WOW SOMETHING NEW! Female Scientist Does a Video Showing Patriarchy Exists: Gets Attacked By Manchildren

Welcome to the Phil ‘Mike’ Mason Buchanan’s Super-Duper Explanation of Why Men Dominate and Control Socioeconomic and Political Power in Western Democracies:

Dr. ‘Mike’ Mason Buchanan’s data

Just another day on the male cesspool known as Youtube!

I shouldn’t be too hard on him because many Liberal feminists think there’s a male and female brain too even though the best neuroscientists have debunked it.

First, watch the video that made Phil have a sad in his pants, which is very good.

The top rated comment goes to….. wait for it…

THUNDERFart aka the human impression of a Cardassian. That neck!

ZOMG… I have an even better example of ‘patriarchy’… where women are forbidden from competing with men. Its a global organization called ‘The Olympics’. For some reason ‘patriarchy’ has ensured that women cannot run as fast or jump as high as men. Must be cultural norms! After all… it cant be biological differences, because if it was biological differences, you would have to accept that brain function is part of biology! Just apply you brilliantly reasoned social test to it…. the one which you finally get to after 12 minutes of droning on about how proud you are of your ‘opinion = fact… if I call it science’ qualifications… if there are not 50 % of women in the fastest runners, then there must be a social, cultural norms or political exclusion of women…. yknow patriarchy! Oh wait… maybe biology plays a role too!? Lets see, politicians tend to be risk takers, and men are more likely to be risk takers. So more men in politics is actually more a statement of ‘jobs that require risk tend to attract risk takers’ rather than ‘THIS PROVES WE ARE LIVING UNDER A PATRIARCHY! PS its a good thing you went for the politics, cos theres just no way you would have cut it in the STEM fields.

Wow, What a… just an unbelievable straw man! We all should know that in Phil’s world men who run fast are just OBVIOUSLY supposed to lead the world in fucking everything.

Thunderfart isn’t a very good scientist at all. He’s more interested in making a fool out of himself.

I have no idea what Olympic running events have to do with why men are at the top socioeconomically and politically because Thunderfart never shows how or why this is even the case.

Instead he drones on and on while pointing his MRA fanboys toward her video so they can make even more ridiculous asshats out of themselves and of course, do what all butthurt manchildren do: RATE THE VIDEO DOWN WITH ALL THEIR SOCK ACCOUNTS!

First, he demeans her again, because he’s incapable of making a valid counterargument.

actually, you are not a ‘fellow scientist’, your publication record shows as much. You might reasonably claim to be a pseudoscientist… but you are certainly no scientist. So lets see how your non-scientific mind approaches this problem. It ASSUMES differences in gender representations has nothing to do with biology, when clearly it does. (CITATION PLEASE PHIL?)

Even when an idiot proof example of when biology plays a role is put in front of you (the olympics), you just prove you can be a better class of idiot. Normally I wouldnt say something like this… but seeing as you spent the first 10 or so minutes waxing on about how clever you are…..etc etc….only then to make a comically bad argument for ‘patriarchy’…. maybe you should leave science to the scientists.

Phil thinks if he calls her names enough times he wins the argument.

Kristi responds, like a woman after my own heart:

If your assertion is ‘ differences in gender representations – are – clearly to do with biology’ then please explain the biological causal mechanism that impacts on political representation by sex (and I mean sex, not gender) and present your evidence. I look forward to evaluating your theory, hypotheses, and data for myself. Obviously you’ll need inferential statistics to demonstrate causality so please include the relevant coefficients and their standard errors and your N.

OUCH! She DOES know the difference between sex and gender!

Trouble is, Phil doesn’t know and so he makes one last lame insult and sulks back off to Paul Elam and The Red Pill.

so I think we agree that you calling yourself a scientists with a phd is government is at best bullshit, and at worst at outright lie. FYI, it takes more than using words like ‘theory hypothesis and data’ to be a scientist. Your attempts to play scientist are callow at best.

Your are the one who has asserted a model in which biology plays NO part. That is you ENTIRELY ignore the sexual dimorphic nature of humans to assert that the differences observed are the ENTIRELY due to culture. In this much you are just categorically wrong. But ….. I look forward to evaluating your theory, hypotheses, and data on why humans are not sexually dimorphic for myself. Obviously you’ll need inferential statistics to demonstrate causality so please include the relevant coefficients and their standard errors and your N. All of which of course you must already have to have made the above video. -munckin.

