Censorship? There is no censorship!

[TheWesDude]

All I know is that I have just to look at the industry and politics to know that there is still no equallity. Unless you want to tell me that for some reasons females don't belong in to politics or the management of large companies.

you are making the same error sander and tagz make, and something that even Akratus was pointing out.

you look at a job and if you dont see 50% + participation from women, you are assuming its discrimination or sexism somewhere. you are in effect saying the whole cause of a perceived inequality is the result of X.

here is 2 tests.

1) ask 10-20 women you know why they are not running for state senate/representative.

2) ask 10-20 random women on the street why they are not running for state senate/representative.

post up the results. make sure to record the results.

you would be surprised at how many of them do NOT say sexism, misogyny, or that its because they dont belong there because they are a woman.

you may find them giving personal reasons though.

you also have to be able to separate the "thats a nice idea" people from the "i know what is involved and willing to do it" type too.

 

[Sander]

Yes, TheWesDude, a sexist culture affects the decisions women make. You keep pointing out that women make choices as if that's a knockdown argument, rather than a factor contingent on culture and society.

Ask 1950s women why they don't work, or why they work specific jobs, or why they don't run for office, you'll get lots and lots of individual answers that don't say "sexism" or "misogyny". That doesn't mean their choices aren't contingent on a sexist culture. It just means that individuals see their choices in terms of their own individual circumstances. But we're not saying anything about individual choices, only about the choices of a group as a whole, and about the way society limits and influences those choices.

 

[Crni Vuk]

All I know is that I have just to look at the industry and politics to know that there is still no equallity. Unless you want to tell me that for some reasons females don't belong in to politics or the management of large companies.

you are making the same error sander and tagz make, and something that even Akratus was pointing out.

you look at a job and if you dont see 50% + participation from women, you are assuming its discrimination or sexism somewhere. you are in effect saying the whole cause of a perceived inequality is the result of X.

here is 2 tests.

1) ask 10-20 women you know why they are not running for state senate/representative.

2) ask 10-20 random women on the street why they are not running for state senate/representative.

post up the results. make sure to record the results.

you would be surprised at how many of them do NOT say sexism, misogyny, or that its because they dont belong there because they are a woman.

you may find them giving personal reasons though.

you also have to be able to separate the "thats a nice idea" people from the "i know what is involved and willing to do it" type too.

See. Again "my statistic is bigger than yours" bullshit - no offense!

I am not even talking about the source of it all right now. I have not even used the words discrimination or sexism. Just that I find it troublesome. I am talking about equality and opportunity. I have no clue if the true reason is actually sexism.

All I am saying is, that I find it strange that females make about 50% of the population, yet they are underrepresented in leading positions. I mean yes I have only my self as reference, because I know that I want to see males beeing a part of it all. So why should females be different? Because they feel fine that males make laws and decisions for everyone? I have a hard time to believe that.

And if you SERIOUSLY(!) think that this is alright, then I have no more words for you. Sorry. Let's say we reach in 100 or 150 years a point where 50% of the leaders in all of the important branches (military, economy, industry, politics) in our world are females. Would that be so bad? Just curious.

It is true, females and males do think differently, at least where the anatomy of the brain is concerned, but it can't be stressed enough, just because they think differently, does not affect intellectual performance. And areas like politics or leading positions in certain branches are so abstract that I feel females would take the oportunity if they had eventually the same choice like males. But that is just a guess of course.

I mean there are literally so many reasons for it all. It doesn't even have always to be about discrimination or sexism. Maybe it is a cultural thing, or rooted in history and traditions. But if most of the females feel that they should not take up leading positions, like politics because it isnt their preference, then I think this is what has to be changed. Again, unless you (or someone else) feels this is a "biological" thing.

And I am pretty sure that we WILL see changes here, the more confident and well educated females move out of school and universities, the more will eventually want to get to the intellectual challanges, like politics.

Our governments, the industry, the economy, the media and so on, make decisions that affect everyone. They are running the show. Why should females not be a part that decision making? I am not saying that we have now to force the males out of said positions and promote females till it is everywhere 50%. It has to be a natural process. But talking about it can't hurt.

