MRAs to boycott Mad Max for being "feminist propaganda"

[cmdrjones]

#1 So you admit Mandatory diversity training is about ensuring no one has any thoughts you don't like. Replace douchebag with Jew and then get back to me on that one.

That is not what I said. You need to go learn how to read.

Not being a douchebag toward is not the same as "thought police".

I dont give a shit about what some slack jawed yokel in Alabama thinks about black people. I care about how they act. If they are not civil toward their black co-workers, they should not have a job. They should also be told what company policy is with respect to being un-civil toward black co-workers. The same goes for women, gay people etc.

Also here it is.

"Yeah. It does not bother me. Because heaven forbid a company or in my case university have a training seminar about not being a Jew toward co-workers."

That statement, the little noun replacement you asked me to make, does not make any sense. Moreover, douchebaggery is a set of behavior. It is not an immutable characteristic. It is also universally undesirable. If you start bullying your co-workers or handing out KKK pamphlets at work, you should be fired. Just Being a Jew In Public is not in any way objectionable.

#2 I'll see your gay vs lesbians and raise you blacks vs Hispanics & whites in platoon wrestling matches. Should the Hispanics have all been prosecuted for calling for 'white boy support'?

No. In fact your line of argument does not make any sense with respect to what I actually wrote. What, did you break your own nose with your own knee-jerk reaction to a reasonable position such that you were blinded by man-tears?

#3 Granted. All I said was an 'interaction' which is kinda vague, so I'll be more specific: a casual verbal interaction. You don't have the right to not be offended, especially in the world of grownups. I had a black Sergeant Major state to me that my headcold in Kuwait was due to white people having weaker immune systems. I was offended, but I looked it up and in the context of certain tropical diseases, he was right, but even if he had been wrong, it never would have occurred to me to complain about him and try to get him in trouble, because he is allowed to have an opinion and talk, even in public and stuff. It's called liberty.

Backpedal faster.

1. It is an NCOs job to give you shit. Even if he had been wrong, he was within his job description.
2. No one is going to report you for talking about the weather. That is a casual verbal conversation. Repeatedly complimenting a woman's hair is creepy.
3. Free speech requires the free and open exchange of ideas. It is not free license to sexually harass your co-workers. Your rights end where theirs begin. They should not have to leave their fucking job and risk destitution so you can continue to be a creep.

That is basic human decency.

I can count on two hands the number of decent men I know who, good men, have been divorced or abused by women working he system for cash & prizes.

And you know them to be good men how exactly? Do you see them every second of every day? LOTS of people think that someone else is good and decent because they dont know otherwise. Yes, abusive women exist. They should be stopped (obviously), yes people who take advantage of others for money are bad and should be stopped (obviously). But I also know that just about every abusive son of a bitch alive, when divorced, will claim that their wife was a gold-digging whore. Every unhappy marriage--even those without abuse--ends with both parties inflating a list of grievances that bears little to no relationship to reality. Especially when common property (part of every marriage in common law systems) gets divided up and child support becomes an issue.

So your pithy anecdotes mean exactly nothing.

If you're willing to limit diversity training to actions instead of thought and exempt anyone who can reasonable claim thier job description includes "Giving people shit" then I'm on board.

Also if you likewise refrain from your own pithy anecdotal diatribes about how abused you were/are. That'd be nice too.

[Zeropoint]

So, two IDENTICAL people in two IDENTICAL situations, with the ONLY difference being race and the BLACK person has it worse? Wow. Just wow. and people think IM racist! Holy shit! I can tell without a shadow of a doubt that black people kinda like being black and if you told them this, they'd probably be a TAD upset at your characterization of their race ALONE automatically making their lives worse than white peoples lives...

I doubt that any black person would be upset by someone realizing this or stating it--you seem to have missed the fact that it's not about the internal qualities of white versus black people, it's about how they're treated by the society they live in. No reasonable person could disagree that society in general treats black people worse than it treats white people. It used to be legal for white people to own black people as slaves in the United States. Within living memory, it used to be legal for a business to refuse to serve black people. The law now says they have to be treated equally, but if you think there's no discrimination any more, you're either painfully naive or willfully ignorant.

