I wasn’t able to find a percentage for women in consulting, in a quick google search. Where does your information come from?
It may be. But the question is still: where does it come from? Is it a result of discrimination, or a result of women’s choices?
You mention COLA and education in reference to differences in pay for Asians, Jews, and gay people. So are you saying the income gap, in those cases, comes from choices those groups make?
It sounds like you’re saying colleges are engaging in affirmative action in favor of men. I don’t know whether that’s true or not - in the case of boys applying to college - and you haven’t provided a cite; but I’ll go with it for the moment: some people argue that colleges should be able to choose student bodies that are diverse and/or representative. Do you agree?
For those who might be interested, I’m reading a very interesting book right now on the science, or lack thereof, behind many neuropsychology and sociological claims for gender disparities. It has its critics, so I’m not claiming it’ entirely right, but it does point to some troubling assumptions that appear to be tainting even good attempts at science, and it’s quite funny, too: Delusions of Gender, by Cordelia Fine.
You were asking “feminists” to push for more women to be charged and arrested, right?
No. I’m surprised you got that out of anything I said. If there’s some particular sentence I wrote that made you think that, I’d be curious to know which one it was.
FTR: I agree with the Harvard Law professors who attacked it. I think it’s dangerous and counter-productive, as well as unfair and quite likely unconstitutional.
One lesson an undergrad might likely take from this case, and others like it, is: “If I wake up after a night of drunken sex, I better make sure I’m the first to report it, even if it was 100% consensual if I don’t want to be the one who gets kicked out of school.”
It may be that there are good ways to encourage undergrads not to have drunk sex, but this isn’t it.
In any event, I agree with you: “My problem isn’t that the the woman wasn’t also charged with rape, it’s the idea that anyone should be charged. It’s the denial of due process when it is charged. It’s the counselors that traumatized the woman by convincing her she was raped.”
I don’t know how familiar you are with GD, but rhetoric you describe as dishonest is pretty common here. I’ve always interpreted it as "This is what I believe most [Republicans] (or whoever) believe. Not as an assertion that every member of the group believes it.
.
The general idea is to challenge those who disagree to come forward and defend their position. It may be that people in GD, in general, are thicker-skinned than in some other sub-forums. In other words, stating a position strongly is meant as a challenge, and an attempt to draw people in, not shut them out.
Stating a position timidly, or uncontroversially, here at least, is likely to draw few responses.
The main points are:
(1.) Feminism is not about equality (but what’s best for women).
(2.) Feminism mischaracterizes the historical differences in the roles of men and women. Specifically, it characterizes them as attempts to oppress women, when in fact (given that most of human history and evolution occurred before the last 200 years) it was an attempt to protect women.
(3.) Women are not currently oppressed.
You’re free to challenge any or all of those if you want, or to ignore them, if you want.
I’m sorry to hear that.
Again, I think you and your friends are taking the norms from another sub-forum, and applying them here. GD is not a social club, or a virtual community. It’s a place to debate ideas. Generally, the more assertively you put forward your argument, the more likely you are to get responses.
I’ve never asserted that. And, FTR: I don’t hold you responsible for every person who claims to be a feminist.
I’ll keep your advice in mind.
I’ve never asserted that Straughan isn’t relevant to this thread. In fact, I’d encourage anyone who’s interested to look at her vlogs or interviews, or anything else she’s said or written.
I have said I’m not particularly interested in Elam, based on what’s been said about him in this thread. If you want to drag him into the thread, that’s your right. But his views (based on what’s been presented here) are not mine.
Yes. Many (not all) were dishonest, particularly after your friends joined the thread. Not only that, they were personal attacks, which are explicitly against the rules of GD.
It doesn’t matter how many people say it. What matters is whether it’s true.
If you want to give some specific examples, I’d be happy to address them.
Otherwise, you’re not giving me anything to work with.
You’re making generalized attack on the how I presented the arguments, rather than a responding to the arguments themselves.
I’m not talking about bank tellers or your local bank loan officer or women serving supporting roles in investment banks. I am talking about investment bankers.
I thought I was being clear. At least SOME of the gap comes from sexism (institutional, latent and otherwise).
There are cultural reasons for the high education levels of Asians and Jews. But the COLA reasons are largely associated with avoiding racism. There is simply less racism (or at least ghettoes where racism against YOU can be escaped) in large cities that did not exist in the middle of bumblefuck Oklahoma.
To a degree but where they are tilting the playing field in favor of the groups that start off with the playing field tilted heavily in their favor, I disagree.
Yes, boys mature later in life, they have less impulse control, they are not conditioned to defer gratification, their hormones affect their behavior 28 days of each lunar cycle instead of just 7 days of each lunar cycle.
Yes. That along with the expectation that the woman should sacrifice her career if one of the parents must make a sacrifice.
You don’t say what your redundant and stupid ideology is (though if it’s feminism, may I ask why you’ve introduced the words ‘redundant’ and ‘stupid’?). Is it feminism? Because I’m not sure there’s any ideology where one of the “key precepts” is that “not everything is about you”. To be honest, I’m not really sure what you’re driving at here. I asked for reasons I should be a feminist (as opposed to an egalitarian and ex-feminist) - if you don’t have any, that’s ok. If your reason is only ‘because I’ll be impotently angry at you on the internet’, again, I’m not swayed.
Gender egalitarianism? Granted, that’s two words, but it neatly avoids associating myself with the ‘fringe’ of a movement that has a bald spot with an obvious comb-over and can’t see where it’s going because the fringe has grown over its eyes.
Well, that’s official. I’m a bad person
And yet you’ve not heard of the suffragettes? Well, there’s been a lot of history. You’ve heard of research, though, right?
I know I’m not allowed to say, for example, “I’ve put you on ignore”, but I don’t know the rules around posting “I’ve reported your innocuous post (because that’s how feminists work).”
Yeah, I’m getting this definite vibe of “You should be a feminist because history, numbnuts!” from several posters. If that’s so, should I be a Cavalier feminist, or a Roundhead feminist?
We covered that, I’m an egalitarian, I think everyone should be treated equally regardless of gender. But there’s a whole lot more to feminism that I want no part of. I’ve posted links to writings of key figures in feminism, historical and current, and I want no part of their hateful belief system. I see the twitter bully-mobs, I see the violent suppression of free speech, I see all that is wrong with the ideology and I want no part. Just as communism had a fluffy, friendly stated aim (awww, let’s all share and be equal) but was used and abused in ways that damaged so many people, feminism seems like a sound principle but alas, it’s now out of the dictionary and into the hands of people. Men people, women people, it’s all the same to me. But not to feminists…
Yes. Can you, in as many sentences as you need, convince me to be a feminist? No?
Can’t, at this point, recall what you’re waving away there, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t. Sounds good though.
‘Theoretically’, huh? So nobody, at all, could have believed in gender equality before the first ‘feminist’, or do we award the title retrospectively? More importantly, to me at least, when I say I’m not a feminist but nevertheless actively promote gender equality, are you calling me a liar, or is it just that you’re not wholly convinced I actually exist? I could be a bot, I suppose, or some sort of delusion?
Did I miss the hashtag? #killallfeminists? No, I don’t think I did, though I can’t say that the twitter hatred of #killallmen feminists bothers me that much. It’s only twitter, after all - who would be bothered it? Oh yeah, Sarkeesian etc (Oh the harassment!)
Did I miss the screaming, spitting, violent protests when feminists speak? No, but I’ve seen plenty when anyone tries to stand up and criticise them, or speak for the rights of men.
What have I missed, with all this ‘anti-feminist’ hatred? I’ve witnessed much robust criticism, but that isn’t hatred. Nor is it harassment, by the by. Let’s see some examples - hey, we could start a game thread. You post an example, I post an example, and the one who runs out first loses…
Did I miss your actual argument then? Why should I be a feminist? Take a tip from another poster earlier, you can duck the question by just saying 'we have enough [del]braiiiiiins[/del] [del]converts[/del] [del]whiteknights[/del] followers, we don’t even need people like you".
Well, it is nice that you publicly proclaim yourself to be a bad person.
However, the conclusion you drew from the statement you quoted does not logically follow. If you are unable to draw logical conclusions, your posts may be dismissed as unsupportable.
If you keep making posts that are about me, I’ll keep complaining about you.
What a tiresome little gotcha you present. It’s eminently clear from the context of my remark that I’m not intending that remark to be taken seriously. It might also help to take into account that by anyones estimation, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are relative terms. They’re not fixed, they’re not definitive. Your good may be my bad, and vice versa. A ‘good man’ may do bad things and a ‘bad man’ (he’ll be the one in the black hat) may do good things.
But let’s look at that conclusion, which you claim is not logical (and then go on to claim that I have a done a ‘bad thing’ there than anything I have ever said or go on to say can be dismissed…oh hang on, you’ll just dismiss this, right?):
“I don’t care if you’re a feminist. I care that I’m a feminist and my husband is a feminist. I think that feminism is a good thing, so sure, I’m generally supportive of good people identifying as feminist.”
The implication is clear. The poster is “generally supportive of good people identifying as a feminist” but doesn’t care if I do. She does not care about bad people identifying as a feminist. The implication, should you choose to accept it, is that I’m a bad person. Not that I’m making bad arguments, you notice, but that I’m a bad person. Attacking the poster, not the post - just as you have been doing. When do you use that badge you wear constantly?
I did say you can have as many sentences as you like (which is considerably fairer than you managed, as though it were one of those consumer competitions: “Tell us in five words or less why feminism is your favourite ideology!”). And I did ask first…
Just like ‘so’, ‘us’ is a tiny word that says so much. Here’s two sentences for you:
Boy, you are so full of snark! And yet, you do it so poorly.
I’d rather not thanks. Why are you being so cagey?
