Empathy Gap, Male Disposability & Reproductive Utility

[-1=e^ipi]

I have wanted to do this thread for a while but never got around to it. But a recent video by Janice Fiamengo has incentivized me to make this thread.

First, I want to introduce the concept of reproductive utility to a tribe and how it relates to evolutionary psychology. So humans and their cultures are shaped by the forces of natural selection. A tribe with traits that increase its chances of reproduction will over time dominate over tribes that do not have these traits. So let's first consider the fact that most societies historically have traditionally had negative views of gay and transgendered people (with some exceptions). One possible explanation for this is that acceptance of gay or transgendered activities within a hunter-gatherer society either reduces the number of offspring for the tribe or significant reduces the genetic pool of the tribe by reducing the number of people taking part in reproductive activity. As a result, a tribe that has negative views of gay or transgendered people may tend to dominate over tribes that have positive views of gay or transgendered people because the former has a reproductive advantage. So overtime, the lower reproductive utility of gay and transgendered people to the tribe result in these people having lower value to the tribe than straight or cisgendered people.

Now how does this relate to the concept of male disposability? Well there are obvious reproductive differences between males and females. Females have to go through 9 months of pregnancy + breast feeding so have a much higher cost of reproduction than the few calories of energy that males have to put in for sperm. As a result, a tribe's reproductive ability is primarily limited by the number of women in the tribe. If a population loses half of its men, it can rebound much more quickly than if it loses half of its women. So men have lower reproductive utility to a tribe than women because men are more expendable; this is known as male disposability. As a result of this, tribes that develop cultural traits that take advantage of male disposability will tend to be selected over tribes that are more egalitarian. So if two tribes go to war, then one that sends men to fight and die rather than women will be favored. If there is a dangerous task that has a high probability of death, such as going out hunting giant woolly mammoths that can crush you, you want men to do that task.

Since human tribes will evolve to value the lives of women more than men, this causes men to do far more risky activities that have a decent probability of death, which means that men will on average have a lower probability of engaging in reproductive activities. This is supported by genetic studies, which suggest that historically, 4 women reproduce the next generation for every man (see link below).

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

This male disposability means that human societies over time have socially and genetically evolved to value women more than men and have caused society to empathize less with men than with women. This is known as the empathy gap, and is explained in more detail in the video below:

I invite you to see the video but I'll also list some brief examples of this empathy gap:

-Society cares a lot about women's issues and goes to great lengths in protecting women, but men's issues are scoffed at or are looked at as 'an attack on women' and therefore should be ignored. For example, society will talk about the gender wage gap and constantly exaggerate it, but doesn't really talk about the life expectancy gender wage gap, the work place death gender gap, the suicide gender gap, the homelessness gender wage gap, etc.

- Society funds women's cancer research more than men's cancer research even relative to the number of deaths by cancer type.

- Take the case of Boko Haram. When Boko Haram massacres a bunch of school age boys, it either doesn't make the news or is barely mentioned. However, when Boko Haram kidnaps school girls, suddenly it is a big issue that the people in the West and Nigeria suddenly care about. Do the boys not matter? If you look at media reports of these massacres, when men are massacred, they are referred to as 'people', but when women are massacred they are referred to by the media as 'women'. When both men and women are massacred, they are referred to as 'people, some of which are women'. The choice of wording is to illicit the highest emotional response, and because women have more value to society than men, you want to indicate when women are killed, but keep things ambiguous when men are killed.

- Let's take Anita Sarkeesian's criticism of Hitman Absolute. So Anita Sarkeesian is a self described feminist and probably believes in her mind that she takes the position of gender egalitarianism. However, valuing women over men is so ingrained in our society that even when Anita looks at a game in which the overwhelming majority of people that are killed are male, because you can kill two women in the game (even though you aren't supposed to and you lose points in the game for harming civilians) in Anita's mind this game is all about violence against women. What about all of the men that are killed, is there no violence against men? But of course any criticism of Anita's work is portrayed by the media as 'evil misogyny by people that hate women'. Below is a video on an example of criticism of Anita's criticism of Hitman Absolute.

- Canada even glorifies violence against men through its love of the NHL. I.e. a bunch of men ramming each other into boards, punching each other and giving each other concussions rather than playing hockey.

