As we’ve seen again and again on this blog, misogynists love to talk about how much better men are than women when it comes to things like math, logic, and scientific thinking generally. Unfortunately, their posts and comments online – filled with breathtaking failures of logic, absurd unsourced assertions and magical thinking — do not seem to bear out this hypothesis. I would compare the scientific thinking of most manosphere misogynists with that of the creationists, but frankly that would be insulting to creationists.
A case in point: a graph – provenance unknown – posted in a recent MGTOWforums discussion of marriage. The standard line amongst the lady haters is that marriage is on the way out , because men are “waking up” to the evils of marriage in an allegedly feminist state and deciding to, well, go their own way. The reality: while the marriage rate has been falling fairly steadily for the last quarter-century or so, for a variety of reasons, most people do marry at some point in their lives; it would be silly to assume that a trend over the course of several decades heralds the death of a social institution that has lasted (and has had many previous ups and downs) for millennia.
Of course, that’s not the way the MGTOWers in question see it. Their proof that marriage is doomed – doomed, I say – lies in this little graph which charts with mathematical precision the exact date range within which marriage will vanish forever from this good earth:
Now, there are many problems with this little graph. For one thing, what happens AFTER the projected marriage rate goes to zero? Does the marriage rate bounce like a rubber ball back into the positive realm? Or does it go below zero, with unmarried couples divorcing one another – just in case?
Second, this chart is based on a tiny number of data points – a mere 25 year sliver of the millennia-long history of divorce. If you go back a mere century and a half – see the chart below, taken from a paper you can find here — you’ll see that the marriage rate doesn’t conform to any neat mathematical formula; it jumps up and down, affected not only by slow-moving cultural changes but by events in the real world – look at the gigantic spike in marriage after World War II.
But the main issue here is that there is simply no way you can come up with a neat equation to predict the future of marriage because THE WORLD DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. History isn’t math. It cannot be predicted in advance, and any attempt to do so — especially one based on a tiny sliver of data — is doomed to failure. (Well, certain aspects of reality can be predicted — like when Halley’s comet will next return (assuming it’s not eaten by a giant space monster we haven’t discovered yet). Orbits can be calculated with mathematical precision; social trends cannot.)
To illustrate the dangers of extrapolation, let’s consider the little chart below, prepared by a helpful assistant (who happens to have access to a scanner). The chart provides some interesting data on the age of a hypothetical cat named “Fluffy” and her projected life expectancy. As you can see, Fluffy was hypothetically born in 2001, making her ten years old today, with her age increasing by one every year. (Just pretend that the numbers line up properly; my assistant, despite her many other charms, is not big on precision, and may have been drunk when she prepared this chart.) Based on this data (which show Fluffy’s age increasing by one every year), we could project that by the time the next century rolls around our dear little cat will be 99 years old.
If projecting the future were as easy as drawing little lines on graphs, the world would be a much simpler, and much less interesting, place to live. Most of us realize this. MRAs and MGTOWers, not so much.
@NWO:
I’m… a communist? For not thinking morality is completely seperate from everyday life? How does “morality is something that should be discussed in school” lead to “I believe that all people should share products of labor, which the state controls distribution for, and no one has any personal property?”
@Holly What you’re describing, ironically, is the perfect schooling for creating uncriticial citizens who would only be fit to work and not to ask questions.
I think that’s the point XD Cuz otherwise YOU WILL HAVE TEH GAY AGENDA. (he also seems to think heterosexuality is the default which is why he doesn’t consider it like teaching “pro-gay” xD )
I don’t really define myself, other than “far left liberal”. As for “Communist”, I’m a Socialist, at best.
Gym? Arts? Geography? Hell, the Classical Civilizations class I took in my last year was my favourite class of High School. I didn’t even take a frelling shop class.
Now answer my question: Do you think a strong person has the right to rob and kill a weak person, with no consequences?
NWO:
Chances are? Yes you do. You received influences from all around you growing up, and the fact that the state ensured equal rights for all races has created a culture where racism is considered a bad belief. Would you be non-racist growing up in the Jim Crow era? Really?
“kirbywarp, do you need the State to teach you tolerance? I don’t.”
As Captain Bathrobe used to say, “Not a trace of irony here, folks.”
Slavey, you still think gay = pedophile. You know as much about tolerance as a rock does about physics.
@Molly:
But at least rocks obey the laws of physics! He’s like a rock that decides to teleport to the moon before falling leftways down to the center of this pebble for all it cares about physics.
If you lived in China the State taught them they had the legal right to have only one child. They accepted their State indoctrination. If they taught that here, would you accept it? Would you want it taught in school?
@kirby Only it still falls straight down. It just insists “I’m on the Moon, you geniuses just won’t open your minds and see it!”
Have we tortured this metaphor enough?
NWO:
So now being told that black people aren’t second class citizens is the same as being indoctrinated into a specific belief about the content of a family? Really?
@Molly Ren notice how he’s moved away from that xD And he’s deliberately trying not to say what he did previously that homosexuals are teaching our kids in school to grow up gay xD
Now he’s goalpost shifted like woah xD
No. I’m pro-choice. What the frell are you talking about‽
You’re right, Ami. Arguing with Slavey is like trying to hit a cockroach with a shoe.
Actually, people in China weren’t indoctrinated. They were given massive financial incentives not to have more than one kid. But they didn’t adopt some grand cultural perspective that having one kid is morally right and always has been.
Slavey, do you think a strong person has the right to rob and kill a weak person, with no consequences?
*rodeo cat awaits the next attark* xD
*Queer Nazi shifts zir gun in zir holster*
Kirby, I grew up in the inner streets of Philadelphia. Most of my childhood friends were black. I don’t need to be taught to accept other races. Are you such a bigot that you need teaching to not be a racist?
Love knows no bounds.
the BDSM community would beg to disagree.
Spearboy do you need to be taught that in school?
“I don’t need to be taught to accept other races.”
So why won’t you accept teh gays?
“The only classes are reading, writing, math, hard sciences and shop, (woodworking, machining and such).”
Or: One giant class called “Learning.”
Didn’t Ami call that, like, last week?
@Holly if that were true, immigrants and refugees from China would have only one child. xD
Not everyone grew up in Philly. Some people grew up where there were only white people.
Also, even if schools don’t teach an anti-racism unit, they still need to deal with student issues. In a school where there’s one black kid and the other kids are making fun of him, the teachers need to teach anti-racism just to make that kid’s life bearable.
I asked that before the school thread of the “conversation”. It has nothing to do with schools. Now answer the question.
@Bee Correct, I did XD