Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2014, 08:01 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 07:31 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 07:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  I've done that. They don't get it. Facepalm

I kind of figured that. I mean after all the biggest problem with Libertarians is this little thing called 'reality' after all, and if they're adept enough at ignoring it, I highly doubt some quote poster will change their mind. It'll certainly point out their stupidity and hypocrisy for the crowd, and sometimes all you can do is play to your audience.

You should actually read the 'debate' that I got that image from. Classic.

http://www.debate.org/debates/Social-Dar...-theory/1/

If you want to have even more fun, try visiting the social darwinist "libertarian" areas of youtube. Boy howdy do those motherfuckers get racist fast.

"I believe that things should be meritocratic, therefore things are purely meritocratic. People who are worse off are just inferior. Logic! That I am relatively well of is a total coincidence."

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
20-10-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 06:15 AM)MadDog Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iFl4qhBsE. Emma Watson Giving speech to UN. I'm not an ignoramus One Above All. Us men are not oblvious to the hardships of being a woman. Of the particurly awkward situation our attraction creates, particularly in teenage years when it is not recipricated like Emma pointed out. But every time feminism is preached it hits a raw nerve for guys who have done nothing but love and protect women. There is no maleism after all. Pay inequality is shallow, all the women in my life have 'suffered' this because egalatarian men have worked their asses off to provide for the women that prefer to spend time with the children, or honestly find working too stressful. This isn't allways the case - every situation is different. To men in my circle the word feminism comes across like a big middle finger because too many high profile women have said silly things about 'all' men because of their own personal situation and belief system. There is no conspiracy theory that dimishes women in the workforce where I can see - maybe Australia is simply a liberated country in that respect. Go to a feminist website - their pages should be full of the damage done to women in muslim countries. Is there?

So are you going to say what "maleism" is at any given point in this... conversation?

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 02:41 PM)One Above All Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 06:15 AM)MadDog Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iFl4qhBsE. Emma Watson Giving speech to UN. I'm not an ignoramus One Above All. Us men are not oblvious to the hardships of being a woman. Of the particurly awkward situation our attraction creates, particularly in teenage years when it is not recipricated like Emma pointed out. But every time feminism is preached it hits a raw nerve for guys who have done nothing but love and protect women. There is no maleism after all. Pay inequality is shallow, all the women in my life have 'suffered' this because egalatarian men have worked their asses off to provide for the women that prefer to spend time with the children, or honestly find working too stressful. This isn't allways the case - every situation is different. To men in my circle the word feminism comes across like a big middle finger because too many high profile women have said silly things about 'all' men because of their own personal situation and belief system. There is no conspiracy theory that dimishes women in the workforce where I can see - maybe Australia is simply a liberated country in that respect. Go to a feminist website - their pages should be full of the damage done to women in muslim countries. Is there?

So are you going to say what "maleism" is at any given point in this... conversation?

I dunno, let's start by assuming MadDog here is a "maleist" and see what that gives us.

If so, "maleism" apparently consists of:
representing personal anecdotes as reliable data
massive persistent false generalisation
nonsensical whataboutism

I don't see what that particularly has to do with males other than making us all look bad, though..

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
20-10-2014, 06:32 PM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, fuck you too. Drinking Beverage

Just returning the snark--you started your first response "for fuck's sake...".


Quote:Well fuck me, I guess the concept of 'priority' really is just too much for you to grasp. You're worried about burning your microwave popcorn while the house itself is on fire...

There is only so much time, effort, and energy that these organizations can bring to bear on a very limited number of issues and fronts. So the much larger and systemic inequality, which almost always favors men over women, takes priority. While we agree that what you pointed out is an inequality, it is not one that currently demands the attention when there are larger problems that need fixing first. So yeah, 'bitching' about it is apt, as it is meant to me dismissive when one of the most privileged creatures in human history (the American male) happens to fall behind in one instance. So yes whining about that, in light of the bigger picture, is 'bitching'.

Pass that one on to the MRA guys, they're generally not doing anything more constructive than trolling reddit and 4chan anyways.

[snip]

Great, so women are slightly ahead in one particular instance. Does this mean that gender inequality is now behind us, or that men are anywhere near as disadvantaged as women currently are on the whole? What am I saying, that requires more than a myopic view of the whole situation, silly me.

