26 Nov 2012, 11:56 pm
LKL wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
LKL wrote:
Chaos_Epoch wrote:
I don't get this feminism thing, females already have equal human rights? right?
nope. Discrimination on the basis of sex is still a-ok, at least in the USA. Google 'Equal Rights Amendment.'Google "Civil Rights Act Title VII" and "Equal Pay Act 1963". Even though the ERA didn't pass, sex discrimination against women is grounds for having your socks sued off. Ever since Clinton took office, women in the US are regarded as a protected class and there have been thousands of successful lawsuits, some of them unjustified, filed by women against companies and individual men. In fact, despite all this whining about the "pay gap", the unemployment rate for women is lower than it is for men!
Because women are paid less. It's cheaper to employ them.
And how do you know this? Maybe men just work harder than women and earn their higher salaries instead of sitting there and pouting about how they're entitled to high pay.
26 Nov 2012, 11:57 pm
27 Nov 2012, 1:49 am
LKL wrote:
http://social.dol.gov/blog/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/
social.
blog.
myth.
not even going to look at that. can already tell it's going to be biased to the writers own opinions.
LKL wrote:
http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_3943.html
22 may, 1997. terribly outdated, but could sill yield results.
most of it talks about the employment process, and trying to give reasons for why females are discriminated against. something that caught my eye particularly, was how the highest scoring females were compared productively to the lowest scoring males. which, although would ring alarm bells in most studies using a large test group like this; it also says that the group was based on six different multiple regression models, and I only saw two published in the study.
LKL wrote:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-02/wal-mart-discriminated-against-women-workers-in-texas-suit-says.html
This needs more citation. It doesn't go into detail about how they were shortchanged, and I'd expect staff could be barred from promotional opportunities to stop them from getting first pickings at all the good deals before the public can get access to them. it's not discrimination, it's just business sense. however, if it was only the woman missing out on them, then you'd have a case.
LKL wrote:
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/challengeswomenface/a/genderdiscrim.htm
I'm going to ignore the fact that the website is called womeninbusiness in hopes it's a credible article, study, etc.
Quote:
Challenges for women begin in childhood. Young girls may be brought up to believe that they are only suited for certain professions or, in some cases, only to serve as wives and mothers.
and I lost it, but I'll continue on anyway.
on the elementary school, middle school and high school points.
from personal experience, this isn't because of the teachers, it's because of the students themselves. most of my female counterparts enjoyed the artistic side of things and helping others out. while most of the boys focused on either geeky subjects like physics and chemistry, or testosterone fueled sports. and there were of course, many from either gender who would go to the other side, both sides, or neither.
on college, I'm reminded of how this was probably written by a sexist feminist when I read "young women are often encouraged, or even pressured, into pursuing education in more stereotypical female-oriented professions"
however... "Women are now earning more degrees than men at every level, and with higher grades and honors. But women starting their own businesses are less likely to have a college degree in their specific industry, or first-profession degree, than are male entrepreneurs. They are also less likely to get a job in a Ph.D.-related field."
"Women are now earning more degrees than men at every level, and with higher grades and honors."
so, what's the problem here?
"But women starting their own businesses are less likely to have a college degree in their specific industry, or first-profession degree, than are male entrepreneurs."
to me, this reads as "woman create their own business without college degree's in the field needed for the business. and for some reason that's wrong because men statistically have degrees when starting their own business."
look, I'm trying to make this even handed and right minded but this author is making it very hard.
on the Statistics Show Trends Haven’t Changed Much, Yet point.
Quote:
More women are starting businesses than men, more women are in the workforce than men, and the majority of degree-holders are now women. Yet, according to the Department of Labor 2007 statistics,women are still only dominating fields and industries that are often seen as “female.”
okay.
1. points above.
2. more women are in the workforce then men and the majority of degree holders are female. and you're trying to tell me that women are discriminated against.
3. women are still only dominating fields and industries that are often seen as “female.”
4. women are still only dominating fields and industries that are often seen as “female.”
5. women are still only dominating fields and industries that are often seen as “female.”
6. women are still only dominating fields and industries that are often seen as “female.”
LKL wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902049.html
okay, thank god that last endeavor is over. and washingtonpost, a good credible information pot.
the article starts out well, until. "Because despite the indisputable gains over the years, women are still being raped, trafficked, violated and discriminated against -- not just in the rest of the world, but here in the United States. And though feminists continue to fight gender injustices, most people seem to think that outside of a few lingering battles, the work of the women's movement is done. "
oh my *********************************************************************************************
one credible argument, one credible source. is that too much to ****** ask!?
I skimmed over the rest, it's just crap. I can't be bothered picking it apart, it's just going to turn out like the last report anyway.
