SJW and autism

Post Reply New Topic

Sound advice.

Avoid most of the online world in general when it comes to politics. There are a few good places, but not many. The thing is about the internet, most people aren't held accountable for their actions. I would never hear people talking about half of the things they do online!

If someone started a thread saying "who here is an egalitarian but not a feminist?", would you feel comfortable saying "yes, that's me"? If so, you identify as an egalitarian for my purposes.


The Egalitarian(TM) argues that discrimination is over now and everyone is equal because the law says so, and that's True Equality(TM).

I am arguing that equality of opportunity is more or less equal to equality of outcome. For a sufficiently large sample size, if opportunities are truly equal then outcomes will be statistically equal.


See above; if opportunities were truly equal then outcomes would be truly equal.



This is an example that is probably down to a true difference between men and women. However, it doesn't account for the whole difference; there aren't that many firefighters, and they don't earn that much.

I believe the "7%" figure you cite is an "adjusted" figure - that is, it already takes into account occupational sorting, overtime, skipping holidays, and all these reasonable (although not necessarily "freely chosen") differences. The "raw" difference is usually 20-28%, while the "adjusted" figures are in the 4-7% range. That leaves 4-7% which cannot be explained by working habits, education, or competency.

Well, 4% isn't much, right? But I'm sure most people would be over the moon to get a 4% pay rise. I know it would make a significant difference for me.


Graduate men earn roughly the same as graduate women; I am in favour of encouraging young men (particularly the working class boys who are most disenfranchised) to pursue further and higher education and close that gap. However, graduate women start to fall behind graduate men quite quickly, to the extent that the "gap" for all women is back by the time they are in their 30s.

Nobody disputes that some fathers reduce hours to take care of children, and that this probably harms their careers. However, as noted above, most of the people who take these career breaks are women, and as noted below, there are economic reasons for that.


This right here is textbook.

You think what would essentially be a wealth redistribution program (taxing progressively in order to provide an affordable service to all) is a viable business model?

It might work as a charity, but it's not the sort of thing charities usually do well. "Hi, we're raising money to make something slightly cheaper, targeted primarily at the middle classes... what do you mean, you'd rather pay for food for homeless children and/or pandas?"


Included to show that it isn't just about rejecting left-wing ideas - people will also reject right-wing solutions. I don't make this point to suggest that "egalitarians" are right wing, just to rule out "egalitarians just disagree with crazy leftists".

Personally I don't care about wage disparity and think the minimum wage is a blunt instrument rather than an altar to die on. Feminists tend to be further left, of course.

You're assuming that "earning potential" exists in a vacuum. New fathers start receiving more responsibilities and earning more because their employer assumes they're going to start becoming a responsible breadwinner. New mothers earn less because their employer doesn't want to get between them and their children.

Lots of good stuff (including citations) in this article.

Oh, you know, small things like voting rights, equal treatment under the law, ending legal spousal rape, access to family planning services, ending segregation, reducing stigma around being the victim of sexual assault, accessible and practical divorce...

And one more thing that feminists 'got done'...Having and raising sons and grandsons like Walrus (moderator) who actually seem to 'get it'. The transformation of the Foundational Western Patriarchy only happens with the transformation of the patriarchs themselves. Walrus' post reveals that such a process is well on its way!

My identity is not subject to change for the benefit of your purposes. This is the path to "punching Nazis". Feel free to stick yourself in whatever box you like, I'll stick to being complex and nuanced.



Are you going to argue with my position, or with your straw-egalitarian?



Take an entire nation and train them to do the 100m hurdles for 5 years. Will they all cross the finish line in the same time? That's equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Equality of outcome requires that some people be handicapped, whilst others are given assistance.



Only if the opportunities were approached equally by people of equal skill and application. For example:

Bill and Ben work in a factory for £8 an hour. They were hired on the same day, and have virtually equal job performance. The foreman, Bob, tells Bill and Ben there is overtime available at time and a half. Bill decides to do an extra day at the weekend, but Ben decides to spend the weekend camping with three of his close friends. The pattern continues over a year, with Bill putting in extra shifts and Ben putting his friends and hobbies before his employer's needs.

To the amazement of Ben, when Bob needs a new supervisor, he promotes Bill.
"That's not fair!" Ben complains, "I'm just as good as Bill"



Trainee firefighters start on a salary of £22k, rising to £29k at "full competence". The average salary of a public sector employee working in care is £21k, whilst private care sector salaries average £17k.



