1. #3381
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorrior View Post
    Ummmm if you dig deeper into feminism it's kinda rooted in self hating sexism....

    I mean things like always trying to get ahead makes ALOT more sense if they even subconsciously see themselves as inferior.
    No it isn't. Feminism is about gender equality. I love men and women equally. I'd need to see some serious evidence about "self-hating" stuff for me to be convinced I hate myself for some reason.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  2. #3382
    Titan Sorrior's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    11,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    No it isn't. Feminism is about gender equality. I love men and women equally. I'd need to see some serious evidence about "self-hating" stuff for me to be convinced I hate myself for some reason.
    Ummm then maybe you're egalitarian not feminist....There are more then two camps ya know.

  3. #3383
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorrior View Post
    Ummm then maybe you're egalitarian not feminist....There are more then two camps ya know.
    I can label myself what I like. I believe in gender equality so I consider myself a feminist. You can call me what you like. Feminism includes and founded men's liberation theory.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  4. #3384
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    I can label myself what I like. I believe in gender equality so I consider myself a feminist. You can call me what you like. Feminism includes and founded men's liberation theory.
    1> Gender equality means you can't accept statements like "women are neurologically disadvantaged/disabled compared to men". That's a statement that's directly contradictory to the concept of gender equality.

    2> a) Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.
    b) thedoctrineadvocatingsocial,political,andallotherrightsofwomenequaltothoseofmen
    c) the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes

    Feminism is explicitly focusing on women's issues. It's an inherently one-sided platform. It does NOT include equal credence for men's rights. Some self-proclaimed feminists might, but if they're talking about gender equality in a more general sense, they are not exclusively feminists any longer. By definition. This doesn't mean feminists are anti-equality, but their focus is on women's issues. Otherwise, they'd use a different term. Since the term "feminist" delineates a specific focus.


  5. #3385
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    1> Gender equality means you can't accept statements like "women are neurologically disadvantaged/disabled compared to men". That's a statement that's directly contradictory to the concept of gender equality.
    No it isn't. Acknowledging difference doesn't mean inequality. Women can have children and men cannot. Why is that physical difference ok to be understood as different but neurology not admissable?

    Feminism is explicitly focusing on women's issues.
    From wikipedia.org:
    Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, bell hooks, among other feminists, has argued that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.

    I disagree with you. bell hooks wrote about this before I was born.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  6. #3386
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    No it isn't. Acknowledging difference doesn't mean inequality. Women can have children and men cannot. Why is that physical difference ok to be understood as different but neurology not admissable?



    From wikipedia.org:
    Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, bell hooks, among other feminists, has argued that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.

    I disagree with you. bell hooks wrote about this before I was born.
    Then change the name of it to masculinism. Or do something about the fact that young men get paid less than young women.
    Gamdwelf the Mage

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    I'm calling it, Republicans will hold congress in 2018 and Trump will win again in 2020.

  7. #3387
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    Society is meant to be gender-neutral though. Otherwise you're just tacitly admitting that the system set up is sexist (which I agree with) and has no bearing on the quality of work (which is true.)
    You would have to prove I believe women to be disadvantaged by their gender in providing value to companies in order for that to be an admission that the system is sexist.

  8. #3388
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by DisposableHero View Post
    You would have to prove I believe women to be disadvantaged by their gender in providing value to companies in order for that to be an admission that the system is sexist.
    I don't need you to. It's a tacit admittance.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  9. #3389
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    I don't need you to. It's a tacit admittance.
    So it is an admission because you are stawmanning me. Gotcha.

    Tacit means understood. You have clearly misunderstood me.
    Last edited by DisposableHero; 2013-03-13 at 10:03 PM.

  10. #3390
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    1> Gender equality means you can't accept statements like "women are neurologically disadvantaged/disabled compared to men". That's a statement that's directly contradictory to the concept of gender equality.
    .
    If that were biologically true then it would be equitable to say such a statement, but I stress the word if

  11. #3391
    Quote Originally Posted by Shepherd57 View Post
    If that were biologically true then it would be equitable to say such a statement, but I stress the word if
    IF (and I too will emphasize if), this were true it still would not be discrimination. The business is paying more for more value, not for an inherent trait of the applicant.

  12. #3392
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by DisposableHero View Post
    So it is an admission because you are stawmanning me. Gotcha.

    Tacit means understood. You have clearly misunderstood me.
    Quite possibly. From what I can gather you haven't condemned this bizarre male-dominated and oriented practice and used some economics theory to avoid discussing social, ethical and gender theory, so I'm assuming your support of a sexist practice through economics means you support it in general.