No retard, because they are normal people without superpowers.... Buffy is plausible as well.... Plausible, look it up. Not the same word as realistic.

First, there's no need to insult me.

Second, there's also no need to attempt to give me vocabulary lessons.

Now with that out of the way, let me repeat my point a little more clearly--you didn't address my point, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I didn't communicate it clearly enough. Let's start by quoting your words so that we know what we're talking about and also so that no one can accuse me of distorting your point:

Some MRA's might still claim that ALiens and Terminator 2 are feminist propaganda, but I would NOT (despite supporting some MRA ideas, despite not being one) for several reasons #1 Ripley is a PLAUSIBLE feminine heroine. She fights to save a daughter figure and uses her experience with the Xenomorphs to survive. The only part that bothered me was her superhuman shoes that kept a ton of alien queen from ripping her leg off before it finally go spaced.

#2 Sarah Connor is likewise Plausible... she trained for years to become the badass she was and was still obviously NO match for either the T-101 OR the T-1000. She accomplished what she did vs the guards/cops/psychologist, but it was still necessary for the T-101s strength and John Connors pluck, (and the black scientists incredible moral conversion and self sacrifice) to win the day.

The context here is that you're making the claim that "Aliens" and "Terminator 2" are not "feminist propaganda" because they feature plausible women heroes.* You then proceed to tell us why they're plausible--that is, why they don't threaten suspension of disbelief. Let's look at the arguments you use:

For Ms. Ripley, the first thing you cite to support her plausibility is "She fights to save a daughter figure." In other words, she fights as a mother. I suppose I could be charitable and take this as saying "she fights as a parental figure" in a gender-neutral sense, but Lt. Ellen Ripley is a specific non-gender-neutral character, which makes it difficult to separate "parent" from "mother".

For Ms. Connor, you support her plausibility by mentioning her training and badassery but then continuing, "and was still obviously NO match for either the T-101 or the T-1000." You are specifically referencing her weakness and lack of capability as contributing to her plausibility. Remember, the context of this discussion is not action movie heroes in general, but female action heroes in particular--you are explicitly, by your own words, addressing the accusations of "feminist propaganda" regarding the movies.

You then go on to state--again, as a reason supporting her plausibility--that "it was still necessary for [male character] and [male character], (and [male character]) to win the day."

In conclusion, while I certainly can't make any strong claims about what you were actually thinking when you wrote these examples, you should be able to see how they might come across as a bit misogynistic, especially in a thread revolving around the general acceptability of female action heroes. I hope you'll consider putting a little more effort into your composition in the future.

* Why doesn't anyone ever level accusations of "masculinist propaganda" at movies that feature implausibly competent male action heroes? That's a big clue in and of itself that the playing field is not level here.

[Channel72]

So, two IDENTICAL people in two IDENTICAL situations, with the ONLY difference being race and the BLACK person has it worse? Wow. Just wow. and people think IM racist! Holy shit! I can tell without a shadow of a doubt that black people kinda like being black and if you told them this, they'd probably be a TAD upset at your characterization of their race ALONE automatically making their lives worse than white peoples lives..

Um...

I can't even tell if you're actually this clueless, or just bored and attempting some kind of experiment in semi-advanced trolling techniques.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So, two IDENTICAL people in two IDENTICAL situations, with the ONLY difference being race and the BLACK person has it worse? Wow. Just wow. and people think IM racist! Holy shit! I can tell without a shadow of a doubt that black people kinda like being black and if you told them this, they'd probably be a TAD upset at your characterization of their race ALONE automatically making their lives worse than white peoples lives...

Take your strawman and shove it up your urethra. I was referring to how society treats them. All other things being equal, people and institutions are shittier toward black people and women. Unless you are going to say that the decades of experimental psychology, sociology, and anthropology that have gone into studying racism in the US, Europe, and Australia is the result of people who are delusional.

