Why so much hatred for feminism?

[tyr_13]

That's your prerogative. Can't make you discuss it.



I disagree but there really isn't a point to debating it if you don't want to discuss stats. That's not meant as an insult, just a statement of fact.

I don't want to discuss that statistic for reasons discussed later. Again, no matter what that says there are still gender inequalities.

Same as above.

That I don't consider that metric to be a useful avenue of discourse doesn't mean that I consider all metrics to be useless. There are several ways to study in more detail specific problems and the effects of hypothesized or implemented solutions. See the different standards we hold leaders of different genders too. Hell, see base criticisms of basically any woman leader. That's much better evidence of direct harmful behavior that can be fought against than the broadest outcome of wage.

Heh...only men get shot at. That's usually seen as a form of sexism against men. Works both ways I suppose.

Most forms of sexism go both ways when you think about it.

Thanks.

I told you right at the start that I'm a feminist. Though the way these threads go, it's easy to fall into the 'us vs them' mentality and see all critical as enemies.

It has been claimed that working dangerous jobs is a bad thing. That's why men think it's sexist. Giving women the jobs men are complaining about seems an odd reward.

I agree with your overall goal. Gender ratios should be normalized because men shouldn't be exposed to more danger than women arbitrarily. I just think there is something funny in the way you phrased the argument. It seems like regifting a fruitcake.

Well not so much if those jobs become better for everyone as a result. Those jobs do need done, and men are conditioned not to complain even as they suffer and die, but they are also conditioned to get as much cash as they can. Change that, and then some women come in. When women suffer and die, society at large cares much much more than when men do (which itself is problematic thinking about it). So those jobs get refined further into 'better' jobs for all. I put 'better' in quotes because by some people's view, higher wage but more dangerous is 'better' and there will always be people who make that value judgement in that way.

Why start there? What not CEO jobs?

What do you mean start? We're not at the start. I was born in the 80's, the start was before I was born. Besides that, my suggestion would affect a change on those jobs eventually too. When men begin to value more than just the big pay competition, which most CEOs have by necessity, then more of those spots would open up for women too.

Wow. I'm a little teary-eyed. You admitted that so readily. I've been working truethat for days. Not sure what to say.

Don't get all emotional on me. What are you a woman?

Hope you're not referring to the CONSAD study. That thing is...questionable.

No, that's one I haven't even read.

I think you are treating the symptoms, not the cause.

You say men are more willing to accept danger than women. That's a socialization problem. Instead of paying women to settle for something they are supposedly trying to avoid we should tell them they can handle danger as well as men.

I suppose the plans aren't mutually exclusive.

What do you think I meant by changing men's views? You have to change the socialization problem to do that.

They are all related. Societal gender roles determine who has the power. People with power help determine what societal gender roles are.

But once past the point of 'there is inequalities' and choosing who you're addressing, gender doesn't make much of a difference.

It isn't the focus of every topic. Plenty of feminism focuses on male stereotyping and how women stigmatize each other. When it IS the focus, it helps people realize how much farther is left to go. The goal is gender equality. You won't know if you have gender equality unless you compare the genders.

I didn't say focus. And I didn't criticize the wage gap as a metric of the existence inequality, but how it's used past that.

Let me explain.

In any nominally free society, there is power stratification. We expect to find some people are powerful and wealthy and others are poor and weak. That is the price we pay for living in a country that donesn't have state thought police. To test whether or not the society is egalitarian, we take arbitrary factors like race or gender and see where they fall on that strata. If everything were equal, we'd see women distributed in the same way as men. But the results say men on average have more wealth, governmental representation and business power. This is a bad thing and we need to do something about it.

You suggest we appeal to and people with the power to fix it regardless of gender. Unfortunately, when people go into board rooms or Congress they enter rooms containing mostly men. They then have no choice but to tell them they have more power. The responses range from "Didn't we fix that years ago?" to "It can't be fixed." to "It's best this way." In the worst scenarios, they use rhetorical judo and play the REAL victim. They scream "Stop picking on men! SEXIST!" Men with lesser power, like you and me, look over at the argument and immediately think it is an attack on your entire gender because we think they are coming to take power we don't have.