Not only does reproductive utility explain why societies may have cultural aspects that result in men having higher death rates (for example, 'women and children first' policies, men should never hit women but not visa-versa, and male only drafts) but it can explain a lot of the differences in gender roles that are observed. For example, traditionally in terms of dating, employment and elsewhere women are traditionally supposed to be 'passive' while men are supposed to be 'active'. This can be explained by reproductive utility since as women have higher reproductive utility, they have greater intrinsic value so do not have to work to obtain value, and working to obtain more value is arguably undesirable for a female because working to obtain value may result in a higher chance of dying (and a women's chances of reproduction are very high since reproduction rates are limited by the number of women), where as men do not have this intrinsic reproductive value so are forced to work and compete to obtain value and have a chance at reproduction.

So a lot of what is viewed as 'patriarchy' is rather men having less intrinsic reproductive value to society and having to work hard and do risky activities to obtain value. And societies that traditionally encourage men with an illusion of masculinity if they perform activities that have a high probably of death, such as fighting in a war, are the societies that would be favoured via natural selection.

Anyway, I'll end this post with a link to a video on this topic by Karen Straughan.

Edited September 7, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[WIP]

This might be interesting to weigh in on.....but not on a holiday...especially when the weather's nice outside!

I think I'm going to have a hard time taking it all seriously after seeing professional self-hating woman- Karen Straughn video at the bottom of the post.

[Freddy]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. Thanks!

You have given my a lot to think about.

It explains everything in a very logical matter. I agree. I'm of strong belief that evolution has shaped our way of being more then anyone likes to admit. The resistance to entry is that it takes a lot of intelligence to explain and understand how.

Your post is a successful attempt at it. I doubt that many have the mind to successfully understand.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

I think I'm going to have a hard time taking it all seriously after seeing professional self-hating woman- Karen Straughn video at the bottom of the post.

Yes because any women who questions why 97% of work related fatalities happen to males, and wonders why no one bothers to call a nation wide investigation on the reason why work related fatalities are happening disproportionately mostly to males is obviously a self hating women who dose't love herself.

It has nothing to do that she has more empathy for males then the average women, who mostly don't give a crap about males. And are buzzy fighting for more women benefits and ignoring everything else because caring about males means other women will judge you as a self hating women.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Freddy

[-1=e^ipi]

Meanwhile, mainstream campus feminists are so intolerant of Janice Fiamengo that they successfully silence her from speaking at her own university. But it's not like intolerance of freedom of speech is a new phenomenon at Canadian Universities.

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/extremists-disrupt-dr-janice-fiamengos-lecture-at-university-of-ottawa-video/

Edited September 8, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Freddy]

Meanwhile, mainstream campus feminists are so intolerant of Janice Fiamengo that they successfully silence her from speaking at her own university. But it's not like intolerance of freedom of speech is a new phenomenon at Canadian Universities.

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/extremists-disrupt-dr-janice-fiamengos-lecture-at-university-of-ottawa-video/

No surprise there. Anyone who has believed his whole life that they are a victim likes to have what they base their whole world on completely destroyed logically. The only thing left to do at that point is, most block their ears and start yelling , I'm not listening !!!! I'm not listening!!!! I'm not listening!!!! Or pull a fire alarm in this case. Edited September 8, 2015 by Freddy

[-1=e^ipi]

Btw, the fact that females have a higher reproductive cost, which results in males being more disposable is seen across the animal kingdom. For example, the praying mantis. After sex, the female eats the male, since the male is no longer necessary and the extra nutrients for the female helps the survival of the species.

[ReeferMadness]

This is an interesting line of thought and no doubt contains some truth. Human behaviour often has evolutionary roots.

Careful, though. It can be tempting to draw conclusions solely based on a beautiful theory; but lots of beautiful theories are wrong. Humans aren't mantises; we are thinking beings that usually have multiple reasons for what we do. And cultural influences are pervasive and complex. So, I'd want to see some scientific experimentation to back this up.

I think truth is where you find it. There is probably truth in the idea of male disposability but there is also truth in the teachings behind feminism.

[Hal 9000]

A scientific experiment will do no good. You can debunk all the feminist theories from the $0.77 argument to spousal abuse, rape, death rates and court rulings etc.etc. and people will turn a blind eye. Probably you too. All one can do is listen to the arguments put forth and use life experience, common sense and critical thinking to see what should be painfully obvious.

For someone to voice it in public, would be career suicide, just youtube any of the feminism debunking videos.

[-1=e^ipi]

It can be tempting to draw conclusions solely based on a beautiful theory; but lots of beautiful theories are wrong.

