[–] [deleted] 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
[–] fagnig 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If i recall, its about Nordic society and how pro feminist policy it is, and how despite all the legal enabling and social supports to provide the best opportunity for gender roles to not be compelled by the state, gender still averages out in much the same way as other countries. Women trend towards choosing some jobs, as do men choosing theirs. Its worth a watch.
[–] tame 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Well, apart from the few alpha / pack leader types, men are generally expendable and interchangeable, so yeah.
(Alpha doesn't just mean 'aggressive', note - we're talking about apex humans. Smart, ruthless, resourceful, ambitious, adaptable. Anyone who complains that they're not doing well in society because they're 'too alpha' doesn't know what the word means.)
[–] [deleted] 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
[–] TAThatBoomerang [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I think it has something to do with the stronger instinct women have to do everything in their power not to be excluded from their social group. I obviously have no data to back it up, but I think that plays a significant part.
[–] mamwad 7 points 0 points 7 points (+7|-7) ago
Found another: https://i.sli.mg/C3qkDP.jpg
[–] Warden 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
KEK
#nevertrump amirite
You're like this guy, except change "I just called him by..." with "I posted an unflattering picture of him".
[–] TAThatBoomerang [S] 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
Meh, it's not really a good comparison. For two reasons, the first being that there is a clear pattern among all the SJWs that only their front teeth are visible whilst all of Trump's teeth are visible. But the biggest difference is that it looks like Trump is mid-sentence. The SJWs seemingly this as their resting face, when they're not talking.
[–] Warden 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
science itself is questionable in so many areas
Science isn't questionable. People say it is when it disproves their point of view.
None of the "scientists" saying it was cultural had a trusted sample size, whereas the ones that said it was biological had good studies.
[–] sctoor 0 points 18 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago
Eh, studies are still a perfectly good place to get information, you just have to look at their methods.
The scientific method is not biased, the folks who use it improperly are.
There are entire youtube channels devoted to taking the bullshit conclusions of 'scientific' studies and showing how that conclusion is not obtainable from the data.
We've raised a few generations of people who were told never to question anything. That's the real problem. I don't think these folks are trying to push some agenda, but they've probably never even thought about the other side.
If you teach your child to run around with blinders on and always listen to mommy, they will probably continue doing that when they're 30.
[–] Owlchemy 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
You re correct of course. I just get tired of people standing pat on any matter, saying the science is clear. When in reality, the science is always changing, that's the nature of science, and its been more recently disclosed that studied also show most scientific papers published of late cannot be repeated, or are simply sloppy work. You are right, you can trust science ... but only that which is reliably testable.
[–] twentyfive ago
woman dont know shit about pain, oh fuck.... (do they make babies) well fuck woman yeah i said it