60 Minutes: Who has the softer heart?

The American news show “60 Minutes Overtime” notes how ideological feminism has polluted, and continues to interfere with, sound science, including medical science.

Those outside the United States who cannot view this video may be able to go to this page to view the video instead.

(Hat tip: Under the Goddess.)

About AVfM Video Source

AVfM Video Source is a group dedicated to finding and presenting to you the best videos from the internet that help illustrate the growing and evolving Men's Human Rights Movement, or that indicate society's changing attitudes toward the sexes. AVfM does not necessarily agree with or endorse everything in every video.

Main Website
View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Shrek6

    I would very much like to see that experiment carried out using human hearts.

    There is one major difference between a male pig and a man. The male pig does virtually no physical work in its entire lifetime, whereas a man or most men, work their backsides off.

    I do not expect that the man’s heart will be harder than that of the woman’s heart. After a lifetime of hard slog, I can see the man’s heart structure, being softer due to overuse. That’s just my unscientific guess, after working in Abattoirs noting that the hearts of working Bulls were always larger and softer than those of Steers, Cows or non working Bulls.

    Over 90% of the worlds western women, wouldn’t work in an Iron Lung. They have barely raised a sweat in their entire life., but I can attest to the veracity of this video, because I have already learnt that women and men are almost 180 deg different, even down to the cellular level. The only thing that makes us the same, is that we are both humans, have a head, body, arms and legs.

    Other than that, we are not the same creature and therefore never, ever will be equal!

    That is why this video is nothing but nonsense. More bullshit female pumping science, to try and lift the female up above the male in some basic manner. The fact is, it makes no difference as to which heart is soft and which one is hard, in the overall scheme of things.

    The female heart is only required to work hard, just a few times in its life time, where as the male heart is often working hard, all its life.

    • Iron Duke

      You’re getting caught up in treating it like a race about heart hardness and completely missing the point of the video. The “hardness” of heart tissue is not a contest. And I don’t know what male and female pigs do, if anything. This is an esoteric medical fact that has no bearing on practical life. But esoteric medical facts can matter a whole lot in extreme situations, and the problem the video tries to highlight is that people’s discomfort with the notion of natural sex differences is stifling research.

      • Duke

        American gender-theory in its never ending quest for a gender-less society, is proven to be hostile to truth / facts.

      • Shrek6

        You’re right, I didn’t acknowledge the constriction placed upon research because the idiot women out there can’t handle that sort of thing. We should be researching the differences between the sexes, most especially for medical reasons.

        I was in a bumbling manner trying to say something else, which after reflection, I never ended up doing. It was late at night when I wrote that and I was tired. Brain atrophy visits late at night. Hehe!

        In the video they stated how they removed all the musculature material and left only the fibrous framework of the heart. Anatomically it stands to reason that the male heart will be larger and softer or much more flexible.

        A stiff heart is not capable of pumping large volumes of blood around the body for extensive periods of time. The male heart is built this way so that it can expand to such a large size to facilitate the movement of large volumes of blood and the musculature will be there to mach the power requirements of the pump.

        The women in that video tried to pull some bullshit out of their feminist backsides, by intimating that the more firmer heart is the stronger, because why? Because women have babies. And we all know that women are much more powerful and stronger and more able to cope with physically demanding work and punishment than any man ever could. Don’t we?

        Oh and we can’t forget the one single age old bit of clap trap that ever spews from the mouth of any woman. Men don’t know what pain and suffering is like, when compared to childbirth.
        Pllleeeeeze, pull the other one, it plays Jingle Bells.
        Whenever I hear that vomit from an idiot woman’s mouth, I have to excuse myself lest I make a derogatory remark, or I just let the stupid fool have it anyway. They are nothing but drama queens and I am so glad I don’t have to listen to this vomit anymore. Brrrrr. The thought of it makes me shudder!

        Like I said in my last paragraph of my previous post. It’s all a load of crap and should be ignored and discounted and doesn’t mean zip.

        What will come of this, is that they will now petition govts to spend lots of money on women’s health in favour of men’s health. As if they aren’t already doing that!