Unless of course you believe that females do not have the intellectual performance to make equally good decisions like the males - in general.

They might do things differently, granted, but that doesn't mean it has to be worse.

 

[TheWesDude]

I am not even talking about the source of it all right now. I have not even used the words discrimination or sexism. Just that I find it troublesome. I am talking about equality and opportunity. I have no clue if the true reason is actually sexism.

All I am saying is, that I find it strange that females make about 50% of the population, yet they are unrepresented in leading positions. I mean yes I have only my self as reference, because I know that I want to see males beeing a part of it all. So why should females be different? Because they feel fine that males make laws and decisions for everyone? I have a hard time to believe that.

And if you SERIOUSLY(!) think that this is alright, then I have no more words for you. Sorry. Let's say we reach in 100 or 150 years a point where 50% of the leaders in all of the important branches (military, economy, industry, politics) in our world are females. Would that be so bad? Just curious.

i just had to snip out the majority of your 50% argument. it was quite pointless and addressed quite a few posts above. you are thinking there will be no equality until women make up at least 50% of all leaders which is a complete bullshit argument which you have to recognize on some level.

on one hand you say "equality of opportunity" but then go off on a tangent of equality of representation. equality of representation is a farce. anyone who holds that up is being intellectually dishonest.

and of course in sweeps sander with more amorphous claims and accusations!!!

Yes, TheWesDude, a sexist culture affects the decisions women make. You keep pointing out that women make choices as if that's a knockdown argument, rather than a factor contingent on culture and society.

lol @ you.

1 death is a tragedy
5,000 deaths is a statistic

1 woman not becoming a politician or computer programmer is a tragedy
5 million women not becoming a politician or computer programmer is sexism

you think that because you employ the ad-infinitum logical fallacy it allows you to ignore the choices of the individual and instead blame what you want it to be.


it gets extremely hilarious when you consider women are the majority population, not 50%. and of course all those programs, scholarships, grants, and preferential treatment women get for STEM fields in college/university.

i know this is a radical fucking idea, but maybe its because women are just inherently not interested in these fields? nope! gotta be sexism! that way we dont have to do any actual research to find out why. that might yield uncomfortable results!

oh, and just ignore all those stories that the sexism and discrimination against women from entering these fields is from women, not men.

oh, but women can perpetuate sexism and discrimination! which does fucking nothing to fix the problem, after all, i dont see sander or tagz trying to back programs or efforts of "teach women not to discriminate" or "teach women not to be sexist to other women". nope, he wants to claim sexism and then leave it alone.

severe intellectual dishonesty. unless of course your goal is never to address fixes but rather shout out your pet cause.

 

[Crni Vuk]

i just had to snip out the majority of your 50% argument. it was quite pointless and addressed quite a few posts above. you are thinking there will be no equality until women make up at least 50% of all leaders which is a complete bullshit argument which you have to recognize on some level.

on one hand you say "equality of opportunity" but then go off on a tangent of equality of representation. equality of representation is a farce. anyone who holds that up is being intellectually dishonest.

and of course in sweeps sander with more amorphous claims and accusations!!!

Why would that be such a problem? Why would it be a problem if (more or less) 50% of the leaders in our world would be females.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

There are two factors at work, here. The first is the (actually pretty reasonable) assumption that most gender differences are cultural, which is something that science just keeps confirming.

This is incorrect, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

the gender "pay gap" studies are not actually investigating the pay gap for men doing A and women doing A, but rather all men doing A through Z compared to all women doing A through Z. now some of these comparisons try to compare people doing job A. some of them try to compare men doing job A to women doing job F.

actual pay-based sexual discrimination is men at company A doing job A compared to women at company A doing job A and getting an unequal compensation package. you also have to recognize there is a possiblity for men+women at company A doing job A where the men pick schedule+compensation package F and women pick schedule+compensation package G.

these studies dont actually look for specific gender pay gaps.

