Why so much hatred for feminism?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Looks like Stewart was there in 2005 but has dropped since due to her legal troubles.




If you look at how some of the self made billionaires made their fortunes most of it seems to come down to business management preferably backed with some sort of technical innovation. There does seem to be a direct correlation to the types of education males gravitate to, engineering and both management tend to be male dominated.

The simplest explanation seems to be there are simply more men doing the things that are likely to result in self made billionaires.

Of all the people we’ve discussed I suspect Warren Buffet is the only one who could realistically repeat the feat if he started as a young person today. All the others seem to have an element of being at the right place and the right time.

You see the successful males, but how do you know how many women meet all these same criteria but were excluded from promotion along the way? I'm pretty sure that is a well established fact, btw. Some women indeed overcome those barriers. You might be interested in Sandra Day O'Conner's story. But that doesn't mean the barriers are not there.

 

[lomiller]

It's still a slight gap and one that is slowly closing.

The report you linked to doesn’t say that gap is closing only that it may have stopped growing.

For the first time, several indicators suggest that the size of the gender gap in higher education [/b]may have stabilized.[/b]

It’s almost35% more likely to get a post secondary education, that doesn’t seem like a small gap. (My 50% number was bad rounding on my part I used 40% make 60% female getting degrees. They report 43% and 57% which seemed close enough but it does give a different number)

For example, men and women now earn roughly the same amount of master's degrees but women use them to enter fields such as education while men use them to find jobs in fields like engineering. Obviously there will be some difference in post-graduate income. So while we do need to work on raising the high school graduation rates of boys, we also need to work on encouraging girls to study science-related programs

I disagree. We shouldn’t have to tell people what they want to enrol in. If there are specific identifiable issues preventing women from enrolling in fields like engineering, then yes those should be addressed, but we can’t exclude the possibility men and women simply have different interests.

 

[lomiller]

You see the successful males, but how do you know how many women meet all these same criteria but were excluded from promotion along the way?

Very few of the people we are discussing made their fortune by working for other people, so I think we can safely exclude the possibility you bring up.

 

[truethat]

I love how there is always a reason why you did it but you are the exception. Is it possible, just possible that the patriachal society put those expectations on men to work?



Wasn't it wrong to insult men for staying home too long past school? You aren't helping the cause by calling him a mamas boy because he stayed home till he was 27. Just so you understand, the roots of the feminist movement were that everyone suffers from gender roles, including men. Every reason you've listed that men suffer as a result of societies "expectations" are a part of the gender roles placed on men, by a male dominated society.

My situation is my situation and has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I keep answering your ridiculously personal questions because you keep asking them. Honestly you are getting a little stalkerish.

Also gender roles are not always put on men by men. See there's this weird thing about how mothers can influence how their sons grow up. Strange I know. I know it's considered a ridiculous idea because if you don't have a penis you don't have any power at all in the world. But somehow......I'm thinking Psycho theme here........is anyone else?






Hey SKEPTIC GINGER! Notice you ignored the part where I pointed out your hypocritical statement of saying I'm not compassionate to the plight of poor women who have to work........after you bragged about not taking your kid to a "low class" day care center.

Snerk.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Very few of the people we are discussing made their fortune by working for other people, so I think we can safely exclude the possibility you bring up.

Not necessarily. One gets experience by being promoted. That could easily contribute in a large way to later going out on one's own.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Hey SKEPTIC GINGER! Notice you ignored the part where I pointed out your hypocritical statement of saying I'm not compassionate to the plight of poor women who have to work after you bragged about not taking your kid to a "low class" day care center.

Snerk.

Just so you don't hold your breath, I'm not replying to lots of things you post. I do believe you also have skipped about 90% of what I've posted. It's the way it goes sometimes.

 

[truethat]

Yet you responded. But I guess you just aren't going to admit that your comment was pretty disgusting towards poor women who must work out of financial necessity and use day care centers that aren't posh and costing $1,000 a month.


You just basically proved what I said about women being competitive and catty while trying to slam me to the mat for my lack of compassion.


This is also part of what I posted in another thread about what frustrates me about women. They pretend to care about the plight of women who are less educated or poor. Yet they really consider themselves "above" these types of women and their help is of the patronizing sort that turns these women into "victims of circumstance."

The poor women I lived next door to, worked with, and educate are some of the most intelligent and resourceful women in the world.

Despite the fact that women who think they are better than them, consider them "low class.".

 

[bookitty]

The report you linked to doesn’t say that gap is closing only that it may have stopped growing.



It’s almost35% more likely to get a post secondary education, that doesn’t seem like a small gap. (My 50% number was bad rounding on my part I used 40% make 60% female getting degrees. They report 43% and 57% which seemed close enough but it does give a different number)




I disagree. We shouldn’t have to tell people what they want to enrol in. If there are specific identifiable issues preventing women from enrolling in fields like engineering, then yes those should be addressed, but we can’t exclude the possibility men and women simply have different interests.

Elementary school boys and girls show the same interest and aptitude for math and science. But the stereotypes are already set. Children as young as second grader will draw "scientist" as a man in a lab coat, if ask to draw a "woman scientist" they tend to make her look unhappy.

Men and women also have different expectations for college. Women are more likely to drop out of a class if they get "B's" while men are more likely to stick with it if they get C's. Science oriented classes that are purposefully difficult in order to identify serious students will loose a disproportionate amount of women. Pairing both sexes as lab partners has worked to keep women in fields of engineering.

It's not about "different interests." It's about understanding and addressing areas that impact education for everyone. The signals that are given to elementary children, ways to engage students at the high school level, or the social expectations placed on men and women at the college level.

 

[truethat]

Elementary school boys and girls show the same interest and aptitude for math and science. But the stereotypes are already set. Children as young as second grader will draw "scientist" as a man in a lab coat, if ask to draw a "woman scientist" they tend to make her look unhappy.

Men and women also have different expectations for college. Women are more likely to drop out of a class if they get "B's" while men are more likely to stick with it if they get C's. Science oriented classes that are purposefully difficult in order to identify serious students will loose a disproportionate amount of women. Pairing both sexes as lab partners has worked to keep women in fields of engineering.

It's not about "different interests." It's about understanding and addressing areas that impact education for everyone. The signals that are given to elementary children, ways to engage students at the high school level, or the social expectations placed on men and women at the college level.

CAN YOU BACK UP ANY OF THESE ASSERTIONS WITH EVIDENCE?

You go through this site and make sweeping generalizations and never back them up. Please back up the assertion that women are more likely to drop out of the class if they get Bs and men will stick with it if they get Cs being something exclusively related to gender.

Thanks.

 

[sgtbaker]

My situation is my situation and has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I keep answering your ridiculously personal questions because you keep asking them. Honestly you are getting a little stalkerish.

Here's the irony, you throw out your examples of your life and the judge other people's lives. Then when you get questioned about that you curl up. If you don't want to answer questions, stop offering up so much. It's as simple as that.

Also gender roles are not always put on men by men. See there's this weird thing about how mothers can influence how their sons grow up. Strange I know. I know it's considered a ridiculous idea because if you don't have a penis you don't have any power at all in the world. But somehow......I'm thinking Psycho theme here........is anyone else?

Why can't fathers influence how boys grow up?

 

[truethat]

Here's the irony, you throw out your examples of your life and the judge other people's lives. Then when you get questioned about that you curl up. If you don't want to answer questions, stop offering up so much. It's as simple as that.



Why can't fathers influence how boys grow up?

They do too. But you said they were men influenced by men as if no women have influence on men.


I don't judge anyone else's life. You keep saying I am but I don't. I'll judge what people say and things they do but not the person. Everyone screws up something in their life.

But if someone says something stupid I'll point it out. If people make excuses for people out of same lame BS then I'll point it out. If people lie and post generalizations on here and never back them up with statistics I'll point it out.

