EPTWhen you write something, make sure it's true and not just your baseless opinion.
(Fe)male equality - Page 2
| Blogs > achristes |
Chill
Calgary25963 Posts
When you write something, make sure it's true and not just your baseless opinion. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. If you're not consistent then you're a hypocrite. | ||
|
trucane
United States553 Posts
On November 19 2011 00:25 Jibba wrote: Young men are the least safe demographic of driver. But no, I'm sure it's just because the world is out to get your non-sexist self. I'm glad your non-sexist self doesn't mind attributing an attitude to all women, because of one unseen male or female driver's bumper sticker. You've really thought this blog through, you non-sexist, you. Of course young men drivers are more reckless in the traffic just as immigrants from the middle east are more prone to rape and other violent crimes that doesn't make it ok to judge them differently just because of that. If you are supposed to be equal in one area you have to be equal in all areas otherwise you would be worse than hitler Bottomline is that males and females should be treated equal just as immigrants and natives should be just as straight and homosexual people should be | ||
|
trias_e
United States520 Posts
On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. If you're not consistent then you're a hypocrite. Well, of course you can say that blacks commit more crimes and women excel less at math...however, you need to present a sociological explanation for this or get ostracized. There is no such requirement for any negative statement for white males, of course, because according to the enlightened ones white males are always advantaged by society, never disadvantaged, thus of course any negative characteristic displayed by them is simply their own vice coming to display. (No, I'm not bitter from taking some gender studies classes from horribly bigoted professors...not at all!) | ||
|
acrimoneyius
United States983 Posts
On November 19 2011 01:18 Skilledblob wrote: dont worry about it there are always people who cant argue and thus have to rely on screaming "that's a generalisation blabla" as if that was an argument or not allready clear. Yeah, I can't argue because I immediately point out the blatant hypocrisy. More like I don't need to argue because the OP lacks credible examples and above average reasoning. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person.I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. | ||
|
iMarshall
Norway189 Posts
On November 19 2011 01:20 Jibba wrote: Hiring by merit already occurs. In cases with near equal candidates, diversity is an added benefit because it often improves organizations. And it goes both ways. People who complain that women only make 76% of a men's salaries are wrong too. Controlled by merit/experience/education/etc., in most fields and sub-fields they make the same. I believe he was referring to the Norwegian law that requires any company in which the government owns more than 2/3 of the shares, as well as any corporation (no matter who owns it or parts of it) to have a minimum of 40% women on the board of directors. Source (in Norwegian): http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/nhd/pressesenter/fakta-ark/fakta-ark-kjonnskvotering-i-styrer.html?id=641431 | ||
|
iMarshall
Norway189 Posts
On November 19 2011 01:57 iMarshall wrote: I believe he was referring to the Norwegian law that requires any company in which the government owns more than 2/3 of the shares, as well as any corporation (no matter who owns it or parts of it) to have a minimum of 40% women on the board of directors. Source (in Norwegian): http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/nhd/pressesenter/fakta-ark/fakta-ark-kjonnskvotering-i-styrer.html?id=641431 Edit: There has to be a minimum of 40% of each gender on the boards of directors, but in most cases this has led to companies having to turn down potential male candidates who might be more qualified than women who in the end get the jobs. Edit #2: Sorry, must have clicked "quote" instead of "edit", my bad! | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote: Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? | ||
|
Freyr
United States500 Posts
On November 18 2011 23:48 achristes wrote: Before I start this rant I would like to state that I am NOT sexist, this is a post to let off some steam about feminists being extremely annoying sometimes After school today I went to a bus stop where I saw a minibus with this...thing painted on the back: "Deprimerte kvinner shopper eller spiser, mens deprimerte menn erobrer landområder. Det er en helt forskjellig måte å tenke på!" which basicly translates into: "Depressed women shop or eat, while depressed men conquer territory. It is a completely different way of thinking!" (Keep in mind this is not a direct quote, but it was something like that) Now, WTF is that all about? I thought some women wanted equality and they bring up this kind of shit? Reminds me of Susanne Bratli (Ap/Labour party) who wanted to restrict young men from driving in the dark, have a passenger and she wanted to install alcohol and speed-locks on all cars. Just young men, as if all young men are the reason to all the accidents, and nothing was mentioned about some of those stupid ass ladies who text/put on make-up while driving! And I must say it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. Even if the guy isn't found guilty, she's still managed to keep him from most jobs, wasted his time and wrecked his reputation. Some feminists even say that in every major corporations administration there has to be an equal amount of men and women, which is retarded IMO. The position as board member (or whatever it's called) should NOT and I repeat NOT be given just because they happen to be male/female, it should be based upon skill and determination (IE it should be because they deserved it, not because they are X gender) Is it even possible to accuse a woman of sexism? I don't think I've ever seen it before even though sometimes it would be the proper response. I think that about sums it up for my rage, if you are a woman/girl reading this please don't be offended as I tried as best as I could not to generalize you, I know there's alot of good female drivers and board members. I love women/girls and probably couldn't live without them and I also want equality, but what I've written about above is NOT equality. <3 You PS Don't whine if the title doesn't entirely represent my text, there's no way for me to change the title anyway. (Fe)male == Female/male, it is the way I meant it atleast. All of the "some" are added because of bitching about me generalizing when some people didn't bother to read the entire post. I think you should qualify the way you use "feminism". Feminism is just advocacy for female equality. If you support female equality, regardless of how you feel about the specific efforts of those trying to achieve it, you support feminism. I agree that some feminists may use dubious strategies, or may have goals with which I do not entirely agree, but one should not use a single feminist or group of feminists as a way to characterize the entire ideology. While reputation-wrecking is a serious and unfortunate thing, but so is being raped. The nature of the crime does, in principle, make it easy to (falsely) accuse people, but you write as if it is some conspiracy by womankind as a whole to undermine men. Women (and men) need to be able to come out and accuse those who have hurt them. Incidentally, you must realize when women publicly accuse their attackers they frequently also face significant humiliating (and possibly reputation-wrecking?) publicity as the process moves forward. Further, the statistics on male drivers are real. While I do not support all of the provisions in the proposal you referenced (wasn't there something about not being allowed to drive at night?), if you support rational litigation/policy making, then you must understand the sense in accounting for these statistics. With all that said, "reverse sexism" obviously can exist, but even when we perceive it in action we shouldn't immediately regress and feel negatively toward women and/or feminists in general. As to the guy who said "real feminists want power" - what? Please defend your statement thoroughly. How are you defining "real feminists"? People who make the most noise or...? Frankly your claim sounds absurd. | ||
