/lit/ - Literature

fuck off to /soc/

>>6521984
>/pol/
You realize that's the equivalent of saying "I made this same thread on /mlp/," right?

>>>/pol/

I would only study philosophy to become a politician.

>>6521984
Well, as your image shows, philosophy students are clearly among the most intelligent. Also, does the image prove once and for all that men are more intelligent than women? I don't mean that in a sexist way. Obviously biological differences are going to make us think differently.

>>6521988
I guess most of you guys are studying/working in this area, /soc/ wouldn't emit serious opinions about it.

>>6521999
>>6522004
I'm not a /pol/fag, I was just looking for a different point of view.

>>6521984
>mentioning IQ
>mentioning /pol/
Well this thread is going to get a fuckton of replies. You should be proud OP.

>>6521984
>still believing in IQ

>>6521984
I think it's a fine major. (I'm not a philosophy major though, and if I were one, I might think it sucked).

>>6521984
This seems like a low sample, is there a link for this study ?
Besides, tough
>IQ
>/pol/

but oh well

undergraduate curricula in philosophy are bupkis

>>6522008
>>6522018
>>6522020
>>6522035
Hey, I still love you, girls.

>>6521984

since, on average, men and women have an IQ that is about equal this image would imply that women in academia tend to pick bachelor and master degrees that correlate with low IQ.

Not that surprising, since hardly anything is being done to change the fact that engineering and everything it-related are almost never picked up by women. Those subjects aren't being advertised to women. Furhtermore, there is a stigma that comes with every subject that is highly specialized and highly technical: the nerd stigma. This is not to be ignored and still driving a lot of women away from potentially entering those fields. Not that this is a problem, this world definitely doesn't need more engineering students.

>>6522051
Topkek. This post is b8 right?

>>6522051
>Those subjects aren't being advertised to women.
Women don't pick them because they are women. They are genetically less inclined to be interested in engeneering and such, generally systematic things, analytic philosophy, law (certain areas of it anyway).

>>6522008

"I don't know how to read a graph: the post"

>>6522035

Pretty sketchy if you ask me. http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ for some more info on the study. Doesn't even mention sample size.

>>6522051
>Furhtermore, there is a stigma that comes with every subject that is highly specialized and highly technical: the nerd stigma. This is not to be ignored and still driving a lot of women away from potentially entering those fields. Not that this is a problem, this world definitely doesn't need more engineering students.

Anyone here ever read Plato and feel fucking retarded, but then come here and see posts like this, which make you feel as though you're in the top 1% of thinkers?

>>6522071

>They [women] are genetically less inclined to be interested in engeneering [sic] and such

thanks for the remark, cletus. care to hook me up with a source or are we just going to spout bullshit as always?

>>6522084
Thanks for the link, I'll take a look, but this indeed looks pretty weak

>>6522096
Not him, but yes they are.

Source: Less women are in STEM, than men.

>>6522095

Are you implying it-related subjects are not stigmatized? And if so, why? Are you implying that we should actively strive to instruct more engineers than we are right now? Why do you think so?

Congratulations for entering the 1%, you've made it /b/rother

>>6522095

You feel retarded because the dialogues are retarded, or because you couldn't follow them?

I have bad news for you

>>6522107

post hoc ergo propter hoc

also I meant an actual source. a scientific one.

>>6522107
>Less women are in STEM, than men
This does not prove any genetic inclination.

>>6522139
Indeed, but it doesn't prove any patriarchal conspiracy keeping women out either, as this tripfag is trying to say >>6522051

>>6522107
You claim it's genetics, but maybe in other societies women would study most the fields that are male dominated in our siciety (the western one).
You're quick to make connections between two seemingly unrelated facts.
Find some numbers about it, and don't start calling names everyone.

>>6522130
I meant I was impressed by Plato you fucking peasant.

>>6522149
>Indeed
So you made the post knowing it was wrong, glad we cleared that up.

>but it doesn't prove any patriarchal conspiracy keeping women out either
does it really have to proven to you that even from a young age girls are marketed dolls and ponies and boys are marketed robots and tanks?

>>6522156
Brace for your next epiphany, some more dusting up there is upcoming.

>>6522155
>implying you would give a shit about a statistic that would argue that it was genetic anyway

>>6522149

A name is not a tripcode. Society does not equal patriarchy. I was not even talking about men discriminating women, since it is completely irrelevant for our discussion where this discrimination (it it does exist) is coming from.

> but it doesn't prove any patriarchal conspiracy keeping women out either

why even mention that if you know that it is pointless?

"it doesn't proove anything, maybe, but it also doesn't disprove my point!"

