Censorship? There is no censorship!

Depends on what one´s definition of censorship is. Some would say that moving a very notable, ongoing and engaging discussion to the forum for disused and locked threads, which isn´t publicly visible as I understand, falls under it. Of course there´s not necessarily something wrong with that, because as we all know this forum´s owner is the end all decider of rules and regulations, as enforced by the administrators as they see fit. Freedom of speech as defined by law is only appliable to the government, and not privately owned websites. But one´s ability to say what one wants is indeed curbed somewhat under a certain liberally defined definition of the term `freedom of speech`. That is, we´re no longer allowed to post in the original thread, so in that sense our freedom of speech has been limited. Of course to say then, that NMA has no freedom of speech whatsoever would be false, since it has quite a bit.

I also can't say this thread is better than the previous one. Except in TheWesDude's posts. You rock, buddy. :salute:

I think there is something wrong with it from a variety of moral perspectives. A website such as this which only exists because of the freedoms of expression afforded to it, which courts participants almost entirely from societies in which they are afforded freedoms of self expression, has a moral obligation to treat those rights and freedoms with respect. I don't see any perspective in which interfering with a human being's right to self expression, barring extenuating circumstances, is anything but immoral -- especially when that expression is the foundation of your enterprise.

Legally, of course, they're under no obligation to do anything they don't want to do. Still doesn't mean it's right for them to do so.
 
I am always surprised to remember how Cheesy Batman the Animated series was. It had it's serious moments, but Batman also made the cheesiest expressions so often...

Censors are so strange...

Take these for instance:



 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure I'm a misogynist for saying this, but it made sense to me when I heard it and I'd really like someone to explain to me why I'm wrong (sorry if this has already been mentioned):

Making more money increases a man's likelihood to reproduce, while doing the opposite for women -- well educated professional women typically have fewer children. So, being as the desire to reproduce is one of the four or so strongest base urges in nature, this is a motivation factor that women don't have, which could serve to explain the 5% (or whatever it is) wage gap. At the moment I am planning on entering law school next year, but, honestly, I wouldn't bother if I weren't concerned about attracting a mate.
I'll answer this sort of reasoning generally, and then address the specific example you posit. The problem with stories like this is that they're just that: stories. We can think of stories that plausibly explain any situation in an evolutionary way. For instance, if we lived in a world where women earned more than men, we'd probably tell ourselves that that's a biological result of the fact that women need more money because they often take care of the kids. If we lived in a world where men were the primary caregivers, we'd probably tell ourselves that's the natural way of things to bind men closer to women and enforce monogamy, which would be beneficial for the later success of children. We tell ourselves stories like that all the time -- probably as a way to feel comfortable about the world as it is.

And yes, we have plenty of historical examples of this sort of thing. For instance, people used to think that women's brains weren't suited for politics. They evolved to take care of children, and that made them biologically unsuited for politics, which is why they shouldn't have the vote. That sounded very natural and persuasive to people during the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, even though it's a load of bollocks. It sounded so natural because it reinforced their worldview with a neat narrative, and people like things that reinforce their world views. Similarly, every male-dominated profession has stories of why women aren't biologically suited for work there -- in IT, it's because women are bad at science/not interested in computers, because biology. In banking, it's because women are risk-averse, because biology. It's all nonsense.

But these narratives aren't actually supported by science. We know very little about the pressures under which we evolved, we know even less about the ways in which those pressures would interact with the current environment. We keep finding out that lots and lots of things we used to think were biological truths, are actually culturally-determined (or at least heavily influenced and/or overridden by culture). Including the drive to have children -- there's a reason why the birth rate drops dramatically with access to reliable birth control. We don't know which genes do what, how our hormones work exactly, how all of this interacts with the environment, how all of the micro-organisms in our bodies influence all of this -- human beings are extremely complex both biologically and culturally, and we are nowhere close to being able to state anything about our biological impulses with any degree of certainty.

So that's why we should be very, very skeptical of any narrative evolutionary explanation of the status quo. We need lots and lots of quality research before we start believing those truths -- and even then, there's no reason to assume that culture can't override biological "truths". In fact, you could argue that our ability to not be slaves to biological impulses is a key part of what makes us human in the first place.

