812
813

TwoX has their daily circlejerk about how medicine is misogynist. Motherfucking CARDIOLOGIST shows up to disprove them - gets downvoted and called a shitlord. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by needsomehelp3211

Summary: Feelz over realz. The feminist dogma relies on a coherent narrative, that women are always oppressed by the evil male patriarchy. In order to uphold this narrative they must demonize reality, including fields like science and medicine. Facts be damned. In this way, they keep the outrage train choo-chooing.

Full thread here.

My mouth dropped open after reading this. Like, I knew that feminists hate science and rationality, but they're usually clever enough not to demonstrate that so openly. Today however was a different matter. TwoXChromosomes (the feminist mothership on reddit, for those who don't know... and unfortunately a default sub, God knows why) was having their usual circlejerking about how science is anti-women and full of cis white oppress-lords.

Remember the asteroid guy and the T-shirt? Feminist and science have never been comfortable with each other so this is nothing new. Today, though, TwoX focused its hatred on medicine.

I remember a professor I had once tell me that they know a lot less about female anatomy and physiology than male's.

Upvoted to 70, based on I know a friend of a friend who once told me blah blah blah... But of course it satisfies the feminist imperative, so it gets lauded as truth. Even though it's clearly bullshit - scientific studies routinely control for both genders when doing clinical trials, as anyone with a basic biology degree would tell you.

Therein lies the problem... feminists don't have biology degrees, they have gender studies degrees. Now, this wouldn't be so bad if they learned to shut their mouths when adults are talking. But watch what happens when an actual cardiologist (heart doctor) interrupted the circlejerk to tell them they're full of shit -

Your professor is a moron. On any given day in this country, hundreds of thousands of women are undergoing surgeries and imaging studies of various sorts. It's not the 1800s.

^ Sounds reasonable, right? But it hurts TwoX's feelings...

Just going to note that I really hope you don't take the holier than thou tone you've taken throughout this comment thread with your patients. They will never trust you if you cannot communicate effectively and respectfully. All your medical training means nothing if they dismiss you from the get go as a big headed jerk that just wants to sound smart, leading to them ignoring preventative advice and treatment plans.

Feelz

Over

Realz

These TwoXers don't care that this guy is probably among the smartest people in the country. They just care that he's a big mean bully! That's essentially what feminism (and honestly, womankind in general) boils down to at its core. If you hurt their emotions, they don't give a shit if you're a cardiologist who has 12 years of training at rigorously competitive medical institutions. They only care if you're politically correct... and if you're not, then you're no better than any other shitlord.

These people just continue to amaze me. The RedPill lesson here is: don't argue with feminists science because they don't accept science. They simply don't. To women, getting an English or Gender Relations degree makes them just as qualified.

TL;DR: Women care more about emotions than logic or reason. So if you're arguing with a woman, don't argue based on rationality because they are pretty much incapable of thinking on that wavelength. Emotional teenagers indeed.


[–]McLarenX 296 points297 points  (17 children)

I've never had someone tell me "Dr. /u/elohelrahfel, I really appreciated it when you revived by dead heart by sucking out the clot in my coronary artery within an hour of me showing up to the hospital, but it's hard for me to take you seriously because you think you know more about heart disease than me."

LOVE this guy! Probably turned on some secret feelz too with that statement!

[–][deleted] 53 points54 points  (14 children)

You know what though? This attitude is being taken on by more than just patients, and it's really killing me. At my medical school (top tier, very committed to "social justice") we have at least one patient paraded in front of us every month in a mandatory session. The MDs in charge of the program (who only practice once a week now in a shitty free clinic and never see serious cases) just let these patients tell us that our care is useless unless we can connect with the patient.

I understand that there are social factors involved in providing ideal care, especially in a primary care setting, but you just let a random woman currently undergoing rehab for heroine abuse tell me how to be a doctor, and her advice was that all the doctors were shit except the ones that listened to her feelz (and likely enabled her drug habit even more).

It's insane how prevalent this mentality is, and doctors who want to treat you correctly are treated like garbage while those who bend to all the patient's demands are lauded.

[–]samenrofringslikeLBJ 20 points20 points [recovered]

This is not strictly a female thing though. Over here in Sweden, doctors have allready been suspended because they wanted to shake their patients hand but the faith of the patient prohibits that. And vice versa as well, some doctors acting inappropriately because of their faith/culture. Prospective doctors now have to take classes with Drama students to learn how to engage with patients correctly, like wtf is that shit.

I´d say this has much more to do with the general post-modernism, everybody thinking they are a special snowflake and a medical degree can be suppleanted by a quick google search. People are not comfortable with the slightest hint of law&order, me as patient am supposed to tell doctor whats wrong, doctor is supposed to fix the cause. Thats it. Nothing more.

[–]dblink 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It absolutely is a feminist thing. I lived in Sweden for a bit and love it to death, but they have gone far past tolerance for everyone, and are actively harming EVERYONE that lives there. Brain Drain is real, they will realize that, just hopefully not too late.

[–]HeadingRed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm male, in my 40's and born\live in the USA. Women seem to ignore science in larger numbers than men here- several of my female relatives have fallen prey to vitamins\magic potions that will cure ailments and think by eating pomegranates they can cure cancer. We still have a large male contingent as well who discount science in a different way- I still remember my uncle who thought smoking was OK and a lie by liberal college guys to control him. He's the same guy who never wore a seatbelt because he thought is was safer to be "thrown clear of the car accident" (actual quote).

Never underestimate the ability of people to choose what's easy and makes them feel good over what's hard to do and understand. My sister with a college degree (in a legit major) is morbidly obese - I don't mean kind of big I mean 5'4" and about 350lbs- still drinks health drinks, takes enzyme pills and tells me this one will finally work and make her thin.

I have another aunt who wears magnets and copper to help arthritis. I have an uncle who has a pillbox and talks about taking over 50 vitamin pills a day.

And don't get me started on the anti-vaccine people. In the US self-delusion is a right and the streets are full of them.

It's one of the things that seem to cross all political boundaries. I'm going to open my tinfoil hat factory and retire.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 33 points34 points  (1 child)

Women actively subvert medical science.

Case in point. For how many years have we been parading around pink ribbons and collecting piles of money for breast cancer research? Decades. And where has it taken us? Vastly improved outcomes. And why do we have better outcomes--well for the most part it is because we catch it much earlier and before it becomes a problem--IF it even becomes a problem. The last part is important, because it means we see doctors intervening on cases that might never become an actual problem, but by doing so the outcomes across all women improve dramatically.

But I don't actually expect the outcomes to improve more. In fact, I expect them to get worse. Why? Because the process terrifies women now. My wife and half of her friends are literally years overdue on mammograms because that "cancer scare" they had the last time. They frequently talk about their experiences and how they avoid the constant nagging from the doctors. Of course, "cancer scare" might mean as little as secondary screening, but it sure as hell FELT like a cancer scare to them.

TL;DR: despite the patriarchy, women finally get what they want and they run from it scared.

[–]Trigger-Me-Daddy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For how many years have we been parading around pink ribbons and collecting piles of money for breast cancer research? Decades. And where has it taken us? Vastly improved outcomes.

An aside to that, a woman here a few years ago was dying of pancreatic cancer (and has since died) was taking part in an ad campaign. The advert she was in said "I wish I had breast cancer". Obviously because of the much better outcomes, based in increased knowledge from massive funding - and the importance of the pancreas in the body making everything regarding its function very difficult. She, a woman dying of cancer, received hate mail - including a wishing that she would die - because she would rather have treatable breast cancer than terminal pancreatic cancer. These people tried to have a very powerful and apt campaign taken down because someone they knew died of breast cancer or they survived it themselves, so obviously this woman didn't deserve any money to go towards the cancer that would kill her. A cancer that has had very little change in survival rates - if any - for years.

[–]jm51 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Our GP while I was growing up had a superb relationship with his patients. Lovely guy. Our family joke about him is that he has killed more patients than Harold Shipman, except that he didn't mean to.

My current GP is a no nonsense type of guy and if he thinks you'll get better without medication, then you don't get medication. Exactly the type of GP I want.

[–]NotUpToAnythingGood 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That describes my doctors (one is a male MD, the other is a female Nurse Practitioner). The NP is a great doc. She listens, checks, and acts according to best practice medical science. She gets that every patient is different but at the same time, also very similar. Both are also very open to the idea that they don't know the answer and will get trusted specialists involved when necessary.

The NP likes that we use effective home remedies to treat minor things like colds and fevers. Then again, I grew up on a farm (had to learn basic first aid for humans and animals) and my wife is a (retired USN) Hospital Corpsman.

I love seeing them. My family & I get outstanding medical care from them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I felt that Step 2 CS is a feelz over realz exam, for all intents and purposes

[–]givepositivecomments 2 points3 points  (1 child)

More like a "weed out the immigrants who haven't bothered learning English" test.

[–]McLarenX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My surgeon was very thankful to have me as a patient just because I was committed to my own health and wanted to work hard at getting better and returning to my job. Guess the prevailing attitude amongst most people getting care these days is the expectation of being babied and not being told the truth about their conditions and what personal responsibility steps they need to take. And, sadly, I see a lot of healthcare workers baby these people instead of giving them tough love and telling them to own the fuck up to their own life choices and fix shit.

