Hey, hostile visitors! Do you have an opinion about, for example, Mary Koss’ rape research? Do you want to discuss it even though the topic has not actually come up by itself in any of the threads and none of my recent posts really have much to do with the specifics of anyone’s rape research? Well, from now on you can discuss it here with anyone who wishes to follow you to this thread.
Added bonus: If you continue to try to discuss it in other threads you’ll be banned!
This also applies to future derailers riding hobbyhorses of their own having nothing to do with Koss.
Happy discussing!
Note: If you wish to discuss the topics at hand, you know, topics directly related to my posts and/or to what other people are discussing and that aren’t, you know, personal hobbyhorses of yours that involve long screeds and various things that you’ve probably already cut and pasted into the comments sections of various other websites until you were banned from them for endless derailing and general asswipery, feel free to remain in the original threads.
Even if it was the sole cause of the STEM wage gap — which it is not — I’m not sure how men and women being systematically taught gendered behaviours that make it impossible for women to earn as much money as men is not an example of discrimination.
But Viscaaaaaaaria, if it’s all because of socializatiiiiiion, then there’s obviously nothing we can do about it and we can all go home now.
QED.
@howardbann1ster:
The shame of rejection fills me with the cut of a thousand angry bees. Bees, my god.
Oh, then it passed. Guess it wasn’t all that bad. More like one little “Aww”: But my cortisol levels should be through the roof! Or… does that only happen sometimes? I forget, Minter wasn’t very clear.
And here we finally get to it. It’s what we’ve been working towards slowly, incrementally, with each and every post (Habit 7: Sharpening the Saw)
Namely: Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood
Well, don’t worry, I can pro-active, as I’ve shown, and I’ll make sure to keep our first things first when we synergize the information to allow for a great capacity of abundance when we both reach a mutually beneficial state of affairs so we can be said to have both benefitted greatly from the focused activities of our proactive synergization and integration of mutual perspectives in a coherent framework for approaching holistic synthesis of ideas across a wide spectrum for full effeciency and effectiveness when we finally penetrate to the core issue and attain full MARKET IMPACT!!!!!111111
—
No.
We don’t.
We don’t need to explain why you’re wrong from your point of view, because our point of view will do just fine. Your point of view presupposes that you are right, that we wrong, and if we explain everything from your perspective, your myopic focus means automatically that we would be wrong, and you, would be, in that case, right.
That’s not Habit 5! AND BY CORVEY AND EFFECIENCY, empathic listening implies understanding your ideas as you phrase them. Which we have done, repeatedly. Empathic listening is NOT parroting your words back to you in a slightly different turn of phrase to lull you into thinking we agree so we can manipulate you into achieving our mutual orgasm effeciency free drink blockquote corvery better people upwars slobs sluts osrry, sorry, sudden onset manboobz Tourettes.
But sure, fuck it, my dog is getting taken to vet in 12 hours and this is a way for me to channel all the bitterness of having cut 12 good years short.
SO:
(Aside, use greater-than signs instead of ]. Square brackets are only great for smileys :]
or :}
look at that little fella! )
We don’t have one.
Empathy!
“I am claiming that you have a problem with including these points in the discussion of gender equality, because if I do so, I subtly hint you want men to suffer and I am hoping that would also acknowledge that priviledge is bullshit, which it totally is”
False.
Eh.
More or less as I wanted it.
@pecunium
Nope, try again. You where quite very off base.
So when there is a difference that favors women, we can’t assume it’s gendered. It must have some other cause. When difference favors men, we must assume that it is gendered and discrimination is the cause?
Unless you’re willing to pre-suppose
that death is gendered
while pay is not
then no, we don’t.
Fibi — that was awesome, formatting errors or not. And I’m so sorry about your doggie!
@genderneutrallanguage:
First off, the wage gap isn’t an assumption; it’s a conclusion reached by analysis of the data.
Second, if I give you enough credit, then you have to show that men are being forced somehow into jobs that have high fatality rates. In reality, women want access to the same jobs (I remember someone linking to a women’s coal mining group), but are barred entry due to men who view women as too weak or frail or whatever.
GNL: Off base? Care to quote the part you think is off base?
Guess what, workplace deaths are more men than women because… women are excluded from the more dangerous jobs.
It’s not they can’t do them. It’s that men refuse to let them. That’s not on the women.
And… if we make the workplace safer, then fewer people die, men or women; but the greatest benefit will be to men (because right now men are the ones getting killed more often).
Again, you are just plain wrong, at the level of basic premise.
It’s like asking a 5 year old to explain the concept of equality. Entertaining, but not very practical or realistic.
Quick, a show of hands, who thinks I am misrepresenting/failing to understand PEMRAL?
“First off, the wage gap isn’t an assumption; it’s a conclusion reached by analysis of the data.”
No shit Sherlock. Both the death gap an wage gap are real. No one is debating that. The question is assumptions of cause.
“Unless you’re willing to pre-suppose
that death is gendered
while pay is not
then no, we don’t.”
Death is not gendered the question is assumptions of cause concerning gender differences.
Death is not gendered the question is assumptions of cause concerning gender differences.
So what do you think the cause is? And why?
*head explodes*
Genderneutrallanguage — try, for just a moment, to think. Please.
Now, while you have your thinking cap on, ponder this:
Safety regulations prevent workplace deaths.
Safety regulations apply to all workers, regardless their gender.
More safety regulations thus means less workplace deaths.
Since most employees in high risk jobs are men, more safety regulations would save the lives of more men than women.
STEM jobs are available to those who meet certain requirements (all all jobs).
Like the aforementioned dangerous jobs, various factors, which do not apper on paper, area used to keep women out of the field.
Eg. STEM jobs require certain degrees, in majors that women are not encouraged to enter (and in many cases, actively discouraged from entering)
Likewise, in STEM jobs, and all jobs, the person doing the hiring has certain notions of what a good candidate looks like.
In STEM jobs, and high risk jobs, that notion leans, heavily, towards male candidates.
For reasons unrelated to actual ability to do the job.
And actually, teaching too.
Women are seen as caregivers, and thus preferred for jobs involving children.
Now, what this all adds up to?
STEM jobs go to more men than women, because they are women.
High risk jobs, those with higher death rates, go more to men, because they are men.
Pay attention now, because this is the crux of the difference!
High risk job deaths do not affect men because they are men.
But because men are more likely to be the ones working those jobs.
If women worked those jobs at equal rates, then they’d be equally affected.
So then:
Preventing workplace deaths? Safety regulation.
Equal numbers of men and women in high risk jobs, STEM jobs, teaching jobs, etc? Less discrimination.
And yep, it’s all sexism.
High risk jobs keep women out because they’re seen as unfit, often because they’re supposedly smaller and less muscled and thus inherently unfit (I’ll get back to that)
STEM jobs keep women out because they’re seen as less competent with math and science and thus not encouraged to major in the required fields, and when they do, they’re often not seen as suitable candidates solely because of sexist hiring practices.
Not on paper, no no, that might get it changed, but in the minds of those in charge of hiring.
Teaching keeps men out because, wait for it, men aren’t seen as suitable caregivers because that’s women’s work.
So there again, if you want parity, you need to change the views on women — that caregiving is not solely women’s work, that women aren’t inherently better at it.
Now, as for women being “inherently unfit” for high risk jobs!
There was a discrimination case, not long ago, over women firefighters.
The training and testing practice required certain things.
Sensibly, women had to meet the same requirements as men.
Illogically, no changes at all would be made to how the tests were performed.
Sounds logic so far right? People needing saved don’t suddenly change weight or anything because the rescuer is a woman?
I don’t mean those requirements, or those sorts of changes.
I mean that women had to test wearing the same gear as men.