[Purple]

You people are just crazy. I like, read the contents of this page and have concluded that there are people here who are clearly out of their minds so much that there is no point even talking to you. This place is as bad as reddit.

[madd0ct0r]

Out of our minds?

[Ziggy Stardust]

You are the one constantly pushing some sort of gender identity politics thing here, not I.

This shows a clear disconnect from the reality at hand. Go back and reread this thread, if you will. You are the one that complained that Mad Max portraying strong female characters would constitute propaganda. That is what started this. You are just whining that people are calling you out for what you said. You are just refusing accountability and acting as if everybody else is insane.

Like here:

But why does "female" need to be in this sentence? Does this sentence not apply equally well to male heroes? If so, why are you bringing gender into it at all?

Of course the sentence applies equally to males, transgendered people, robots-ninjas from mars etc. But we aren't talking about robot-ninjas from mars here. That's not the topic of our conversation.

Way to miss the point, completely, here Purple, and not actually address the point of my post. You and cmdrjones seem to be holding a higher standard of plausibility to woman than you would to males, and instead of explaining why when confronted you are just complaining that people are confronting you at all.

Like, say we were having a conversation on apples for 2 days now. And at some point I wrote a sentence that goes: "Gravity always makes apples drop." Does that sentence need the word "apples" in it? After all, gravity makes bananas drop too! That's your argument.

From my perspective. You are accusing me of somehow being racist against bananas for not mentioning them as well even though the conversation is about apples.

This is a blatant lie, Purple, and an incredible misrepresentation of my argument. You are implying that you were trying to talk about something completely different from gender and everyone else is bringing it up out of the blue. Is this honestly how you feel about this discussion or are you being dishonest? If the former, I suggest you just take a deep breath and reread the thread, or perhaps take a class in reading comprehension. If the latter, go fuck yourself. A more accurate representation of the discussion using your same analogy would be:

Purple: Gravity makes apples drop, but it's not plausible for bananas to drop the same way.
Everyone else: What's the difference between apples and bananas? They drop the same way.
Purple: OMG WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BANANAS

Do I need to qualify every single sentence I make by making sure I cover all the possible other groups even though they do not fit into the context of the discussion? I think not.

I agree with this statement. Luckily, I have never made the claim that this was necessary. Further, I have never even come close to being a defender of being overly political correct. You can even check my posting history. Every thread where there is an argument about whether a joke about rape, gender, or race is inappropriate or not, I am always on the side defending the right to tell an offensive joke (context dependent). Nothing I have said in this thread reflects a belief that you need to qualify your sentences in such a way. And it's also a massively idiotic thing to say, considering the WHOLE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION IS GENDER. What did you think this thread is about that you are acting surprised and butthurt over the fact that we are talking about gender?

You are like some god dam vulture picking posts apart in search of single sentences that you can use to paint the other side in a negative light.

Everyone here (well, maybe not cmdrjones) is literate, Purple. All of us can read the thread and see what happened.

Also, I admitted in my previous post that I had taken your sentence out of context, and I specifically explained why I did this. It was not to misrepresent you or paint you in a negative light, it was because that sentence was just a particularly concise representation of the arguments you had been making throughout the thread. I chose it because it was easier than quoting a dozen different parts of a dozen different posts of yours. If you challenge that the sentence represents your point, you are free to explain why I was wrong to do so. Instead, despite the fact that my previous post explicitly explained this, you are acting like you just "caught" me taking it out of context in some sort of "GOTCHA" moment. If I unintentionally misrepresented your argument, EXPLAIN WHY I AM WRONG. Don't throw a tantrum.

You people are just crazy. I like, read the contents of this page and have concluded that there are people here who are clearly out of their minds so much that there is no point even talking to you. This place is as bad as reddit.

So we are all out of our minds because we don't consider "Mad Max" feminist propaganda?

[Bob the Gunslinger]

You people are just crazy. I like, read the contents of this page and have concluded that there are people here who are clearly out of their minds so much that there is no point even talking to you. This place is as bad as reddit.

