WWGD said:The point is that if you want something, you go for it. Unfortunately, the world is not a perfectly fair place, and we all need to deal with this. And we all have to deal with biases because of some aspect of ourselves, this is not reserved to women.
EDIT: We _all_ , except maybe for those in the top 0.1% ,have to get over harassment and discrimination. Of course, we should strive to overcome it, but this is, unfortunately, pervasive in our not fully enlightened society.xeria said:I don't disagree with you, however I think it is unfair to expect women to just get over being harassed and discriminated against. I thought your point (or at least original one) was that there is no systemic sexism against women in STEM, which is what I am actually disagreeing with.
xeria said:@Student100 Have you ever heard of scientific polls? As for the contents of the bio paper, I have not asserted a stance and my posts weren't really about this specific paper. As for my remark about women's work being undervalued, that was specifically aimed at WWGD, about his personal opinion.
Your assumptions about what I would like are wrong.
Then I think it would be helpful to see the differences between that 58% who made it and those who dropped out. I just have trouble believing there are serious issues if so many have done well. Frankly, I would have chosen to study this issue in a field where women are a minority. And, I don't know of any systematic discrimination. Men today are aware of how so many laws are geared in favor of women and they tiptoe about saying basically anything that could even be considered discriminatory. If these systematic biases exist, they must be very subtle ones.xeria said:@Student100 not ONCE have I suggested that my personal experience is evidence of anything to anyone other than to myself. I used my personal story as a device to incite more thoughtful discussion about the topic of discrimination against women in STEM.
WWGD said:Then I think it would be helpful to see the differences between that 58% who made it and those who dropped out. I just have trouble believing there are serious issues if so many have done well. Frankly, I would have chosen to study this issue in a field where women are a minority. And, I don't know of any systematic discrimination. Men today are aware of how so many laws are geared in favor of women and they tiptoe about saying basically anything that could even be considered discriminatory. If these systematic biases exist, they must be very subtle ones. No one dares upset women in today's world, lest they risk a lawsuit.
xeria said:Perhaps they should do more studies in STEM fields where women are more of a minority. As for the rest of this response: well, it's a definitely a view... Obviously I disagree and have my own experiences. I dare say mass harassment and assault is subtle. I'm almost curious about all of theses supposed laws, but they're probably the same arguments I have heard time and time again...
xeria said:@Student100 not ONCE have I suggested that my personal experience is evidence of anything to anyone other than to myself. I used my personal story as a device to incite more thoughtful discussion about the topic of discrimination against women in STEM.
xeria said:I, personally, have experienced sexual harassment and sexist remarks. When I introduce myself as a software developer, people don't believe me. I've had men less experienced than I try to quiz me. I hear the disgusting ways they talk about women, about me. My experiences are apparently not uncommon. You can find endless accounts similar to mine written by women in STEM.
These angry and defensive responses just outline more of the problem. When women try to talk about our experiences or even suggest that there may be a bit of bias we get jumped.
xeria said:totally ignored pretty much my whole post.. suggests that women are all lying and being manipulated into playing "the victim"...
nah. How about you prove to me that you're worth the time first, because right now you seem like all the others who don't care and just talking at me.
xeria said:You're right, my mistake. By women's positions do you mean the anecdotal data of women's personal experiences in STEM? Because this can and has, in fact been used as evidence.
xeria said:This discouragement happened to you, but was it because you're a man? Have a majority of men faced these obstacles ( and it is NOT just "discouragement") because they are men? We have faced these things BECAUSE of our sex. Also, socialization is deeper and more powerful than a few people's discouragement.
xeria said:Y'all post so fast it's hard to keep up
@ WWGD I think you know what I meant. And my sources to what? You mean stuff like this? http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102172 Or evidence of polls used in research?
WWGD said:Men today are aware of how so many laws are geared in favor of women and they tiptoe about saying basically anything that could even be considered discriminatory.