?

>>6522156

steaming hot

>>6522171
>does it really have to proven to you that even from a young age girls are marketed dolls and ponies and boys are marketed robots and tanks?

So what? It doesn't mean girls can't buy a fucking tank toy or vice versa.

>>6522190
>So what? It doesn't mean girls can't buy a fucking tank toy or vice versa.
Little kids tend not to be free-thinkers. They consume what is marketed to them, and generally those that don't face stigma, boys and girls.

>>6522184
>Those subjects aren't even advertised to women

This is what you said. I don't believe it would have any difference at all. I don't believe that a fucking advertisement can change people's life choices to that degree.

>>6522190

He never implied that, though. You are rephrasing his question and then giving an answer to it. What he was getting at is that girls are more likely to pick a toy or a career that is being advertised to them. This likeliness is one of the factors explaining the low female percentage in it- and engineering related degrees.

I'm sure this thread is full of philosophers.

What's a good secondary source on Rawls' Theory of Justice? I'm trying to read it and it's dry and tough to read.

>>6522172
There was no epiphany and your prose is awkward bb

>>6522194
What you mean is, parents buy the toys kids want, and girls want to play with barbie dolls, and boys want to play with tanks.

>>6522206
>What he was getting at is that girls are more likely to pick a toy or a career that is being advertised to them.

Which is a statement that is completely dubious. How would you ever quantify something like that in a study, and prove it to be true?

I don't think that psych is as female biased as the chart indicates. I could be wrong though. Most of my therapists have been female so I dunno.

>>6522221
>girls want to play with barbie dolls, and boys want to play with tanks
because these are marketed to them near exclusively, and kids that don't play with the toys marketed to their gender are stigmatized.

>>6522231
>because these are marketed to them near exclusively

see>>6522226

>>6522201

> I don't believe that a fucking advertisement can change people's life choices to that degree.

Advertisement, not "a advertisement".

Your point is a little silly, but let me reiterate to you can get where I am coming from:

How many people choose their carreer on advertising? Which influence factors could be deemed advertising?

How many people joined the US Army because of this poster? Are you honestly trying to tell me it's zero?

How many Americans went on to become police officers after seeing and being inspired by Cops, or CSI: Miami, or Law and Order or Criminal Minds or Bones or NCIS?

This was hardly a good example but it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that people do not "consider" (well, they don't actively, those processes work subconsciously) outside factors like advertisement when choosing a career.

>>6522226
sales/enrollment by gender

>>6522237
Depending on how much power you think commercials have.

I doubt that the power is as huge as you think it is. I think it's far more likely that women and men are simply different by nature, and thus have other interests.

No doubt, nurture is a factor, and that a poster such as the one you posted, moved many men to join the army, but I think it's very possible that considering the context of that poster, that many of those same men would've gone into the army anyway, for other reasons than a simple "advertisement".

>>6522247
>ut I think it's very possible that considering the context of that poster, that many of those same men would've gone into the army anyway, for other reasons than a simple "advertisement"
might that reason be that they felt it was their duty as men? and where do you think that sense of duty came from?

>>6522247

The advertisement isn't just the poster nigger, it's all the context that a person lives in that very moment.

Men already were with the idea of army and nation loyalty before of the poster, which are indoctrinated, the poster just used that in a more active way

>>6522259
>might that reason be that they felt it was their duty as men? and where do you think that sense of duty came from?

Sure. Honor, strength, integrity, and duty are characteristics of men and masculinity, and no doubt, a sense of urgency for the protection of the tribe made them go to war.

I think these are characteristics of being a man, and are perfectly natural.

I think that sense of duty comes from necessity, and from nature. Women will never defend a country from invaders, other than tacitly, such as making weapons, or helping the war effort like that.

>>6522265
>Men already were with the idea of army and nation loyalty before of the poster, which are indoctrinated, the poster just used that in a more active way

Indeed, which are part of being a man. You can say that the poster gave them the final nudge, but obviously, the poster wouldn't help much for a woman.

>>6522201

Men are sold the idea of working their ass off and then they will find happiness with a girl. Heck, most of men find themselves a failure once they realized that this doesn't work.

Women are sold the idea of the importance of human relationships, so they naturally get in despair more about drama and other people.

Heck, even the so called *alpha* and *chads* are just men that realized that the first lie about working their ass off was a lie and that they should get more involved in human relationships, that they don't come naturally.

Women today also have lost the first lie, and they are now realizing that they can have power, in the form of money and influence.