You have made yourself abundantly clear that you do not actually hold the belief that gender equality is of equal importance for both genders. You couldn't have undermined your claim to espouse equal treatment for the genders any better than you just did. Now, a little honesty might be helpful here. You appear to hold the belief that the past and current disadvantages women face is a higher priority to address than those disadvantages, if any, men face. That might be a justifiable argument to make when trying to address a historic (and ongoing) discrimination. But then you CANNOT also claim you support the equal treatment for men as much as you do for women. You are arguing that any disadvantages the 20% of men face for not getting a college degree that women get is worth the price to improve the situation for women. That is VERY different than your claim of gender neutrality.





Quote:Right, so a Forbes article (a site that skews heavily conservative and establishment, which ironically are those most threatened by women's advancement) with zero citation or statistics. So it's effectively a self-gratifying opinion piece.

Pro-Tip: Finding the first link in Google that agrees with you is not research.

Guess what, I can do that too!

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04...-gap-myth/
If you are going to pull out the snark, you should bother to read your own sources. In this case, you rely primarily on wiki. I'll address your selective posting of that wiki info below.

Quote:Also, did you ever stop to think that maybe because women don't have the same access (or conversely, the same desire) to low-education/high-risk/high-paying jobs, that just maybe that could be the reason why more women are seeking higher education? That they're trying to offset the pay and opportunity gap with education?



Have you ever looked at the pool of applicants for dangerous work? I have, by the way, in the skilled construction trades. If you had, you would see there are almost no women who apply for those fields, and little by way of claims of discrimination in these fields. Women are much more likely to sue over being passed over for promotion to be a manager in a business setting than, say, sue for discrimination over not being offered a job in construction . You make it seem as if women would just love the opportunity to work high risk, dangerous jobs--as if men actually prefer these jobs over others for some reason other than the pay. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

Quote:Also, those stats showed that while women did earn more degrees and certificates, they also had a lead in enrollment. Men can't get degrees that they're not going to school for. Now whether or not there is discrimination against men in favor of women is an honest question, but I'd be surprised if it was anything more than men not needing to seek higher education as often because they already have better access to low-education jobs with better wages.


Right...silly me. There are 20% more women enrolling for college, and that couldn't possibly be related in any way to the kind of preparation and experience males have in primary and secondary education? So the past couple generations of focus on preparing and encouraging women to go to college was just some silly exercise that coincidentally resulted in many more women prepared for and applying for college?

Men, and not just women, are pressured to conform to gender role stereotypes. Many men feel obligated to be "the provider" and are willing to accept dangerous work to fulfill that stereotypical role. Instead of considering the possibility that men take these dangerous jobs due to the unfair expectation that they fulfill the role of breadwinner, you assume only that men have the unfair advantage and "opportunity" to die at a rate of 13+ times as frequently as women in the work place. Many of the men I know in these high risk industries are in these jobs only because they feel obligated to be their family's breadwinner, and if they felt they could achieve in college and not be exposed to the risks they face on these jobs while making a good living, they would do just that.


Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_...ted_States

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers. Women's median yearly earnings relative to men's rose rapidly from 1980 to 1990 (from 60.2% to 71.6%), and less rapidly from 1990 to 2000 (from 71.6% to 73.7%) and from 2000 to 2009 (from 73.7% to 77.0%).[22][23]

The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, the U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%.[7]

The gender pay gap has been attributed to differences in personal and workplace characteristics between women and men (education, hours worked, occupation etc.) as well as direct and indirect discrimination in the labor market (gender stereotypes, customer and employer bias etc.).[24][25][26]

The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[27] and 7%[28] for federal jobs, and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress.[28] One economist testified to Congress that hundreds of studies have consistently found unexplained pay differences which potentially include discrimination.[28] Another criticized these studies as insufficiently controlled, and opined that men and women would have equal pay if they made the same choices and had the same experience, education, etc.[27] Other studies have found direct evidence of discrimination. For example, fewer replies to identical resumes if sent by women with children than by men with children[28] and more jobs for women when orchestras moved to blind auditions (though the data was mixed on this, since, in normal orchestra interviews, women were preferentially chosen over men for some instruments, such as the flute).[27]

You include a section of the wiki article, but do not make mention of this part, so I will quote it now:
Quote:According to the most recent release by the U.S. Department of Labor (http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Ge...eport.pdf)"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers." The differences in the opinion of a variety of different sources, economists and think tanks have lead many to believe that corrective action may be necessary in the future if evidence is found that widespread discrimination is happening in the work place among every business, but until hard evidence is provided things ought to stay the same.

