On June 27 2013 14:02 Acer.Scarlett` wrote: So in the past few pages we've went from people promoting/defending gay rights/equality to the same people perpetuating sexist beliefs? :/ One step forward, two steps backward
On June 27 2013 14:02 Acer.Scarlett` wrote: So in the past few pages we've went from people promoting/defending gay rights/equality to the same people perpetuating sexist beliefs? :/ One step forward, two steps backward
To be fair, I think it's because a big chunk of the equal-rights-supporting majority just posted their love and left. I'm sure the haters don't represent anywhere near as significant a portion of TL as in this thread.
Yeah. And then a small number of equal-rights lovers stayed behind to battle the haters. Keep fighting, equal-rights-lovers!
Someone is going to have to point out which sexists beliefs have been perpetuated on page 95 because I am too dumb or privileged or whatever you want to call it to see them.
On a related note: San Francisco is one very happy city tonight in case anyone was wondering.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to. This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
To be honest his argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. I basically said that the current gender split in fields such as engineering is at least partially caused by sexism which, in spite of improvements, is still very much alive today. If you don't believe me, just tune into any female streamer and see what people say in chat. Then he responded to me with that argument, which really didn't make any sense at all. I mean, I never said anything about forcing anyone into any career. I never said anything about creating quotas. All I said was that because sexism is very much alive, we cannot just assume that the current gender split in fields such as engineering or gaming is caused by biology.
For the record, here is my post that he was responding to:
Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes:
Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".]
While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
That measurement of "equality = 50/50 in the outcome" is probably the biggest brainfart that's around when it comes to this topic. Like, just think about it: If every single person would have every possible opportunity to do what he/she wanted, then the differences between people would come down to... what they want to do. Less equality in the outcome might mean more and more equality in the input and people are oblivious to noticing it because they start with the wrong premise.
@whoever on the last page who was wondering about biological differences: Simon LaVey who wrote a couple of interesting books and essays on this topic, more specifically about one single brain cluster that he worked with for quite some years. Another interesting one is Glenn Wilson (more specifically: "Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation" (2005)), the guy is pretty much known since the 70s when it comes to setting standards via his research that later became widely accepted.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
That measurement of "equality = 50/50 in the outcome" is probably the biggest brainfart that's around when it comes to this topic. Like, just think about it: If every single person would have every possible opportunity to do what he/she wanted, then the differences between people would come down to... what they want to do. Less equality in the outcome might mean more and more equality in the input and people are oblivious to noticing it because they start with the wrong premise.
@whoever on the last page who was wondering about biological differences: Simon LaVey who wrote a couple of interesting books and essays on this topic, more specifically about one single brain cluster that he worked with for quite some years. Another interesting one is Glenn Wilson (more specifically: "Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation" (2005)), the guy is pretty much known since the 70s when it comes to setting standards via his research that later became widely accepted.
I really could not agree more with you. Sadly it is a very common misconception held by a lot of influential people. Just look at the push in the EU for quotas.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
You simply dont get my point. Reread what i was refering to:
I said that i will say what i think is true when i have good reasoning for this. Codonbyte said i cannot do this because it doesnt sound nice. So i brought up an example showing that codonbytes idea is also not nice if i take it word by word.
No way i said that women shouldne be encouraged to pick up a profession in engeeniering or likewise.
I dont know why it is so hard to read properly esp. when i phrased it in easy, clear words. Just dont make stuff up i never said.
And this "constructionist nonsense" as you call it causes people to call other people sexist because they do not share their very own belives. That was my point.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to. This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
To be honest his argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. I basically said that the current gender split in fields such as engineering is at least partially caused by sexism which, in spite of improvements, is still very much alive today. If you don't believe me, just tune into any female streamer and see what people say in chat. Then he responded to me with that argument, which really didn't make any sense at all. I mean, I never said anything about forcing anyone into any career. I never said anything about creating quotas. All I said was that because sexism is very much alive, we cannot just assume that the current gender split in fields such as engineering or gaming is caused by biology.
For the record, here is my post that he was responding to:
Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes:
Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".]