>>6522274

>The social context of what we intepretate all primitive societies were is what defines our social context of now

>laughinganthropologists.jpg

>>6522274
>>6522280
But do you not see that these things are expected from men because of the influence from society?

>>6522290
>primitive societies

The rules have changed. People haven't.

>>6522292
>But do you not see that these things are expected from men because of the influence from society?

Depends. Some of the traits that men can have, such as being a pathetic beta leftist, are indeed influence from society.

The idea that being masculine, aggressive, strong, and honorable, is wrong, and unethical, is indeed being imprinted into the heads of most people, and have been for the last generation at least.

So yes, men are influenced by society, but I still believe certain traits are by necessity associated with the male gender and the male sex, by nature.

>>6522308

>the new ideas about what a men is are incorrect but the old ideas doesn't.

>it's because the old ideas were more in shape with the old rules

Do you even listen to yourself?

>>6522322
Look, certain things about men are not as easy to say were "influenced by society", unless by this, you mean every single conscious act ever going to be done by a man.

Men did not hunt in hunter-gatherer societies, because this was "expected" of them. They hunted, because men are stronger than females, and can handle the pressure, more so then women. This is testosterone. Men did not persistence hunt after a gazelle or a deer, for 8 miles, because the shaman told him that's "just what men do".

Jesus.

>>6522020
2nd this. i study psychology and know quite a lot about the relativity of iq. its not useless or something, but to be able to see it in an enough relative way you should go a bit in the materia - like "what have been the theories about intelligence/what are the standardized-measures for intelligence (math, memory, mental represantation of space, ...) /whats maybe missing/are quite basic tasks representative for a competence in a related more complex field/..."

>>6522338
It's 2015, we are not hunter\gatherers. Men do not seek STEM degrees (what this argument was about to begin with) because they are bigger and stronger, so why do you think they do it?

>IQ
lel

>>6522292
SOCIETY DOESNT EXIST, ITS JUST COLLECTIONS OF PEOPLE, 'SOCIETY' IS AN INERT WORD, IT HAS NO POWER

>>6522274

If you honestly think "integrity" is someting that relates to gender then I don't really feel like talking to you since you're obviously just a huge retard.

>>6522352
>ITS JUST COLLECTIONS OF PEOPLE
And the unifying ideology of these people has an effect on its inhabitants, which is societal influence.

>>6522020
what makes some people smarter than others? magic? or does every human have the exact same mental capabilities and it is just *social conditions* that account for the observed differences.

>>6522348
>It's 2015, we are not hunter\gatherers.

So what? Do you think humanity has changed the last 10000 years, apart from building skyscrapers? I don't.

>>6522338

Testosterone is a product of thousands of years of context.

Somehow you say that because it's have been happening for thousands of years it's correct, since it's common for thousands of year thus natural.

I just say that both things (less testosterone men because of society needs and plans, and more testosterone men because of thousands of society needs and plan) are the same bullshit. In the end both are because of context. Maybe in 500 years (if humanity doesn't kills himself) we will see that it's more common to have more neutral sexes just because of the needs of the society

>>6522352

Oh boy, you are already drop in a constructed world since you are born, your ideas depend on the ideas of the world, your language isn't yours and your things were much before you and you still think that thousands of *you* are what makes society?

Those thousands of you are just slaves to whatever some economic, sociologist or philosopher that died centuries ago said.

>>6522374

Holy fuck, do you even consciousness? religion , morality and reason has given birth to the most existential phase of the humanity. Greeks didn't even questioned the spirit not until Socrates which nobody understood (and now everybody has some of Socrates in their mind)

>>6522352
A FOREST DOESNT EXIST, ITS JUST COLLECTIONS OF TREES, 'FOREST' IS AN INERT WORD, IT HAS NO POWER

>>6522356
>is something that relates to gender

Certainly. I never said a woman couldn't have integrity, but I'm adamant in that it is a masculine trait, because it's way more necessary for men to prove our worth and value by our merits, than it is for a woman.

A woman *could* snag a man, and lead a great life, going simply by her looks, no man will ever have that luxury.

>>6522364

It is obviously a combination of genes, climate, upbringing and a few trillion other factors. Trying to pin it down to one is stupid, but then again so are you for asking this question.

>>6522374

>Do you think humanity has changed the last 10000 years?

We're about twenty centimeter taller and way less hairy. Also you're a legitimate retard.

>>6522382
>Testosterone is a product of thousands of years of context.

What? Testosterone is a hormone. It is the product of evolution by natural selection.

>Maybe in 500 years (if humanity doesn't kills himself) we will see that it's more common to have more neutral sexes just because of the needs of the society

Doubtful. Humanity would never have been sexually dimorphized, if there was no need for it to be as such.

>>6522358
THE "EFFECT" OF "SOCIETY" IS IMAGINED BY YOU, IT'S NOT REAL, YOU NEED TO INCLUDE THE PARTICULAR AND NOT OVERIMPOSE YOUR UNIVERSAL

>>6521984

I study Math major, phil minor in Germany. I don't know what the targeted group for this stat is like, but from personal experience I won't believe for a second that phil majors are smarter than Engineering majors. No fucking way.

>>6522387
>Also you're a legitimate retard.

I'm guessing you just proved you have no integrity.

>>6522387
no one things genetics is 100% responsible for observed differences in intelligence. but innate mental ability is an extremely important factors, probably the most *singularly* important factor out of all. people born with genes that code for high intelligence are, eventually, going to manifest that higher intelligence, it can't stay hidden. this doesn't mean they will necessarily be able to use it to be successful though, but it does mean they will do well on highly g-loaded tasks.

>>6522387
We're taller because of better nutrition, and not at all less hairy.

>>6522390

Natural selection is just context. We have a different context than hunter gatherer societies (which doesn't give a good explanation of all primitive societies, there are matriarchial primitive societies too)

>>6522383
A 'FOREST' IS THE COLLECTION OF HAPPENINGS TAKEN AT ONCE, IT NECESSARILY MISSES THE PARTICULAR, YOU NECESSARILY LOSE THE FOREST IN THE TREES, PEOPLE WHO DEAL ONLY WITH FOREST CONCEPTS WILL TREAT EVERY TREE LIKE A FOREST

>>6522391
Pop culture proves the influence is real.

>>6522404

Your point is stupid, if you study the individual you can't get to the masses because you assume that the tree can live without anything else around him.

>>6522384

>A woman *could* snag a man, and lead a great life, going simply by her looks, no man will ever have that luxury.

that is literally the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. reading this honestly physically hurt me. you cannot honestly believe the bullshit you're spouting.

>no man will ever have that luxury

there are literal cartels of young, swole, good-looking southern- and northern africans that hunt for obese tourists and serve as their loverboys for pocket money. marriage swindlers trick women into a scam with nothing but charm and looks. want me to carry on?

>>6522404
>implying the tree isn't the product of the forest

>>6522382
>Oh boy, you are already drop in a constructed world since you are born, your ideas depend on the ideas of the world, your language isn't yours and your things were much before you and you still think that thousands of *you* are what makes society?

>Those thousands of you are just slaves to whatever some economic, sociologist or philosopher that died centuries ago said.
"YOU" ARE A SLAVE TO THE CHEAP INTUITIONS YOU HOLD FOR SOCIETY, ARTICULATED BY A PHILOSOPHER OF OLD

>>6522382
>Holy fuck, do you even consciousness? religion , morality and reason has given birth to the most existential phase of the humanity. Greeks didn't even questioned the spirit not until Socrates which nobody understood (and now everybody has some of Socrates in their mind)

I was talking about our nature. Puberty is a natural and physical fact about humans, and clearly this fact existed 10000 years ago, as it exists today, i.e in some fundamental *human* sense, we have no changed, even if we have refined ourselves, and find more efficient ways to do things.

>>6522417
"POP CULTURE" ISN'T AN OBJECT IN ITSELF

>>6522420
GOOD JOB ON ARTICULATING TE ANTITHESIS, NOW YOU RECOGNIZE THAT EMPHASIZING THE PARTICULAR OVER THE UNIVERSAL AND THE UNIVERSAL OVER THE PARTICULAR ARE BOTH FAULTY LOGICS

>>6522398

I was joking you dolt.

>>6522397

Maybe it is. Don't think we have enough data to make a general claim like that.

>>6522424
>that is literally the dumbest thing I have read in weeks

Well, why? Can you explain to me how I'm wrong?

>there are literal cartels of young, swole, good-looking southern- and northern africans that hunt for obese tourists and serve as their loverboys for pocket money. marriage swindlers trick women into a scam with nothing but charm and looks. want me to carry on?

And these people are living a great life? I'm not being disingenuous. I mean, I don't think psychopathic swindlers, or swole good for nothing africans are the best example of "having a great life", but if you think so, I guess it must be so.

>>6522403
>there are matriarchial primitive societies too

Well, considering the fact that the West is, by all, practical assessment, a matriarchy, you're right, but it isn't primitive.

>>6522434
are you going to sit there and tell me that in a large group of people with a commonly held set of beliefs, a society we'll call it, these beliefs are going to have no influence on the people in this society?

>>6522425
>implying you can actually reduce phenomenon to a single causality

Your limited mind. needs to self questin

>>6522461
>considering the fact that the West is, by all, practical assessment, a matriarchy
Oh I'm going to love hearing you try and rationalize this

>>6522434

Okay so, you say that everything is holistic. Even there studying the relationship between the forest and the tree and everything else will make you start by the grand scheme first. Significance is already created, to find it you must reveal what is already being understood from the forest, it's circular. Going back to our theme you can't derive what is to be a man from Testosterone because testosterone is already created from our significance of what is to be a man. You can only escape from this when you start looking at the context of why there is this significance.

>>6522452

>And these people are living a great life?

Lol, I will assume that you say being a man as in the hunther gatherer societies equals to have a great life a la stoicism?. That testosterone makes us naturally stoic?

>>6522466
YES, OF COURSE, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY INSUFFICIENT TO, INSTEAD OF DISCOURSING IN THE DIRECTION OF THIS SORT OF DESCRIPTION, YOU IMPLY THE CAUSALITY TO THE CONCEPT AND IGNORE ANYTHING BUT THE MOST BASIC INTUITION OF WHICH

ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THE MATTER WILL REVEAL THAT SAYING "SOCIETY CAUSED IT" IS TOO SIMPLE

>>6522476
>Oh I'm going to love hearing you try and rationalize this

I can if you want to.

If you look at media today, what do you see? A disdain for the masculine. The traits I described earlier in this thread, are looked down upon, as unethical, and wrong, and increasingly more young boys in schools are being pumped full of drugs because they act like young boys, and are instead being told that their behavior is a disease that needs to be treated.

Women are the majority of college graduates.
Men are the majority of suicides in every part of the world.

Also:

Pic related. When men do not have de facto, automatic custody of children, the society you live in, is no longer a patriarchy.

>>6522484
YOU CANNOT FIND A SINGLE "CAUSE" FOR WHATEVER STATE OF AFFAIRS YOU'RE TRYING TO IMPOSE. YOU CANNOT ARTICULATE WHAT YOU EVEN BELIEVE "SOCIETY" IS, BECAUSE THE HARD WORK OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY CAN BE IGNORED BY APPLYING WILL TO THE CONCEPT-WITHOUT-ESSENCE "SOCIETY"

>>6522489

Yes, I know that saying society causes it it's insufficient, since it doesn't reveal anything other than it's in society like that because it's.

But as a first step you must consider it before exploring the context of why it's in society like that. If you keep pondering about a eternal truth of why something is like that in society, you will never jump into the context because you will try to derive every significance from a large chains of events that depend of different contexts

I hope this doesn't sound like shit since english isn't my first language

>>6522498

This is why i say you don't know what context means. You are so attached to what you are looking at that you can't fully understand it. You try to be a sociologist from a psychologist perspective.

I can say within reason that the feminism or matriarchal society you say will no never be more extreme than it's right now. Why? Because the antithesis of what matriarchal society is is already been put in vogue by people like you. Some years ago feminism was really going strong. Now the antithesis, your viewpoint, is appearing strong again. The struggle will be decided by mantaining the status quo and choosing another meaningless debate. This is what marxists hate about the discussion, it's just bread and circus

>>6522498
>If you look at media today, what do you see? A disdain for the masculine. The traits I described earlier in this thread, are looked down upon, as unethical, and wrong, and increasingly more young boys in schools are being pumped full of drugs because they act like young boys, and are instead being told that their behavior is a disease that needs to be treated.
I get what you're saying, but I think you only see what you consider wrong. A browse through recent blockbusters will reveal nothing but the most shameless celebrations of masculinity.

>Women are the majority of college graduates.
Graduating does not guarantee power, and not being a college graduate does not leave one powerless.

>Men are the majority of suicides in every part of the world.
lmao you think this proves women are the power-holders in the West?

>When men do not have de facto, automatic custody of children, the society you live in, is no longer a patriarchy.
Why? Because you say so?

I think you'll find the people with the power and influence are predominantly men, the senate, the white house, the people that make the rules and have the money.

>>6522502
IF YOU CANNOT ARTICULATE ANYTHING WITHOUT DEPENDING ON YOUR CONCEPT WITHOUT ESSENCE, THEN MAYBE YOUR ARGUMENT IS PREDICATED ON EDIFICATION AND NOT THE WILL TO FIND THE ABSOLUTE.

