Originally posted by Bardock42
I would do so...but the poll link doesn't work for me.Redirects to http://www.pollhost.com/
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Can't you just tell us what it says?
You have to go back to that link posted earlier where that poll came from:
http://www.singularity2050.com/2012/06/a-first-quarter-poll-on-the-misandry-bubble.html
It wasn't that hard, people. 😠
Originally posted by dadudemon
You have to go back to that link posted earlier where that poll came from:http://www.singularity2050.com/2012/06/a-first-quarter-poll-on-the-misandry-bubble.html
It wasn't that hard, people. 😠
Hmm, over 5000 votes. Looks statistically significant to me. Guess that proves it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You have to go back to that link posted earlier where that poll came from:http://www.singularity2050.com/2012/06/a-first-quarter-poll-on-the-misandry-bubble.html
It wasn't that hard, people. 😠
Looks like 5000 of the people linked to it feel like Misandry is a thing (and an important one at that). Now, if we knew what places this poll has been linked to (MRA forums, for example) it may be a bit more interesting.
Though it reminds me of this funny tweet:
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? That's a damn lie. Never seen anything more vindictive than a man whose ego has been bruised.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hmm, over 5000 votes. Looks statistically significant to me. Guess that proves it.
😆
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Sarcasm? I think that 5k votes can be statistically significant. I also think that 50k votes can be statistically insignificant.
It's sarcasm. The median reading demographic of that website is most likely white, partially college educated, 20-45 years old, males.
Also, the poll is voluntary and the poll is tainted by a lot of text proceeding the poll itself.
To me, that's like going to an NAACP meeting to count the race demographics of America and then being shocked when it appears that almost all Americans are black. Gaspity! 😆
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Sarcasm? I think that 5k votes can be statistically significant. I also think that 50k votes can be statistically insignificant.
It's a joke.
With 5000 votes the difference between groups for those three options is clearly statistically significant (unlikely to occur by chance) but all it really represents is the beliefs of people on that site.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's a joke.With 5000 votes the difference between groups for those three options is clearly statistically significant (unlikely to occur by chance) but all it really represents is the beliefs of people on that site.
Indeed. The disparity of votes is very glaring.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't disagree with your definition. However I would say that, while some aspects of patriarchy have definitely changed, and rigid gender norms have been somewhat loosened, this still is the type of society we live in. Almost all CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are men, and have been men. All presidents and a majority of politicians are man and have been men. These facts alone insinuate that leadership and control is still squarely in the hands of men (a majority of rich, white, straight ... men, to be exact).
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Yes, their are lot of men in organizations and many are in the top positions but this will change in coming decades.
---
However, trend is changing:
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/united-states-matriarchy
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20057608.html
CEOs do not represent the changing dynamics of "women slowly gaining the upperhand over men" in various walks of life.
This should give you an idea:
Since women have begin to outnumber men in educational institutions with passage of time, a time will eventually come when women will outnumber men even in the workplaces. This shift will also pave way for many women to reach the position of CEOs in the near future. Men have begin to loose their game in USA.
Originally posted by Bardock42
There has been some progress made to make this less the case, however we are nowhere near an gender equal society, and definitely not on the way to something matriarchal.
Law and Order system in USA is under the grasp of feminists in current times. Several laws have been introduced which favor women over men. Some examples of laws designed to favor women and emasculate men:-
1. No-fault divorce law
2. Abortion law
3. VAWA (for battered women)
4. Extreme Martial Rape law
5. Restraining order
6. Bradley amendment child-support
7. Extreme rape laws
All of these laws grant women options to hurt men and get away with it without serious consequences.
In addition, laws have been introduced which have led to decline of (male-only) institutions and vice versa. Female-only institutions currently outnumber male-only institutions in USA and this gap may widen in near future.
You just wait and see; from family units to institutes, everything will be turned in the favor of women as long as feminism continues.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Patriarchy hurts men and women (women more however), and men's rights activists make some good points, however rather than working on eliminating these problems they side with the system that creates and upholds them and demonize feminists, who have done a hell of a lot to liberate both women and men from rigid gender roles.