[–]cashcow1 0 points1 point  (1 child)

A psychiatrist probably needs to listen to feels. A surgeon should give absolutely no fucks about feels.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd disagree again. Also, it depends on the type of surgeon. A trauma surgeon operating on a man fresh from a car crash who was admitted unconscious doesn't need the same type of skills with his patient because he's just a limp body. On the other hand an orthopedic or general surgeon definitely has to consider the patients point of view and what they're looking for as an outcome.

[–]M1ster_MeeSeeks 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Been scrolling through top posts of the month (hence the delayed response), /u/elohelrahfel has a suspended reddit account. Nice...

[–]McLarenX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jesus. We had a board certified cardiologist offering input and it hurt so many fee fees that he was silenced. The western world is going to shit.

[–][deleted] 153 points154 points  (29 children)

The thread actually gets even better. The doctor presents loads of facts only for the retards to still claim doctors ignore womens' heart problems because of different symptoms. He, of course, said they're full of shit and has never seen the negligence they described happen.

[–]WilliamBott 72 points73 points  (6 children)

Of course he says that. He's just a cismale shitlord using his bullshit "degree" to lie to women and say they are largely the same as men when it comes to organs and organ response. /s

[–]improvingme63 46 points47 points  (4 children)

The only reason to ever get a STEM degree is to opress women /s

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (1 child)

I'm in medical school specifically to provide inferior care to women.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 11 points12 points  (0 children)

As a mechanic I strive to charge girls four times as much as a man, because they'll pay 4x as much for underwear so why not getting her car fixed too? I use my engineering knowledge to oppress girls as well, because science.

[–]andhakanoon 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Well then, as a STEM graduate, I'm glad I studied this!!!

/s

[–]Endorsed ContributorMarsupian 25 points26 points  (16 children)

When Im rushed to a hospital with a cardiovascular problem I dont give a rats ass whether my doctor has a thorough understanding of how I experience symptoms. I care about his diagnostic and operating skills and I hope he relies more on his ecg reading and other well researched diagnostic tools over my subjective experience of my symptoms.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Don't underestimate the power of social skills in being a doctor though. The patient interview is extremely important, and it will often reveal some very pertinent information. Ultimately you go off of objective test results, but the patient will often be the best source of information for symptoms and which tests to order. In emergency situations or surgery this is often not the case, so I don't give a fuck if my trauma surgeon is a neo-nazi, but in a routine visit I've seen doctors miss a diagnosis tons of times because of poor interviewing skills.

[–]jmottram08 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Eh... this whole thing is overblown. We (I am in med school currently) are taught the differing symptoms men and women have during a MI.

Its not some mystery... its frequently tested on the national boards.

A woman of MI age comes in with nausea / heartburn without a history of reflux and you immediately slap on an ecg.

Its not hard, it's not complex, its what we are trained to do, and we do it.

[–]199639 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well I'm a doc and I want to say that many diagnoses are contingent on asking the right questions and it is true that women and men experience different symptoms for certain conditions like heart attack. Your doc needs to know what to ask and how to ask it to get good information from a scared and confused person. Patients often greatly overestimate how important objective testing is versus subjective description from the patient. The history and review of systems are the foundation of practice.

However this is a major topic of our education. It's vitally important to learn to recognize the symptoms of MI and we do spend a lot of time on it. The bullshit part here is that these feminists want to play victim even when the facts don't support it. They want to pretend that doctors neglect women and don't even bother to study female anatomy, even though more women than men graduate med school each year. Oppression Olympics.

[–]hamsterbator 1 point2 points  (10 children)

actually you should care because the history will give away the diagnosis the majority of the time.

You can have a negative work up and still have an MI under the right clinical context. Unfortunately this is why we still have to talk to patients every day and let them yammer...

If I just went by your ECG and tropinins I would never diagnose your potential aortic dissection..

[–]givepositivecomments -1 points0 points  (9 children)

If someone comes in with chest pain and ALL you get is an ECG and trop without a CXR, then I've got bad news for you son.

That being said, certainly more than one aortic dissection has been noted on a cath for a supposed STEMI... something like 1% of aortic dissections present as STEMI, usually RCA territory.

[–]hamsterbator 0 points1 point  (8 children)

not to sidetrack into medicine too far but chest X-rays have incredibly poor sensitivity for picking up dissections which is why history and symptoms are so important.

[–]givepositivecomments -1 points0 points  (7 children)

http://bestbets.org/bets/bet.php?id=569

Most of these numbers are 60-70%. You're right that you would miss a lot of cases, but "incredibly poor" is an overstatement.

[–]hamsterbator 0 points1 point  (6 children)

just curious are you in the medical field?

I don't know what country you live in where 65% sensitivity is considered anywhere close to a good test. In the US putting any faith on such a low sensitivity test is a false reassurance that will all but guarantee you will end up as a medical-legal statistic. For PE for example most physicians would consider even 10% risk to be intermediate to high risk.

It is a moot point as everyone coming into the ED with chest pain is auto-ordered a CXR.

[–]givepositivecomments -1 points0 points  (5 children)

Yes. 65% for a rare diagnosis is pretty good, esp. when the findings of dissection have really good specificity. Unless you're seriously suggesting we CT PE protocol every single patient with chest pain that comes into the ED, we will never have the level of sensitivity that you want.

And if you do think we need to do a triple rule out of every single CP patient who comes through the ED, you are part of the problem.

I'm not saying we rely on a CXR to make or break the diagnosis, if you have high suspicion, by all means get the CT.

[–]hamsterbator 0 points1 point  (4 children)

My initial point in the thread is you have to rely on this history, not the tests as your history will dictate your workup.

We will have to agree to disagree if you want to stake your argument on 65% being a good sensitivity for any test, especially when you are dealing with a fatal diagnosis.

[–]givepositivecomments 1 point2 points  (3 children)

You don't decide how good a test is based on sensitivity, you decide how good it is based on positive predictive value, which depends on your a priori assumption. Yes, if your suspicion for aortic dissection is high, a negative CXR shouldn't stop you, get that CT. If your suspicion is pretty low, a negative CXR is pretty good, for the love of God don't kill the patient's kidneys and give them cancer just because you want to be the guy who diagnoses the one aortic dissection that comes in that year.

[–]loddfavne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think a lot of people are on board with you on this one. Perhaps the success of the brilliant TV-series House M.D. was because of this attitude. Being rational, that is.

[–]Cord87 19 points20 points  (3 children)

To be fair, a few commenters backed him up. It was mainly one idiot who kept that part of the thread going

[–]dingman58 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Yep, I will shit on feminazis all day but the linked thread shows maybe 3/5 posters being reasonable and agreeing with the cardiologist. Kind of surprising actually

[–]dblink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is the ratio of supports to detractors. Maybe 3/5 posters supported him, but look at the vote totals. Why engage in debate that might expand your views and knowledge when you can click downvote and move on?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't do the mistake of arguing with feminists at all, in their eyes you've already lost before your first comment. It's just a pointless waste of time to try to teach them anything. Come on, a lot of them get gender studies degrees which already shows that they don't think logically and don't even take their own life and finances seriously.

[–][deleted] 100 points101 points  (25 children)

I practice medicine. Easily 60-70% of newgrad doctors are females and has been for the past 6+ years. Women doctors/students are generally treated better by senior male collegues, especially if she is good looking. They will get taken under the guy's wing and taught more because she has a vagina.

As well as there being more female doctors, 95% of the nurses are female meaning the hospital is female dominant. This however doesn't stop them preaching that they are discriminated against. Even though they get payed the same as males.

[–]RedPillFreedom 22 points23 points  (1 child)

95% of the nurses are female meaning the hospital is female dominant

I went to one of those hospitals. They claimed to help people with their chronic pain management program. It felt exactly like this.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 11 points12 points  (0 children)

All feminists utopias will be led by a few men supported by a large force of male grunts. Women and sjws are just useful idiots of the elite. Women are vehicles that the elite and gov use to oppress men.

[–]Galactic-Unicorn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We have a few in our ED just now. I enjoyed pointing out that their class was 68% female leaving med school.

A couple of them take severe offence to being told to run x test before they discharge a pt. My ED takes no prisoners, our senior staff are a good bunch.

[–][deleted] 9 points9 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Galactic-Unicorn 1 point2 points  (15 children)

Most med school classes these days are female dominated.

*Little edit. As shown below this not true in the USA. It is however the case in the UK. YMMV.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (13 children)

Well, that's not true, but you will find most of the top schools (specifically UCSF) touting very high female percentages and low male percentages as a positive thing. I never understood why overcompensation was lauded so highly in this country.

[–]Galactic-Unicorn 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Looks like I have to eat my words, although I'm UK based, I'd have to check what the UK stats are.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

On TRP, when presented with information that objectively opposes one's established bias, men actually yield and change their view instead of hamstering up a solution for why they are still correct.

[–]Galactic-Unicorn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To maintain a point that is objectively false would be illogical. You've certainly challenged my previous bias that all Western med schools were female majority. Thanks.

In the UK the reverse is true.(warning, PDF)

Shorter snappier source

I wonder what the true, exact reasons are for this difference.

