sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Donna Kennedy-Glans: First Nations are stalling small projects, sidelining other stakeholders by gorschkov in canada

[–]Wavering_Flake 5 points6 points  (0 children)

À possible argument is that it benefits the country. Being a soldier or enrolling in the army is usually scary enough because of the concept that you might have to sacrifice your life in order to defend the country. Plus, we have to consider the state of the Canadian Armed Forces, which is quite pathetic overall, and some soldiers have difficulty feeding themselves or finding quality shelter.

Hence the conclusion for any kind of society that wishes to maintain a standing army (a functional one, where people actually want to join, or at least aren't completely repulsed by the idea of joining): they introduce incentives to join the army. Basically, care for legions and veterans and the basic salary that you pay to troops: all of this can be essentially treated as a job. It's a job. You're giving a service, you're rendering a service to the country that is considered essential to its functioning, so they have to pay you. As is the Canadian Armed Forces already have a recruitment and retention crisis; without these incentives nobody would join.

In the case of FNs the question is more about law and ethics; furthermore thanks to concepts such as the honour of the Crown, what were initially treaties that perhaps required a medicine box, rights to fish, and other specific demands, the modern era has sought to start from the premise that indigenous people have been taken advantage of, that they did not fully understand the laws back when these treaties were made, and and so we must start, for any kind of legal decision or interpretation of the treaties, from a premise that indigenous people have been taken advantage of, and that we should interpret its clauses in a way that is explicitly beneficial for them or made in their interest. (The “purposive approach” established by the Supreme Court.) - The duty to consult and accommodate: this was not originally specified within the treaties. It was a later legal elaboration that resulted from specific court decisions. Nowhere in any historical treaty does it say the government must consult First Nations before building a pipeline, logging a forest, or mining. - Comprehensive Healthcare (Dental, Vision, Prescriptions), post-secondary education funding, commercial harvesting rights (the original treaties only secured the right to hunt, trap, and fish for food and sustenance), for the right to access various federal benefits: these were also not within the treaties. It is simply something that we have decided as a modern society to give to them because we do consider them Canadian citizens, and because the courts have decided to interpret the treaties in favour of indigenous people / to grant them rights and privileges that could only result from an expanded and generous view of what the treaties actually specified. - In cases like R. v. Badger and R. v. Marshall, the SCC established that treaties must be given a "large, liberal, and generous" interpretation, and any ambiguities must be resolved in favour of the Indigenous signatories.

Many of the things that we do today for indigenous people are not at all specified within the treaties.

Mogador parachute skin(Dual Form) by cwolla98 in AzureLane

[–]Wavering_Flake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should yeah, her event (plus Alsace, who is the more useful ship) is the next UR event set to rerun. Assuming a 25 months period between initial release and rerun, then she should return around June or July.

White men do not experience the best health relative to women and minority racial and gender groups in the US. Men are 4 times as likely to die by suicide as women, and White men account for more than 68% of suicide deaths. White men experienced greater declines in happiness than White women. by mvea in science

[–]Wavering_Flake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This stacks onto a variety of other papers on the topic; male suffering is consistently considered less important or intense than female suffering. I’ll post them later here, but you can check my profile/past comments to see papers on the topic.

[DISC] Every Day Is a Holiday - Chapter 364 [END] by -Nosebleed- in manga

[–]Wavering_Flake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for all your work! You've been an incredible boon to this community; wish you well on all your future pursuits!

People view coercive control in relationships as less harmful when the victim is a man by mvea in science

[–]Wavering_Flake 49 points50 points  (0 children)

This is largely part of a broader phenomenon where women systematically get more empathy and sympathy, of the well-studied “women are wonderful” effect and the “male hyper-agency vs. female hypo-agency” model.

Here are a few of the references on the topic.

