I got bored by your no true scotsman fallacy long time ago, which you are continuing to this page. You are here to sell your title. Continue selling it.
So long as significant numbers of women chose to have children, females as a group are going to fall behind in career pursuits. That in and of itself is a massive detriment to career ambitions, andnothing will ever change that.
P.S. The thing I think most people are missing about "men and women are different" is that they are not in 2 separate categories, but rather overlapping bell curves.On average, women are more emotionally nurturing, men are more physically capable, more ambitious, etc. But these are averages, which means you're gonna have some women that are more ambitious than most men, some men that are more emotionally nurturing than most women, and yes, even some women that are better "bros" than most men. If she's the 95%ile of bro-cability for women, she may be the 55%ile in men.
So the "men and women are different" line is something that's essential to keep in mind when talking about over- or underrepresentation of genders in careers, income, platonic friends, or really any category. But like ALL trends, it is mostly irrelevant at the individual level.
P.S. The thing I think most people are missing about "men and women are different" is that they are not in 2 separate categories, but rather overlapping bell curves.On average, women are more emotionally nurturing, men are more physically capable, more ambitious, etc. But these are averages, which means you're gonna have some women that are more ambitious than most men, some men that are more emotionally nurturing than most women, and yes, even some women that are better "bros" than most men. If she's the 95%ile of bro-cability for women, she may be the 55%ile in men.
So the "men and women are different" line is something that's essential to keep in mind when talking about over- or underrepresentation of genders in careers, income, platonic friends, or really any category. But like ALL trends, it is mostly irrelevant at the individual level.
I haven't missed that at all. That's exactly why I'm saying it's harmful to people to let generalizations about gender affect life opportunities.
So far, nobody has come out and stated that there isn't a gender bias existing in society today. Nobody has said that.
Feminism wants to get rid of gender bias. That's it. Clean slate for everyone, be judged on your merits and not on what "common knowledge" says about your gender.
Yes, I over-simplify in order to be understood in a cacophony of idiocy. Of course, feminism concerns itself with such topics as rape culture or the acceptance of the perpetuating of stereotypes, but that pretty much all connects to the one point of "stop treating women with a different set of rules than men".
These expectations are prompted in part by a refusal to accept
that the policy goal is equality of opportunity, not equality of
outcomes. Academics and the European Commission routinely
conflate the two, as illustrated most spectacularly by the
Gender Equality Index constructed by academics for the EU.
Excellent point. As has been mentioned here, "equality" is a difficult term to use because we cannot expect every group of professionals in every field to be comprised of 50% male and 50% female workers.
Feminism isn't about striving for individual fairness, on a life-by-life basis-it's about fighting against a systematic removal of opportunity that infringes on women's basic freedoms. If a woman and a man have equal potential in a field, they should have an equal opportunity to achieve success in that field. It's not that we want the least qualified women to be handed everything just because they're women. It's that we want all women to have the same opportunities as all men to fulfill (or fail to fulfill, on their own inherent merits) their potential. If a particular woman is underqualified for a particular job, fine. That isn't sexism. But she shouldn't have to be systematically set up, from birth, to be underqualified for all jobs (except for jobs that reinforce traditional femininity, obv).
It seems like Lindy West (author of the article I linked, and who pretty much encapsulates "my" version of feminism) would agree completely with the point made in your article.
As you pointed out, it's quite apparent that, like Christians, Republicans, Capitalists, etc, there is no universally shared definition within members of the group, and there can be dramatic differences in the beliefs or individuals or sub-groups within those groups. Again, this doesn't mean we don't need feminism.
From Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine:
Despite feminist claims, the truth is that most men and
women have different career aspirations and priorities. Men and women often have different life-goals and policy makers
should therefore not expect the same job outcomes.
Honestly, I looked at this and thought "Is this proven?" and read on to find that there have been studies that support this.
