Categories
antifeminism beta males bunnies creepy dozens of upvotes empathy deficit entitled babies evil sexy ladies evil single moms excusing abuse idiocy imaginary backwards land imaginary oppression irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA one hundred upvotes only men pay taxes apparently oppressed men reddit sexual harassment

Men’s Rights Redditor: “Going to a strip club as a guy must be like going to a regular nightclub as a girl!”

Peep show
Peep show

How stupid do you have to be to actually believe the following nonsense? Not just regular stupid. Men’s Rights stupid.

Wow, just wow. This blew my mind the other day when I went to the strip club (self.MensRights)  submitted 1 day ago* by horqth  So I went in there, with no intention of buying anything, I just went in there and got something to drink and sat down by myself.  After a few minutes, strippers comes up to me and starts to be nice to me, tells me I look good, that I dress well and, they are just basically trying to charm me and they treats me as a king. (This is just to get me to spend money on them of course, but if we ignore that, these girls are basically making me feel really good about myself)  Then it hit me: going to a strip club as a guy must be like going to a regular nightclub as a girl!  Because when a girl goes to a club all the guys will come up to her and treat her nice, and try to charm her.  Told my friends about this and they said their minds were blown as well, what do you think?  Edit: spelling

Heck, this is even stupid by normal Men’s Rights standards. It made me think of this line from Ruthless People.

Now, horqth could very well be a troll. His account is brand new, and, I mean, this is just amazingly dumb. But here’s the thing: his comments are being treated as if they are completely reasonable by the Men’s Rights subreddit. I noticed only a couple of mostly ignored comments out of more than 100 even raising the possiblity that he was a troll.

Not only has his post gotten dozens of upvotes, but in the comments there are numerous other Men’s Rights Redditors — not trolls — who’ve actually managed to outdo him in the sheer ridiculousness of their opinions. And they’re getting upvotes too.

Milessycamore seemed to suggest that horqth had understated the degree to which men were being victimized in both places, and more than 200 Redditors agreed:

milessycamore 162 points 1 day ago (212|50)  except the difference is that you, as a man... pay BOTH places...

Saxonjf thought it would be nice if more women would act like these strippers and make men feel “important special.”

saxonjf 8 points 1 day ago (10|2)  Great analogy. I've never been to a strip club (and have no intention), but it wouldn't hurt women to realize that making a man feel important special will help the relationship.  We've grown up in an era where denigrating men is fashionable, and women don't realize that building us up, rather than tearing us down, will make a huge difference in our relationships.

Itchybrain, putting his economist hat on, suggested that the root of the problem was the massive over-valuation of women:

itchybrain 27 points 1 day ago (36|9)  Very true. Most guys minds would explode if they got the attention the average looking girl gets. I think Marc Rudov said that for a guy to get the kind of attention the average girl gets he would have to be a millionaire. It just shows you how over valued women are sexually and how under valued men are.

So how did the ladies get so overvalued in the first place? Blame the government and all that darn welfare. Responding to one contrarian Men’s Righster who suggested — get this! — that women are appropriately valued — FloranHunter laid down this truth bomb, by which I mean a bunch of complete and utter crap:

FloranHunter 7 points 17 hours ago (8|1)  Not exactly.  The government MASSIVELY subsidizes women, especially single mothers. They still can't get everything they want or possibly need with it but women no longer need a man to survive. This causes a corresponding massive devaluation of unattractive but socially useful (aka has an ok or better job) men. In the past, women needed men or they starved or were vulnerable to violence. This is no longer the case.

If only we could return to the good old days, when women would starve unless they were super nice to unattractive dudes who pestered them in bars!

Lawtonfogle also has no problem with the idea of men being valued for their money; he just wants to get more bang(s) for the buck.

Lawtonfogle 10 points 1 day ago (12|2)  Government intervention in the means of social support programs that result in a woman having far more bargaining power in relationship dynamics. If it weren't for laws that provided support for children and forced fathers to pay for children (even when they aren't the biological father), it would be a very different issue. Men would still be valued for their money and women for their attractiveness, but money would hold more value and being a male willing to commit would also hold (more) value.      permalink     source     parent     save     give gold     hide child comments  [–]IOIOOIIOIO 5 points 23 hours ago (7|2)  Effective male contraception is going to be amazing.

I give up.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

445 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cloudiah
7 years ago

I hope our little visitor steps on a few four-sided triangles.

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

This four-sided fool is a Poe, right?

Please tell me this is a Poe.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

Give me one good reason to prefer sex over non-sexual reproduction. IVF even gives you some degree of genetic control, and that degree of control will only rise in the future. Sexual reproduction is a genetic crap shoot.

Fibinachi
7 years ago

What? Yes it is. Variance is a continuous parameter. It isn’t binary. A population where 50% of people are plumbers and 50% are electricians has more variation in career choice than one where 75% are plumbers and 25% are electricians. A population where 100% are plumbers has a variance of zero w.r.t. career choice.