[–]1mojo_juju 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And goddamn if it isn't a breath of fresh air in a world of unyielding, anti-intellectual, self-aggrandizing, comfort-seeking ignorance.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

UCSF is about 50/50, with more males being admitted. In what sense is 50% a "low male percentage"? 50/50 kind of looks about average for that list just skimming it over. I'm not saying some schools like to tout they admit a lot of females, but your example doesn't really make sense.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children)

That's in 2015-16. If you look through their history you'll find they are at the forefront of the social justice in medicine. In recent years they've toned down on female admits because the female application pool is actually larger than the male application pool. However, for years they prided themselves on admitting a greater number of female students and minorities than are prevalent in the general population as a way of evening things out. The fact that they've stopped as things approach parity is actually a great sign, though it's what is to be expected since these universities have a vested interest in admitting those students with high stats and probability of success. There are some checks and balances in place.

[–]1mojo_juju 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I recall an article about 5 years ago discussing how medical schools are beginning to recognize that female doctors seem to drop out of the profession at a higher rate than males, once they hit the wall.

Doctor status? Check. Married? Check. Babies? Check.

All done. Kick the legs up. Shove Beta-bitch-husband out to work. The easy life + 100% of all possible social status points.

Medical schools seem to see it as a misplaced bet. Are they correcting course?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see. Why do you think these schools admit more women than men?

[–]frankgrimes5 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Your own linked aamc stats show that ~54% of applicants are male (46 female) yet ~48% of matriculants are female (52% male). It's not huge but there's definitely a gender gap (~4%) and according to these stats the female application pool is in fact smaller, not larger.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Huh, that's 2015-2016, so I think it changes if you look at the last 5 years or so, but yeah you're right about that. One of my interviewers had told me the year I applied that most applicants were female now and it had been that way for a few years. Maybe he was talking about that particular school. It was in NYC and just about every female premed in the world gets wet just thinking about living the Sex and the City lifestyle through med school.

[–]frankgrimes5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's very possible. I'm pretty sure in Canada there are far more female applicants and matriculants. For a while it was like 55 or 60% female matriculants on avg, up to 70% at UofC and Mac. Now they seem to be reversing the trend, accepting a higher proportion of males than the applicant pool. Might be due to all those stats coming out on female doctors abandoning the field halfway through their careers.

Edit: did a quick google and I was on the money. Stats show female medical students made up 55%+ since 2001/2002, and female doctors in Canada make up 61% of doctors <35yo (40% overall, though that will clearly be different in a few years time), and another article came up saying 70% of medical students in the UK are female.

[–]1mojo_juju 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I could +100 you for providing a source, I would.

I guess my expectations are too goddamn high for TRP.

I expect guys to have enough integrity to backup their claims. And goddamn does it bring a smile to my face when someone calls bullshit while providing a validating source.

(Now women.. do they back up their claims?... wait... as in, demonstrating intellectual integrity? ha. Haha. HAHAHAHA... ahh you make me laugh. They'd never trouble themselves with a premise. That takes work... as in... 1 or 2 google searches)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, they must be doubly stupid considering dentists aren't M.D's.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's linked to the state of the whole education system. More women get better marks in high school, so more of them go to university. Even though men dominate stem as a whole, biology, the main pre med is female majority (60% or so). Women get better GPAs, and so get accepted into med schools more.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

59% of my class is female, but I'm pretty sure the national average is closer to 50:50. I agree with the female dominated environment of the hospital, but honestly I think being a man (specifically being a man who cares about his appearance) has only helped in my medical education. Nurses are more willing to help me out, while they get bitchy towards my female classmates (especially if they are better looking).

The one demographic I can't stand are post-wall female doctors, specifically in the 40-50 range. If I get an attending who clearly used to be an attractive female, they take offense to my presence nearly immediately. They see a man in an inferior position to their own and it's a turn off, regardless of whether or not they are thinking about it explicitly. We all know that women don't respect men who don't give them tingles. Specifically, fuck OB/GYN. Never am I in a more toxic environment than when I have to deal with OB/GYN.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree. Working in ob/gyn with those empowered man hating female doctorswas one of the worse things I have had to deal with

[–]jzekyllandhyde 76 points77 points  (12 children)

Well we know a lot about women biology but women refuse to believe it and acknowledge it.

Or they just like being mysterious. I think it's this.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 121 points122 points  (8 children)

Women are not mysterious, they're intentionally ambiguous. They like having control of the narrative so they can morph it into what benefits them the most in that moment.

Without a cloud of mystery, women can't get what they want because the things they want can't be obtained through reasonable means (i.e. entitlement to resources they didn't earn).

[–]Black-Pill 13 points14 points  (2 children)

I think it is even less pragmatic than a straight forward grab for resources. I think it is simply that women don't have any fixed idea of what they want, the ambiguity/mystery is really about wanting rather than getting. The wanting part is the Tesla Coil of Feelz which is really all they crave

[–]morsX 7 points8 points  (1 child)

It is closer to a lack of self-awareness. This extends to men as well. People just aren't forced to override their feelings with introspective examination. This lack of understanding causes bad behaviors to be perpetuated indefinitely.

[–]frankgrimes5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They're actually good behaviors, from an evolutionary perspective.

[–]forcevacum 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's the best cloak to hide behind because it shields their two most powerful weapons, gaslighting and plausible deniability.

[–]1Jax77789 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Women play the 48 instinctively. Remain "formless" here.

[–]antifragileman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Always love when I see 48 laws references, it literally fits into almost any life situation.

[–]vagbutters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ding ding ding. This is why women never give a clear answer about their sexual past. "Oh it just happened!" not "I fucked Chad because I had the tingles for him."

[–]_the_shape_ 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Or they just like being mysterious.

As far as circumstances go, the optimal position for a woman to hold is one where they can seem innocent without actually having to be innocent. "These thick-rimmed glasses make me mostly geeky librarian with a drop or two of freak - perfect." Being "mysterious" meshes beautifully with plausible deniability.

"I can't believe I dated a 43 year old plastic surgeon (hypergamy) with three kids ." (cop out 'explanation' ...girls are mysterious...)

"Bitches be crazy" > (cop out 'explanation' ...girls are mysterious...)

"The past is the past" (in other words, don't look at that part of my resume, don't figure me out!) (cop out 'explanation' ...girls are mysterious...)

It's not women that need convincing about the biology of women though, it's MEN

[–]CasualCocaine 88 points89 points  (27 children)

Anyone that doesn't agree is a big mean bully, and if they try to explain nicely why they are wrong then they are patronizing. Fucks sake man, some people just can not be helped...

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (9 children)

Its like they can't understand anything that doesn't fit the feminist narrative. Agree all you want with them that women have been oppressed in the past, may be treated unfairly at times because of their gender, are objectified or payed less in certain circumstances and the are all ears. But point out that men have it tough too like in suicide, homelessness and education etc and its like "Lol women are just better than men", or "men need to toughen up."

Swallow the pill, be aware that people are fallacious and when the topic comes up just smile and nod and don't argue. Change the topic or talk to someone else and create a situation where you are in control and can be your awesome self. Arguing against it really is a losing battle and can destroy your reputation.

[–]_the_shape_ 33 points34 points  (6 children)

Swallow the pill, be aware that people are fallacious and when the topic comes up just smile and nod and don't argue. Change the topic or talk to someone else and create a situation where you are in control and can be your awesome self. Arguing against it really is a losing battle and can destroy your reputation.

Exactly.

Enjoy the decline.

Feign disinterest or ignorance of the subject with the most subtle trace of interest as possible. "Wow. The gape wap is that bad? I never knew about that. That's terrible. Are you still running that 5k next weekend?"

If you get attacked for not picking a side (the feminist one of course), of being "negligent" (of not being up to date on the endless war on women ["patriarchy!"]), they've now given you enough reason to walk away. Self-righteous hostility is still hostility.

Try to look at arguing with a feminist like challenging someone to a farting competition - whether you win or not is irrelevant, that you participated alone is pathetic enough.

[–]WilliamBott 10 points11 points  (4 children)

The gape wap

I laughed way too hard at this.

[–]KorianHUN 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Oh shit, women who work 75% as much only make 80% of what men make! Hely shit, women are getting underpaid, they are nearly slaves!
Ignore the fact that women get jobs easier just because they are women.

[–]vagbutters 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But but muh feminist bible told me that wymen are oppressed in the workplace and get paid less!!! The feminist blogs didn't quote sources but I feel oppressed in the workplace.

[–]_the_shape_ 4 points5 points  (1 child)

hahahaha!

Unintended, but now that you pointed it out I'm going to use it for real someday.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is my new favorite term as well. Typos make great comedy and gifts.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRunawayGrain 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its like they can't understand anything that doesn't fit the feminist narrative.

The problem is that they don't understand it, and it has no ambiguity for them to fake understanding it. So they pick up some new age stuff and run with it, since, basically, they can claim to understand it just by latching onto whatever new age trend is in vogue.

The ones that infuriate the most are the 'smart' ones that have 'researched' what amounts to magic potions and voodoo on the internet. I'm just waiting for one of the 'smart' ones to start babbling about homeopathic remedies and which herbs can cure this that and the other. Bonus points if she mentions crystals.

A couple of my clients are pediatricians, and they tell horror stories about this. These women show up for the pediatric appointments, argue with the doc the entire time based on bullshit, but insist on re-scheduling. The one pediatrician I am thinking of in particular says the first few appointments are a test, and if any of this comes up the patient gets fired.