No, the figure I cited was "7X%" as in "70-something percent". There's some variance from source to source. The largest factors, presumably, are choice of college major and choice of industry, both of which are freely chosen. The reason overtime, skipping holidays, can't be measured in terms of a single data point is because of the example of Bill and Ben I supplied above. Dedication to the job over dedication to family, friends, hobbies, etc will yield exponentially improved returns in many cases.



But who is being paid 4% less than their peers in any given workplace?



Roughly the same? Say roughly 3-4% less?




The flaw with this argument is that it's effectively arguing that the women in their 20's are the same women as those in their 30's. We can revisit that in 10 years time with the appropriate data. I expect to see a further narrowing of the gap, if not a complete reversal - women are, after all, going to continue to take time off for motherhood in larger numbers than men.

Literally everyone should consider entering higher education, especially with the current trend towards automation. The robots are coming, and they're not going to entertain any talk of equality.



But the difference is that we're not hearing from fathers who complain about it being unfair that they get paid less for making the choice to reduce their hours or give up work entirely. Nor are the majority of mothers complaining, either. This is a "feminist issue" insofar as they're the only ones who see it as a "problem" rather than a "compromise".



You haven't answered any of the questions, especially the first one: What kind of childcare do you want the government to pay for that it isn't already subsidising?



I think that if you're of the opinion there's a gap in the childcare market, that there are demands that aren't being met, it would be more productive to do something direct about it rather than asking for more government money. Not sure why you're conflating that with wealth redistribution, but it possibly comes back to that question I asked.



So the childcare you want subsidised is something which primarily relates to the middle classes? Or is this you making assumptions based on misunderstanding my position? Again, it goes back to that initial question. What childcare needs aren't being met by the government?



Where would you place Neoliberalism on the left-right graph?



Agreed, though I suggest feminists are "more authoritarian" rather than "more left".



Hardly. I'm assuming that the circumstances are unique to each specific pairing, that it's their decision how they choose to divide the responsibility between them.



I'll get back to you on this one after I've had a look at the individual studies in more detail.



"Feminists raise people who adhere to their ideology" isn't an argument that demonstrates them achieving anything useful in the current year.

And you won't. They are too afraid to speak their minds as individuals, but punish those that do.

Anyone who thinks Feminism and Egalitarianism are somehow mutually exclusive clearly doesn't understand either term.

I would help if what feminism is wasn't so different from what feminism claims to be.

Which denomination of feminism?

Walrus, why do you hate egalitarianism so much?

Why is the notion of treating all people equally so offensive to you?

That the fact that feminism is opposed to egalitarianism says a lot about feminism. It says they don't want equality.

You misread my question. I did not way, "which things have feminists done" I said "which things are feminists getting done".

You misread the tense. I was speaking in present tense, not past tense.

Things like getting the vote for women, getting equal treatment for women, outlawing spousal rape and ending segregation were all very commendable acts.

Acts done by feminists in the past. I asked what are feminists doing in the present. I'm pretty sure women's suffrage isn't a key issue in the present day.

It seems like the feminists did an outstanding job of getting equality before the law decades ago.

You won! Congratulations! Now that feminism has achieved it's purpose it can disband.

I stand corrected. It turns out there are still places in the world that don't give women the vote or outlaw rape.



This brave young woman is the greatest feminist of our time. She's fighting to end an actual rape culture.

This is what a feminist looks like. She doesn't spread "awareness" of issues on Tumblr, she fights to solve those issues.

She's an activist, not a slacktivist.

There's feminists like the the brave young woman above and the brave suffragettes of last century and then there's Feminists™ like Anita Sarkeesian.




It seems like Feminists™ are so good at spotting misogyny in everything that they don't actually want it to end.

Otherwise their group would no longer have a purpose.

I believe no woman should have to live in fear. So Feminists™ should stop spreading fear.

I believe women should be free and liberated, not controlled and micromanaged by Feminists™

SJWs are just annoying liberal snowflakes that think that everything that they disagree with is hate speech and should be censored. Those are the same people that cried like babies and demanded safe spaces when Hillary Clinton lost the election back in 2016. SJWs aren't necessarily autistic, they're just crazy.