When gear with the same specs was available.
And more suited to smaller frames.
So instead of testing with gear that wasn’t sliding all over the place, women were testing in gear that was bashing them in the head.
Predictably, having your gear whack you in the head repeatedly is not conducive of passing any sort of test.
The women in question sued to be allowed to test with the gear they’d be working in.
Same specs, same rescuing ability, no change in function, just the form of the equipment.
Guess what?
With gear that was properly fitting, they started passing the tests.
Point here? We men are kept out by requirements that don’t explicitly say “no women” but in effect prevent women (and likely smaller men) form ever standing a shot.
Despite being just a capable in practice.
And iirc, the only gear change was making the belts tighten to smaller sizes.
Yeah, it’s that sort of tiny change that prevents women (and other smaller framed people) from meeting requirements.
Not that they only have to lift 75% what men do, not that they only have to run 75% as long, or haul whatever less, nope.
Just that the belts needed to be tighter.
So no, men working higher risk jobs is not sexism against men, but an artifact of men being *drum role* considered the default.
Gear is sized for you? You’re assumed the default.
Logic, you can haz it.
@pecunium
“You think women have more power than men,”
Not it at all. There are some people that think this. The people fighting to restrict access to birth control think this. It is not my position.
So, your completely off base. Try again.
@genderneuterallanguage:
No no, you misunderstand. The data shows that the wage gap is caused by gender and race (when you control properly for other variables). That is the conclusion reached by analysis of the data. Since you called the gender-cause an assumption, I assumed you’d know what I meant.
@Argenti Aertheri
So the entirety of every thing is always sexist against women and only women? Even when it’s bad for men it’s caused by sexism against women. When it’s good for women. Sexism against women. When it’s good for men, that 110% sexism against women.
On the TERFs and their horrible definition of “cis-“:
The argument they’re making is based, very literally, on illiteracy. They don’t understand the difference between a suffix (such as -cise and -cide, which appear in words like excise, homicide, and so forth, and very much do mean ‘cut’ or ‘kill’) and a prefix–in this case, cis-. I can’t think of any examples of -cise or -cide being used at the front of a word, therefore the similarity between cis- and -cise is very clearly an accident of linguistics.
GNL: What do you want?
How do you propose to get it?
If you can’t get it, what is an acceptable compromise?
@genderneuterallanguage:
Yeah… you really need to drop the hyperbole and actually listen to what people are saying. They can’t be simplified to “everything is only ever sexism against women.” Go grow up a little, then come back to us when you’re ready to engage.
@Argent Aertheri:
Thank you. It’s weird, because she seems so completely fine now.
Anyway – good use of examples. I did not know about the firemen, but it’s an interesting tidbit.
Of course, belts are misandry, as genderneutronaldensity has just proven.
Things that are not misandry – giving a man a blow job just because he asked.
Things that are misandry – everything else.
I’d heard about women firefighters in the past, but I hadn’t heard about the equipment difference… Yikes.
And you just know that, beyond the additional physical exertion needed to wear ill-fitting gear, the stereotyping effect was probably in full force. The women were constantly reminded by the gear they wore that people thought they weren’t supposed to be there, that they were considered weaker or less capable, so they performed poorly as a result.
The constant repetitions of “try to keep up” are particularly amusing when the only point he tries to make is “Oh, so you think bad things ONLY happen to women, is that it??”
Did you even read what Argenti wrote? Because your response doesn’t make any sense. Yes, it is sexism against women that is keeping women out of dangerous jobs. Men are over represented in workplace deaths because they are able to get those jobs, many of which have a higher pay than pink collar jobs. I don’t think I can simplify this any further.
There are two ways to get gender parity in workplace deaths, either by increasing the number of women dying or decreasing the number of men dying. I would rather our society reduce all workplace deaths, but MRA’s aren’t interested in things like OSHA or workplace safety. That makes me wonder if their real agenda is to increase the number of women dying.