People appeal to emotion. I'll point that out too. You seem to think that because I feel something as a personal choice for me, I expect other people to do the same thing. But why in the hell would I make that sort of connection?

 

[bookitty]

CAN YOU BACK UP ANY OF THESE ASSERTIONS WITH EVIDENCE?

You go through this site and make sweeping generalizations and never back them up. Please back up the assertion that women are more likely to drop out of the class if they get Bs and men will stick with it if they get Cs being something exclusively related to gender.

Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw-a-Scientist_Test

http://www.stanford.edu/group/gende...1/02/negative-math-stereotypes-too-few-women/

http://www.asee.org/documents/sections/midwest/2011/ASEE-MIDWEST_0014_7142ac-1.pdf

There's more, so much more. Research into why women are under-represented in STEM fields has picked up over the last 10 years. If you are truly interested, I recommend google. Women + STEM + (whatever your interest) will give you some interesting results.

 

[truethat]

Elementary school boys and girls show the same interest and aptitude for math and science. But the stereotypes are already set. Children as young as second grader will draw "scientist" as a man in a lab coat, if ask to draw a "woman scientist" they tend to make her look unhappy.

Men and women also have different expectations for college. Women are more likely to drop out of a class if they get "B's" while men are more likely to stick with it if they get C's. Science oriented classes that are purposefully difficult in order to identify serious students will loose a disproportionate amount of women. Pairing both sexes as lab partners has worked to keep women in fields of engineering.

It's not about "different interests." It's about understanding and addressing areas that impact education for everyone. The signals that are given to elementary children, ways to engage students at the high school level, or the social expectations placed on men and women at the college level.

Your sources are generalized commentary on retention of women in STEM fields.

However the statement above is not in any of the papers I skimmed that you posted.

Can you please post the statistic that backs up that statement.

Thank you.

 

[Naive1000]

Actually, something I'm interested in, but I won't discuss it here because skepticism seems to fall to the wayside when talking about this subject. A lot of feminism has become dogmatic religion -- it needs no proof, no facts, and no reality. Sociology trumps science. Talking points have become scripture.

Already, just in this short thread, I've seen all the classic feminist dodges: shamming language, NAFALT (not all feminists are like that), the no true Scotsman fallacy, and so on. They also pull out the classic "it's about equality", but if so, why not call it egalitarianism instead of gendering it? As someone once pointed out quite poignantly: you can't reach equality by focusing all of your attention on just one side. Sad thing is I'm all for equality, but in my experience feminism has been for anything but.

 

[bookitty]

Your sources are generalized commentary on retention of women in STEM fields.

However the statement above is not in any of the papers I skimmed that you posted.

Can you please post the statistic that backs up that statement.

Thank you.

Oh dear lord, you're really going to play this game aren't you. OK, super-dooper-skeptic, I paraphrased from memory on a topic that I have been keeping abreast of for years. People who are interested in conversation* do things like that.

And you know what, I could totally dig up the report but I'm not going to because it won't benefit either of us in any meaningful way. So there you go, a little present from me to you. The thrill of meaningless self-righteousness. Hope you have a clean pair of panties!

But get this, I accidentally supported myself with the last link where we find this gem.

At the University of Washington, the grade point average of women who dropped out of an engineering program was 3.2.

* a back and forth exchange of ideas in order to broaden one's horizons. Highly recommended among the civilized set.

 

[truethat]

I'm sorry bookitty but you don't come across as someone who correctly interprets the information they read. So this is why I asked for the statistic.

I assumed you got it from that last link. But that statistic says nothing at all about the GPA of men or the reasons given for dropping out. Your interpretation is invalid and biased.

Women may drop out of engineering programs for a multitude of reasons. Maybe it was of no interest to them. Engineering might be boring. Women might have gotten into these fields because they were promised great money and careers but halfway in realized it wasn't for them.

Maybe they also busted their butts for those Bs and felt it wasn't worth it, they'd prefer to do something else. You have nothing to back up your comment.

I almost reported the post because I think there is a rule about not posting lies. You can't just go online and write whatever is bonking around your head from memory and pretend that's it, it's true.

Your statement is false. Nothing you posted backs it up.


Also having conversations about things you think you remember reading is not something I enjoy doing. I like dealing with actual information, facts and statistics. But I'm sure you amuse yourself.

 

[Naive1000]

I'm sorry bookitty but you don't come across as someone who correctly interprets the information they read. So this is why I asked for the statistic. ...[snip]...

Really? A personal attack adds nothing to your argument, and makes you seem angry and bitter instead of trying to have a discussion. Do you really think you'll sway anyone with an attitude like that? You're making those of us that might agree with you look bad, so please stop. Bookitty is intelligent, willing to listen and look at your argument, so this attack is just petty.

 

[truethat]

Really? A personal attack adds nothing to your argument, and makes you seem angry and bitter instead of trying to have a discussion. Do you really think you'll sway anyone with an attitude like that? You're making those of us that might agree with you look bad, so please stop. Bookitty is intelligent, willing to listen and look at your argument, so this attack is just petty.

That's very sweet of you. I carefully worded it tried to carefully word it so that it does not come across as a personal attack. I do agree that bookitty is very intelligent. However I have repeatedly see her post statements on this site that she does not back up. When asked to back it up she acts as if this is just one example. But I'm sorry honestly I've seen her do this quite a bit. That is.... just sort of remember something from a conversation and stick it in between other statistics riding on their legitimacy.

We've also had a conversation about statistics on another thread in which she read the information basically backwards to how I interpreted it. So this statement was sincere. Not snark.





Also you're new here. I don't give a flying fig about swaying anyone here. Almost everyone on this site disagrees with me 95% of the time. Over here not caring. Just an FYI.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... your comment was pretty disgusting towards poor women who must work out of financial necessity and use day care centers that aren't posh and costing $1,000 a month.....

Here is an example of adding confirmation bias connotation to a comment that did not exist in the comment.

If a person is glad they are not poor, is that "disgusting towards poor women"?

Do you think I did not need to work out of "financial necessity"? You might have considered saying, "poor women who must work out of financial necessity [but can't earn a decent enough wage to afford decent day care]"

As for "posh", hardly. It was a quality day care with adequate staff and resources. Many daycares available at more affordable prices have high staff turnover, no educational programs for the kids, and higher rates of transmissible disease.


First you denigrate anyone who works and has their kids in daycare, then you denigrate someone who says they were fortunate enough to have a profession that earned a good income so the kids could be in a decent daycare.

From post #4:

The kind of feminism I hate is the kind that tells me that raising my children properly as a stay at home mother and learning to cook very well were ways that I had been oppressed.

So not staying home means one's kids are not raised properly?


And since I was revisiting that post,

My answer "The thing that holds back women the most are other women." Other women can be competative and witchy and will sell a sister out in a second flat if a guy is involved or some other competitive situation. But of course everyone pooh poohed the idea and we listened to the feminists rail on how wrong I was.

Women can be their own worst enemy. It's interesting that you chose to see the stereotype that women are catty backstabbers. It is possible the people in the room had my opinion, women do have some blame, but not because they are too competitive against other women. Men do that to other men and still succeed.

No, the problem is that women accept their fate, think they deserve it, or that it is impossible to do any better. In my profession women are extremely supportive of other women. But we were not as inclined to demand better pay or more recognition. That has changed some but we could still do better.

Here you seem to be angry that women might dare ask that their true worth be recognized and instead seem to be saying, "shut up, stop complaining, and don't blame anyone but yourself for your lower economic and lower social status position."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Elementary school boys and girls show the same interest and aptitude for math and science. But the stereotypes are already set. Children as young as second grader will draw "scientist" as a man in a lab coat, if ask to draw a "woman scientist" they tend to make her look unhappy. ...

When my son was about 4 we went to visit a friend in the hospital. My son saw a man in scrubs and said he was a doctor. I was stunned. He certainly didn't get that stereotype at home.