|
DNB
Finland995 Posts
In my home country, 80% of those who commit suicide are male, and around the same number of homeless are male too. Imagine if the numbers were reversed, now we would suddenly have an influx of support from various agencies, and a 'proof' that the society discriminates women. Now let's not even talk about the disputes about choosing the home for a child in a case of divorce — In a huge majority of cases the woman gets to keep the kids regardless of the children's opinions, even when it is obvious that the loyal father would keep better care. I have witnessed such a case myself, where the woman afterwards simply used the kids to manipulate the ex-husband's emotional life further on. Men who also bring up these topics and perspectives are seen as cynical; Women expect men to silently accept this kind of bliss ignorance about the other side of the coin, and whoever might point these statistical imbalances out, instead of receiving legitimate replies, will be met with despise and accusations of being weak and not being able to 'man and suck it up'. End of rant. I'm afraid to talk about these issues in real life again due to the high chance of getting bombarded with strawmen and out-of-topic ad hominem arguments. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote: So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
Don't generalize when making arguments kids or this blog may happen TO YOU! | ||
|
Morphling_
87 Posts
On November 19 2011 02:44 Probe1 wrote: A similar concept- "Terran wins more games than Zerg and Protoss so they are basically OP" leads to much widespread hilarity. Don't generalize when making arguments kids or this blog may happen TO YOU! Isn't winning more games than other races the strongest possible indicator of being overpowered? What evidence is stronger? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_black_people_taller_than_whites_on_average m.wisegeek.com/which-country-has-the-tallest-people.htm | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote: Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice. | ||
|
Fuhrmaaj
167 Posts
On November 19 2011 01:07 Geovu wrote: Are you honestly kidding me? Just because you are a man who is interested in working with small children does not mean you are a pedophile. That is fucking ridiculous I just don't know what to say. Not to mention you are implying that there aren't any female pedophiles which goes right back to the OP: People seem to automatically assume that only men are pedophiles, at least unconsciously, e.x. gender discrimination tilted in favor of women. Hey, you're right and I edited my post to reflect that. What I was trying to say was the men are not as interested as women to work at a daycare and some portion of those who do may be pedophiles. I don't want to assign numbers to anything, but I think it is important to be aware of the possibility. By the same token, some amount of women who apply may be pedophiles but they apply from a larger gender pool and are not as likely to be hired except by merit. I don't think that men should be hired purely because they are men because there is a risk involved with how they may perform in their role On November 19 2011 01:20 Jibba wrote: And it goes both ways. People who complain that women only make 76% of a men's salaries are wrong too. Controlled by merit/experience/education/etc., in most fields and sub-fields they make the same. I have taken an economics course on this subject and I found that this was not exactly the case. A woman who has a child earlier in her career will lose some income because this is also a period where firms are more likely to train an employee into a higher paid role. So this accounts for some of the income gap, but it is possible to model how much of this gap is due to merit/experience/education/etc. and there is still something left over. I can't comment on the reason for the disparity outside of Canada, but in Canada women are more willing (or likely) to take a lower paid position if there is some kind of community benefit. For example, Canadian women may opt to work for shelters, daycares, or veterinarians. I'm not sure how this is reflected on the male side (I wasn't interested when I was taking the course tbh), but if the men took a job at a restaurant or call center then they may earn more. Another factor is the unemployed are NOT REPRESENTED by income gaps, so an unemployed male where a women is working a job for below average pay will actually skew income gaps into the male's favour. The last factor is that men and women have different preferences in which type of high education they pursue. If you've taken an undergraduate engineering course, there are a lot more men than women. Whereas in undergraduate biology/nursing, there are a lot more women than men. An engineering position tends to pay more than a nursing job at equal education. After all these variables are accounted for, there is still some gap which is not accounted for. As I said, we focused on Canada in my course because I'm Canadian but there is an analogy in the States (which I understand has a greater income gap to account for). Consider the following chart from 2007: http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Earnings&ContentRecord_id=db19df76-9299-4b46-a98c-ef33c21dab3d&ContentType_id=2206321f-9e59-4f98-b972-d78c64abf642&Group_id=51e071bd-07e9-46f2-bb70-cfc28baec8be In economics, Explained accounts for things such as difference in education, experience and child rearing (women may take materal leave, which reduces opportunity for advancement). The current opinions on Unexplained are preference or bias. To isolate for preference, you can look at a single firm or industry and compare the wages withing while accounting for Explained (as above). Some economists will have already done this. But this chart is for the federal workforce which is very broad, and as such likely does not account for preference. So the remaining 7 cents on the dollar may be a combination of preference and bias, or something which modern economists have not considered. Food for thought. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10352 Posts
Also on the definition of sexism; In order to be sexist against a man you would first have to create a culture that oppresses men for thousands of years. | ||
|
AxUU
Finland162 Posts
| ||
| ||