While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society.
No again i wasnt arguing on that. I just stated that beliving men and women are to some degree different in their behaviour having natural as well as social causes is not sexist.
That is all what i want to say.
You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist.
So by your logic stating that there are NO biological differences we would expect 50/50 in every field. That means if we DO NOT see 50/50 the reason has to be sexism. Right? Because after this logic the quota would be exactly 50/50. Simple pure logic. So if there is "sexism" since there is no 50/50 we have to get rid of sexism, and how are you going to do it without force when the reason for no 50/50 isnt sexism?
I m also not denying that there isnt any sexism. For me sexism is : Women suck at enigneering. Not: Women do generally like enigneering less than men do.
I think it's a little sad that one particular point of view is seen as perfectly acceptable to be promoted and publicly supported, whereas if the other was promoted and publicly supported, this community would probably ostracize the people responsible and make attempts to shut them down... but I don't really see a problem with the logo or the public support of a social/political position (even if I disagree with the position being taken).
TL wants to promote a certain POV? Good on them, let em do it.
On June 27 2013 16:26 Sokrates wrote: No again i wasnt arguing on that. I just stated that beliving men and women are to some degree different in their behaviour having natural as well as social causes is not sexist.
That is all what i want to say.
You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist.
So by your logic stating that there are NO biological differences we would expect 50/50 in every field. That means if we DO NOT see 50/50 the reason has to be sexism. Right? Because after this logic the quota would be exactly 50/50. Simple pure logic. So if there is "sexism" since there is no 50/50 we have to get rid of sexism, and how are you going to do it without force when the reason for no 50/50 isnt sexism?
I m also not denying that there isnt any sexism. For me sexism is : Women suck at enigneering. Not: Women do generally like enigneering less than men do.
That was my whole point.
On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote: is at least partially caused by sexism
On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
You don't argue with YumYumGranola position, but with what you imagine his position to be.
"You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist."
Where? He did said that you are deluded if you think that there is no bias against females in fields like engendering.
"ientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the “males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student."
You are also misreading the intentions of my posts. I didnt say there isnt any sexism.
So because i dont want to repeat myself over and over again, reread what i posted.
And to clairfy: YumYumGranola also misread my posts. That is why i quoted him. I didnt say he was wrong i just said he is arguing about the wrong point.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
You simply dont get my point. Reread what i was refering to:
I said that i will say what i think is true when i have good reasoning for this. Codonbyte said i cannot do this because it doesnt sound nice. So i brought up an example showing that codonbytes idea is also not nice if i take it word by word.
No way i said that women shouldne be encouraged to pick up a profession in engeeniering or likewise.
I dont know why it is so hard to read properly esp. when i phrased it in easy, clear words. Just dont make stuff up i never said.
And this "constructionist nonsense" as you call it causes people to call other people sexist because they do not share their very own belives. That was my point.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to. This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
To be honest his argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. I basically said that the current gender split in fields such as engineering is at least partially caused by sexism which, in spite of improvements, is still very much alive today. If you don't believe me, just tune into any female streamer and see what people say in chat. Then he responded to me with that argument, which really didn't make any sense at all. I mean, I never said anything about forcing anyone into any career. I never said anything about creating quotas. All I said was that because sexism is very much alive, we cannot just assume that the current gender split in fields such as engineering or gaming is caused by biology.
For the record, here is my post that he was responding to:
Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes:
Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".]
While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society.
No again i wasnt arguing on that. I just stated that beliving men and women are to some degree different in their behaviour having natural as well as social causes is not sexist.
That is all what i want to say.
You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist.
So by your logic stating that there are NO biological differences we would expect 50/50 in every field. That means if we DO NOT see 50/50 the reason has to be sexism. Right? Because after this logic the quota would be exactly 50/50. Simple pure logic. So if there is "sexism" since there is no 50/50 we have to get rid of sexism, and how are you going to do it without force when the reason for no 50/50 isnt sexism?
I m also not denying that there isnt any sexism. For me sexism is : Women suck at enigneering. Not: Women do generally like enigneering less than men do.