Myth 8: Men and women do not differ in careerist attitudes,
values and life goals
Academics have only recently considered the importance of
attitudes and values, including attitudes to risk, promotion,
career success and higher earnings. What emerges from these
new studies is that attitudes and values are the invisible 'hidden
hand' shaping employment histories and career paths as well as
private lives.
One landmark study is Babcock and Laschever's compendium
of research Women Don't Ask, which showed how sex
differences in earnings emerge soon after graduation from
university because young men routinely negotiate higher
starting pay, while most young women fail to do so. This sex
difference in bargaining and negotiation over promotion,
responsibilities and pay develops over time into a cumulatively
sizeable earnings gap in adult life - even among people who
attended the same universities and have the same
qualifications, including MBA graduates.
Other studies show that women do ask employers for additional
benefits, but there are sex differences in requests. Men are
more likely to ask for more money, while women are more likely
to ask for shorter hours. Numerous other studies also show
that women seek and prioritise non-financial benefits such as
personal development and convenience factors when choosing
jobs, whereas men prioritise high earnings. The focus on the
sex differential in earnings is misleading because it does not
encompass the complete package of employment benefits and
rewards, and overlooks the issue of short and flexible work
hours, which women value most.51
National interview surveys in the UK, Spain and other countries
show that women divide into three very different groups in
terms of life goals, values and aspirations:
? a minority are careerist;
? a minority are centred on home and family life; and,
? a majority seek some combination of paid work and
family work.
In contrast, men are more likely to be careerist in their attitudes
and goals, although a substantial minority seek a good work-life
balance. Most surprising of all, these three groups of women are
found at all educational levels, in all income groups and social
classes, and in all types of society (Table 2). The social and
economic environment does matter, and alters the relative sizes
of the three groups. However lifestyle preferences have been
found to determine which structural factors influence any
individual's behaviour.52
Recent OECD studies acknowledge the importance of these
rarely-studied attitudes and values in explaining sex differentials
in careers, achievements in the labour market, and even
earnings.53 Previously, these differential outcomes were
automatically attributed to sex discrimination.
This is good reading.
This, combined with changes that feminism has accomplished in the work force (also covered in the article), show that we have come a long way.
I think the author is jumping the gun a bit with the "the war is over" statements, though. I mean, even the staunchest anti-feminist on this thread admits sexism and discrimination still exist within society. And the comments made by many posters clearly show that misogyny and rampant sexism are still commonly accepted attitudes, and we need only checkthis articleto see many examples of overt woman-hating.
This article, however, is concerned with the government's role in getting women to occupy specific jobs, and it makes its points very well.
Good find.
FromFeminist Jurisprudence: Equal Rights or NeoPaternalism?:
But feminist pressure has also resulted in increasingly loose and subjective definitions of harassment and rape, dangerous
moves to eviscerate the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases, and a broad concept of self-defense in cases
of battered wives that sometimes amounts to a license to kill an allegedly abusive spouse.
Courts and legislatures should resist efforts to limit individual rights in the guise of protecting women as a class, and
reaffirm the fundamental principle consistent with the classical liberal origins of the movement for women's rights:
equality before the law regardless of gender
Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.
This second article, perhaps because it's older, is not as strong as the first. The legal system should not be skewed to give preference to females, and feminists agree with that.
the ideology of legal feminism today goes far
beyond the original and widely supported goal of equal treatment for both sexes. The new agenda is to redistribute
power from the "dominant class" (men) to the "subordinate class" (women), and such key concepts of Western
jurisprudence as judicial neutrality and individual rights are declared to be patriarchal fictions designed to protect male
privilege.
If this was the "new agenda" 17 years ago, then the new "new agenda" goes back to the original goal of equal treatment for both sexes. Of course, again, the word "equal" is difficult to use because, realistically, woman are victims of rape and physical abuse the majority of the time. I'm not generalizing, I'm just saying that rape cases are treated a certain way (just as every type of case is treated a certain way), so of course we want both genders to be treated equally but most rape cases will have an effect on the woman as the victim and the man as the accused. If there are problems with how these cases are being treated, they need to be fixed. But we should definitely not tout "false rape accusations" as a reason to criticize feminism, as shownhere.