She never claimed the human species wasn’t sexually dimorphic you buffoon. Her claim was that patriarchy (which she defined) exists and here’s the evidence for it. She made her claim and supported it. Cardassian neck, on the other hand, demeaned her credentials several times, made wild claims he never supported, and straw manned her to death. For someone like me, who is as educated and aware as she is, I also recognize his inability to make a coherent argument.

They don’t realize they’re dealing with a scientist who speaks that language, who can explain what an N is and what a standard deviation is. These manchildren don’t understand that they can’t just rattle off MRA rhetoric and have her go ‘yeah, I think that makes sense!, especially when their retort boils down to:

(said in a Jordan Owen voice) ‘Uhhh, uh, men have uhh, male brains and uhh, this makes them uhh, smarter and better than women.’

I’m excited because it looks to me this woman understands the difference between gender and sex and I’ve been waiting for someone like that to come along on Youtube for a long ass time. I might be able to really have a discussion with this woman, that is, until people to go her and scaremonger her by ad-homming ME, which they will do because apparently wanting women’s rights to spaces and privacy is literally like being Hitler.

All I can say is that I look forward to having a conversation with GASP! SWOON! an EDUCATED WOMAN! AN EDUCATED WOMAN! I can’t contain my excitement. I know this will be short lived. I shouldn’t get my hopes up! I should just continue to think positive.


29 thoughts on “WOW SOMETHING NEW! Female Scientist Does a Video Showing Patriarchy Exists: Gets Attacked By Manchildren

    • Do you children actually possess the ability to understand a simple argument, and the understanding of who has the burden of proof in this particular situation?

      Perhaps I can break it down to a simple enough form that you can understand it.

      Men and women are different, do we all agree on that? It is called sexual dimorphism. That is the point of Dr Mason’s allusion to the Olympics. The Olympics, and indeed most sporting events beyond kindergarten, recognize this FACT. But while recognition of this fact may be less evident in other walks of life, few people indeed would say that we are not fundamentally different. Not necessarily better, and when there is an advantage, it sometimes goes one way, sometimes the other. It’s a rare woman indeed who would be at the top of achievement in any sports, while men are often at a disadvantage in tasks that involve language or wordplay. To pick just two very simple examples.

      Given these differences, the first hypothesis, whenever we see some sort of sexual differentiation (oh, I don’t know, maybe when considering career choice), is to assume that sexual dimorphism is a possible/probable cause. It is the natural assumption that there might be something that makes this job something that women lean towards or away from. That’s not to say that women NEVER seek that career, even less that they are necessarily not as successful, but that is still the most logical hypothesis.

      So if our first hypothesis is that genetics, the female vs male brain,or other attributes are the reason why a job is heavily male vs female it is normally the job of the scientist to try to find a way to disprove the hypothesis. In other words, Dr Winters, by the normal rules of logic, has the burden of proof to show WHY that hypothesis would not be true. To date, she has done nothing of the sort, she has noted a single point of data, without using proper control data and inferred a conclusion that is not supported. She, not Dr Mason, has that burden, and presumably she knows that, although to be honest, those in the hard sciences tend to more rigorous about experimental processes and methodology than those in the social sciences.

      • hahahaha. dude couldn’t follow the hypothesis, just like phil couldn’t, nor the operational definitions and is whining about the olympics. lol

        this is the low class white male who thinks he’s being smart.

  1. Look, Phil has a point. Donald Trump only got where he was today thanks to the gold medal he won in the 1980 olympics for worst comb-over. You can’t fight nature.

  2. It’s always the “We’re bigger than you and can run faster than you and can beat you up and because we can we will continue to and it’s good and right and we should be the boss of you, and you should obey, because we’re big and can beat you up and run faster” argument. Natural = Destiny. Natural = Good. Women just aren’t risk takers! It has NOTHING to do with the fact that men actively and purposely keep women out. Nope. Move along now little pretend science lady.

    I always want to ask, “If it’s so natural for men to be the boss of us, why do we hate it so much? Surely the human existence planning committee would have thought of a more efficient system than to have a good number of one half of the human race absolutely miserable and actively harmed under the oppression of the other?’

