|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 13 2016 22:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 08:16 Nevuk wrote:On December 13 2016 08:05 kwizach wrote:On December 13 2016 07:47 LegalLord wrote:
A woman isn't a man and shouldn't try to be one. Frankly I don't see anything wrong with a female leader acting more... feminine. That sounds like gender essentialism to me, unless I'm misinterpreting. What do you mean by that? This direction in a conversation is a very deep rabbit-hole that is extremely unlikely to end well. Yes, it's unfortunate that discussions on topics related to feminist issues are always extremely polarized online. The issue here, however, is that we should not be peddling gender stereotypes and telling women (and men) how they should or should not act based on them. We should precisely be denouncing gender stereotypes and gender essentialism for the outdated relics that they are, and stop judging people and their behavior based on gender norms. There's still a long road ahead, though, obviously.
As much as feminists would like to be free from cultural norms, it still looks like a long battle, especially in the heartland. Even in the urban customized cosmopolitan areas some gender identities still exist. Without qualifying such an absolute statement on gender essentialism it would be hard to even agree there, and it would be impolite to argue at greater detail without understand fundamental differences in would view.
|
On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do.
Illegally influence a foreign election to stop the US from opposing their expansionist FP? NYT must have changed a lot since I last read them.
But seriously, surely you recognize the non-equivalence between an American media outlet commenting on American politics to influence change and Russia hacking all our elected officials but only releasing the dirt on one side in order to get the other side elected.
|
On December 13 2016 22:33 Velr wrote:
So guys wanting to vote for a women that is acting/behaving/dressing/whatever like most women tend to do is now somehow a sign of them being gender essentialists?
Uhm... What?
The statement I replied to was "a woman isn't a man and shouldn't try to be one". That seemed like the definition of gender essentialism to me, which is why I asked for clarification.
With regards to what you mention in your question, like I said, I regret the continued pervasiveness of gender norms.
|
On December 13 2016 22:40 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 22:18 kwizach wrote:On December 13 2016 08:16 Nevuk wrote:On December 13 2016 08:05 kwizach wrote:On December 13 2016 07:47 LegalLord wrote:
A woman isn't a man and shouldn't try to be one. Frankly I don't see anything wrong with a female leader acting more... feminine. That sounds like gender essentialism to me, unless I'm misinterpreting. What do you mean by that? This direction in a conversation is a very deep rabbit-hole that is extremely unlikely to end well. Yes, it's unfortunate that discussions on topics related to feminist issues are always extremely polarized online. The issue here, however, is that we should not be peddling gender stereotypes and telling women (and men) how they should or should not act based on them. We should precisely be denouncing gender stereotypes and gender essentialism for the outdated relics that they are, and stop judging people and their behavior based on gender norms. There's still a long road ahead, though, obviously. As much as feminists would like to be free from cultural norms, it still looks like a long battle, especially in the heartland. Even in the urban customized cosmopolitan areas some gender identities still exist. Without qualifying such an absolute statement on gender essentialism it would be hard to even agree there, and it would be impolite to argue at greater detail without understand fundamental differences in would view.
Why is the elimination of gender stereotypes considered a good thing? We're talking about eliminating fundamental elements of society. Women are already free to do whatever the hell that they want (regardless of any societal judgments rendered on their actions). That seems good enough to me.
|
Except for the gender pay gap statistics.
I don't understand Trump's appointments or how they can be accepted. A secretary of energy who claims that the scientific community is divided on the issue of global warming, a labour secretary who doesn't believe in workers rights and now a man with no experience outside the business world with clear ties to Russia being appointed to secretary of state? I get that the electoral college voted Trump in, he lost the popular vote but won the overall one. However it isn't like he had a shadow office set up to show people who else they would be electing with him.. Is there no way to fight any of these appointments? -Honest question
|
On December 13 2016 23:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 22:40 TanGeng wrote:On December 13 2016 22:18 kwizach wrote:On December 13 2016 08:16 Nevuk wrote:On December 13 2016 08:05 kwizach wrote:On December 13 2016 07:47 LegalLord wrote:
A woman isn't a man and shouldn't try to be one. Frankly I don't see anything wrong with a female leader acting more... feminine. That sounds like gender essentialism to me, unless I'm misinterpreting. What do you mean by that? This direction in a conversation is a very deep rabbit-hole that is extremely unlikely to end well. Yes, it's unfortunate that discussions on topics related to feminist issues are always extremely polarized online. The issue here, however, is that we should not be peddling gender stereotypes and telling women (and men) how they should or should not act based on them. We should precisely be denouncing gender stereotypes and gender essentialism for the outdated relics that they are, and stop judging people and their behavior based on gender norms. There's still a long road ahead, though, obviously. As much as feminists would like to be free from cultural norms, it still looks like a long battle, especially in the heartland. Even in the urban customized cosmopolitan areas some gender identities still exist. Without qualifying such an absolute statement on gender essentialism it would be hard to even agree there, and it would be impolite to argue at greater detail without understand fundamental differences in would view. Why is the elimination of gender stereotypes considered a good thing? We're talking about eliminating fundamental elements of society. Women are already free to do whatever the hell that they want (regardless of any societal judgments rendered on their actions). That seems good enough to me.