As for your specific example, there's no reason why biologically, we'd associate making more money with having fewer children -- we didn't evolve in a situation where money was even a thing, and the few thousand years for which we've had currency aren't enough to biologically enforce these sorts of things. Nor did we evolve in a situation where being educated or being a professional were things that one could do. In fact, the situation where increased individual prosperity leads to a lower birth rate is mostly the result of the demographic transition -- something that's only occurred the past two centuries. Furthermore, it's not entirely clear why that more-money-fewer-children thing happened (culture probably has a lot to do with it), nor that it's even true at the highest levels of socio-economic development. There's also no evidence to suggest that women (or men!) as a whole are actually driven by having-as-many-children-as-possible. In fact, it's pretty clear that we're not: we'd have birth rates in the teens instead of birth rates in the ones (in most of the 'Western' world), if that were true. Finally, the whole jobs-and-money-as-status for men is also culturally driven: there are plenty of societies where social status has very little to do with your job, and in fact having a job in the first place was often seen as a low-status situation. There's also no real reason why women wouldn't want to increase their status in the same way to attract (better) mates.

@TheWesDude: Still incapable of seeing the difference between a society-wide issue and an individualized accusation, I see. Also, the study I linked does not say what you think it does, but I'm sure you're used to that.
@Akratus: Your willingness to just accept whatever TheWesDude states as fact is a pretty good example of that blindly-accepting-worldview-reinforcing-narratives thing I talked about.
 
@Sander I've disagreed with TheWesDude quite a bit in the past, but apparently disagreeing with you and agreeing with someone else who disagrees with you is totally crazy!

blindly-accepting-worldview-reinforcing-narratives thing I talked about.

That is indeed what you talk about.
 
Alright, I do want to add my own two cents to this topic, but not on the exact discussion at hand but with something that was bugging me a while back. The story will be long so if you want to get to the point, skip down to the last part.

Most of you know I go to a clinic for Substance Abuse treatment. Well by law it's mandatory you see a psychiatrist there, only they don't like to call them psychiatrists, they like to call them "counselors". Anyway I have a new counselor now because my old one went to Germany to counsel US Soldiers who got addicted to drugs over there and are having a hard time dealing with their addictions. Anyway, she specialized in family problems. Now we're getting to the point here;

I remember a lot of you saying that children being raised in a household could grow up just fine with a single parent, or two parents of the same gender. Well... I grew up with my father who was single/a bachelor and shit was always tough, especially for me because I didn't have a mother around. When I was a child, I never experienced abandonment issues (my mother never actually abandoned me, she just suffered from PTSD and we never saw her). As any other child I was a happy little kid, whether me and my dad were poor or not living in North Las Vegas (look up the crime rates there on Google if you don't believe me about how bad the neighborhood is. Some years it gets worse than Detroit) he always strived to not only put food on the table, pay the bills, but also get me the stupid little toys I wanted and games and shit. Around the time I was growing up (90's - that's my era) the Gameboy Color was out and the Pokemon games were a huge fucking fad. Kids were buying the trading cards and everything. My dad would sometimes go without eating so I could get a stupid little Pokemon game and be happy (wish he told me that shit then, but then I never would have asked for the game if I knew...). So yeah, I was a happy ass child. All the other kids in the neighborhood used to come to my house because I was the only kid whose parents ever bought them anything. Everything I could ever want, so why be sad, right? Well...