WWGD said:You want to know about laws: in many states men are required to pay alimony for kids they can show , using DNA evidence , are not theirs. The women's lobby is powerful. Prison population is 90% + male, so are deaths on the job, etc. Office of women and girls in WH, but no office of men and boys. No need for women to register for selective service. It is certainly not a man's world.
Indeed, I have seen so many studies claiming to prove the existence of bias that use only or mostly self-reporting, i.e., if someone stated they felt harassed, then this is accepted prima facie, without questioning, as sure-fire proof of the existence of bias. Disingenuous.Student100 said:Now you're just being disingenuous.
The studies sample is mostly women, the survey questions were worded very broadly, apparently with "have you ever heard of anyone being assaulted or harassed" being a question that determined a positive harassment/assault of the respondent, and it was conducted online.
Further, it appears from the "study" that women and men are both targeted in trainee status, with women more so. However, it appears men shoulder a larger percentage of the assaults and harassment as working professionals.
I also don't think this applies very well to the topic at hand. Harassment and assaults are hardly male dominated bias in the classroom (study was conducted in field exercises). I'm not surprised women are harassed (being told you were pretty was harassing, according to the study), or unfortunately assaulted more than men (assaulted in the study could vary from physical sexual harassment, to rape). This has little to do with intellectual bias though, and more to do with human biology.
Please don't condescend me, I think I have been respectful to you so far. And there is a difference in the length of sentences for the same crime. Just curious: if society and laws are geared towards protecting and giving systemic advantages to men, why do they feel the need to commit crimes at such a high rate?xeria said:oh my, how predictable. I will admit that the alimony on children that are not theirs is a new twist I haven't looked into, and if that is indeed true, then it should be fixed. Have you looked into the reason of WHY male prison population is so high, and how it intersects with race and class? Deaths on the job are because high risk jobs have been historically deemed men's work, and women were barred, and still highly discouraged and made unwelcome today. Office of women and girls because there has been historical discrimination against women... No need to register for selective service... hmmm maybe because until this last year women have been barred from military positions?
*Yawn*...
Please post a direct quote of any time I have said that my personal experience should be taken as evidence, let alone believed by anyone here.Student100 said:Now you're just being disingenuous.
The studies sample is mostly women, the survey questions were worded very broadly, apparently with "have you ever heard of anyone being assaulted or harassed" being a question that determined a positive harassment/assault of the respondent, and it was conducted online.
Further, it appears from the "study" that women and men are both targeted in trainee status, with women more so. However, it appears men shoulder a larger percentage of the assaults and harassment as working professionals.
I also don't think this applies very well to the topic at hand. Harassment and assaults are hardly male dominated bias in the classroom (study was conducted in field exercises). I'm not surprised women are harassed (being told you were pretty was harassing, according to the study), or unfortunately assaulted more than men (assaulted in the study could vary from physical sexual harassment, to rape). This has little to do with intellectual bias though, and more to do with human biology.
If society and laws were geared towards giving a systemic advantage to men: why would so many men feel the need to commit crimes at such a high rate when they can so easily get their way? Why has the life expectancy of women been steadily climbing if women have been systematically abused and mistreated? Why do so many studies use self-reporting as an accepted method, where discrimination is deemed to exist if some women felt discriminated against? And, yes, minorities do have a disproportionately high rate of imprisonment, but the ratio of around 93:7 male-female remains.xeria said:. Have you looked into the reason of WHY male prison population is so high, and how it intersects with race and class?
.
WWGD said:Please don't condescend me, I think I have been respectful to you so far. And there is a difference in the length of sentences for the same crime. Just curious: if society and laws are geared towards protecting and giving systemic advantages to men, why do they feel the need to commit crimes at such a high rate?
And deaths on the job are because men are expected to take on dangerous jobs, in a (possibly misguided) effort to protect women; same for serving in wars. And, yes, there is a legitimate case to be made for race, but not for gender, in my view; crimes committed by minorities are penalized much more so than for whites. If there was a serious attempt to repress women, something of this sort could be done. But it is not.
xeria said:Please post a direct quote of any time I have said that my personal experience should be taken as evidence, let alone believed by anyone here.