There were 5,651 prosecutions for rape for the period between January 2011 and May 2012 the study looked at, but only 35 for making false allegations of rape.
Likewise, there were 111,891 prosecutions for domestic violence, but only six for making false allegations of domestic violence.
I'm not diminishing the effect false accusations have on the accused (nor is the article), but the "dangerous moves to eviscerate the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases" comment makes it sound like it's become a free-for-all, girls can put guys in jail on a whim system, which it hasn't.
Anyway, very good finds. I would +1 you if I could. I'm actually going to share these articles with a few feminist friends. The rest of you guys, take notes.
Edit: I apologize for the long post. Fuck, I need a drink.
Excellent point. As has been mentioned here, "equality" is a difficult term to use because we cannot expect every group of professionals in every field to be comprised of 50% male and 50% female workers.
It seems like Lindy West (author of the article I linked, and who pretty much encapsulates "my" version of feminism) would agree completely with the point made in your article.
As you pointed out, it's quite apparent that, like Christians, Republicans, Capitalists, etc, there is no universally shared definition within members of the group, and there can be dramatic differences in the beliefs or individuals or sub-groups within those groups. Again, this doesn't mean we don't need feminism.
From Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine:
Honestly, I looked at this and thought "Is this proven?" and read on to find that there have been studies that support this.
Myth 8: Men and women do not differ in careerist attitudes,
values and life goals
Academics have only recently considered the importance of
attitudes and values, including attitudes to risk, promotion,
career success and higher earnings. What emerges from these
new studies is that attitudes and values are the invisible 'hidden
hand' shaping employment histories and career paths as well as
private lives.
One landmark study is Babcock and Laschever's compendium
of research Women Don't Ask, which showed how sex
differences in earnings emerge soon after graduation from
university because young men routinely negotiate higher
starting pay, while most young women fail to do so. This sex
difference in bargaining and negotiation over promotion,
responsibilities and pay develops over time into a cumulatively
sizeable earnings gap in adult life - even among people who
attended the same universities and have the same
qualifications, including MBA graduates.
Other studies show that women do ask employers for additional
benefits, but there are sex differences in requests. Men are
more likely to ask for more money, while women are more likely
to ask for shorter hours. Numerous other studies also show
that women seek and prioritise non-financial benefits such as
personal development and convenience factors when choosing
jobs, whereas men prioritise high earnings. The focus on the
sex differential in earnings is misleading because it does not
encompass the complete package of employment benefits and
rewards, and overlooks the issue of short and flexible work
hours, which women value most.51
National interview surveys in the UK, Spain and other countries
show that women divide into three very different groups in
terms of life goals, values and aspirations:
? a minority are careerist;
? a minority are centred on home and family life; and,
? a majority seek some combination of paid work and
family work.
In contrast, men are more likely to be careerist in their attitudes
and goals, although a substantial minority seek a good work-life
balance. Most surprising of all, these three groups of women are
found at all educational levels, in all income groups and social
classes, and in all types of society (Table 2). The social and
economic environment does matter, and alters the relative sizes
of the three groups. However lifestyle preferences have been
found to determine which structural factors influence any
individual's behaviour.52
Recent OECD studies acknowledge the importance of these
rarely-studied attitudes and values in explaining sex differentials
in careers, achievements in the labour market, and even
earnings.53 Previously, these differential outcomes were
automatically attributed to sex discrimination.
This is good reading.
This, combined with changes that feminism has accomplished in the work force (also covered in the article), show that we have come a long way.
I think the author is jumping the gun a bit with the "the war is over" statements, though. I mean, even the staunchest anti-feminist on this thread admits sexism and discrimination still exist within society. And the comments made by many posters clearly show that misogyny and rampant sexism are still commonly accepted attitudes, and we need only checkthis articleto see many examples of overt woman-hating.
