When it comes to ‘looking at the individual candidates,’ study after study shows that this doesn’t actually happen. Demographic characteristics (such as gender) count for far more than most people want to acknowledge.
There are, quite literally, thousands of reputable studies that show that when the exact same resume or CV is submitted to employers–with the ONLY difference being the name at the top (a female name versus a male name)–the hiring outcomes differ quite predictably by the gender of that name.
I picked just the first few hits I did in a search of resume / gender / male name / female name. The first quote shows a literature review citing many such studies:
There are too many of these studies (showing that the exact same material–CV or essay or what have you–is rated according to the gender of the name at the top), and the studies come from far too reputable sources, for the findings to be argued away.
I’m familiar with studies like that. I don’t think it disproves the point, other than to show that even when in theory employment should be a case-by-case basis, it a significant number of cases it’s affected by those general presumptions.
I don’t know if this is addressed to me or not, but when I said men, in general, don’t like to think of themselves as “victims”, I was talking about living men, not dead ones.
“The Patriarchy” does seem to have an expansive definition. Slut-shaming? Patriarchy.
The industrial revolution, democracy, penicillin… I’m sure they had nothing to do with “the Patriarchy,” whatever it is.
In Minecraft, you have several modes. Most of which are simply levels of difficulty - higher difficulty, and things are made trickier for the player - but one of them is Creative mode. In Creative mode, you can, basically, do whatever you want. Create any object in whatever numbers you wish, be invincible, go wherever you want with ease.
robertliguori’s analogy (as I understood it) was treating being in an advantageous (or not a disadvantageous) group is like being in that mode; you can do whatever you want, with no bad consequences, and no problems you really have to face. His argument was that if you had a kind of person who didn’t have to worry about facing obstacles, then that’s the kind of person you want to hire, because they won’t face any obstacles working for you, either. My response is just trying to show that the analogy doesn’t really work; the claim isn’t that being part of an advantageous group gives you a guaranteed ticket to success, and that everyone faces some kind of obstacles at some point. With that in mind, there’s an argument to be made that when it comes to hiring, people who’ve faced obstacles in their lives are also more likely to have experience in dealing with them.
Beyond all the other problems with hiring based on population statistics.
Thanks for that, Revenant Threshold; that does make sense.
It reminds me that some people do over-rely on ‘all or nothing’ arguments; for example, to argue that it’s not possible that men benefit from any sort of pro-male bias in hiring because sometimes females do get hired (as if the circumstance that a female sometimes gets hired means that the playing field must logically be absolutely even. In fact that would not logically follow.)
Ah, good question. The simple answer is that the courts are biased against men. As I posted upthread somewhere, mothers are 4x more likely to get custody than fathers. Despite the fact that fathers who do get custody both (a) getting less child support, and getting it less often, and (b) nevertheless, less likely to live in poverty.
Now, you’d argued earlier that the 5% difference in pay between men and women was at least partly because of sexism.
Is an 400% difference in the likelihood of getting custody evidence of sexism?
Or are women just that much better at being parents than men?
Possibly. It’s very possible that this is yet another casualty of enforced gender roles (your favorite p word). If mother’s are much more likely to stay home with the kids, then courts may think the child is better off with them.
I don’t know about all that. You have a very feminist reading of history, but I’m not sure it’s accurate.
Let me try a couple of things.
Historically, (though not anymore, of course) both a wife and a husband had a right to sexual relations with their spouse. Marital rape was impossible, because marrying someone was itself consent to having sex with them. That is, as I said, now a relic of the past. But is that relic really about rape - or is it about a former, but not current, expectation about marriage - specifically, that if you married someone, part of the deal is that you were agreeing to have sex with them - whether you were a male or a female?
And then there’s this book, which you can buy on Amazon, if you like. It’s from 1883. The whipping post had been abolished in America, but Roosevelt proposed bringing it back - specifically for the purpose of punishing men who abused their wives. I want to emphasize that. The whipping post was for men, not for women.
Uh, no. Religions that prohibit sex outside of marriage teach that to men as well as women. In fact, I think you’d have to look pretty hard to find a religious sermon that even included the word “slut”, much less a religion that taught that sex outside of marriage was OK for men, but not women.
I’m not sure I know what you mean by that. If you mean that - in a society with capitalistic values - being poor is an embarrassment. A mark of failure. And a perfectly valid reason for being ignored, I agree with you.
Query from the peanut gallery for someone other than Linus, who will pretend I have never said this:
is there a hidden third option, other than 1. sexism or 2. women are that much better, that could explain the fact that women are awarded custody more often in absolute terms than men?
Something, perhaps, you can pull from your own life experiences about men, women and child care?
One of the principles of science is the possibility of falsifiability: in other words, the possibility that some experiment could be done or observation made, that would disprove the theory. If there is no such experiment that could be done, or observation that could be made, the theory is sometimes called pseudo-science.
One reason pseudo-science is popular, is it so often appeals to emotions, rather than facts. For example, most people believe in heaven. Not because there’s any evidence of it, but because it would be so comfortable if it were true.
With feminism, at least in this thread, the tactic seems to be that of attacking the messenger: If we can just keep people from talking about it, we can go back to believing what makes us comfortable.
Wait, you’re the one who, oh, about 20 pages ago, mentioned that women would not be capable of stepping in and getting into some jobs necessary to run society because of… fear of bugs. :rolleyes: :dubious: :smack:
That qualifies I think for your pseudo-science comment, and also for your appeal to emotions.
Also about attacking the messenger, Jack of Words did that when he immediately dismissed some arguments and posters by claiming they were Tumblr feminists, then got angry when the charge was levelled against him. As well one of the posters herself has a degree in history. He also tried attacking the messenger, with the comment singling out Larry and me.
Indeed. I totally agree, and will rain down the hellfire of powerful arguments on anyone who suggests that patriarchal culture is responsible for all of the problems of humanity.
Slut-shaming does not require the use of the word “slut”. And even when religions disapproved of extra-marital sex for men, the concept of purity was never emphasized nearly as much for men as it was for women.