I mean, in societies with equal de jure rights the battle is equal de facto rights. Like if de jure women are allowed to work or go to school anywhere but de facto they are denied, that's a violation of their rights.
For a clear example of the effect of this, women have consistently shown themselves to be better students (on average) than men for over a century but only recently have they made up half of college grads.
If you care about meritocracy this is an important issue. And if you don't care about meritocracy... Well you're destined to lose to a society that does unfortunately. Hows Afghanistan doing these days?
Hey I agree, there are a lot of people who are objectively better than you at reading and thinking critically, statistically more than half of them women; best to leave it to them.
Unfortunately "thinker" is not a well established sorting criteria but for example in the US women are now 54% of medical students and 53% of ivy league students, positions filled based on what by any metric are stringent criteria.
Well, since you seem to claim that women somehow make better students, I claim where it matters, men seem to produce more novel insights, manuscripts, theories, and winning earning more recognition at the highest places like Fields medals, Nobel prizes. So I call BS.
I'll also mention that there is growing research that women outperforming in school is likely due to a variety of factors that don't necessarily lead to the conclusion of women are "superior" academically; this whole issue is too multifactorial to make that claim. But I think the clinical term "non inferior" fits the evidence pretty well.
It definitely does, please see every other comment in this thread for evidence.
But I'm glad you've admitted that women outperform as students; people will say it's "moving the goal posts" but to me it's progress. De facto progress lol
What does it mean? They are doing their homework more diligently? Who the heck cares about that? It's a meaningless feel good metric for people like you.
Another interesting factoid is that women are only 7.6% of doctors in 1970 despite now being >50% of medical students. Even today women are only 39% of medical doctors due to huge disparity in past graduating classes. Which situation, 1970 or 2026, do you think represents the more meritocratic set of outcomes?
Let's take the inverse here: if women are and have always been capable of being half or more of all college degrees, what changed to allow that to happen? The answer is the removal of discriminatory barriers, both de jure and de facto.
Here's a rundown: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/401608503_Gender_Inequality_in_Education_A_Sociological_Perspective
but saaar we indian superpower womman very discriminat only redeem grad ricintli
nobody cares about your shitty curry study or your shitty country pajeeta
presumption was that we're talking about developed countries not some third-world shit holes where you cross the shitting street and the rape alley to buy cow piss at the convenience store.
Lmao, no they aren't better students. Multiple studies have consistently shown that most of women's good grades are because of personal bias, especially from female teachers. When works are graded anonymously, with student's names removed and with all texts computerized and not handwritten, women lose their edge in school and they score the same as men if not slightly worse.
Aside from the lack of data (see other comment) this one unconsciously makes an interesting point: it acknowledged the possibility of de facto discriminatory practices. That's an important step in understanding the issue in its entirety.
Right to equal healthcare, right to birth control, equal salaries, equal job opportunities, right to exist without sexual harassment, without discrimination, without physical assault, violence, and rape,
Yeah, yeah, some of this shit is illegal. Doesn't mean it's being enforced. But rapists (Like Brock Turner, the rapist) are going scott free. There are 400,000 untested rape kits in US law enforcement storage. Rape victims are still asked what they were wearing, accused of lying, blamed shamed for speaking up.
This was a little too sincere for r/4chan, so I should add that you'd know this if you ever spoke to a woman, but you don't because you're gaaaaaay.
Dude... you may not think it, but being able to join the military is a privilege. There is a reason the confederacy didn't let black slaves serve in the military with weapons, and it's not because black people were a privileged class they weren't willing to sacrifice. The ability to be a soldier is what keeps privileged classes in power.Â
You think Iran picks members for their IRGC from the classes they oppress? No, it's picked from privileged classes that do the oppressing. Because the ability to fight and wield violence is a privilege that those in power have always jealously defended.Â
And when the ruling class failed to follow this rule like in the case of Tsarist Russia, where they sent communist political dissidents to serve in the frontlines, they found themselves at the other end of the barrel. Turns out training the people you're oppressing in military tactics and giving them weapons isn't such a great idea.
Anon, you are confusing the military officer elite with the canon fodder meant to die in wars, nowadays, most militaries will accept females joining the military academy and achieving leadership roles (Of course they probably will never reach high command, but the average person won't too).
Males however are conscripted, against their will, whenever something blows up.
Your point might have worked in the past, but if the armed rabble would move itself to topple governments, latin america would have way more coups.
It's not a standard, just pointing out why throughout history certain groups have been prohibited from joining the military. And that throughout history it was generally the people who couldn't join the military that were treated unfairly.
No one is oppressed in the west , we just pretend to be equal Â
My guess is they’re posting on iPhone and speak German and has an English and German keyboard. All nouns are capitalized in German and once you type in German a lot on an iPhone, it begins to capitalize random ass words when you type in English. Or they speak some other language with different capitalization rules.