That was my whole point.
As is often the case with prejudicial comments, it's not the comment themselves which makes it prejudicial, but the context of the discussion to which it is being applied which does so.
Maybe I should have covered my final paragraph in more detail. Yes, I accept that in a perfect world of zero sexism that it's entirely possible that gender splits in certain fields will occur simply due to biological differences between the two sexes. But that's not really in any way relevant to the real world, and implying that it does have any relevance to the discussion is what's kind of insulting.
You're basically implying two things:
1) That our understanding of sexism as it pertains to the workplace is limited to looking at org charts. 2) That we should be willing to accept gender discrepancies in the workplace because maybe they're just what they ought to be, and attempting to change it could hurt people by upsetting the already perfect balance.
Like I said before, I have experience in engineering in both academia and the professional world. I don't think sexism exists because there were only 20 girls out of 130 students in my graduating class. I think that sexism exists because I've seen it. Everything from TAs talking about purposely giving hot female students poorer grades in the hopes that they will come visit office hours (true story), to the more subtle, but no less hurtful, forms of subconscious sexism that are made apparent in how females were treated when they worked in teams and how women are presented career opportunities. So any sort of discussion about whether we'd be doing harm by trying to get more women into a particular field (in my case engineering) because we might be upsetting the balance of the force is simply absurd. That balance does not exist, and frankly the discussion to me reeks of a weak attempt to ignore that sexism exists.
If you really wanted to not be sexist you should have asked the follow-up question "Why do women generally like engineering than men do?" If you can't think of a single answer that doesn't involve brain chemistry, I'm sorry, but you're probably sexist (or at least blind to it's existence)..
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
You simply dont get my point. Reread what i was refering to:
I said that i will say what i think is true when i have good reasoning for this. Codonbyte said i cannot do this because it doesnt sound nice. So i brought up an example showing that codonbytes idea is also not nice if i take it word by word.
No way i said that women shouldne be encouraged to pick up a profession in engeeniering or likewise.
I dont know why it is so hard to read properly esp. when i phrased it in easy, clear words. Just dont make stuff up i never said.
And this "constructionist nonsense" as you call it causes people to call other people sexist because they do not share their very own belives. That was my point.
On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:
On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
You got the point right.
On June 27 2013 15:22 codonbyte wrote:
On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:
On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to. This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
To be honest his argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. I basically said that the current gender split in fields such as engineering is at least partially caused by sexism which, in spite of improvements, is still very much alive today. If you don't believe me, just tune into any female streamer and see what people say in chat. Then he responded to me with that argument, which really didn't make any sense at all. I mean, I never said anything about forcing anyone into any career. I never said anything about creating quotas. All I said was that because sexism is very much alive, we cannot just assume that the current gender split in fields such as engineering or gaming is caused by biology.
For the record, here is my post that he was responding to:
Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes:
Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".]
While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society.
No again i wasnt arguing on that. I just stated that beliving men and women are to some degree different in their behaviour having natural as well as social causes is not sexist.
That is all what i want to say.
You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist.
So by your logic stating that there are NO biological differences we would expect 50/50 in every field. That means if we DO NOT see 50/50 the reason has to be sexism. Right? Because after this logic the quota would be exactly 50/50. Simple pure logic. So if there is "sexism" since there is no 50/50 we have to get rid of sexism, and how are you going to do it without force when the reason for no 50/50 isnt sexism?
I m also not denying that there isnt any sexism. For me sexism is : Women suck at enigneering. Not: Women do generally like enigneering less than men do.
That was my whole point.
As is often the case with prejudicial comments, it's not the comment themselves which makes it prejudicial, but the context of the discussion to which it is being applied which does so.
Maybe I should have covered my final paragraph in more detail. Yes, I accept that in a perfect world of zero sexism that it's entirely possible that gender splits in certain fields will occur simply due to biological differences between the two sexes. But that's not really in any way relevant to the real world, and implying that it does have any relevance to the discussion is what's kind of insulting.