This article, however, is concerned with the government's role in getting women to occupy specific jobs, and it makes its points very well.
Good find.
FromFeminist Jurisprudence: Equal Rights or NeoPaternalism?:
Another excellent point, and one which actually gels pretty well with feminism.
This second article, perhaps because it's older, is not as strong as the first. The legal system should not be skewed to give preference to females, and feminists agree with that.
If this was the "new agenda" 17 years ago, then the new "new agenda" goes back to the original goal of equal treatment for both sexes. Of course, again, the word "equal" is difficult to use because, realistically, woman are victims of rape and physical abuse the majority of the time. I'm not generalizing, I'm just saying that rape cases are treated a certain way (just as every type of case is treated a certain way), so of course we want both genders to be treated equally but most rape cases will have an effect on the woman as the victim and the man as the accused. If there are problems with how these cases are being treated, they need to be fixed. But we should definitely not tout "false rape accusations" as a reason to criticize feminism, as shownhere.
I'm not diminishing the effect false accusations have on the accused (nor is the article), but the "dangerous moves to eviscerate the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases" comment makes it sound like it's become a free-for-all, girls can put guys in jail on a whim system, which it hasn't.
Anyway, very good finds. I would +1 you if I could. I'm actually going to share these articles with a few feminist friends. The rest of you guys, take notes.
Edit: I apologize for the long post. Fuck, I need a drink.
Excellent point. As has been mentioned here, "equality" is a difficult term to use because we cannot expect every group of professionals in every field to be comprised of 50% male and 50% female workers.
It seems like Lindy West (author of the article I linked, and who pretty much encapsulates "my" version of feminism) would agree completely with the point made in your article.
As you pointed out, it's quite apparent that, like Christians, Republicans, Capitalists, etc, there is no universally shared definition within members of the group, and there can be dramatic differences in the beliefs or individuals or sub-groups within those groups. Again, this doesn't mean we don't need feminism.
From Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine:
Honestly, I looked at this and thought "Is this proven?" and read on to find that there have been studies that support this.
Myth 8: Men and women do not differ in careerist attitudes,
values and life goals
Academics have only recently considered the importance of
attitudes and values, including attitudes to risk, promotion,
career success and higher earnings. What emerges from these
new studies is that attitudes and values are the invisible 'hidden
hand' shaping employment histories and career paths as well as
private lives.
One landmark study is Babcock and Laschever's compendium
of research Women Don't Ask, which showed how sex
differences in earnings emerge soon after graduation from
university because young men routinely negotiate higher
starting pay, while most young women fail to do so. This sex
difference in bargaining and negotiation over promotion,
responsibilities and pay develops over time into a cumulatively
sizeable earnings gap in adult life - even among people who
attended the same universities and have the same
qualifications, including MBA graduates.
Other studies show that women do ask employers for additional
benefits, but there are sex differences in requests. Men are
more likely to ask for more money, while women are more likely
to ask for shorter hours. Numerous other studies also show
that women seek and prioritise non-financial benefits such as
personal development and convenience factors when choosing
jobs, whereas men prioritise high earnings. The focus on the
sex differential in earnings is misleading because it does not
encompass the complete package of employment benefits and
rewards, and overlooks the issue of short and flexible work
hours, which women value most.51
National interview surveys in the UK, Spain and other countries
show that women divide into three very different groups in
terms of life goals, values and aspirations:
? a minority are careerist;
? a minority are centred on home and family life; and,
? a majority seek some combination of paid work and
family work.
In contrast, men are more likely to be careerist in their attitudes
and goals, although a substantial minority seek a good work-life
balance. Most surprising of all, these three groups of women are
found at all educational levels, in all income groups and social
classes, and in all types of society (Table 2). The social and
economic environment does matter, and alters the relative sizes
of the three groups. However lifestyle preferences have been
found to determine which structural factors influence any
individual's behaviour.52
Recent OECD studies acknowledge the importance of these
rarely-studied attitudes and values in explaining sex differentials
in careers, achievements in the labour market, and even
earnings.53 Previously, these differential outcomes were
automatically attributed to sex discrimination.