It doesn't explain 100% of observations regarding gender differences and roles, but it explains a lot. For example, it would be very difficult to use reproductive utility theory to explain witch burnings (you would have to stretch things a lot). Witch burnings are better explained by the Judeo-Christian idea that women are responsible for evil because a talking snake told Eve to eat a magic fruit (this mythology arguably has origins in humans trying to explain why women have periods).

Humans aren't mantises; we are thinking beings that usually have multiple reasons for what we do.

Obviously. Because of that, it makes zero sense to bite the head off your mate after sex for humans. It makes far more sense to get the male to marry you and help support your offspring for the next few decades.

Edited September 9, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

One genus where males arguably have higher reproductive utility and females are more disposable are sea horses:

Edited September 9, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

Only someone with little grasp on reality would think our society values women more than men. Your hatred towards women has gone beyond eye rolling. It's gotten creepy and disturbing.

[-1=e^ipi]

Only someone with little grasp on reality would think our society values women more than men. Your hatred towards women has gone beyond eye rolling. It's gotten creepy and disturbing.

So you are resorting to name calling?

What a well thought out argument! *sarcasm*

But I guess it is to be expected.

[cybercoma]

I didn't call you names. I called your ideas names. Well-deserved names too.

[-1=e^ipi]

You're like those christians who dismiss arguments put forward by atheists on the basis that 'atheists just want to sin'.

[cybercoma]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm like.

[Black Dog]

More examples in this thread of MRAs taking a well-worn feminist idea (of how strict gender roles hurt members of both sexes) and using it as a platform for attacking feminists. If, as the OP says somewhere in that TL;DR word salad above, "men's issues are scoffed at or are looked at as 'an attack on women' and therefore should be ignored," it would behoove those trying to raise men's issues to not make attacking women a central part of their philosophy. And yet the entire movement is predicated not on advancing any men's issues, but blaming feminists and ensuring men are privileged as the "real" victim class. There's a reason why there's so much overlap between MRAs, white nativists/racists and other fringe reactionary groups. And why else are there no actual solutions being offered up?

[WIP]

Yes because any women who questions why 97% of work related fatalities happen to males, and wonders why no one bothers to call a nation wide investigation on the reason why work related fatalities are happening disproportionately mostly to males is obviously a self hating women who dose't love herself.

Have you considered the fact that dangerous jobs in construction and industry were regulated to exclude women in the past, and I can tell you first hand, that even today, women have a hard time getting into these traditionally male jobs even though the legal restrictions have been removed. Women who try to enter construction and industrial trades today are still subject to extreme mental and even physical and sexual harassment because too many pea-brained guys don't pull up their innate discomfort that women doing their jobs will lower the status of that occupation, for rational re-examination! Any guy who says it doesn't bother him...at least at first...if a woman is doing and can do his job is lying!

But regardless, some dingbats who make a living bashing other women are no different than the uncle toms like Herman Cain or Ben Carson,regarding racial inequality, who stroke the egos of the group with the most power in patriarchal societies...like ours! Did Karen Straughan ever try any trades or get into an apprenticeship program? I doubt it.

It has nothing to do that she has more empathy for males then the average women, who mostly don't give a crap about males. And are buzzy fighting for more women benefits and ignoring everything else because caring about males means other women will judge you as a self hating women.

Bullshit. You think the women who are married or involved with men who are injured or killed in dangerous jobs, don't feel the impact? In many ways, it's worse for them, because they will feel the consequences if they have a husband crippled in a work-related accident, and there is little they can do to make the jobs safer.

Edited September 9, 2015 by WIP

[WIP]

First, I want to introduce the concept of reproductive utility to a tribe and how it relates to evolutionary psychology. So humans and their cultures are shaped by the forces of natural selection.

And for starters, EP falls flat when it tries to equate every cultural artifact...including modern culture...with survival adaptations. If we actually want to find genetic traits contributed by forces of natural selection, then we have to start with the premise that the human social groupings during the majority of our species' history in Earth will outweigh any possible genetic changes that have occurred in modern times, and even as far back as the beginnings of agriculture and settled communities. So, if we can accurately determine how paleo (not modern) hunter/gatherers lived and interracted with each other, that will serve as the necessary guide for what we should and should not aspire to.

A tribe with traits that increase its chances of reproduction will over time dominate over tribes that do not have these traits. So let's first consider the fact that most societies historically have traditionally had negative views of gay and transgendered people (with some exceptions). One possible explanation for this is that acceptance of gay or transgendered activities within a hunter-gatherer society either reduces the number of offspring for the tribe or significant reduces the genetic pool of the tribe by reducing the number of people taking part in reproductive activity. As a result, a tribe that has negative views of gay or transgendered people may tend to dominate over tribes that have positive views of gay or transgendered people because the former has a reproductive advantage. So overtime, the lower reproductive utility of gay and transgendered people to the tribe result in these people having lower value to the tribe than straight or cisgendered people.