You're basically implying two things:
1) That our understanding of sexism as it pertains to the workplace is limited to looking at org charts. 2) That we should be willing to accept gender discrepancies in the workplace because maybe they're just what they ought to be, and attempting to change it could hurt people by upsetting the already perfect balance.
Like I said before, I have experience in engineering in both academia and the professional world. I don't think sexism exists because there were only 20 girls out of 130 students in my graduating class. I think that sexism exists because I've seen it. Everything from TAs talking about purposely giving hot female students poorer grades in the hopes that they will come visit office hours (true story), to the more subtle, but no less hurtful, forms of subconscious sexism that are made apparent in how females were treated when they worked in teams and how women are presented career opportunities. So any sort of discussion about whether we'd be doing harm by trying to get more women into a particular field (in my case engineering) because we might be upsetting the balance of the force is simply absurd. That balance does not exist, and frankly the discussion to me reeks of a weak attempt to ignore that sexism exists.
If you really wanted to not be sexist you should have asked the follow-up question "Why do women generally like engineering than men do?" If you can't think of a single answer that doesn't involve brain chemistry, I'm sorry, but you're probably sexist (or at least blind to it's existence)..
1. Again you miss my point.
I try to make it very easy for you since you post unrelated stuff:
Saying that women and men are different in behaviour because of biological reasons is not sexist.
2. Ever came up with the idea that women do like engineering less because they like other stuff more? How about that? Did that came to your mind? Ever came to your mind that women generally like to interact with people more than men do for example being a doctor or a nurse?
You only see this from one perspective which has a reason, but saying it is the ONLY reason is not making sense. And i didnt ingnore that sexism doesnt exist, as i already mentioned before.
How to make it very easy again: Women dont become engineers because: a) there is some kind of sexism as you described and b) women dont become engineers because they are less interested in this topic had have more interested in other topics. Both is true for me. It is neither just a) or b)
Then again you said 60/40 yourself so you are a sexist by your own book. Damn... you seem to make a lot of sense.
This has is also shown in the genderparadox where women in the least sexist societys pick the most genderspecific jobs.
And then again: You just didnt understand the whole context with the discussion before: Codonbyte said her/his point of view is better BECAUSE it sounds nicer. Not if it is true or not, just because it sounds nicer. That is a flaw in itself. I do not accept or reject a theory of the concept of being "nice" or "not nice". I also tried to show that even though the idea about rejecting a theory because it doesnt sound "nice" is ridicolous itself it also isnt ture because her/his theory might lead to other things that are not nice aswell.
As an example i gave the 50/50 thing, whereas when her/his theory is right then we should expect this ratio, if it is not fullfilled it has to be sexism. You know the rest.
That also doesnt imply with have to accept very low ratios but it implies that you would expect ratios others than 50/50 if her theory is wrong.
I hope you understood this. And saying that doesnt make me a sexist. It is really funny that i have to repeat stuff a million times to make a really simple standpoint clear.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
You simply dont get my point. Reread what i was refering to:
I said that i will say what i think is true when i have good reasoning for this. Codonbyte said i cannot do this because it doesnt sound nice. So i brought up an example showing that codonbytes idea is also not nice if i take it word by word.
No way i said that women shouldne be encouraged to pick up a profession in engeeniering or likewise.
I dont know why it is so hard to read properly esp. when i phrased it in easy, clear words. Just dont make stuff up i never said.
And this "constructionist nonsense" as you call it causes people to call other people sexist because they do not share their very own belives. That was my point.
On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:
On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
You got the point right.
On June 27 2013 15:22 codonbyte wrote:
On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:
On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to. This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
To be honest his argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. I basically said that the current gender split in fields such as engineering is at least partially caused by sexism which, in spite of improvements, is still very much alive today. If you don't believe me, just tune into any female streamer and see what people say in chat. Then he responded to me with that argument, which really didn't make any sense at all. I mean, I never said anything about forcing anyone into any career. I never said anything about creating quotas. All I said was that because sexism is very much alive, we cannot just assume that the current gender split in fields such as engineering or gaming is caused by biology.
For the record, here is my post that he was responding to:
Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes:
Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".]