I think this is mostly true, but then you do get the occasional walmart which was just blatantly fucking over women.

 

[Sander]

i know this is a radical fucking idea, but maybe its because women are just inherently not interested in these fields? nope! gotta be sexism! that way we dont have to do any actual research to find out why. that might yield uncomfortable results!

Except we have done oodles of research into this, and we have a variety of cultural reasons why this happens. So we know, for a fact, that there are many non-'inherent' ways in which women are discouraged from entering tech, and that has an effect on the population as a whole. That ranges from childhood effects on mathematical performance stemming from a culture that tells women they're not good at math, to adolescent effects of a culture that tells women that tech is not a field for them, to adult effects like hostile workplaces. We have oodles of research into this stuff, and we know a lot about various problems.

I quoted a shit-ton of those bits of research for Akratus a while back. I then quoted it for you, too. Of course, you tried to trivialize and write off each individual piece of research regardless of the volume. And there's a lot of this out there. Here, let me just quote it again:

I can, though. For instance, Nadya Fouad produced a study examining 5,300 women with engineering degrees and interviewed those who left the field on why they did so.

"Respondents in her study reflected her sentiments, with many calling the engineering workplace unfriendly and even hostile to women. They also said they felt that many of these companies did not provide opportunities for women like them to advance and develop."

I can also give you some articles on how that culture contributes to women leaving tech, examples of women leaving companies because of a sexist culture, how female entrepreneurs face consistent sexual harassment, how female co-founders face sexual harassment within their own companies, how a female programmer quit the tech industry due to weev, Encyclopedia Dramatica and harassment lasting years and years.

Digging up more of this research is trivial. There are significant barriers for women entering tech (and various other male-dominated fields), and until those barriers are lifted, you can't really talk about equality of opportunity vs. equality of representation, because we are nowhere close to equality of opportunity.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

If we somehow managed to prove that women shied away from fields such as game design, science, or business for physiological-based preference reasons, would it be right, to you, to choose to accept the world as it is, or should we seek to introduce them into positions even though it's not their inherent preference to be in them?

We should be aiming to remove as many barriers as possible, which is something we are very, very far removed from doing, and we should be aiming to strip our culture of notions of which genders are supposed to do which jobs and which genders are good at which things, because we know that that has a negative effect on performance and participation.

The question is, if, hypothetically, it were proven that women were simply choosing (physiologically, not psychologically) to not enter fields such as science at the same rate as men, should we still make efforts to equalize those rates through affirmative action.

 

[Sander]

This is incorrect, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

No, not really. As we're doing more and more cross-cultural studies, we keep finding that many of the gender-based and other group division we find in "our" societies are far from universal, suggesting a significant factor for culture in many facets of our societies, which should not be surprising. We've been finding this stuff out for decades. Basically, for nearly every difference ascribed to biology you can spend a couple minutes on Google and find research that suggests that culture is also a significant factor and strong claims about those differences being ascribed (solely) to biology should be avoided.

Also just to note that the gender pay gap does not need to be due to overt discrimination between people doing the exact same job to still be real. That super-narrow definition TheWesDude is so fond of looking at ignores an incredible amount of both direct discrimination (in hiring, promotion, firing, funding etc) and larger effects of a sexist culture (erecting more barriers to entry and shaping people's choices without overtly discriminating).

The question is, if, hypothetically, it were proven that women were simply choosing (physiologically, not psychologically) to not enter fields such as science at the same rate as men, should we still make efforts to equalize those rates through affirmative action.

Probably not, but that's a conversation we can have once we get there -- and that includes actually definitively proving that those choices are purely physiological. And even then I'd probably argue that striving for similar compensation for women as a group would be a good thing -- compensation for specific industries is to a large extent 'designed' by society and many fields dominated by women historically pay less, simply because they're dominated by women.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

I was talking to one of my friends that has a degree in psychology about studies of adolescent children and which toys they choose to play with etc. She was saying that even then it's impossible to distinguish inherent behavior from learned behavior because babies are basically balls of observation that do nothing but observe the outside world, so it's completely possible that sexual behavior difference even then are learned.

