I had to Google to find those, because shockingly there are quite a lot of articles on this here internet. I knew what to look for because I had read them previously. They're not just the old Harold-staple of vaguely suitable headlines, but I don't expect you'll actually read them to realise that.

Yes, but I asked if he had ever heard anything. Like I said, google is seek and ye shall find. And like I also said, some feminists are alright. Mostly the older ones.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, I had to Google to find those, because shockingly there are quite a lot of articles on this here internet. I knew what to look for because I had read them previously. They're not just the old Harold-staple of vaguely suitable headlines, but I don't expect you'll actually read them to realise that.

I know you don't want to return to it, but I showed scientific data which directly contradicted what you claimed.

[Toby]

Well, it's likely he will have heard something, because as shown it's a fairly recurring topic. There are plenty more articles I haven't posted.

Mona Chalabi, author of that Guardian piece, can't be much older than about 30. There are plenty of young feminists acknowledging the role feminism should play towards men's issues - but we've been over the reasons you probably wouldn't be aware of that.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well, it's likely he will have heard something, because as shown it's a fairly recurring topic. There are plenty more articles I haven't posted.

Mona Chalabi, author of that Guardian piece, can't be much older than about 30. There are plenty of young feminists acknowledging the role feminism should play towards men's issues - but we've been over the reasons you probably wouldn't be aware of that.

I said 'mostly the older ones'. And that remains true, because they are the ones who actually fought for something important. And no, there are not 'plenty'. Not in comparison to what I say.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

Any women's right's discussions shut down?


“It’s incredible how much stigma there is against male weakness. Men’s issues are deemed unimportant, so I decided to start a society.
“But it was rejected by [Durham's] Societies Committee; they said it was 'controversial' – and that my aims were 'too similar to those of Fem Soc [Feminist Society]'. That’s just not true. They told me I could have a men’s group, but only if it was a branch of the Fem Soc, which struck me as unacceptable.

“To show why, I went through the Fem Soc policy documents, where it specifically says, ‘Feminism exists for women’ and ‘it would be extremely unreasonable to expect this space to support and cater for the needs of men'.

Equality, mate.

[Toby]

I know you don't want to return to it, but I showed scientific data which directly contradicted what you claimed.

The study you posted about was interesting, sure. Let's not pretend it's an area of scientific consensus yet though.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/10/gender-gap-myth-cordelia-fine

I mean, your own article even acknowledges there is a lot of research to be done before they can even begin to make serious conclusions. Another case of skim-reading the headline, I fear.

[Toby]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

Any women's right's discussions shut down?

Equality, mate.

I'd disagree hugely with the quoted sections of the society's policies then. Feminism should be for both genders, and I'd agree with the view that men seeking gender equality would be better placed doing so through feminism. If they're being prevented from doing so that is definitely wrong and should be changed.

[Lewis]

Its importance in a bad way, yes.

So it's okay for people to be bound by expectations and stereotypes provided you agree with it. You really should throw your lot in with religion.

[QE Harold Flair]

The study you posted about was interesting, sure. Let's not pretend it's an area of scientific consensus yet though.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/10/gender-gap-myth-cordelia-fine

I mean, your own article even acknowledges there is a lot of research to be done before they can even begin to make serious conclusions. Another case of skim-reading the headline, I fear.

I think a rigorous scientific study trumps one woman's book. And she is very much in the minority if she claims its wrong. Of course there's always more research top be done, the evidence for what I say is growing and is clearly more evidence based.

[Toby]

I think a rigorous scientific study trumps one woman's book.

I don't think you really understand scientific studies then.


And she is very much in the minority if she claims its wrong.

Try reading the whole article for a change.


Of course there's always more research top be done, the evidence for what I say is growing and is clearly more evidence based.

It's an area of significant debate even within the scientific community, yet you to speak as if it were fact - as you did in #118. You pretend to be an advocate of science and evidence but you argue on faith as much as anybody.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't think you really understand scientific studies then.

I think I do. If she can get her refutation peer reviewed then come back to me.

And no, I do not speak of it as a 'fact'. I said 'evidence' and was very careful to do so. Here's more evidence supporting my case:


Boys generally demonstrate superiority over female peers in areas of the brain involved in math and geometry. These areas of the brain mature about four years earlier in boys than in girls, according to a recent study that measured brain development in more than 500 children. Researchers concluded that when it comes to math, the brain of a 12-year-old girl resembles that of an 8-year-old boy. Conversely, the same researchers found that areas of the brain involved in language and fine motor skills (such as handwriting) mature about six years earlier in girls than in boys.
So, do these sex (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/rm-quiz-sex-fact-fiction) differences even out over time?

Females and males maintain unique brain characteristics throughout life. Male brains, for instance, are about 10% larger than female brains. But bigger doesn't necessarily mean smarter.

Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume," Geary tells WebMD. This difference in form may explain a lasting functional advantage that females seem to have over males: dominant language skills.


Geary suggests that women use language skills to their advantage. "Females use language more when they compete. They gossip, manipulate information," he says. Geary suggests that this behavior, referred to as relational aggression, may have given females a survival advantage long ago. "If the ability to use language to organize relationships (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/bhc-healthy-sex-life/default.htm) was of benefit during evolutionary history, and used more frequently by women, we would expect language differences to become exaggerated," he tells WebMD. Women also use language to build relationships, theorizes Geary. "Women pause more, allow the other friend to speak more, offer facilitative gestures," he says.
When it comes to performing activities that require spatial skills, like navigating directions, men generally do better. "Women use the cerebral cortex for solving problems that require navigational skills. Men use an entirely different area, mainly the left hippocampus -- a nucleus deep inside the brain that's not activated in the women's brains during navigational tasks," Geary tells WebMD. The hippocampus, he explains, automatically codes where you are in space. As a result, Geary says: "Women are more likely to rely on landmark cues: they might suggest you turn at the 7-11 and make a right at the church, whereas men are more likely to navigate via depth reckoning -- go east, then west, etc."


"Most of these differences are complementary. They increase the chances of males and females joining together. It helps the whole species," Gur says.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ?page=2

So I'm pretty sure you believe in evolution. Males and females are different, and generally have different strengths and weaknesses. It should be fairly obvious that this will result in the sexes going in different directions as far as careers go.

[Toby]

And no, I do not speak of it as a 'fact'. I said 'evidence' and was very careful to do so.

You said "This is clearly biological, and if you deny it you're flying in the face of the evidence."

Actual scientists are far less certain than you. Just one of the most recent of many, many studies on the issue: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28582-scans-prove-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/

[Toby]

And here is a peer-reviewed journal article Fine wrote on the subject, since you asked so nicely: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-011-9118-4

[QE Harold Flair]

You said "This is clearly biological, and if you deny it you're flying in the face of the evidence."

Actual scientists are far less certain than you. Just one of the most recent of many, many studies on the issue: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28582-scans-prove-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/

There are still differences (they only studied structure), and you would still have to explain why chimps and other primates exhibit the same sort of biases that we do. They don't have social engineering, do they?

[Toby]

Yes, there are differences, that is acknowledged. Whether they are biologically inherent is what is being debated.

The monkey study is very interesting, as I've already said. I'm not a zoologist so I'm not going to go further than to point out that the author's themselves advise caution in leaping to conclusions about what any of it means. Because - you know, just to emphasise the point again - it's still a subject of intense uncertainty and debate.

[QE Harold Flair]

Of course, that's what scientists always say. They want more funding, naturally.

You would think there should be more than 2% of female chess grandmasters. There's a reason why women have to compete with other women at chess - it's because they can't compete with the top men. Not a slur on women, but as I have stated before, men tend to be the geniuses and the knuckle draggers, where as women tend to score more around the 90-110 mean in IQ tests.

[Toby]

:D

Okay.

[Lewis]

We need more feminist monkeys.

[randomlegend]

Feminism should be for both genders, and I'd agree with the view that men seeking gender equality would be better placed doing so through feminism.

Feminism is frankly a shit term for a movement seeking to challenge inequalities faced by both women and men. It sounds inherently 'for women' and whilst it might be 'semantics', I think people who stand for gender equality in all senses would be far better off moving at away from it.

[Toby]

This is a fairly thorough response to that monkey study. It's not PEER REVIEWED - so I guess you can just dismiss it rather than reading and considering the points for yourself - but it's interesting: http://saltycurrent.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/laughable-gender-research-vervet-toy.html

The points on the toy dog (considered gender neutral) and the cooking pot (considered feminine) seem particularly pertinent.


Feminism is frankly a shit term for a movement seeking to challenge inequalities faced by both women and men. It sounds inherently 'for women' and whilst it might be 'semantics', I think people would be far better off moving at away from it.

Fair comment and I'd be inclined to agree - it would be in everybody's favour if it was just considered the gender equality movement and non-misogynist "men's rights activists" more obviously welcomed.

[QE Harold Flair]

We need more feminist monkeys.

Well....no, better not.

Tobes, I don't see how a cooking pot can be considered feminine to a species which doesn't cook. In their terms it's just a metal object, I'm sure.

[Boydy]

RL always pops up in these sorts of threads as some sort of pseudo-MRA. Fuck off to reddit, mate.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yea! Fuck off because other opinions aren't welcomed here.

[Boydy]

You're such a fucking chode.