[–]FullmetalVTR 5 points5 points [recovered]

I believe you meant to use the term "mansplaining"

God, you can learn all you need to know about a person who uses that as a derogatory term.

[–]HAL-9OOO 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mansplaining is when you try to defeat a shit test with logic.

You lost the shit test, and can now be identified as a low value shit test failure to other woman via words.

Only low value bitches use these terms, and besides the internet you'll probably only come across these vile creatures in an office environment.

[–]NotUpToAnythingGood 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got accused of that once... because I brought facts to a rant that shut it down.

Because I ran afoul of the narrative, I was accused of mansplaining.

The accuser shut up and deleted her comments once I posted sources and summaries from those sources (legit ones, Dept of Labor, govt stats, left/right/center news outlets, things like that).

Several people thanked me for giving them things to read and educate themselves on.

[–]Mim0hsa 1 points1 points [recovered]

you can learn all you need to know about a person who uses that as a derogatory term.

You can? Maybe I need to get my ears checked, but their ranting starts to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher as soon as "mansplaining" tumbles out of their Tumblr mouth.

[–]Forcetobereckonedwit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Women cannot be helped, only fucked and put up with.

[–]AttackOnKvothe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mansplaining*

They are "mansplaining"

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 21 points22 points  (4 children)

the feminist mothership on reddit, for those who don't know... and unfortunately a default sub, God knows why

Don't anybody need God for that.

https://archive.is/EVE0G

[–]ModeratorPaperStreetVilla 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, I wonder how many more of these gems are on your saved list? theory of reddit seems to have missed this entirely

[–]vagbutters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's an excellent post, wow-- it really does describe the average SJW loser type that sites like reddit and tumblr draw in. Ultimately if you can make money off of it, I'm the biggest feminist in the world. Just don't expect me to turn away from the patriarchy in my private life.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (5 children)

But but but I th-thought men and women are equal

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Some genders are more equal than others

[–]jzekyllandhyde 8 points9 points  (1 child)

That's really what this is isn't it

[–]KorianHUN 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Zero penis good, one penis bad.

[–]angryomlette 51 points52 points  (7 children)

Wow. What a moron. You can never argue with women because they don't accept criticism of their "superiority". No amount of logic can sway women unless it serves their purpose.

If you hurt their emotions, they don't give a shit if you're a cardiologist who has 12 years of training at rigorously competitive medical institutions. They only care if you're politically correct... and if you're not, then you're no better than any other shitlord.

Can't agree with you enough.

But on the thread overall, the doctors will really have a headache, if these misguided women start demanding surgeries in a hospital, as if they are in a spa.

[–]WilliamBott 5 points6 points  (0 children)

doctors will really have a headache, if these misguided women start demanding surgeries in a hospital, as if they are in a spa.

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. They hate you and sue you for "doing the wrong tests and surgery" when they survive, and if you do what they demand of you, they die and you get sued.

[–]Galactic-Unicorn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At work when a patient is being unreasonable, I remind them that my job is to provide for their medical best interests. Patient satisfaction is a secondary concern to me.

[–]playingwithfyre 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You do realize that many many hospitals already caught onto this and do this right?

They know all the ins and outs of billing and would be happy to inundate someone with unnecessary tests and treatments, so long as they can justify the billing.

The mental gymnastics are easy, it's "total care for the mind and body."

The doctors don't care because they're mostly removed from the process, they're overseeing an army of people who are just managing people below them. Once it gets to them they aren't "running an unnecessary test" but simply interpreting results.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

if these misguided women start demanding surgeries in a hospital

Start?

I watched a woman in her early 30s throw a temper tantrum in a orthopedic office because one of the surgeons wouldn't do a knee replacement because she was tired of having to ice it frequently. She was a long distance runner.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats why never argue with a women. if she s an idiot let her be an idiot its not your job to educate and idiot.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (3 children)

As a medical student and someone who worked in translational medicine for 3 years prior, this really infuriates me from a scientific perspective, a business perspective, and a social perspective. This is nothing more than another stab at winning the oppression Olympics.

So, here's the argument they're making in a nutshell. Women aren't exactly the same as the model organism they use in human clinical trials (in this case, mostly men, but many women are still included), so they're getting the raw end of the deal compared to people who more closely represent the model (men).

This is ignoring the fact that

a) Most clinical trial exclusions of women are in risky phase I/II and it's to protect potential fetuses.

b) Women are less likely to agree to risky procedures and medications than men.

So their solution to this problem is to include more women in clinical trials and then break down the results by gender.

What are the pros and cons?

Pros:

  • Women are somewhat more closely represented by the model, so the very occasional instance when these models didn't prove to be representative of women may be avoided.

  • Clinical trials theoretically have a larger sample size in general, making the studies more statistically powerful.

Cons:

  • Clinical trials will cost more, possibly significantly more depending on the number of patients we need to add. Clinical trials are by far the most expensive part of the drug development process. This will universally raise the cost of healthcare across the country (but that's not an issue right now, right?).

  • Due to the increased cost of drug development, many promising drugs will never make it to market.

  • In a compromise to avoid the previous scenario, the FDA folds and allows trials to include women with complicating conditions, which throws off results of the testing, leading to drugs that are less safe being on the market.

So basically we're back to square one, when we decided it was worth it to exclude women from clinical trials due to complicating factors, but this time we take the illogical route and include them all anyway because feelz.

The thing is, everything is a model. Until we have truly personalized medicine, everything is based on a model that doesn't perfectly represent you. We can't cater a testing population to every group out there, and if your demographic is more difficult to work with and achieve statistically significant and reliable results, then the models won't be based around you. There are many groups that aren't perfectly represented in many clinical trials, but the trials are ultimately a model, and we use the most reliable model that tells us the most about the drug.

But you know what? Forget it. Let's compromise science, say "fuck you" to statistics, and universally raise the cost of your insurance and all your medications because women want a marginally better model in clinical trials. Well, before we do this, let's ask them if they're okay with paying a significant price hike on their Zoloft and Lexapro for the sake of marginally better data that probably won't help them in any meaningful way. On the other hand, they might not care. After all, it's all covered by the alimony check anyway.

Edit: Wait, I'm not done.

From the article

Well, taking the time to specifically test drugs on women is, like, hard, since women have periods and menopause and stuff.

Yup, let's just brush it off like this is being done for convenience. This author has no idea what she's talking about.

Yet a mere 35% of clinical trial subjects in cardiovascular research are women, and only 31% of those studies break down outcomes by gender.

The only even mildly sensible thing she said here came in the second half of the sentence. We should be breaking down outcomes by gender, however, this is very hard to do. Women represent a diverse population, with pre- and post-menopausal women representing very different populations, and with all women being kind of a grabbag of traits and hormones. So would we actually get statistically meaningful data from those studies that don't break things down? Likely not, and we choose men for the studies so we can achieve that statistical significance with fewer patients. The choice is not between women and men, it's between statistically significant or not, and achieving it with a female population is too costly.

Notably, women experience a 50% higher disease burden from depression than men [...] yet fewer than 45% of animal studies on anxiety and depression use female lab animals, even though these disorders are twice as common in women.

First of all, while depression is more common in women (and that's debatable and a social issue. Many men suffer in silence), men commit suicide at a higher rate, 4x higher. Disregarding all of that, female lab animals. I've never heard something so hilariously misinformed in my life. Even human models for depression and psychological disorders aren't remotely good enough to learn much about the disease. Animal models are all but useless. For all we know, male rats represent the female human brain better than the male human brain. They're so far off that it's not even worth considering.

“It is not easy, and is way more expensive, to include both sexes into research study designs and experiments,”

There we go, the SJW researchers themselves even admit it. It's way more expensive. Likely 2-3x more expensive. You think this country can undergo a 2-3x price hike on drug development costs to get slightly better models for women? This is dangerous thinking people. It's up to true scientists to put down the pitchfork and remember that practicality and scientific integrity should never take second fiddle to feelz.

[–]Tortenkopf 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There we go, the SJW researchers themselves even admit it. It's way more expensive. Likely 2-3x more expensive. You think this country can undergo a 2-3x price hike on drug development costs to get slightly better models for women?

You realize this is the definition of sexism in a nutshell, right? If I, as a male, went into a hospital and was told that my chance of complications was twice that of women because they never did the research on males, and are never going to, because of money, I would be fucking furious and if you would not be furious, you're a fucking pussy. A 'beta' as they say here, I believe :)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You have zero understanding of medicine. This is just misinformed, and we're letting these attitudes pervade into the medical world and influence what was previously sound science. Introducing more women into clinical trials for the sake of gathering more data on how the drugs specifically affect women only muddies the data for everyone. Remember that whole, "test one variable at a time," principle you learned in high school chemistry? Those of us actually involved in scientific inquiry still believe in it.

Imagine two scientists are trying to learn about a particular family of chemical reactions. Scientist 1 picks a reaction that is representative of the general group of reactions and performs the reaction 3 times, studying the same variables each time. Scientist 2 chooses three different reactions with different analogs of the same family of chemicals and studies the same variables on each of those three reactions. Who will learn more overall? It's scientist 1, by a long shot. Scientist 2 has no idea if he can trust any of his data because he only did each reaction once. He has no idea if it's repeatable. The same is true in clinical trials, but you need far more than 3 samples to achieve statistical significance because people are not as uniform as a chemical reaction. Introducing more women and gathering enough data to analyze them individually would require you to double or triple the size of the trial.

People like to point to, "it's too expensive," as a classic cop out, but it's very much real. We can hardly afford to do the tests and trials we do now, and because women are a more diverse patient population, we would need to add an enormous number of patients to each trial to account for the individual changes, essentially performing two trials that could be analyzed concurrently. Inevitably this wouldn't work due to cost, and drug companies would push for lower standards on statistical significance. The result would be studies without any real statistical and predictive power. It doesn't make sense from a scientific perspective either. Men happen to act as a better model organism for the entire species because there is less variation within the population. Doing tests on men represents scientist 1's approach. We still learn more about how the drugs work in women from that approach. This data still translates to women fairly well. In fact, the variation between data in males and data in females is quite small when it comes to organ systems we all possess, which is why most clinical trials in non-gender specific diseases still contain a fairly even mix of men and women, only influenced by small numbers of women in phase I/II trials and the reluctance of women compared to men to try experimental compounds.

You're basically arguing for either an entirely unsustainable, unmanageable clinical trials process in which we often never reach adequate statistical power all for the sake of nuance and social justice. Scientifically, there's no data that points to health outcomes for women being significantly worse than for men when it comes to new experimental compounds aimed at both genders.

Let's not forget that the effect in the article isn't even real. Women are excluded mostly due to safety concerns with experimental compounds and the potential for damage to a fetus in women of child bearing age. I've personally never seen a woman turned away from a phase III clinical trial due to her gender.

I understand your concern here, and I urge you to be active in the community standing up for what you believe in, but please don't try to meddle in things you don't understand. The clinical trials process is complicated, and the last thing we need is the uninformed trying to push social justice into our scientific methods.

[–]Tortenkopf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Remember that whole, "test one variable at a time," principle you learned in high school chemistry? Those of us actually involved in scientific inquiry still believe in it.

You mean that one that I employ daily in my neuroscience laboratory? Yes, I'm familiar with that one. You must know that, in many settings, including the clinical, it is impossible to have the desired, complete control over your experimental cohort that you describe. However, we have statistical tools to deal with those pesky covariates that wreck havoc with our idealized view of experiments, like analysis of covariance or multivariate analysis. These are very common tools in medical research, exactly because situations which you insist can not be tolerated in clinical trials, are actually universally present in every clinical trial.

I understand your concern here

I doubt that you do, since you did not respond to the content of my post at all.

You're basically arguing for either an entirely unsustainable, unmanageable clinical trials process in which we often never reach adequate statistical power all for the sake of nuance and social justice.

Absolutely not. In no way do I see anything even remotely approaching such incredulous stupidity anywhere in my (response to your) post. I argued that being excluded from clinical trials purely based on cost, even when there's a clear indicators that gender differences are important co-factors within those trials is the definition of sexism. Women should be included in clinical trials when there is reason to suspect that they respond differently to treatment, i.e. when there is reasonable suspicion that males are not an adequate model. When you find out that your model is not a good fit for a particular instance, you need to stop pretending that your model is great; you need to switch models. That has nothing to do with political correctness but everything to do with good science.

For instance, if a hospital finds that a particular treatment is more successful in men than in women, they can ask other hospitals with similar treatments for their outcomes so they can make an initial statistical assessment. The bulk of this work will be gathering the data from databases and is usually (at least in my experience) done by students who are not on the payroll. An engineer does the actual statistics in an afternoon. This is not a very costly endeavour at all but it will tell you fairly easily whether or not the effect observed in the initial small cohort is 1) consistent enough and 2) serious enough in scope to warrant actual experiments.

If it becomes established, either due to such an exploratory analysis or a more extensive follow up experiment, that indeed the model for your disease is inadequate, you need to drop the model. If you don't, that's on the one hand simply bad science, and on the other sexism if the model fails to cover both genders, racism if it fails to cover certain genders, etc. Ultimately sexism and racism are not so much about people hating blacks or women; it's about actions and policies that for, whatever reason, favor one gender or race over the other. The goal of medicine is not just to treat as many people as possible at as low a cost as possible, the goal is to extend the possibility for successful treatment regardless of a persons background, which means that we will have to invest time and money to treat people even if they do not fit the cookie-cutter mold of our existing models. This I think is unambiguously an extension of the hippocratic oath.

Scientifically, there's no data that points to health outcomes for women being significantly worse than for men when it comes to new experimental compounds aimed at both genders.

1) This is a black swan

2) Here, [they]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033062010001362, are

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Once it got linked to Subreddit Drama the votes changed around significantly.

[–]TheCyanNinja 10 points10 points [recovered]

Holy kek. The fuckers really think they know more about hearts than an actual fucking cardiologist.

[–]ModeratorPaperStreetVilla 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Doesn't matter. When they are in front of the doctor, and they have a problem, this all goes away.

This is why guys shouldn't be peeking into the knitting circle, it's irrelevant, and has no bearing on what they actually do

[–]Limekill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't matter. When they are in front of the doctor, and they have a problem, this all goes away.

So true. No one gives a fuck about gender, bed side manner or anything else if you are coming into ER from a head on car crash.

[–]phx-au 17 points18 points  (3 children)

Yeah, I've always had discussions with my partner, and kinda agreed that its likely that in eg STEM fields, a big portion of the gender imbalance of graduates was due to the severe attrition all the way through the education system.

However the other day, she pulled out the same logic when talking Olympic sports. As in "if girls were encouraged to perform in sport they would be equal to men" (not talking about 100m or weights here, things like soccer or shooting, but still obviously wrong).

I just filed it under "shit feminists really believe". :P

[–]sizzlingseveral 19 points20 points  (2 children)

We've had to lower the standards for women drastically to get them to come into any physical jobs (stuff like firefighter, construction worker, soldier, etc), and most of them still can't handle it.

The best Women's soccer team in the world (or one of the best) lost to a regional boys team of 17 year olds, and lost pretty badly.

Women's world records aren't even enough to qualify a guy for the Olympics.

Even a very weak guy is still stronger than the majority of women.

Physically, men are much much stronger and faster than women. Anyone who tells you otherwise is seriously deluded.

[–]VinylGuy420 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Firefighter here. We just hired 4 women in our last part time process. There were no males hired in that process they were the only 4. Our physical fitness test is difficult but by no means challenging. Any male of average fitness could pass. 2 out of those 4 women did not pass the fitness requirements. Out of the two that did pass, one could not lift the cot with a patient into the ambulance. We hired all 4 anyway. It's fucking sad man.

However the girl who did pass everything deserved to be there and is a badass. She has my respect the others don't.

[–]103342 23 points24 points  (5 children)

You gotta hand it to them though, women know how to get what they want.

Look at our society. A girl can fuck her pussy loose by the top of the top alphas, she can do this until she gets close to 30, and STILL find a lovey dovey loaded guy to take care of her in the end.

If you think women are stupid... think again. The "feelz over reelz" thing isn't stupidity, is the way they have to get what they want. It is incredibly sad to realize this, but this retarded "team women" technique and the power to withold sex is enough to fuck up an entire society.

They did it. They got everything they want right now, but they STILL aren't satisfied. They keep pushing for more and more, until we get the surreal situation where simple facts like gender get discussed as if it was something like quantum physics.

If the amout of stupidity that is being spewed by "team women" doesn't start to ring some bells quickly in the collective mind of men, than somehow our society will become even more retarded in the years to come.

I think the Donald Trump phenomenon, and the rise of the right-wing on a world wide scale is very closely related to this "waking up". The funny thing is that even this right-wing is more leftist than some leftists themselves. The west was dragged too far and it will either fall on an abyss of retardation or swing back on a half "traditional"/half "libertarian" degenerate culture.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 12 points13 points  (1 child)

They act irrationally to obtain a logical result.

[–]user_none 9 points10 points  (1 child)

You gotta hand it to them though, women know how to get what they want.

They did it. They got everything they want right now, but they STILL aren't satisfied.

This, so much.

  • Women, by and large, are almost never satisfied. They want MORE. There exist exceptions, of course.

  • Men, by observation and through experience, are easily capable of experiencing true bliss in being content.

[–]NaughtyFred 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They got everything they want right now, but they STILL aren't satisfied. They keep pushing for more and more, until we get the surreal situation where simple facts like gender get discussed as if it was something like quantum physics.

Billy Connolly knew this decades ago

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 26 points27 points  (9 children)

And herein lies the problem with Egalitarianism Equalism Humanism and every other leftist ism under the sun. We are not created equal

The idea of open rational debate is an enlightenment European idea created by intellectuals for other intellectuals.

It was never meant to be extended to the muh welfare underclass and women. They simply can't set aside ego and feels and have a rational debate.

In fact the more they are included in a conversation the more that conversation must be reduced to emotional retard speak. Case in point Mainstream American political discourse.

[–]Camberlain 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I believe that certain types of humans just dont have brains wired to be objective and open. 7-8 years ago when I was in college it was impossible to hold an interesting debate because as soon as the politically incorrect side started to speak they would be drowned out by women chanting triggilypuff style or simian looking humanoids going apeshit.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The equality narrative is just a lullaby the government and elite sing to the masses while they concoct a plan to screw you over without waking you up.