As for the study, I posted it as a response to WWGD's request for polls used in research, and by extension, your assertion that mass similarities in experience are not used as evidence/cant be used as evidence for discrimination.
It was not to prove discrimination against women in stem. As for being told you're pretty, surely you can realize the difference. In what way does it have to do with biology -- I'm not sure I follow?
xeria said:This is where we get into how sexism affects men. You can google that and look more into it if you like. Lengths of sentences longer because women are viewed as weaker and less likely to be aggressive. Men expected to take dangerous jobs because women are deemed too weak and for making babies, not being people. Your assumption that if sexism was real it would be the same as racism is a bit ridiculous in my opinion. They have different histories and contexts, they may overlap in areas but are not the same.
You did not understand correctly. Reasonable cause is a separate category from merit resolutions. These are not synonymous, nor is one a subset of the other. There is a definitions section provided, explaining what falls under what term.WWGD said:From what I read, if I understood correctly, the reasonable causes (cases with merit) were less than 100/year within the dataset,
You're still arguing against the same stawman. The gap is a difference in median income. It's also only a 'supposed' one, if you're not curious enough to read the data: http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=54751.WWGD said:Just curious: are CEOs ignorant of this supposed difference in pay? If so, why don't they hire only women , have them do all the work at 77% of the cost
and then pocket the difference?
But you did not reply: is this a problem restricted to women? How many men file similar suits? Still, 73 million women on the workforce, a relaitvely small number of lawsuits. How is this a persistent problem?Bandersnatch said:You did not understand correctly. Reasonable cause is a separate category from merit resolutions. These are not synonymous, nor is one a subset of the other. There is a definitions section provided, explaining what falls under what term.
In any case, the data shows that this practice, despite being illegal, remains a real and persistent problem in the US.
.
Bandersnatch said:You're still arguing against the same stawman. The gap is a difference in median income. It's also only a 'supposed' one, if you're not curious enough to read the data: http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=54751.
These data should be the starting points of any discussion on gender income inequality. What I see here is an effort to dismiss them as non-existent which does show that the discussion is not held to the same standards we'd normally apply on PF.
From my armchair I can't find a single example of a case awarded to males, whereas cases awarded to females abound. It wouldn't be a contest if we tried matching these finds one for one. That should at least give you a pause before trying to dismiss it as affecting both genders equally.WWGD said:But you did not reply: is this a problem restricted to women? How many men file similar suits? Still, 73 million women on the workforce, a relaitvely small number of lawsuits. How is this a persistent problem?
The obstacles are the gender biases in the society - which is what this whole discussion was about. The litigations example shows the regulated part. The unregulated part is in how the society makes somebody overlook a woman for a promotion, or hire a man in a position - because of the persistent perception that men are inherently more ambitious, competent, driven, reliable, resilient, risk-taking, competitive, etc. It's in how we tell our children one gender is better at maths and the other at humanities, or which jobs are lady-like and which are manly, or that boys need to get a career while girls need to look pretty. In how when a couple has a kid, it'll be predominantly the woman that sacrifices her career to raise it.WWGD said:Why should the median be the same if women tend to go into occupations offering less pay?What obstacles are there nowadays with all laws protecting women, to go into high-paying positions?
Yes it is a textbook strawman. You're trying to put into question the existence of gender wage gap by attacking an argument you've constructed yourself from some 'many women's' arguments.WWGD said:And this is not a strawman in the sense that it is brought up as such by many women. It is not put out just by myself.
No, you clearly are making things up when claiming to know:Bandersnatch said:From my armchair I can't find a single example of a case awarded to males, whereas cases awarded to females abound. It wouldn't be a contest if we tried matching these finds one for one. That should at least give you a pause before trying to dismiss it as affecting both genders equally.