So the US Dept of Labor commissioned a study that found that although additional research may be needed, there may be nothing to correct. And the "unambiguous result" they found was that "the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action".

Quote:"Unless you are accusing women of being self loathing,"

You do realize that our voting system is systemically broken (first past the post voting will always devolve into a two-party system), don't you?

That females don't make up anything close to 50% of eligible candidates, don't you?

That woman don't make up 50% of the voting options in the booth on election day, don't you?

You know you can't effectively vote for candidates who aren't there, don't you?


Women currently hold 99 of 535 seats in Congress, roughly 18.5% representation for the gender that makes up over 50% of the population.


Need I go on, or do you realize just how fucking stupid that statement was?

According to Rutgers' Center for American Women and Politics, the share of the voters that is female has exceeded that of male since at least 1964, and has increased over time.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/v...erdiff.pdf
According to the 2012 datapoint, there were about 16% more women voters then men voters in the 2012 election. Candidate nomination rules vary state by state, but these same voters can vote for candidates in primary elections. Only those states that rely on party caucuses for candidate selection could be subjected to good 'ol boy procedures that could exclude female candidates. You've failed to point out how ballot access is unfair or unequal for women.

Your point is correct, though, that not enough women are in politics despite the clear advantage of women representation of voters in the polling both. However political talent, like executive management in business, is developed over time. The trend towards a larger share of women in office is rather obviously towards increased shared of office holders being women. (99 women now, 90 in 2009, 82 in 2005, 73 in 2001, 63 in 1997, 54 in 1993 and so on....ref: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/l...s/cong.pdf ) Considering the advantages of incumbency, the rise in female representation at the federal level is good, but clearly more is needed.

I don't disagree with the point that there are areas where women still are behind the status of men, such as in positions of political or executive power in business. However what I do disagree with is your position that the corrections to these problems necessarily requires ignoring ways in which men are disadvantaged.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 11:49 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2014 11:54 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, fuck you too. Drinking Beverage
Just returning the snark--you started your first response "for fuck's sake...".

Well, fuck you too. Drinking Beverage


(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well fuck me, I guess the concept of 'priority' really is just too much for you to grasp. You're worried about burning your microwave popcorn while the house itself is on fire...

There is only so much time, effort, and energy that these organizations can bring to bear on a very limited number of issues and fronts. So the much larger and systemic inequality, which almost always favors men over women, takes priority. While we agree that what you pointed out is an inequality, it is not one that currently demands the attention when there are larger problems that need fixing first. So yeah, 'bitching' about it is apt, as it is meant to me dismissive when one of the most privileged creatures in human history (the American male) happens to fall behind in one instance. So yes whining about that, in light of the bigger picture, is 'bitching'.

Pass that one on to the MRA guys, they're generally not doing anything more constructive than trolling reddit and 4chan anyways.

[snip]

Great, so women are slightly ahead in one particular instance. Does this mean that gender inequality is now behind us, or that men are anywhere near as disadvantaged as women currently are on the whole? What am I saying, that requires more than a myopic view of the whole situation, silly me.
You have made yourself abundantly clear that you do not actually hold the belief that gender equality is of equal importance for both genders.

You can think that, but you'd be wrong. I just think that we live in reality, where we all have limited means, and that re-balancing things for those who have a long history of systemic discrimination against them takes priority over shoring up those who already have a significant lead in most other cases.

Is it really that fucking hard to understand?



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  You couldn't have undermined your claim to espouse equal treatment for the genders any better than you just did.

So I guess coming to terms with reality and the way the world works somehow undermines my ideals? Facepalm



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Now, a little honesty might be helpful here. You appear to hold the belief that the past and current disadvantages women face is a higher priority to address than those disadvantages, if any, men face.

In general, yes. And given how fucking stupid and completely lacking in any nuance your bitching has been, you have failed to be at all compelling. All you have is 'women are getting more degrees than men', with zero attempt to explore why that may be without bitching about how men are 'clearly' being discriminated against. No exploration of how the greater number of female degrees matches the greater female enrollment, or any attempt to explore the reasons of why more women are enrolling in college than men. Nope, men are clearly being discriminated against because <reasons>, and Forbes agreed with you that the pay-gap is bullshit (sans any statistics or studies to support their conclusions).

Not compelling at all. You have a shitty case, so don't whine to me when we dismiss your bitching as just that; bitching.