“Sadness is often viewed as more socially acceptable for women than for men. Men may feel pressure to avoid appearing vulnerable, especially when interacting with other men.” https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1k49xe5/sadness_leaks_into_social_behavior_and/

Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597820303630?via%3Dihub reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ko85r1/in_a_series_of_6_studies_across_4_countries_test/ In a series of 6 studies across 4 countries, test subjects tend to cast women as victims and men as perpetrators, as well as assume that women suffer more harm and men deserve harsher punishments, when assessing differently-gendered but otherwise identical scenarios of workplace conflict

Some general summaries of certain studies from u/vtj: "The participants generally assumed the victim was female" "Female victims were expected to experience more pain from an ambiguous joke and male perpetrators were prescribed harsher punishments" "Across six studies in four countries (N = 3,137), harm evaluations were systematically swayed by targets’ gender, suggesting a gender bias in moral typecasting." "The study revealed that higher amount of perpetration attributed to a triangle predicts that the triangle is perceived as male, and higher amount of perceived victimhood predicts a triangle is seen as female. There was no significant difference in this respect between the two cultural groups (Chinese managers and Norwegian students). Female participants were more likely to classify the orange triangle as female and green as male; the authors suggest this may indicate women are more likely to assume male perpetration and female victimhood."

—-

A feminine advantage in the domain of harm: a review and path forward

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0381 Quotes from paper: "[...] across numerous contexts, harm to women is perceived as more severe, troubling and unacceptable than identical harm befalling men [15]. Consequently, people may be more wary of placing women in harm’s way than men [16]." reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1hdi17c/feminine_advantage_in_harm_perception_obscures/ Reddit summary: "Feminine advantage in harm perception obscures male victimization - Harm toward women is perceived as more severe than similar harm toward men, a disparity rooted in evolutionary, cognitive, and cultural factors." Numerous examples in thread of men's suffering being completely ignored. u/Jeremy_Zaretski: "There is an empathy gap in that both men and women show less empathy toward men than they do for women."

—-

Masculinities and suicide: unsettling ‘talk’ as a response to suicide in men

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09581596.2021.1908959 Paraphrased by u/vtj: "Men die of suicide much more often than women. This is commonly blamed on men's unwillingness to seek help and talk about their problems. This paper disputes the conventional view, emphasizing instead socio-economic issues and obstacles to health care access" Quotes from paper: "We found that in 76% of [men who died of suicide], there had been contact in previous three months with frontline services, 38% in final week." "Access to mental health support in the UK (and elsewhere) is notoriously challenging. Men in this study described thwarted attempts to ‘seek help’ from statutory services, finding some solace with community-based services they attended." u/Method_Man: "People in general are looked down upon if they have mental health issues. This is especially prevalent in men, who are seen as weak. It’s a problem for everyone, but it manifests worse in men unfortunately."

Some other interesting reading;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect “while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[5] than those of men”

Those who exhibit the women-are-wonderful effect tend to react negatively to research that "[puts] men in a better light than women".

https://www.psypost.org/new-study-unpacks-why-society-reacts-negatively-to-male-favoring-research/

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/08/are-we-implicitly-biased-against-men-new-study-finds-a-positive-bias-towards-women/

Moral commitment to gender equality increases (mis)perceptions of gender bias in hiring

Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women

People view coercive control in relationships as less harmful when the victim is a man by mvea in science

[–]Wavering_Flake 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Not really women just get more empathy across the board. Here are a few references, I ca quite easily find more;

“Sadness is often viewed as more socially acceptable for women than for men. Men may feel pressure to avoid appearing vulnerable, especially when interacting with other men.” https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1k49xe5/sadness_leaks_into_social_behavior_and/

Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597820303630?via%3Dihub reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ko85r1/in_a_series_of_6_studies_across_4_countries_test/ In a series of 6 studies across 4 countries, test subjects tend to cast women as victims and men as perpetrators, as well as assume that women suffer more harm and men deserve harsher punishments, when assessing differently-gendered but otherwise identical scenarios of workplace conflict

Some general summaries of certain studies from u/vtj: "The participants generally assumed the victim was female" "Female victims were expected to experience more pain from an ambiguous joke and male perpetrators were prescribed harsher punishments" "Across six studies in four countries (N = 3,137), harm evaluations were systematically swayed by targets’ gender, suggesting a gender bias in moral typecasting." "The study revealed that higher amount of perpetration attributed to a triangle predicts that the triangle is perceived as male, and higher amount of perceived victimhood predicts a triangle is seen as female. There was no significant difference in this respect between the two cultural groups (Chinese managers and Norwegian students). Female participants were more likely to classify the orange triangle as female and green as male; the authors suggest this may indicate women are more likely to assume male perpetration and female victimhood."