[QE Harold Flair]

Who uses that word, really? You're not some American weed fiend, you know.

[Spoonsky]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3432531/Pictured-pick-artist-center-international-pro-rape-storm-t-shirt-shorts-door-mother-s-home-lives-basement.html

First of all, lol, but check the first video. That's an old friend of mine there, perhaps unsurprisingly. If he's on the Daily Mail website that makes me semi-semi-famous.

[QE Harold Flair]

Note how they say he has a stained t-shirt. So what?

[Toby]

Tobes, I don't see how a cooking pot can be considered feminine to a species which doesn't cook. In their terms it's just a metal object, I'm sure.

:D

This is so good.

That's the argument being made in my link...

[randomlegend]

RL always pops up in these sorts of threads as some sort of pseudo-MRA. Fuck off to reddit, mate.

You're such a bitter little man :D

[phonics]

Note how they say he has a stained t-shirt. So what?

Have you never read a Daily Mail headline? Or because it's normally about people you don't like you just assumed they were accurate?

[Jimmy Floyd]

I had to report a cricketer to the authorities for shouting 'chode!' on the pitch once. I then had to explain to said authorities via email what one was.

'Dear sir,

The word in question refers to an instance of the male genitalia's girth exceeding its length.

Kind regards,'

[randomlegend]

That's brilliant.

[QE Harold Flair]

Have you never read a Daily Mail headline? Or because it's normally about people you don't like you just assumed they were accurate?

It was accurate.....

[QE Harold Flair]

:D

This is so good.

That's the argument being made in my link...

Yes, and I would call such an item gender neutral. But the examples of the toy truck and cuddly toy certainly are not.

That critique also seems to come from a completely random nobody who has links to 'Social Justice Reading Recommendations'. So a social justice warrior. What a surprise.

[Toby]

Yes, and I would call such an item gender neutral. But the examples of the toy truck and cuddly toy certainly are not.

So you yourself have highlighted a problem in the study's methodology.

It's also debatable whether monkeys would recognise a human baby doll as an animate object to be cared for any more than they would a stuffed toy dog. And the researchers considered the stuffed toy dog neutral, so again you appear to be disagreeing with them. It's almost like you haven't read even a summary of the study you were trumpeting.


That critique also seems to come from a completely random nobody.

Surely a free thinker needn't make such calls to authority. If the arguments are coherent it doesn't matter who is making them.

[QE Harold Flair]

So you yourself have highlighted a problem in the study's methodology.

But didn't they say the colour of the pot was likely significant? It's not the fact that we the apes see them as a cooking pot, but that the pot was red.


It's also debatable whether monkeys would recognise a human baby doll as an animate object to be cared for any more than they would a stuffed toy dog.

I really doubt that. I had a female cat as a kid and it had one kitten which died at birth. After that point it used to carry around a fluffy slipper and meow constantly for the rest of her life, on occasions. At the end of the day the females went for this, so that doesn't seem likely to be for no reason, does it?


And the researchers considered the stuffed toy dog neutral, so again you appear to be disagreeing with them. It's almost like you haven't read even a summary of the study you were trumpeting.

No, how am I disagreeing? A toy dog is obviously a completely different shape to a doll, which is much more like a baby monkey.


Surely a free thinker needn't make such calls to authority. If the arguments are coherent it doesn't matter who is making them.

I think it does when they make claims that the scientists were just closed minded idiots who had pre-conceived notions.

[Toby]

But didn't they say the colour of the pot was likely significant? It's not the fact that we the apes see them as a cooking pot, but that the pot was red.

They theorise that after the fact. The item was selected because it was a popular item with human girls according to the literature they cited.


I really doubt that. I had a female cat as a kid and it had one kitten which died at birth. After that point it used to carry around a fluffy slipper and meow constantly for the rest of her life, on occasions. At the end of the day the females went for this, so that doesn't seem likely to be for no reason, does it?

Perhaps not, but that's just an assumption and not at all scientific.


No, how am I disagreeing? A toy dog is obviously a completely different shape to a doll, which is much more like a baby monkey.

You said, "the toy truck and the cuddly toy certainly are not [gender neutral]". Unless it's another example of you failing to say what you actually mean, that seems like clear disagreement given the cuddly toy was used in the study as one of the two gender neutral items.


I think it does when they make claims that the scientists were just closed minded idiots who had pre-conceived notions.

With clear and cogent arguments as to why they think that. If you disagree challenge those arguments. So far you're not doing very well.

[QE Harold Flair]

[QUOTE]They theorise that after the fact. The item was selected because it was a popular item with human girls according to the literature they cited.

Well of course they do. They try to explain why there is such a difference.


Perhaps not, but that's just an assumption and not at all scientific.

Well this is also an area which has studies in babies and toddlers. Read more here http://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html




You said, "the toy truck and the cuddly toy certainly are not [gender neutral]". Unless it's another example of you failing to say what you actually mean, that seems like clear disagreement given the cuddly toy was used in the study as one of the two gender neutral items.

No, as I said it was not simply 'a cuddly toy',. It was a doll, which resembles a baby ape in shape. That's vastly different to a toy dog. Again, the link above goes into this.


With clear and cogent arguments as to why they think that. If you disagree challenge those arguments. So far you're not doing very well.

No, his arguments are rubbish. And I have challenged his main one, which appears to be the cooking pot.


When offered the choice of playing with either a doll or a toy truck, girls will typically pick the doll and boys will opt for the truck. This isn't just because society encourages girls to be nurturing and boys to be active, as people once thought. In experiments, male adolescent monkeys also prefer to play with wheeled vehicles while the females prefer dolls — and their societies say nothing on the matter.
The monkey research, conducted with two different species in 2002 and 2008, strongly suggested a biological explanation for children's toy preferences. In recent years, the question has become: How and why does biology make males (be they monkey or human) prefer trucks, and females, dolls?
New and ongoing research suggests babies' exposure to hormones while they are in the womb causes their toy preferences to emerge soon after birth. As for why evolution made this so, questions remain, but the toys may help boys and girls develop the skills they once needed to fulfill their ancient gender roles.

First, in 2009, Gerianne Alexander, professor of psychology at Texas A&M University, and her colleagues found that 3- and 4-month-old boys' testosterone levels correlated with how much more time they spent looking at male-typical toys such as trucks and balls (http://www.livescience.com/33614-the-cool-physics-of-7-toys.html)compared with female-typical toys such as dolls, as measured by an eye tracker. Their level of exposure to the hormone androgen during gestation (which can be estimated by their digit ratio, or the relative lengths of their index and ring fingers) also correlated with their visual interest in male-typical toys.
"Specifically, boys with more male-typical digit ratios (http://www.livescience.com/18484-finger-length-masculine-faces.html) showed greater visual interest in a ball compared to a doll," Alexander told Life's Little Mysteries.
Kim Wallen, a psychologist at Emory University who has studied the gender-specific toy preferences of young rhesus monkeys, said, "The striking thing about the looking data shows that the attraction to these objects occurs very early in life, before it's likely to have been socialized."

Further buttressing the idea that toy preferences are caused by hormones, last year, a group of British researchers found that girls with a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who experienced abnormally high levels of the male sex hormone androgen while in the womb, prefer to play with male-typical toys. [Why Is Pink for Girls and Blue for Boys? (http://www.livescience.com/22037-pink-girls-blue-boys.html)]
But why would male sex hormones make people favor wheeled vehicles and balls? A common explanation holds that these toys facilitate more vigorous activity, which boys are evolutionarily programmed to seek out. But the 2009 study indicated that their affinity for balls and trucks predates the stage when children actually start playing with toys. At just 3 months old, the newborn boys already fixed their eyes on the toys associated with their gender.
"Given that these babies lack physical abilities that would allow them to 'play' with these toys as do older children, our finding suggests that males preference for male-typical toys are not determined by the activities supported by the toys (i.e., movement, rough play)," Alexander said.
Wallen approaches the data more cautiously. "It's hard to interpret what the looking data mean because we don't know why people are attracted to specific things. Clearly children recognize that certain objects in their environment are appropriate for certain activities. They could be looking at a certain toy because it facilitates an activity they like," he said.

The debate over why boys prefer toy vehicles and balls continues. In a new study, Alexander and her colleagues investigated whether 19-month-olds move around when playing with trucks and balls more than they do when playing with dolls. According to the study, they don't. Toddlers with higher levels of testosterone are more active than toddlers with lower levels of the sex hormone, but the active toddlers moved around just as much when holding a toy truck, ball or doll. "We find no evidence to support the widely held belief that boys prefer toys that support higher levels of activity," she wrote in an email. A paper detailing the work has been accepted for publication in the journal Hormones and Behavior.

If it isn't vigorous activity they're after, it could be that boys simply find balls and wheeled vehicles more interesting, while human figures appeal more to girls. As for why evolution would program these toy preferences, the researchers have a few ideas. According to Alexander, one possibility is that girls have evolved to perceive social stimuli, such as people, as very important, while the perceived worth of social stimuli (and thus, dolls that look like people) is weaker in boys. [The Smarter Sex? Women's Average IQ Overtakes Men's (http://www.livescience.com/21647-men-women-iq-scores.html)]

Boys, meanwhile, tend to develop superior spatial navigation abilities. "Multiple studies in humans and primates (http://www.livescience.com/32503-why-havent-all-primates-evolved-into-humans.html) shows there is a substantial male advantage in mental rotation, which is taking an object and rotating it in the mind," Wallen said. "It could be that manipulating objects like balls and wheels in space is one way this mental rotation gets more fully developed."
This is purely speculative, Wallen said, but boys' superior spatial abilities have been tied to their traditional role as hunters. "The general theory is that well-developed skills in mental rotation allowed long distance navigation: using an egocentric system where essentially you navigate using your perception of your location in 3D space," he said. "This might have facilitated long distance hunting parties."