This is good reading.
This, combined with changes that feminism has accomplished in the work force (also covered in the article), show that we have come a long way.
I think the author is jumping the gun a bit with the "the war is over" statements, though. I mean, even the staunchest anti-feminist on this thread admits sexism and discrimination still exist within society. And the comments made by many posters clearly show that misogyny and rampant sexism are still commonly accepted attitudes, and we need only checkthis articleto see many examples of overt woman-hating.
This article, however, is concerned with the government's role in getting women to occupy specific jobs, and it makes its points very well.
Good find.
FromFeminist Jurisprudence: Equal Rights or NeoPaternalism?:
Another excellent point, and one which actually gels pretty well with feminism.
This second article, perhaps because it's older, is not as strong as the first. The legal system should not be skewed to give preference to females, and feminists agree with that.
If this was the "new agenda" 17 years ago, then the new "new agenda" goes back to the original goal of equal treatment for both sexes. Of course, again, the word "equal" is difficult to use because, realistically, woman are victims of rape and physical abuse the majority of the time. I'm not generalizing, I'm just saying that rape cases are treated a certain way (just as every type of case is treated a certain way), so of course we want both genders to be treated equally but most rape cases will have an effect on the woman as the victim and the man as the accused. If there are problems with how these cases are being treated, they need to be fixed. But we should definitely not tout "false rape accusations" as a reason to criticize feminism, as shownhere.
I'm not diminishing the effect false accusations have on the accused (nor is the article), but the "dangerous moves to eviscerate the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases" comment makes it sound like it's become a free-for-all, girls can put guys in jail on a whim system, which it hasn't.
Anyway, very good finds. I would +1 you if I could. I'm actually going to share these articles with a few feminist friends. The rest of you guys, take notes.
Edit: I apologize for the long post. Fuck, I need a drink.
The thing I think most people are missing about "men and women are different" is that they are not in 2 separate categories, but rather overlapping bell curves.On average, women are more emotionally nurturing, men are more physically capable, more ambitious, etc. But these are averages, which means you're gonna have some women that are more ambitious than most men, some men that are more emotionally nurturing than most women, and yes, even some women that are better "bros" than most men. If she's the 95%ile of bro-cability for women, she may be the 55%ile in men.
As far as who is suited to certain jobs and such? Sure, of course there are outliers, in pretty much every single statistic imaginable. In terms of platonic friendships between men and women? Nope. If members of the opposite sex genuinely enjoy hanging out with each other, each others' company, etc. and are attracted to one another, the thought of "should we take this to the next level?" is going to cross your mind atleastonce. You're absolutely full of flying dogshit if you say otherwise. Circumstances may dictate that you can't or shouldn't(monogamous relationship with someone else being the biggest reason for "no"), but that is only a circumstantial factor. The want/desire to bang them doesn't really "go away", the relationship just settles down to the "friendship" level, because outside factors dictate that it can't go further.
As far as who is suited to certain jobs and such? Sure, of course there are outliers, in pretty much every single statistic imaginable. In terms of platonic friendships between men and women? Nope. If members of the opposite sex genuinely enjoy hanging out with each other, each others' company, etc. and are attracted to one another, the thought of "should we take this to the next level?" is going to cross your mind atleastonce. You're absolutely full of flying dogshit if you say otherwise. Circumstances may dictate that you can't or shouldn't(monogamous relationship with someone else being the biggest reason for "no"), but that is only a circumstantial factor. The want/desire to bang them doesn't really "go away", the relationship just settles down to the "friendship" level, because outside factors dictate that it can't go further.
Who are you arguing with? I never said this wasn't true.
I've been friends with interesting girls I was attracted to. If it turned out she was also attracted to me, this led to something. If it turned out she wasn't, I was more than happy to keep her as a friend because why the fuck not? She didn't stop being an interesting person just because I couldn't fuck her. What's your point?