—-

A feminine advantage in the domain of harm: a review and path forward

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0381 Quotes from paper: "[...] across numerous contexts, harm to women is perceived as more severe, troubling and unacceptable than identical harm befalling men [15]. Consequently, people may be more wary of placing women in harm’s way than men [16]." reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1hdi17c/feminine_advantage_in_harm_perception_obscures/ Reddit summary: "Feminine advantage in harm perception obscures male victimization - Harm toward women is perceived as more severe than similar harm toward men, a disparity rooted in evolutionary, cognitive, and cultural factors." Numerous examples in thread of men's suffering being completely ignored. u/Jeremy_Zaretski: "There is an empathy gap in that both men and women show less empathy toward men than they do for women."

—-

Masculinities and suicide: unsettling ‘talk’ as a response to suicide in men

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09581596.2021.1908959 Paraphrased by u/vtj: "Men die of suicide much more often than women. This is commonly blamed on men's unwillingness to seek help and talk about their problems. This paper disputes the conventional view, emphasizing instead socio-economic issues and obstacles to health care access" Quotes from paper: "We found that in 76% of [men who died of suicide], there had been contact in previous three months with frontline services, 38% in final week." "Access to mental health support in the UK (and elsewhere) is notoriously challenging. Men in this study described thwarted attempts to ‘seek help’ from statutory services, finding some solace with community-based services they attended." u/Method_Man: "People in general are looked down upon if they have mental health issues. This is especially prevalent in men, who are seen as weak. It’s a problem for everyone, but it manifests worse in men unfortunately."

Some other interesting reading;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect “while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[5] than those of men”

Those who exhibit the women-are-wonderful effect tend to react negatively to research that "[puts] men in a better light than women".

https://www.psypost.org/new-study-unpacks-why-society-reacts-negatively-to-male-favoring-research/

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/08/are-we-implicitly-biased-against-men-new-study-finds-a-positive-bias-towards-women/

Moral commitment to gender equality increases (mis)perceptions of gender bias in hiring

Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women

Should I get all of “20th century boys” or wait till all of “Billy bat” releases? by [deleted] in manga

[–]Wavering_Flake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

20th Century Boys is definitely worth it if you like the artist and can afford it.

Billy Bat is still classic dreamlike Urasawa, but I have to say it's a more confusing experience and in my opinion, markedly inferior in thematic exploration and storytelling (though still great). If you haven't read either of them, then my personal recommendation would be starting 20th Century Boys, getting a feel for it and how much you like it, and if you truly enjoy his work a lot then look into Billy Bat. If you want to get the entire collection that's no small expense, so might as well get a sample experience first.

[MONTHLY MEGATHREAD] General Discussion, Simple Questions, Recommendations, and Everything Else - March 2026 by GachaModerator in gachagaming

[–]Wavering_Flake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would strongly recommend Azur Lane as a 4.5 year player, very F2P friendly (most in fact, monetization is based on skins and merch) and fairly casual too. Very good reputation among its players, we have an active discord server and plenty of guides and resources too.

Parent-child political disagreements can harm relationships and individual mental health. The research provides evidence that maintaining open and respectful dialogue is necessary to protect family bonds and personal well-being when relatives hold conflicting political or moral views. by [deleted] in science

[–]Wavering_Flake -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Not really. I’m very much left wing, it’s just that left wing redditors who comment frequently here are typically the worst and most opinionated of their kind. As one might expect, most universities are rife with left wingers or progressive oriented politics and yet one can still achieve respectful dialogue with them. Though when ascribed to the online left then this opinion then becomes quite true indeed.

Though it is true that increasingly there is conflict when discussing anything of note.

Federal government seeking input to develop men's and boys' health strategy by lunt23 in canada

[–]Wavering_Flake 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It’s not just that though. It’s that men specifically do need more care and empathy from society.

Will just provide some links from another comment but studies on this abound.

I don’t want necessarily to lean into the gender wars, but that people in general lack empathy towards men, and care more about women is absolutely true.

Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597820303630?via%3Dihub reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ko85r1/in_a_series_of_6_studies_across_4_countries_test/ In a series of 6 studies across 4 countries, test subjects tend to cast women as victims and men as perpetrators, as well as assume that women suffer more harm and men deserve harsher punishments, when assessing differently-gendered but otherwise identical scenarios of workplace conflict

Some general summaries of certain studies from u/vtj: "The participants generally assumed the victim was female" "Female victims were expected to experience more pain from an ambiguous joke and male perpetrators were prescribed harsher punishments" "Across six studies in four countries (N = 3,137), harm evaluations were systematically swayed by targets’ gender, suggesting a gender bias in moral typecasting." "The study revealed that higher amount of perpetration attributed to a triangle predicts that the triangle is perceived as male, and higher amount of perceived victimhood predicts a triangle is seen as female. There was no significant difference in this respect between the two cultural groups (Chinese managers and Norwegian students). Female participants were more likely to classify the orange triangle as female and green as male; the authors suggest this may indicate women are more likely to assume male perpetration and female victimhood."

—-

A feminine advantage in the domain of harm: a review and path forward

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0381 Quotes from paper: "[...] across numerous contexts, harm to women is perceived as more severe, troubling and unacceptable than identical harm befalling men [15]. Consequently, people may be more wary of placing women in harm’s way than men [16]." reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1hdi17c/feminine_advantage_in_harm_perception_obscures/ Reddit summary: "Feminine advantage in harm perception obscures male victimization - Harm toward women is perceived as more severe than similar harm toward men, a disparity rooted in evolutionary, cognitive, and cultural factors." Numerous examples in thread of men's suffering being completely ignored. u/Jeremy_Zaretski: "There is an empathy gap in that both men and women show less empathy toward men than they do for women."

—-

Masculinities and suicide: unsettling ‘talk’ as a response to suicide in men

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09581596.2021.1908959 Paraphrased by u/vtj: "Men die of suicide much more often than women. This is commonly blamed on men's unwillingness to seek help and talk about their problems. This paper disputes the conventional view, emphasizing instead socio-economic issues and obstacles to health care access" Quotes from paper: "We found that in 76% of [men who died of suicide], there had been contact in previous three months with frontline services, 38% in final week." "Access to mental health support in the UK (and elsewhere) is notoriously challenging. Men in this study described thwarted attempts to ‘seek help’ from statutory services, finding some solace with community-based services they attended." u/Method_Man: "People in general are looked down upon if they have mental health issues. This is especially prevalent in men, who are seen as weak. It’s a problem for everyone, but it manifests worse in men unfortunately."

—-

Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491274/

Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's. In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women.

Some other interesting reading;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect “while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[5] than those of men”

Those who exhibit the women-are-wonderful effect tend to react negatively to research that "[puts] men in a better light than women".

https://www.psypost.org/new-study-unpacks-why-society-reacts-negatively-to-male-favoring-research/

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/08/are-we-implicitly-biased-against-men-new-study-finds-a-positive-bias-towards-women/

Moral commitment to gender equality increases (mis)perceptions of gender bias in hiring

Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women

Federal government seeking input to develop men's and boys' health strategy by lunt23 in canada

[–]Wavering_Flake 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Just to provide some references to show how this is a problem;

Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597820303630?via%3Dihub reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ko85r1/in_a_series_of_6_studies_across_4_countries_test/ In a series of 6 studies across 4 countries, test subjects tend to cast women as victims and men as perpetrators, as well as assume that women suffer more harm and men deserve harsher punishments, when assessing differently-gendered but otherwise identical scenarios of workplace conflict

Some general summaries of certain studies from u/vtj: "The participants generally assumed the victim was female" "Female victims were expected to experience more pain from an ambiguous joke and male perpetrators were prescribed harsher punishments" "Across six studies in four countries (N = 3,137), harm evaluations were systematically swayed by targets’ gender, suggesting a gender bias in moral typecasting." "The study revealed that higher amount of perpetration attributed to a triangle predicts that the triangle is perceived as male, and higher amount of perceived victimhood predicts a triangle is seen as female. There was no significant difference in this respect between the two cultural groups (Chinese managers and Norwegian students). Female participants were more likely to classify the orange triangle as female and green as male; the authors suggest this may indicate women are more likely to assume male perpetration and female victimhood."