    • What’s more fucked up is that white men made the opposite argument when trying to justify slavery. They weren’t as big and muscular as slaves and somehow, that justified white men being in charge and treating people of color as farm animals. You can find the junk science bullshit in old timey periodicals of yore. This same thinking inspired colonial white men’s boner for guns. They knew they were bullying minorities under a ridiculous ideaology, so they armed themselves to the eyeballs just in case they would be forced to atone.

      Racist and sexist assholes.

      • Today some white male asked me if I could prove whether white males in white collar class were more criminal than blacks b/c some asshole white male MRA is making silly videos trying to say inner city blacks commit the most crime and therefore are ‘dirty.’

        One answer: Africa: diamonds and conflict minerals.

    • Just after you made this comment Cassandra, some white male supremacist tried coming to this blog and admitted just that. He had no argument, just neanderthal psychobabble and the is/ought fallacy.

      • I’m not surprised at all. What I said is like waving a red flag in front of a raging bull. It usually brings them charging, dicks and male entitlement just a swingin’ all over the place. So predictable and boring.

  3. Wow, ol’ Phil is no neuroscientist, nor is he a physiologist, nor is he even a biologist, because he knows fuckall about any of these fields. Of course humans are sexually dimorphic. No shit! The sparse genes on the Y chromosome ensure that men are built differently from women. Why do they think that we want spaces away from them? They are, on average, larger than us and stronger than us, which gives them a somewhat unfair advantage seeing as how they are socialized to think they are entitled to our bodies and that they can inflict violence on us with impunity.

    Pretty much every organ in the human body is sexually dimorphic at least in the regard that those of males are usually larger than those of females. But with respect to the human brain, that’s pretty much where the dimorphism ends with the exception of a single nucleus in the hypothalamus that controls reproductive behavior. Otherwise, when you look at a human brain grossly or even microscopically, the best trained neuroanatomist in the world couldn’t tell you if the brain is male or female because there is simply no dimorphism.

    And as for the “women are better at X, men are better at Y,” well Phil needs to read up on a little thing called neuroplasticity (that might be too big of a word for him, though). All of that stuff about women scoring higher on verbal skills and men scoring higher on spatial skills, well, it turns out that when you test very young children, boys and girls are pretty much equal in both verbal and spatial skills. But due to gendered socialization, girls aren’t encouraged to develop spatial skills — engineering and building stuff is for boys, you know — and so those synaptic connections are pruned away. Girls are instead socialized to talk and express their feelings and listen to the feelings of others, so those connections are made stronger. With boys it’s the opposite. And it turns out that if you actually encourage girls to continue to develop their spatial skills as they grow, and encourage boys to continue to develop their verbal skills, they both continue to score about the same because the synaptic connections for both verbal and spatial skills are strengthened.

    And Phil’s extremely stupid example of men being “risk-takers” is completely an example of socialization, not biology. What gene(s) would possibly encourage risk-taking? That’s contrary to survival and so something like that wouldn’t be conserved, and certainly wouldn’t be found in half of the world’s population. There’s a reason there aren’t a ton of “adrenaline junkies” out there; it’s simply not a very common trait because from an evolutionary standpoint, traits like that would be selected against. So no, men are not natural risk-takers. They are taught that they are pussies (i.e., women) if they don’t take risks, and so they make stupid, impulsive decisions more often than do women. Purely socialization; nothing to do with biology.

    Phil really needs to shut up and take a biology class because he is just making himself look truly stupid.

    • Risk-taking is a positive for survival when you need to take a risk to survive. For example, jumping across a stream is a risk that you need to take to continue to run away from a predator chasing you. That doesn’t mean it’s the very best thing to do all the time. It has to be balanced with careful behavior. And those genes can express differently in a population so that some are risk takers and others are more careful, so that the group benefits from both behaviors depending on the circumstance. A population of all risk takers will not do well when risks are largely fatal, all careful ones will have problems when risk is necessary for survival.

      Assuming that these propensities are genetic, and have to be divided along male and female lines — that is the fallacy.

      I will super super agree with you about the socialization and spatial skills. I decided to look at activity books at a dollar store a few months ago. The ones for girls all have simplistic tasks and mostly coloring and exciting and fun! Some of the boys ones were, too, but there were others that had some pretty sophisticated spatial concepts as well as teaching them about truck parts and mechanics. Anyone who says it’s “instinct” is bullshitting.