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  That might be a justifiable argument to make when trying to address a historic (and ongoing) discrimination. But then you CANNOT also claim you support the equal treatment for men as much as you do for women. You are arguing that any disadvantages the 20% of men face for not getting a college degree that women get is worth the price to improve the situation for women. That is VERY different than your claim of gender neutrality.

See my explanation above. Your view about this particular 'discrimination' is so myopic it is childish.



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, so a Forbes article (a site that skews heavily conservative and establishment, which ironically are those most threatened by women's advancement) with zero citation or statistics. So it's effectively a self-gratifying opinion piece.

Pro-Tip: Finding the first link in Google that agrees with you is not research.

Guess what, I can do that too!

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04...-gap-myth/
If you are going to pull out the snark, you should bother to read your own sources. In this case, you rely primarily on wiki. I'll address your selective posting of that wiki info below.

Did you not read the ThinkProgress article that torpedo's all of the facile arguments in your Forbes article? Granted they don't post links to peer-reviewed studies either, but I think they make better arguments.

I also grabbed the entire section on Gender Pay Gap in the United States, and the link went directly to that specific section. I did not quote mine, I quoted the entire section I specifically linked to. It was meant to show how much more nuance there is whenever the professionals are dealing with the raw numbers, and trying to determine what they mean and what to do about it. Your Forbes article was childish in comparison to a Wikipedia article, and that's just sad.



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, did you ever stop to think that maybe because women don't have the same access (or conversely, the same desire) to low-education/high-risk/high-paying jobs, that just maybe that could be the reason why more women are seeking higher education? That they're trying to offset the pay and opportunity gap with education?
Have you ever looked at the pool of applicants for dangerous work? I have, by the way, in the skilled construction trades. If you had, you would see there are almost no women who apply for those fields, and little by way of claims of discrimination in these fields.

Okay, you almost have the germ of a good idea, and yet fail to see how this completely torpedo's your college degree bitching.

Maybe the reasons more women are in college and get more degrees is because more are applying to college than men! Men can't get degrees they don't go to school for, much like how women can't get jobs in construction they don't apply for! Facepalm



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Women are much more likely to sue over being passed over for promotion to be a manager in a business setting than, say, sue for discrimination over not being offered a job in construction . You make it seem as if women would just love the opportunity to work high risk, dangerous jobs--as if men actually prefer these jobs over others for some reason other than the pay. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

Well, with assholes like you in construction, is it any wonder no women would want to work with you? Consider



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, those stats showed that while women did earn more degrees and certificates, they also had a lead in enrollment. Men can't get degrees that they're not going to school for. Now whether or not there is discrimination against men in favor of women is an honest question, but I'd be surprised if it was anything more than men not needing to seek higher education as often because they already have better access to low-education jobs with better wages.
Right...silly me. There are 20% more women enrolling for college, and that couldn't possibly be related in any way to the kind of preparation and experience males have in primary and secondary education? So the past couple generations of focus on preparing and encouraging women to go to college was just some silly exercise that coincidentally resulted in many more women prepared for and applying for college?

Encouraging women to go into higher education =/= discouraging men to go into higher education. Facepalm

Try harder...



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Men, and not just women, are pressured to conform to gender role stereotypes.

Correct, just like those stereotypes that discourage women from taking high-risk-low-education jobs. You know, like construction.



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Many men feel obligated to be "the provider" and are willing to accept dangerous work to fulfill that stereotypical role. Instead of considering the possibility that men take these dangerous jobs due to the unfair expectation that they fulfill the role of breadwinner, you assume only that men have the unfair advantage and "opportunity" to die at a rate of 13+ times as frequently as women in the work place. Many of the men I know in these high risk industries are in these jobs only because they feel obligated to be their family's breadwinner, and if they felt they could achieve in college and not be exposed to the risks they face on these jobs while making a good living, they would do just that.

But they are men, and there is nothing stopping them from going to college and getting a degree. There is simply no systemic discrimination that prevents men from earning a college degree. If they choose to take a job with high pay and high risk, that is their choice. If they want a safer job, they can get one that is safer but pays less. If they want the same pay, but that requires a better education, they have that option. Not only that, but once they have a degree, they'll be more likely to be hired in almost any field than a woman with an identical education and work history simply because they are a man.

You are pulling at straws here.