[randomlegend]

I dunno why people are so triggered by the mere suggestion that there could be inherent differences between men and women.

I don't pretend to know whether there is or not (my instinct is that there is, based on basically nothing) I just don't understand why it's such a big deal.

[Toby]

Well of course they do. They try to explain why there is such a difference.

After realising it was a bit daft. They selected it as a supposedly feminine toy, not really thinking through that it could only possibly be considered feminine through cultural bias. It was pretty silly, whatever conclusions they grasped at afterwards. The full article is online if you want to double check: http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(02)00107-1/pdf

The suggestion about colour is also open to challenge given the "masculine" ball was orange.


No, as I said it was not simply 'a cuddly toy',. It was a doll, which resembles a baby ape in shape. That's vastly different to a toy dog. Again, the link above goes into this.

I took cuddly toy to mean the stuffed toy dog, since those terms are used far more interchangeably than cuddly toy and doll. Baby apes are pretty different to baby vervet monkeys, too.


No, his arguments are rubbish.

Top argument that.

[Toby]

I dunno why people are so triggered by the mere suggestion that there could be inherent differences between men and women.

I don't pretend to know whether there is or not (my instinct is that there is, based on basically nothing) I just don't understand why it's such a big deal.

I'm not, just frustrated by people making out it is certain fact when it is clearly a topic of intense debate among those studying it.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not, just frustrated by people making out it is certain fact when it is clearly a topic of intense debate among those studying it.

It absolutely is a fact that there are inherent differences.

[Toby]

04/02/2016


It's an area of significant debate even within the scientific community, yet you to speak as if it were fact - as you did in #118. You pretend to be an advocate of science and evidence but you argue on faith as much as anybody.



I do not speak of it as a 'fact'. I said 'evidence' and was very careful to do so.

05/02/2016


I'm not, just frustrated by people making out it is certain fact when it is clearly a topic of intense debate among those studying it.


It absolutely is a fact that there are inherent differences.

Quite a rapid change in tone, that. You'd think you'd be more certain were it "absolutely a fact".

[QE Harold Flair]

After realising it was a bit daft. They selected it as a supposedly feminine toy, not really thinking through that it could only possibly be considered feminine through cultural bias.

How have you come to that conclusion? Do you think these scientists were too thick to realise beforehand and then thought they needed to compensate?


The suggestion about colour is also open to challenge given the "masculine" ball was orange.

So?



I took cuddly toy to mean the stuffed toy dog, since those terms are used far more interchangeably than cuddly toy and doll. Baby apes are pretty different to baby vervet monkeys, too.

Ah, so were just wrong. And lol at your desperation. Vervet monkey babies and ape babies have the same general shape.




Top argument that.

Yes, nice of you to ignore the point after. You claimed I didn't challenge his point when that's exacly what I did.

[QE Harold Flair]

Quite a rapid change in tone, that. You'd think you'd be more certain were it "absolutely a fact".

I'm not talking about the brain here. There are absolutely biological differences, physically. Do you deny that?

We have different chromozones for a start. So to say that it isn't a fact there are biological differences is to be thoroughly wrong.

[randomlegend]

I'm not, just frustrated by people making out it is certain fact when it is clearly a topic of intense debate among those studying it.

I didn't particularly mean you.

[Toby]

How have you come to that conclusion? Do you think these scientists were too thick to realise beforehand and then thought they needed to compensate?

From reading the article in question. I posted it up thread if you want to have a look, instead of skimming a news report of it and pretending to be informed. They set out in their methodology why those toys were chosen, with the sole justification being their perception as "masculine" or "feminine" to humans. See below:


These toys were categorized as ‘‘masculine’’ toys, ‘‘feminine’’ toys, or ‘‘neutral’’ toys on the basis of evidence that boys are more interested than girls in balls and cars (the ‘‘masculine’’ toy set), girls are more interested than boys in dolls and pots (the ‘‘feminine’’ toy set), and boys and girls are approximately equally interested in books and stuffed animals (the ‘‘neutral’’ toy set) (Berenbaum & Hines, 1992; Connor & Serbin, 1977; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). The six toys were selected because children in a broad age range categorize them as ‘‘masculine,’’ ‘‘feminine,’’ or ‘‘neutral’’ and, for those toys categorized as ‘‘masculine’’ or ‘‘feminine,’’ the sex difference in toy preferences is reliable and relatively large in children

Colour is only brought into after the data is collected - it was not part of the selection criteria for the items used.


So?

They say that, "Female rhesus monkeys have been found to show a preference for the characteristic ‘‘reddish-pink’’ facial coloration of infant vervets compared to yellow or green. Consistent with this female color preference, girls are also more likely than boys to prefer warmer colors (i.e., pink and red) to cooler colors (i.e., blue and green)."

So the preference to red is a species-specific matter (human babies do not have red faces, you might be aware). Were it purely gender based as they theorise, orange is considered a "warmer colour" as much as pink would be.


Ah, so were just wrong.

I forgot you hadn't actually read the study itself and put too much significance in your lazy word choice. I'll accept you meant the doll, as much as I feel it's wonderfully convenient you used 'cuddly toy' for the first time in response to me mentioning the dog.


And lol at your desperation. Vervet monkey babies and ape babies have the same general shape.

Vaguely. Apes have much larger heads and limbs. Not that the doll selection was considered in their methodology as presenting an object similar to the vervet monkeys own babies - it was just chosen as a popular "feminine" toy, much like the pot.

The male monkeys actually played with the two "masculine" toys, the "feminine" pot and the "neutral" dog almost equally, so even if we ignore all the other factors it's really only the females that show much gender preference at all.


Yes, nice of you to ignore the point after. You claimed I didn't chal;lenge his point when that's exacly what I did.

The point after being, "I challenged his main one (not really the main one, just one of a few) being the cooking pot". We were still discussing that at the time if you recall. Your challenge to it doesn't really follow logically, as discussed above.

[Toby]

I'm not talking about the brain here. There are absolutely biological differences, physically. Do you deny that?

We have different chromozones for a start. So to say that it isn't a fact there are biological differences is to be thoroughly wrong.

Of course there are, I haven't denied that at any point. Whether that has biologically inherent effects on our personality is in no way clear, and that is what we were discussing.

[QE Harold Flair]

Okay, so you misunderstood what he said, then.

[Toby]

Yes, I wrongly assumed he was making a comment relevant to the discussion.

[QE Harold Flair]

From reading the article in question. I posted it up thread if you want to have a look, instead of skimming a news report of it and pretending to be informed. They set out in their methodology why those toys were chosen, with the sole justification being their perception as "masculine" or "feminine" to humans. See below:

I already posted the findings a loing while back, in which they say that females tend to be drawn to reddish colours. This is something else which is the result of studies from 2007. Even if you took the cooking pot out of the equation, the study stands up. It's significant that the monkeys go for the same stuff that our own infants do. There was another study in 2008 as well which showed the same thing. It seems to me that you're rally trying hard to ignore the findings.


Colour is only brought into after the data is collected - it was not part of the selection criteria for the items used.

Yes, that's what evaluation of the data looks like.


They say that, "Female rhesus monkeys have been found to show a preference for the characteristic ‘‘reddish-pink’’ facial coloration of infant vervets compared to yellow or green. Consistent with this female color preference, girls are also more likely than boys to prefer warmer colors (i.e., pink and red) to cooler colors (i.e., blue and green)."

Which shows that the pull of the ball overrides the colour. That only enhances my side.


I forgot you hadn't actually read the study itself and put too much significance in your lazy word choice. I'll accept you meant the doll, as much as I feel it's wonderfully convenient you used 'cuddly toy' for the first time in response to me mentioning the dog.

No, I read the findings of the study, made by the scientists who undertook it. Sure, you can make your own conclusions if you want, but I'm not sure on what basis I would believe you over them.


Vaguely. Apes have much larger heads and limbs. Not that the doll selection was considered in their methodology as presenting an object similar to the vervet monkeys own babies - it was just chosen as a popular "feminine" toy, much like the pot.

No, not '[vaguely. Anatomically it's very similar. Forget a 'bigger head' and any other such nonsense.


The male monkeys actually played with the two "masculine" toys, the "feminine" pot and the "neutral" dog almost equally, so even if we ignore all the other factors it's really only the females that show much gender preference at all.

I've already said I don't agree that the pot is feminine in and of itself. Forget the fucking pot. Why do you ignore the fact that they didn't play with the most obviously female toy? Why do people who actually know what they're talking about in this field all seem to disagree with you? So much so that the best you can find is some fucking social justice warrior blog.


The point after being, "I challenged his main one (not really the main one, just one of a few) being the cooking pot". We were still discussing that at the time if you recall. Your challenge to it doesn't really follow logically, as discussed above

I challenged the main one that you brought up.