The day I can stop "picking on men" is the day I won't need to.

You're coming at what I'm criticizing sideways. Continuing to talk about men's relative power/money advantages when addressing say Congress does just what I said it seems to do, and exactly what you mentioned in your OP. The men who know they haven't done anything wrong tune out, or feel attacked. The women, some of who have done wrong in that regard, don't feel addressed. Going further to 'white men' lets even more tune out, both white men and not.

Once onto, 'what do we do about gender inequalities,' continuing to bring up who tends to have it best can only be perceived as an attack. 'Is there a problem' and 'what to do about the problem' are different questions, and continuing on one when the other is the issue is actually fallacious.

It does nothing to address the actual issues or possible solutions. I'm sure there is more I wanted to say, but I can't think of it at the moment.

I am. It makes me happy to see a man suffer.

Glad to be of assistance.

 

[KingMerv00]

The survey snippet says nothing about the lives of women; there is absolutely no reason to presuppose that the women in any of these countries should necessarily have different lives because of it.

14% of Americans openly say they think men should have employment priority when jobs are scarce.

A person in that 14% works in an HR departent and they are torn between two job candidates who are equally qualified. One candidtate is a man, the other is a woman. How will the HR employee most likely decide? How will that decision negatively impact the losing candidate?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No it isn't.

The survey snippet says nothing about the lives of women; there is absolutely no reason to presuppose that the women in any of these countries should necessarily have different lives because of it.

That they do or don't is neither here nor there; you talked about a relationship of employment of women and attitudes to women that tacitly states that attitudes to women cannot be positive if the employment of women does not fall within a certain criterion.

This is the basic objection I am making - a failure to establish that the economic measures indicate an actual inequality that needs addressing. I am not saying that they do or do not merely that if you cannot you cannot possibly hope to establish an end point as to when one could say women are "equal" and hence you are free to continue your grievance in perpetuity using whatever measures you feel like using at any time.

Are you oblivious to the cultures in those countries outside of the data in the survey?

 

[cyborg]

14% of Americans openly say they think men should have employment priority when jobs are scarce.

A person in that 14% works in an HR departent and they are torn between two job candidates who are equally qualified. One candidtate is a man, the other is a woman. How will the HR employee most likely decide? How will that decision negatively impact the losing candidate?

The HR person will choose the man. I'm bet the woman will just be ecstatic about not getting the job like everyone who doesn't get jobs they apply for feel.

Now, 86% of Americans openly say they don't think men should have employment priority when jobs are scarce.

A person in that 86% works in an HR department and they are torn between two job candidates who are equally qualified. One candidate is a man, the other is a woman. How will the HR employee most likely decide?

Is this the wrong time to point out that more women work in HR than men? Even if one pretends that there's only a 50% chance of it being a woman doing the deciding lets say it is and maybe she's a feminist - like all good women should be of course - and she decides that the man's got enough privilege to begin with so gives the job to the woman.

That poor man kills himself because he was statistically more likely to do so.

You see how this being able to make up stuff as you want to fit the conclusion works?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is almost completely backwards - that a woman hasn't become president doesn't mean she necessarily could not be. This is certainly true of the US today since there are no legal measures that prevent this.

Just a coincidence then, 235 years of all white men Presidents (except Obama) is just a coincidence because women are legally allowed to run for the office? And BTW, you do know that was not always the case, right?

 

[cyborg]

Are you oblivious to the cultures in those countries outside of the data in the survey?

No, I'm saying you're oblivious to the difference between there being a casual link and a correlation. You want me to accept that there is a necessary causal link between women not having equal X of something and women not having equal treatment. Fine, if that's the case then we aim to make the numbers equal between men and women and then society is just fine is it? Or is that not what you're saying?