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_...ted_States

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers. Women's median yearly earnings relative to men's rose rapidly from 1980 to 1990 (from 60.2% to 71.6%), and less rapidly from 1990 to 2000 (from 71.6% to 73.7%) and from 2000 to 2009 (from 73.7% to 77.0%).[22][23]

The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, the U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%.[7]

The gender pay gap has been attributed to differences in personal and workplace characteristics between women and men (education, hours worked, occupation etc.) as well as direct and indirect discrimination in the labor market (gender stereotypes, customer and employer bias etc.).[24][25][26]

The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[27] and 7%[28] for federal jobs, and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress.[28] One economist testified to Congress that hundreds of studies have consistently found unexplained pay differences which potentially include discrimination.[28] Another criticized these studies as insufficiently controlled, and opined that men and women would have equal pay if they made the same choices and had the same experience, education, etc.[27] Other studies have found direct evidence of discrimination. For example, fewer replies to identical resumes if sent by women with children than by men with children[28] and more jobs for women when orchestras moved to blind auditions (though the data was mixed on this, since, in normal orchestra interviews, women were preferentially chosen over men for some instruments, such as the flute).[27]

You include a section of the wiki article, but do not make mention of this part, so I will quote it now:
Quote:According to the most recent release by the U.S. Department of Labor (http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Ge...eport.pdf)"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers." The differences in the opinion of a variety of different sources, economists and think tanks have lead many to believe that corrective action may be necessary in the future if evidence is found that widespread discrimination is happening in the work place among every business, but until hard evidence is provided things ought to stay the same.

So the US Dept of Labor commissioned a study that found that although additional research may be needed, there may be nothing to correct. And the "unambiguous result" they found was that "the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action".

1 - Different section, and not the part I linked to, so stop bitching.

2 - " there may be nothing to correct". There was clearly a pay gap in the past, and until there is more evidence because "Although additional research in this area is clearly needed," we're going to keep pushing.

3 - It just means that you shouldn't use that particular measurement for looking at overall wealth inequality. It's gotten closer, so now we have to look at pay-gaps for similar jobs within similar field (like management in tech firms), rather than looking at all jobs across the board.

4 - It also means to need to look more closely at gender penetration in certain fields, such as the dearth of female workers in construction, and check to see if sexual discrimination is one of the root causes or a contributing factor.



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "Unless you are accusing women of being self loathing,"

You do realize that our voting system is systemically broken (first past the post voting will always devolve into a two-party system), don't you?

That females don't make up anything close to 50% of eligible candidates, don't you?

That woman don't make up 50% of the voting options in the booth on election day, don't you?

You know you can't effectively vote for candidates who aren't there, don't you?


Women currently hold 99 of 535 seats in Congress, roughly 18.5% representation for the gender that makes up over 50% of the population.


Need I go on, or do you realize just how fucking stupid that statement was?

According to Rutgers' Center for American Women and Politics, the share of the voters that is female has exceeded that of male since at least 1964, and has increased over time.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/v...erdiff.pdf
According to the 2012 datapoint, there were about 16% more women voters then men voters in the 2012 election. Candidate nomination rules vary state by state, but these same voters can vote for candidates in primary elections. Only those states that rely on party caucuses for candidate selection could be subjected to good 'ol boy procedures that could exclude female candidates. You've failed to point out how ballot access is unfair or unequal for women.

So just because more women vote, the business of politics is completely gender neutral? Right... Facepalm



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Your point is correct, though, that not enough women are in politics despite the clear advantage of women representation of voters in the polling both. However political talent, like executive management in business, is developed over time. The trend towards a larger share of women in office is rather obviously towards increased shared of office holders being women. (99 women now, 90 in 2009, 82 in 2005, 73 in 2001, 63 in 1997, 54 in 1993 and so on....ref: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/l...s/cong.pdf ) Considering the advantages of incumbency, the rise in female representation at the federal level is good, but clearly more is needed.

You finally say something intelligent.



(20-10-2014 06:32 PM)BryanS Wrote:  I don't disagree with the point that there are areas where women still are behind the status of men, such as in positions of political or executive power in business. However what I do disagree with is your position that the corrections to these problems necessarily requires ignoring ways in which men are disadvantaged.

You can acknowledge a 'problem' (which I've shown that your two go-to problems are mostly unfounded bullshit), while also acknowledging that there are other problems that take priority. That doesn't mean I am blind or ignoring a problem, it means that I think my limited attention and resources are better spent elsewhere. If my time and resources were unlimited, they would be on my agenda. But we live in reality, and time and resources are not unlimited, so there is that... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 05:45 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 02:41 PM)One Above All Wrote:  So are you going to say what "maleism" is at any given point in this... conversation?