1st time is appreciation,
2nd is anticipation,
3rd is expectation,
4th is entitlement,
5th is dependency,
6th is resentment if the favor stops. It's not a perfect analogy but I think it explains the logic behind it. Somewhere along the line the power dynamic flipped which brings us today.
Mr__Castle_@reddit
Now they push for women's rights while simultaneously not being able to say which rights women don't have. 🤔
ahackercalled4chan@reddit
that's a natural extension of not being able to define what a woman is
AlphaMassDeBeta@reddit
Penisless man.
QTown2pt-o@reddit
Womb-man
AlphaMassDeBeta@reddit
We'll simplify it to woman.
GlitteringFutures@reddit
A plucked chick.
igerardcom@reddit
Behold, a man!
wordjedi@reddit
ahem, nowadays they prefer "Y chromosome deficient individual"
do better
bannabananabanna@reddit
classic foid behaviour
thank god they're cute
Vulpes_Lourens@reddit
cuties patooties
igerardcom@reddit
Trvth nvke
sprinkill@reddit
For a few years, anyway.
Iron-Fist@reddit
I mean, in societies with equal de jure rights the battle is equal de facto rights. Like if de jure women are allowed to work or go to school anywhere but de facto they are denied, that's a violation of their rights.
For a clear example of the effect of this, women have consistently shown themselves to be better students (on average) than men for over a century but only recently have they made up half of college grads.
If you care about meritocracy this is an important issue. And if you don't care about meritocracy... Well you're destined to lose to a society that does unfortunately. Hows Afghanistan doing these days?
sprinkill@reddit
Supreme Court Justice Sanda Day O'Connor, over here.
Thanks for the effort, but no one's reading your wall of text.
Iron-Fist@reddit
Hey I agree, there are a lot of people who are objectively better than you at reading and thinking critically, statistically more than half of them women; best to leave it to them.
johannesfranco13@reddit
Redditor for 15 years.
ChoBaiDen@reddit
Better students, or better thinkers?
Iron-Fist@reddit
Unfortunately "thinker" is not a well established sorting criteria but for example in the US women are now 54% of medical students and 53% of ivy league students, positions filled based on what by any metric are stringent criteria.
ChoBaiDen@reddit
Well, since you seem to claim that women somehow make better students, I claim where it matters, men seem to produce more novel insights, manuscripts, theories, and winning earning more recognition at the highest places like Fields medals, Nobel prizes. So I call BS.
Iron-Fist@reddit
I'll also mention that there is growing research that women outperforming in school is likely due to a variety of factors that don't necessarily lead to the conclusion of women are "superior" academically; this whole issue is too multifactorial to make that claim. But I think the clinical term "non inferior" fits the evidence pretty well.
ChoBaiDen@reddit
But then what is your point? Outperforming is school is not an important metric if it does not translate to the real world.
Iron-Fist@reddit
It definitely does, please see every other comment in this thread for evidence.
But I'm glad you've admitted that women outperform as students; people will say it's "moving the goal posts" but to me it's progress. De facto progress lol
ChoBaiDen@reddit
What does it mean? They are doing their homework more diligently? Who the heck cares about that? It's a meaningless feel good metric for people like you.
Iron-Fist@reddit
Right?!?! I bet they cheat on tests by looking at the information before hand and then remembering it when it comes time to apply it too
Iron-Fist@reddit
Hmm and yet the ratio has dramatically shifted since women began making headway in many academic fields. Interesting that, no? Could there be some sort of de facto cause?
Another interesting factoid is that women are only 7.6% of doctors in 1970 despite now being >50% of medical students. Even today women are only 39% of medical doctors due to huge disparity in past graduating classes. Which situation, 1970 or 2026, do you think represents the more meritocratic set of outcomes?
TraditionalRow3978@reddit
how were women denied from becoming college grads "until recently"?
Iron-Fist@reddit
Let's take the inverse here: if women are and have always been capable of being half or more of all college degrees, what changed to allow that to happen? The answer is the removal of discriminatory barriers, both de jure and de facto.
Here's a rundown: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/401608503_Gender_Inequality_in_Education_A_Sociological_Perspective
TraditionalRow3978@reddit
but saaar we indian superpower womman very discriminat only redeem grad ricintli
nobody cares about your shitty curry study or your shitty country pajeeta
presumption was that we're talking about developed countries not some third-world shit holes where you cross the shitting street and the rape alley to buy cow piss at the convenience store.
no fucking shit women are oppressed there, clown
TheSenCtizer@reddit
Lmao, no they aren't better students. Multiple studies have consistently shown that most of women's good grades are because of personal bias, especially from female teachers. When works are graded anonymously, with student's names removed and with all texts computerized and not handwritten, women lose their edge in school and they score the same as men if not slightly worse.
Iron-Fist@reddit
Aside from the lack of data (see other comment) this one unconsciously makes an interesting point: it acknowledged the possibility of de facto discriminatory practices. That's an important step in understanding the issue in its entirety.
