Instructor Tells Student To ‘Look at Feminist Sources,’ Shouldn't Debunk Wage Gap

[stormgust]

Business sources don't pursue their results with academic rigor. So no. It's ignoring them for the same reason you don't cite newspaper stories as academic references, or the like.

That reads as if you're only ever allowed to use secondary sources (at least as a student), and then we're back to how I said it, you just follow a narrative, without searching for different hypothesis (as you restrict to sources only showing what you want anyway)

[Mehrunes]

You don't use encyclopedias because they're tertiary sources; they stopped being useful sources in grade school, because they don't provide nearly enough depth nor analytical potential. College-level academic research focuses on primary and secondary sources, leaning more towards primary as your studies advance.

And I've never heard of anyone prohibiting government sources. Government reports do face academic rigor and review.

Well, it only mentioned encyclopedias for consulting uses, not as a source. As for government data, it's right in the OP. Now, it only mentions a Toronto Sun article (which in turn mentions the general assignment which isn't linked and not the further e-mail to this particular student) and I'm unaware of this newspaper so I don't know if it's something on Daily Mail's level or something more reputable. As for the e-mail, the professor outright asks the student to use material written specifically by feminists, so I kinda doubt she meant the same thing as you said above when she said "feminist sources". And earlier says "DO NOT use business sources. They blame women. Reality is patriarchy." as if business sources were written by a hive-mind and incompatible with the meaning of "feminist source" you presented.

[Zyster]

Either all business' are dumb for not taking advantage of this non-existent wage gap or there is no wage gap. I think it's safe to assume that professionals in charge of finances for a business aren't all dumb.

Professors like this shouldn't have a job. Whether or not they are right or wrong is irrelevant in the fact they should remain objective to any side of an argument, especially one that has no solid evidence.

[Zyster]

The instructor's response to the student was linked on the last page. It only says to not use business sources. However, as we neither know what the assignment was nor what the student said to the instructor that prompted the response, as well as the fact that it's a rather nondescript image that could easily be faked (though I'll take at least the image at face value for now), it should be taken with a grain of salt.

- - - Updated - - -



Textbook example of a false dichotomy.

Textbook example of ignorance.

[Ratyrel]

Precisely. This is where the wage gap myth came from: bad data analysis. Once you start thinking about the causes of the apparent "wage gap" and other issues that might affect the "wage gap" (such as hours worked, overtime, choice of profession, college education, number of children/pregnancies) you begin to get a better understanding of the underlying issues.

What the professor wanted was for the student to ignore the analysis because she is biased against non-feminist opinion.

All those causes are correlated to traditionally patriarchal structures though. Choice of profession is influenced by upbringing and gender roles, which affects college education rates and child care arrangements. A student having difficulties with a controversial current topic such as this needs to recognise this by looking at feminist research pointing these things out. I do think that that e-mail could have been worded in a bit more balanced way, but professors write dozens of such e-mails every day - not every one can be a master piece capable of pleasing everyone.

[Endus]

That reads as if you're only ever allowed to use secondary sources (at least as a student), and then we're back to how I said it, you just follow a narrative, without searching for different hypothesis (as you restrict to sources only showing what you want anyway)

All this really says is that you don't understand what a secondary source is. It's not about "narrative", at all.

[bladeXcrasher]

Definition of feminism
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Words are hard.



Given that I'm the "his" in that sentence, you're flat-out wrong, and just making shit up.



You absolutely do not start with a conclusion. Who the hell told you that? That's how propaganda works, not research.

You start with a hypothesis, and then you test that hypothesis. And if the evidence can't support it, that's your conclusion. If you exclude relevant evidence because it doesn't support your desired conclusion, you're deliberately biasing your research. Research is not about cherry-picking sources that support your predetermined conclusion. Anyone trying that garbage deserves an F on that paper as a result.

He said YOU PERSONALLY are starting with the conclusion and working backwards because YOU can't wrap your mind around this...

[stormgust]

All those causes are correlated to traditionally patriarchal structures though. Choice of profession is influenced by upbringing and gender roles, which affects college education rates and child care arrangements. A student having difficulties with a controversial current topic such as this needs to recognise this by looking at feminist research pointing these things out. I do think that that e-mail could have been worded in a bit more balanced way, but professors write dozens of such e-mails every day - not every one can be a master piece capable of pleasing everyone.

And feminist research never proofed such a correlation, it was just collecting evidence in favor, but they almost entirely ignored alternative explanations (e.g. that there could be a biological component which determines it partially or even entirely).

[melodramocracy]

"Do NOT use business sources," the instructor wrote in an email to Matthias. "They blame women. The reality is patriarchy."

Right? Whatever you do, don't ask the CEO of Pepsi, or the president of RPI.

[Endus]

He said YOU PERSONALLY are starting with the conclusion and working backwards because YOU can't wrap your mind around this...

