Categories
off topic open thread shut up shut up shut up TROOOLLLL!!

Thread for Hostile Visitors to Endlessly Rehash the Issues They Have With Feminist Research or Whatever

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.

1.2K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Viscaria
Viscaria
12 years ago

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.

howardbann1ster
12 years ago

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.

Fibinachi
Fibinachi
12 years ago

@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.

You can prove me wrong by telling me what you think I’m saying from my point of view. If you really understand me, that isn’t very hard.

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! )

Now, where is the problem with me wanting to include these points that YOU made in the discussion of gender equality?

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.

The point that I disagree on is that this goal can be achieved by making the workplace safer for the 3% of workplace deaths that are women. We need to focus on the 97% of workplace deaths that are men.

We don’t, because it’s taken care of with occupational hazard guidelines!
Empathy!

“I am stating that the cause of occupational deaths have a sexual component which must be addressed, and that guides to bring down occupational deaths must be focused on males because they suffer 97 % of them. My assumption here is that the greater part of any death in the workspace comes about as a result of your gender-sex identification than the work you do, the environment you do it in and the strategies you do it with.”
False.

Your linked blog, Priviledge:

Men are accorded higher value in the work place. Males have superior positions in government. I say no. Men are not privileged. Women have higher reproductive values. Women are accorded higher value in the home and have superior positions in social circles. Women have value as human BEings. Men only have value as human DOings. In the grand scheme of things men are not valued more than women…
o say that White Men are privileged is to set the bar at women and minorities. This is just a bad place to set the bar. No one should be discriminated against. Saying that White Men are privileged is saying everyone should be discriminated against. While equality, it is not an equality that I want.

Empathy!
“I define priviledge as men always succeeding, forever, but since men have no inherent value and are given value by what they do, not who they are, that must be wrong. In the grand scheme of things, men are not valued more than women. Some men have unearned priviledge as part of their situation, and this is the same as setting a bar, because I can adopted a two dimensional approach, like a spectrum, between equal and unequal and stating one thing rather than the other is wrong. I think that by saying “Male priviledge is a thing”, I am saying that women don’t deserve anything. I think that by saying “Male priviledge”; I am willing to admit that everyone should be treated like white men, but I am unwilling to admit that white men are treated differently than some other groups”

Not false.
Just obstuse and inconsistent. IF white men ARE the PAR, then white men must be treated differently than others, so talking about white priviledge is a perfectly adaquate statement of their status compared to others. Bonus: Trying to chalk off the “Unearned” bit. It’s unearned for a reason – not because everyone is parasite, but because it’s an accident of birth and geography rather than any other trait. Luck. Lowest difficulty. Nothing else.

Feminism keeps saying “equality” but fighting for “sameness”. Is there something wrong with most engineers being men? Are men and women the same? Is this one of the differences? Is the goal that men and women have the same OPPORTUNITY to be engineers? How do we measure and test opportunity to see if we have it?

How about school teachers. 20% of engineers are women, but only about 5% of school teachers are men. If we should be fighting for sameness and gender parity then fixing gender parity in schools should be a much higher priority than engineers. Children are growing up seeing a gender segregated work place, the school. If parity is important, this is the most important parity to achieve.”

Your Linked Blog: Equality or Sameness.

Empathy!
“How do we measure oppertuniy and see if we have it? Standardized entry requirements are notoriously prone to just showing what people know and have learned, so clearly they won’t do in figuring out what people know and have learned. I think that the overabundance of engineers being male is the same as a large amount of school teachers being female, but instead of thinking about why this is, I want to start focusing on one area first, to solve things, because to me parity and equality means sameness. Really, it’s fine that most men are engineers, and it makes me worried that we sometimes wonder why more females aren’t, so let’s just stop asking that question before we arrive at some conclusion like “socialization” or “entry requirements” or “demographics”.
If men and women are the same, why is the focus on “Male dominated spaces” like engineering and Tech? Why is it not on schools and teaching children through example and experience about operating in an environment with gender parity. Because the two things are VERY different, and different answers must be found for both, and we can’t talk about one as long as we haven’t mentioned the other, and women are really better off being school teachers anyway, the silly creatures.”

False.
Also, category errors and missing the underlying point. ALso, focus is done on schools and teaching positions. And you can test by oppertunity by testing for oppertunity, tautologically enough. It just requires asking “Can anyone who fills standards get in, and are those standards attainable through practice in the public or private education network, and not through an inherent feature of ones neurology or biology? Also, are our tuition fees reasonable?”
Done.