Unsurprisingly, there are people who disagree with you that that is good enough. And questioning why gender stereotypes exist (nature vs nurture) and whether they are desirable or not seems like a perfectly valid scientific inquiry to me. Categorically stating that gender stereotypes are good is just as useless as categorically stating that they are bad. Just because you see them as fundamental elements of society doesn't mean they (1) are, and (2) are beneficial.
|
On December 13 2016 23:39 MyTHicaL wrote:
Except for the gender pay gap statistics.
I don't understand Trump's appointments or how they can be accepted. A secretary of energy who claims that the scientific community is divided on the issue of global warming, a labour secretary who doesn't believe in workers rights and now a man with no experience outside the business world with clear ties to Russia being appointed to secretary of state? I get that the electoral college voted Trump in, he lost the popular vote but won the overall one. However it isn't like he had a shadow office set up to show people who else they would be electing with him.. Is there no way to fight any of these appointments? -Honest question
Most gender pay gap statistic don't compare the same work with same qualifications, same responsibilities, same hours.
At least that's the case here in Austria. Our media compares 20h female hairdress with a 38h male software engineer (stark example but it is practically true) and then cry gender inequality.
I have yet to find a working place where I earned more than a woman (when we held the same position).
|
On December 13 2016 18:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 18:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 13 2016 17:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 13 2016 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I can't believe people are still calling Clinton disliked after she got as many votes as Obama in 2012...
Its like they can't believe a woman who's won the popular vote 3 times in a row could have won it because she was liked by the people. Personally I'd class unfavourabity ratings as a better judge of popularity than how many votes she recieved? Ever consider the fact that tens of millions voted for Clinton because even though they disliked her they hated Trump more? Because that is literally what happened. If that's so then Obama's high favor rating means people wanted establishment politics. DOW 20,000 will do that, plenty of optimism around right now but again it's all going to benefit Wall St not Main St. Want more proof this is the reason? Even Trumps popularity has rocketed the past five weeks, 15-20% bump in approval. http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=16209
Being that I am the one who was leaning on who people vote for while you were the one leaning on who has favorability ratings then I'm glad you agree that how someone is marketed is meaningless.
|
On December 13 2016 23:50 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 23:39 MyTHicaL wrote:
Except for the gender pay gap statistics.
I don't understand Trump's appointments or how they can be accepted. A secretary of energy who claims that the scientific community is divided on the issue of global warming, a labour secretary who doesn't believe in workers rights and now a man with no experience outside the business world with clear ties to Russia being appointed to secretary of state? I get that the electoral college voted Trump in, he lost the popular vote but won the overall one. However it isn't like he had a shadow office set up to show people who else they would be electing with him.. Is there no way to fight any of these appointments? -Honest question Most gender pay gap statistic don't compare the same work with same qualifications, same responsibilities, same hours. At least that's the case here in Austria. Our media compares 20h female hairdress with a 38h male software engineer (stark example but it is practically true) and then cry gender inequality. I have yet to find a working place where I earned more than a woman (when we held the same position).
They compare one population to another.
In a city with X women and X men, men will make Y while women will make Z, because men are more likely to be hired in positions that pay Y and women are more likely to be hired in positions that make Z.
If the study was "how much do software engineers make" then it wouldn't matter if the person is male or female.
If the study is about "why is there a glass ceiling preventing women from moving their career forward" and it turns out there is a bias against hiring women and that bias translates to a lower standard of living, lower market value, and a gender pay gap--then fucking hell its because the world is a misogynist piece of shit that needs to be fixed.
|
On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary?
I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down.
|
On December 13 2016 22:46 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. Illegally influence a foreign election to stop the US from opposing their expansionist FP? NYT must have changed a lot since I last read them. But seriously, surely you recognize the non-equivalence between an American media outlet commenting on American politics to influence change and Russia hacking all our elected officials but only releasing the dirt on one side in order to get the other side elected.
The hysteria of it all and how long its lasted is aimed at accomplishing the very same thing: undermine the confidence in the system and perhaps change the outcome (and how many people in this thread alone talk scenarios where Hillary mounts the throne?). Minus all the fits and outrage, you could have stories on this matter as it applies to anti-phishing for 2018/2020. As it stands, the NYT is trying to do the same thing Russia is alleged to have done.
|
On December 14 2016 00:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 23:50 sharkie wrote:On December 13 2016 23:39 MyTHicaL wrote:
Except for the gender pay gap statistics.