 

[cyborg]

Just a coincidence then, 235 years of all white men Presidents (except Obama) is just a coincidence because women are legally allowed to run for the office? And BTW, you do know that was not always the case, right?

No it's not a coincidence and yes I know the rules have changed - for one thing I am fully aware that women have not been able to participate in government in most western countries until the 20th century.

The point remaining that if you're saying the number of female presidents is relevant to the equality of men and women in society you're going to have to justify it a little better than simply saying "there's none, it's unequal, problem."

What do you need to do? Have 235 years of consecutive female presidents and at the point your country nears its half millennium you reach the final statistic that will demonstrate the end of inequality between the sexes?

If not then what exactly is it you're looking for?

Do you see why I say there's a problem with being able to simply pick the statistics you want in order to say there's something wrong otherwise?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I'm saying you're oblivious to the difference between there being a casual link and a correlation. You want me to accept that there is a necessary causal link between women not having equal X of something and women not having equal treatment. Fine, if that's the case then we aim to make the numbers equal between men and women and then society is just fine is it? Or is that not what you're saying?

I see no one claiming 'cause' of an outcome in that table. But there are enough countries there to say there is a correlation between liberated-women culture countries vs oppressed-women culture countries.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
The point remaining that if you're saying the number of female presidents is relevant to the equality of men and women in society you're going to have to justify it a little better than simply saying "there's none, it's unequal, problem."...

Your head is in the sand. I can't help you.

 

[cyborg]

Your head is in the sand. I can't help you.

Oh, really, in what way is my head in the sand?

Does the fact that my country has had a female Prime Minister and several Queens that are the head of state make the UK objectively superior on female equality to the USA?

Can I take the moral high-ground and look down on my backwards transatlantic cousins and their female hating ways?

Look, it's really not my fault if you don't know how to actually evaluate the state of society in order to achieve the goals you want it to have. Me merely pointing out that you don't know how to achieve that does not in any way imply I am need of "help". I am not someone who is going to pretend that life is not full to the brim of inequity but neither am I someone prone to allowing the poor measurement of that inequity to allow one to make grand sweeping statements about society that aren't justified.

As such I cannot but shake my head at the fact that the number of female Us presidents has been brought up as a serious number to discuss if you're not going to stand by that statistic and say, "this is the number when it's ok".

Otherwise you're tacitly saying the statistic was never going to be a good measure of the inequality you want it to demonstrate.

 

[KingMerv00]

Can you give me the set of measurements you would use to tell when women are equal to men or not? Are the previous stats you quoted relevant? If so what numbers would indicate a lack of a problem?

It is physically impractical to reduce gender equality to a single mathematical measurment. If I were a quantum computer from the year 2555AD, I would monitor every interaction and thought. If humans treated and thought of the genders equally except when calculating non-arbitrary factors, I'd measure humans to be 100% egalitarian. (Within statistical variation of course.)

Unfortunately, my brain is made of meat and I'm unable to get such an accurate measurement. Instead, I have to break the problem into chunks by considering individual arenas or types of interaction. If I measure human thought via survey for example, and find that 14% of people think men should have hiring priority, I ponder whether or not there is any rational, non-arbitrary reason for a person consider gender in a decision like that. If none is discovered, I label that one particular human behavior as "sexist". I consider methods of reducing that outcome. Maybe I'll use laws, education, or both.

I continue collecting data and applying methods until all available measurements no longer read as "sexist". When that happens, I would label society as "100% egalitarian within measurable error".

 

[cyborg]

It is physically impractical to reduce gender equality to a single mathematical measurment.

I didn't ask for this and I really don't need the theoretical limitations of computation explained to me.

However your response does indicate that you will simply pick and choose as you like until you feel that things are fine whilst ignoring the obvious emotional trap you have set up for yourself in doing so.

This is what people are objecting to here - the arbitrariness of what you use to demonstrate what you have already concluded must be there.

 

[KingMerv00]

The HR person will choose the man. I'm bet the woman will just be ecstatic about not getting the job like everyone who doesn't get jobs they apply for feel.

After correcting for sarcasm, I agree with you.

Now, 86% of Americans openly say they don't think men should have employment priority when jobs are scarce.

A person in that 86% works in an HR department and they are torn between two job candidates who are equally qualified. One candidate is a man, the other is a woman. How will the HR employee most likely decide?

Neither is more likely.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out what happens if these thought experiments are repeated over and over. In the end, men end up getting more jobs and women end up getting more rejections.

Is this the wrong time to point out that more women work in HR than men?

Yes but I'll address your unfounded implication of sexism anyway.

The survey doesn't break down the 14% by gender. For all I and you know, it is composed entirely of men or women. Given the information we have, the gender of the HR employee is not a useful variable.

Even if one pretends that there's only a 50% chance of it being a woman doing the deciding lets say it is and maybe she's a feminist *snark redacted* and she decides that the man's got enough privilege to begin with so gives the job to the woman.

Well that's sexist. I think we should fire her. Don't you?

That poor man kills himself because he was statistically more likely to do so.

Wow that's sad. Maybe we should find out why that is and see if there is any to reduce that statistic?

*snark redacted*

 

[KingMerv00]

I didn't ask for this and I really don't need the theoretical limitations of computation explained to me.

However your response does indicate that you will simply pick and choose as you like until you feel that things are fine whilst ignoring the obvious emotional trap you have set up for yourself in doing so.

This is what people are objecting to here - the arbitrariness of what you use to demonstrate what you have already concluded must be there.

Do you believe it is possible to identify the existence of predjudice of any kind in society?

 

[AvalonXQ]

If I measure human thought via survey for example, and find that 14% of people think men should have hiring priority, I ponder whether or not there is any rational, non-arbitrary reason for a person consider gender in a decision like that.

There actually is one. I don't agree with it, but I do believe it's rational and non-arbitrary.

My boss's attitude was based on the idea that, if a family already had one adult with a job, it was less important for that family to have a second job than for another family to have a first job. So, based on the assumption that in many families women represent a "secondary" or supplemental income, he believed it made sense to preference the "primary" income.

Interestingly enough, he agreed that by this logic, single women should have the same preference as men. Basically he had this whole "primary breadwinner" thing in his head that he thought should be enforced in employment decisions.

 

[cyborg]

After correcting for sarcasm, I agree with you.

Neither is more likely.

It's almost as if both of us can interpret probabilities!

Although of course the set up of a situation where you specifically say that one of the 14% who is biased to make the decision the "wrong" way wasn't intended to allow any other choice so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to demonstrate to me here.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out what happens if these thought experiments are repeated over and over. In the end, men end up getting more jobs and women end up getting more rejections.

And I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that this is only in the situations where there is no other determining factor to employment (of which we have no evidence as to its frequency but I would doubt the existence of cut and dry platonic ideal female and male candidates is common) that one of the 14% of the general population (because the statistic you brought up didn't specify otherwise) is also equally likely to be employed in HR (of which there is no evidence either way).

But why bother with the messy details of life when we can just choose the numbers that allow us to be the most irate about it?

Yes but I'll address your unfounded implication of sexism anyway.

I made no implication of sexism - I just pointed out a piece of factual information.

The survey doesn't break down the 14% by gender. For all I and you know, it is composed entirely of men or women. Given the information we have, the gender of the HR employee is not a useful variable.

It's almost as if it's a completely useless number on its own that doesn't allow us to make firm conclusions either way and could let our own prejudices feed into it.

Well that's sexist. I think we should fire her. Don't you?

Our diversity numbers for women don't look so good at the moment so I think we'll let this slide despite the quantum mind scanner saying she's definitely guilty of being a man hating feminist when put into theoretical situations where candidate selection can only be on the basis of factors not relevant to the job.