Correct me if I misunderstand this bit - those are numbers of cases, not numbers of people. If a whole company is sued by its employees in an alliance, that's still just one case. Whether that is significant or not is a matter of where you draw the line, I suppose.
The point being, this practice exists. It's persistent because it keeps on existing. There are employers who think paying one gender less than the other for the same work is fine, whether due to them being ignorant of the law and thinking its a normal thing to do, or hoping not to be caught, which is admittedly not that easy in the Western culture of being tight-lipped about your paychecks.The obstacles are the gender biases in the society - which is what this whole discussion was about. The litigations example shows the regulated part. The unregulated part is in how the society makes somebody overlook a woman for a promotion, or hire a man in a position - because of the persistent perception that men are inherently more ambitious, competent, driven, reliable, resilient, risk-taking, competitive, etc. It's in how we tell our children one gender is better at maths and the other at humanities, or which jobs are lady-like and which are manly, or that boys need to get a career while girls need to look pretty. In how when a couple has a kid, it'll be predominantly the woman that sacrifices her career to raise it.
You may think that's normal, or desirable, or good because it was traditionally so (never a good metric for 'goodness', imo). But unless somebody shows me a study detailing physiological reasons for why being a female makes you want to work shitty jobs, I'll continue seeing that disparity as a stain on the egalitarian values of modern western societies.Yes it is a textbook strawman. You're trying to put into question the existence of gender wage gap by attacking an argument you've constructed yourself from some 'many women's' arguments.
Bandersnatch said:The gap is a difference in median income. It's also only a 'supposed' one, if you're not curious enough to read the data: http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=54751.
These data should be the starting points of any discussion on gender income inequality. What I see here is an effort to dismiss them as non-existent which does show that the discussion is not held to the same standards we'd normally apply on PF.
There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. ...
Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.
Bandersnatch said:Correct me if I misunderstand this bit - those are numbers of cases, not numbers of people. If a whole company is sued by its employees in an alliance, that's still just one case. Whether that is significant or not is a matter of where you draw the line, I suppose.
The point being, this practice exists. It's persistent because it keeps on existing. There are employers who think paying one gender less than the other for the same work is fine, whether due to them being ignorant of the law and thinking its a normal thing to do, or hoping not to be caught, which is admittedly not that easy in the Western culture of being tight-lipped about your paychecks.
You may think that's normal, or desirable, or good because it was traditionally so (never a good metric for 'goodness', imo). But unless somebody shows me a study detailing physiological reasons for why being a female makes you want to work shitty jobs, I'll continue seeing that disparity as a stain on the egalitarian values of modern western societies.Yes it is a textbook strawman. You're trying to put into question the existence of gender wage gap by attacking an argument you've constructed yourself from some 'many women's' arguments.
xeria said:<snip>When women try to talk about our experiences or even suggest that there may be a bit of bias we get jumped.
Andy Resnick said:But it's important to talk. My eyes were opened at my previous institution, I had more than a few discussions with senior female faculty who came up through the system in the 60s and 70s about their experiences. They told me things I could not believe- Department chairs telling them that they will not be considered for tenure because they are female, that females don't belong in the lab, etc. etc. Knowing their experiences.
Bandersnatch said:<snip>The obstacles are the gender biases in the society - which is what this whole discussion was about. The litigations example shows the regulated part. The unregulated part is in how the society makes somebody overlook a woman for a promotion, or hire a man in a position - because of the persistent perception that men are inherently more ambitious, competent, driven, reliable, resilient, risk-taking, competitive, etc. It's in how we tell our children one gender is better at maths and the other at humanities, or which jobs are lady-like and which are manly, or that boys need to get a career while girls need to look pretty. In how when a couple has a kid, it'll be predominantly the woman that sacrifices her career to raise it.
WWGD said:Or their _perception_ maybe, at least partially? I am not saying that they were lying, but there is an element of subjectivity here that I don't see you addressing.