I'm not saying psychology doesn't exist, I just find it suspicious that feminists try so hard to dismiss biology. Why do boys in general play with trucks while girls play with dolls? Maybe it's llearned, maybe it's inherent.

 

[Sander]

I was talking to one of my friends that has a degree in psychology about studies of adolescent children and which toys they choose to play with etc. She was saying that even then it's impossible to distinguish inherent behavior from learned behavior because babies are basically balls of observation that do nothing but observe the outside world, so it's completely possible that sexual behavior difference even then are learned.

I'm not saying psychology doesn't exist, I just find it suspicious that feminists try so hard to dismiss biology. Why do boys in general play with trucks while girls play with dolls? Maybe it's llearned, maybe it's inherent.

Sure, maybe it is. I'm not saying it's impossible, and neither would most feminists. What people tend to object to is the "this is biology, therefore we don't need to do anything" reasoning -- because those claims are both impossible to improve, and they have and continue to be used to justify a lot of forms of discrimination and oppression.

 

[SnapSlav]

The whole issue with biology reminds me of a hilarious video I saw, bout a decade ago, of tests administered on toddlers (cause they needed children old enough to be able to act on their own, to some degree, yet young enough be relatively "untainted" by their surroundings) by leaving them isolated on the other side of a room across from their mothers, with a big barrier between them. The boys would universally start pounding on the wall to break it down to reach their mothers. The girls would universally stand in the middle of their enclosure and cry as loud as they could in the air. Their observations were that males inherently wish to tackle obstacles on their own, and females inherently try to use the power of groups to overcome those obstacles. Seeing little kids demonstrate this was just funny, to me.

Of course, even at just 2-3 years old, you can't dismiss any outside forces from having taught some level of behaviors to the children. It wasn't a perfect test by any means. But still quite telling, and, for the third time, it gave me a good chuckle. =D

[stuff]

you are making the same error sander and tagz make

If you haven't noticed, that's normal. Always the same 5 people, those being 3 of them.

i know this is a radical fucking idea, but maybe its because women are just inherently not interested in these fields? nope! gotta be sexism! that way we dont have to do any actual research to find out why. that might yield uncomfortable results!

It's worse than that. Not that it's "research" which has yielded these results, but YEARS of law implementations which have, on one end, instituted "affirmative action" types of programs which harm businesses and do NOTHING** to promote equality or discourage discrimination, and on the other hand there are the businesses which abuse all these laws (or just try to scrape by them, because they don't want any lawsuits). Some get more funding if they hire x amount of such and such, so they ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE hiring women and minorities, yet the numbers stay the same, as you've mentioned multiple times. It's not absolute, it's not definitive, but it IS highly indicative that there's more here than "rampant societal sexism". Far, far more complicated than that. I'm on the side of the fence that says it's about personal choice, and no amount of systemic this-or-that will change that. It's not a side of the fence that says there ISN'T system this-or-that, it just doesn't attribute it to be the majority cause.

Regardless, a wise man said words that I endlessly admire, "Political Correctness is slowly replacing what works with what sounds good." Too true. Tragic, but true.

**Yes, nothing. You cannot legislate morality, common sense, or changing of minds. That's not what laws do nor how they work.

 

[TheWesDude]

Also just to note that the gender pay gap does not need to be due to overt discrimination between people doing the exact same job to still be real. That super-narrow definition TheWesDude is so fond of looking at ignores an incredible amount of both direct discrimination (in hiring, promotion, firing, funding etc) and larger effects of a sexist culture (erecting more barriers to entry and shaping people's choices without overtly discriminating).

and you never remarked at all on how pay/wage gap studies inherently have problems.

i provided an example and so far you have refused to say which way the pay gap went. you can run the numbers in the scenario i gave to show either a male or a female pay gap.

or even on the GS study you linked, and probably still believe that the pay gap they observed of 2.9 to 5.1% is based on sexism/discrimination despite what my mom said is that it was based on much lower female "productivity" than men due to how they do their math.

its ok sander, keep saying the earth is flat. its far easier that way.


i think it is very weird though how we have women programmers who have been doing it for decades say its not sexism/discrimination/harassment but rather their expectations that are causing the problem.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Please answer my question. No more statistic wanking. Let's get to the core of it.

i just had to snip out the majority of your 50% argument. it was quite pointless and addressed quite a few posts above. you are thinking there will be no equality until women make up at least 50% of all leaders which is a complete bullshit argument which you have to recognize on some level.

on one hand you say "equality of opportunity" but then go off on a tangent of equality of representation. equality of representation is a farce. anyone who holds that up is being intellectually dishonest.

and of course in sweeps sander with more amorphous claims and accusations!!!

Why would that be such a problem? Why would it be a problem if (more or less) 50% of the leaders in our world would be females.

 

[Tagaziel]

i just had to snip out the majority of your 50% argument. it was quite pointless and addressed quite a few posts above. you are thinking there will be no equality until women make up at least 50% of all leaders which is a complete bullshit argument which you have to recognize on some level.


on one hand you say "equality of opportunity" but then go off on a tangent of equality of representation. equality of representation is a farce. anyone who holds that up is being intellectually dishonest.

Nope. If women make up 50% of the world's population, then it stands to reason that they should make up 50% of the employed workforce and be equally represented in all aspects of life.

i know this is a radical fucking idea, but maybe its because women are just inherently not interested in these fields?

I know it's a radical fucking idea, but maybe that claim is just full of shit? Why would women be inherently disinterested in high paying, high technology jobs? Why would women be inherently disinterested in leading a country or participating in politics? Why would women be inherently disinterested in working in mining, in factories, or holding jobs?


The problem with your line of thought, your entire line of thought is that you take the status quo for granted and accept cultural conditioning (that women shouldn't be interested in certain types of jobs) as a biological imperative.


Somehow, and bear with me, because this might be hard to grasp, somehow, I think, maybe we didn't evolve in an environment full of computers, politics, working sewage infrastructure, and mines all over the landscape. Maybe, just maybe, the appropriateness of certain jobs for certain genders is a purely cultural construct?

 

[SnapSlav]

Please answer my question. No more statistic wanking. Let's get to the core of it.

Why would that be such a problem? Why would it be a problem if (more or less) 50% of the leaders in our world would be females.

Because it would help ZIPPO. Leadership isn't something that's gone into based on your gender or skin or anything on the outside of your being, and consequently more diversity on the outside would have NO impact on what qualities lead someone to leadership on the inside. It's all a matter of personality, and forceful inclusion cause harm, not good. Meanwhile, more women in leadership positions would be just like Obama's election to the President of the United States: it would mean nothing. People praised Obama's election like a mark of change. Like it signaled something greater. It didn't. It was just another politician getting into that same old office to do the same shit that it's been doing for generations, now. Was he elected into office because he's half-black? No, he was elected into office because he's a career politician, no different than ANY career politician at his sides. If a women were to be elected, it would equally make no difference. If that were worldwide, it would make no difference.

Not prohibiting and promoting are two entirely different things. You shouldn't prohibit, not promote. You're going on about promoting something that leads to nothing, and completely ignoring the idea of SIMPLY not prohibiting what would naturally lead to what you're asking about. Which, let me remind you, would still change nothing.

 

[TorontoReign]

Nope. If women make up 50% of the world's population, then it stands to reason that they should make up 50% of the employed workforce and be equally represented in all aspects of life.

What if a large majority of women don't want to work? I don't see how it should be split 50% just because of equality. Plenty of women are content without jobs. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying. I think many women are perfectly happy with the "traditional" role as housewife hence a skewed percentage in some cases. Of course they should be equally represented though. That is a given.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Maybe, Toront, maybe, if the south won

 

[TorontoReign]

Everything in this thread could be solved with a bit of quaffer. Also how long is Akratus banned? He was trolling a bit obviously.

 

[Kilus]

3 days total, 2 days and 8 hours left at the time of this post:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/banned.php?do=temp