You can either explain in your own words what you think feminism is, then I can determine whether or not I should convince you to be a feminist, or you want me to guess what you think and when I get it wrong you can point your finger at me and laugh?
Lets not take the second option. No need for any ambiguity. You are capable of explaining in a couple of sentences what you think feminism is, you’ve said that you can, so just do it and stop playing games.
Try to keep up. I asked why I should be a feminist, you asked me to define feminism “in two sentences or less”. An absurd restriction, that put me in mind of those “in five words or less” consumer competitions that brands sometimes run.
Your post is very poor, not least because it attacks me and not what I say. Poor form, even for a bear.
Well if you won’t read my posts, in which I’ve explained my position and my experience and understanding of feminism, why should I write anything for you (even if you do ‘allow’ me more than two sentences… :rolleyes:) Again, I’ve asked why I should be a feminist. Your response was, apparantly, “cagey” - you asked me to define feminism. By the by, if you define a duck as an equine quadruped, it’s still going to quack and lay eggs.
I have.
I fail to see the bearing of one on the other. Should you not be trying to convince everyone to be a feminist?
No, I want you to engage with me on the basis of what I’ve already written, rather than start all over again just for you. If you can’t or won’t do that, don’t worry, I will neither point nor laugh. But I doubt I’ll respond in any other way either.
Feminism is an equine quadruped. It quacks and lays eggs.
Now I’ve played your game, on my terms. Are you going to convince me to be a feminist?
…well obviously not. If you truly believe that Feminism is an equine quadruped, it quacks and lays eggs, then no, don’t be a feminist. I see no compelling reason why anyone should try to convince you.
See? That wasn’t very hard at all. And it would be silly for anyone else to waste their time trying to convince you to be a feminist as well, so you can stop asking now.
Well it was more in the manner of a metaphor, but again, I may have overestimated my audience. There are clues to it being a metaphor, not least my having previously explained literally what I think feminism is, and my never having mentioned ducks, horses, eggs or legs in this thread prior to that metaphor (although I accept that all that would also have whooshed past anyone who declined to read what I had read…but chose to argue anyway. Isn’t the internet fun :))
And no, it wasn’t hard at all. Whoever suggested otherwise? I expect it would be silly for someone who takes a metaphor as literal to try to convince me of anything, but I’m still open to persuasion. If it’s not too hard…
I’m fairly certain it approaches impossible. See, even if someone had a killer argument, you have a lot vested in shooting them down. I sincerely doubt anyone reading or participating in this thread really thinks you are open to persuasion. And that’s okay. I’m not open to persuasion that feminism is evil, after all. But for the love of god, stop with the really lame carnival barker routine. When someone doesn’t want to pay money to throw darts at your balloons, that doesn’t mean that your balloons are unpoppable. It means you’re charging too much for the amazingly limited entertainment value to be had. This includes the creepy stuffed prizes.
I sincerely am open to persuasion. I’ve been a feminist, and seen feminism in action. I have already changed my mind once - how hard can it be to believe my mind could be changed again, by evidence and argument, like it was the first time?
Well, I accept that you have stated that your mind cannot be changed by evidence and argument - that you are not open to persuasion, as you say. I suppose that makes it easier to believe that nobody else is either.
I have to wonder what all the abuse is about, if nobody thinks I can be persuaded. Not that abuse would be my go-to tactic for persuasion (though it probably would be if I had a vested interest in keeping evidence and arguments as far away from a topic as possible).
Well done, though, on sneaking the word ‘creepy’ in, alongside your prejudice against travelling showfolk. If only it wasn’t the internet, you could make a pantomime of holding your nose while you speak to me, I’m sure that would work just as well.
I also can’t be persuaded that Jews rule the world, Obama or Pope Francis is the Antichrist, and high heels are super comfy. It’s like I hate logic or something!
Me either. Although I have to take the last one on trust, they don’t make them in my size, even in ‘specialist’ outlets. I’ve known some jews, and know the history too - if they were ruling the world, we might expect them to be doing a better job. Much like men… As for the antichrist, I’d have to be persuaded of a christ first, and again, there’s a paucity of evidence.
But I am prepared to believe you hate logic, on the available evidence. Let’s change things up, then: convince me there’s any logical connection between antifeminism and antisemitism, or antifeminism and religious paranoia, or antifeminism and an outright lie easily disproved by experience (if your feet are small enough…as I said, I do take it on trust that women, transvestites and drag queens put up with the discomfort for reasons of their own). I’m going with the benefit of the doubt here - that there is some connection (which in itself would be enough to persuade me to change my mind), rather than that your post is nothing more than an attempt to smear an opposing viewpoint (despite all the preceding evidence! That’s just how charitable I am).
So nobody, at all, could have believed in gender equality before the first ‘feminist’, or do we award the title retrospectively? More importantly, to me at least, when I say I’m not a feminist but nevertheless actively promote gender equality, are you calling me a liar, or is it just that you’re not wholly convinced I actually exist? I could be a bot, I suppose, or some sort of delusion?