fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3266 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3266 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #467.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

i mean, like. do you want a source for the claim that more women menstruate than men. is that what you're asking for here

Nope. I'm asking for the basis of the nonny's belief that, statistically, female friends would be more able to commiserate about menstruation than male friends.

More female people menstruate than male people.

All other things being equal, we should expect the menstruation rates amongst one's friends to approach the menstruation rates of people in the general population.

Therefore, we would expect female friends to be more able to commiserate about menstruation than men.

(WHAT IS GOING ONNNNNNNN)

Therefore, we would expect female friends to be more able to commiserate about menstruation than men.

I don't really see the link, nonny. Is there any evidence implying that because one menstruates, they're more likely to express sympathy for another's menstruation problems?

I'm not saying that's not the case. I'm just saying I'd like to see some evidence for a positive claim on that.

(WHAT IS GOING ONNNNNNNN)

You're on

fandomsecrets. The year is 2015. You're conversing about menstruation and sympathy.

I don't really see the link, nonny. Is there any evidence implying that because one menstruates, they're more likely to express sympathy for another's menstruation problems?

We're not talking about expressing *sympathy*. We're talking about commiseration and giving advice.

(a) commiseration requires shared experience definitionally and (b) probably the most common route to being able to give useful advice about menstruation is through having experienced it yourself, since there are far more people who menstruate than there are doctors.

Therefore, if you are seeking commiseration and advice, you should seek people who menstruate. More women menstruate than men, so if you made friends with one man and one women, all other things being equal, the woman is statistically likely to be better at commiseration and advice.

We're not talking about expressing *sympathy*. We're talking about commiseration and giving advice.

(a) commiseration requires shared experience definitionally and

By what definition? All the ones I've seen literally define it as "expressing sympathy" or some such. There is no added qualifier of needing shared experience.

If that isn't a required point to define it, then it isn't a qualifier.

You are an idiot. Like... Wow.

So I'm right, basically?

Trolling or not, definitely an idiot.

"Commiseration" is literally "to lament with", to feel with someone.

By what definition? Webster? Macmillian?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-12-13 23:28 (UTC) - Expand

You're either autistic or you're trolling, but either way you're really, really bad at this conversation and you should stop.

Wowwwwwwwwwwww using ableism too to attack, classy!

mudousetsuna - 2015-12-15 01:28 (UTC) - Expand

Why are you being deliberately obtuse about this? Sure, it's bad to assume and generalize, but it seems a pretty logical assumption that women are more qualified for commiseration about menstruation than men.

I just don't see the link in "has a period = more sympathetic".

I don't think it should be that hard for people to explain their reasoning behind it, if it's such a logical assumption to make.

(Anonymous) - 2015-12-13 23:26 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-12-13 23:38 (UTC) - Expand

diet_poison - 2015-12-14 17:44 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-12-14 02:00 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-12-14 12:58 (UTC) - Expand

blitzwing - 2015-12-14 15:19 (UTC) - Expand

Isn't that fact that one can menstruate going to skew the odds that they're more likely to be able to commiserate than someone who can't menstruate?

That's what I'm wondering here, is there evidence to indicate that, beyond personal speculation?

So what you want a source on is who's nicer to menstruating people, men or women?

I dunno. That's like saying, "I want to see a study that can prove that someone who's lost a child is more likely to sympathize with someone who has also lost a child than someone who hasn't."

Do studies get done on things that can be really really obvious?

I don't think AYRT is saying ONLY women can commiserate, just that the odds are REALLY more likely that someone with experience in something is more able to than someone who has only secondhand experience with it can.

SA

And by sympathize I meant empathize because I'm hungry and my brain is being poopy.

DA

A bit off topic but actually yes. Studies do get done on things that "are really obvious" because that's what studies do, provide evidence that proves or disproves hypotheses. Sometimes the results are surprising, sometimes the results are totally expected, but studies are done in order to have the numbers and stats and evidence there to point to, whether it's to support or disprove a belief.

People say psych studies that prove factually that "things everyone knows" are true are useless, but they're not; they're providing concrete stats to show that everyone is correct in certain beliefs.

"It is known (but there are no studies to prove it, just trust me, it is known)" is a really bad argument, scientifically speaking.

NAYRT

okay, but, like, there is a point in discourse where asking for sources on things like that is not constructive

there are some things that you have to just accept as - at least - reasonable suppositions. there has to be a line. like, you can't reduce every internet argument to first-principles arguments about epistemology and ontology

unless you're Heidegger, I guess. Heidegger would totally fucking do that.

AYRT

Oh I wasn't speaking up in defense of either side, I was answering AIRT's question about whether studies are done on "obvious" things and for what reason. Hence, off topic, purely about studies.

(Anonymous) - 2015-12-13 21:59 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-12-13 22:02 (UTC) - Expand

+100000

You're fucking insane.

'Cause you know I love the players?