        • Iron Duke

          Shrek, I see what you mean. I’m so used to tuning out speculation that her comment passed right through my skull like a neutron.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FamilyCourtDads/info Gary Trieste


          • http://www.menbeproud.org Robert Brockway

            It was also stated “The female stem cells were more numerous and more vibrant, men’s stem cells were fewer in number and seem to decline at an earlier age”

            Whether or not this is true I don’t know. I now realise that so many medical claims seemly favouring women are over-stated or outright lies that I now treat them all with scepticism.

            In any case, even if it is true, more is not always equal to better. One of the great errors that people make when trying to understand scientific discoveries is that they try to draw overly simplistic conclusions concerning the behaviour of complex systems.

    • MGTOW-man

      “Other than that, we are not the same creature and therefore never, ever will be equal!”

      —In policy, on paper, while pushing buttons, and in pretend-land, women might “be” equal, but in reality, they will never be equal until they prove it…without any help.

      Simply wanting to be equal is not near enough in actual reality. They are fooling themselves and apparently the masses, but they will NEVER be equal as long as they get help being equal (wink, wink).

      They must also admit that all variables count…and have to count… in their uprising to try and prove they are equal.

      If you do not lie to women, they will not like you.

      Superior or inferior? Not my game or intentions. All I am saying is that as identical-to-males, they are not equal and if I am wrong they need to prove it in all ways and without any help whatsoever of any kind, from anyone–unless we also go all out to help men and boys in the same ways.

      I do not think they even really understand what equality is even about. But they defintely know what TRUE equality is, in which they, tellingly, will have NONE of that!

      Wonder why?

      Message to the duped men out there: You’ll want to wear your liar and customer caps.

  • http://blog.StudioBrule.com Steve Brulé

    Can’t watch it in Canada, it is blocked

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyboyCdnMRA Dan Perrins

      Steve use the alternate link and you can watch it.

      • http://underthegoddess.blogspot.com/ Kevin Wayne

        Glad to here that it’s working, Dan – you’re the 1st person to tell me whether or not that helped or not~! lol

        • Peadair

          Works in Kiwiland. Weird. Does 60 Minutes hate Canada?

  • Bombay

    All research studies require an effort to not only recruit men and women, but people from different races. If your study does not do this your need to properly justify it or you will not be funded. It has been this way for decades. More flag waving for women.

    “NIH-conducted and –supported Clinical research must conform to the NIH Policy and Guidelines on the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm), in accord with Public Health Service Act sec. 492B, 42 U.S.C. sec 289a-2. The policy requires that women and members of minority groups and their subpopulations be included in NIH-conducted or supported clinical research, unless a clear and compelling rationale and justification establishes to the satisfaction of the NIH IC Director that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. Exclusion under other circumstances may be made by the Director, NIH, upon the recommendation of an IC Director based on a compelling rationale and justification.

    Cost is not an acceptable reason for exclusion except when the research would duplicate existing data. Women of childbearing potential should not be routinely excluded from participation in clinical research. The policy applies to research subjects of all ages in NIH-supported clinical research studies (see definition of clinical research). The inclusion of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity must be addressed in developing a research design appropriate to the scientific objectives of the study. A proposed outreach program for recruiting should also be included. When an NIH-defined Phase III clinical trial is proposed, investigators must consider whether clinically important sex/gender, racial, and/or ethnic differences in the intervention effect are to be expected and plan the research accordingly.”


    • rebar

      Bombay – – – Best post on the page.

    • http://underthegoddess.blogspot.com/ Kevin Wayne

      So just curious – how long has that been in effect? Any idea?

      I ask because this is the longer story:


      If you watch that ad watch the follow-up video “ROUTINE LUNCH SPARKS AN EPIPHANY” (scroll down, same page,) you hear an awful lot of complaining that only males were being studied in the past. The 2nd video would seem to indicate even the recent past!

      • Bombay

        “(e) Date certain for guidelines; applicability
        (1) Date certain

        The guidelines required in subsection (d) of this section shall be established and published in the Federal Register not later than 180 days after June 10, 1993.
        (2) Applicability

        For fiscal year 1995 and subsequent fiscal years, the Director of NIH may not approve any proposal of clinical research to be conducted or supported by any agency of the National Institutes of Health unless the proposal specifies the manner in which the research will comply with this section.”