While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society.
No again i wasnt arguing on that. I just stated that beliving men and women are to some degree different in their behaviour having natural as well as social causes is not sexist.
That is all what i want to say.
You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist.
So by your logic stating that there are NO biological differences we would expect 50/50 in every field. That means if we DO NOT see 50/50 the reason has to be sexism. Right? Because after this logic the quota would be exactly 50/50. Simple pure logic. So if there is "sexism" since there is no 50/50 we have to get rid of sexism, and how are you going to do it without force when the reason for no 50/50 isnt sexism?
I m also not denying that there isnt any sexism. For me sexism is : Women suck at enigneering. Not: Women do generally like enigneering less than men do.
That was my whole point.
As is often the case with prejudicial comments, it's not the comment themselves which makes it prejudicial, but the context of the discussion to which it is being applied which does so.
Maybe I should have covered my final paragraph in more detail. Yes, I accept that in a perfect world of zero sexism that it's entirely possible that gender splits in certain fields will occur simply due to biological differences between the two sexes. But that's not really in any way relevant to the real world, and implying that it does have any relevance to the discussion is what's kind of insulting.
You're basically implying two things:
1) That our understanding of sexism as it pertains to the workplace is limited to looking at org charts. 2) That we should be willing to accept gender discrepancies in the workplace because maybe they're just what they ought to be, and attempting to change it could hurt people by upsetting the already perfect balance.
Like I said before, I have experience in engineering in both academia and the professional world. I don't think sexism exists because there were only 20 girls out of 130 students in my graduating class. I think that sexism exists because I've seen it. Everything from TAs talking about purposely giving hot female students poorer grades in the hopes that they will come visit office hours (true story), to the more subtle, but no less hurtful, forms of subconscious sexism that are made apparent in how females were treated when they worked in teams and how women are presented career opportunities. So any sort of discussion about whether we'd be doing harm by trying to get more women into a particular field (in my case engineering) because we might be upsetting the balance of the force is simply absurd. That balance does not exist, and frankly the discussion to me reeks of a weak attempt to ignore that sexism exists.
If you really wanted to not be sexist you should have asked the follow-up question "Why do women generally like engineering than men do?" If you can't think of a single answer that doesn't involve brain chemistry, I'm sorry, but you're probably sexist (or at least blind to it's existence)..
1. Again you miss my point.
I try to make it very easy for you since you post unrelated stuff:
Saying that women and men are different in behaviour because of biological reasons is not sexist.
2. Ever came up with the idea that women do like engineering less because they like other stuff more? How about that? Did that came to your mind? Ever came to your mind that women generally like to interact with people more than men do for example being a doctor or a nurse?
You only see this from one perspective which has a reason, but saying it is the ONLY reason is not making sense. And i didnt ingnore that sexism doesnt exist, as i already mentioned before.
How to make it very easy again: Women dont become engineers because: a) there is some kind of sexism as you described and b) women dont become engineers because they are less interested in this topic had have more interested in other topics.
So do you agree with that?
This has is also shown in the genderparadox where women in the least sexist societys pick the most genderspecific jobs.
I hope you understood this. And saying that doesnt make me a sexist. It is really funny that i have to repeat stuff a million times to make a really simple standpoint clear.
It's not that he doesn't understand. He's just saying you're wrong. Those are two very distinct things. And repeating yourself over and over again isn't likely going to change the latter.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
You simply dont get my point. Reread what i was refering to:
I said that i will say what i think is true when i have good reasoning for this. Codonbyte said i cannot do this because it doesnt sound nice. So i brought up an example showing that codonbytes idea is also not nice if i take it word by word.
No way i said that women shouldne be encouraged to pick up a profession in engeeniering or likewise.
I dont know why it is so hard to read properly esp. when i phrased it in easy, clear words. Just dont make stuff up i never said.
And this "constructionist nonsense" as you call it causes people to call other people sexist because they do not share their very own belives. That was my point.
On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:
On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
You got the point right.
On June 27 2013 15:22 codonbyte wrote:
On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:
On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not. Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing.