The simple fact that human societies have been all over the map on these issues is proof enough that there is little in the way of genetic predisposition involved in any society's attitudes about gays or transgendered people. By and large, the extreme repression of gays in our culture is a JudeoChristian legacy, that can't be separated from the way our patriarchal, invading and plundering forebears viewed things. Even with that, it was only circumstances that led the followers of patriarchal despots and their angry sky-gods to condemn and vilify the small percentage of the population that doesn't follow the pattern...so to speak.

Now how does this relate to the concept of male disposability? Well there are obvious reproductive differences between males and females. Females have to go through 9 months of pregnancy + breast feeding so have a much higher cost of reproduction than the few calories of energy that males have to put in for sperm. As a result, a tribe's reproductive ability is primarily limited by the number of women in the tribe. If a population loses half of its men, it can rebound much more quickly than if it loses half of its women. So men have lower reproductive utility to a tribe than women because men are more expendable; this is known as male disposability. As a result of this, tribes that develop cultural traits that take advantage of male disposability will tend to be selected over tribes that are more egalitarian. So if two tribes go to war, then one that sends men to fight and die rather than women will be favored. If there is a dangerous task that has a high probability of death, such as going out hunting giant woolly mammoths that can crush you, you want men to do that task.

How is this egalitarian? Our ancestors were indeed egalitarian; but that's likely because the requirement for cooperation in small hunter/gatherer bands far outweighed any advantages that might be gained by allowing the exceptional hunter to become a tribal leader. So, one of the major confusing traits that anthropologists described when they studied the last remaining, uncontaminated hunter/gatherers in the Amazon, Africa and Asia was what they called Status Leveling behaviour. What would invariably occur whenever a hunter made the big spear throw or the big catch, was that the others in the party would immediately reign him in with mocking and even insults if they caught him trying to celebrate his success. During most of human history, rewarding success was not seen as a desirable characteristic....and evolutionary psychologists don't do much of a job trying to explain the change in attitude. Our predisposition for egalitarianism is likely the major contributing factor to the dysfunction on all levels that occurs as societies (like ours) become increasing unequal and stratified into smaller and smaller income and wealth divides.

Since human tribes will evolve to value the lives of women more than men, this causes men to do far more risky activities that have a decent probability of death, which means that men will on average have a lower probability of engaging in reproductive activities. This is supported by genetic studies, which suggest that historically, 4 women reproduce the next generation for every man (see link below).

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

This male disposability means that human societies over time have socially and genetically evolved to value women more than men and have caused society to empathize less with men than with women. This is known as the empathy gap, and is explained in more detail in the video below:

What tribes are you or this idiot with the video trying to contend value the lives of women more than men? The longer lifespans for women have more to do with surviving the rigors of childbirth than anything men in most societies have done to make things easier for women! In most societies, women do most of the work providing food and water, along with caring for home and children. And then we get to violence against women...how many women are abused and even murdered by their supposed protectors.

In times past, there were codes of chivalry and gentlemanly behaviour in Victorian Era times; but these were only availed to upper class women to start with, and the chivalry was patronizing...used more to restrict and constrain women than it was to make life better and easier for women.

What would improve the societies we have today, would be to begin with recognition that our ancestors were egalitarian...not because of any efforts for gender balance...but because in the vast majority of hunter/gatherer groups, the contributions of the women of the family group were equal and more often more important than the big trophy contributions of the men....like the successful hunt. I'd like all traditional family talkers especially to consider that their traditional family was the product of a breakdown in human culture that occurred after we began settling into fixed communities. That's when marauding warlike plunderers discovered it could be easier to make a living by killing and stealing from others, than to do the work to grow the food themselves. And the occupation of being a warrior was a male preserve in most warrior cultures also...but not exclusively.

And, when we jump to today: gender equality is largely legal and theoretical, but if we look at the numbers of who controls the levers of power in politics and business, it's still a boys club. And then add in the violence that still gets directed at women by men with fragile egos who need control, and the opposite of the prevailing message here and throughout MRA crap is that women are losing ground on issues that affect them...like reproductive choice, and having equal representation in political and economic leadership.