        This matches my memory of having to comply.

        • http://underthegoddess.blogspot.com/ Kevin Wayne

          Thanks. So that begs the question of why the girl in that “Epiphany” video was only studying males? She doesn’t seem old enough to be doing it 18 years ago.

          The video begins with “A few years ago.”

          “Giving her a grant to by the additional rats.” LOL Just sounds funny to me!

  • SlantyJaws

    I don’t even know what to make of this. Humans aren’t pigs and it’s well known that the state of the heart and its tissues depends to a great extent on the lifestyle and age of the heart’s owner.

    Next we watch as she draws blood and checks for somatic stem cells, finding that the female ones are “more vibrant and energetic”, which is a clinical term I presume, and then she mentions age as the single factor in the “vibrancy and energy” of stem cells which is quite a reach in the very young field of stem cell study.

    Yes clearly there are genetic differences between men and women which express themselves as biological differences, but this video is not something I’d point to as evidence to support any kind of sociological agenda.

    Maybe there’s a paper with more details somewhere?

    • Clint Carpentier

      I don’t care.

      Feminist dogma is being publicly questioned. The world isn’t flat after all.

      • SlantyJaws

        I’d prefer to know who we’re cheering on first, and make sure this isn’t more “men will be extinct in five million years” stuff.

        • http://underthegoddess.blogspot.com/ Kevin Wayne

          I’d prefer to know who we’re cheering on first, and make sure this isn’t more “men will be extinct in five million years” stuff.

          Extremely doubtful. I don’t think Lesley Stahl would sign onto that. This is actually a more in-depth look at a story they already had done:


          If you look at the way the story is edited there, it seems to highlight the fact (?) that past scientific studies assumed you could study both make & female by studying the male. You can almost hear Feminists shrieking “sexism” at that.

          So it’s rather noteworthy IMHO that a follow-up was done that implicated Feminism as part of the problem.

          It’s your call how you want to see it, but that’s what I get out of all of this.

          • SlantyJaws

            I think we need to carefully examine gender related scientific research because it’s almost impossible to avoid politicisation in this area, and the MHRM’s greatest strength is that it’s an evidence based movement.

            Indeed the politicisation of science has led to some of the greatest atrocities in history, the emergence of the scientific method as a major cultural phenomenon in the 19th and early 20th centuries caused all sorts of problems when people with a particular worldview went looking for “facts” to support that worldview, rejecting every fact that disagreed, then went on to form “theories” based on their “evidence”.

            In short, exactly what feminism does.

            Scientific racism was one of the most obvious aberrations, the effects of which echo down to this very day, along with its close cousins eugenics and phrenology as well as many other pseudosciences. All of Marx’s theories were formed in the same environment and share the same heritage, despite claiming scientific relevance. And we don’t need to discuss the deep connections between Marxism and feminism.

            It’s a mistake to imagine that feminism is entirely about both sexes being the same in every way except genitalia as well – if you look at the Agent Orange files you’ll see radical feminists braying about that debunked five million year extinction rubbish as well, quite a lot of these people see men and women as different species entirely. It’s not hard to see them taking that video clip and using it for triumphalist gender supremacism.

            And that’s without getting into the far, far more widespread feminist notion of women being inherently more peaceful/nurturing/closer to gaia/creative tripe. No, quite large parishes of feminism aren’t really behind the idea of “the same except for genitalia” at all.

            I understand that some in the MHRM buy into a lot of the evopsych stuff, I personally don’t because we shouldn’t underestimate the plasticity and adaptability of the human mind, the most important organ by far, so again I’m very cautious about dodgy research even if it does criticise feminism in the process – it might only be criticising some sections of feminism. I’d be equally sceptical if she had been talking about the male heart being stronger and the male stem cells being more “vigorous”, whatever that means.

            Definetely agree though that any and all politicisation needs to be removed from scientific research forthwith.

  • hatredisfoolish

    So the male pig’s heart is capable of ‘folding in on itself’? Pig or not, I could have told them that.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikey_stephens/ John_mws

    Most pioneers were men and tested on themselves. Also men are disposable. Thats why testing would not have been done on women if the disease was common to both sexes. These people did not know about things like DNA and stem cells.