    IF (and I too will emphasize if), this were true it still would not be discrimination. The business is paying more for more value, not for an inherent trait of the applicant.
    Proof positive. Negotiating for pay does not determine the value of work done.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  13. #3393
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    No it isn't. Acknowledging difference doesn't mean inequality. Women can have children and men cannot. Why is that physical difference ok to be understood as different but neurology not admissable?
    Because the difference is that you aren't talking about differences, you're talking about inferiorities. And you have zero justification to back those up. The only link you've provided on it provided a wealth of evidence that you are wrong, that women's brains are better at all the skills that go into negotiations.

    Men aren't complaining that they can't get a job as a surrogate mother, because they know they lack the equipment and it's a silly complaint to make. It's not an inequity.

    You're not acknowledging difference. You're declaring an entire gender inferior on the basis of an average that you have invented with no evidence, that I have seen, to justify it. It's precisely like the guys who used to argue that women couldn't be firefighters because they are, on average, weaker than men, even if they had female applicants who were stronger than any of the male applicants. That's an attitude that was torn down completely because it was outrageously sexist, and you're doing the exact same thing.

    Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, bell hooks, among other feminists, has argued that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.

    I disagree with you. bell hooks wrote about this before I was born.
    If you want to play the quote game, I can too;

    I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

    Plus dozens more I could drag out. You're acting like feminism is universally focused on men's rights as much as women's. That is categorically not true, and there are as many misandrist feminists as there are feminists who are more evenhanded. The movement as a whole has a distinct bias, a deliberate focus on women's issues. Some may bleed that over into a more general concern about gender issues overall, but they'd be better off dropping the label of "feminist", since their views are expanding beyond that envelope.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-13 at 06:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    Quite possibly. From what I can gather you haven't condemned this bizarre male-dominated and oriented practice and used some economics theory to avoid discussing social, ethical and gender theory, so I'm assuming your support of a sexist practice through economics means you support it in general.
    You've yet to provide even a shred of evidence that "negotiation" is a sexist practice that women aren't capable of handling as well as men. The only source you've linked on this, despite my repeated requests, flat-out and in detail contradicted your claims in this regard.

    Until you pony up actual neurologically peer-reviewed proof that shows women have brains that simply cannot negotiate well, I'm going to continue dismissing this as a fiction.


  14. #3394
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Because the difference is that you aren't talking about differences, you're talking about inferiorities.
    No, I'm talking about differences.

    And you have zero justification to back those up. The only link you've provided on it provided a wealth of evidence that you are wrong, that women's brains are better at all the skills that go into negotiations.
    That was your interpretation.

    You're not acknowledging difference.
    Yes I am. One gender is inclined towards some skills and the other isn't, and vice versa. It doesn't mean the skills make someone inherently better. This is your position you brought in and have yet to justify why difference must imply inferiority.
    http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/m...ro-homens.html
    Hell, even a neuroscientist says what I say at the bottom:
    But do these differences mean a superiority/inferiority relationship between men and women?
    "No", says Dr. Pearlson. "To say this means that men are automatically better at some things than women is a simplification. It's easy to find women who are fantastic at math and physics and men who excel in language skills. Only when we look at very large populations and look for slight but significant trends do we see the generalizations.
    I don't expect you to stop with this train of thought though.

    If you want to play the quote game, I can too
    So I've proven some feminists do and some don't. What's your point, exactly? My point is that feminists DO look at it and have done for years. I'd equally accept some don't.

    You've yet to provide even a shred of evidence that "negotiation" is a sexist practice that women aren't capable of handling as well as men.
    I have; you just interpreted differently. I then put my interpretation in. You don't "win" because you think you win.

    Until you pony up actual neurologically peer-reviewed proof that shows women have brains that simply cannot negotiate well, I'm going to continue dismissing this as a fiction.
    Do what you wish.
    Last edited by Zhangfei; 2013-03-13 at 10:33 PM.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  15. #3395
    Titan Sorrior's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    11,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    I can label myself what I like. I believe in gender equality so I consider myself a feminist. You can call me what you like. Feminism includes and founded men's liberation theory.
    In theory maybeb ut not in practice. THAT ishe point. Feminism can SAY it supports men but it really doesn't once it leaves their own realm.

  16. #3396
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    That was your interpretation
    No, that was simple fact. The webMD link you used (for ease of reference; http://www.webmd.com/balance/feature...-brains-differ) said this;

    "This activity across both hemispheres of the brain may result in the strong language skills typically displayed by females."
    "Geary suggests that women use language skills to their advantage. "Females use language more when they compete. They gossip, manipulate information," he says. Geary suggests that this behavior, referred to as relational aggression, may have given females a survival advantage long ago."
    "Women are faster and more accurate at identifying emotions"
    "Women, as a whole, may also be better than men at controlling their emotions."

    All of those are the skills required for negotiations. Your own link says women are better at those than men, neurologically speaking. It directly contradicts your theory.