It seems you've completely ignored the last article I used, too.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, I wrongly assumed he was making a comment relevant to the discussion.

He was. That there are biological differences between men and women. There are in most other species, too. Don't be offended by it.

There's a reason men have traditionally been the hunters and women have been the carers. We are stronger, faster, more aggressive, and many other things which leads to us being beter hunters. That's one very clear example of how biological differences make for different behaviours.

[Toby]

I've put forward various weaknesses in the methodology, including one you yourself brought up because you hadn't bothered to actually read the thing. You accept the results based on several complete assumptions. That's fine, go ahead and do that, but don't pretend that the findings can't be challenged. Yet again you refer to the credentials of the person making the rebuttal rather than focussing on the arguments being made - you whinge constantly at that sort of call to authority coming from anybody else. If you post the full articles to the other studies you've mentioned I'll have a look at them, I've simply looked at some of the arguments against this one because it is publicly available for free.


He was. That there are biological differences between men and women. There are in most other species, too. Don't be offended by it.

I'm not remotely.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, and along with the one social justice warrior who writes a blog with no replies, you're in good company. You should perhaps write into them and inform them of where they're going wrong?

[Toby]

Better to at least attempt to look at things critically than blindly accept them and refute anything that challenges long held assumption. Not much of a free thinker that.

[Lewis]

I was hoping the relevance of a bigger head would become the focus of this argument.

[Toby]

I did wonder, but he's far too serious for that.

[QE Harold Flair]

Better to at least attempt to look at things critically than blindly accept them and refute anything that challenges long held assumption. Not much of a free thinker that.

You're the one using your pre-conceived fear of gender differences to dictate your criticisms. The fact you must have googled for opposition and only found some sadsack who writes blogs to himself says quite a lot. I, on the otherhand, have cited 2 studies and also posted scientific articles on the data.

[Toby]

You're the one using your pre-conceived fear of gender differences to dictate your criticisms.

I'm not remotely - I read the study itself and considered what it said.


The fact you must have googled for opposition and only found some sadsack who writes blogs to himself says quite a lot.

I searched for the journal article itself you spastic. That's generally what one does when presented with claims about a scientific study. That was one of the first to come up and through it I found the link (since he or she properly cited it), so I read on to see some compelling arguments against how the study had been conducted.

It would be far more interesting to see a study with monkeys with 20+ toys selected largely at random, and then to compare whatever preference the monkeys showed to that of human infants.


I, on the otherhand, have cited 2 studies and also posted scientific articles on the data.

You posted news links to studies that you haven't read. Well done, what a bastion of independent critical thought you are.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not remotely - I read the study itself and considered what it said.

Which doesn't refute what I said.


I searched for the journal article itself you spastic. That's generally what one does when presented with claims about a scientific study. That was one of the first to come up and through it I found the link (since he or she properly cited it), so I read on to see some compelling arguments against how the study had been conducted.

No, before you posted the study you posted that twat who talks to his echo chamber. That was the best you could find, wasn't it? Be honest.

It would be far more interesting to see a study with monkeys with 20+ toys selected largely at random, and then to compare whatever preference the monkeys showed to that of human infants.


You posted news links to studies that you haven't read. Well done, what a bastion of independent critical thought you are.

No, not 'news articles'. Reactions to the study from scientific journals and websites. I've already agreed with you that naming the pot 'feminine' doesn't make much sense to me, so don't pretend I just blindly agreed with everything. The study shows enough without even taking the pot into consideration. You continue to ignore what seems fairly cleasr from the studies which have taken place both in humans and monkeys/apes.

You haven't even responded to this - http://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

(http://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html)
Further buttressing the idea that toy preferences are caused by hormones, last year, a group of British researchers found that girls with a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who experienced abnormally high levels of the male sex hormone androgen while in the womb, prefer to play with male-typical toys. [Why Is Pink for Girls and Blue for Boys?]
(http://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html)
Yet more correlating evidence for biological difference.

[Toby]

Which doesn't refute what I said.

It raises various questions about the results, you just refuse to think critically about it.


No, before you posted the study you posted that twat who talks to his echo chamber. That was the best you could find, wasn't it? Be honest.

The link was in the blog, which was a better written refutation of it than I was going to spend time putting together. There's little point writing out what has already been well covered by somebody else. Yet again you go for ad hominem attacks on the author because you just don't have enough to say in response to the actual arguments.


No, not 'news articles'. Reactions to the study from scientific journals and websites. I've already agreed with you that naming the pot 'feminine' doesn't make much sense to me, so don't pretend I just blindly agreed with everything. The study shows enough without even taking the pot into consideration. You continue to ignore what seems fairly cleasr from the studies which have taken place both in humans and monkeys/apes.

Live Science is a news site. What you posted was a news article. Which scientific journal have you linked to reaction from? Other than WebMD where else did you link from?

If you don't take the pot into consideration you're discounting almost a third of the time spent observing the female monkeys; and you're making conclusions based on one supposedly feminine toy without any control item. That might be sufficient for you to confirm your bias but it's not at all convincing for anybody who wishes to look at it critically.

[QE Harold Flair]

It raises various questions about the results, you just refuse to think critically about it.

What haven't I thought about that you have?


The link was in the blog, which was a better written refutation of it than I was going to spend time putting together. There's little point writing out what has already been well covered by somebody else. Yet again you go for ad hominem attacks on the author because you just don't have enough to say in response to the actual arguments.

So it shoudn't be hard to find a more legitimate criticism from a more reputable source if what you say is correct? I await.



Live Science is a news site. What you posted was a news article. Which scientific journal have you linked to reaction from? Other than WebMD where else did you link from?

One which quotes the people who did the studies, and others in legitimate and professional fields on the results.


If you don't take the pot into consideration you're discounting almost a third of the time spent observing the female monkeys; and you're making conclusions based on one supposedly feminine toy without any control item. That might be sufficient for you to confirm your bias but it's not at all convincing for anybody who wishes to look at it critically.

If we both agree that the pot is gender neutral then it makes no difference to the other results. You continue to ignore that in ALL these studies the females go for the dolls and the males go for the trucks and balls. Stop ignoring this. Even before they can play with them, the males look at the male toys and females look at the female toys. It could hardly be much clearer.

[Toby]

What haven't I thought about that you have?

You make comments like, "well ignore the pot, it makes no difference" and "well a baby doll is closer to a baby monkey than a stuffed toy dog". These are complete assumptions that have not been properly tested within the study. You dismiss legitimate criticisms out of hand because they challenge your preconceived view.


So it shoudn't be hard to find a more legitimate criticism from a more reputable source if what you say is correct? I await.

Again, why does a "reputable" source make a difference? Are you so incapable of thinking for yourself that you need a few letters after somebody's name before you can decide whether or not they are making a good argument? This is childish logic and completely hypocritical given what you've said about calls to authority so often in the past.


One which quotes the people who did the studies, and others in legitimate and professional fields on the results.

Okay, so one news article (Live Science). It quotes the people who did the studies?! I bet they're going to be really critical of their own work. Very balanced.

And one other with the views of a single doctor, without any references for what he states. But you say others, what were the others? And which of them was a scientific journal? Are you now trying to lie to make it seem like you've posted more links than you actually did?


If we both agree that the pot is gender neutral then it makes no difference to the other results.

Of course it makes a difference. They had one supposedly feminine toy. No control item, no back up in case it was an outlier. That is not a rigorous study.


You continue to ignore that in ALL these studies the females go for the dolls and the males go for the trucks and balls. Stop ignoring this. Even before they can play with them, the males look at the male toys and females look at the female toys. It could hardly be much clearer.

I haven't seen the full text or methodology of another study yet. None of your sources even include a summary of data.

[phonics]

Opens thread


You make comments like, "well ignore the pot, it makes no difference" and "well a baby doll is closer to a baby monkey than a stuffed toy dog". These are complete assumptions that have not been properly tested within the study.

Shuts down pc and gets up

http://i.giphy.com/pjkngLDANouLm.gif

[QE Harold Flair]

You make comments like, "well ignore the pot, it makes no difference" and "well a baby doll is closer to a baby monkey than a stuffed toy dog". These are complete assumptions that have not been properly tested within the study. You dismiss legitimate criticisms out of hand because they challenge your preconceived view.

Yes, I say that because if the pot is gender neutral and they are all playing equally with it then it makes no difference, does it? What about that every fucking study on humans and primates shows, undeniably, that the females go for dolls and the males go for the clearly male toys? Why are you ignoring these clear findings?



Again, why does a "reputable" source make a difference? Are you so incapable of thinking for yourself that you need a few letters after somebody's name before you can decide whether or not they are making a good argument? This is childish logic and completely hypocritical given what you've said about calls to authority so often in the past.

It shows that there is refutation from people who know more than you or me. Now I am quite happy with my own views on the matter, and that they chime with every legitimate source I have found. Maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong? Seems unlikely.


Okay, so one news article (Live Science). It quotes the people who did the studies?! I bet they're going to be really critical of their own work. Very balanced.

'And others'


And one other with the views of a single doctor, without any references for what he states. But you say others, what were the others? And which of them was a scientific journal? Are you now trying to lie to make it seem like you've posted more links than you actually did?