Eventually as the years went on me and my dad grew extremely close. I hear a lot of people tell others how they love someone so much that "they would die for them", well I loved my father so much that I lived for him. He's dead now, rest in peace, but anyways. We grew extremely close because he was the only family I ever had. My brother was a dickhead and a gangbanger, and by now we moved completely away from Las Vegas Nevada to get away from the fucked up neighborhood (and a fucked up mother, forgive me because she's actually doing pretty good now). But around my early teenage years my father had met someone. They got together, planned on getting married, had a kid, the whole deal. This chick, Annie, comes to me (I'm 13 at the time) and tells me that we're going to be a family and everything's good. Cool. Well she treats me like her son and everything's all good, but fuck if by the time I'm 16 everything turns upside down, which it does. She's pregnant with my brother, and starts treating me like complete shit. Telling me shit like "I'm not your fucking mom, don't call me that!" or "No wonder your mom didn't want you!". Anyway to skip ahead a bunch so we don't carry this story on longer than it has to be, that brought up some fucked up emotions that I guess I was just bottling in, and my whole life starts to turn around. Drugs, hanging around gangs, the whole deal. But Kate leaving my life also had a lot to do with that, most of you know that story.

Anyways, they eventually broke up, Annie and my dad, however I was left fucked up emotionally. So when I got into counseling for my methadone clinic I asked my counselor about all kinds of things, including why I was like that because of Annie, and here's the important part, she said (not word for word, but close):

When a child grows up without a mother or father because they passed away or abandoned the child slowly over time the child receives emotional distress because of it, even if the child is unaware it is secretly burrowing itself into the child's mentality. There are three different specific times a person will actually experience the emotional trauma of abandonment, death, or the general absence of a parent. First, it could be when they are past the toddler age, around ages 6 to 10. Here the child will act out, often throw fits, and generally be rebellious to their parents. Most children lose these traits after the pass the toddler threshold into late childhood. Second, and most common, they will experience emotional stress during their teenage years. The reason for this is because those "bottled up" feelings of abandonment are now colliding with a new foe; puberty. During puberty a teenager's emotions are being thrown around, and they can often show emotions which give similar signs to bi-polar disorder or even PMS (for men), however, it is just puberty. But when puberty comes in it sometimes brings out anything the teenager had previously repressed, one of those issues possibly being parental absence. Thus, the teenager can be more aggressive than usual, and have more severe mood shifts, and even thoughts of suicide. This is the most common time for a person to experience the trauma left by parental abandonment. The third possible time however, could be when a person is between the ages of 35-45. Between these ages most males and females often experience something dubbed in laymen's terms as a "mid-life crisis". What is actually happening is, due to the maturing and aging of the brain, emotions are, again, being shifted around. Again, this could possible bring up emotional stress left by parental absence.

Here's where it gets interesting:

We now know that when a child is being raised, it is best for them to have a masculine and feminine presence in their lives, thus a mother and father. With a mother and father, a child can receive aspects from both and allow he or she to develop into a stable adult, with a perfect balance between masculinity and femininity. However, when one parent is gone, the child can receive what I like to call a "double dose", which can be unhealthy for a developing mind. Parents are the most important aspects in a child's life because not only does a child look to them as the nurturers, the providers, but they also look to them as their teachers, the ones who are to teach them of the world, as their guardians who are to protect them from the big bad outside world, and finally, and their companions, who will love and stick by the child's side constantly. And for the most part unless a child is orphaned or raised by parents with an emotionally distant relationship, this is true. A child will learn the most about the world, and society not from school, or their friends, or even their other family members, but their parents. They will look to their parents to see how to act, how to talk, and what to do in certain moments, even if the parents don't realize it. In a sense, the child is constantly observing the parents who are the most influential people in his or her life. For example, if a child sees his or her dad acts in an angry or mean manner around a different race of people, the child will take that in and absorb it into his or her's mind.

Thus, we come back to a feminine and masculine presence. When one is taken out of the equation, the child only has one to look up to. Therefore instead of receiving an equal dose of both, they are "double dosing" themselves on masculinity or femininity. This is bad. Their mind is developing and soaking in everything. What they see and hear now will influence who they become in their later life. Thus no matter hard one tries, a mother could never provide the masculine presence a child needs, and a father could never provide the feminine presence a child needs. The natural order of things has always been that a child needs a mother and father.
 
Actually, research suggests that having same-sex parents is not at all detrimental to children. See, for instance, this study of lesbian couples' children, which found that the absence of fathers was no detriment to their children's development. Or this one, that notes that childern of same-sex couples seem to lead more healthy lives. There are many, many studies that consistently show that being raised by same-sex couples is not a problem -- directly contradicting the idea that children need a male and female parent. Even if the presence of a specifically masculine or feminine role model were important (and it's not at all clear that it is, rather than just adult attention and affection in general), there's no reason why that has to be bound up with the presence of specifically a mother or father. The "double dose" thing you talk about isn't supported by any research I can find, and flatly contradicted by most of it.

There are other issues here, bound up with the whole concept of masculinity and femininity. For instance, our entire culture is gendered: everything we learn from the start as kids reinforces the concept that women and men are fundamentally different, and you're right that children learn those concepts by observing -- but not just by observing their parents, by observing everything they see in society -- people, media, stories, language, etc. That's how a culture reinforces itself. But this isn't part of the solution: it's part of the problem. The fact that it's more difficult to function in society if you don't adhere to strictly masculine or feminine roles is not a good thing.


Also, historically and cross-culturally, this is complete nonsense:
BigBoss said:
The natural order of things has always been that a child needs a mother and father.
The invention of the nuclear family as a core organizing principle is only relatively recent, not cross-cultural (group parenting and other institutions all occur frequently), and not a historical constant. The notion that this is the natural order of things is, basically, unfounded. But it's another narrative that reinforces the status quo as the "biological truth", which is why when people present it, other people go "huh that makes sense must be true". Which is exactly what I noted above.
 
Similarly, every male-dominated profession has stories of why women aren't biologically suited for work there -- in IT, it's because women are bad at science/not interested in computers, because biology. In banking, it's because women are risk-averse, because biology. It's all nonsense.

i would not make the claim that women are bad at science/computers due to biology

i would say that women avoid science and computers due to cultural and societal pressure. i would also say that it is becoming more "acceptable" for women in science and technology which in turn will increase their participation. i also say that the only way it will change is either by forcing women into these fields, or letting time run its course and their participation will increase on its own. if you know of other solutions, then be sure to share them. there are many programs that try to encourage women into these fields. it will take time though.

i would not make the claim that women are risk-averse due to biology

through studies we have found that the most successful people in the field of finance and market trading and such is how psychopathic a person is and a diminished capacity for empathy. a person that cares about that 65 year old couple living on their life savings wont take their money and invest it in a bio-tech startup with a chance for them to lose it all for the possibility of huge gains turning them into millionaires if it succeeds.

@TheWesDude: Still incapable of seeing the difference between a society-wide issue and an individualized accusation, I see. Also, the study I linked does not say what you think it does, but I'm sure you're used to that.

really?

me said:
1) for the new jobs with higher GS classification within a job family tended to be filled by males dis proportionally.

this is quite funny as OPM themselves determines who gets hired for jobs. the higher GS classification jobs within a job family require more experience and educational background and management experience. so the OPM is saying that women are less qualified than men due to experience/education/management, even with factoring in a female presumptive bias. if women are less qualified for higher GS job postings than men even after the bias in favor of women, that is not discrimination or sexism. that tells me women are applying for higher jobs they do not qualify for more often than men. maybe because they know they will get their "bonus points" and that would get them the job.

study said:
When we examined the female salary percentages for the 37 occupational groups in 2012, we found that the female average salary exceeded the male average salary for 15 groups (compared to 3 groups in 1992). An additional 6 groups had a female salary percentage of at least 95 percent.

Quality step increases (QSIs) were awarded more frequently (on a percentage basis) to females than males in all 3 years.

Promotions were received more frequently (on a percentage basis) by females than males in all 3 years.

When we examined GS starting salaries by GS grade level, we found that male and female average starting salaries were quite close in all three years (1992, 2002, 2012). While females appear to be treated equally at the same grade level, females tend to be employed at lower grades on average; thus, there was an overall pay gap, which, as noted above, appears to be largely attributable to differences in occupational distribution, which in turn affects grade distribution.

shit, i was right :(

me said:
2) make sure everyone knows the GS pay scale

its public fucking information. GS and Step information is publicly available. so is the cost of living information.

study said:
After a comprehensive review of agency reports, there were no indicators that changes to the GS classification system would assist in addressing any gender pay gap.

OPM will work with agencies to ensure GS equivalent-level salary tables or rate ranges are made available to job candidates.

OPM posts the GS and other Governmentwide pay tables that OPM administers on its public website.

Another component to help ensure transparency in starting salaries is to provide salary information for a vacant position in a job announcement.

Five agencies stated that some of their GS equivalent-level pay tables or rate ranges are available to the public and some are not. Six agencies indicated that none of their equivalent-level pay tables or rate ranges are available to the public. Agencies shared a variety of reasons why they do not provide their non-GS pay tables or rate ranges to the public including the agency being new, there being no legal requirement to do so, or administrative difficulties because there are too many pay tables.

OPM will explore ways to ensure pay-setting options and other salary information is made readily available to job candidates.

slightly off, their goal is to make the non-GS scale agencies change over to the GS scale. but the GS scale information is available on websites.

me said:
3) make sure commands that hire people know to request the +1 pay step equally when justified

so many possibilities. ill leave this one alone

study said:
Superior qualifications and special needs pay-setting actions (hereafter, referred to as “superior qualifications actions”) were used more frequently (on a percentage basis) for males than females in all 3 years.

In 2012, the percentage of male new hires receiving these actions was 12.6 percent, while the corresponding percentage of female new hires was 8.3 percent. In 2012, about 35 percent of all such actions were used for females and 65 percent for males. However, 45 percent of new hires were female.

In 2012, about 44 percent of superior qualification actions occurred in 3 out of 37 occupational categories—08xx-Professional (mainly engineers), 22xx-Administration (information technology), and Xxxx-Professional (other Professional)—which covered only 12 percent of the total GS workforce. During calendar year 2012, the percentage of new hires in those occupations who were female was 19 percent, 20 percent, and 33 percent, respectively. Thus, these male-dominated occupational categories had a disproportionate effect on the usage rates for superior qualifications actions.

me said:
4) tell agencies that dont really use OPM hiring process to be more like OPM

i covered this a bit in #2


so @Sander

even with these rigorus controls when compared to same GS rate and length of total employment, they found a 2.9% gap in favor of men.

women received pay step increases more frequently than men.
women received promotions more frequently than men.

yet men still ended up with a 2.9% higher pay. OPM determines promotions. OPM determines step increases. supervisors provide reccomendations.

so, how do you end up with women getting more step increases and promotions than men, and STILL end up with a 2.9% pay gap? i know the answer, and it is not one they wanted to quantify because of what it implies. my mom would have to submit reports like these to her supervisors and even generals who oversaw her department in the army. they would always ask questions like this and they never liked the answer. even in the private sector they do not like to talk about and admit the issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amusing, but once again not addressing my point. Let me quote myself so after the fourth time, you get this point. It's not that hard. Maybe reading what I write and addressing it, instead of just clicking a link and for some reason summarizing the findings in that link, would help.
None of the research supports a claim that women earn more than men for the same job. And yet, you keep stating that as fact, never citing any supporting research, never showing where you got your statistics from.

Note that when I was referring to the study not saying what you think it's saying, I was referring specifically to the idea that this is somehow proof there's no discrimination, because that's the context in which I quoted it. Let me cite, specifically: "This unexplained portion could be attributable to factors that may or may not be discriminatory" and "we are not ruling out the possibility that discriminatory influences played a role in occupational distribution" and "It is important to also note that even if a portion of male-female pay gap is “explained” by factors included in the analysis, it does not mean that all those factors are immune from possible discriminatory influence. To the extent that the explaining factors are subject to employee or employer control, some unknown portion of the explained gap may reflect the effects of discrimination (either societal or employer-specific)".
But thanks for giving me a summary of its recommendations, I guess?



TheWesDude said:
i would say that women avoid science and computers due to cultural and societal pressure. i would also say that it is becoming more "acceptable" for women in science and technology which in turn will increase their participation. i also say that the only way it will change is either by forcing women into these fields, or letting time run its course and their participation will increase on its own. if you know of other solutions, then be sure to share them.
No easy solutions and of course it will take time, but altering workplace environments so they're no longer hostile to women, stricter sexual harassment controls, and constant cultural reinforcement of the idea that there's nothing inherently masculine about IT, that women in IT is perfectly natural, are all things that would help.
 
If we're merely looking specifically at whether, for the same job, men and women earn the same or not, isn't it disingenuous to say that because there's no proof it isn't equal, it's therefore (likely) not equal?


Holy shit, this is amazing. Those frenchies and their wacky ways.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Depends on what one´s definition of censorship is. Some would say that moving a very notable, ongoing and engaging discussion to the forum for disused and locked threads, which is not publicly visible as I understand, falls under it. Of course there´s not necessarily something wrong with that, because as we all know this forum´s owner is the end all decider of rules and regulations, as enforced by the administrators as they see fit. Freedom of speech as defined by law is only appliable to the government, and not privately owned websites. But one´s ability to say what one wants is indeed curbed somewhat under a certain liberally defined definition of the term `freedom of speech`. That is, we´re no longer allowed to post in the original thread, so in that sense our freedom of speech has been limited. Of course to say then, that NMA has no freedom of speech whatsoever would be false, since it has quite a bit.

I think there is something wrong with it from a variety of moral perspectives. A website such as this which only exists because of the freedoms of expression afforded to it, which courts participants almost entirely from societies in which they are afforded freedoms of self expression, has a moral obligation to treat those rights and freedoms with respect. I don't see any perspective in which interfering with a human being's right to self expression, barring extenuating circumstances, is anything but immoral -- especially when that expression is the foundation of your enterprise.

Legally, of course, they're under no obligation to do anything they don't want to do. Still doesn't mean it's right for them to do so.

Then there must be shit in your eyes.

"Your novel is banned and will no longer be sold in bookshops. But here's a new notebook full of empty pages for you to fill. Go ahead: express yourself. Feel free to say whatever you want."

Huh.

Feel free to drop me a line when someone stops you from expressing your opinions. Note: That means actually stopping you from expressing your opinions. Nobody is stopping you from posting in this thread, which is a continuation of the preceding one. If you want more continuity, ask the original poster to edit a link to the vatted thread into their post, for anyone who wants to wade through 80 pages of posts.
 
No easy solutions and of course it will take time, but altering workplace environments so they're no longer hostile to women, stricter sexual harassment controls, and constant cultural reinforcement of the idea that there's nothing inherently masculine about IT, that women in IT is perfectly natural, are all things that would help.

1) in what ways is IT hostile to women?

2) the mere accusation of sexual harassment can get you fired or transferred to somewhere else

3) IT does not have a "masculine" reputation, but rather its for "geeks/nerds" and that it is not cool

4) everyone reinforces to everyone that it is not natural to go into IT, not unique to women.


as i have said previously, due to the low amount of women and minorities in IT, companies fight very hard to not only get but also KEEP women and minorities. they do this by over-compensation, favorable schedules, and things like taking their side in sexual harassment accusations without direct evidence contradicting their claim.


just look at the case of Adria Richards. it took her company several days before finally terminating her for violations of several of their companies policies.


if you have something specific, bring it up.
 
Akratus asked the exact same thing last week. here's my response from then:
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.

Finding information on the hostile work environment, sexual harassment in IT and Silicon Valley in particular is trivial. The fact that you work in the industry and don't have a clue how widespread this issue is probably part of the problem.

Also, if you think IT is not viewed as a specifically masculine profession, you have not been paying attention. Yes, it's also seen as geeky and nerdy (less and less so), but in a specifically masculine way.
 
That last one I can answer for though. Encyclopedia Dramatica doesn't do it for any gender based reason, trust me. If there ever was a force of pure trolling, it's them.
I've seen that Weev guy too, he's pretty funny.