PEOPLE WHO OBSESS OVER "CULTURE" MISS THE BIG PICTURE OF THE PARTICULARS, AND THEIR OBSESSION LEADS THEM INTO SUBSTANTIAL LIFE, A LIFE DEVOID OF REAL PHILOSOPHY

>>6522522

You say concepts can really capture essences? Where you got this from? My viewpoint is based on Heidegger mostly albeit mildly misunderstood

> Have CS degree
> make good money
> find corporate world boring
> study philosophy in free time and love it
> Kind of want to go back to school to study philosophy but know it is a huge money pit for no pay off

Can you teach high school with a philosophy degree

>>6522521
>A browse through recent blockbusters will reveal nothing but the most shameless celebrations of masculinity.

Clearly, all the movies that reveal a "celebration" of masculinity are caricaturing it. Do you really think that the movie 300 accurately represents masculinity? In some regards, yes, in others, no. It is a fantasy, just like most movies are.

>Graduating does not guarantee power, and not being a college graduate does not leave one powerless.

No, but it should be worrying with anyone with a brain, that one gender is getting more educated than the other.

>lmao you think this proves women are the power-holders in the West?

No, but it does prove that there is something wrong with societies view of men; why would men overwhelmingly kill themselves if there is nothing wrong with society?

>Why? Because you say so?

No, because that is the definition of a patriarchy.

>>6522532
IM NOT A HEIDEGGERIAN

>>6522519
>Because the antithesis of what matriarchal society is is already been put in vogue by people like you.

Really? So all the dictionary definitions of a patriarchy don't matter? It's what YOU decide the definition is?

Please. It's not about shit being "in vogue". It's about the facts. And the fact is, that feminists have been doing a campaign of historical revisionism for at least 40 years, where they convinced everyone that just 100 years ago, women were tantamount to slaves, when they were no such thing.

In my country everyone gleefully celebrates the day, when women got the vote, but they completely ignore the fact that ALL men got the vote, only 15 years earlier. Ridiculous.

>>6522539
>Clearly, all the movies that reveal a "celebration" of masculinity are caricaturing it. Do you really think that the movie 300 accurately represents masculinity? In some regards, yes, in others, no. It is a fantasy, just like most movies are.
My point is masculinity isn't under attack, it's alive and well in the media.

>No, but it should be worrying with anyone with a brain, that one gender is getting more educated than the other
Men take up trades more often than women that don't require them to pursue a degree, there is no systematic oppression stopping men from seeking higher-education.

>why would men overwhelmingly kill themselves if there is nothing wrong with society?
Mental health complications, I seriously hope you aren't trying to attribute even the majority of male suicides to the societal view of them.

>No, because that is the definition of a patriarchy
The patriarchal family is still largely present in families that don't have custody disputes. But we are taking about a patriarchal society, not family unit.

>>6522550
So you only discourse with Hegelians?

>>6522556
YES!

>>6522555
>My point is masculinity isn't under attack, it's alive and well in the media.

Masculinity is very much under attack. There is a reason that men are turning into introverted, home-sitting, video-game nerds. Because in a video game, they can be the hero. They can be the strong, and masculine, and assertive person, without being shamed for it. In a classroom, they are increasingly asked to be more like the girls, because being the quiet bookworm, is now more socially acceptable.

>Men take up trades more often than women that don't require them to pursue a degree, there is no systematic oppression stopping men from seeking higher-education.

I never said there was any systematic oppression. I don't know where you got that from. But it's still a problem nonetheless. But, of course, I can see that the problem doesn't worry you, as it worries me, because obviously it suits you just fine that women are in that position.

>Mental health complications, I seriously hope you aren't trying to attribute even the majority of male suicides to the societal view of them.

Not attributing all of them, clearly. But I doubt it helps that they have been full of Ritalin from junior high into college.

>The patriarchal family is still largely present in families that don't have custody disputes. But we are taking about a patriarchal society, not family unit.

So you think it's possible for a family unit to be matriarchal, within a patriarchal society? Sounds like an interesting thought, but I think it's unlikely.

>>6522578

I don't know you, but I had to change of endeavour and try to become *alpha* to actually get laid. I think there is still the same pressure than before about being a man

>>6522598
>same pressure than before about being a man

Yes society has a standard for men, and sometimes it isn't fair.

But life is not fair, and being a beta is nothing to brag about anyway, one should strive for arete, all of us should, even women.

And I think being masculine is natural for men, at least it is for me.

>>6522578
>There is a reason that men are turning into introverted, home-sitting, video-game nerds. Because in a video game, they can be the hero. They can be the strong, and masculine, and assertive person, without being shamed for it.
I agree that people play video games to do things they can't in reality, but I don't think it's because they aren't allowed to be "strong, and masculine, and assertive" in real life, it's probably more because there are no aliens or zombies to shoot in real life.