First, in 2009, Gerianne Alexander, professor of psychology at Texas A&M University, and her colleagues found that 3- and 4-month-old boys' testosterone levels correlated with how much more time they spent looking at male-typical toys such as trucks and balls (http://www.livescience.com/33614-the-cool-physics-of-7-toys.html)compared with female-typical toys such as dolls, as measured by an eye tracker. Their level of exposure to the hormone androgen during gestation (which can be estimated by their digit ratio, or the relative lengths of their index and ring fingers) also correlated with their visual interest in male-typical toys.

So that's a completely different study which agrees with biological differences. Did you not bother reading this?


Further buttressing the idea that toy preferences are caused by hormones, last year, a group of British researchers found that girls with a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who experienced abnormally high levels of the male sex hormone androgen while in the womb, prefer to play with male-typical toys.

And here is that study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

So that's another study from British researchers which agrees with what I say. Did you not bother reading this? Perhaps you can point to a study which conflicts with this?



Of course it makes a difference. They had one supposedly feminine toy. No control item, no back up in case it was an outlier. That is not a rigorous study.

So in how many studies do the males have to go for the male toys and the females go for the doll before you will take notice


I haven't seen the full text or methodology of another study yet. None of your sources even include a summary of data

I just gave you one. Happy reading. Don't worry though, Moronics is on your side as well.

[Toby]

Yes, I say that because if the pot is gender neutral and they are all playing equally with it then it makes no difference, does it?

a) It does makes a difference, I've set out why a few times now. Amusingly you've ducked it both times now.
b) They didn't play with it equally. You still haven't even looked at the data.


What about that every fucking study on humans and primates shows, undeniably, that the females go for dolls and the males go for the clearly male toys? Why are you ignoring these clear findings?

I haven't seen the studies to comment properly. You saying they're "clear findings" doesn't suggest much given how the low levels of conclusiveness at which you'll evidently apply that sort of term.


It shows that there is refutation from people who know more than you or me.

Again, are you not sufficiently confident in your ability to think critically about their methodological choices to even consider the arguments without somebody flashing a degree to ease your woes?

I posted reports on various studies disputing that there is such a thing as a male or female brain or inherent biological differences in thought process. You choose to ignore them.


Now I am quite happy with my own views on the matter, and that they chime with every legitimate source I have found. Maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong? Seems unlikely.

That's quite easy if you discount anything that remotely challenges you, legitimate or not. "Everyone" indeed. I guess the various doctors writing on the New Scientist articles I linked to can pack it in and find another job.


'And others'

Yes you said others, but you only posted two different links.


So that's a completely different study which agrees with biological differences. Did you not bother reading this?

That's a follow up study by one of the same authors, again without even a summary of the data. The full text does not appear to be available for free online.


And here is that study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

So that's another study from British researchers which agrees with what I say. Did you not bother reading this? Perhaps you can point to a study which conflicts with this?

This is a completely different study to the one you've mentioned above, and this is the first time you've posted anything to do with it. I'll read it later as it looks quite dense.

I have posted various studies that conflict with the suggestion of inherent differences in the brain. Again, you choose to ignore them.


So in how many studies do the males have to go for the male toys and the females go for the doll before you will take notice

Depends to what extent that happens and how rigorously the study is conducted. The only data set I've seen so far is extremely unconvincing, as much as your blind faith might tell you otherwise.

[randomlegend]

What's your basis for being so generally sceptical, Toby?

Your default position in this thread has been that you don't think it's true and you've approached everything Harold has posted from that position. Whether the research is bollocks or not (I've been skimming in lectures so I haven't looked at the links) I don't understand why you seem to think the basic premise is so unlikely.

[Toby]

What's your basis for being so generally sceptical, Toby?

Your default position in this thread has been that you don't think it's true and you've approached everything Harold has posted from that position. Whether the research is bollocks or not (I've been skimming in lectures so I haven't looked at the links) I don't understand why you seem to think the basic premise is so unlikely.

I don't necessarily think it's untrue and I don't think it's fair to call that my default position. I think far more research is needed. At the moment it is very far from proven either way with far more rigorous studies than this that have disputed that there is a difference. My issue is with Harold speaking with such certainty and arguing with such scientific illiteracy. These are not proven facts or "clear" evidence of anything much.

[Lewis]

Randrew only believes it because he doesn't want to accept he's menopausal.

[randomlegend]

Well if your argument is with Harold's application and understanding of the scientific method then you're about as close to banging your head against a wall as forum posting can get.

Then again I engaged him on "what do you get out of it?" the other day so who am I to talk?

[QE Harold Flair]

a) It does makes a difference, I've set out why a few times now. Amusingly you've ducked it both times now.
b) They didn't play with it equally. You still haven't even looked at the data.

I've said many times why it doesn't make a difference. I expoect they used the cooking pot because it was used in human studies, so they would replicate everything for apes and monkeys. But if you took all the gender neutral toys out of the study, and the pot which is a bit sketchy, you're still left with clear evidence that the females go for the doll and males go for the trucks and balls. In every study this happens. You still refuse to acknowledge this.



I haven't seen the studies to comment properly. You saying they're "clear findings" doesn't suggest much given how the low levels of conclusiveness at which you'll evidently apply that sort of term.

There's not much I can do when you completely ignore the findings of separate studies.


Again, are you not sufficiently confident in your ability to think critically about their methodological choices to even consider the arguments without somebody flashing a degree to ease your woes?

I am, but I'm also not a scientist and this isn't my area, or yours. So the fact that all the conclusions seem to agree with me does add something.


I posted reports on various studies disputing that there is such a thing as a male or female brain or inherent biological differences in thought process. You choose to ignore them.

I didn't ignore them. There was only one posted that I can recall, and it was more to do with the composition and make up of the brain, which was conceded.


That's quite easy if you discount anything that remotely challenges you, legitimate or not. "Everyone" indeed. I guess the various doctors writing on the New Scientist articles I linked to can pack it in and find another job.

I don't hough, do I? I accepted the pot was a bit ropey right from the outset. YOU are the one who will not accept the evidence and findings of multiple, peer reviewed studies.



Yes you said others, but you only posted two different links.

So that's others, then.


That's a follow up study by one of the same authors, again without even a summary of the data. The full text does not appear to be available for free online.

The full study and data is posted, as if you are really going to read it all.


This is a completely different study to the one you've mentioned above, and this is the first time you've posted anything to do with it. I'll read it later as it looks quite dense.



Depends to what extent that happens and how rigorously the study is conducted. The only data set I've seen so far is extremely unconvincing, as much as your blind faith might tell you otherwise.

Why don't you do an 'ask the expert' then? Again, how many studies have to show the same thing before you're convinced?

[Toby]

Well if your argument is with Harold's application and understanding of the scientific method then you're about as close to banging your head against a wall as forum posting can get.

Sure, but this is one of those topics where I'd rather not see misinformation spread quite so easily.

[randomlegend]

Lewis I just think that from an evolutionary perspective it makes good sense, but I wouldn't claim to know either way.

And I'm more chronically depressed and a bit of an autist than menopausal. But hey ho.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't necessarily think it's untrue and I don't think it's fair to call that my default position. I think far more research is needed. At the moment it is very far from proven either way with far more rigorous studies than this that have disputed that there is a difference. My issue is with Harold speaking with such certainty and arguing with such scientific illiteracy. These are not proven facts or "clear" evidence of anything much.

More strawmanning, I see. I've never said these are facts - I said that there ARE biological diffrences is a fact. We have different chromozones. Fact. And there are many more.

All I've said regarding this is that all the evidence shows that males go for male toys (and even look at them before they can play, in human studies) and females go for the undisputably female toy, in the shape of the doll. This happens in all studies. Again, if you want to refute this then find a similar study where this doesn't/didn't happen.

[randomlegend]

Toby considering his audience is about 40 people who don't listen to him, I doubt he'll do much damage.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well if your argument is with Harold's application and understanding of the scientific method then you're about as close to banging your head against a wall as forum posting can get.

What have I said which makes you think I 'don't understand' the scientific method?

Sounds a bit like you just can't bring yourself to be on my side. It's okay, I'm used to it.

[Toby]

I've said many times why it doesn't make a difference. I expoect they used the cooking pot because it was used in human studies, so they would replicate everything for apes and monkeys. But if you took all the gender neutral toys out of the study, and the pot which is a bit sketchy, you're still left with clear evidence that the females go for the doll and males go for the trucks and balls. In every study this happens. You still refuse to acknowledge this.

That isn't a sufficient spread of items to take meaningful scientific conclusions. You're suggesting a slight preference for a single "feminine" item is sufficient to claim "clear evidence" of differing male and female preferences. It isn't, especially when female monkeys spent less time with the doll than with the pot or the dog and males showed no clear preference for anything.


There's not much I can do when you completely ignore the findings of separate studies.

I've asked you to post studies, you haven't. I've still to fully read the one you did post now but it deals with sexual orientation as opposed to gender, so I'm not sure it's particularly relevant. You've certainly yet to post another study involving the toy preferences of monkeys (or apes, as you continually mention).


I am, but I'm also not a scientist and this isn't my area, or yours. So the fact that all the conclusions seem to agree with me does add something.

All the conclusions do not agree with you.


I didn't ignore them. There was only one posted that I can recall, and it was more to do with the composition and make up of the brain, which was conceded.

I posted several, so you've ignored all but one and largely overlooked any difference there in claiming that there are "clear" differences.