    The video just comes across as another reason to ask for more “women only” medical spending because we have allegedly not tested new drugs on women enough, in the modern era.

    Great if women now want to be guinea pigs as well as men, as long as testing on men is not reduced instead.

  • jaytheman

    There is another video a ted talk where a scientist talks about this very issue and also how men and women’s bodies accept medicine differently. Hell we even respond to disease differently and I agree with other commentators that pig hearts aren’t definitive enough the real take away from this piece should be how little the medical community cares about the differences. Thank Feminism for not only suggesting that men and women are exactly the same in all categories psychology included, but also that women’s health was undervalued in the medical world during the hay days of the Patriarchy.
    A good example of where feminists cherry pick history is metal illness. Yes women would be considered hysterical and more prone to acting out, but as usual they ignore the male side of it. In many societies the husband was responsible for the wife and if she did something wrong he was legally responsible. Also if men had any mental problems at all they would be thrown in a mad house or killed. Man it sure is great being in club patriarchy!

  • Billybobownway

    Not all pigs are raised as equal. Breeders, boars and sows, are kept separate for piglet production..
    Feeders are unbred gilts and castrated barrows. They are fed and kept under different conditions.
    Gender may not be the only variable in their organ differences. This wasn’t mentioned.

  • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com Isaac T. Quill

    Abstract Reads -Scientists acknowledge that bias caused by feminist social engineering and dogma obstructs rational scientific investigation and advance more than flat earth believers.

    It seems that some are getting bogged down in Minutia“ over pigs bits – when the ladies said:

    Anne Silvio: I understand that feminism may have contributed to this oversight?

    Lesley Stahl: It took hold in this country very strongly in the late 60s and 70s -and the women’s movement, the message was “We are not different”, “Women are not different” and that became almost a psychological barrier, even in the scientific community. To start looking in to ways that we are different? No can’t do that!

    DR Doris Taylor: Many of us want to present out research at scientific sessions around the country. My experience is, if you have an abstract and you put “Sex Differences ” in the title, you’re not going to get that abstract accepted.

    When you have Dogma obstructing and controlling behaviour to the point of Psychologically induced error and blindness …. that is by definition the operation of a CULT.

    If you have a fundamentalist religious believer demanding that their faith override and control science we call then a Whako.

    When a feminist does it, what should they be called?

  • Duke

    Im beginning to Equate the MRM, with the fact that in WW2 the Nazi’s pushed so far into Russia, that there supply line were no longer defensible . Same with American gender-feminism…they have perverted American law enforcement so much, that there positions are no longer defense-able.

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FamilyCourtDads/info Gary Trieste

    The take-away from this piece is quite obvious.
    1. That there are physical and fundamental differences in the makeup of men and women.
    2. That the differences are obvious to any scientist that merely takes a look.
    3. That idealistic feminist theory, post hoc, demands these facts to be untrue, and will cut funding and support to any view that is different from those edicts.

    4. That radical feminism will forcefit its views and presumptions even into pure science, and attempt to pervert investigations, treatment, prognosis’ and conclusions even to the detriment of human scientific knowledge.

    The video piece is highly critical of feminist theory, while trying to understate that criticism with a calm demeanor.

  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com Robert St. Estephe

    “. . . sex differences . . .”
    “. . . sex differences . . .”
    “. . . sex differences . . .”

    Golly gee, there researchers are not using the word “gender.”

    Perhaps they are aware that the term “gender” refers to an ideological theory that was, decades ago proven to be absolutely erroneous. The notion “gender” is used to identify different categories, such as noun groups, and can justifiably be used to describe arbitrarily determined “sex roles,” yet confusing the existential physical (biologically complementary) sexes with the abstract intellectual concept of “cultural construction” (which, as a primary, or a total, determinant, has been proven to be a false ideological concoction) is folly. Certainly some people are born with indeterminate sex., or blind, or as conjoined twins, or albino but that does not alter the reality of there being a normative.

    • Duke

      The term “Gender” is a construct to beat hetero-males over the head with.

  • Flo604

    this link works in Canada 😛