>they are increasingly asked to be more like the girls, because being the quiet bookworm, is now more socially acceptable
it certainly lends itself to the classroom setting, I don't there is anything inherently female about those qualities

>But it's still a problem nonetheless
Why?

>But I doubt it helps that they have been full of Ritalin from junior high into college
Big assumption there

>So you think it's possible for a family unit to be matriarchal, within a patriarchal society?
Why can't they? Besides, the man is still the head of the household in virtually all whole families.

>>6522555
>My point is masculinity isn't under attack, it's alive and well in the media.
"THE MEDIA" IS ANOTHER EMPTY CONCEPT. WHAT MEDIA ARE YOU REFERRING TO? THERE IS NO CAUSALITY IN "THE MEDIA", YOU CANNOT TAKE THE PARTICULAR OUT OF THIS UNIVERSAL

>>6522614
I was responding to someone who also used "the media" as a concept. I'm not going to start arguing in Hegelian dialectic if that's what you're looking for.

>>6522610
>it's probably more because there are no aliens or zombies to shoot in real life.

That too obviously, but it's clearly relevant to manhood, to want to shoot aliens and zombies in a game, when there are no enemies in real life.

>Why can't they? Besides, the man is still the head of the household in virtually all whole families.

Really? Where do you draw that assumption? Considering the staggering amount of single parents households in many Western countries, I'd say you're wrong.

>>6522627
THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING WITH SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS "THE MEDIA" HAS ESSENCE

>>6522521
>lmao you think this proves women are the power-holders in the West?

Women aren't the power holders but their lives are generally easier and probably better. Women have it better than men in the west, in general. The fact that the kind of person who probably has it the absolute best in the entire world, upper class white women, are the biggest and loudest proponents of a kind of feminism that calls for society to pity them and accommodate them in every way possible is truly mind blowing.

>>6522652
>but it's clearly relevant to manhood, to want to shoot aliens and zombies in a game, when there are no enemies in real life
Lots of men join the army every year. Are you suggesting men be allowed to kill each other freely?

>Really? Where do you draw that assumption? Considering the staggering amount of single parents households in many Western countries
I was talking about intact families, where the man is typically the head of the house.

>>6522667
>The fact that the kind of person who probably has it the absolute best in the entire world, upper class white women, are the biggest and loudest proponents of a kind of feminism that calls for society to pity them and accommodate them in every way possible is truly mind blowing.

It's not mind-blowing. Privileged people always want it their own way, and if they can't pay for it, they will manipulate politics to get it.

>>6522673
>Lots of men join the army every year. Are you suggesting men be allowed to kill each other freely?

No. But I am suggesting that people don't shame men for being men. It isn't really acceptable to be masculine, unless you're in a gym doing strength training(and many times, not even then, because women are there and get "triggered" and feel unsafe), and allow men to share in their manhood without demanding that men do all the work(i.e all the shit jobs that women will never do, like being a garbage disposal man, or working in a coal mine), and not respecting them for it.

>I was talking about intact families, where the man is typically the head of the house.

I don't think they are. At any second of being married, a woman can take the children, and potentially half his property, and a sizeable portion of his income every month thereafter, if she just decides to divorce, and she doesn't even need to have a reason for divorcing.

So no, women are the head of the house, because if they aren't, they have the State to make sure life is miserable for the man afterwards.

>>6522658
I don't think "the media" has essence. It's a convenient way to address many things. Do you really think using dialectic in 4chan quibbles will yield any universal truths?

>>6522683
You live in a fantasy world where women are some malevolent gang, collectively out to dethrone men, ruin their lives and take their children. You express much of the entitlement you accuse women of having. I think you make a lot of assumptions about what it is to be a man, and I don't see any point in continuing after this.

>>6522667
pure conjecture

You can do something with literally any major - it just may not be what you expected you'd be doing.

You're probably not going to become a philosophy teacher or a successfully employed "philosopher" straight out of a B.A. program but you might easily do something else.

>>6522693
>You live in a fantasy world where women are some malevolent gang, collectively out to dethrone men, ruin their lives and take their children.

No I don't. We were talking about power in the household. And none of what I said was false.

>You express much of the entitlement you accuse women of having.

Really? I'm not entitled at all. I'm from Norway, which makes me very privileged actually, because this is a rich country.

I think you're mistaking me for someone else.

>>6521984
I looked further into this graph and its sources.