So, instead of thinking about what people are saying it or why they are reacting to you the way that they do, you conclude everyone else must be crazy? In how many threads have people questioned your sanity? Where there's smoke there's fire and all that.

[cmdrjones]

So, two IDENTICAL people in two IDENTICAL situations, with the ONLY difference being race and the BLACK person has it worse? Wow. Just wow. and people think IM racist! Holy shit! I can tell without a shadow of a doubt that black people kinda like being black and if you told them this, they'd probably be a TAD upset at your characterization of their race ALONE automatically making their lives worse than white peoples lives...

Take your strawman and shove it up your urethra. I was referring to how society treats them. All other things being equal, people and institutions are shittier toward black people and women. Unless you are going to say that the decades of experimental psychology, sociology, and anthropology that have gone into studying racism in the US, Europe, and Australia is the result of people who are delusional.

Oh so now you can recognize strawmen when you see em?
You're welcome

[cmdrjones]

First, there's no need to insult me.

Second, there's also no need to attempt to give me vocabulary lessons.

Now with that out of the way, let me repeat my point a little more clearly--you didn't address my point, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I didn't communicate it clearly enough. Let's start by quoting your words so that we know what we're talking about and also so that no one can accuse me of distorting your point:

Some MRA's might still claim that ALiens and Terminator 2 are feminist propaganda, but I would NOT (despite supporting some MRA ideas, despite not being one) for several reasons #1 Ripley is a PLAUSIBLE feminine heroine. She fights to save a daughter figure and uses her experience with the Xenomorphs to survive. The only part that bothered me was her superhuman shoes that kept a ton of alien queen from ripping her leg off before it finally go spaced.

#2 Sarah Connor is likewise Plausible... she trained for years to become the badass she was and was still obviously NO match for either the T-101 OR the T-1000. She accomplished what she did vs the guards/cops/psychologist, but it was still necessary for the T-101s strength and John Connors pluck, (and the black scientists incredible moral conversion and self sacrifice) to win the day.

The context here is that you're making the claim that "Aliens" and "Terminator 2" are not "feminist propaganda" because they feature plausible women heroes.* You then proceed to tell us why they're plausible--that is, why they don't threaten suspension of disbelief. Let's look at the arguments you use:

For Ms. Ripley, the first thing you cite to support her plausibility is "She fights to save a daughter figure." In other words, she fights as a mother. I suppose I could be charitable and take this as saying "she fights as a parental figure" in a gender-neutral sense, but Lt. Ellen Ripley is a specific non-gender-neutral character, which makes it difficult to separate "parent" from "mother".

For Ms. Connor, you support her plausibility by mentioning her training and badassery but then continuing, "and was still obviously NO match for either the T-101 or the T-1000." You are specifically referencing her weakness and lack of capability as contributing to her plausibility. Remember, the context of this discussion is not action movie heroes in general, but female action heroes in particular--you are explicitly, by your own words, addressing the accusations of "feminist propaganda" regarding the movies.

You then go on to state--again, as a reason supporting her plausibility--that "it was still necessary for [male character] and [male character], (and [male character]) to win the day."

In conclusion, while I certainly can't make any strong claims about what you were actually thinking when you wrote these examples, you should be able to see how they might come across as a bit misogynistic, especially in a thread revolving around the general acceptability of female action heroes. I hope you'll consider putting a little more effort into your composition in the future.

* Why doesn't anyone ever level accusations of "masculinist propaganda" at movies that feature implausibly competent male action heroes? That's a big clue in and of itself that the playing field is not level here.

I apologize for the insult, I get so many here I figure that opening up with one is simply a matter of course. That's wrong.

Second, the conflation of plausibility and realism is shockingly common, so I assumed that's where you were mistaken, perhaps not.