    What magical skill are you claiming women can't handle that's necessary in negotiations, if you disagree? And what's your evidence to support the claim that women can't perform in that regard?

    Yes I am. One gender is inclined towards some skills and the other isn't, and vice versa. It doesn't mean the skills make someone inherently better. This is your position you brought in and have yet to justify why difference must imply inferiority.
    That is absolutely not true;
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    I'm saying there's a neurological component that disadvantages them on the whole
    A "disadvantage" is a lack, a way in which they are inferior. Talking about how they are disadvantaged isn't just talking about how they're different, it's talking about how they're worse off. Or "inferior".

    I'd be all for just talking about differences. You're the one who used terminology that took it to ascribing systemic inferiority. I'm reacting this strongly because, as someone with a highly professionally successful mother and sister, I find the argument that they are "neurologically disadvantaged" due to their gender to be highly offensive at a personal level. You even intimated that they were disabled, by equating the differences you see in women with those suffered by the disabled.

    The whole thing is the exact opposite of what feminism is supposed to be about; that women are the full equals of men and fully capable of handling themselves without needing special advantages to offset their supposed "neurological disadvantages".
    Last edited by Endus; 2013-03-14 at 12:16 AM.


  17. #3397
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that Zhangfei is intellectually dishonest about his/her sexism.

    Infracted: Please refrain from personally attacking other people while also not contributing to the discussion at hand.

  18. #3398
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    Quite possibly. From what I can gather you haven't condemned this bizarre male-dominated and oriented practice and used some economics theory to avoid discussing social, ethical and gender theory, so I'm assuming your support of a sexist practice through economics means you support it in general.
    If you're going to continue to try to talk for me rather than to me then there isn't much point to having a discussion. The practice is male dominated but not male oriented. It is profit oriented. It is pragmatism, not sexism. But by all means, keep throwing out straw men.

    Proof positive. Negotiating for pay does not determine the value of work done.
    Value determines bargaining position. Responsibility lies with the worker to bring their full value forward and make the most of that bargaining position. People who are grossly underpaid are the ones responsible for that state of affairs. I learned that lessons the hard way, and when I did I doubled my salary in a span of 2 years.

  19. #3399
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    On point 1; most studies which claim a 20-30% wage gap do NOT control for job choice; they are NOT comparing people in the same job, they are collecting average salary info on everyone and averaging it all out.
    At no point did I reference those studies and I have clearly stated many times I am talking about comparing people in the same job. DisposableHero did make a good point and them mayby comparing different branches of the same type of job which, could be the case.

    On point 2; it's not a "punishment", it's a recognition that choices have consequences. If you choose to focus on family over career, your career will suffer. If you focus on career over family, your family will suffer. If you try to balance both, they will both suffer a little. In Canada, paternity leave is just as much a "thing" as maternity; the main difference is that maternity leave can start 8 weeks prior to birth, while paternity (and adoptive parental leave for that matter) can't start before birth (or date of adoption). It's not a gender issue, it's a career vs family time investment issue.
    At consequence of ones action/choice can either be a punishment or reward so I am not getting your point.

    You bring up and interresting point about it not being a gender issue but it is. It speaks directly to the gender role of the mother being the main caregiver for the children in a relationship. It is being used the much the same way as gender roles in child custody cases are used. In the matter things are more in favor of the father then the mother in a "job" setting.


    On point 4; of course there are lawsuits. It's illegal to murder people but people still do it. You can't ever completely eliminate these things, you can only provide legal protections and push for social recognition of equality on the whole. There will always BE sexists, just like there will always be racists. That doesn't mean they're still a systemic problem. Law is not meant to prevent illegal activities, it's meant to reduce and limit them, so that they are the exception rather than the rule and when those exceptions are brought to light, they can be punished.
    If find those are matters of opinion depending on if you are the targeted group or not.


    That's how it is, in practice. The wage gap for under-35s is less than 10%, and that's without accounting for job choice.

    Linking this again; http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ller-wage-gap/

    2009 US Dept. of Labor study that does NOT account for job choice, simply averages out wages by age group. Under-35s, about a 10% difference, that likely comes down to job choice and women taking time out for childbearing (since 20-35 is the prime age for that). It's the over-35s that see a 25% pay gap or so (again, without accounting for job choice). So we really are talking about a small wage gap among the newer generation, one that can likely be completely explained as being due to job choice, time off for childbearing, and negotiation confidence, since none of those were eliminated for that study.
    That study also makes note that the wage gap does get bigger after the age of 35 and that it is a continued trend. For women if they want to have a family with children they are punished for that choice while men are not. Lower wages is a consequences of the choice to have children but that consequence is also a punishment as well because it an negative effect women. Men on the other hand can choose to have children and that choice does not have an effect on their wage unless they choose it to.