[–]WilliamBott 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have no problem listening to reasonable, logical discussions with women. When it comes to discussion, debate, and other exchange of ideas, I just exclude (or ignore) anyone who is an idiot, regardless of sex.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

GLO you reflect my thoughts exactly. I hope Trump wins so we can gain SOME sort of sanity. I'm tired of listening to these retards and knowing that they have some input in shit they have no reason being involved in. Case in point... the military mandated womans infantry and other shit.

Big one on the last sentence. I took a gander at how they market shit to women and if it wasn't the fact it was the US and official shit you'd think they are talking to retards (they are anyways...).

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

imagine the fucking uproar if they tested drugs on pregnant women or women planning on pregnancies in the near future, and it resulted in birth defects and infertility? This is the primary concern when testing new drugs on women, and it's not unfounded at all. Furthermore, men are just wayyy more predisposed to take on risk and volunteer in these trials, which does little to help the skew. I dunno, looking at this as some sexist policy is misguided to say the least

[–]FoxMcWeezer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If you search for threads where they post pictures of themselves, 99% of them look exactly how you expect them to look, at least 30 pounds overweight with a face built for retail or service. Then there's that one unicorn 18% body fat thin chick who posts and gets ignored while all the other fatties get obligatory "wow you're so pretty" pity comments so they can get them in return.

[–]drkush 6 points7 points  (5 children)

This is the same as arguing with christian fundamentalists, you can cite all the science in the world but they will never admit that they are wrong. If you back them into a corner with your argument then you are oppressing them.

[–]Temperfuelmma 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The similarities are remarkable!

[–]getRedPill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why don't you say muslim, or any religious fanatic for that matter

[–]microwave44 2 points3 points  (1 child)

that thread gave me 3 types of cancer

Like holy crap so much emotional manipulation and emotional arguments, so many weaklings trying to demonize the dude with their stupid lolcow attitude.

[–]chances_are_ur_a_fag 5 points6 points  (0 children)

wow, those responses.. holy fucking almighty hamster jesus

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

With all the new genders being discovered on almost a weekly basis, it must be grand to be a student of gender studies. We truly are on the new frontier of such a rich science. What a time to be alive.

[–]walterwhiteknight 7 points8 points  (1 child)

It's like watching BLM supporters talk about race issues.

[–]WilliamBott 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Nah, it hasn't gotten quite that bad yet.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What you say is true, but I would wholeheartedly encourage everybody to take a macro view and think about who these women on 2X are. They are likely overweight, hard left wing, unattractive and sexually extremely frustrated. Who the fuck cares what some ungodly whale has to say? Is anybody surprised at the content? They are not just failed women, but failed humans, irrespective of gender if you think oppinion trumps science you are a moron. Morons should be disregarded.

[–][deleted] 8 points8 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]draquish 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm fine with it. More patients for me.

[–]Keninishna 2 points3 points  (0 children)

phew, good thing I'm unsubbed from twox.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Limekill 0 points1 point  (1 child)

cis-girl

"female assigned female at birth"

I feel just copying and pasting that will trigger someone.

Good.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]GongoozleGirl 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Ok i will delete that mistake now.

[–]DisgruntledWolverine 1 points1 points [recovered]

You didn't have to delete the whole thing ... gosh

[–]GongoozleGirl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't want to get banned! I like this place.

[–]edbwtf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A woman who comes in with "belly pain" is getting an ECG in my emergency room and in every hospital I've ever worked at. We don't say "hmm she doesn't have a textbook description, therefore she doesn't have a heart attack", we go by objective data.

Can confirm. I've been tested for a heart attack twice, once when I had IBS, once when I had gall stones.

[–]bloodfoxtrue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The heart doctor did make a mistake though... trying to reason with diehard feminists! Good luck with that.

[–]eingreif-stellung 2 points3 points  (1 child)

"youre a heart doctor not an everything doctor" ......wow

[–]SetConsumes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol right?

But it sure feels rational.

[–]LegoCamel6 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They would fuck the big bully any day of the week though.

[–]bowie747 1 point2 points  (1 child)

i) I thought gender was a social construct and there are no differences between males and females besides our reproductive organs? If this were true then it would be impossible for such a disparity in knowledge to exist.

ii) Medicine does know somewhat less about female hormones and their various effects. But this is about the extent of any difference as far as I know and I'm sure they're finding out new shit daily.

[–]Tortenkopf 4 points5 points  (0 children)

1) Regardless of whether there is a social aspect to gender (not getting into that here!), there's of course a biological basis for gender which might be relevant for medicine. There's large differences in physiology between people with XX vs. XY sex chromosomes, regardless of whether a person identifies as female or male. Mind you, there's also large differences in physiology between members of the same biological sex (and between members of different ethnic groups!). That's why personalized medicine is going to be the thing of the future. Get your DNA sequenced and when you get into the hospital, the algorithms will determine your personal treatment. IBM's Watson just diagnosed and cured it's first patient the other day in Japan.

2) You'd be surprised at how big the differences are and how little we know about them. Speaking from experience, most psychology studies are done on white males in their 20s, and most physiology studies are done on white males too. Only very few studies look at both genders (this requires twice the amount of test subjects, hence twice the amount of money + time), and there's not enough data to warrant many conclusions about it so far. In the case of heart disease, it's well established that women respond significantly more poorly to common treatments than men, but it is not conclusive yet why this is the case. However, there's not a lot of research being done on this topic, simply because these are not studies looking at disease cures directly, but rather doing meta-analyses and repetitions of existing studies, which are much more difficult to get funding for.

[–]WilliamBott 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So if you're arguing with a woman, don't argue based on rationality because they are pretty much incapable of thinking on that wavelength.

I have to disagree. I would change that to "don't argue with a woman unless it's absolutely required". If it's not critical to your job or someone's health (like the doctor arguing with some simpering idiots that watched an episode of House and think they know medicine), don't waste your time arguing. Hold frame and just walk away and let them argue with themselves.

[–]Banned_For_Opinion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a default sub? Are you Fucking kidding me?

[–]Mokujinn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Holy fuck that thread is so full of cringe. There's a point where someone arguing against completely changes goal posts after being proven wrong and then cusses him out for being difficult and generalizing. Huh?

[–]RPthrowaway123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bahahaha downvoting a medically trained expert in the field because of hurt feelings is a new low! That guy must be incredibly patient to wade into such a hopeless situation. That, or he just doesn't understand how the female mind works! Logic means nothing, only feelz!

Also, one "woman" literally freaked out and called the guy an asshole because she "didn't like the answers she was getting". If there was ever a reason why women shouldn't be involved in anything that requires objectivity, that is it!

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So the woman mentions a paper by Szasz about patient-doctor relations. Let me give you a brief line about Szasz :

This started to shift in the 1940s due to what the book calls “dynamic psychiatry” (although they use this phrase a bit differently from how I understand the definition). The old, tired psychiatry was a simple dichotomy between sane people (who don’t need psychiatric help) and insane people (who are totally out of touch with reality and need to be locked up for their own good). And it understood this distinction in relatively biological terms – they didn’t know anything about genes or neurons them, but they figured something was going on. But the new, exciting psychiatry thought of mental illness as a continuum, with everybody having a little bit of mental illness – whether it was just neurosis or anxiety or whatever – and psychotics just being the people whose mental illnesses made it hard for them to function.

...

He describes the genesis of the anti-psychiatry movement – a wide variety of traditions all coming together in an agreement that the mentally ill are just Too Cool And Free-Spirited For Society and anybody who tries to treat them is a bad person who hates creativity and wants to make everyone conform.

So there are certain folks who don't believe schizos actually exist. One of them is Thomas Szasz.

You might wonder how a psychiatrist could believe that there was no such thing as insanity. Would not the exposure to psychotic patients during Szasz’s training have shown him the error of his ideology? It turns out that Szasz may not have had any exposure to psychotics. In a 1997 interview, he describes how he consciously selected a psychiatric residency “that did not include work with involuntary patients”. The chairman of the Psychiatry Department told him, “Tom, you have only one year left of your residency, I don’t think it’s right that you should finish without any experience with psychotic patients. I think you should do your third year at the Cook County Hospital.” So Szasz quit and went elsewhere to avoid that experience. Szasz was drafted into the Navy after completing his training, and his experiences there almost certainly reinforced his already well-developed belief that mental illness did not exist. “The servicemen didn’t want to be in the Navy and played the role of mental patient. I didn’t want to be in the Navy and played the role of military psychiatrist. My job was to discharge the men from the Service as ‘neuropsychiatric casualties’.” Szasz had gone out of his way to avoid seeing psychotic patients, and then took a job that he describes as certifying that sane people pretending to be insane were actually insane as a convenient fiction. Is there anything surprising about Szasz’s projection of this situation onto the entire profession?

Let's contrast this with stand-offish assholish attitude of doctors a la edgy 13year old's idol Dr. House.

Patient experience and expectations has a great effect on progress of therapy, a phenomenon known as placebo effect. For example, for therapy of angina pectoris (chest pain), there is a certain surgical operation. For shits'n'giggles, a group of people did a fake operation wherein only the incision was made, but the actual ligation of arteria thoracica interna was not. The angina pectoris ceased in both (or was less often) cases. For more shits'n'giggles, a patient was given a diagnosis and told that he would be better in a few days while the other patient was told that the doc has no idea what's going on. Guess what group of patients got better?

