/sci/ - Science & Math

What about sexism against men?

>>8181614
The author and the "researchers" (big quotes here) are obviously retarded feminists so what would you expect.

Plus, I think that when it comes to female on men sexism there is just hostile sexism. There is no sexism on men that could even be classified as positive.

>>8181617
>There is no sexism on men that could even be classified as positive.
Yes there is. The idea that men are always stronger, more rational, better at leadership etc is a form of benevolent sexism directed at men.

Women are the cancer of humanity. Parasitic fuck holes, psychopathic leeches, disgusting animals, disgusting human garbage. They are poisoning everything with their vagina-centered anti-intellectual materialism, their toxic hormone-induced horniness making them blind towards higher values in life.

>>8181618
>The idea that men are always stronger, more rational, better at leadership

I would think that the only people who believes these things are male supremacists, so that would be male on male sexism, not female on male.

But you do have a point but we have to clarify that at least on the point of stronger, men naturall grow more muscle.

When it comes to being rational and better at leadership that is obviously just sexist speculation from actual sexists and usually male ones.

I don't hold those believes as I know plenty of retarded men and women and I'm sure everyone here at /sci/ has similar experiences that would make them believe the same.

Heck, everyone knows retarded people in their life. No one who is intellectually honest would hold these baseless believes.

>8181622

Without women, there'd be no good porn, and we'd have no way to reproduce, so eventually we all get old and go extinct.

>>8181622
Nigga, the only way I won't believe you are a troll is if you screencap a fucking 5/5 hostile sexism score, faggot.

Go troll somewhere else or deliver the goods.

>>8181627
Read pic related. Written in 1903 but still the perfect red pill on gender.

>>8181609

I actually forgot to link to it.

FOR FUCKS SAKE.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181630
The true red pill is that you should judge people as individuals.

>>8181622
Lol. You've never had sex.
>>8181630
And you never will...

not remotely science. time to clean the garbage

>>>/r/eddit
>>>/trash/
>>>/mlp/
>>>/lgbt/
>>>/out/

>>8181633
Science is about valid generalizations. Take the laws of electromagnetism for example. We don't need to explore a new special case for every instance of electromagnetic phenomena because we already have a general theory. Same with gender.

>>8181636
The people who made it are actual psychologists, probably with PhDs.

That makes them for scientists than you. even if they are shit.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181631
this test is heavily biased

>>8181637
This the part where I make a generalization and refer you to >>>/r9k/

>>8181635
I've had too much sex when I was too young to fight against it. Sex is the most disgusting act and literally the source of all evil. Without women and without sex, humanity could live in peace.

>>8181637
But we are dealing with people here.

We can get statistics about women having lower average IQ but does this make it okay to start threating all women as being stupid?

All that we can record in human population are averages and those are fine but if you then take that women are in average less smart and then you apply that judgement on a woman who is smarter than you then you already fucked up.

So discrimination based on statistics is wrong and will be wrong until you can show that literally ALL WOMEN are stupid.

>>8181641
Yeah, I know. Don't you still want to know how sexist you are in the eyes of the average sjw cuckold?

>>8181643
Okay you are trolling. Thanks for making it obvious my man.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181638
Nahh this is trash tier 'personality testing' you find in Cosmo or 17.

>>8181646
Well,
>Peter Glick, PhD (University of Minnesota) is the Henry Merritt Wriston Professor in the Social Sciences at Lawrence University, where he has taught since 1985.

Is one of the guys involved. This proves that is is science.

Now can you just stop being a killjoy and go along. Check out just how supposedly sexist you are.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181617
This is not a /sci/ thread, this is /pol/ trash.
Although I dislike feministic propagande, this type of shit is as bad

>>8181644
>But we are dealing with people here.
Women are not exactly what I would consider "people".

>All that we can record in human population are averages
There are many more inferences one can make from statistical data you fucking pleb.

>until you can show that literally ALL WOMEN are stupid.
Intelligence wasn't the point here. Women are immature, animalistic and anti-intellectual. They themselves reduce their entire existence to their holes, while expressing open contempt for higher values in life.

>>8181649
The people behind this are PhDs in their respective fields of social science.

This is fucking science, just accept that science can also be flawed and play along.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181645
fucking lol

nah they will never get any sort of power so i don't give a fuck

>>8181638
> actual psychologists
Oh well there's no debate than

Psychology is NOT science, look it up. And this garbage belongs to >>>/lit/ or >>>/his/ and definitely not to a science board.

>>8181648
'Social Science' is about as scientific as Scientology

Dumbass.

>>8181651
>Women are not exactly what I would consider "people".

This made me chucke, fucking hell. This shit takes me back to my /r9k/ shitposting days back in 2014. Great times. I have a lot of the sexist graphs and pictures to.

>There are many more inferences one can make from statistical data you fucking pleb.

Sure, whatever. You cannot judge individuals on average results. That would be dishonest and really retarded.

>Women are immature, animalistic and anti-intellectual.

Some women are (probably more than I'd like) but you should still not treat all women as if they are animalistic and immature, because some of them will not be.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181652
Qualitative research is not science
I studied political science before I did physics, how these ''scientists'' define reability and validity is absurd

>>8181651
I hope you're trolling and not actually this pathetic.

I feel bad for you anon.

>>8181654
>>8181655
Hey, I am not too fond of psychology myself you know? This is all just good fun for the whole family.