The rest.......the gender wage gap is real and cannot be fudged away regardless of creative neoliberal analysis;

there are few homeless shelters for women compared to men; cancer research...considering that until recent times surgeons were doing expensive and invasive breast removal as breast cancer treatment, it's hard to see where that extra money benefited women with cancer;

assorted throwing crap at the wall like Boko Haram...if there was so much concern for the kidnapped girls, why didn't the Nigerian Government make a decent effort to get them back? since they knew where they were being held and dispersed to;

Anita Sarkeesian....not being a gamer, I don't know much about her, but I'll have to check out her feminist frequency site...and I'm sure I'll find much more that I agree with her on than the MRA trolls that are trying to harass her and shut her down;

NHL????? You're going to blame the monstrosity that has engulfed pro hockey on feminism? give me a break;

and last but not least: the trope that MRA's and other migogynists toss up when they claim patriarchy benefits women is to ignore the class structure entirely.

Patriarchies were never set up to benefit all men, just men who were important enough to be elevated to more privileged status. Patriarchy abuses and impoverishes the lives of most men, but provides the carrot of being king of their own castle if they get married...so they may be overworked and abused by the men in power, but when they get home they can take it out on their wives and children!

[-1=e^ipi]

Any guy who says it doesn't bother him...at least at first...if a woman is doing and can do his job is lying!

So any male that doesn't care about the fact that a woman is able to do the same job is lying? Do you have proof of this claim?

with the most power in patriarchal societies...like ours!

Many people question the claim that our society is patriarchal. I certainly do.

You think the women who are married or involved with men who are injured or killed in dangerous jobs, don't feel the impact? In many ways, it's worse for them, because they will feel the consequences if they have a husband crippled in a work-related accident, and there is little they can do to make the jobs safer.

We should put this up there with Hillary Clinton's claim that women are the primary victims of war, even though men do the majority of fighting and dying.

Look at all these non-primary victims of war:

Clearly they are privileged and live in a patriarchal society. *sarcasm*

[Hal 9000]

In what ways is it worse for the woman when her man gets crippled? Do you even realize just how fucked up that idea really is?

I love how the discussion is about men being disposable and women are the chosen sex, and (to prove how wrong that theory is) the rebuttal to a man getting maimed, crippled or dead becomes about the woman's suffering.

[Freddy]

So any male that doesn't care about the fact that a woman is able to do the same job is lying? Do you have proof of this claim?

Many people question the claim that our society is patriarchal. I certainly do.

We should put this up there with Hillary Clinton's claim that women are the primary victims of war, even though men do the majority of fighting and dying.

Look at all these non-primary victims of war:

Clearly they are privileged and live in a patriarchal society. *sarcasm*

I Warned you most wouldn't have the mental ability to understand. They have turned men dieing into it being worst for women because they have to live on with the pain lol. We are all born and raised to put women before men. We have the proof right in this thread. Millions of dead males = suffering for women at home lol.

Well ya!!! They are dead, they aren't suffering anymore, It's worse to be a women. Lol

Edited September 9, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

In what ways is it worse for the woman when her man gets crippled? Do you even realize just how fucked up that idea really is?

I love how the discussion is about men being disposable and women are the chosen sex, and (to prove how wrong that theory is) the rebuttal to a man getting maimed, crippled or dead becomes about the woman's suffering.

It's a self proving reaction from a feminist. Who fell right into her own trap.

[-1=e^ipi]

And for starters, EP falls flat when it tries to equate every cultural artifact...including modern culture...with survival adaptations.

Just because a theory or field doesn't explain 100% of observations doesn't mean you throw it out. Newtonian physics can't explain why the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames, yet Newtonian physics has uses.

However, evolutionary psychology and reproductive utility theory certainly has more explanatory power than feminism and patriarchy theory (which as I explained in another thread is an unfalsifiable flying spaghetti monster).

If we actually want to find genetic traits contributed by forces of natural selection, then we have to start with the premise that the human social groupings during the majority of our species' history in Earth will outweigh any possible genetic changes that have occurred in modern times

There is more than just genetic evolution. There is societal evolution. Societies and cultures are able to reproduce, face selectional pressures and undergo mutations, so are also subject to evolution. Arguably, societal evolution is much stronger/faster than genetic evolution, so the conditions under which humans lived for the past 10,000 years is very relevant.

Also, humans aren't the only species where societal / cultural evolution plays an important role. I would argue that societal / cultural evolution is important for Orcas and chimpanzees.

http://www.pelagic.org/overview/discover_1293.html

The rest of your post basically ignores that I was primarily referring to societal evolution rather than genetic evolution in my original post.