So you see, the doctors have this kind of self-importance complex, because it's a proxy for confidence. You see this guy being all authoritative and assholish, and you think "wow, this guy knows what's going on" if only subconsciously.

And if you do get better, that's better for the doc and the State, who now don't have to deal with one more sick person. It's also better for you, so everyone wins. Except fee-fees.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By definition, the placebo effect is temporary. That is, no one with an actual physiological disorder is cured by a placebo.

[–]razormachine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well if those strong and independent woman ever need a heart surgery i would strongly suggest they have the surgery performed by a feminist who had graduated gender studies.

[–]Tortenkopf 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Sorry to break it to you guys, but the ladies are at least partly right (and the / u/elohelrahfel is being a total douche, and if he's a cardiologist, he's not a well informed one).

Male and female physiology differs enough to cause different responses to many different treatments (for many different conditions), including, heart, conditions. (quote from the first paywalled article conclusion below)

The reason why this is not more widely accepted has been argued, plenty of times, by cardiologists, is that women are systematically excluded from scientific studies. Being a neuroscientist myself, cardiology is not my expertise, but I can assure you that this is the case in neuroscience and psychology. Not to the point that there are no studies including women, but that many studies use men only. Nothing feminist here, nor feelz over realz; this is the realz.

This is not just the case for men vs. women but also for ethnic differences. Certain ethnic groups respond very differently to certain medications because they metabolize them differently (like asians to alcohol). This is not rocket science. Different genes respond differently to different drugs; women have different genetic make-ups than men, so they respond differently. There's no question about that. The question is in which cases the differences becomes important enough to take into account when treating a disease. Heart disease is unquestionably one of those cases.

Quote from the conclusion from the 2010 study by Xhyheri and Bugiardini:

Historically, medicine has used the man as the standard frame for all diseases shared by women and men. This medical practice goes back to ancient Greece when Aristotle postulated that there was one sex but 2 forms. Perhaps, this attitude prevails today as very few trials published results sorted by sex. In addition, researchers are often using historical data to compare the clinical characteristics and treatment of men and women who have an acute coronary syndrome. Early trials had an upper age cutoff of 65 years did not allow including an adequate number of women as women develop overt CAD at older ages.

Current statistics reveal that 42% of women who have acute coronary syndrome die within 1 year compared with 24% of men.41 The reasons are still not well understood. The explanation accepted by many is that women tend to develop heart disease about 10 years later in life compared with men, and they are more likely to have coexisting, chronic diseases. However, research has shown that women may not be diagnosed or treated as well as men. In addition, new studies indicate that men and women react to drugs prescribed for CHD and its major complication quite differently and that many drugs that help men can have little effects in women.

To correct the apparent imbalances in research, the inequities in care, and the distorted image of disease, it is essential to make visible the impact of CAD in women. A sex-sensitive approach to research must be adopted. This includes the incorporation of a sizable number of women into all cardiac trials and observational studies and the use of statistical techniques that facilitate testing for specific sex interactions, as well as providing information about sex-specific differences in treatment responses.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Careful, many of the people on this sub hate real science.

[–]aanarchist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

dude don't go anywhere near that subreddit, it's fucking poisonous.

[–]Jedi5241000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That cardiologist is wasting his time. And so are you. Stop going there it's a waste of time and accomplishes nothinf

[–]Temperfuelmma 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Now imagine these women running the government.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ask the Europeans or more specifically the Swedes. They have first hand knowledge

[–]SavannahWinslow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

scientific studies routinely control for both genders when doing clinical trials, as anyone with a basic biology degree would tell you.

Apparently, this is untrue. It has been widely reported over the past week or so that women often aren't included in medicinal studies ... especially opioids, if I recall correctly. It's being said that women's hormonal fluctuations skew the results, so only men are included in the trials. Medicines are then marketed and prescribed on the pretense that a medicine's efficacy is unaffected by gender. But if it hasn't been studied, they can't possibly know that for sure. It may be true in most cases, but it's a cheap way to perform a study whose outcome doesn't address the breadth of the population it pretends to have evaluated.

[–]knifpearty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my country (western, developed) we since decades have a lot of hospitals dedicated only to women and their diseases.

[–]Rhythmic 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Gentlemen, with a risk to hurt your feelz, please avoid this faux pas:

Your professor is a moron.

Personal attacks are a no no. Avoid them like the plague.

After dropping a shit like that, any reasonable argument that follows won't be heard. Just do yourself a favor and learn some basic communication skills.

Just going to note that I really hope you don't take the holier than thou tone you've taken throughout this comment thread with your patients. They will never trust you if you cannot communicate effectively and respectfully. All your medical training means nothing if they dismiss you from the get go as a big headed jerk that just wants to sound smart, leading to them ignoring preventative advice and treatment plans.

This gal is making a point.

Just to make this clear:

Nowhere in her comment does she make a statement about what the commenter "is" - such as a "big headed jerk" - she is only pointing out what a listener may very well consider you to "be" if you call people names:

... if they dismiss you from the get go as a big headed jerk ...

My personal belief is that "jerks" and "morons" don't really exist. Instead, many people haven't yet learned to communicate effectively. BTW, I don't claim to have achieved "ultimate mastery" either, I'm just trying - which with time should lead to improvement.

Because I don't believe in "jerks" and "morons," I'm not able to call people names. Instead, I can point out less than helpful behaviors.

Lack of skill does NOT imply "inferiority" or "worthlessness." It (merely) has negative consequences for the doer and the people around him.

Improve your skills for the sake of making life better - not for the sake of becoming "better than others."

Basic rule: Critique actions, not people.

Break the habit of thinking about what people "are." Instead, focus on what they do. A critique of an action is NEVER a personal attack.

Your professor is a moron. -> Your professor made an error.

These statements say two completely different things. Learn the difference.

One more thing:

Some readers may assume interactions to be a war between "us" and "them."

From such a point of view, it may appear as if I were defending "them" and betraying "us."

It may appear as if I were siding with "them." It's human nature to be hopelessly trapped in one's own thinking.

It would be easy to dismiss me as a "white knight" and totally miss the point of my comment.

Because in all actuality, I'm not defending anybody. Neither am I attacking anybody.

I'm not "taking sides."

I'm just pointing out how you can improve your communication skills.

[–]dinosauralienspirits 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This. I don't know why this is a shining example of fail feminism when the guy's first words were a personal attack.

"Hmm i called them a moron and now they are mad at me"

This is a shitpost and because it's anti-feminist red pillers are eating it up.

At least it's useful to see the epicly failed communication.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

First of all, yeah, that cunt deserved to ge downvoted for starting his post with that douchebag tone. The fact that you're right doesn't give you the right to be a cunt about it.

Secondly, yes, it doesn't matter how competent is the doctor, if he's acting like an asshole, the patient will run away from him. I have a "friend" who had a very serious medical issue but chose to stay at home and do nothing risking his life because he lives in a place where doctors are more corrupt then the mafia and treat their patients like dogs. The doctors are in a immense position of authority over a patient, and not abusing that power is extremely extremely important.

Third, what the fuck is this bullshit with "feelz over realz"? Are you so philosophically illiterate that can't comprehend that the very basis of our morality isn't rational but it's based on "feelz"? Reason is the slave of passions, like Hume said. Reason is a tool to help you please your feelz. You are and you live for your feelz. Without feelz, there is no happiness, and life is empty. Jesus christ.

[–]SetConsumes 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You are right that we live because of feelings.

Morality doesn't exist based on feelings, it's logically beneficial for society and most moral systems are logically defined and proven.

Your post makes you seem new to trp.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Beneficial meaning what??? What's the logical, rational, demonstrable reason for why one shouldn't kill their fellow human, or blow up the whole planet if they could?

[–]SetConsumes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Beneficial meaning what??? What's the logical, rational, demonstrable reason for why one shouldn't kill their fellow human, or blow up the whole planet if they could?

Depends on which system of morality you're using to answer that.

But okay, let's use Kant, If everyone killed their fellow human then society wouldn't function, so I wont kill my fellow humans.

Womens morality is feeling based, because they don't have morality. Most men follow some sort of moral system, by default utilitarianism is what most people follow, weighing the pros and cons of the consequences of an action and if it's good for society or not.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so feminist know better than a doctor now, wtf

[–]aazav 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you expect? It's a pit of estrogen. No differing opinion matters, even the right one.

[–]TheRedStoic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they accepted the fact that we do know lots about female biology, 'and are always learning more' they're a step closer to having to confront biological differences in the minds operations and imperatives.

Can't have that. Plus, you must maintain victim status at all costs

[–]1kick6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feminist contradiction: women are the same as men except for sex organs, but we only know about men's physiology.

Someone link the Jackie Chan mind blown meme please.

[–]LukesLikeIt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(ME)dici(N)e... It's right in front of your eyes shitlords.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]WhistlingDead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, those zombies are confusing as hell.

[–]Eatinglue 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Ah, TwoX. The only sub I ever got banned from for only ever commenting a single word.

[–]nrjk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 

Call me crazy but I think it's pretty important that we recognize the symptoms for both genders, don't you? Y'know, so we get medical attention and shit instead of dropping dead....

Both genders!?

How

Dare

They.

[–]Areu4realm8 0 points1 point  (1 child)

why discuss with women? just leave the conversation. a conversation with a squirrel is more intelligent, than one with a feminist .