Also, psychology is technically science so that makes it /sci/ material, regardless of how much you cry about it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181652
>>8181659
Reliability* Sorry English is not my native language

>>8181658
A woman has literally nothing to offer to me. I'm not interested in her holes. In fact I consider them disgusting. And her personality is even more repulsive. Simply toxic.

>>8181662
I like when women suck my dick though. I wouldn't trade that for anything.

I am not too fond of their pussies though, but whatever.

JUST DO THE FUCKING TEST
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181654

Oops.

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

>>8181661
Are you not getting it ? Philosophy topics do NOT belong to this board. If we wanted to talk about philosophy we would go to >>>/lit/ or >>>/his/ where you should fuck off to right about now.

>>8181668
Philosophy is not psychology though. Psychology is a science.

THE FUCKING QUIZ FFS
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181665
I don't need to take a test in order to know that I hate women.

>>8181609
what the fuck has been with all the sexism threads recently getting super busy

are we getting brigaded or something

>>8181670
I'm sure you faggot will score 5/5 in benevolent sexism, you fucking door holder.

Your hostility is just a facade, I bet you secretly want to lick women's toes.

Do the test my nigger to see if you are actually sexist

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181660
>he fell for the "Not All Women" meem.

might as well say, "Not all dogs are dumber than me." Well, in your case, that might be true.

>>8181661
What kind of psychology are we talking about here? Freud or Psycho-neurology?

>>8181671
This is not a sexism thread, just general psychology.

Do the test and find out my man

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181674
Modern (not that it matters) gender science

>>8181673
If you give an IQ tests to every dog on earth they would all score 0.

If you give an IQ tests to all women some would get 70, some would get 200.

That is the difference, fag.

>>8181674
Fuck if I know. I don't know shit about psychology, all I know is that the people are fucking PhDs.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181662

So are you gay or asexual?

>>8181676
>>8181677
I have one person saying gender which has nothing to do with psychology and another who has no idea what psychology is about, linking a page where no referenses whatsoever are given
This is not a /sci/ thread

>>8181669
> Psychology is a science.
Oh boy this meme is so hot right now.

Please show me the quantitive, measurable and falsifiable evidence that you use in your studies.

>>8181677
so would children, and i wouldn't take advice from an 8 year old no matter what a piece of paper said his intelligence was.

>>8181679
neither

>>8181609
>hostile sexism
5
>benevolent sexism
3

I'm fine with this.

>>8181680
Here is a reference.
http://www2.lawrence.edu/fast/glickp/

>>8181681
>Please show me the quantitive, measurable and falsifiable evidence that you use in your studies.

Look, I am not a fucking psychologist, I am actually a math major. I think psychologist is shit and retarded, BUT I THINK THIS IS INTERESTING.

Can you stop being faggots and have fun?

>>8181682
Good point, but you shouldn't just think all children are absolutely retarded. Some children are smarter than others.

lol

>>8181684
Thanks for doing the test and not bitching.

If I was you I would work on that 3/5 benevolent sexism score, no one likes a fucking door holder.

EVERYONE DO THE FUCKING TEST

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181687
I got lots of interesting shit in my mind but I don't post them here because they are not science.

So fuck off with this unscientific shit and put it where it belongs for fucks sake >>>/his/ >>>/lit/

"Sexism" is a misnomer. I prefer to call it "gender realism".

>>8181691
Until you have a PhD and 20 years of research experience I think you are not allowed to brush off the science of other people.

>>8181689
I'm not a door holder, I want someone that will stay at home, make babies, raise them, cook and clean. It's my duty as a male to provide for that person and cherish them for what they do. Those are the only gender roles I believe in.

>>8181689
I don't need to take a test to know if I'm sexist.

>>8181688
I just retook it but went extreme with the answers. Anything that leaned one way or another, I went all the way and agreed/disagreed strongly.

benevolent was zero, hostile was 4.17

The questions that increase hostile sexism are the ones that involve the behavior of women towards men, instead of the other way around. My opinion that many women occasionally act like cunts (just as many men act like dicks) is apparently sexist.

SJWs want to be able to push us around and have us do nothing about it: confirmed.

>>8181696
> i-its science

Oh since it's science, I better see the quantitive, measurable and falsifiable evidence that you use in your studies right now in your next post.

>>8181698
I guess that is fine. My perspective comes from the fact that I don't want to marry or make children and I just want to have women in short intervals of my life for me to fuck and them jump off to somewhere else.

>>8181699
DO IT ANYWAYS FAGGOT

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

>>8181687
The problem with calling it qualitative research science is the measures for reliability and validity. They create a specific generalization, which they themselves say ''It doesn't mather if it can be done with the exact same methodology by another researcher and come up with the same results''. Instead, they measure validity and reliability by ''How represented is the group'', ''Have you been ethnically sensitive in your questions''. ''X-amount time spent with these people''. This makes the result extremely subjective and, in my honest opinion, not science whether or not they want to call it that.
A generalization for a very specific group, yes, but generalizations=/=truth.

>>8181703
Yeah, that is what I suspected. If anything this gives you a clear window inside the mind of the typical SJW cuckold. Feel free to use this as evidence that they are fucking deranged and that you should not vote Hillary Clinton, if you happen to be an american.

>>8181707
>I guess that is fine. My perspective comes from the fact that I don't want to marry or make children and I just want to have women in short intervals of my life for me to fuck and them jump off to somewhere else.
yeah your approach is better suited to your endeavors