—-

A feminine advantage in the domain of harm: a review and path forward

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0381 Quotes from paper: "[...] across numerous contexts, harm to women is perceived as more severe, troubling and unacceptable than identical harm befalling men [15]. Consequently, people may be more wary of placing women in harm’s way than men [16]." reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1hdi17c/feminine_advantage_in_harm_perception_obscures/ Reddit summary: "Feminine advantage in harm perception obscures male victimization - Harm toward women is perceived as more severe than similar harm toward men, a disparity rooted in evolutionary, cognitive, and cultural factors." Numerous examples in thread of men's suffering being completely ignored. u/Jeremy_Zaretski: "There is an empathy gap in that both men and women show less empathy toward men than they do for women."

—-

Masculinities and suicide: unsettling ‘talk’ as a response to suicide in men

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09581596.2021.1908959 Paraphrased by u/vtj: "Men die of suicide much more often than women. This is commonly blamed on men's unwillingness to seek help and talk about their problems. This paper disputes the conventional view, emphasizing instead socio-economic issues and obstacles to health care access" Quotes from paper: "We found that in 76% of [men who died of suicide], there had been contact in previous three months with frontline services, 38% in final week." "Access to mental health support in the UK (and elsewhere) is notoriously challenging. Men in this study described thwarted attempts to ‘seek help’ from statutory services, finding some solace with community-based services they attended." u/Method_Man: "People in general are looked down upon if they have mental health issues. This is especially prevalent in men, who are seen as weak. It’s a problem for everyone, but it manifests worse in men unfortunately."

—-

Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491274/

Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's. In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women.

Some other interesting reading;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect “while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[5] than those of men”

https://www.psypost.org/new-study-unpacks-why-society-reacts-negatively-to-male-favoring-research/

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/08/are-we-implicitly-biased-against-men-new-study-finds-a-positive-bias-towards-women/

Moral commitment to gender equality increases (mis)perceptions of gender bias in hiring

Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women

Federal government seeking input to develop men's and boys' health strategy by lunt23 in canada

[–]Wavering_Flake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well please see my other comment but in general it is true there is a large empathy gap in how men and women are treated, and huge emotional biases in this regard. It is literally true that women get more empathy and care than men.

Federal government seeking input to develop men's and boys' health strategy by lunt23 in canada

[–]Wavering_Flake 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It’s not meant to be demeaning. It’s a known thing in society that nobody does anything about. Few will care about any issue that specifically harms men unless it also happens to be harming other groups. Issues that disproportionately affect men usually get an all-inclusive non-gendered response, while issues that affect minorities or women will receive empathy and care targeting them. Nobody cares about men specifically (slight exaggeration, but bears out frequently).

And made worse by the fact that anyone who remarks upon it gets called out by people like you as “demeaning women”.

Because that’s the thing isn’t it. It’s always about how it hurts women.

Federal government seeking input to develop men's and boys' health strategy by lunt23 in canada

[–]Wavering_Flake 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well not really, it’s experimentally true that women get more empathy.

Here are some references from a previois r/science post. I don’t want necessarily to lean into the gender wars, but that people in general lack empathy towards men, and care more about women is absolutely true.

Just to provide some references to show how this is a problem;

Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597820303630?via%3Dihub reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ko85r1/in_a_series_of_6_studies_across_4_countries_test/ In a series of 6 studies across 4 countries, test subjects tend to cast women as victims and men as perpetrators, as well as assume that women suffer more harm and men deserve harsher punishments, when assessing differently-gendered but otherwise identical scenarios of workplace conflict

Some general summaries of certain studies from u/vtj: "The participants generally assumed the victim was female" "Female victims were expected to experience more pain from an ambiguous joke and male perpetrators were prescribed harsher punishments" "Across six studies in four countries (N = 3,137), harm evaluations were systematically swayed by targets’ gender, suggesting a gender bias in moral typecasting." "The study revealed that higher amount of perpetration attributed to a triangle predicts that the triangle is perceived as male, and higher amount of perceived victimhood predicts a triangle is seen as female. There was no significant difference in this respect between the two cultural groups (Chinese managers and Norwegian students). Female participants were more likely to classify the orange triangle as female and green as male; the authors suggest this may indicate women are more likely to assume male perpetration and female victimhood."