Wow that's sad. Maybe we should find out why that is and see if there is any to reduce that statistic?

We should wait and see if it makes the median wage disparity between men and women better first.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, really, in what way is my head in the sand?

Does the fact that my country has had a female Prime Minister and several Queens that are the head of state make the UK objectively superior on female equality to the USA?

Out of an office that changed hands 78 times (if I counted right), white men held the position 77 times. Your country had one white woman and ours had one black man, both only recently. That's quite a record and answers your question why I conclude your head is in the sand. You think there is no evidence in that information that one can use to draw any conclusions. What evidence exactly are you looking for if a couple centuries of Presidents and Prime Ministers isn't sufficient?

As for the Queens, sorry, that position in your country is incomprehensible to me. I fail to see how an hereditarily assigned PR position is relevant to the discussion.

 

[cyborg]

Do you believe it is possible to identify the existence of predjudice of any kind in society?

Sure.

Do you believe it is possible for the same opinion to be both prejudiced in some and postjudiced in others?

 

[cyborg]

Out of an office that changed hands 78 times (if I counted right), white men held the position 77 times. Your country had one white woman and ours had one black man, both only recently. That's quite a record and answers your question why I conclude your head is in the sand.

I see no answer to my question; is the UK objectively less sexist than the US? You've had no women premiers. None < not none.

Or are you saying we're objectively more racist because you've had one non-white premier and we've had none?

You think there is no evidence in that information that one can use to draw any conclusions.

No, there isn't. It's a sideshow that tells us absolutely nothing other than the obsession in US politics with one man.

What evidence exactly are you looking for if a couple centuries of Presidents and Prime Ministers isn't sufficient?

You really think the experience of what amounts to a rather remarkably fractional portion of society should be used in a serious discussion as to the general state of equality in the majority of society?

So let us say for instance that the UK reformed the rules of inheritance for the monarchy such women were no longer able to be the monarch in their own right but by every other measure you would care to name men and women were in exactly equal proportions - wages, political representation, opportunity - that somehow the statistic about the sex of the monarch would be the most relevant indicator?

It is hard to take you seriously when you cannot form a cogent approach to how you want to measure against the outcomes you want to see.

As for the Queens, sorry, that position in your country is incomprehensible to me. I fail to see how an hereditarily assigned PR position is relevant to the discussion.

I'm afraid it's a little more complex than PR but the constitutional niceties of the UK are not really the point here. The point is that you're trying to say there is something inherently "bad" about the statistic you've chosen. Fine.

Tell me what the "good" statistic looks like. If you haven't even considered the answer to that question what that tells me is that your head is the one firmly in the sand as far to how relevant your own arguments are.

 

[KingMerv00]

Does the fact that my country has had a female Prime Minister and several Queens that are the head of state make the UK objectively superior on female equality to the USA?

Not enough information.

For one, the existence of a female monarch is due to the random movement of sperm, not human choice. Sexism can't be an issue.

For two, measuring a single data point (e.g. the existence of "several" female heads of state) in one arena is helpful but not absolutely indicative.

Can I take the moral high-ground and look down on my backwards transatlantic cousins and their female hating ways?

If you like. I won't be joining you being a moral scold isn't very helpful.

Look, it's really not my fault if you don't know how to actually evaluate the state of society in order to achieve the goals you want it to have. Me merely pointing out that you don't know how to achieve that does not in any way imply I am need of "help".

Hypo:

Premise 1 - All things being equal, atheism is not a relevant characteristic when choosing a president.
Premise 2 - Atheists have had equal legal and social power to become president for the last 50 elections. (50 chosen more or less arbitrarily)

Hypothesis - The number of atheist presidents obtained in the last 50 elections will most likely be 50 x (atheist population factor).

Observation 1 - The number of atheist presidents obtained in the last 50 elections is 0.

Observation 2 - Atheists have indeed had equal legal opportunites to become president in the last 50 elections.

Conclusion - Atheists do have have equal social opportunities to become president.