Incorrect. That’s a variability of two, two and one. The expressed percentages of people with different variances is different from the available variabilities (Or: The amount of people with blue and green eyes is irrelevant to the fact that in this example, only people with blue or green eyes exist)

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Nope, sorry, you tipped your hand too obviously there. Chin up – if you learn some restraint you may yet live to troll another day.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Oh lookie, we have a fish monger. Go peddle your red herrings elsewhere. Among other nonsense, you said — “The X/Y genetic sex determination scheme also ensures that males will have greater levels of phenotypic variance in all X-linked traits than will females.”

Now you’re doing shitty math with non-x-linked traits, which somehow still have a variance based on genetic gender, despite having fuck all to do with gender. You’re missing the entire set of genes with no gender related variance, and playing guessing games with the percentage of genes in each category.

And continuing to ignore that having duplicate genes allows for a wider range of expression. That is, have two (or more, that’s a thing you know) X chromosomes makes for more potential phenotypes for (cis) women and thus *gasp* greater levels of phenotypic variance.

The dancing goalposts are cute though.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

Does “variability” mean something different than “variance”? Every attempt to look for a definition equated it to the square of the standard deviation. In other words, I couldn’t find a difference between the two concepts.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

No, two X chromosomes ensures less variance due to the lower probability of inheriting two copies of the same recessive gene. If all genes were equal, you might have a point.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

“The level of variability in a population is not predicated on the commonness of the variability.”

What? Yes it is. Variance is a continuous parameter. It isn’t binary. A population where 50% of people are plumbers and 50% are electricians has more variation in career choice than one where 75% are plumbers and 25% are electricians.

WTF are you talking about? Can you actually stay on topic and argue the points I make, instead of shifting the goal posts every time you comment back? Please address what I said in my earlier comment.

Point estimates of proportions don’t tell me the variance, so your example isn’t an example. You’re also alternating between “variance” and “variation” which are not the same thing. It’s also not a Bayesian example because you’ve given me point estimates and not distributions.

Can you stick to the same mathematical frame you originally proposed and answer my earlier questions? Or is doing anything other than copying and pasting from somewhere else beyond your capabilities?

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

Give me one good reason to prefer sex over non-sexual reproduction. IVF even gives you some degree of genetic control, and that degree of control will only rise in the future. Sexual reproduction is a genetic crap shoot.

No, no, no. You’re not getting it. How you, personally, feel about sex is not an issue. There’s nothing wrong with not being into sex. The point is that your personal preferences cannot be generalized to the rest of the population. The point is that people who enjoy and/or want sex are not engaging in icky, dirty behaviors when they have sex.

Your personal preferences are not the standard by which all behavior is judged.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

*sigh* yes!p, which means men have two options — expressing that recessive gene, or not having it. Whereas women can have a third option — being a carrier for the gene.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Does “variability” mean something different than “variance”? Every attempt to look for a definition equated it to the square of the standard deviation. In other words, I couldn’t find a difference between the two concepts.

LOLOLOLOL so troll is mindlessly copy pasting stuff.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Yes,

Not

Yes!p,

I can type, I swear!

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

I already did answer you questions.

P(Var) = 0.5*P(~X) + P(X)

This is just a prior. As you can see, it doesn’t even take into account information about a trait being X-linked or not. It can easily be updated in response to any additional information. What is so hard to understand about that?

scott1139
scott1139
7 years ago

@foursidedtriangles Thank you for the answer; I appreciate it.

“barring reproduction, there is no rational reason to have sex”

“there are some economic and rational benefits to social bonding”

I’d like to know more about what you mean by “rational” and “economic” in the above two phrases.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Though at this point calculating !p might be fun…though p! would be more fun.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

Being a carrier is the exact opposite of phenotypic expression. I’m talking about phenotypic variance, not genotype variance.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

Essentially, there are financial reasons why living with someone else can be beneficial. That’s what I meant by “economic.” “Rational” covers all other self-interest benefits.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

*grumble* carriers USUALLY don’t have a phenotypic expression. I repeat, USUALLY. As in sometimes they do. As in you’d need to show that the cases where they don’t outweigh traits more common in women, for all possible reasons (and lots of mental disorders are more common in women, and show strong inheritance patterns)

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

So, can you give me an alternative definition for variability or not? It seems like your definition is “the number of distinct alleles for the same gene.” Am I wrong?

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

What does it mean to be a carrier if not to have no phenotypic expression? If someone carries only one recessive copy of a gene but it somehow still expresses itself, would you call that being a carrier?

Brooked
Brooked
7 years ago

Love is a vaguely defined concept that can mean multiple things depending on context. It’s another word like “spiritual” or “family values” or “freedom.” It’s a buzzword. It’s a nice-sounding word that means whatever the listener wants it to mean.

Like the word “triangle” apparently.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

I already did answer you questions.

No you didn’t. Go back.

P(Var) = 0.5*P(~X) + P(X)

This is just a prior. As you can see, it doesn’t even take into account information about a trait being X-linked or not. It can easily be updated in response to any additional information. What is so hard to understand about that?

WTF is your prior? P normally refers to a probability. Your equation seems to be the probability of variance (huh??? how can you have a probability of variance???) is equal to half times the probability of something (what is ~X, do you mean “not X”, if so your construction is incorrect) plus P times X.