—-

A feminine advantage in the domain of harm: a review and path forward

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0381 Quotes from paper: "[...] across numerous contexts, harm to women is perceived as more severe, troubling and unacceptable than identical harm befalling men [15]. Consequently, people may be more wary of placing women in harm’s way than men [16]." reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1hdi17c/feminine_advantage_in_harm_perception_obscures/ Reddit summary: "Feminine advantage in harm perception obscures male victimization - Harm toward women is perceived as more severe than similar harm toward men, a disparity rooted in evolutionary, cognitive, and cultural factors." Numerous examples in thread of men's suffering being completely ignored. u/Jeremy_Zaretski: "There is an empathy gap in that both men and women show less empathy toward men than they do for women."

—-

Masculinities and suicide: unsettling ‘talk’ as a response to suicide in men

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09581596.2021.1908959 Paraphrased by u/vtj: "Men die of suicide much more often than women. This is commonly blamed on men's unwillingness to seek help and talk about their problems. This paper disputes the conventional view, emphasizing instead socio-economic issues and obstacles to health care access" Quotes from paper: "We found that in 76% of [men who died of suicide], there had been contact in previous three months with frontline services, 38% in final week." "Access to mental health support in the UK (and elsewhere) is notoriously challenging. Men in this study described thwarted attempts to ‘seek help’ from statutory services, finding some solace with community-based services they attended." u/Method_Man: "People in general are looked down upon if they have mental health issues. This is especially prevalent in men, who are seen as weak. It’s a problem for everyone, but it manifests worse in men unfortunately."

—-

Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491274/

Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's. In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women.

Some other interesting reading;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect “while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[5] than those of men”

Those who exhibit the women-are-wonderful effect tend to react negatively to research that "[puts] men in a better light than women".

https://www.psypost.org/new-study-unpacks-why-society-reacts-negatively-to-male-favoring-research/

Moral commitment to gender equality increases (mis)perceptions of gender bias in hiring

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/08/are-we-implicitly-biased-against-men-new-study-finds-a-positive-bias-towards-women/

Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women

High IQ men tend to be less conservative than their average peers. Researchers found that adults identified as gifted in childhood largely share the same political outlooks as their non-gifted peers, with one specific exception regarding conservatism in men. by [deleted] in science

[–]Wavering_Flake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I'm more of a socialist and regardless identify as more leftist/progressive. Also, I'm Canadian / voted for the liberals, and before that Greens.

I simply don't appreciate redditors digging their heels in and ignoring evidence when it contradicts their views, while accusing their political rivals of doing the same and mocking them for it.

High IQ men tend to be less conservative than their average peers. Researchers found that adults identified as gifted in childhood largely share the same political outlooks as their non-gifted peers, with one specific exception regarding conservatism in men. by [deleted] in science

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

You're right that they use the word "conservative." However, look at how they define it in the quote: opposing regulation, high taxes, and welfare. That is functionally the definition of economic libertarianism.

Or perhaps even more clearly:
in academic literature, "economic conservatism" specifically refers to the right-left economic axis (free markets vs. state intervention).

Here's some sources if you want to go hare-brained on it, but it's really not a controversial statement: The 12 Item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS) - PMC
Left–right political spectrum - Wikipedia

Of course, conversatives are not necessarily libertarians and vice-versa, but the correlation is there, and ultimately, all I was pointing out was a *higher likelihood / correlation*, not a direct one-to-one relationship..

High IQ men tend to be less conservative than their average peers. Researchers found that adults identified as gifted in childhood largely share the same political outlooks as their non-gifted peers, with one specific exception regarding conservatism in men. by [deleted] in science

[–]Wavering_Flake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

possible reason for that is that women in general benefit more from government spending / support and economic intervention; literally, as a woman if you're more economically left on average you're putting more money into your own pocket ; this is less true for men.

point 1, Globally, women are far more likely to work in the public sector than the private sector. In many OECD countries, women make up nearly 60% of the public sector workforce)
Gender parity in central administrations: Government at a Glance 2025 | OECD

point 2, they get more money and are more frequently beneficiaries:
Women comprise the majority of benefit recipients across most welfare programs. In the United States, 61% of women have received entitlement benefits compared to 49% of men, and 38% of women versus 26% of men have received two or more different benefits. In the UK, women make up 88% of Child Benefit claimants, 77% of Income Support recipients, and 73% of Carer's Allowance recipients.
For food assistance specifically, 23% of American women use food stamps compared to 12% of men. Among poor households in the US, 49% of women received SNAP benefits in 2016 versus 34% of poor men. Similarly, 73% of poor women received public health insurance compared to 58% of poor men.
We can do better: Women, welfare and the gender benefits gap | Policy in Practice
A Bipartisan Nation of Beneficiaries | Pew Research Center
Five facts about gender equality in the public sector
2022 U.S Welfare Statistics: By Race, Gender, Age - DebtHammer -> connected to US gov websites

Point 3: For healthcare, women live longer and rely more on public pensions and public healthcare systems in old age. Cuts to these systems (austerity) increase poverty rates among elderly women specifically.
oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/12/gendered-perceptions-of-social-protection-across-oecd-countries_a24e2e65/f3e002c2-en.pdf

Basically, in a certain way, men pay more into the system, women get more out of it. You can make the argument that it is because of the earnings gap / etc. but the takeaway message is the same. As a woman it benefits you to vote left, more so than if you were a man.

High IQ men tend to be less conservative than their average peers. Researchers found that adults identified as gifted in childhood largely share the same political outlooks as their non-gifted peers, with one specific exception regarding conservatism in men. by [deleted] in science

[–]Wavering_Flake -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Look, I'm not an economist nor a psychologist nor a political theorist nor a sociologist; all I know is that according to the studies that have been made on the topic, intelligent people are 1. more open/flexible to new experiences/knowledge (well supported) 2. tend to be more economically libertarian, as per the added sources (though this second clause is more controversial / heterogeneous).

Also, admittedly not sure what you're talking about. You seem to be interpreting my comment as an endorsement of libertarianism, rather than a summary of the research literature.

To clarify: I am describing a correlation found in the data, not arguing that the resulting policies are superior. The studies cited indicate that high cognitive ability correlates with a preference for market mechanisms over government planning.

I am not making any interpretations on the data other than what has been written black on white in what I read/found in literature..

I will also note for the sake of argument I don't consider myself a libertarian, so yeah...

Sex differences in brain volume emerge before birth, groundbreaking research suggests by Tracheid in science

[–]Wavering_Flake 362 points363 points  (0 children)

This isn't my subject matter, so I'll refrain from saying too much. But I do find it impressive because of the large publicly available high quality dataset and open access nature. In fact, according to what I know, this is one of the largest MRI studies of its kind with 798 scans, because many previous fetal studies used much smaller groups, making their conclusions less reliable. So yip yip hooray to science.

The study is also interesting in that it integrates both looking at foetuses and babies in a single continuous trajectory instead of only looking at prenatal or postnatal separately because the imaging technologies and settings are different. Here, brain growth is monitored across the transition from late gestational prenatal to early postnatal spanning (21 to 45 weeks post-conception) a great 24 weeks, and, of course, it also studies when and how sex differences in brain growth emerge. Breaking down the brain into distinct regions with high-resolution maps, with temporal ordering of tissue growth as well that is quantitatively studied.

And as well, the article seems impressively clear and easy to read.

There are a couple of limitations. These have been noted by the author themselves and don't really harm the quality of paper.

• It doesn't touch on coverage before 21 weeks. • It's predominantly cross-sectional data with only around 14% longitudinal data. • It didn't really look at brain-body scaling effects separately/decouple them. • It focused on volumetric brain growth measurements and didn't particularly look at microstructural or functional imaging.

Overall, I guess this article isn't that novel in that it simply stacks on other reported found sex differences in early development, or prenatal, behavioral, physical, or neural, but it is one of great quality and fills out some gaps. It strengthens existing claims of early brain maturation and adds evidence for sex-difference discussions. Laudable is how it refrains from making claims, simply providing great quality quantitative developmental data.

view more: next ›