Andy Resnick said:This is an excellent point- bias means more than irrationally undervaluing certain groups, it also means irrationally overvaluing certain groups. Specific behaviors are considered positive traits for some and negative for others, based on cultural expectations.
How so? I have never conceded to this. I analyzed the claims made by Bandersnatch, an-- avowed believer in the existence of sex discrimination-- and did not agree, I offered a counter. How can you allege confirmation bias when I replied to an argument provided by someone who explicitly believes there is underpayment? If I had selected the evidence maybe you would be right, but I addressed evidence offered by someone who disagrees with me. How can that be a case of confirmation bias? EDIT: You, OTOH have never offered anything even close to evidence that can be assessed/tested in any way. EDIT2: I have made _explicit_ counters to Bandersnatch's claims. Now feel free to find mistakes in my reply to him,Andy Resnick said:You've made it abundantly clear in this thread that on this issue you suffer from confirmation bias.
Andy Resnick said:You've made it abundantly clear in this thread that on this issue you suffer from confirmation bias.
Choppy said:But socially don't we have a responsibility to strive for a bias-free atmosphere in which to educate people?
And I think it is technically very difficult to accurately identify these biases, i.e., to do studies in many settings, while controlling for necessary factors, etc. And many studies that purport to do that are not being rigorous/careful-enough.Dr. Courtney said:I'm not sure I would be so broad with the responsibility. I would work harder to strive for the teachers and other system employees and practices to be bias free. Too much effort to remove all bias from the students themselves seems destined to remove students themselves from the process: it runs the risk of producing a disproportionate bias against biased students.
The educational process needs to welcome both unbiased and biased students.
WWGD said:Please do show me a study that shows that men and women get paid differently _ for the same work_.
Bandersnatch said:I think you might be arguing against a straw man here, or recalling an argument with some rather misinformed opponent.
Christina Hoff Sommers said:Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace.
It cannot be _my_ strawman, because I never proposed this. I proposed that a man is more likely than a woman to work to absurd extremes , even to his detriment, because many segments attach value to a man based on their earning power. Women tend to be wiser in this respect and save some time for social activities because society does not value them for their earning power. Companies recognize this. If trhere was a gap in pay for the same work whether conscious or not, this would become known, and would be used; these CEOs and their payroll departments are not dimwits . Bandersnatch dishonestly accused me of purposefully distorting things and then disappeared after I questioned him on it.Tobias Funke said:I'm a bit late, but there is still indeed an unexplained wage gap when trying to account for relevant factors, so I don't know if that opponent was so misinformed. Even anti-feminists recognize a wage gap:
The straw man is exactly what you pointed out: that the difference between the average hourly wages of all women and all men in the whole country is entirely due to some malicious, conscious discrimination.
WWGD said:
The study by CONSAD Research Corp. took into account women being more likely to work part-time for lower pay, leave the labor force for children or elder care, and choose work that is "family friendly" with fuller benefit packages over higher pay. The study found that, when factoring in those variables, the gap narrows to between 93 cents and 95 cents on the dollar.
...
Still, a study by the American Association of University Women controlled for a number of factors, including college major, occupation, age, geographical region and hours worked, and found a persistent 7 percent wage gap between men and women a year after graduating college.
The report explored discrimination and reluctance among women to ask for raises as reasons for the remaining gap, though those factors are hard to measure.
But there are demographics where women do better too, according to the same link. And the possibility of reluctance to ask for higher pay , or willingness to accept non-cash benefits instead of pay increases as explanatory variables.. Besides, the 5% that _may_ constitute the pay difference falls into the 5% margin of error. Hardly the clear cut case of discrimination that is often made.Tobias Funke said:Hey, you asked for evidence of a wage gap when controlling for other factors and I gave it to you. I also linked to similar evidence a while back when you asked for it. According to your own link,
radium said:While the situation has gotten a lot better, gender bias is absolutely real. While I have been lucky in that I have had only positive experiences with faculty, many of my female peers have not been so fortunate and have felt that they have been bullied and belittled by male faculty. I know of recent situations where faculty have openly displayed and vocalized biases towards female students. However, this situation was taken very seriously and faculty members of both genders were very angry that the student was treated this way.This brings me to another point. There are very few faculty members in many subfields of physics. Mine is probably one of the worst. However, there have been recent female hires who are absolutely top notch. A lot of men underestimate how important this is and how just one woman can change the environment and make female students more welcome.