      • No, you’re right, I should have explained myself better. You’re talking about intelligent, calculated risk-taking, which I would think is more a function of the frontal lobes. Those traits would be selected for, because the smarter earlier humans would be more likely to survive. Humans do still have a great deal of that primal fear response, but we are often able to override that with enough logic and intelligence to take a calculated risk in spite of that fear. Like the example you gave, a person is afraid to jump across a stream, but has the logic and intelligence to know that it is necessary to take the jump to escape the predator.

        I was talking about stupid, illogical risk-taking that is due to social pressures. For example, it’s not girls who are infamous for doing stupid things like jumping off of the roof on a dare and breaking a limb or two — it’s boys. Males are socialized to take stupid, reckless risks like this in order to appear “manly” and not like “pussies.” Girls are discouraged from behaving this way because it’s not “ladylike.”

        • There’s a Washington Post article about toddlers, specifically male toddlers who are finding guns and shooting themselves or others with them.

          They never make the leap to male socialization but we can do it here.

          Males shoot the guns because they’re taught that’s what males do. They’ve seen the television showing males doing this and they’ve hung around their father who plays Call of Duty or some other shooting game.

          that’s why it ain’t little girls taking guns and shooting themselves or themselves.

          • When I was a child, if I found a gun (and my father had one), I would have been too scared to try to handle it.

            And, actually, when I was a teenager, some friends of mine, unbeknownst to me until the freak out, were going through my father’s things and found his gun. The only male in the group was gay and screamed the loudest when they found it. (I’m not trying to imply gay men don’t get male socialized but I think many give themselves “permission” not to playact masculinity.)

    • I second the applause.

      I did an observational case study of an 18 mo old boy in 4th year Psych as part of my honours degree. This boy was raised without a television or any kind of mass media.

      I observed him alone and at play w/ other kids. He was the most well adjusted, gentle and balanced little boy. While the other boys at the park would use physical strength and sometimes violence to get what they wanted, he never did.

      He shared his toys and if he wanted something he would ask, not hit or pull the toys away from other kids.

      You know how we say ‘has an old soul’ to young people who we feel are beyond their years in wisdom? I felt the same way about this little boy.

      • That’s very interesting! I think radfems sometimes fall back on the idea that men are the enemy, but like your example shows, it’s gender and male socialization that is the problem. That’s what leads to most male violence.

        • It’s men like Thunderfoot who are making the argument that men are genetically wired for male violence. It’s his idea that men are physically stronger and therefore just SHOULD be using that power to take from others. Some rad fems will claim T does it but I disagree with that.

          I think it’s all socialization.

          • Yeah, the idiot should realise when he’s making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Which is what I feel about evolutionary “psychology”.

            If testosterone was even the main cause of male violence, not even the only cause, then testosterone-reduction or testosterone-blocker treatments/ punishments would have been implemented by now to “fix” the testosterone problem. There are no scientists going to court or the government arguing for this. Therefore, it ain’t bloody testosterone.

            For someone with a PhD, he has a particularly poor ability to specify his hypotheses and the arguments underpinning them. It’s like he expects everyone to just take him at his word. Such white male privilege.

          • I think so too. Mind you, T probably doesn’t help when an individual is taught to worship his own aggression, but…

  4. Thanks for highlighting this exchange!

    If you’d like to read more of my research into operationalizing sex and gender more accurately in social research, you can read my working paper here:
    What does it mean if ‘gender’ is statistically significant? Why we can’t interpret our results using the measures ‘man/woman’.

    This paper investigates the man/woman variable. After serious reflection and extensive investigation I strongly doubt whether our measures of man/woman could ever adequately capture the variation it is meant to in surveys. This is based upon the observation that although social scientists attempt to capture statistically significant variance using a biological measure of man/women their interpretation appeals, almost inevitably, to economic structures or socialization processes. The inclusion of gendered attitudes measures are necessary to more precisely understand where sex and gender-based variation. My exploratory empirical research indicates the inclusion of gendered attitudes measures produces a range effects on the statistical significance of the sex variable. Using these exploratory results, I propose a different answer to the question first investigated by Pippa Norris. Whilst Norris found no evidence for the existence of an ideological ‗gender gap‘, my claim is that my analysis has shown that a gap does exist. There is a gendered gap when gendered measures are included in the analysis, but there is (still) not an ideological sex gap in British men‘s and women‘s political attitudes.

  5. Your video isn’t evidence of anything

    Edited for mansplaining and no citations countering the position. Bye dude. ~HMQ


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s