I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to. This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one.
The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles.
As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place.
EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument.
To be honest his argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. I basically said that the current gender split in fields such as engineering is at least partially caused by sexism which, in spite of improvements, is still very much alive today. If you don't believe me, just tune into any female streamer and see what people say in chat. Then he responded to me with that argument, which really didn't make any sense at all. I mean, I never said anything about forcing anyone into any career. I never said anything about creating quotas. All I said was that because sexism is very much alive, we cannot just assume that the current gender split in fields such as engineering or gaming is caused by biology.
For the record, here is my post that he was responding to:
Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes:
Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".]
While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society.
No again i wasnt arguing on that. I just stated that beliving men and women are to some degree different in their behaviour having natural as well as social causes is not sexist.
That is all what i want to say.
You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist.
So by your logic stating that there are NO biological differences we would expect 50/50 in every field. That means if we DO NOT see 50/50 the reason has to be sexism. Right? Because after this logic the quota would be exactly 50/50. Simple pure logic. So if there is "sexism" since there is no 50/50 we have to get rid of sexism, and how are you going to do it without force when the reason for no 50/50 isnt sexism?
I m also not denying that there isnt any sexism. For me sexism is : Women suck at enigneering. Not: Women do generally like enigneering less than men do.
That was my whole point.
As is often the case with prejudicial comments, it's not the comment themselves which makes it prejudicial, but the context of the discussion to which it is being applied which does so.
Maybe I should have covered my final paragraph in more detail. Yes, I accept that in a perfect world of zero sexism that it's entirely possible that gender splits in certain fields will occur simply due to biological differences between the two sexes. But that's not really in any way relevant to the real world, and implying that it does have any relevance to the discussion is what's kind of insulting.
You're basically implying two things:
1) That our understanding of sexism as it pertains to the workplace is limited to looking at org charts. 2) That we should be willing to accept gender discrepancies in the workplace because maybe they're just what they ought to be, and attempting to change it could hurt people by upsetting the already perfect balance.
Like I said before, I have experience in engineering in both academia and the professional world. I don't think sexism exists because there were only 20 girls out of 130 students in my graduating class. I think that sexism exists because I've seen it. Everything from TAs talking about purposely giving hot female students poorer grades in the hopes that they will come visit office hours (true story), to the more subtle, but no less hurtful, forms of subconscious sexism that are made apparent in how females were treated when they worked in teams and how women are presented career opportunities. So any sort of discussion about whether we'd be doing harm by trying to get more women into a particular field (in my case engineering) because we might be upsetting the balance of the force is simply absurd. That balance does not exist, and frankly the discussion to me reeks of a weak attempt to ignore that sexism exists.
If you really wanted to not be sexist you should have asked the follow-up question "Why do women generally like engineering than men do?" If you can't think of a single answer that doesn't involve brain chemistry, I'm sorry, but you're probably sexist (or at least blind to it's existence)..
1. Again you miss my point.
I try to make it very easy for you since you post unrelated stuff:
Saying that women and men are different in behaviour because of biological reasons is not sexist.
2. Ever came up with the idea that women do like engineering less because they like other stuff more? How about that? Did that came to your mind? Ever came to your mind that women generally like to interact with people more than men do for example being a doctor or a nurse?
You only see this from one perspective which has a reason, but saying it is the ONLY reason is not making sense. And i didnt ingnore that sexism doesnt exist, as i already mentioned before.
How to make it very easy again: Women dont become engineers because: a) there is some kind of sexism as you described and b) women dont become engineers because they are less interested in this topic had have more interested in other topics.
So do you agree with that?
This has is also shown in the genderparadox where women in the least sexist societys pick the most genderspecific jobs.
I hope you understood this. And saying that doesnt make me a sexist. It is really funny that i have to repeat stuff a million times to make a really simple standpoint clear.
It's not that he doesn't understand. He's just saying you're wrong. Those are two very distinct things.
Where am i wrong? Point it out? Point it out on my own words and tell me where i was wrong. And dont make up stuff. Quote me and then you disprove me.
EPT