<Snip>
I have had bad experiences in undergrad with a few undergrads and grad students as well as one postdoc. I can't tell you how many times I have felt like I have been interrogated while discussing homework. There was one guy who was especially rude to me and did this until I broke and said I didn't know anything when I was actually right (I usually make sure of this before I talk for this reason). I experienced something less subtle when I was in a freshman lab (where I was the only woman). We had to finish the lab report during the lab and the student did not know what he was doing. I said that I knew how to do the specific take and asked if he could let me do it. He responded by calling me a very rude name.
I was also around some grad students who were making sexual comments about another undergrad. It was absolutely juvenile and repulsive behavior. I have been the only woman in three classes during undergrad. I was one of two in one of my grad school classes. Sometimes the other did not show up so I was literally in a classroom surrounded by around 20 guys. I have been out to dinner or lunch with research groups where I was the only woman. I was the only woman and undergrad in one of these groups. Everyone was very nice to me, but try to put yourself in my shoes. It takes a little time getting used to these things.
I do believe that a lot of gender bias is unconscious and occurs because of ignorance and/or insensitivity. For example, when male students make comments that make female students uncomfortable, I don't think it means they are intentionally doing so or are bad people. I persobally think that if they were more educated on why those comments are inappropriate, they would feel bad and change their behavior.
WWGD said:Besides, the 5% that _may_ constitute the pay difference falls into the 5% margin of error. Hardly the clear cut case of discrimination that is often made.
How is my reaction hysterical? I believe I responded to claims with specific counterclaims. I am , I believe , giving the viewpoint of the supposedly privileged males that is very rarely presented anywhere, at least nowhere I am aware of. And maybe you should look at the tone of your posts together with the fact that you also always chime in on these topics yourself. Pot... Kettle...black...I don't know about your experience, but I have taken classes on feminism and hung out with feminists and I am tired of being blamed for all the ills of humanity as a straight white male. And on't you dare disagree with anyone, or you will get the nastiest tongue-lashing while having them decry the abusive behavior of men. I want to provide a perspective I do not see presented.Tobias Funke said:I don't see anything about a margin or error. Anyway, yes, the country isn't a laboratory where everything can be isolated and controlled for. All of these studies are honest about the difficulty in accounting for everything, and some specifically mention the things you bring up. When combined with studies like the one in this thread and other similar ones showing conscious or unconscious bias--not to mention history and the personal experiences of plenty of women--it's certainly good evidence and not some kind of extreme left agenda that anyone is scared to question because of PC. If you want to make a thread about "idiots and jerks" on the left, you can do so, although it would seem to constitute the cherry-picking that you hate so much. It's very telling that you have the same hysterical reaction to any thread that's even remotely feminist.
I guess you haven't taken classes on feminism and chosen to disagree. Have you tried o give your side of things when discussing with feminists? I was downright abused by the professor and by the women in the class I took on feminist studies.And of course I speak for effect. And I think it is your hysteria which is leading you to bring up the issue of underappreciation; what I am mentioning is that the male perspective is not often presented; I never spoke of underappreciation. The tongue lashing is what I get when speaking with feminists, maybe it is because NYC is the hotbed of radical feminism or maybe it is the radicalism of the left wing media (right wing has a different type and topic of radicalism). At least please get it right before disagreeing.Tobias Funke said:Well, that right there. That was hysterical. You're often blamed for all the ills of humanity because you're a straight white male? And that's not even supposed to be comical hyperbole. You actually mean it. You should probably just stop or try to make a thread about what you want to discuss, because these threads you get involved in are never remotely close to what you try to make them about. Suppressed white men who can't get their ideas out because of PC pressure...oh, boy. And a "tongue-lashing"?! Uh oh. I recall that you mentioned Malala getting shot for going to school as an example of why "underappreciation" is a trivial concern. But a (predicted) tongue lashing, now that's just too much!