[–]SetConsumes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the feminists make cuter faces and give more unexpected answers.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL he interrupted their Wahh we're all oppressed victims bitchfest and they got platinum madd.

[–]darkstar1031 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, I didn't actually read the cited post, (I tried, but it made my brain hurt), I just want to know if any of these idiot women ever stopped to consider the possibility that it may have been a female cardiologist? I mean they do exist.

[–]Overzealous_BlackGuy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why do woman try so hard to prove we are the same in everyway, they have their own fucking perks and priveledges which outweigh ours by a mile.

Its not fun being a guy, even when you are successful you are still condemned.

[–]SetConsumes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do woman try so hard to prove we are the same in everyway, they have their own fucking perks and priveledges which outweigh ours by a mile.

Its not fun being a guy, even when you are successful you are still condemned.

Because it is great to be a guy and we're better at making the money and creating stuff, and they want in on that fun because bored and money = yay.

[–]wisty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • We don't understand women's physiology

  • We definitely know hysteria is not a thing. Even if it was, men and women would have it equally.

Pick one.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except undergoing surgery and imaging isn't the same thing as participating in clinical studies. Both the FDA and NIH (who know, organizations made up of experts) have both recognized the underrepresentation of women in clinical trials and have programs aiming to fix that disparity. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with science and generating better data.

That "doctor" either isn't one or is a misinformed one.

[–]Awotwe_Knows_Best 0 points1 point  (0 children)

my reddit user experience greatly improved the day I unsubbed from TwoX

[–]gjs628 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Social Justice 1-2-3 Woo Woo! I want to be PC! Woo Woo! It's just the way to be for me, and you! Woo Woo!

Your hateful slurs are through! Woo Woo I call Woo Woo on you! Woo Woo! We'll fight until you're PC Black and Blue!

We are Language Police, fighting bigotry! Hurtful words can suck our turds cos it's PC for me! And you! WOO WOO

[–]1PantsonFire1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feminists that browse TwoX and the likes, exist for a good reason. This is what happens when you let every genetic failure live and raise people in mediocrity. Their hamsters start spinning in tandem, trying to rationalize the failure of them being unsuccessful in their sexual strategy. There aren't any die-hard feminists who are HB8 and above- enjoying the commitment of super-chad.

More often than not it's the fat mediocre five who can't even get a normal guy to commit. Or the pudgy faced vanilla girl with no redeeming qualities. Of course they have insanely high standards themselves- standards that were induced after numerous pumps and dumps by high value Chad. Which is why they are so angry and unhappy in the first place.

Stupid as they are they never consider that they were used and are way 'outa league' of such a man. No, they take it as validation and use it to propel that already out of control ego. Whilst achieving absolutely nothing of value (commitment, healthy family, female-related skills) they drone on at places like that to vent their inner frustration. All the while leaching on welfare, accumulating student loans for that useless degree in female studies. Bunch of idiots.

Like a little kid they try using words to force reality to be more inline with their fantasies. The idea of self improvement or managing expectations never occurs to them. The problem is that they are allowed to exist. Safe a horribly disabled person and you only prolong it's suffering. For that person will begin hating it's existence and inability to act upon it's desires. These fat hags ain't no different.

God I hope they read this comment.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't go there and post you fucking morons.

I see multiple comments of "Feelz over realz"

Stop jerking yourself off by posting.

[–]cloistered_around 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So this is my first time on /r/theredpill after hearing about it in various places and it's certainly an interesting viewpoint.

Here are my points on the exchange quoted here: the doctor doesn't seem to have been voted down because he is wrong, but more because of the rude phrasing (I don't agree that's necessarily a good reason to downvote but it's definitely typical for the majority of subreddits). He's absolutely right that the medical field knows as much about women's insides as they do mens, and I would certainly hope no one downvoted him for the statement itself.

That being said, your tldr is incorrect. "Women care more about emotions than logic or reason." That is a blanket statement and over generalizing. At least one anecdote against that: I spent 24 years of my life almost completely emotionless and wondering if something was genetically wrong with me because I didn't seem to feel what everyone else around me was feeling. I was purely logical and hated how emotion only seemed to muddle people up and make things more complicated.

Long story short, blah blah, learned how to let go of barriers a bit and trust people enough, blah blah have since hit a good balance. So having spent the majority of my life purely fact based it was quite interesting seeing how emotions changes up things--there are definitely still some negatives to being emotive (people say unfair/incorrect things because they're heated and 'feel' they are correct. This aspect is still frustrating), but surprisingly I found positives as well (not bottling up resentment or anger, emotion lets other people know there is some sort of miscommunication or problem that needs to be addressed so you can then talk it out).

Anyway, it's definitely an interesting topic to discuss.

[–]vagbutters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once again, it goes to show what kind of people frequent these blue-pill type subreddits. Mostly skinnyfat/scrawny loser males or slutty/fat feminist women with not an ounce of logic in their noggins.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well... I don't think anything in there can be taken seriously.

Their top thread is "i'm pregnant with my stepbrother's baby"

Should make for a very interesting Thanksgiving Day dinner.

my dad hasnt been in the picture in years. he remarried as well and has two other kids. doesnt even call on my birthday or christmas. i havent spoken to him or heard from him since i was 14. i dont know his number, or where he lives or anything about him. i wish i had someone i could trust besides strangers on the internet, but im just glad someone believes me instead of dismissing me and calling me a liar. thank you to every one who has supporrtied me and have been kind. now its just a waiting game until next wednesday so i can finally start to move on from all of this. ill be so happy when its all over. im tired of living in fear of my stepbrother. i wish i had the courage to speak up years ago

See what happens without fathers?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Notice how she doesn't even give a counter-argument to the real subject which is "We know a lot less about female anatomy and physiology than male's." but she starts attacking him on a personal level.

[–]Rongorongo2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I was in university I was forced to take a piece of shit gender studies class. The professor announced to me and the 24 women in the class that there were not enough women in science. I made mistake of asking her why she didn't become a scientist and I asked my fellow students how many of them majored in science.

You can guess the answer. They put no effort into science but think magically they will become scientist

[–]Trigger-Me-Daddy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The person who was talking about her professor is missing a key part of that sentence - historically. Historically we knew more about men than women. The average human is based on a 70 kg male when looking at accepted rates (e.g. ventilation, respiration, blood pressure, heart rate). However, in the vast majority of cases, these things which were found in male subjects and assumed in both sexes have been tested over the past couple of hundred years and found to be consistent.

The only thing I would say that we know significantly more about in males now, is the potential for gamete production throughout life. A recent development is that females may be able to produce oocytes throughout life, rather than being born with all they will ever have, as previously believed based on the fact that women have a significant decrease in fertility over time, eventually ending in menopause. The problem here wasn't not caring about female biology, but that the 'fact' that women are born with all the oocytes they will ever have was repeated for so long, it became accepted fact. It was based on logic in a time when we knew a lot less about biology in general. It isn't misogyny, just a remnant of how science used to work.

[–]garrettruskamp 0 points1 point  (5 children)

It seems the guy was downvoted mostly for his tone, he did come off ass a douche. This is just how reddit operates, sometimes people that are dicks get spammed with downvotes regardless of the accuracy of their comments. Not everything is a conspiracy.

[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would adopt the same tone as well if people were speaking ignorantly about a field I know much more about.

[–]nrafield 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Yeah, there's literally no reason to insulting someone (else) if you actually want to prove a point, it would accomplish anything but that. What that escalated into afterwards, however...he was just wasting his time with people who didn't want to listen to him.

[–]garrettruskamp 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Reading the comments the guy was just being kinda rude and that's why he got downvoted IMO. Some people take this shit too seriously and will think I'm sort of feminist-supporter bs. Sometimes you just have to step back and reason using common sense first.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

They're women, of course they are going to be upset by the guy's tone. That's literally the only reason he got downvoted.

"Hi everyone! Cardiologist here :) I just wanted to clear up a few things because I have to disagree with what your professor is saying. While men and women are like, so totally different, our hearts are exactly the same physiologically."

That would have them lapping it up.

Also, isn't it ironic that for women - they are both exactly the same as men, but also totally different depending on whether it suits them in the current situation?

[–]nrafield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about men? Don't you think they too would be aggravated if someone presented themselves as dominant over them, regardless of that person's expertise? Even from a logical standpoint, there's little way to tell who is right between two conflicting viewpoints, so I'd imagine one would be more inclined to trust whoever is not being condescending or rude about it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The biggest mistake indeed was letting them have rights. The UK and Sweden (and Scandanavians in general) are the future if this shit continues on. Facts have ALWAYS been hated by women no matter their ideology. Its pretty sad if you think about that we pander to genetic retards.

[–]Betterthanuatlife 0 points1 point  (2 children)

We didn't have hospitals for thousands of years and back then morons like these who kept arguing against common sense were typically the ones who would get themselves killed. From a darwinist standpoint I would argue that medicine has made humanity even worse because it allows retards and weaklings to keep breeding.

[–]WhistlingDead 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Out of sheer curiosity... Would you be alive today without medicine?

[–]Betterthanuatlife 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had severe asthma as a child so no. That's nature, it would have been nature's way to exterminate weakness, however here I am.

[–]eddiae -1 points0 points  (1 child)

the smartest people in the country ? lmao dont make me laugh why do plebs worship doctors so much

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a medical issue and they are the smartest medical professionals in the country.