The Feminisation of Academia & Its Consequences
- Thread starter Bucktee
- Start date
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck - or a Buck.
I'm happy to adopt your definition of "woman", but I still don't like thugs who strangle and rape them because I don't hate women. You apparently do, given your posts.
Only female doctors have put their fingers up my ass, I do not let guys do it.
Wow.
That's some fun batshittery right there.
Good to see Quillette is keeping to its high standards of nonsense.
He did. That is why he is alone.
Hard to say.
That first video was insufferable.
She is a lot more tolerable in this second one.
I think that like lots of people on the platform, she has a specific presentation style for TikTok.
That's probably not what she is really like.
How different it is, I have no idea.
Contact one of the authors.. female PhD behavioural scientist Cory Clark and let her know your non-researched thoughts:
Cory Clark, Behavioral Scientist
Webpage for Cory Clark, Behavioral Scientist and Director of the Adversarial Collaboration Project at University of Pennsylvania. Cory conducts research in political psychology, moral psychology, cognitive bias, and metascience.
www.coryjclark.com
Cory Clark Ph.D.
Cory Clark, Ph.D., is the Executive Director and Co-Founder (along with Professor Philip Tetlock) of The Adversarial Collaboration Research Center at University of Pennsylvania and a Visiting Scholar in the Psychology Department.
www.psychologytoday.com
I recall that you're a "trust the science" type of guy, but when presented with science that you find offensive, it becomes "batshittery". This is exactly the point the video is making. It was stated explicitly in the video several times. Thanks for exemplifying the feminized approach to the world.
Next Cory should be censored and pilloried for her simply aggregating data sets from other scientists' surveys & experiments and presenting it to you, and no further research should be done because the results might not fit with your morals.
In the meantime, let us know where the science ends and the "batshittery" begins.
The Usual Suspects in this thread are clearly feminized men.
Last edited:
This is such a feminized view of the content presented in this thread. It makes no logical connection to the facts.
Does the woman narrating the video hate women?
Does the woman whose research the video is based on hate women?
What is hateful about the content itself? The fact that men and women perceive the world differently and are therefore not identical is hateful?
I suppose that in a world where acknowledging differences is seemingly a crime, you're right, it is a fine example of pure hatred.
So, sameness is good and diversity is bad?
On the other hand, allowing men to beat down women in sport is an expression of the utmost love and support for women.
Last edited:
Cory has heard most of my complaints about her research before (although not as often as Bo, obviously).
I'm always so chuffed when you attack me for being "feminized".
Given your view of the world, it is hard to find a higher compliment.
LOL!
Why the fuck would I want Cory censored?
Throwing out compliments to everyone today!
You must be in a good mood.
What is your complaint about this particular video?
You haven't established it here.
My world view is that truth is important and should be pursued. Are you opposed to this, and why would find opposition to truth as a compliment?
Is this your acknowledgement that Cory is practising science and not batshittery?
Surely batshittery shouldn't be allowed to masquerade as science in institutions of higher learning.
Per the research, the Usual Suspects are just men that have a preference for what's morally palatable over truth when the two come in conflict.
Last edited:
I am not doing a blow by blow through this latest video.
(I suppose I might get bored and pull up the original paper at some point, but don't count on it.)
My complaints will be the same as the previous work they've done -- sloppy data sets, too-broad conclusions based on the data they had, etc.
Things that made them pull earlier studies.
I've never seen you support that world view.
Why would you think "if it is batshit it needs to be censored" is a position I would take?
Batshittery will "always" be part of science.
Also, it is very common for the batshittery to be associated with elements outside the data.
I've seen little evidence of this preference you pretend to see.
The Usual Suspect's definition of a woman meant that I would be having a relationship with someone that had a dick and balls, boy tits, Adam's apple, small hips, short hair, balding, big feet, deep voice, hairy chest, beard, and 6 foot 5.
It didn't appeal to me.
Last edited:
They retracted one of their own studies in 2020. A sign of good scholarship.
No need for line-by-line.
What conclusion was drawn in the video that you found to be too broad, entirely incorrect, or just offensive to your sentiments?
Never?
Never say never.
As the data in the video demonstrates, it's a common position taken by those that take offense to "batshit" research.
If that's not your position, that's fantastic.
I'm glad we've established that Cory et al. should be able to continue their scientific endeavours.
Elaborate.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
The ad hominems and attempts at reputation destruction in this thread are examples.
But as someone in pursuit of truth, they are amusing sidebars.
Last edited:
Is that a response to my comment or did you just want to use my post as a launching point for your soapbox?
p.s. Plenty of science grads end up just as underemployed. Research assistants in poorly funded fields often need other sources of income.
The video sure sounds like whining that academics no longer protects men from competition from women.
At what point in the video do you pull this from?
The video is not about competition between men and women in academia and it's not about affirmative action.
The video is not about academic achievement rankings between men and women.
Tell us you based all of your posts in this thread on the title of the video instead of its contents, without telling us.
Last edited:
The narrator is a woman and the author of the research is a woman.
I don't think anything about the video suggests they're incels. They're both attractive and seemingly intelligent women; I don't think they'd have any trouble obtaining sex from men, or women.
But by all means, clarify how you reached this conclusion.
Your response demonstrates the very problem outlined in the video. It shows precisely why it is important that the video was made by a woman and the research was conducted by another woman... because if a man did so, he would be attacked and accused of all kind of falsehoods.
Just look at all the bold smears that leftists have made about my personal life in this thread, which have nothing to do with the video being discussed. Their intention is to censor, silence, and discredit views that they deem morally offensive, regardless of the data.... even if that data is benign in and of itself.
They have me feeling like Galileo out here.
Last edited:
Some of each. I replied to this comment:
This is an opinion rather than a fact, because statistical information can be selectively chosen to prove your statement both true and false. If all communication was precise, explicit and complete, we would need a lot fewer lawyers.
How success in academics is measured is the variable. Statistics can verify that a majority of new college graduates are female, or that the female group scored X% higher marks on the standardized and/ or the subjective portion of marks allotted by teachers.
The begged question is "what is the primary goal of obtaining a college diploma?". If one's answer is 'To get higher marks than most or all of the male students', 'to become an expert in my chosen field of study', or 'to be able to place letters after my name on a resume', women are doing better than men in academics. Many of them have degrees in the Humanities/ Social Sciences discipline, which traditionally is useful in obtaining employment paid on a scale well below the National mean.
If the primary goal is to have significantly higher career earnings than a high school graduate, or as a prerequisite for consideration for positions which pay above the mean, it could be either of those two genders for current or recent data, but historically, men win this one by a huge margin.
Given the earning potential in certain skilled trades, (plumber, electrician, etc.), it's likely that the true average, (ie: total income divided by the head count), earnings for men without a college degree are much higher than their female counterparts.
If the statistical statement is based solely on current data, the results could be explained by the prior education of both biological gender groups. The men in this statistic would have been receiving a 'feminized' education prior to the comparison date. The statistical difference could be explained by 'women are better at thinking like women than most men are'. It can also mean that the current crop of young men are sad sacks when compared to their predecessors.