This is my advice for reclaiming the word “Feminism” and the label “Feminist”. When ever you log in to write a post, look at the last 20 posts tagged “Feminism”. If there isn’t one clearly saying “This is not a feminist, even though they claim to be”, write one. Keep one post in the most recent 20 rejecting people’s use of the label “Feminist” This is how you kick people off the stage.

Your linked blog, Reclaiming “Feminism”

Empathy!

“I think a human rights movement, focusing on the trials and travels of a group of people in the 21st century, should dedicate 5 % of their time, energy and output to excluding people they don’t agree with, so that other people who will attack their opinions can no longer find targets. INstead of taking time to post useful, informative and interesting information, you should heed public opinion and spew vitrol at random names and people in an attempt to prove how focused, tightly controlled and reasonable you are. The opinion of others are very, very important in deciding how to do your own work. PR is best done by suppression of discussion and by distancing from others, in a constant refrain of “You are not enough of a believer!”.”

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE.
Also, what people belive is their issue. You seem to know just fine feminism isn’t an attack word. I know it. This blog knows it. Feminist know it. Anyone interested in finding out knows. But you’d rather spend time worrying about someone maybe insulting you by calling you a feminist than help talk about rape culture. SPeaking of rape culture:

There is a lot of talk about equality in the “STEM” fields of study. Men dominate these high demand, high paying very rigorous courses of study. There is talk of quotas and affirmative actions to get more women into these fields. Parity, not equality is the goal.

For that I say, sure, one one condition. “STEM” fields are not the only ones that are very gendered. “HAM” Humanities Arts and Medicine are also very gendered. Women are 2/3 of college students. Women are closer to 3/4 of the HAM students. If parity is the goal lets get parity in all fields of study. Lets limit male participation in Computer science to the level of female interest. Lets also limit female participation in “Women’s Studies” to the level of male interest.

Equality is equality. Parity is parity. If either is important, it needs to be important for both male dominated and female dominated fields of study.

Empathy!
“I believe that other peoples choices are mine to control and mine to dictate, to fulfill my own needs and own desires, because personal decicions are silly. We should limit participation in one area in order to adress activities in another area. Progress in social justice movements come from more segration, more exclusion and more division. Other peoples choices are meaningless, and they shouldn’t be allowed to make them, the poor dears”

False. And nicely condenscending. And fallacious.

This is not limited to feminism. This is not an aspect of feminism. It does illuminate much of what feminism talks about. Look at patriarchy Theory. Patriarchy Theory is the foundation of feminism. The single agent fallacy is the foundation of Patriarchy theory. Patriarchy Theory only works if women have never been agents. It only works if you look at reality through the paradigm of single agents. Patriarchy theory only holds water if women where not manipulating and using men at the same time men where manipulating and using women. It needs to be directional to work.

Your Linked Blog: Single Agent Theory

Note: The actual idea here is a pretty good one, and remembering that most people in an argument can act and think is fine. Your chess model doesn’t quite work, because there’s plenty of examples of games where multiple actors play at the same time, but I like the notion. So kudos to you for that. However:

Empathy!
“Patriarchy theory doesn’t work because it assumes that no women has any agency, which is what my understanding of it amounts to. Clearly, since women do have agency, the entire notion of patriarchy theory as an explanation of social movements is completely bunk, because it is not bidirectional, and any attempts to explain the differences anyway can be assumed to be false and lies.”

False, but not in the way you think. No one argues that the notion of “Patriarchy” implies that women just meakly fall over and do everything a man says, for all of history. Here’s a fun quote: “Rape is the spearhead of the patriarchy”. Do you agree? No? Yes? Do I agree? No? Yes?
Doesn’t matter. You know what happens to people who violently does disagree?
Check this blog for that. It was legal to toss women into an asylum for several hundred years in England. Patriarchy is real enough, and a valid theory, and you can’t disprove it by assuming it assumes women have no agency. It doesn’t, It assumes the agency of men is giving precedence, to use your terms.

“Rape Culture” is not a useful thing to talk about to help end rape. We are not talking about “Murder Culture” or “WMD Culture”. Rape is not a monolithic homogenize thing. Homicide is the same way. If a person is the victim of homicide they are dead. It doesn’t matter if that homicide was Premeditated Murder or vehicular manslaughter. The affects on the victim are the same. The law treat the perpetrators of these crimes very differently. “Rape Culture” prevents this very important distinctions from being made.

YOur linked blog, Rape Culture.

Empathy!