Sorry if I talked past you there my apologies One Above All. It was satire to illustrate the point that there is no maleism unlike feminism. So us men are not on the attack when it comes to male 'rights' and just like a one way marriage we inevitably get rolled. That's why I think most of us dislike feminism. Men have grown up with certain issues and baggage different to women, and deal with it differently but no one gender is superior or more oppressed than the other. If one side thinks it is more unequal on a quantitative scale and works to correct this it had certainly better be true or the other gender will suffer.

But this is mass labeling and in many ways a waste of time, which is why I will postulate feminism is a waste of time. It's main products today are causing division in our society, the social justice aspect ie. right to vote was all corrected way back. To give an example of social breakdown, "Chauvinist" Men do not like ardent Feminists, Feminist Men. Ardent Feminists do not like soft Feminists, non Feminists and Chauvinists. Soft Feminists do not like Ardent Feminists or Feminist Men. Feminist Men do not like Chauvinist Men.

And then theres me and a few others, we look a bit deeper then most and see the problem is the philosophy of never ending gender inequality rebalance, Feminism in politics, cohesion of culture. I just worry we are spending our energy on the ridiculous. If you are a go getter alpha woman go at it live life be successful. If you go around announcing your particular gender is a handicap you better bring the goods to the table. Thunderf00t hasn't gone wacko this particuler creed has made him just as wacko as he was about bashing creationism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 06:04 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2014 06:13 AM by MadDog.)
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 02:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 02:41 PM)One Above All Wrote:  So are you going to say what "maleism" is at any given point in this... conversation?

I dunno, let's start by assuming MadDog here is a "maleist" and see what that gives us.

If so, "maleism" apparently consists of:
representing personal anecdotes as reliable data
massive persistent false generalisation
nonsensical whataboutism

I don't see what that particularly has to do with males other than making us all look bad, though..

Haha don't give me credit for being the creator of a new ism. Please!

If I'm scared of being wrong I wouldn't learn or ever call judgement. It's the way I have learned to operate through building my philosophy. Way too many atheists have learnt this strange behaviour of relying on exact experts, and group-think ideology, while christians go to a sermon on sundays to see leadership, heart, personal experience. A bit of mystery.
How many atheists go to a sunday atheist sermon? We don't because exactness is boring, distant. So why would anyone find my rants enlightening if all I done was to mention statistics, grammar, insider jargon. I did preface it was my own experience take it as a grain of salt if it in no way matches yours.

And we men care too much about not looking bad. Loose that inhibition we become more attractive, mysterious and less awkward cjlr trust me ;-)

cjlr I'll assume you are a Male Feminist? For my above post generalizations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 06:42 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2014 06:49 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(21-10-2014 05:45 AM)MadDog Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 02:41 PM)One Above All Wrote:  So are you going to say what "maleism" is at any given point in this... conversation?
Sorry if I talked past you there my apologies One Above All. It was satire to illustrate the point that there is no maleism unlike feminism.

Uh, yes there is. They're called Men's Rights Activists (or MRA for short).



(21-10-2014 05:45 AM)MadDog Wrote:  So us men are not on the attack when it comes to male 'rights' and just like a one way marriage we inevitably get rolled. That's why I think most of us dislike feminism. Men have grown up with certain issues and baggage different to women, and deal with it differently but no one gender is superior or more oppressed than the other. If one side thinks it is more unequal on a quantitative scale and works to correct this it had certainly better be true or the other gender will suffer.

Well, that's the thing about equality. When things are unequal, inevitably some have more than others. So when you try to redistribute things more equally, those who have more will often perceive it as an 'attack' on them, rather than a re-balancing.

It's like if a kid in kindergarten hoarded all of the toys at recess. Then when the teacher had to intervene to make sure that the one kid shared the toys with all of the other students, the hoarder started crying about how 'unfair' it was because the teacher was taking 'their' toys way from 'them'.

Note too, that this is how the most immature MRA posters on 4chan and reddit also look and sound like.



(21-10-2014 05:45 AM)MadDog Wrote:  But this is mass labeling and in many ways a waste of time, which is why I will postulate feminism is a waste of time. It's main products today are causing division in our society, the social justice aspect ie. right to vote was all corrected way back.