Both sources are 100% legit and respected - though statisticbrain.com looks sketchy, the page is referencing a study by Educational Testing Services, a well respected organization (google them). The other source is government. Given this background on the sources we can assume that they are reliable and that the sample size was good.

In terms of methodology, the gov study is unimportant while the IQ study uses a conversion between SAT score and IQ, which was MENSA approved until 1995 and remains quite valid still (SAT and IQ data was taken from 2011-2012). This is how they obtained the IQ scores; this is fairly unbiased.

Now for some analysis: This study DOES NOT SHOW that men are smarter than women. It does, however, demonstrate the different distributions of intelligence between men and women.

Pic related shows the different distributions of IQ between men and women. The sexes have nearly exactly the same average IQ, but women are more centrally concentrated. This is concerning the general population. When we look at college graduates, we are naturally looking at a subset of the population that is much more intelligent than average. Note that because of the higher variance of IQs among males, at the high end of the IQ spectrum (as well as the low end), there are more males than females.

Therefore, when we select for, say, the top 20% of the population, we will see that males are more intelligent on average. College graduates form a higher intelligence subset of the population, which explains this graph's result: male college graduates have higher IQs than female college graduates.

This is also affected by female vs. male major choices. Females tend to choose majors that require more SQ than IQ, most notably social work; men tend to choose more quantitative studies such as physics that favor high IQ. IQ is not an all-purpose measurement of intelligence. It measures quantitative skill, reasoning, and problem solving skill. SQ is just as valid as a measure of intelligence, but not accounted for on this chart.

TL;DR men are not smarter than women, graph demonstrates differences in IQ distribution and male preference for IQ-requiring majors.

>>6522051
Most likely a b8 post.
This is filled with falsehoods

- "almost never" is hyperbole
- These subjects are, in fact, advertised to women through parenting, school programs, and female STEM scholarships
- "nerd stigma" is a buzzword; there's nothing to back this up. Present evidence that this is what prevents women from entering STEM fields.
- The world does need more engineering students/other STEM majors (especially comp. sci) because the market for them is growing faster than the enrollment in the majors.
- The high female majors require more SQ (not shown by graph), which females prefer; which in large part explains their choice. I addressed this in my other post.

It's always good news to see that intelligent people are the ones that do most of the work and then regret being so intelligent for society. I prefer to keep myself to my books and my useless theories, and my people of course.

>>6522686
IT'S GOOD FOR SHOWING THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS NECESSARILY DUMB

>>6521984
>IQ
that's so hot, look at how fierce this thread is

>>6522858

Hey, where to start with hegel? phenomenology of spirit or lessons in the philosophy of history?

>>6522869
Look at what you faggots bragging about your IQ have done? Now we can't have any discussions on the subject without people being all butthurt. Same goes for you people calling everyone a neckbeard. Souring the whole bush.

>>6522875
I'm doing phenomenology of spirit very slowly, with plenty of commentary. It's not too bad if you're patient. It's hard but not totally incomprehensible

POST EM

>>6522869
lel

>>6522984
Apparently they extrapolating IQ from SAT test so post your SAT scores

>>6522071
Like Math?

....

Also, could you provide an example of an experiment proving causation for the observed lower number of women enrolled as being a genetic difference?

Please enlighten me, oh scientific one.

>>6522274
Those are concepts that are entirely man-made dumbass.

Who is Boudica

>>6523204
People who argue "muh genetics" on BOTH sides are deeply ignorant.

All you have to do is read a few pages of literature on "epigenetics", correlations on historical diet, the influence of hormones on fetal development, etc

Just because "genetics suggest NO cause for femininity" doesn't mean femininity has no essence. All it means is it's not genetics. You're being as dumb as racists and sexists to believe genetics is what makes a human

>>6522387
Early anatomically modern men were taller than us. Hairiness depended on climate and was distributed exactly the same ways as nowadays.

>>6522208
Read the Habermas reaction to it.

I'm a Physics and Philosophy dual major
I've got an average sized penis

>>6522231
Studies show that newborns still have an inclination to male or female objects so we can in fact determine that advertisement doesn't play a crucial role.

>>6523204
Research done by an Oxford professor, he is the brother of Borat, look him up.

>he thinks IQ is a valid measure of intelligence

Why are there so many fuck boys in the world man

>>6522352
>>6522383
>>6522404
>>6522522
>>6522566
stopping capslock DOES exist you dilettantes

>>6522234
what about a study looking at advertising in tv and other media that children are exposed to? looking at how many barbie commercials include girls or things associated with females or something like that

It's not that hard to imagine, come on

>>6524122
>Studies show that newborns still have an inclination to male or female objects

>Studies show
>male or female objects