I am not sure where you were going with Lt. Ripley being gender neutral or not. The point is, it is more plausible for a female character to fight to protect a child than for, let's say a point of honor.
AS for Ms. Connor "weakness" does not contribute to her plausibility, her lack of apparent ability to bench press a Buick contributes to her plausibility. She was a normal human female, if she had picked up the T-101 and flung him through a wall, would that have ruined your suspension of disbelief? She accomplished what was realistic for her character. If Spiderman was to beat the Hulk in an arm wrestling match I would be just as perturbed.

Whether people might think that is misogynistic, I frankly couldn't care less. Reality is what reality is. The better we take that into account when creating works like this, the better they will be.

When I was in school, I took a creative writing class and the BEST character I ever created(and the one that I got the most praise for) was a young Armenian housewife living Constantinople Circa 740 AD. She was long suffering, ambitious, and a bit unstable, but had a unique ability to grab the readers attention far more than the hero i'd created. If I had made her a 'feminist' icon and had her running around like Xena warrior princess, it would have descended into farce almost immediately.

Your last question is an excellent one, and I shall do my best to answer it: Because, like it or lump it, men have been the standard for the last 10,000 years or so. Male heroes and the male sphere are the yardstick that we use in our minds to judge the plausibility of a work. SO, if we have a male 'geek' character doing the physically impossible we usually play it for laughs. Also, there is no political NEED for men to get a 'boost' by producing works meant to buff their reputations or satisfy some political need. There is no MRA cinema out there, because if there was, "Married with Children" would be remade as a documentary.
The playing field is NOT level, and it will never be as long as we are creatures that have 'evolved' with sexual dimorphism.

[Metahive]

I am not sure where you were going with Lt. Ripley being gender neutral or not. The point is, it is more plausible for a female character to fight to protect a child than for, let's say a point of honor.

Yeah, I mean, there's certainly no such thing as a loving father who cares about children. I mean, other than the Hebrew Santa Claus you worship, call father and define as loving all his children. I mean, if he were a mother goddess then it would make sense, but he's only a father, so that's not all that plausible. Makes sense to me since he's siccing most people to eternal suffering in Hell.

Whether people might think that is misogynistic, I frankly couldn't care less. Reality is what reality is. The better we take that into account when creating works like this, the better they will be.

Reality is that you need some beating with the reality-stick badly.

[Korgeta]

I apologize for the insult, I get so many here I figure that opening up with one is simply a matter of course. That's wrong.

Second, the conflation of plausibility and realism is shockingly common, so I assumed that's where you were mistaken, perhaps not.

I am not sure where you were going with Lt. Ripley being gender neutral or not. The point is, it is more plausible for a female character to fight to protect a child than for, let's say a point of honor.
AS for Ms. Connor "weakness" does not contribute to her plausibility, her lack of apparent ability to bench press a Buick contributes to her plausibility. She was a normal human female, if she had picked up the T-101 and flung him through a wall, would that have ruined your suspension of disbelief? She accomplished what was realistic for her character. If Spiderman was to beat the Hulk in an arm wrestling match I would be just as perturbed.

Whether people might think that is misogynistic, I frankly couldn't care less. Reality is what reality is. The better we take that into account when creating works like this, the better they will be.

When I was in school, I took a creative writing class and the BEST character I ever created(and the one that I got the most praise for) was a young Armenian housewife living Constantinople Circa 740 AD. She was long suffering, ambitious, and a bit unstable, but had a unique ability to grab the readers attention far more than the hero i'd created. If I had made her a 'feminist' icon and had her running around like Xena warrior princess, it would have descended into farce almost immediately

I agree with this, even from a biological standpoint that is obvious, men are naturally taller and broader then women, whilst women are naturally better at co-ordination skills, overall the two are inequal, one usual warning about dangers of drink is that women shouldn't try to drink the same number of units as men (lighter bodies, less tissue to absorb alcohol etc) That is the reality, there are some things the other will struggle to meet on and to ignore that is just foolhardy. Realisim is acknowledging the limitations but being able to push those limits further in their own way. It becomes fantastical and even misleading that a eight stone model can knock down a 17 stone stone henchman in your typical clichéd Hollywood movie for example. (I sure as hell can't!) But to many films in the past it was a case of saying women can be physically empowering without having to work for it.