    The goal on the wage gap isn't to make sure women are, on average, making as much as men. It's to ensure there is equality of opportunity. If women make different choices than men, on average, and those choices mean they see different results, that's not discrimination, and it's not something we should be worrying about, necessarily. Equality of opportunity is what we need. If women end up having different priorities than men and, in general, make different choices, that's fine.
    But is the opportunity equal when childbirth which can only be done by women is seen as a negitive? Right when a women comes in and is of a child bearing age that is going to part of the job hiring process as well. Is she going to take off time to have kids? If she has kids much time will she have to take off to look after them or can she work long hours of need be. Those are just questions that most men just do not have to face when being looked at to take a job. Those are not even questions that most men even think about when looking for job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    When my son was born, I had been working for Fred Meyer for just over 3 years. I was allowed to take 6 weeks off (paid) and stay home with my son and his mother. My GF at the time worked right up until his birth (cuz she's a champ) and she was allowed to take 3 months off. That was almost 10 years ago.

    So yes, I agree completely.
    Where do you live because the US does not have paid paternity or maternity leave, what most working women do is save up vacation days and take out short term disablility when they know they are trying to get pregnant. If you have to you take your saved up vacation days before the baby is born, take a leave of absence which protects you from losing your job for up to 12 weeks. Men also can save up vacation days and take a leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act but the 12 weeks is unpaid time off. Now there maybe some states or companies that offer better maternity or paternity leave packages but for the most part it is has I have stated.
    Last edited by Ebildays; 2013-03-14 at 07:45 PM.

  20. #3400
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebildays View Post
    At consequence of ones action/choice can either be a punishment or reward so I am not getting your point.
    If you were free to make your choice either way, it's neither a "punishment" nor a "reward". It's a "consequence". There are good and bad consequences to your decisions, but as you were free to make an informed choice, the "blame" for those consequences lies with you.

    Imagine there were a game show where you could pick a box, and get a prize. If you can't make an informed decision because you can't see what's in the box, it's a crapshoot. If they change the prize because of your gender, they're discriminating. If, however, you can see inside the box, and know exactly what you're picking, if women consistently pick a lower-value prize than men, there is no discrimination. Women are not being "punished", they're simply making different choices that have different consequences, but they knew about those consequences going in.

    You bring up and interresting point about it not being a gender issue but it is. It speaks directly to the gender role of the mother being the main caregiver for the children in a relationship. It is being used the much the same way as gender roles in child custody cases are used. In the matter things are more in favor of the father then the mother in a "job" setting.
    That's not a gender issue. That is, again, an issue of the balance between family and career investment. Women may be choosing to invest more time in family than career, compared to men. This will mean their career success will suffer. That's to be expected, and is not in any way discriminatory. If they don't want to suffer those consequences, they just need to put off having a family.

    For women if they want to have a family with children they are punished for that choice while men are not.
    Absolutely false. If a man takes off a couple years to be the "housedad" while his wife takes off two weeks to recover from the birth and then is back to work, his career will be "punished" in exactly the same way that a woman's would, because it's not gender discrimination, it's the natural and expected consequence of not being as dedicated to your career as someone else is. Women are NOT being punished because they want a family, they're choosing to put family over career. They could hire a nanny or use a daycare and keep working, instead.

    Men on the other hand can choose to have children and that choice does not have an effect on their wage unless they choose it to.
    Simply not true. Men suffer the exact same consequences, assuming they take time off to raise the child. What you're doing is assuming that all women must decide to take time off to raise their child, and that men can't or won't. And THAT is sexism. Women tend to do so more, but it's their free choice to do so. I'm not going to start telling women they're making the "wrong" choices. I'm just pointing out that choices have consequences. Stay at home and bond with your kids, while letting your career suffer? Hire a nanny and keep working, and deal with the increased emotional distance between you and your kids? Try to balance both and inevitably cause stress with both? There's no path that lacks consequences. You just pick the ones you find most acceptable. And these consequences aren't divided by gender; they're divided by the choice.

    But is the opportunity equal when childbirth which can only be done by women is seen as a negitive? Right when a women comes in and is of a child bearing age that is going to part of the job hiring process as well. Is she going to take off time to have kids? If she has kids much time will she have to take off to look after them or can she work long hours of need be. Those are just questions that most men just do not have to face when being looked at to take a job. Those are not even questions that most men even think about when looking for job.
    Now you're just straw manning. What you're describing is illegal. At least in Canada, there's a minimum employment period, but if you've been working there that long, you both qualify for maternity/parental leave, and your job is safe. The minimum exists to prevent someone being hired and pretty much immediately going on leave; the employer is free to just hire someone else instead. Employers can't factor this in to hiring.

    In addition to all that, it has squat to do with the concept of equality of opportunity, which is what you were responding to.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •