>>20817>>20818>>20819I'll be happy to dissect and discuss each and every point, but before that, I have two questions for you:
1. How do you explain one individual's life experience being so anathetic to the points made in those studies?
For example, how come the studies suggest that women are more empathetic, but any time the topic of a societal problem faced primarily by men comes up, women's replies and input are overwhelmingly either "Deal with it, sucks for you." or "But women have it worse."? I mean, this kind of thing happening occasionally and me saying that's how women act would be cherry picking, but it happening effectively EVERY time seems like a strong pattern.
Also, could it be that, instead of genuine empathy, those studies detected virtue signaling? Women are definitely more likely to say what's socially acceptable instead of the truth or what they really think.
And shit, how do you explain tons and tons of men reporting the exact same experience of seeing women acting precisely that way?
2. How likely do you believe it is, that studies such as these may have a pro-female bias, in the sense that they're active looking for things that would compliment women?
Certainly you've heard about cases in the Research field where results are manipulated to generate the profit required to fund the research in the first place. And it would certainly be scientific to sincerely question the legitimacy of studies.
>>20820No, woman behavior would be to use the "u no get pussi" insult lol.
Also, I've noticed in the past that any time any study or statistical analysis is presented that show women in a negative light, people immediately work to discredit it, like with dating site and tinder statistics.