It was all in the title but OK, click.
When women have a special thing, we hate when men steal it.
doing our hair
painting our nails
That’s our thing. It’s characteristic. It’s disturbing to see men in our clothes.
Imagine a woman in a Kiss the Cook apron. Something is off there.
Men don’t do well on vegan diets obviously but the countersignal of “I can afford to” is a genetic signal to personal adaptiveness. The study is correct but the conclusions too PC to apply to real life. It’s the dietary equivalent of a peacock. Only a person without a real job (some desk jockey in media) would be able to afford the caloric drop and the nutrient loss (and the expensive food). It’s the middle class white man’s diet.
This writer doesn’t know how to write about science but I won’t bother punching at him. e.g. For this, the sample size is actually large in the field. Shh.
There are no blanket critiques, we have equations.
That ^ was on the first line of the first page of Google. STFU with that one.
I tend to kick sociologists, admittedly but I hate loud idiots. We all do.
Stop copy pasting criticisms of one study off reddit and randomly trying to stick it on another. Fake intellectuals keep doing this and it’s annoying. Each study is unique, like the wrinkles on your balls.
It would be like pointing at every painting and calling it a Picasso.
We call tell you’re wrong instantly. Please stop.
The problem with the internet is there will always be someone smarter than you reading your bullshit. Usually me. Angry tea-drinking.
But the study is basically angry that men still think like men even when they’re acting like women. It’s like they’re mocking us as stupid but also milking the virtue signal we own for male status points. It’s true and it is unfair but so what?
If something is the smart thing to do, the reasons don’t really matter. But it’s a way of framing their diet as an achievement of intellect, holding themselves up while pushing emotional people down, as if all humans aren’t emotional. There’s a good point in there.
Emotional reasoning exists, it isn’t an oxymoron. You could call it morality.
We are not machines, being purely rational is called being a monster. We shouldn’t be sociologically rewarding very cold people for being nice when it suits.
The study is correct. I don’t like it, but there’s solid reasoning.
I don’t care but there are always those sad people who view everything as a battle of the sexes when we all live in the same society.
It isn’t a sexed choice, it’s food. That’s the point.
It’s like vegan men are saying to vegan women “anything you can do, I can do better.”
No, it’s the exact same thing.
You come at it from opposite sides: animal welfare and scientific consumption.
Both are important but the men are trying to over-value themselves and mansplain for a sexual edge, I guess? That’s annoying. That’s really insulting, when you think about it.
Like, “don’t worry, kitten, I know why you should eat that better than you do.”
For an opposite comparison, imagine if a woman told you that you were crying wrong.
We don’t do it, we could.
The obnoxious men are putting new people off, like tumblr fans ruining Sherlock.
“I’m a better vegan than you.” No veganer than thou intellectualizations. This isn’t a sexual thing, stop trying to make it a sexual thing.
I disagree with the practice of veganism but cannot fault the logic of this study.