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
foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

You’re the one that brought up “variability” in the first place. I was not the one that did this.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

I always, and only, said that the variance in phenotypic expression of men and women will differ, with men have the larger values. That is all I said. No one really addressed that assertion. They brought up irrelevancies, they misunderstood my rather trivial statement about priors, and in general tried to exaggerate what I actually said, but they never really addressed the point.

Ally S
7 years ago

Cultural narratives are not a reliable place to gain information about the behaviors of people within a culture. Cultural narratives are often believed only in the abstract, and are very often hypocritical and internally inconsistent.

Those are some hasty generalizations you have there.

Cultural narratives are not merely believed “in the abstract” as you say. They are internalized and often faithfully followed, and in turn they affect behavior. A good example of this is the white supremacist, eurocentric standard of beauty. People fawn over the birth of a baby that has “fair skin” but almost never appreciate babies of a darker skin color. The cultural narrative here is that whiteness is beauty. And this narrative is powerful in that it encourages even people of color to have white supremacist beauty standards. I have Pakistani family members who didn’t want my uncle to marry a white German woman because they would feel inferior to her due to her whiteness. The same beauty standards lead to black women devaluing themselves as women because of the white supremacist notion that blackness is inherently ugly. In other words, black women internalize white supremacist, eurocentric beauty norms. None of these phenomena can be simply regarded as results of abstract belief in cultural narratives. If they were often only believed in the abstract then socialization would almost be nonexistent.

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

I always, and only, said that the variance in phenotypic expression of men and women will differ, with men have the larger values

Yeah, you said that, but you never offered any actual evidence that its true.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

It’s something that can be derived simply from the X/Y sex determination scheme. Some massive counter-term would have to occur in order for it not to be the case. In general, such a counter-term requires evidence, and is therefore not present in the null hypothesis.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

I always, and only, said that the variance in phenotypic expression of men and women will differ, with men have the larger values. That is all I said. No one really addressed that assertion. They brought up irrelevancies, they misunderstood my rather trivial statement about priors, and in general tried to exaggerate what I actually said, but they never really addressed the point.

I addressed that point, and then you doubled down, moved goal posts, and proceeded to demonstate how little you know about Bayesian statistics (I have no idea why you have tried to use a Bayesian paradigm except to try to show how mathematically literate you are, LOL).

You couldn’t even get your prior equations correct, both times you tried.

You’re being laughed at here, for numerous reasons.

Brooked
Brooked
7 years ago

@kiwi girl

This nonsense reminded me of a post from you on the OKCupid thread.

@hellkell: I’m not employed as a teacher, but I have been training people on various aspects of statistics and statistical interpretations for a number of years. My brain understands things from a practical “why do I want to know this?” angle, so that is how I do my training. I’ve also done some small amounts of remedial teaching to failing first year statistics students. I really believe that most people aren’t stupid, it’s just that they haven’t had [insert statistics method here] explained in a way that makes sense to them, or in a way that’s relevant to them so they can go, aha!

I like your approach a lot more than Fourside’s willful obfuscation, but then again I’m a fan of good communication skills.

Fun Fact: After fundi Hector railed off topic about the evils of abortion, “Dating by the Numbers: Why “hacking” OkCupid is a waste of everyone’s time” now has 666 comments.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

It’s something that can be derived simply from the X/Y sex determination scheme. Some massive counter-term would have to occur in order for it not to be the case. In general, such a counter-term requires evidence, and is therefore not present in the null hypothesis.

So you’re somehow combining all trait expressions into a single overall phenotype?

Please, give us the equation.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

(Makes Devil hands)

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

Perhaps it is incorrect to say they are only believed in the abstract. What I mean to say is that the fact that our present culture holds women to a higher standard of beauty is not an indication that people in our culture do so when selecting mates, and it’s certainly no indication that humanity do so throughout most of its evolutionary history. As well, physical attractiveness is only one standard to which potential mates can be held.

Are unattractive women less likely to reproduce than unattractive men? As far as I can tell, the fact that ugly women are treated worse than ugly men doesn’t give much insight into this question. That’s the point I was trying to make and I apologize if it came out badly.

scott1139
scott1139
7 years ago

“Sex is not unique in the benefits it can bring. Every single one has chemical or procedural alternatives.”

O rly? Citation desperately needed. Some people find being in a romantic, sexual relationship with another human being (or beings) they deeply care about to be uniquely fulfilling.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

There’s nothing wrong with my prior. There’s nothing wrong with it at all.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Is this guy boring the crap out of everyone, or is it just me? And, if it’s not just me, would anyone mind a derail? I need some practical fashion assistance.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

For those who wondered why I laughed at this particular troll comment:

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

Here’s why I laughed, the method for calculating variance:

The Variance is defined as: The average of the squared differences from the Mean.

To calculate the variance follow these steps:
Work out the Mean (the simple average of the numbers)
Then for each number: subtract the Mean and square the result (the squared difference).
Then work out the average of those squared differences.

Because yes, I spend most of my day trying to estimate the probability of a variance being exactly a particular number.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

You should wear boho, everyone suits boho. 🙂

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

No, think really tediously specific.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

(Also women with disproportionately large breasts do not suit boho at all, ime.)

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

For males, masturbation can replace sex as a source of ejaculation in order to decrease the probability of prostate cancer. For both genders chocolate can replace sex as a source of oxytocin. Dopamine can be replaced by harmless novelty or better yet, by accomplishing tangible things in life.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

I’m happy to give advice, depending on what advice you need. BTW for troll, I suggest that they should go around wearing a large question mark, in beige.

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

It’s something that can be derived simply from the X/Y sex determination scheme. Some massive counter-term would have to occur in order for it not to be the case. In general, such a counter-term requires evidence, and is therefore not present in the null hypothesis.

WTF are you talking about? That makes no sense. The “null hypothesis” is the hypothesis that the variable you are manipulating will not affect the what you are measuring. It’s the “the experiment was a bust” hypothesis. You don’t need evidence to form a null hypothesis. It’s what you’re testing against.

The null hypothesis would be “there is no difference in the variance of phenotypic expression in men and women.”

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Have emailed the Dark Lord.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

You’re talking about the “true” variance of a population. I’m talking about estimating variance. When estimating a parameter, you only get a probability of getting the correct value. The only way to ensure you get the correct value is to take a census of the entire population. Have you not seen basic confidence interval stuff? This is freshman/sophomore statistics. Confidence intervals for a variance are a little more complex than confidence intervals for a mean in practice, but it’s no more difficult to understand what it means in principle.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Maybe if we give him some chocolate that will satisfy whatever emotional need he’s trying to fulfill and he’ll piss off.

So, my question. I have several (identical but in different colors) scoop-neck tops that keep slipping off one shoulder when I’m walking around, which means that my bra strap is showing and it’s generally a bit much for daytime. At some point I remember seeing some sort of nifty little device intended to attach bra strap to the inside of the shirt to prevent this from happening (not a safety pin, something that won’t make holes or be visible from the outside. Anyone else seen the thing I’m talking about and remember what it’s called/where to find it?

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

That would be the null hypothesis if we knew nothing. However, we know that certain traits are X-linked and we know how dominant and recessive genes work, to a degree. Taking that information into account generates a new null hypothesis. What is and is not the default position depends on prior information.

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

cassandrakitty: Please, derail.

For males, masturbation can replace sex as a source of ejaculation in order to decrease the probability of prostate cancer. For both genders chocolate can replace sex as a source of oxytocin. Dopamine can be replaced by harmless novelty or better yet, by accomplishing tangible things in life.

Nope. Again, none of those things replaces sex, for those who enjoy sex.

cloudiah
7 years ago

No, on the bra strap thing, but I am also very interested. Much more interested than I am in the Triangle of Boredom.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Cassandra — no clue what that device is, but there’s a tape made to hold garments in place (useful huh?)

Kiwi Girl, thank you.

And I have a derail — http://www.lockwoodmathewsmansion.com/index.lasso

I. Must. Go.

cloudiah
7 years ago

Oh wait, it’s not this thing, is it?

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

When estimating a parameter, you only get a probability of getting the correct value. The only way to ensure you get the correct value is to take a census of the entire population.

Only if you’re talking frequentist statistics, if you’re in the Bayesian paradigm then there is no “correct value” for the population as the Bayesian paradigm postulates a distribution for the population as well.

FFS, keep your statistical paradigms consistent.

And again you shift the goal posts. This is what you said originally:

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

This is what you say now:

Confidence intervals for a variance are a little more complex than confidence intervals for a mean in practice, but it’s no more difficult to understand what it means in principle.

So your original comment wasn’t talking about confidence intervals for the variance, it was purely about the probability that the variance is a specific number.

You can try to insult me all you like. Sad how I can just go back and quote yourself at you to show how you shift the goal posts and then double down further. You’re not as intelligent as you like to think you are.

Brooked
Brooked
7 years ago

Dopamine can be replaced by harmless novelty or better yet, by accomplishing tangible things in life.

This is true, I find whoopie cushions, hand buzzers and water spraying flowers all raise my dopamine levels significantly. The fake cans of mixed nuts which have a snake spring out when you open it isn’t as effective, because my disappointment over not getting any mixed nuts causes my dopamine to immediately drop.

FYI, women masturbate too.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

@ cloudiah

Nope. I think that just makes a regular bra into a racerback.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

I haven’t heard of that clip thing, and while this is not what you are after in this situation, I will link it here just in case it helps anyone else with low cut tops:
http://www.cleava.com/Default.asp

I swear by this, it has stopped me having to wear camisoles (and getting way too hot) and stopped me from punching more holes in tops when I use decorative pins to try to hold the top together in the front.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago
cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

And that’s a great invention too! Also much more interesting than listening to a 4-cornered triangle wanking.

Ally S
7 years ago

Telling incels to eat chocolate as an alternative to having sex sounds like a fantastic way to troll them.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

No, it was about the probability that the statistical variance in men is higher than in women for a given trait. That’s a binary. It’s either higher or it isn’t. That’s not the probability that the variance takes on a specific value.

Actually, with a census, Bayesian and frequentist statements about mean and variance of a population agree. They disagree somewhat about how to interpret these measures, but they agree on their values. The mean of a population is just the sum of the value for each member divided by the total number of members. If you have a census, and you can be guaranteed that it really is an exhaustive census, you have no disagreement about what the mean value of a specific quantity is. The same is true for the variance. If you have the whole population, and you are certain that it’s the whole population, you know exactly what the variance is.

Bayesians and frequentists often have disagreements about the need for an ensemble (a population) or the need for a prior. Frequentist statistics can’t be done without an ensemble. Bayesian statistics can’t be done without a prior. However, in many limiting cases, the two methods agree on their analysis.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

@ Kiwi girl

Not exactly the same as the one I saw before, but same idea. Thank you! I love those damn tops but was feeling bad about the fact that whenever I wear them I keep flashing random people.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

@ Ally

I agree. We should try it next time this blog develops an incel infestation.

Ally S
7 years ago

Incel: It’s Valentine’s Day and no woman on the street has walked up to me and asked me to have sex with her. I can’t take it anymore.

MBZ: Hey, just wait one more day and the supermarket will have discount Valentine’s Day chocolate! It’s exactly like having sex with a random woman you just met.

Ally S
7 years ago

For both genders chocolate can replace sex as a source of oxytocin.

I’m pretty sure that the only person who thinks that sex and chocolate are pleasurable in identical ways is someone who has consumed one too many pot brownies.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

If they, as expected, are outraged by this suggestion, we can encourage them to get in touch with Triangle.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Can someone please concrete the goal posts in so troll stops moving them?

cloudiah
7 years ago

Those strap tamers seem like a cool thing.

So, I have to go on a job interview. Anyone want to give me wardrobe advice? Fairly conservative environment, but not law or the financial industry. Better than business casual, and not too flashy is the rule of thumb.

I’m thinking nice black pants, black ankle boots, a dark gray twin set (I know, but this is the world I live in), and then I have this rather nice scarf in a kind of dark red/maroon.

Would you hire me? XD

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Ok, serious question. What the FUCK does it matter who has greater variance, if anyone? What’s the point? Are you trying to get us to do your stats homework for you or something?

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Do you know if they’re okay with women in trousers/pants? Some conservative environments can be weird in that regard. Do you know what females at the same level of seniority are wearing, and then go a bit dressier for the interview?

Thats all I can think of.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

If I want to go conservative I generally wear a suit jacket.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Cloudiah, anything short of a clown suit or yellow rain slicker and I’d hire you! (The later is from Dead Zone, the book, not the show that has fuck all to do with the book)

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

@Argenti: it’s the greater variance for a trait that has me scratching my head. I can follow the logic if the trait is continuous, like height, weight, IQ, shoe size. But if it’s categorical like eye colour, then each category within the trait has its own variance estimate, because its relating to estimating the actual proportion that the category within the trait represents. And all proportions must sum to 100%, otherwise one ends up with more eye colours than eyes.

So, huh?

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Would an actual suit be too much? That’s usually the easiest default for an interview somewhere conservative. Better to be overdressed than underdressed, but otoh if nobody at the office ever wears a suit they might think it was too much.

cloudiah
7 years ago

Oh pants are definitely okay. I won’t work anywhere women can’t wear pants. And since I currently have a job, they probably need to convince me as much as I need to convince them — I just need to show up in an outfit that shows I won’t embarrass them if called upon to represent them in public. They’re probably even less conservative than I’m painting them, but it’s a job interview so I feel like I shouldn’t be pushing boundaries there…