You see, sometimes boiling things down to mere sexism doesn't really help to do anything but generalize something. In some places, men have it bad too. No reason to generalize that down to a one-word issue. But if and when it comes to mere online comments you either have a thick enough skin to deal with fucking pixels or you go and cry to someone about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, if you think IT is not viewed as a specifically masculine profession, you have not been paying attention. Yes, it's also seen as geeky and nerdy (less and less so), but in a specifically masculine way.
Specifically, it's only for gross neckbeard basement-dwelling loser virgins.
 
Last edited:
That last one I can answer for though. Encyclopedia Dramatica doesn't do it for any gender based reason, trust me. If there ever was a force of pure trolling, it's them.
I've seen that Weev guy too, he's pretty funny.

<snip weev>

You see, sometimes boiling things down to mere sexism doesn't really help to do anything but generalize something. In some places, men have it bad too. No reason to generalize that down to a one-word issue. But if and when it comes to mere online comments you either have a thick enough skin to deal with fucking pixels or you go and cry to someone about it.
You're explicitly defending harassment now. And you're still confused about why people think GamerGate enables, condones and creates harassment? Jesus.
 
My lone post on this corner of the internet has a direct link with what a disorganized consumer revolt stands for. Up is down. Right is wrong. I reject your reality and substitute my own.

I'm not defending harassment, I'm denouncing people getting their feelz in a twist about it.


Maybe sprinkling some holy water over your screen, set to my profile, whilst shouting "The power of christ compells you!!" at the top of your lungs, will make the bad man go away.
 
Your attitude toward harassment isn't isolated from GamerGate's general attitude: grow thicker skin, blaming the victim, condoning nearly everything that isn't an explicit death threat (and then writing those off as "not credible"), excusing destructive behavior with "it's legal", etc. That's endemic in GamerGate, and your attitude here is just an example.
Meanwhile, Gamergate throws hissy fits over articles that they think said their demographic was over with, but in fact said no such thing. But it's just pixels on the internet, right?

Meanwhile, Jonathan McIntosh and a bunch of other people (including Tim Schafer, didn't recognize anyone else), explain the concept of privilege.


Original article form: http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/23/56...e-the-invisible-benefits-of-gaming-while-male
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, research suggests that having same-sex parents is not at all detrimental to children. See, for instance, this study of lesbian couples' children, which found that the absence of fathers was no detriment to their children's development. Or this one, that notes that childern of same-sex couples seem to lead more healthy lives. There are many, many studies that consistently show that being raised by same-sex couples is not a problem -- directly contradicting the idea that children need a male and female parent. Even if the presence of a specifically masculine or feminine role model were important (and it's not at all clear that it is, rather than just adult attention and affection in general), there's no reason why that has to be bound up with the presence of specifically a mother or father. The "double dose" thing you talk about isn't supported by any research I can find, and flatly contradicted by most of it.

There are other issues here, bound up with the whole concept of masculinity and femininity. For instance, our entire culture is gendered: everything we learn from the start as kids reinforces the concept that women and men are fundamentally different, and you're right that children learn those concepts by observing -- but not just by observing their parents, by observing everything they see in society -- people, media, stories, language, etc. That's how a culture reinforces itself. But this isn't part of the solution: it's part of the problem. The fact that it's more difficult to function in society if you don't adhere to strictly masculine or feminine roles is not a good thing.


Also, historically and cross-culturally, this is complete nonsense:
BigBoss said:
The natural order of things has always been that a child needs a mother and father.
The invention of the nuclear family as a core organizing principle is only relatively recent, not cross-cultural (group parenting and other institutions all occur frequently), and not a historical constant. The notion that this is the natural order of things is, basically, unfounded. But it's another narrative that reinforces the status quo as the "biological truth", which is why when people present it, other people go "huh that makes sense must be true". Which is exactly what I noted above.

But it is a problem. Think of how society would treat that kid. Imagine going to school or work every day, and always being the outcast. Sure more people accept homosexuality than before, but that number is still low. It doesn't matter what polls you show me, the majority of the people I talk to don't want to be anywhere near homosexual men. They can do whatever they want, they're not going to protest them or fight against their rights, but these people just don't want them around them or their children. This is just one of a few of the problems they may face.
 
Back
Top