“I think vehicular manslaughter, accidental manslaughter and homicide are the same thing. Accidental deaths are the same as intentional murder. And this carries over to rape! Because every dead person died in exactly the same way, there is no difference about it and no legal differences either, but rape is such a huge, grey field, that talking about rape culture is negative and bad and impossible and also doesn’t tell us anything and means we can no longer make jokes, because EVERY JOKE EVER; relies on making fun of rape survivors, especially when Fibi says…”

FAL-SA-LICIOUS. Da-da-da-da-! Falsalicious! Da da daaaaa! And dances around in a salsa outfit while wonderful music plays in the background.
She moves, she moves, na na na…

See? Because of rape culture, that joke wasn’t funny at all and no one reading it cracked a smile imagining what their mental representation of me is dance around a living room while salsa music plays.

No one.

Categorization implies categories, rape culture is a descriptor, and as a descriptor, it works very, very well in describing the trivilization of survivirs. A rant against random has, as you pointed out, a very good definition. You just misunderstood it.

We assume it’s a fact of life because it is. This does not make it a good thing. It does not mean that we should do nothing. It does mean that total eradication of everything “Rape” is simply not possible. Rape is a fact of life, just like illness. We fight illness, as we should. No one ever gets sick again is such a pie in sky day dream that not even sci-fi movies pose it as a possibility. Rape is very much like an illness. We should treat the symptoms. We should also identify risk factors, and reduce them. There is also the underlying infection that needs to be treated. We should do all of this knowing full well that we can never “Win”. We shouldn’t even try to win. The only way to insure that no one ever gets sick or raped again would be to kill everyone right now.

Your Linked Blog: Man Hating Rape Culture:

Empathy
“The bigoted defintion of this piece of writing is bigoted, rape is a fact of life that will just happen, vigilance is a protection against something while relaxation means shying away, and you can’t have both of them! If you want your rape threats, you need to have your rapes! If you want your actual rapes, you can’t have the threat of rapes! What it be, feminists?”

False.
And let me make one thing fucking clear here:

Homo sapien sapiens put members of our own species on an extraplanar body.

Homo sapien sapiens eradicated polio.

We envisioned, organized, built and finally shut into space a permanently orbiting habitat capable of sustaining life in the void between stars.

We have pierced the mantle of the earth to a depth of just near 30 kilometres and extracted from this gaping hole materials and black blood of the earth.

I am writing this to you over an electronic interface that, by pressing mechanical buttons, translates pressure into an electric signal to pass along a pipeline stretching the world to re-arrange, on your screen, a pattern of light that will communicate my meaning to you.

WE HAVE MADE ELECTRONS CARRY OUR MESSAGES.

Right now, at this instant, I can go get a cup of coffee at a scummy bar, because a plant that doesn’t grow in this hemisphere has been planted, harvested, packaged up and transported thousands and thousands of miles by back breaking possible illegal labour, moved across oceans and finally used in a machine invented to avoid that same plant poisoning me when I drink the liquid extracted from it.

Do not. DO NOT tell me that “Rape is a fact of life”. . That is bullshit. The Lucifer Principle implies the constant ongoing existence of what we call “Evil”, not that it will always be there.

You’re not a bad person, from reading your blog. You seem sincere and honest and like you think about things. Good. Keep doing that.

But do not look at this electronic interface transporting messages by breaking down signals into component chunks of mathematical symbols and tell me, TELL ME, that we just have to accept it. I don’t even have to accept the colour of my hair or my eyes or my nails, I certainly do not have to accept the idea that “Rape just is”.

Good sir, with all my honest appreciation of your seeming decent person-ness, fuck you.

Men objectifying women is not really an issue. Women presenting themselves as objects is.

Same article.

Empathy!
“Men objectifying women is not really an issue. Women presenting themselves as objects is. ”

no

Now lets look at the two parts of the slogan. “Don’t teach women how to avoid rape” This is quite very clear. Don’t Teach women. Women shouldn’t ever need to preform basic risk analysis. We don’t teach women to lock the car door so it doesn’t get stolen. We don’t teach women to look both ways before crossing the street to avoid getting hit. We don’t teach women not to shove forks into electrical outlets to avoid being electrocuted. We don’t teach women defensive driving to avoid car accidents. We don’t teach women how to minimize risks of identity theft.

no. No. No. NO. NO NO NO NO NO

I no longer want to play the empathy game. It was fun for a while, but buckle down while I bust out Habit 8!

Habit 8: Find your voices and inspire others to find theirs:

Listen mate, Mr. Genderneutral, in this debate I must debate
and with these few words rebate your dictate post hate
even though it’s getting late and half my brain is churning with hate:

Your statement is thus that women objectify themselves
OBJECTION
And you call rape culture most man-hating, terrible
INVENTION
And in your quick jab quick snap attacks you’ve said that
parity in death is a genuine desire, and not at all due to some
CONVENTION
As an honourable mention: This fills me with fucking reprehension, tension, quivering
dread attention.