Then he's still obviously wrong, and is just slandering me for lack of an actual defense.

[Sky High]

and we're back at 0 days where Xarim doesn't get triggered by a college professor. granted this one is pretty dumb.

[Scathbais]

All those causes are correlated to traditionally patriarchal structures though. Choice of profession is influenced by upbringing and gender roles, which affects college education rates and child care arrangements. A student having difficulties with a controversial current topic such as this needs to recognise this by looking at feminist research pointing these things out. I do think that that e-mail could have been worded in a bit more balanced way, but professors write dozens of such e-mails every day - not every one can be a master piece capable of pleasing everyone.

" traditionally patriarchal structures" This is a make believe term made up by feminists and their apologists to try to focus people away from the fact that men and women are different, have different goals, strengths, physical abilities, wants, needs and preferences. You try to use these bs terms to sweep facts under the rug, but sorry, feminist arguments aren't supported by real data.

[Mehrunes]

I suppose so, if you wish to assume that there's no possible situation the thread title could have described other than one he'd find to be little more than frivolous whining. However, I know that as a reasonable person I usually cannot tell that without reading the body of the thread or article, and as Skroe generally seems to be a fairly reasonable person, even if somewhat antagonistic at times, I'd assume similar discernment on his part as well. It seems only fair to give him benefit of the doubt.

Possible? Sure. It's more subject to plausibility though, in my opinion. And again, I didn't claim it as a general rule, only pointed out that this particular thread title somewhat indicated the content to be about complaints about SJWs. And hell, click all you want if you need a confirmation, but the name of the OP is that already. Again, in this particular case. If you know a thread complaining about SJWs will annoy you and you now know the thread with a title like this one is made by Xarim, chances are the content is that and you will find it annoying.

Like, if one does not like Tennisace's threads and sees a thread with a clickbait title (especially if it's about women being feeble creatures that need protection, Canada being glorious, God Emperor Trudeau being even more glorious or how fat people suck) and or emoticon, chances are, it's Tennisace's thread and it will annoy them. And when one enters it to confirm and do see that name in the OP, chances that they'll get annoyed skyrocket. Unless one wants to get annoyed, in which case more power to them I guess.

The instructor's response to the student was linked on the last page. It only says to not use business sources. However, as we neither know what the assignment was nor what the student said to the instructor that prompted the response, as well as the fact that it's a rather nondescript image that could easily be faked (though I'll take at least the image at face value for now), it should be taken with a grain of salt.

I know. It was linked in the Toronto Sun article too anyway. And as I said, according to it, the part about government sources was in the general assignment. And yeah, I know it should be taken with an even bigger grain of salt than the e-mail, but that's why I mentioned I don't know what kind of a newspaper Toronto Sun is. So one one hand I'm not going to tout their claims as gospel (especially since it's just claims), but on the other hand I lack information to outright dismiss them as fake news outlet either. That aside, the e-mail outright refers to work written by actual feminists, so I still find the way Endus presented the professor's desires for feminist sources to be objectionable.

[TITAN308]

I still laugh everytime I see a Doctor title before someones name who has a degree in psychology and sociology.

[Deleted]

Doesn't the US government have the means to track employment and investigate claims of wage discrimination?

Here in Sweden we've had this question raised in the past and in the 80s we conducted a long term study that concluded that whatever wage discrimination there is, it's neglible.

[Canpinter]

Definition of feminism
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Words are hard.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...-to-Definition

feminism can have a few definitions, the professor was obviously using one that includes things like patriarchy theory.

[Endus]

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...-to-Definition

feminism can have a few definitions, the professor was obviously using one that includes things like patriarchy theory.

And? Regardless of her use, the central core is that it's about equal treatment of the sexes, not privileging women. That's not a different definition, it's a lie used to slander equal-rights movements.

[THE Bigzoman]

You can't know that the title is accurate before you read the thread. It also offers very little in the way of context. There are plenty of titles that will be things that might interest you for one reason or another, depending on what the actual content of the thread is.

This isn't a forum for bitching about feminism though, so your analogy is pretty terrible.

Then you could also just look the OP of the thread and make an assumption of the thread's content based on past threads.

The shit is really not that hard. You have 19 threads on the Gen-OT front page, all with various topics that you can spend your time in.

There's really no excuse for someone to not use their discretion if a certain poster or topic bothers them so much.

Because nobody really wants to hear people bitch about it for the umpteenth time.

[THE Bigzoman]

I'm not sure that "Hey, I think what you posted is stupid," really constitutes as "bothering them so much," but whatever floats your boat.

Hey man.


Just because I posted non-constructively in another one of your threads, talking about the same topic that you tend to post about, Cleary showing my dislike; that doesn't mean anything.

[THE Bigzoman]

Frankly, you seem more bothered than anyone right now.

No, not really.

You act as if my posts are never littered with sarcasm or jest.

I guess.