I think status have been better all around in recent years, look at Peter Dinklage, he's on screen as an actor and not as a mini me clone, views have changed recently that people of genders, disability etc can make a good convincing impact on screen, not all the time there is still the dumb things going on but there is better diversity with film leads and ideas then before.

However in relation to your story, I would argue it won't be out of place for someone like your character to at least be accustomed to know to use a weapon of sort, not only were children generally taught some degree of sports and combat but as Pompeii shown, a lot of roman doors were very heavy and bolted. I think most cultures around this time were similar to this approach, Crime and household breakins was a very real and dangerous reality so it wouldn't be out of case if said woman kept a knife close to her for 'just in case' Arming a woman doesn't automatically make it feminist, every aspect of writing is clichéd that it boils down to justification of the context and narration as to why the character is the way they are.

[Zeropoint]

If you want to talk about "realism" and "plausibility" as reasons not to have combat-capable women, well, you're going to run head-first into "Reality is Unrealistic". Without even looking anything up, I can name Joan of Arc, Lyudmila Pavlichenko (and her more than 2,000 sisters-in-arms (note that this figure refers only to her female sniper comrades; about 800,000 women served in the Red Army)), and Boudica, and the Night Witches.

A little bit of searching gives me some great sites like this, this, this, and this, listing specific examples of women warriors from history (and keep in mind, these aren't complete lists--these are only the women who kicked so much ass that we remember then hundreds of years later; for every one of them there must have been dozens of women who, while nothing special, were the equal of the men around them).

And there's also the women fighting for their freedom in the Middle East, whether in organized units or simply women who pick up a gun to defend their families when they realize that no one else will.

Yes, women tend to be a bit smaller and less muscled than men. No one is disputing that. If you think that women aren't just as tough as men, though . . . you didn't get that idea from a careful review of the facts.

[Channel72]

The relevant differences basically come down to upper body strength (and to a lesser extent upper leg muscles). On average, a man has a bit less than twice the upper body strength of a woman.

Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle biopsies and muscle areas by computerized tomographical scanning. The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass. A significant correlation was found between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA; P < or = 0.05). The women had 45, 41, 30 and 25% smaller muscle CSAs for the biceps brachii, total elbow flexors, vastus lateralis and total knee extensors respectively. The men had significantly larger type I fiber areas (4597 vs 3483 microns2) and mean fiber areas (6632 vs 3963 microns2) than the women in biceps brachii and significantly larger type II fiber areas (7700 vs 4040 microns2) and mean fiber areas (7070 vs 4290 microns2) in vastus lateralis. No significant gender difference was found in the strength to CSA ratio for elbow flexion or knee extension, in biceps fiber number (180,620 in men vs 156,872 in women), muscle area to fiber area ratio in the vastus lateralis 451,468 vs 465,007) or any motor unit characteristics. Data suggest that the greater strength of the men was due primarily to larger fibers. The greater gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a lower proportion of their lean tissue distributed in the upper body.

So really, an average man would have a significant advantage over a woman with any physical activity that required leveraging upper arm muscles, or thigh muscles - which means that men have no real advantage in regard to any kind of combat (sniper, pilot, most types of modern warfare etc.) that doesn't rely extensively on applying these muscles. Of course, men would still have an advantage in terms of things like carrying equipment around, or lifting heavy objects, or physical combat that involved things like grappling.

[Zeropoint]

Yeah, I was thinking something similar. The days when strength and mass were the primary virtues of a warfighter are LONG behind us.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is worth noting something. The vikings took their women... a'viking. And I mean that in the fullest sense of the term. Recent archeological investigations have confirmed that a high proportion of viking warrior remains are actually the skeletons of women. Women who went on and participated in viking raids, and fought in shield walls alongside men.

[orbitingpluto]

The information is from a report from a few years back, but when grunts end up having to carry nearly 100 pounds of gear on them and most males end up injured because of it, it almost makes me pause to say that women perhaps shouldn't be foot soldiers.

Of course, the real answer is finding some weigh to lighten the load so no one gets injured just carrying their gear around, male or female. But that's like packing a small luggage bag: easy to say, hard to get done. Even if it's difficult though, women should not be prevented from serving as foot soldiers for something as crazy as the military being unable to prevent it's gear from harming it's own troops.

[Metahive]

Isn't it also true that women have a much higher threshold for pain endurance? I darkly remember an article I read that said if a man had to give birth he'd probably pass-out or die from the pain simply because our XY chromosomes made us wussier than them womenfolk when it comes to ouchies.

[Benny the Ball]

Another thing to take into account is advances in technology which make the physical strength differences between the sexes a moot point, mainly in futuristic settings. Take the upcoming Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, where there are apparently going to be plenty of female frontline soldiers on the battlefield. Considering the game takes place in a Deus Ex-like near-future world with widespread cybernetic enhancements, this makes a lot of sense. Natural physical strength doesn't mean a whole lot when robotic limbs and other augmentations can give anyone the kind of strength, speed and endurance that's far beyond even the strongest man. (And it makes the lack of female soldiers in the actual Deus Ex, particularly in Human Revolution, all the more jarring)

[Starglider]

Isn't it also true that women have a much higher threshold for pain endurance?

No, the opposite is true.

I darkly remember an article I read that said if a man had to give birth he'd probably pass-out or die from the pain simply because our XY chromosomes made us wussier than them womenfolk when it comes to ouchies.

Men can give birth. Go directly to political correctness jail, do not collect 200 social justice points.

Cis-men People without uteri obviously cannot give birth. Thus talking about their pain tolerance for vaginal delivery is meaningless. If they were to gain the ability presumably they'd also gain the specific natural painkillers that reduce pain sensitivity during labour.

[Metahive]

Men can give birth. Go directly to political correctness jail, do not collect 200 social justice points.

From the article you linked:

There may also be explanations that have nothing to do with biology. Men, for example, may feel compelled by cultural stereotypes to be tough, and therefore report feeling less pain than they really do —especially when asked by the mostly female nursing staff.
[...]
“The reasons may be biological or they may not be, but we should still be aware of the bias that patients have in reporting pain,”

Yeah, totally conclusive.

You may now go fuck yourself with a rusty needle, Mansplainer.

ETA:

If they were to gain the ability presumably they'd also gain the specific natural painkillers that reduce pain sensitivity during labour.

Did you know that what you just said basically amounts to "If men were women they'd feel less pain like women also"? What a clever argument.

[Starglider]

Yeah, totally conclusive.

Due to your limited reading comprehension I supplied a summary article rather than the actual studies, but there have in fact been dozens across numerous countries which nearly all agree. So either all cis-males of all ages are lying in exactly the same way, or testosterone does in fact tend to reduce pain sensitivity.

You may now go fuck yourself with a rusty needle, Mansplainer.

I know you want to use trending terminology, much more so than performing any coherent or original thought, but really you need to use the old standby old 'mysogynist' here as the implication is that cis-males are biologically different from cis-females in a way that might be considered superior. 'Mansplainer' is for people who dismiss (or just don't automatically accept) criticism of males, and for people who try to justify male behaviour.

Of course in actual fact reduced pain sensitivity is not a generic superior trait, because if it was we'd all have evolved to feel less pain. The fact you immediately jumped to a 'higher pain threshold = good' interpretation shows that you still have deep gender essentialism and require further reprogramming.

If they were to gain the ability presumably they'd also gain the specific natural painkillers that reduce pain sensitivity during labour.

Did you know that what you just said basically amounts to "If men were women they'd feel less pain like women also"? What a clever argument.

And again with the blatant assumption that having a uterus and ovaries makes someone a woman. What kind of trans-male-erasing transphobic monster are you?

My point, which was extremely simple but which you were literally incapable of comprehending because of your sudden rage at possibly not being the most politically correct person in the room, was that reduced vaginal sensitivity to labour pains is a specific function of the hormones produced in the ovaries and uterine wall. This is unrelated to general pain sensitivity of the rest of the body or during other activities. And yes if we could transplant functional uteri and ovaries into cis-males, they would experience the same reduced pain sensitivity during natural birth (only), without (automatically) becoming women.

[Ralin]

Mansplainer' is for people who dismiss (or just don't automatically accept) criticism of males, and for people who try to justify male behaviour.

Not to defend Metahive's transphobia, but I generally hear mansplaining used to describe men trundling into a discussion to tell women how things really are with the (unfounded and usually unspoken) assumption that the silly females can't see the obvious explanation for whatever the topic is

[Metahive]

Due to your limited reading comprehension I supplied a summary article rather than the actual studies, but there have in fact been dozens across numerous countries which nearly all agree. So either all cis-males of all ages are lying in exactly the same way, or testosterone does in fact tend to reduce pain sensitivity.

Eh, I bet you didn't actually read your own article, you just hastily googled stuff and grabbed the first results you found without looking into them. Fact is, you made a point that was not supported by the article you quoted.

I know you want to use trending terminology, much more so than performing any coherent or original thought, but really you need to use the old standby old 'mysogynist' here as the implication is that cis-males are biologically different from cis-females in a way that might be considered superior. 'Mansplainer' is for people who dismiss (or just don't automatically accept) criticism of males, and for people who try to justify male behaviour.

I see the kind of words you use and label you accordingly. But maybe just calling you a pretentious pseudo-intellectual shithead would suffice. But let me guess, you're also the good kind of "libertarian" while the social darwinist ones are all the others. So predictable.

Of course in actual fact reduced pain sensitivity is not a generic superior trait, because if it was we'd all have evolved to feel less pain. The fact you immediately jumped to a 'higher pain threshold = good' interpretation shows that you still have deep gender essentialism and require further reprogramming.

Oh, you're using the Star Trek version of evolution. My bad, I thought you could be taken seriously on this.

And again with the blatant assumption that having a uterus and ovaries makes someone a woman. What kind of trans-male-erasing transphobic monster are you?

Uhuhuhu, typical MRA ploy and ignorance, nothing new to see here.
Gender and Sex. Two different things. Couldn't expect someone like you to know about this, huh?


Y'know, you could have just said, "I don't think you're right, here's an article that looks into it", but instead you chose to be smug, insulting and mansplain-y about it, even using terminology used by the MRA and reactionary crowd like sneering about "social justice" and "political correctness". Ask yourself, was that necessary? DId that support your position? I wasn't sure about what I read, so you could have easily convinced me of the opposite if you just could have stopped yourself from being an asshole for a minute.

[Terralthra]

Of course in actual fact reduced pain sensitivity is not a generic superior trait, because if it was we'd all have evolved to feel less pain. The fact you immediately jumped to a 'higher pain threshold = good' interpretation shows that you still have deep gender essentialism and require further reprogramming.

Oh, you're using the Star Trek version of evolution. My bad, I thought you could be taken seriously on this.

Err...no, he's using pretty clear fitness logic. If increased pain tolerance were fitness-maximizing, we wouldn't have the sensitivity to pain that we do. You may not like the implication, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it without rebutting it.

Y'know, you could have just said, "I don't think you're right, here's an article that looks into it", but instead you chose to be smug, insulting and mansplain-y about it, even using terminology used by the MRA and reactionary crowd like sneering about "social justice" and "political correctness". Ask yourself, was that necessary? DId that support your position? I wasn't sure about what I read, so you could have easily convinced me of the opposite if you just could have stopped yourself from being an asshole for a minute.

You know, it isn't often that someone on this forum not only admits to, but seems to pride themself on committing a style-over-substance fallacy. Did this sound good in your head: "I know, I'll show that mean Starglider. I'll tell him that I ignored his substantive points and the evidence he presented because he was mean!"?