I don't hough, do I? I accepted the pot was a bit ropey right from the outset. YOU are the one who will not accept the evidence and findings of multiple, peer reviewed studies.

I haven't been presented with the findings of multiple peer reviewed studies.


So that's others, then.

You mentioned the first link and then said others, suggesting more than two. I'm not sure why you felt the need to lie.


The full study and data is posted, as if you are really going to read it all.

Why wouldn't I? It's only 28 pages, half of which isn't text. It's hardly the most burdensome read.


Why don't you do an 'ask the expert' then? Again, how many studies have to show the same thing before you're convinced?

You've shown no studies that show the same thing.

[QE Harold Flair]

That isn't a sufficient spread of items to take meaningful scientific conclusions. You're suggesting a slight preference for a single "feminine" item is sufficient to claim "clear evidence" of differing male and female preferences. It isn't, especially when female monkeys spent less time with the doll than with the pot or the dog and males showed no clear preference for anything.

When it's repeated in every study on the subject, yes I am.



I've asked you to post studies, you haven't. I've still to fully read the one you did post now but it deals with sexual orientation as opposed to gender, so I'm not sure it's particularly relevant. You've certainly yet to post another study involving the toy preferences of monkeys (or apes, as you continually mention).

You know the authors, if you really want to read the studies you can. I posted an exceedingly long study, which you haven't had time to read yet you say (what are you waiting for?). How many studies refuting the data have you posted? Oh that's right, none.


All the conclusions do not agree with you.

Which of the conclusions from these particular studies do not agree with me?


I posted several, so you've ignored all but one and largely overlooked any difference there in claiming that there are "clear" differences.

I'm pretty sure you posted only one from last year. But if you posted more then do so again. The one I did read about said they only looked at the make-up of the brain.



I haven't been presented with the findings of multiple peer reviewed studies.

You have been poresented with the findings on them and the names of those involved. If you were really interested you could very easily find them yourself. I found one for you, which you are busy not reading now. So what's the point?


You mentioned the first link and then said others, suggesting more than two. I'm not sure why you felt the need to lie.

There are others, one of which I posted and you will 'read later'. Why are you lieing?



Why wouldn't I? It's only 28 pages, half of which isn't text. It's hardly the most burdensome read.

Go for it, then. Here's the 2008 study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/



You've shown no studies that show the same thing.

Is this really a case of you complaining that I haven't posted the full, unedited study for you? I have shown the fiudings of the studies, which repeatedly show the same thing.

[Toby]

When it's repeated in every study on the subject, yes I am.

What is "every study"? How many studies have their been of primate toy preference? Google Scholar only finds the two in your article, and then others referencing it. Nobody seems to have tried it with a different type of monkey and certainly not with an ape, as far as I can see. You seem sure there are many studies, so please share them.


You know the authors, if you really want to read the studies you can. I posted an exceedingly long study, which you haven't had time to read yet you say (what are you waiting for?). How many studies refuting the data have you posted? Oh that's right, none.

Your friend Hines and Alexander appear to be the only ones who've studied this, at least as far as what's available on the internet goes. One of their studies is available publicly - and isn't particularly rigorous. The other is not. Perhaps you have a link? You seem very confident in its findings but it seems you haven't actually read it?


Which of the conclusions from these particular studies do not agree with me?

I didn't realise you meant the conclusions of the studies themselves. What a strange (and weak) argument.


I'm pretty sure you posted only one from last year. But if you posted more then do so again. The one I did read about said they only looked at the make-up of the brain.

Sorry, you're only interested in ones from last year now? Where has that caveat appeared from and what is the reasoning for it?


You have been poresented with the findings on them and the names of those involved. If you were really interested you could very easily find them yourself. I found one for you, which you are busy not reading now. So what's the point?

I've found them, I can't access them without paying £35. So I can't say I'm all that interested. You clearly haven't seen the actual findings so I guess we can just take with a pinch of salt any other opinion you have on the matter since you don't actually know what you're talking about.


There are others, one of which I posted and you will 'read later'. Why are you lieing?

You posted that one after I asked the question. So again we have others in addition to the initial two. What is the fourth?


Go for it, then.

:thbup:


Is this really a case of you complaining that I haven't posted the full, unedited study for you? I have shown the fiudings of the studies, which repeatedly show the same thing.

Where are the findings of the 2008 study? I think you're stretching credulity to describe two matching instances as something happening "repeatedly".

[randomlegend]

What have I said which makes you think I 'don't understand' the scientific method?

Sounds a bit like you just can't bring yourself to be on my side. It's okay, I'm used to it.

I've agreed with you before on things for which others have poured scorn and I'm sure I'll agree with you again. I've "wailed" to your defence about how the mods treat you as well so I don't think that's a fair accusation.

As I said I've not read the thread that closely and honestly can't be bothered to, so I don't know what's really gone on here, but I've certainly seen some questionable stuff from you before.

[QE Harold Flair]

[QUOTE]What is "every study"? How many studies have their been of primate toy preference? Google Scholar only finds the two in your article, and then others referencing it. Nobody seems to have tried it with a different type of monkey and certainly not with an ape, as far as I can see. You seem sure there are many studies, so please share them.

The two on monkeys and the one which shows babies, even before they can play, have preferences in what toys they look at.



Your friend Hines and Alexander appear to be the only ones who've studied this, at least as far as what's available on the internet goes. One of their studies is available publicly - and isn't particularly rigorous. The other is not. Perhaps you have a link? You seem very confident in its findings but it seems you haven't actually read it?

Well since those studies were in 2002 and 2008, don't you think a study showing something different should have surfaced by now? it's not as if there wouldn't be a million people who wanted this to be wrong. Yourself included. I have the only publically available links I could find. Of course you can ourchase the full study if it bothers you that much.


I didn't realise you meant the conclusions of the studies themselves. What a strange (and weak) argument.

What did you mean, then? You obviously disagree with their conclusions. Why don't you Put it to them and post the conversation in an 'ask the expert' style? Bob Ross might call it a 'bravery test'.



Sorry, you're only interested in ones from last year now? Where has that caveat appeared from and what is the reasoning for it?

No, Mre can't read or disingenuous. I said that's the only one I remember you posting.




I've found them, I can't access them without paying £35. So I can't say I'm all that interested. You clearly haven't seen the actual findings so I guess we can just take with a pinch of salt any other opinion you have on the matter since you don't actually know what you're talking about.

The link I posted shows enough of the study. Again, you're just avoiding. I put it to the judgment of the people - is this not enough information? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553/ It has 44 references to other studies and lays out most of what you could want to know. I'd like to know what you think isn't included that should be?



You posted that one after I asked the question. So again we have others in addition to the initial two. What is the fourth?

And if I post a fourth (which I never mentioned but nevermind!) then will you ask for a fifth? Where your 'one'?


Where are the findings of the 2008 study? I think you're stretching credulity to describe two matching instances as something happening "repeatedly".


I've only posted it 3 times now. Again - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553/

[Toby]

The two on monkeys and the one which shows babies, even before they can play, have preferences in what toys they look at.

Three whole studies. Only two on monkeys. Okay, at least we're past the exaggeration.

The baby ones raise many more question marks. I've seen one with a group of 3-8 month olds, and one with a group of 1-2 year olds. That seems plenty of time for certain cultural trends to have an effect. Did they control for previous exposure to cars/dolls, such as in the decoration of the child's room or in the toys they had already been given by parents and carers? It seems unlikely they ever could.


Well since those studies were in 2002 and 2008, don't you think a study showing something different should have surfaced by now? it's not as if there wouldn't be a million people who wanted this to be wrong. Yourself included. I have the only publically available links I could find. Of course you can ourchase the full study if it bothers you that much.

You might think so, but I imagine studies involving dozens of monkeys are pretty expensive so it seems a bit of a leap to suggest it would definitely have happened.


What did you mean, then? You obviously disagree with their conclusions. Why don't you Put it to them and post the conversation in an 'ask the expert' style? Bob Ross might call it a 'bravery test'.

Got contact details?


The link I posted shows enough of the study. Again, you're just avoiding. I put it to the judgment of the people - is this not enough information? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553/ It has 44 references to other studies and lays out most of what you could want to know. I'd like to know what you think isn't included that should be?

The link you posted showed bugger all of the story. This is the very first time you've posted the actual article itself. Let's have a look now:

- "These data suggest that males show strong preferences for mechanical toys or strong aversion to plush toys". Strangely, the 'plush' dog toy in the 2002 was the one the male monkeys liked the most.
- "Males spend significantly more of their play time with the “male” toy(s) than with the female toy(s), while females spend about equal times with “male” and “female” toys". Again, the other study showed completely the opposite preference, with females showing a slight preference for "feminine" toys, but males not showing any significant preference at all.

Not exactly consistent results.


And if I post a fourth (which I never mentioned but nevermind!) then will you ask for a fifth? Where your 'one'?

Well, if you post a fourth and then say there are still others, then yes, I will expect to see a fifth. You're really not very good with words, are you?


I've only posted it 3 times now. Again - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553/

Editing links into your posts after I've already replied to them is a good way to have me miss them.

[Toby]

If anybody else is actually interested / hasn't been bored to death on the subject already, I've found a fairly extensive thesis assessing gender preference of toys in rhesus monkeys: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314&context=theses

The author reviews the two studies already mentioned and attempts to control for certain variables that (s)he feels they missed.