WWGD said:And I think it is your hysteria which is leading you to bring up the issue of underappreciation; what I am mentioning is that the male perspective is not often presented; I never spoke of underappreciation.
WWGD said:It may be a good idea to wait see if the same result holds in other schools. I am sorry, but the world is an imperfect place and one needs to be tough enough to get over relatively trivial things such as lack of support and appreciation. This seems too much even considering it is a 1st -world problem.
WWGD said:I think it was Russ Watters who put some perspective on it: (paraphrase) If Malala wants to go to school, she may get shot in the face. And you just feel unnapreciated?
Get what right? I don't know what you're talking about and I don't think you do either. This happened in the previous thread too. You denied saying things that you said on the previous page and then threatened to report me for saying the opposite of what I said. You simply can't approach the subject from a rational standpoint.WWGD said:At least please get it right before disagreeing.
Of course, you are lacking any rationality yourself. Where did I EVER spoke of my feeling unappreciated? This is what I was referring to, and what you keep misrepresenting. Just go on cherry-picking and distorting. I am done exchanging with your made up arguments and straw men.Tobias Funke said:Well, in the technical sense you may not have spoken of it, but you did write it at least twice.
Get what right? I don't know what you're talking about and I don't think you do either. This happened in the previous thread too. You denied saying things that you said on the previous page and then threatened to report me for saying the opposite of what I said. You simply can't approach the subject from a rational standpoint.
I never claimed you felt unappreciated. You apparently don't understand what I actually wrote, but don't blame me for it.WWGD said:Of course, you are lacking any rationality yourself. Where did I EVER spoke of my feeling unappreciated? This is what I was referring to, and what you keep misrepresenting. Just go on cherry-picking and distorting. I am done exchanging with your made up arguments and straw men.
AND, BTW, I threatened to report you because you accused me of being racist.
Emphasis mine.Tobias Funke said:**I can't resist another footnote. This smear campaign is similar to and interects several others. I noticed that you ["you" refers to WWGD] mentioned past ideas about race, because obviously racism is wrong. Yet you liked a post that "joked" (we know it wasn't entirely a joke though) about a near future with white men being persecuted and, I guess, arrested. There was no mention of race at all before that. So what type of person says something like that? A non-racist? Not too likely. (note that I asked what type of person says something like that, not agrees with the overall post; I'm not calling you a racist)
Well, like many other movements, feminism has become radicalized, at least in my experience, i.e., maybe I have run into this vein; the "77 c on the dollar" buttons, unqualified, etc. But, seriously, just the fact that you have not observed certain things is a strong argument that they are not there? I have detailed some points here, with data to support, so my claims are not just annecdotal : preferential treatment in family court, requirement sin some states for fathers to support children that they can prove (through DNA testing) are not theirs, imprisonment rates of around 93:7 for men : women, etc. I can see racism as a clear wrong, but I don't see a clear case for gender bias.radium said:If my experiences are anecdotal, then your experiences with feminism are too. Feminism is about trying to empower women, not bringing people down, and that goes for either gender. I have not observed men experiencing any of the things I have described. A lot of them seem suprised that things like this happen since they are unaffected.
There have been so many reliable articles written about gender bias and they all suggest the same thing: the situation is improving but there are still many hardships that women (and of course minorities) face which affect their work. We are not asking to be coddled, we are asking to be respected and not to be treated differently. That is why I have had good experience with faculty, they have never treated me any differently because I was a woman and for this reason I was able to blend in with everyone else. I suspect this is because most people mature as they grow older and learn to listen to other people and not tell asinine jokes about someone's body for instance.