What tribes are you or this idiot with the video trying to contend value the lives of women more than men?

Pretty much all of them. Females having more reproductive utility than males is pretty much universal throughout all sexually dimorphic animal species (although there might be some exceptions such as sea horses).

The longer lifespans for women have more to do with surviving the rigors of childbirth than anything men in most societies have done to make things easier for women!

Gotta love the societal double standard that whenever there is a gender gap that favours women, it's genetic/physiological, but whenever there is a gender gap that favours men, it's all due to discrimination.

Like say you have a society where men are expected to go work in coal mines for 14 hours a day and women are expected to stay at home all day tending to children and doing house work. You really think that difference in life expectancy has nothing to do with men inhaling coal dust all the time?

Our society is not that extreme, but there are still cultural pressures which cause different activities which cause differences in life expectancy outcome. Also, societal attitudes like 'be a man', 'man up', 'grow balls', etc. leads men to less often seek healthcare for their health problems.

And then we get to violence against women...how many women are abused and even murdered by their supposed protectors.

Yet violence against men is far more prevalent in our society than violence against women.

http://www.victimsweek.gc.ca/res/r512.html

Men are more likely to be assaulted, murdered, robbed and face violent crimes.

Yet society doesn't really care about that.

It's all, 'we need to deal with violence against women and only women, even though men face on average more violence than women'.

Why do you think that is?

Because society values women more than men.

What would improve the societies we have today, would be to begin with recognition that our ancestors were egalitarian

No they weren't. They had very clear gender roles. Do you know why? Because it makes sense in a hunter-gatherer society to have gender roles because you are taking advantage of biological comparative advantage. In today's society gender roles make no sense, so it makes sense to be egalitarian.

And, when we jump to today: gender equality is largely legal and theoretical, but if we look at the numbers of who controls the levers of power in politics and business, it's still a boys club.

When you look at the number of homeless people, men far outnumber women. It's almost like men have less reproductive utility than women, so have a larger incentive to work hard to obtain value in society, and this leads to more men at the top and bottom of society...

Also, this ignores generational effects. The people at the top of society today are primarily baby-boomers and maybe some generation Xers. So for example, if female millenials have more opportunities than male millenials (as we seen in the urban millenial gender wage gap, the unemployment gender gap, the job stability gender gap, the gender-specific scholarships gender gap, the university attendance gender gap, studies that show that resumes with female names are preferred over identical resumes with male names, studies that show females have a 2:1 hiring advantage in stem fields for similar qualifications, etc.) then it will take some decades for that to show up in number of CEOs or number of politicians.

In the meantime, it is pretty clear that millenial males are being scapegoated by society for the 'privilege' that baby-boomer males experienced.

the gender wage gap is real and cannot be fudged away regardless of creative neoliberal analysis;

You mean like taking into account things like number of hours worked or type of occupation? Oh the horror!

You know that wage is defined as income per unit of time worked right?

But no, keep pretending that things like hours worked don't matter.

Because it's not like if people work more, they get paid more.

Or if people have a higher education, they get paid more.

Or if people have more experience, they get paid more.

Or different types of occupations (say fast food worker compared to physician) don't pay different amounts.

No, taking that into account is crazy, and only something those evil misogynists do. *sarcasm*

why didn't the Nigerian Government make a decent effort to get them back?

Because they are a 3rd world country with limited resources, and the northern part of the country is fairly Islamist.

Nah, couldn't be that. Clearly it is patriarchy. *sarcasm*

...not being a gamer, I don't know much about her, but I'll have to check out her feminist frequency site...and I'm sure I'll find much more that I agree with her on than the MRA trolls that are trying to harass her and shut her down;

'I don't know her argument but I'll probably agree with it because it fits my narrative'.

Do you not see how this sort of thinking is dogmatic?

But for people that are emotionally invested in a position, maintaining the narrative is far more important that truth. That's why religions are so popular.

You're going to blame the monstrosity that has engulfed pro hockey on feminism?

Where did I mention feminism and blame it for violence in hockey? That doesn't make sense. Feminism didn't invent gender roles or male disposability, those have existed for millions of years.

Edited September 9, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Freddy]

Only someone with little grasp on reality would think our society values women more than men. Your hatred towards women has gone beyond eye rolling. It's gotten creepy and disturbing.

Why is it we save the children and women first in a life boat if they are less valuable then men?