As far as feminists are concerned, first generation did good job for promoting equality. Second generation went too far.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Although both Digi and Oliver North are correct that not all feminists are for equality, not all feminists are smart, not all feminists can separate patriarchy from men...that's a completely different issue though, imo, feminism as a movement has had nothing but positive effects on both genders.
Originally posted by Oliver North
at 50k data points, you'd need an almost even split for any difference not to be significant...just saying...
It depends, but if you have 90% of the votes in the favour of one option then something is not right. Especially if it's a controversial topic like sexism, abortion, gay marriage, etc.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
It depends, but if you have 90% of the votes in the favour of one option then something is not right. Especially if it's a controversial topic like sexism, abortion, gay marriage, etc.
I'm just talking about the math used to determine statistical significance.
The more data points you have (5k vs 50k), the more likely the difference is to be significant.
So, imagine you have a 60/40 split. With 5 people, that probably isn't significant, with 5k, it probably is, with 50k I don't even need to look at the numbers.
lol, it gets more complicated, and I love rambling about statistics if you really want me to go on.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm just talking about the math used to determine statistical significance.The more data points you have (5k vs 50k), the more likely the difference is to be significant.
So, imagine you have a 60/40 split. With 5 people, that probably isn't significant, with 5k, it probably is, with 50k I don't even need to look at the numbers.
lol, it gets more complicated, and I love rambling about statistics if you really want me to go on.
I know where you're coming from. My angle is that if you link your poll to a 100 websites that, say, support gay marriage and get 5000 votes supporting gay marriage. Now do the same thing with a 1000 websites, you'll get 50k votes supporting gay marriage. Sure, you'll get some outliers that don't support it, but the overall percentage will be similar.
Now if we're talking about a poll that tries to diversify its respondents as much as possible, I'd take the 5k data points of such a poll any day over a poll of 50k data points that did not bother to diversify. Then again, I don't know much about statistics.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
It depends, but if you have 90% of the votes in the favour of one option then something is not right. Especially if it's a controversial topic like sexism, abortion, gay marriage, etc.
There is a huge difference between significance and generalizability. For example, perils of internet polling aside, this would be good statistical evidence about users of that site. You could go more into philosophy of question construction, though.
Originally posted by Oliver North
man, what does Digi have to do to get recognition here?
lol, my thoughts exactly at one point. I was considering slinging some insults just to get a reply.
Originally posted by Raisen
I forgot how many of you guys there were. symmetric is definitely part of your team tho
Still framing it as a competition, complete with teams. Wrong mindset here, friend.
You're not going to change your mind talking to a few people you're inherently defensive toward on an internet board. Go travel the world - hell, the country - and get back to me. If you still think you're the most marginalized demographic in the country due to the Civil War and the Simpsons, then we can talk.
And go read The Three Musketeers. My violin is named D'Artagnan. Damned good stuff.
Regarding the OP: This seems like an odd story and the way you've written barely makes sense. It also is also anecdotal and such a minor thing doesn't really correlate to anything meaningful.
Feminism is one giant conspiracy theory, where you replace the word "illuminati" with the word "Patriarchy". Then you lobby for legislation to save you from your imagined oppression and everyone goes along with it because of the use of emotional language that manages to bypass logic.
Patriarchy does exist, but not in the way most feminists assume it does. Patriarchy does not and has never benefited men to the exclusion of women. Examples would be: any war ever, women's suffrage compared to men having to earn the right to vote by going to war, high death risk jobs done almost exclusively by men, etc.
Originally posted by Cyner
Patriarchy does not and has never benefited men to the exclusion of women.
That is not a proposed trait of patriarchy.
Actually, let me rephrase. This sentence is arguably an accurate description. Your following example are not evidence against patriarchy or sexism, simply evidence that bad things happen to men. Such an observation is fairly meaningless. Rich white people in South Africa didn't have perfect lives but they still benefited from apartheid massively more than the black population.