As much as a reply to really weird tin foil hat level conspiracy thoughts (I honestly can’t tell if he’s being flippant or not) are helpful, trying to insult someone’s sexuality is actually the exact opposite of what you want to do. Considering the mainstream feminist movement champions sexual freedom, virgin shaming someone actually tarnishes the reputation of the people who are supposedly fighting for gender equality. Whether a person can get sex or not is irrelevant and baseless ad hominem. I kind of wish it wasn’t the go to response for alleged male chauvinists on the internet because it isn’t doing you much good.
It’s kind of interesting to see the spectrum of feminist ideology. If you were to take most mainstream ideologues that troll the realms of twitter and tumblr, they would not consider this woman a feminist. I believe that this woman is making a video from the same website as Christina Hoff Sommers, and while she considers herself a second wave feminist, the mainstream Anita Sarkeesian types would not consider this woman or Christina Hoff Sommers a feminist.
As someone who is considers herself a statistician (sort of, I work as an actuary, but I plan on getting a PhD in statistics eventually even though I have a Master’s degree in it), it is pretty infuriating when politically biased media outlets like Jezebel, Gawker etc cite statistics like “300% more likely” or “1 in 5” without actually providing any of the evidence in regards to any of the methodologies or pretty much how they came to this conclusion. It’s one of the worst and most fallacious arguments that I’ve found on the internet. When people see a number, they don’t question where the numbers came from, they simply shut down their ability to think critically about how people can come to conclusions (especially a conclusion as politically and socially damning as this one) with the information they’ve been given. These kinds of things can get really messy especially when there is no methodology (or even sample population for that matter), statistical coding, or potential confounding variables to describe any results. Nope, just a simple “x group is this much more likely do commit this crime,” without any political or cultural context that might shed light on what is actually happening.
Anyways, it’s pretty refreshing to see that some people have the ability to interpret numbers correctly and understands the gravity of the situation especially when you’re using the conclusions to try and shut down a system that people have put their time and hard earned money into.
By the way, I don’t see how men wanting more sex on average is really a bold statement at all. I mean considering testosterone is the hormone that drives human sexuality and men do have… ya know ten times more of it on average than women. Not to mention it even makes sense from a reproductive standpoint. A man can impregnate many different women at a time which makes his ability to produce fertile offspring pretty much endless (under the assumption that he can get said sex, of course). Women have an extended period of time and generally only have one child at a time. From a standpoint of propagation of the human race, it kind of would make sense that men would have evolved a higher sex drive… don’t you think?
Wait so you’re telling me that human beings are naturally hierarchical and that fact really isn’t any different when it comes to human sexuality? You’re telling me that the act of sex and human sexuality is used as a bargaining chip and leverage in certain scenarios which pretty much makes it an almost quantifiable economic equation??? No way!!! I never would have guessed!!
Just kidding, I’ve studied mathematics, computer science, statistics, and financial engineering all throughout my career as an undergraduate and a graduate student and you don’t need to be a PhD student in economics to realize this. All you need to do is take a cursory glance at the world around you, it’s pretty obvious.
As much as a reply to really weird tin foil hat level conspiracy thoughts (I honestly can’t tell if he’s being flippant or not) are helpful, trying to insult someone’s sexuality is actually the exact opposite of what you want to do. Considering the mainstream feminist movement champions sexual freedom, virgin shaming someone actually tarnishes the reputation of the people who are supposedly fighting for gender equality. Whether a person can get sex or not is irrelevant and baseless ad hominem. I kind of wish it wasn’t the go to response for alleged male chauvinists on the internet because it isn’t doing you much good.
It’s kind of interesting to see the spectrum of feminist ideology. If you were to take most mainstream ideologues that troll the realms of twitter and tumblr, they would not consider this woman a feminist. I believe that this woman is making a video from the same website as Christina Hoff Sommers, and while she considers herself a second wave feminist, the mainstream Anita Sarkeesian types would not consider this woman or Christina Hoff Sommers a feminist.
As someone who is considers herself a statistician (sort of, I work as an actuary, but I plan on getting a PhD in statistics eventually even though I have a Master’s degree in it), it is pretty infuriating when politically biased media outlets like Jezebel, Gawker etc cite statistics like “300% more likely” or “1 in 5” without actually providing any of the evidence in regards to any of the methodologies or pretty much how they came to this conclusion. It’s one of the worst and most fallacious arguments that I’ve found on the internet. When people see a number, they don’t question where the numbers came from, they simply shut down their ability to think critically about how people can come to conclusions (especially a conclusion as politically and socially damning as this one) with the information they’ve been given. These kinds of things can get really messy especially when there is no methodology (or even sample population for that matter), statistical coding, or potential confounding variables to describe any results. Nope, just a simple “x group is this much more likely do commit this crime,” without any political or cultural context that might shed light on what is actually happening.
Anyways, it’s pretty refreshing to see that some people have the ability to interpret numbers correctly and understands the gravity of the situation especially when you’re using the conclusions to try and shut down a system that people have put their time and hard earned money into.
By the way, I don’t see how men wanting more sex on average is really a bold statement at all. I mean considering testosterone is the hormone that drives human sexuality and men do have… ya know ten times more of it on average than women. Not to mention it even makes sense from a reproductive standpoint. A man can impregnate many different women at a time which makes his ability to produce fertile offspring pretty much endless (under the assumption that he can get said sex, of course). Women have an extended period of time and generally only have one child at a time. From a standpoint of propagation of the human race, it kind of would make sense that men would have evolved a higher sex drive… don’t you think?
Wait so you’re telling me that human beings are naturally hierarchical and that fact really isn’t any different when it comes to human sexuality? You’re telling me that the act of sex and human sexuality is used as a bargaining chip and leverage in certain scenarios which pretty much makes it an almost quantifiable economic equation??? No way!!! I never would have guessed!!
Just kidding, I’ve studied mathematics, computer science, statistics, and financial engineering all throughout my career as an undergraduate and a graduate student and you don’t need to be a PhD student in economics to realize this. All you need to do is take a cursory glance at the world around you, it’s pretty obvious.