Who are you arguing with? I never said this wasn't true.
I've been friends with interesting girls I was attracted to. If it turned out she was also attracted to me, this led to something. If it turned out she wasn't, I was more than happy to keep her as a friend because why the fuck not? She didn't stop being an interesting person just because I couldn't fuck her. What's your point?
My point is, this notion of completely "platonic" friendships is bullshit. You've even admitted it. Inevitably, one party or the other wants to bang. Because you stayed "friends" after being turned away, doesn't change the fact that you'd bang if circumstances had been different. Hence, men and women can never be "just friends", unless outside circumstance dictates they can't bang. Even then, the friendship isn'ttrulyplatonic.
I mean, even the staunchest anti-feminist on this thread admits sexism and discrimination still exist within society. And the comments made by many posters clearly show that misogyny and rampant sexism are still commonly accepted attitudes, and we need only checkthis articleto see many examples of overt woman-hating.
Of course it fucking exists, idiot. The same way racism exists, homophobic people exist, etc. Even the same way that "man-hating" exists. Are you going to take up the flag for every single group that is discriminated against? Why are you championing feminism so hard? Why not champion racism? That affects men and womenequally, yet you've chosen a side. Sounds real equal to me...
As far as who is suited to certain jobs and such? Sure, of course there are outliers, in pretty much every single statistic imaginable. In terms of platonic friendships between men and women? Nope. If members of the opposite sex genuinely enjoy hanging out with each other, each others' company, etc. and are attracted to one another, the thought of "should we take this to the next level?" is going to cross your mind atleastonce. You're absolutely full of flying dogshit if you say otherwise. Circumstances may dictate that you can't or shouldn't(monogamous relationship with someone else being the biggest reason for "no"), but that is only a circumstantial factor. The want/desire to bang them doesn't really "go away", the relationship just settles down to the "friendship" level, because outside factors dictate that it can't go further.
Let me go ahead and end my friendships with my female friends because some guy on the internet said they're impossible. Thanks. The first 7 times you said this exact same thing wasn't enough. 8th time's the charm.
My point is, this notion of completely "platonic" friendships is bullshit. You've even admitted it. Inevitably, one party or the other wants to bang. Because you stayed "friends" after being turned away, doesn't change the fact that you'd bang if circumstances had been different. Hence, men and women can never be "just friends", unless outside circumstance dictates they can't bang. Even then, the friendship isn'ttrulyplatonic.
Why does the fact that you'd bang if circumstances were different mean you're not "just friends"? If my best buddies were female and hot, I'd wanna fuck them too. Does that invalidate our friendship? If my pet rabbit had tits, I'd squeeze 'em. If rubber was minty I'd lick my tires to freshen my breath. What's your point?
Of course it fucking exists, idiot. The same way racism exists, homophobic people exist, etc. Even the same way that "man-hating" exists. Are you going to take up the flag for every single group that is discriminated against? Why are you championing feminism so hard? Why not champion racism? That affects men and womenequally, yet you've chosen a side. Sounds real equal to me...
That's actually a pretty good question.
I'm totally anti-racist and anti-homophobic and anti-man-hating too. I took up feminism in this thread for two reasons:
1) I recently had a conversation with a good friend about whether or not men and women can be friends. I guess I wanted a chance to make my points again and see what else had to be said about it.
2) I've seen anti-feminist comments that I thought were pretty easily refutable, and even though I knew exactly what kind of backlash I would have to face by being "feminist" in Rerolled, I thought it might be worth it just for kicks and to see if I could learn even more about the subject. And even though I've had to put up with some pretty intense stupidity, I can still say that I am doing that.
If I would have poked any other bear, it would probably have been racism because I see a lot of that shit here too. But because some Facebook friends have been posting what I consider to be some pretty interesting feminist stuff, I thought I would throw it to the wolves and see what happened.