LKL wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7932875/Attractive-women-discriminated-against-when-applying-for-masculine-jobs.html
Thank you! and I have a simple answer for the question this article poses.
good looks aren't needed for the jobs required. in fact, my tutor, (a lesbian feminist who's been involved in many "man jobs" such as roadworks and carpentry.) has even told me that "pretty girls" were only targeted by roadcrew if they were going to operate the temporary traffic lights. since they only wanted to work on their sun tan anyway and their pretty looks helped calm the approaching traffic. along with that, many "beautiful girls" don't process the muscle mass required to get ahead in most "man jobs." the boss has to think about the profit margin, not about employing that pretty girl who can't work like the rest of the guys.
simply; if they don't have the muscle, then why employ someone who's just going to complain and winge about their work load?
I also notice that this article targets only "pretty girls" and not any other girls. nevertheless, it's a good enough article. and a refreshing change from those last two eyesores.
LKL wrote:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/scientists-your-gender-bias-is-showing/
this is quite alarming, the first barchart show's a single point difference, resulting in a 25% decrease in females. I don't even think anything can be said about the second graph. that's just shocking.
27 Nov 2012, 11:54 am
27 Nov 2012, 12:17 pm
27 Nov 2012, 12:21 pm
27 Nov 2012, 1:26 pm
27 Nov 2012, 2:57 pm
27 Nov 2012, 3:22 pm
27 Nov 2012, 4:17 pm
27 Nov 2012, 4:33 pm
27 Nov 2012, 6:23 pm
@Chaos Epoch: if you don't actually read the studies cited, you're basically just ad-homing the sources. For example:
Chaos_Epoch wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://social.dol.gov/blog/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/
social.
blog.
myth.
not even going to look at that. can already tell it's going to be biased to the writers own opinions.
The source is a dot-gov site ("The Official Blog of the U.S. Department of Labor"), and it's a lay-audience synopsis of the US Dept. of Labor study on the wage gap between men and women. If you have a problem with it, challenge the data or the methodolgy; the actual report is linked on that page.
Quote:
LKL wrote:
http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_3943.html
22 may, 1997. terribly outdated, but could sill yield results.
Are you suggesting that gender relations have changed significantly in 15 years?
Quote:
most of it talks about the employment process, and trying to give reasons for why females are discriminated against. something that caught my eye particularly, was how the highest scoring females were compared productively to the lowest scoring males. which, although would ring alarm bells in most studies using a large test group like this; it also says that the group was based on six different multiple regression models, and I only saw two published in the study.
the significant quote from the study:
Quote:
...the peer reviewers gave female applicants lower scores than male applicants who displayed the same level
of scientific productivity. In fact, the most productive group of female applicants, containing
those with 100 total impact points or more, was the only group of women judged to be as
competent as men, although only as competent as the least productive group of male applicants
(the one whose members had fewer than 20 total impact points).
of scientific productivity. In fact, the most productive group of female applicants, containing
those with 100 total impact points or more, was the only group of women judged to be as
competent as men, although only as competent as the least productive group of male applicants
(the one whose members had fewer than 20 total impact points).
Quote:
LKL wrote:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-02/wal-mart-discriminated-against-women-workers-in-texas-suit-says.html
This needs more citation. It doesn't go into detail about how they were shortchanged, and I'd expect staff could be barred from promotional opportunities to stop them from getting first pickings at all the good deals before the public can get access to them. it's not discrimination, it's just business sense. however, if it was only the woman missing out on them, then you'd have a case.
Again, it's a lay-press publication. Are you saying that you will not accept evidence that is gathered by journalists, as opposed to scientists?
In any case, I made the false assumption that you would be familiar with the details of recent SCOTUS rulings; the original, national class-action suit was taken by women who claimed discrimination in promotions and pay; "deals" had nothing to do with it (I'm not even sure where you got that idea). Which you would know, if you had read so much as the first paragraph.
Quote:
Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. discriminated against female workers in Texas, shortchanging them on pay and promotion opportunities, lawyers for the women said in a complaint
Maybe your brain saw 'women' and 'promotions' and automatically jumped to 'bargain hunting' instead of 'higher-status, higher pay jobs'? Amusing and illustrative, if so.
Quote:
LKL wrote:
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/challengeswomenface/a/genderdiscrim.htm
I'm going to ignore the fact that the website is called womeninbusiness in hopes it's a credible article, study, etc.
Quote:
Challenges for women begin in childhood. Young girls may be brought up to believe that they are only suited for certain professions or, in some cases, only to serve as wives and mothers.
and I lost it, but I'll continue on anyway.
on the elementary school, middle school and high school points.
from personal experience, this isn't because of the teachers, it's because of the students themselves. most of my female counterparts enjoyed the artistic side of things and helping others out. while most of the boys focused on either geeky subjects like physics and chemistry, or testosterone fueled sports. and there were of course, many from either gender who would go to the other side, both sides, or neither.
on college, I'm reminded of how this was probably written by a sexist feminist when I read "young women are often encouraged, or even pressured, into pursuing education in more stereotypical female-oriented professions"
Your personal experience as, I'm presuming, a male? In general, people tend to more enjoy the things that they are praised for; the social pressure forms part of the enjoyment, or part of the lack of enjoyment, in any field - particularly for NT's, who make up the majority of women even now.