[QE Harold Flair]

You've desperately been searching for any dissenting voice, haven't you :D

Who is this author? That looks awfully like some uni student's project. Do you think he paid the $35 to see all of the unedited details?

I really can't be bothered with the multiquoting any more, since you're oblivious to everything that the evidence shows, and the explanations of the findings from actual qualified people and not sadsack bloggers who talk to themselves and some Uni student who I can't find anything about.

[Toby]

I didn't have to delve too deep, no. It came up on the first page searching for the article you wouldn't link for ages.

I stated quite clearly it was a thesis so yes, well done on sussing out that means a "student's project". I just said it was interesting, I'm not dressing it up as anything else.

[Lewis]

It's a thesis submitted (and seemingly approved if the university has decided to publish it) for a Masters degree in Neuroscience. Unless somebody has published something since that specifically counters their arguments, they are an 'actual qualified' person.

EDIT: To re-phrase that, they are qualified regardless; but if nobody has shat on the thesis in the years since it was written it would suggest that they were onto something.

[QE Harold Flair]

Nobody seems to have taken it up, either. Anyway, I will continue to laugh heartily at the extremely poor quality of your sources compared to mine. Having googled his name, he doesn't appear to have got very far in his career, since I can't find him.

Interesting, is it? Did you read the 76 pages or is it okay not to if he says something which might be on your side? :D

[Toby]

I read the methodology and data analysis bits. The literature stuff is pretty dull but as an expirment it's definitely interesting.

All you keep doing is reminding us you're too stupid to attempt to read something, let alone think about it critically.

It also seems you're not much use with Google if you really can't find her.

[randomlegend]

It's amusing the two of you are referring to the author as different genders.

[Toby]

I wasn't sure at first, given she's called Jamie, but not being completely incompetent I managed to find more info about her.

[Lewis]

Nobody seems to have taken it up, either. Anyway, I will continue to laugh heartily at the extremely poor quality of your sources compared to mine. Having googled his name, he doesn't appear to have got very far in his career, since I can't find him.

How is your science career coming along?

[QE Harold Flair]

I read the methodology and data analysis bits. The literature stuff is pretty dull but as an expirment it's definitely interesting.

All you keep doing is reminding us you're too stupid to attempt to read something, let alone think about it critically.

It also seems you're not much use with Google if you really can't find her.

'Us' - calling for the back up again, I see.

[QE Harold Flair]

How is your science career coming along?

I'm not going to get involved in your pedantry.

[Toby]

'Us' - calling for the back up again, I see.

:D

You're really going to try that after all your desperate pleas to authority here?

It's a rhetorical us anyway, such is language. It doesn't refer or call out to anybody I'm particular.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, I am. Because you're talking to me, and you're only speaking on behalf of yourself. Now back on topic, show ME the links you found for this woman. What's her position?

[Toby]

She's no longer an academic it would seem.

None of it matters to free thinkers, but I suppose a mindless drone such as yourself needs titles to know your place in the world.

[QE Harold Flair]

Okay :D.

Maybe her paper didn't cut the mustard. Still, we should let her know how interesting Tobes from TTH found it. That'll soften the blow of failure.

[Lewis]

I'm not going to read it, but if (as Tobias claims) it addresses the two other studies you were talking about then it can't have misrepresented them otherwise it would not have been passed (nor would her supervisor, who appears rather established, have associated themselves with it). You can't just write it off as bollocks when you're not even willing, and probably not capable, of actually disputing its findings.

[Toby]

Okay :D.

Maybe her paper didn't cut the mustard. Still, we should let her know how interesting Tobes from TTH found it. That'll soften the blow of failure.

She got her MA. It's listed on the university's website. Lewis has covered the rest.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not going to read it, but if (as Tobias claims) it addresses the two other studies you were talking about then it can't have misrepresented them otherwise it would not have been passed (nor would her supervisor, who appears rather established, have associated themselves with it). You can't just write it off as bollocks when you're not even willing, and probably not capable, of actually disputing its findings.

I, like you, am unlikely to read 76 pages. And neither has he. I also didn't say she misrepresented anything. You really are bending over backwards, aren't you? What do you mean #it's findings'. This is simply a uni student presenting a thesis - and it's obviously not gone anywhere. But again, I'm not going to read a 76 page report and neither is anyone here.

[QE Harold Flair]

She got her MA. It's listed on the university's website. Lewis has covered the rest.

You still haven't provided me with all these links you found about her.

[Toby]

It's just LinkedIn, some stuff from the university and (feminist alarm bells) an article about her husband. Nothing interesting. You'd soon find it if you tried.

[QE Harold Flair]

Sounds awesome.

[Toby]

I'm pretty sure an MA in Neuroscience and Behavioural Psychology is more than you or I will achieve in our lives combined.

[randomlegend]

It's hardly walking on the moon :cab:

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm pretty sure an MA in Neuroscience and Behavioural Psychology is more than you or I will achieve in our lives combined.

Probably, yes. What's your point?

I doubt she will ever be Thread Starter of The Year.

[Lewis]

I, like you, am unlikely to read 76 pages. And neither has he. I also didn't say she misrepresented anything. You really are bending over backwards, aren't you? What do you mean #it's findings'. This is simply a uni student presenting a thesis - and it's obviously not gone anywhere. But again, I'm not going to read a 76 page report and neither is anyone here.

I never said you misrepresented them. Tobias said that takes issue with studies that you were discussing. I said that seeing as it cannot have misrepresented them (because it would not have passed), it must have made credible and worthwhile criticisms of those studies, as those criticisms (and subsequent use of alternative methodologies) were deemed worthy of association with an actual professor and worthy of a Masters degree by a panel of the 'actual qualified people' you were appealing to. That is where the study has gone, so lol at the misplaced arrogance.

[QE Harold Flair]

I never said you misrepresented them. Tobias said that takes issue with studies that you were discussing. I said that seeing as it cannot have misrepresented them (because it would not have passed), it must have made credible and worthwhile criticisms of those studies, as those criticisms (and subsequent use of alternative methodologies) were deemed worthy of association with an actual professor and worthy of a Masters degree by a panel of the 'actual qualified people' you were appealing to. That is where the study has gone, so lol at the misplaced arrogance.

It could easily have got them wrong without misrepresenting. Unless whatever university it was is somehoe now the arbiter of what is correct or not. Clutching at straws, this. I'm the one who has posted by far the more credible material.

These studies have not been refuted by anyone who matters. It's been over 12 years since the first one, and I'm yet to see a single study which refutes the observations the others made. Oh and by the way, you do know that many papers doubting evolution also get deemed worth by 'actual professors', right?

[Toby]

It's hardly walking on the moon :cab:

Harold and I have spent two days arguing about monkeys' toy preferences and you think moon walking is the standard to beat?

[QE Harold Flair]

In any case, you don't get to refute a study or set of studies and findings by simply having a whinge about a tiny piece of their experiment - you go out and refute it by setting up your own experiments which show your own hypothesis to be correct. Note the zero studies which have done so.

[randomlegend]

I've spent 500 hours playing a car-football video game in recent months and they might yet let me be a doctor.

What you spend your spare time doing - even if it is arguing with Harold - isn't much indication of what you might achieve/have achieved.

I believe in you, Tobes.

[Lewis]

In any case, you don't get to refute a study or set of studies and findings by simply having a whinge about a tiny piece of their experiment - you go out and refute it by setting up your own experiments which show your own hypothesis to be correct. Note the zero studies which have done so.

I've just read the thesis, and it turns out that its entire purpose was to confirm the previous studies by using a better methodology. Pages 15 to 17 list the problems with those two studies, and page 20 contains their predictions that the previous findings would nevertheless be confirmed. Unfortunately their conclusions from page 51 onwards showed that 'results of the experiments presented here do not confirm previous studies showing that monkeys have a sex-typed preference for objects or for particular characteristics of objects', and details subsequent experiments that failed to replicate the initial studies' findings. Page 57 sums up:


In summary, monkeys that participated in this project did not show object preferences based on sex. These data diverge from the preferences observed in humans and studies tested with other non-human primates. One major variable that we eliminated from this study was social influence, both from conspecifics and from maternal influences. The literature on children suggests that social and biological factors likely play a role in sex-typed object preference, but isolating each influence is impossible. Conducting object preference with non-human primates affords the ability to eliminate socio-cultural influences that may be a factor in studies with children, however previous studies did not eliminate social influences of rhesus monkeys. In eliminating social influences, we may have eliminated object preferences based on sex.

In other words, we need more feminist monkeys.

[QE Harold Flair]

You sad fuck.

Perhapas now they (or she) can also refute the studies on human toddlers and babies which show that children still look at male and female toys based on sex even before social influence is likely to have occurred. I'd also like to know how she claims to have 'eliminated social influence' from the study. Do monkeys have social influence? In what way? Sounds like a complete crock of shit, I'm afraid.

[Toby]

She tested the monkeys alone rather than in groups as the other tests did. It should also be noted the previous tests studied them in groups with only one of each toy, so monkeys may have just gone for whatever toy was available. Another huge oversight from Alexander et al.

I'm not sure how you decide that "socialisation is unlikely to have taken place" for the babies tested. Do their parents keep them in empty rooms with no access to the outside world? You were extremely pleased with monkey studies when they suited you of course.

Your pride in your own anti-intellectualism is the only sad thing about this most recent exchange.

[QE Harold Flair]

She tested the monkeys alone rather than in groups as the other tests did. It should also be noted the previous tests studied them in groups with only one of each toy, so monkeys may have just gone for whatever toy was available. Another huge oversight from Alexander et al.

I'm not sure how you decide that "socialisation is unlikely to have taken place" for the babies tested. Do their parents keep them in empty rooms with no access to the outside world? You were extremely pleased with monkey studies when they suited you of course.

Your pride in your own anti-intellectualism is the only sad thing about this most recent exchange.

Well like I keep telling you, put all this to the people who done the various studies. See what they say. And you still haven't accounted for the study into infants who looked at the boys and girls tots even before they could play. The monkey studies STILL suit me. This person, who is on linked in you know, obviously didn't make much of a splash with this news as nobody seems to have listened to it.

When I said socialisation is unlikely to have taken place I was just quoting the articles I provided, with people who will have achieved 'more than you or me put together'.


First, in 2009, Gerianne Alexander, professor of psychology at Texas A&M University, and her colleagues found that 3- and 4-month-old boys' testosterone levels correlated with how much more time they spent looking at male-typical toys such as trucks and balls (http://www.livescience.com/33614-the-cool-physics-of-7-toys.html)compared with female-typical toys such as dolls, as measured by an eye tracker. Their level of exposure to the hormone androgen during gestation (which can be estimated by their digit ratio, or the relative lengths of their index and ring fingers) also correlated with their visual interest in male-typical toys.
"Specifically, boys with more male-typical digit ratios (http://www.livescience.com/18484-finger-length-masculine-faces.html) showed greater visual interest in a ball compared to a doll," Alexander told Life's Little Mysteries.


Kim Wallen, a psychologist at Emory University who has studied the gender-specific toy preferences of young rhesus monkeys, said, "The striking thing about the looking data shows that the attraction to these objects occurs very early in life, before it's likely to have been socialized."

[Toby]

Another pointless appeal to authority. You're a hypocritical mess.

Note Wallen says, "before its likely". She doesn't actually know, she's guessing.

[QE Harold Flair]

You're the one who said Mrs Linked-in profile don't you know, had an MA. I just used your own quote against you.

Of course she doesn't 'know'. That's not how science works. You follow the evidence - something you seem pretty unwilling to do on this. I'd sauy it a bit more than 'a guess', though.

[Toby]

You're the one who said Mrs Linked-in profile don't you know, had an MA. I just used your own quote against you.

Not because I thought it important. You asked a few times for links because apparently you can't used Google, so I told you. You also suggested her paper hadn't been good enough, but it got her her MA and it was published by the university, which is about all a thesis is going to do.

Note that I'm looking at the actual arguments and not just bleating about who originally wrote them, because I'm capable of independent thought. Again, for somebody who claims to be a free thinker, you're remarkably incapable of forming your own conclusions on this.


Of course she doesn't 'know'. That's not how science works. You follow the evidence - something you seem pretty unwilling to do on this. I'd sauy it a bit more than 'a guess', though.

Yes, you follow the evidence, and there was no cited evidence for what she said. It was an untested assumption.

The suggestion that it's me unwilling to "follow the evidence" is pretty great though. :D

[Lewis]

I only got involved to defend the poor lass' qualifications (is my chivalry biological or socialised?). The best E-Victories are the unexpected ones.

[QE Harold Flair]

Not because I thought it important. You asked a few times for links because apparently you can't used Google, so I told you. You also suggested her paper hadn't been good enough, but it got her her MA and it was published by the university, which is about all a thesis is going to do.

Note that I'm looking at the actual arguments and not just bleating about who originally wrote them, because I'm capable of independent thought. Again, for somebody who claims to be a free thinker, you're remarkably incapable of forming your own conclusions on this.

Yes, and you still haven't shown me that link yet, despite being asked 3 times. Not that a linked in profile of a former uni grad is impressive. You are not looking at the arguments - your main bone of contention was the classification of one of the topys as feminine. That's why I said forget about it then and concentrate on the toys which are undoubtedly, stereotypically male or female - namely the doll and the trucks and balls. I keep asking you to refute this and you keep failing to do so. Oh and behold, yet more evidence:

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2015/08/scientists-uncover-a-difference-between-the-sexes.html

(http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2015/08/scientists-uncover-a-difference-between-the-sexes.html)
Male and female brains operate differently at a molecular level, a Northwestern University research team reports in a new study of a brain region involved in learning and memory, responses to stress and epilepsy. Many brain disorders vary between the sexes, but how biology and culture contribute to these differences has been unclear. Now Northwestern neuroscientists have found an intrinsic biological difference between males and females in the molecular regulation of synapses in the hippocampus. This provides a scientific reason to believe that female and male brains may respond differently to drugs targeting certain synaptic pathways.
“The importance of studying sex differences in the brain is about making biology and medicine relevant to everyone, to both men and women,” said Catherine S. Woolley (http://www.neurobiology.northwestern.edu/people/core-faculty/catherine-woolley.html), senior author of the study. “It is not about things such as who is better at reading a map or why more men than women choose to enter certain professions.”
Among their findings, the scientists found that a drug called URB-597, which regulates a molecule important in neurotransmitter release, had an effect in females that it did not have in males. While the study was done in rats, it has broad implications for humans because this drug and others like it are currently being tested in clinical trials in humans.
“Our study starts to put some specifics on what types of molecular differences there are in male and female brains,” Woolley said.

Woolley is the William Deering Chair in Biological Sciences, professor of neurobiology in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences (http://www.weinberg.northwestern.edu) and a member of the Women’s Health Research Institute (http://www.womenshealth.northwestern.edu) at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

The study of inhibitory synapses and endocannabinoids (http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/32/11252.short), which regulate neurotransmitters, was published today (Aug. 12) in The Journal of Neuroscience (http://www.jneurosci.org). It is the first study to detail where males and females differ in a key molecular pathway in the brain.
“We don’t know whether this finding will translate to humans or not,” Woolley said, “but right now people who are investigating endocannabinoids in humans probably are not aware that manipulating these molecules could have different effects in males and females.”
Specifically, Woolley and her research team found that in female brains the drug URB-597 increased the inhibitory effect of a key endocannabinoid in the brain, called anandamide, causing a decrease in the release of neurotransmitters. In male brains, the drug had no effect. (The difference is not related to circulating reproductive hormones.)
The subject of many clinical trials, endocannabinoids are molecules that help regulate the amount of certain neurotransmitters released at synapses, the gap between neurons. These molecules are involved in a variety of physiological processes including memory, motivational state, appetite and pain as well as in epilepsy, a neurological disorder. (Their name comes from the fact that endocannabinoids activate the same neural receptors as the active ingredient in marijuana.)

Understanding what controls the synthesis, release and breakdown of endocannabinoids has broad implications both for normal and pathological brain function, Woolley said. This study contributes an important piece of knowledge.

For 20 years, Woolley actively avoided studying sex differences in the brain until her own data showed her that differences between females and males were real. Her discovery, reported in 2012, that estrogens decreased inhibitory synaptic transmission in the brains of female rats but not in males, changed her thinking.
“Being a scientist is about changing your mind in the face of new evidence,” Woolley said. “I had to change my mind in the face of this evidence.”
Building on these earlier findings, Woolley and her team used a series of electrophysiological and biochemical studies to pinpoint what causes this effect. The researchers found the difference between males and females lies in the interaction between the molecules ERalpha and mGluR1. Details of the molecular pathway are reported in the new study.
To find out what is the same and what is different between males and females, scientists need to study both sexes, Woolley maintains. Currently, about 85 percent of basic neuroscience studies are done in male animals, tissues or cells.

“We are not doing women -- and specifically women’s health -- any favors by pretending that things are the same if they are not,” Woolley said. “If the results of research would be different in female animals, tissues and cells, then we need to know. This is essential so that we can find appropriate diagnoses, treatments and, ultimately, cures for disease in both sexes.”

The National Institutes of Health (grant R01 NS037324) and the NIH Office for Research on Women’s Health supported the research.
The paper is titled “Sex Differences in Molecular Signaling at Inhibitory Synapses in the Hippocampus (http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/32/11252.short).”
In addition to Woolley, other authors of the paper are Nino Tabatadze (first author), Guangzhe Huang, Renee M. May and Anant Jain, all of Northwestern.





Yes, you follow the evidence, and there was no cited evidence for what she said. It was an untested assumption.

Of course it was. It's not something which can be proven 100% but all the evidence so far shows that more exposure to make hopmrones are linked with play with male orientated toys. That has shown to be the case even in females with abnormally high levels of male hormone. So guess what? That's yet MORE evidence sup;porting biological reasons for differences between the sexes. You ignore literally everything that is presented against your position and make pathetically minor disputes about 1 of the toys.


The suggestion that it's me unwilling to "follow the evidence" is pretty great though. :D

That's exactly what you're doing. I have shown 3 peer reviewed studies which all poiint towards the same thing and you try and pick holes where none exist. That's the whole point of peer reviews.

I'll ignore Lewis until he addresses what I said rather than pretending to have read a 76 page uni student's thesis.