- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
No exceptions. The counterparts to black women are of course black men, who are worse-behaved. I wasn't saying that any group of women is better than any other group of men, that'd mean that any woman is better than any man, which is obviously false, because male heroes and female monsters exist.Except black women. They're worse than white men according to FBI murder statistics.
Now, there is a clause I left out because I thought it'd be too much sperging for the thread (girls and math, amirite):
that the demographic to be further subdivided into men and women should not itself be selected on the basis of sex x behavior. Thus the two counterexamples-which-aren't: child abuse and single parenthood outcomes.
1. Child abuse: women commit 50.5% of it, men commit 49.5%. Why? Because "entrusted by the government with rearing a child" is already pre-selected for lawful behavior, horror scrotes are less likely to get access to a child. That the numbers are almost equal shows the system does a decent job of making custody decisions.
2. Children raised by single fathers do better in life than children of single mothers. Why? Because scrotes abandon their children more often than women, but well-behaved young fathers and mothers are roughly equally likely to die. So there are ~~equal numbers of widows and widowers (who are likely to be good parents), and then there are children of trashy scrotes raised by their precariously-living mothers on top of that, lowering outcomes for "all single mothers" as a group.
Another example of pre-selection would be something like "inmates in minimum-security prisons": we already know these people are in there because they said the gamer word AND the police couldn't pin anything worse on them.
And then there are examples that pre-select for badness, statistics be damned. Some male Soviet/Russian cosmonauts were quite the mansluts. But the third (of three) female cosmonauts is a pimp -- an oligarch sent his Ghislaine Maxwell to space on the taxpayer's kopeika -- and if binomial proportion could be applied to a sample of 3 (it can't), female cosmonauts as a group would look very bad indeed.
1. Child abuse: women commit 50.5% of it, men commit 49.5%. Why? Because "entrusted by the government with rearing a child" is already pre-selected for lawful behavior, horror scrotes are less likely to get access to a child. That the numbers are almost equal shows the system does a decent job of making custody decisions.
2. Children raised by single fathers do better in life than children of single mothers. Why? Because scrotes abandon their children more often than women, but well-behaved young fathers and mothers are roughly equally likely to die. So there are ~~equal numbers of widows and widowers (who are likely to be good parents), and then there are children of trashy scrotes raised by their precariously-living mothers on top of that, lowering outcomes for "all single mothers" as a group.
Another example of pre-selection would be something like "inmates in minimum-security prisons": we already know these people are in there because they said the gamer word AND the police couldn't pin anything worse on them.
And then there are examples that pre-select for badness, statistics be damned. Some male Soviet/Russian cosmonauts were quite the mansluts. But the third (of three) female cosmonauts is a pimp -- an oligarch sent his Ghislaine Maxwell to space on the taxpayer's kopeika -- and if binomial proportion could be applied to a sample of 3 (it can't), female cosmonauts as a group would look very bad indeed.