Iron-Fist@reddit
Literally the opposite though? Anonymous grading increases women's grades...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176525000783
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
Women don't have the right to tell you what to do all the time. Literally handjob mail
Algo_Muy_Obsceno@reddit
Right to equal healthcare, right to birth control, equal salaries, equal job opportunities, right to exist without sexual harassment, without discrimination, without physical assault, violence, and rape,
Yeah, yeah, some of this shit is illegal. Doesn't mean it's being enforced. But rapists (Like Brock Turner, the rapist) are going scott free. There are 400,000 untested rape kits in US law enforcement storage. Rape victims are still asked what they were wearing, accused of lying, blamed shamed for speaking up.
This was a little too sincere for r/4chan, so I should add that you'd know this if you ever spoke to a woman, but you don't because you're gaaaaaay.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Sorry, your post has been removed. You must have more than 25 karma to submit posts to /r/4chan.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
ahackercalled4chan@reddit
she's not gonna fuck you bro. she's into right-wing alpha chads
No_Name_Ideas@reddit
women literally have all of those things
JustChillin3456@reddit
Equality is a myth, why is it fair that only men have to join selective service to fight and die for their country ?
Spartan6056@reddit
When I went to the selective service website to find out more, the FaQ was basically just:
Q: Why do only men have to join the selective service? A: Because that is what the law says.
Q: Why don't women have to join the selective service? A: Because the law says they don't.
sadacal@reddit
Dude... you may not think it, but being able to join the military is a privilege. There is a reason the confederacy didn't let black slaves serve in the military with weapons, and it's not because black people were a privileged class they weren't willing to sacrifice. The ability to be a soldier is what keeps privileged classes in power.Â
You think Iran picks members for their IRGC from the classes they oppress? No, it's picked from privileged classes that do the oppressing. Because the ability to fight and wield violence is a privilege that those in power have always jealously defended.Â
And when the ruling class failed to follow this rule like in the case of Tsarist Russia, where they sent communist political dissidents to serve in the frontlines, they found themselves at the other end of the barrel. Turns out training the people you're oppressing in military tactics and giving them weapons isn't such a great idea.
JhonnySkeiner@reddit
Anon, you are confusing the military officer elite with the canon fodder meant to die in wars, nowadays, most militaries will accept females joining the military academy and achieving leadership roles (Of course they probably will never reach high command, but the average person won't too). Males however are conscripted, against their will, whenever something blows up. Your point might have worked in the past, but if the armed rabble would move itself to topple governments, latin america would have way more coups.
JustChillin3456@reddit
Privilege is a pointless standard. Just by living in a first world country you are more privileged than most humans alive
None of anything you just said disproves that equality is a mythÂ
No one is oppressed in the west , we just pretend to be equal Â
sadacal@reddit
It's not a standard, just pointing out why throughout history certain groups have been prohibited from joining the military. And that throughout history it was generally the people who couldn't join the military that were treated unfairly.
Not sure what your point even is here.
JustChillin3456@reddit
Except there’s nothing stopping women from jointing. In fact there has never been a poll in which women voted they should be added to SS
Tony_Roiland@reddit
Yes equality is a myth. Well done. Men and women don't get treated the same by society. Well done.
JustChillin3456@reddit
And they never willÂ
Tony_Roiland@reddit
Well done
stop_talking_you@reddit
foids will lose their rights in the future
ahackercalled4chan@reddit
repeal the 16th
SKRyanrr@reddit
igerardcom@reddit
That's a BINGO!
Skull_kids@reddit
I wonder who funded that movement and what connections all those girl-boss activists had.
Cynical_Doggie@reddit
Obviously corporate industrialists that wanted to unlock 100% more workforce and pay 50% less in wages due to the now abundant supply of labor.
Ok_WaterStarBoy3@reddit
oy vey, the best kind of corporate industrialists of course
igerardcom@reddit
SHUT IT DOWN!
Iron-Fist@reddit
Yeah turns out unlocking the productivity and intelligence of 50% of humanity was an important part of, like, advancing as a society...
Lump of labor fallacy in action. Your issue is actually with asset prices and blaming high asset prices on women is a ridiculous take.
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
Iron-Fist@reddit
Ser_Thank_You@reddit
Why the Fuck Does he Capitalize Words so Strangely?
StartledMilk@reddit
My guess is they’re posting on iPhone and speak German and has an English and German keyboard. All nouns are capitalized in German and once you type in German a lot on an iPhone, it begins to capitalize random ass words when you type in English. Or they speak some other language with different capitalization rules.
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
Because He Ain't No Commietalist
altdust@reddit
Brutual
altdust@reddit
hmm probably just needs more socialization
Sharky-Li@reddit
The law of reciprocity:
1st time is appreciation, 2nd is anticipation, 3rd is expectation, 4th is entitlement, 5th is dependency, 6th is resentment if the favor stops. It's not a perfect analogy but I think it explains the logic behind it. Somewhere along the line the power dynamic flipped which brings us today.
FoxCQC@reddit
Where the pic from? That looks cool
SKRyanrr@reddit
Yes
nuudul2@reddit
truth nuke