Quote:
however... "Women are now earning more degrees than men at every level, and with higher grades and honors. But women starting their own businesses are less likely to have a college degree in their specific industry, or first-profession degree, than are male entrepreneurs. They are also less likely to get a job in a Ph.D.-related field."
"Women are now earning more degrees than men at every level, and with higher grades and honors."
so, what's the problem here?
"Women are now earning more degrees than men at every level, and with higher grades and honors."
so, what's the problem here?
The problem is that they're still being shunted into lower-paying, pink-collar professions. They're doing well at it, but they're not doing as well as if they were moving into more lucrative positions.
Quote:
3. women are still only dominating fields and industries that are often seen as “female.”
You seem to think that this one line is really significant, I'm guessing because you think that it implies that women want to dominate everything. That's not the case; if men started to dominate, say, nursing, while women started to dominate astrophysics, that would be fine. The point isn't to dominate everything; it's that the levels of domination be close to statitically irrelevant, and that they not fall along stereotpyically gendered lines.
Quote:
LKL wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902049.html
the article starts out well, until. "Because despite the indisputable gains over the years, women are still being raped, trafficked, violated and discriminated against -- not just in the rest of the world, but here in the United States. And though feminists continue to fight gender injustices, most people seem to think that outside of a few lingering battles, the work of the women's movement is done. "
oh my *********************************************************************************************
Do you have an issue with that? Do you think that women are not being raped, trafficked, violated, or discriminated against? I guess I already know the answer to the last one: you'll dismiss any evidence to the contrary, because it doesn't fit with your world view.
Quote:
one credible argument, one credible source. is that too much to ****** ask!?
Honesty when asking for evidence is apparently too much to ask.
Quote:
I skimmed over the rest, it's just crap. I can't be bothered picking it apart, it's just going to turn out like the last report anyway.
since you didn't bother, here are some of the interesting bits:
Quote:
...women are being shot dead in the streets here, too. It was only last year that George Sodini opened fire in a gym outside Pittsburgh, killing three women and injuring nine others. Investigators learned from Sodini's blog that he specifically targeted women. In 2006, a gunman went into an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania; he sent the boys outside and opened fire on almost a dozen girls, killing five. That same year in Colorado, a man sexually assaulted six female students he had taken hostage at a high school before killing one of them.
And it's not just strangers who are killing women; more than 1,000 women were killed by their partners in 2005, and of all the women murdered in the United States, about a third are killed by a husband or boyfriend. A leading cause of death for pregnant women? Murder by a partner.
In Iraq, women serving in the military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.
...Women hold 17 percent of the seats in Congress; abortion is legal, but more than 85 percent of counties in the United States have no provider; women work outside the home, but they make about 76 cents to a man's dollar and make up the majority of Americans living in poverty.
And it's not just strangers who are killing women; more than 1,000 women were killed by their partners in 2005, and of all the women murdered in the United States, about a third are killed by a husband or boyfriend. A leading cause of death for pregnant women? Murder by a partner.
In Iraq, women serving in the military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.
...Women hold 17 percent of the seats in Congress; abortion is legal, but more than 85 percent of counties in the United States have no provider; women work outside the home, but they make about 76 cents to a man's dollar and make up the majority of Americans living in poverty.
Quote:
LKL wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7932875/Attractive-women-discriminated-against-when-applying-for-masculine-jobs.html
Thank you! and I have a simple answer for the question this article poses.
good looks aren't needed for the jobs required. in fact, my tutor, (a lesbian feminist who's been involved in many "man jobs" such as roadworks and carpentry.) has even told me that "pretty girls" were only targeted by roadcrew if they were going to operate the temporary traffic lights. since they only wanted to work on their sun tan anyway and their pretty looks helped calm the approaching traffic. along with that, many "beautiful girls" don't process the muscle mass required to get ahead in most "man jobs." the boss has to think about the profit margin, not about employing that pretty girl who can't work like the rest of the guys.
simply; if they don't have the muscle, then why employ someone who's just going to complain and winge about their work load?
Because (from the second paragraph):
Quote:
Such positions included job titles like manager of research and development, director of finance, mechanical engineer and construction supervisor, according to the study.
...take lots and lots of muscle power?! Oh, teh poor pretty girls are just too weak to tell computers what to do!
(/sarcasm)
Quote:
LKL wrote:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/scientists-your-gender-bias-is-showing/
this is quite alarming, the first barchart show's a single point difference, resulting in a 25% decrease in females. I don't even think anything can be said about the second graph. that's just shocking.
Your prejudiced filter was slipping: that was another blog, oh noes! But, like the first one, it linked to and cited the actual study it was concerned with.
You fail at step one:
27 Nov 2012, 6:35 pm
LKL wrote:
Step 1 translation: If you do not agree, I do not conceded to you, or I do not deem it satisfactory to consider your arguments because of my vested interests and/or personal feelings, then I will not discuss this with you because I like to be right with those who disagree with me.
27 Nov 2012, 6:54 pm
27 Nov 2012, 6:59 pm
LKL wrote:
Maybe your problem is simply that I'm usually right in arguments with you.
You wish!
27 Nov 2012, 7:12 pm