You pull out Cor-vey and we should listen with Empathy
And sympathy
And lay off the mockery
and listening to your snoggery fobbery
But I must disagree
Because to me
All the time I just spent have left me spent, d’see
thinking that risk assesment is the same as identity theft
is the same rape
and while people go to the moon, you have the gall
to heft that you objectify yourself, no one else, and it isn’t my fault
you’re dressed like a slut!

Rape is just a fact of life! Educating men is misandry! Feminists are hateful!
AND THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE

It’s not! We’ve been there.

So take a minute from your mad quest
accept my request
step down from your bitter need to defend
and try to spend some time to comprehend
that JenniferP of Awkward Fame
is a decent feminist, and I can attest
that that letter you called out wasn’t her best
But so what, here’s an inquest:
(But not one for homicide, cuz I don’t need one, I just know he died)
If I’m not up for excluding on account of polluting my movement
and don’t want to define my range as the limit of my sight
because I just might
be blind or wrong, or hold my beliefs too strong
will you pretend that you can ascend up on high
and look down at me from the sky, to make amends
between my lack of belief in your words and reality?
Because I must be wrong, right, to want to wrong less than I might
and exclusion is fine, because you need to drive things apart
It’s an apart! Being neutral is the heart of all things, and if being neutral
means I should remember to say:
That it’s okay for women to die, then Good sir,
Good day
Don’t step in the bees on your way out and try not to sneak your way about
because in the darkness you find yourself
so cooped up in your mind
You might just walk into a wall of facts
and go blind

(Not blind because you suffer any damage, mind
but blind
because you have to SHUT YOUR EYES
AND BLOCK YOUR SIGHT
Because goddamn, son, you must have your eyes closed to miss this much
Despite damn right trying to keep right and avoid being a blight on mens rights

No respite: You need to stay in at night and keep reading until you get it right
I’ve overused right for this rhyme, damn, I’m runing of out style

If you claim that consent must be found, formed and filled in triplicate
then I bust pontificate
that your content is not written with intent to understand

But with a notion that knowledge is for other people, and your bias is what makes you rigt—
Uhm.

Predictable in your data selection
(No one reading that laughed, because Rape Culture means we can’t have humor)

That was Stephen Corvey’s Book, the Habits of 7 Highly Effectual People and the sequel, The 8th Habit, summed up in a few blog posts.
You’re all welcome, you’re all radically awesome, and now I have to go euthanize my beloved pet. Good night.

Fibinachi
Fibinachi
12 years ago

Eh.

More or less as I wanted it.

genderneutrallanguage
12 years ago

@pecunium
Nope, try again. You where quite very off base.

No, we can’t apply that to the STEM wage gap. The STEM wage gap is when women are paid less for being women. Workplace deaths don’t occur more to men because they’re men. Bosses aren’t walking around shooting subordinates for being men. Men make up a greater proportion of workplace deaths because they choose jobs where workplace deaths are more likely to happen. Different causes, different solutions.

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?

Fibinachi
Fibinachi
12 years ago

Unless you’re willing to pre-suppose
that death is gendered
while pay is not
then no, we don’t.

Argenti Aertheri
12 years ago

Fibi — that was awesome, formatting errors or not. And I’m so sorry about your doggie!

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
12 years ago

@genderneutrallanguage:

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?

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.

pecunium
12 years ago

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.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
12 years ago

It’s like asking a 5 year old to explain the concept of equality. Entertaining, but not very practical or realistic.

pecunium
12 years ago

Quick, a show of hands, who thinks I am misrepresenting/failing to understand PEMRAL?

genderneutrallanguage
12 years ago

“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.

pecunium
12 years ago

Death is not gendered the question is assumptions of cause concerning gender differences.

So what do you think the cause is? And why?

Argenti Aertheri
12 years ago

*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.

genderneutrallanguage
12 years ago

@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.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
12 years ago

@genderneuterallanguage:

“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.

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.

genderneutrallanguage
12 years ago

@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.

freemage
freemage
12 years ago

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.

pecunium
12 years ago

GNL: What do you want?

How do you propose to get it?

If you can’t get it, what is an acceptable compromise?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
12 years ago

@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.

Fibinachi
Fibinachi
12 years ago

@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.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
12 years ago

Things that are not misandry – giving a man a blow job just because he asked.

Things that are misandry – everything else.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
12 years ago

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.

katz
12 years ago

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??”

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
12 years ago

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.

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.

1 13 14 15 16 17 47