Top products from r/antisrs

We found 20 product mentions on r/antisrs. We ranked the 19 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/antisrs:

u/MittRomneysCampaign · 1 pointr/antisrs

but what it sounds like and describes are different things. the only reason someone would perceive it that way is because they think the concept of "good reasoning" is a joke or not as complex as it actually is. (try to get >98th percentile on the LSAT.)

good reasoning is easily evaluated by a set of pretty objective (relatively speaking) criteria.

  1. how logically coherent are the claims (does the conclusion follow from the premise)

  2. are the claims ambiguous

  3. are these claims supported with some kind of evidence, preferably empirical

  4. if replying, are the claims relevant (do they address central claims made by other people)

    I could probably think of more. there are several argumentation books you can buy which list "rules for argumentation" (a really good one is Understanding Arguments by Sinnott-Armstrong and Fogelin, but on this issue particularly Walton's Informal Logic is great), and there tends to be a lot of commonality among the rules
u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/antisrs

Oh, good. Well, I'll leave the wikipedia link for other people. This book on the subject is pretty good, too.

u/a_weed_wizard · 3 pointsr/antisrs

you of course can't say with absolute certainty that this is how your ancestors lived, sure. despite using evolutionary theory, archaeology and anthropology to assist, it is on some level conjecture, that is true.

unlike the just-so posited by religions, feminists and indeed the majority of the field of sociology however, evolutionary psychology has its background in real science. it is a sort of unifying theory and is by and large based in the scientific method. there are quite a few interesting reads out there, one being "sociobiology" by edward o. wilson

u/Wordshark · 1 pointr/antisrs

I think you would enjoy Palahniuk's Invisible Monsters.

u/pfohl · -1 pointsr/antisrs

If you look into the history of whiteness and blackness, it's really not. A "black" person for a long time was not an African black we refer to now, at various times Irish, Italians, and Native Americans were referred to as "black" in the United States because they were racially and culturally inferior, thus not white. Whiteness was used to demarcate issues of politics and class.

Here's a good book that discusses some of it.

u/bouchard · 1 pointr/antisrs

Just don't tell them about Friday.

u/DevinV · 1 pointr/antisrs

If you will not use a metric you cannot posit that we live in a patriarchy because your own definition requires a metric to prove that women are worse off than men. Stop talking in circles. This is becoming a tautology and it's getting old. The burden is on you to prove patriarchy because you posit it is true. You have failed to do so under your own definition.

Worse still, all available empirical data says the opposite of what you claim to be true. Here is a little reading you might want to do, it's called The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrel. It goes in depth about how men experience worse average outcomes than women in society which is empirically supported by your own government's statistics about homelessness, imprisonment, and workplace death, among others.

u/iopot · 4 pointsr/antisrs

Hi! Thanks for not being a jerk.

I guess I'm confused about what people think SRS's position is supposed to be. If the position is whether privilege exists or not, or whether intersectionality is a thing, then they share a position. cojoco's comment seemed to be about how feminism deals with men, and that's what I had in mind.

SRS likes to circlejerk about how female privilege doesn't exist and how only women can be victims. Research into men's issues is totally a thing. I have a couple of anthologies at home with chapters discussing how men are oppressed by masculinity, the place of male voices within feminism, and male sexuality.

Inasmuch as SRS takes a stance on these things ("but what about the menz bloo bloo bloo?" etc.), this isn't reflected in what's published. bell hooks devotes more-than-token space to men's issues at various points. You've got chapters in Defending Our Dreams and Third Wave Feminism, ed. Gillis. Those both have plenty of references. There are lots and lots of other anthologies out there, but I can't vouch for them. I recently read a feminist piece on domestic violence committed by women against men. I'm out-of-state, or else I would pull stuff from my books. Hopefully, some less specific ones will have to do.

Men Doing Feminism is the go-to book. IIRC though, it's the target of some harsh criticism along the lines of "good idea, poor execution" in the Gillis anthology. I think I've heard of Rethinking Masculinity before. Maybe you think that academic feminists aren't discussing men's issues enough, but they are anything but hostile to them. Men's concerns and experiences are taken seriously. There's a ton of stuff out there, just do a Google search.

Beyond that, their concerns are so different that there is no distinctly SRS-ish opinion on issues in feminist theory. SRSers are in the business of pointing out specific instances of shitty things said on the internet. Theorists have higher aspirations. What positions were you thinking of?

Lots of SRSers are anti-essentialists. Gender realism is coming back in a big way, though now people are questioning whether there's a difference between the two (that is, the argument is only about whether there's a difference between realism and anti-realism when it comes to gender) (Sally Haslanger, Charlotte Witt [she maintains that she can remain silent on the realism/anti-realism question for the purposes she's got, but she gives the gender realists everything they could ask for]).

This is hard to do in a general way because I don't know which issues you're worried about or what you think "SRS's position" on them is.