I don't understand Trump's appointments or how they can be accepted. A secretary of energy who claims that the scientific community is divided on the issue of global warming, a labour secretary who doesn't believe in workers rights and now a man with no experience outside the business world with clear ties to Russia being appointed to secretary of state? I get that the electoral college voted Trump in, he lost the popular vote but won the overall one. However it isn't like he had a shadow office set up to show people who else they would be electing with him.. Is there no way to fight any of these appointments? -Honest question Most gender pay gap statistic don't compare the same work with same qualifications, same responsibilities, same hours. At least that's the case here in Austria. Our media compares 20h female hairdress with a 38h male software engineer (stark example but it is practically true) and then cry gender inequality. I have yet to find a working place where I earned more than a woman (when we held the same position). They compare one population to another. In a city with X women and X men, men will make Y while women will make Z, because men are more likely to be hired in positions that pay Y and women are more likely to be hired in positions that make Z. If the study was "how much do software engineers make" then it wouldn't matter if the person is male or female. If the study is about "why is there a glass ceiling preventing women from moving their career forward" and it turns out there is a bias against hiring women and that bias translates to a lower standard of living, lower market value, and a gender pay gap--then fucking hell its because the world is a misogynist piece of shit that needs to be fixed.
This is an entirely different issue/argument than the pay gap issue. In the US the narrative is women making less pay for the same work/position.
It IS NOT women and men entering different fields that pay more/less and discriminatory hiring practices
|
On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down.
I don't understand the point of that comparison, unless it's to draw a false equivalence between the two. "nasty parallels" was your words, not mine.
|
On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down.
But comparing intentions and goals without discussing method is apples and oranges.
Person A wants a nice shirt and buys it from a store
Person B wants a nice shirt and shoplifts it.
Person A cannot be critical of Person B because both wanted a nice shirt.
Horseshit.
The NYT trying to change someone's opinion with articles and Russia hacking US officials and selectively releasing dirt on the candidate they want to lose are not the same thing and your comparison is strait garbage and just illustrates how weak your argument against Russia's involvement is.
|
On December 13 2016 23:39 MyTHicaL wrote:
Except for the gender pay gap statistics.
I don't understand Trump's appointments or how they can be accepted. A secretary of energy who claims that the scientific community is divided on the issue of global warming, a labour secretary who doesn't believe in workers rights and now a man with no experience outside the business world with clear ties to Russia being appointed to secretary of state? I get that the electoral college voted Trump in, he lost the popular vote but won the overall one. However it isn't like he had a shadow office set up to show people who else they would be electing with him.. Is there no way to fight any of these appointments? -Honest question
cabinet appointments have to be approved by the Senate.
Presidents are generally given a lot of leeway on them, especially for the ones at the start, but that leeway does have limits. I suspect a couple of trump's won't be approved.
|
On December 14 2016 00:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down. I don't understand the point of that comparison, unless it's to draw a false equivalence between the two. "nasty parallels" was your words, not mine.
He's strawmanning the whole issue by pretending that the outrage is about Russia wanting Trump to win rather than about Russia helping him by hacking his opposition. The same way Trump supporters pretended that the outrage about the tape was due to him using the word pussy rather than due to him bragging about sexual assault.
|
One of the things that makes me dismiss the gender pay gap stuff is something that I heard on QI (from Stephen Fry) that said that ugly short people are paid less on average as well. I don't know what it takes into account (hours, type of work, negotiations, whatever), but it seems to me this kind of problem of pay inequality is not limited to being a woman.
|
Arguably the outrage isn't about Russia at all but just about Trump winning. If it were Guccifer 2.0 as an independent agent doing everything then the reaction would be pretty analogous.
|
On December 14 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the outrage isn't about Russia at all but just about Trump winning. If it were Guccifer 2.0 as an independent agent doing everything then the reaction would be pretty analogous.
Now your taking 2 separate issues and saying they are the same.
Some people are outraged that Trump won.
Some people are outraged that Russia hacked US officials to try to influence the election result.
There is a lot of overlap between the 2 for sure but they are still separate issues.
|
On December 13 2016 23:39 MyTHicaL wrote:
Except for the gender pay gap statistics.
I don't understand Trump's appointments or how they can be accepted. A secretary of energy who claims that the scientific community is divided on the issue of global warming, a labour secretary who doesn't believe in workers rights and now a man with no experience outside the business world with clear ties to Russia being appointed to secretary of state? I get that the electoral college voted Trump in, he lost the popular vote but won the overall one. However it isn't like he had a shadow office set up to show people who else they would be electing with him.. Is there no way to fight any of these appointments? -Honest question
I forgot where I read it, but best way I've seen it explained is that Trumps big draining of the swamp is a metaphor for getting rid of the middle man; rather than have politicians that are in the pockets or special interest, just put the special interests directly in charge!
Having said that, I'd wager at least one of these nominations gets defeated. SoS highest chance imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