What we normally do is sub in a value for P and then use 1-P for the other term, so everything on the right hand side sums to 1, with respect to probability.

What do you think your equation is?

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

Give me one good reason to prefer sex over non-sexual reproduction. IVF even gives you some degree of genetic control, and that degree of control will only rise in the future. Sexual reproduction is a genetic crap shoot.

All reproduction is a genetic crapshoot. I could decide I want a child with musical talent and go to the sperm bank and pick out the sperm of a man who is a concert pianist. Does that mean my child will be a talented pianist? Nope.

If there is a gene, or set of genes for musical talent it hasn’t been isolated. There would be no way to be sure that every sperm carried that gene.
Even if the gene was isolated and I made sure my baby had the gene, that doesn’t meant the gene would be expressed.

Until we develop a way to get genes to express, we can never have designer babies. There is no control over what a baby is going to be like.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

So, can you give me an alternative definition for variability or not? It seems like your definition is “the number of distinct alleles for the same gene.” Am I wrong?

LOLOLOLOL troll jumps in here with combat boots and then wants us to fix their “argument” for them.

Poor troll, poor, poor troll.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

“Triangle” is well-defined in Euclidean geometry, and it’s also well-defined in certain generalizations to non-Euclidean cases. However, the way it should be generalized beyond such cases is ambiguous, as there seem to exist multiple incompatible ways to do it.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

“would you call that being a carrier?”

Does it matter what’s it called if it means women have three possible expressions while men only have two?

And how does any of this matter in regards to anything besides a very annoying intellectual exercise?

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Has anyone contacted the dark lord? This one is making for a very tedious All About Me show.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

I gave a longer response earlier explaining what each term meant. Also, P(~X) + P(X) = 1, for any X, so your concerns about normalization are silly.

As for the probability of a variance taking on a specific value, that happens all the time in parameter estimation. Confidence intervals for estimating the true mean or true variance of a population give you an interval where there’s a known probability that the true value of the parameter is inside the interval.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Not I, but feel free. This one moves goal posts and doubles down. I agree that tedious troll is tedious.

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

Troll is kind of like Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory except without any charm.

scott1139
scott1139
7 years ago

@foursidedtriangles Ah, I understand now–thank you for explaining. So, about the people who don’t want children but still derive many benefits from having sex, how are they behaving irrationally?

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

So in other words, you have no intention of actually giving me your alternative definition. Until you do, I see no point in debating with you w.r.t. variance. I’m not interested in theology.

Ally S
7 years ago

Congratulations, foursidedtriangles. You are more tedious and boring than Diogenes the Cynic.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

The only benefits one can obtain from sex can be obtained from less risky endeavors. Sex is not unique in the benefits it can bring. Every single one has chemical or procedural alternatives.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

And the mindless copy paste by troll is annoying, see latest example:

As for the probability of a variance taking on a specific value, that happens all the time in parameter estimation.

Brooked
Brooked
7 years ago

Foursidedtriangles is really digging in and conveniently ignoring that they’re getting their ass handed to them. I pity every teacher and classmate they ever had.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

I aim to be cynical (in the modern sense of the word), so a comparison to the most famous of the ancient cynic philosophers will be taken as a complement, even though that was not your intent, and even though the ancient school has little in common with the modern definition.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Imagine the poor person who’s stuck sitting next to him on a plane.

scott1139
scott1139
7 years ago

“Congratulations, foursidedtriangles. You are more tedious and boring than Diogenes the Cynic.”

Damn. While not a worthwhile accomplishment, it certainly is a difficult one.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

I bet he reclines his seat the full way for the entire flight too.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

I am not copying and pasting. Some people actually have knowledge about quantitative domains of reasoning. This may be novel to you.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

People here have the knowledge. You don’t. The fact that you don’t is not novel to me as you’ve been proving your lack of knowledge over and over again. Go back and start answering my questions one by one.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Who knew that “novel” had changed its meaning to “boring”?

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

Sex is not unique in the benefits it can bring.

Yes, it is. For those who enjoy sex, it is both a unique and beneficial experience that is valuable in and of itself. No chemical in the world can replicate it.

Fibinachi
7 years ago

For what it’s worth, I apologize for making a dig at your name, foursidedtriangles. I didn’t know triangles were indeterminable objects of varied mystery, but I do now, so I won’t make that mistake again.

I’m not so sure about quantitative reasoning though, given that you still think variability and variation are the same thing. It really isn’t.

Still, you got me to look up Reimannian manifolds and sympletic geometry, so that was fun.

Have a lovely day everyone.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

I have answered your questions. You apparently have some novel definition of “variability” that I’ve never seen anyone else use ever. This means we are talking past each other.

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

four-sided does seem to have a mystical connection to triangles.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Troll, fail. Go back and answer my questions. We’re not talking past each other, you’re getting repeatedly called on the BS you write and then changing the goal posts and doubling down.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

You mean in that the triangle is the most irritating and pointless instrument in any orchestra?