Women, on average, still get payed less for the same work. Women still don't have control over their bodies in many states, or are having those rights attacked and eroded away. Women are still under represented in positions of wealth, power, and politics.

No there is still work to be done. You're just appear to be one of those "It doesn't affect me personally, so it's no longer a problem for anyone else" people.



(21-10-2014 05:45 AM)MadDog Wrote:  To give an example of social breakdown, "Chauvinist" Men do not like ardent Feminists, Feminist Men. Ardent Feminists do not like soft Feminists, non Feminists and Chauvinists. Soft Feminists do not like Ardent Feminists or Feminist Men. Feminist Men do not like Chauvinist Men.

Congratulations! You've discovered the fact that people with different opinions don't always like or agree with one another. Riveting stuff, let me tell you.

That still doesn't mean we've reached gender parity just because some people don't like the other people who are trying to achieve it. Perhaps we should start the Anarchistic Revolution right now because the Democrats and Republicans can't agree with one another?



(21-10-2014 05:45 AM)MadDog Wrote:  And then theres me and a few others, we look a bit deeper then most and see the problem is the philosophy of never ending gender inequality rebalance, Feminism in politics, cohesion of culture.

Facepalm



(21-10-2014 05:45 AM)MadDog Wrote:  I just worry we are spending our energy on the ridiculous.

Who is this 'we' you speak of? Quite clearly you don't see any problems, and thus aren't doing shit about it except to lament and complain about the people trying to do something about it.



(21-10-2014 05:45 AM)MadDog Wrote:  If you are a go getter alpha woman go at it live life be successful.

Agreed. We'd also like her to have the same opportunities for employment and advancement as a man does, and to be paid the same for her work. These are issues that still require work.



(21-10-2014 05:45 AM)MadDog Wrote:  If you go around announcing your particular gender is a handicap you better bring the goods to the table.

It can be a handicap in certain situations, like in employment, advancement, and politics. In other places it can be an advantage, such as child custody. It always depends on context, which you don't seem to be privy to.



(21-10-2014 05:45 AM)MadDog Wrote:  Thunderf00t hasn't gone wacko this particuler creed has made him just as wacko as he was about bashing creationism.

He's more off the mark more here than when he's attacking Molyneux, creationists, or general science deniers. He has some good points, but I feel like he's just try to counter everything prominent feminists say, and he misses a lot of the context. He does make some valid points, but they get lost when he paints with too broad of a brush (much in the same way as PZ Meyers does). His perspective lacks enough nuance, and I feel like he is being more knee-jerk reactionary than anything else.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-10-2014, 08:15 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(21-10-2014 06:04 AM)MadDog Wrote:  Haha don't give me credit for being the creator of a new ism. Please!

You probably shouldn't invent new words, then.

(21-10-2014 06:04 AM)MadDog Wrote:  If I'm scared of being wrong I wouldn't learn or ever call judgement. It's the way I have learned to operate through building my philosophy.

That's nice. Are you going somewhere with this?

(21-10-2014 06:04 AM)MadDog Wrote:  Way too many atheists have learnt this strange behaviour of relying on exact experts, and group-think ideology, while christians go to a sermon on sundays to see leadership, heart, personal experience. A bit of mystery.
How many atheists go to a sunday atheist sermon? We don't because exactness is boring, distant. So why would anyone find my rants enlightening if all I done was to mention statistics, grammar, insider jargon. I did preface it was my own experience take it as a grain of salt if it in no way matches yours.

You did not frame it as "my opinion", and the points were incorrect regardless. That a pile of nonsensical false generalisations is actually just "your opinion" doesn't make them not nonsensical false generalisations.

I mean, you're free to make false claims, but...

(21-10-2014 06:04 AM)MadDog Wrote:  And we men care too much about not looking bad. Loose that inhibition we become more attractive, mysterious and less awkward cjlr trust me ;-)

I think you'll find that other people in my demographic acting stupid both reflects on me and is totally outside my control.

(21-10-2014 06:04 AM)MadDog Wrote:  cjlr I'll assume you are a Male Feminist? For my above post generalizations.

Having checked my pants I can re-affirm that I'm a man. Having checked my opinions and found a distaste for gender inequality I can re-affirm that I'm a feminist.

Protip: "Male Feminist" is an absurd thing to say.
(and not least because those are not proper nouns)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
21-10-2014, 08:17 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(21-10-2014 05:45 AM)MadDog Wrote:  no one gender is ... more oppressed than the other.

Well; there's your problem. That isn't true.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: