FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The paradox of modern pop Feminism
The paradox of modern pop Feminism
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I read the article, by Kayla Kibble on a site called Study Breaks, and it's just a really bad piece of writing. She admits to not having read a text she namedropped, and doesn't name any specific texts, or arguments, practices. She might have some kind of point about pop culture feminism...but the website's stupid, doesn't link to it, and her name doesn't produce any search results...cba finding it. There's a lot of liberal media articles that take concepts, like "intersectionality", which when coined, was making a valid (about the different treatment by the law of sexual assault, according to the race of the attacker/victim). But these things get in the hands of idiots, you have liberals who ignore class divisions, measure validity of a statement as to how many oppression points you get, and making out a straight white man can't have a valid opinion. Then you have the TERFs...the likes of Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel, who seem to be quite popular in the Guardian. They're just really dogmatic, couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag, and think everything happens because of anatomy. Also, it's worth noting that anti-feminists like to get token women to make their arguments...it gives it extra impetus. "I'm not a woman and I'm not oppressed." I mean her argument is basically "it's all in your mind." But like there's a guy in the White House who thinks it alright to grab women's vaginas without their consent, plus a full scale attack on abortion rights, FFS. And given the lack of depth of analysis, her being given this platform is completely tokenistic. Which is kind of ironic, really." I started off thinking you are full of shit - the classic attempt to discredit the author/source when you can't defeat their argument trick Then you sounded alright when you pointed to the stupidity of some feminists so I thought you are OK But when you rounded out your "argument" with Trump... Who is bad for everyone (hint not just women) then you lost me again. | |||
""If women are truly equal, feminism itself is superfluous" That's just silly. And the rest of the quote isn't any better. " Why exactly? A cogent argument please... Best in mind that whatever you say is an "atrocity" against women, i will have an example of global inequality (humanism not feminism) that eclipses it. It's Feminism that makes women weak. Do you think you have a better chance of success if you perceive the world to be against you before you start? For fighters yes, for the majority no | |||
" Do you think you have a better chance of success if you perceive the world to be against you before you start? " 
Of course you have a much better chance of success. | |||
""If women are truly equal, feminism itself is superfluous" That's just silly. And the rest of the quote isn't any better. Why exactly? A cogent argument please... Best in mind that whatever you say is an "atrocity" against women" Quote cut as it got boring and pompous. I'm not interested in discussing who has it worst, men vs women. It's entirely pointless. The author you're so keen on seems to think the statement "women are equal to men" means "women are treated equally to men already". And they arent. You can argue all day about the extent to which they arent,and how serious it is, but the basic argument here is, as I say, silly. | |||
"How about a source for that OP?" Why does the OP need a source,it is a very clever and interesting observation that deserves thinking about. If the OP had come up with this I would respect them in everyway for there wonderfull thought process. We all have the right to think and express our views as we see them not what some other person tells us. | |||
""If women are truly equal, feminism itself is superfluous" That's just silly. And the rest of the quote isn't any better. Why exactly? A cogent argument please... Best in mind that whatever you say is an "atrocity" against women Quote cut as it got boring and pompous. I'm not interested in discussing who has it worst, men vs women. It's entirely pointless. The author you're so keen on seems to think the statement "women are equal to men" means "women are treated equally to men already". And they arent. You can argue all day about the extent to which they arent,and how serious it is, but the basic argument here is, as I say, silly. " I think the truth is that women and men are treated differently in all sorts of ways but on balance the two groups have equal power. Do you believe that men are significantly advantaged... And if so why? It's easy to say that things are silly or pompous but where is your process of reasoning? | |||
" Do you think you have a better chance of success if you perceive the world to be against you before you start?
Of course you have a much better chance of success."Winners vs quitters Fixed or growth mentality Depends on your character surely? | |||
" Best in mind that whatever you say is an "atrocity" against women, i will have an example of global inequality (humanism not feminism) that eclipses it. " Why is it relevant that something else eclipses their examples? Just because theres something worse doesnt mean that something bad stops being bad. Feminism, like any other social or political movement, has its ridiculous and extreme members. And maybe feminism as a movement needs to move on or evolve into something else. But things arent equal yet and work needs to be done to balance things out. 22% of TDs are women this is an increase on the 15% from 2011 because of a drive to support and encourage women to take on roles as elected officials. Up to 2011 only 7% of Irish start ups had women in leadership positions. After policies were enacted to encourage and support women getting involved that number increased to 22%. Women are under represented in many positions and Id favour support for that in the same way Id favour support for any group that would benefit wider society by their involvement. | |||
| |||
"Also the initial article is ridiculous. The goal of mainstream feminism is not to keep feminism going just the same as the suffragette movement didnt have its own existence as its goal. It had an aim, it existed until it acheived it and now no one fights for suffrage in the west any more. And the basic idea of the article that in order to be equal you must first accept your not equal is a fallacy. Women can see themselves as equal but treated as less without undermining their self worth." You are a smart guy with a keen interest in business and economics. You can't surely deny that there is a industry around Feminism now and it is most certainly the bread and butter for many career authors, speakers and social "scientists". With that in mind and knowing that human nature at its core has at least a degree of self interest, it is obviously in many people's interests to keep flogging or reinventing it to sustain profits past its natural end point (in western culture) I really don't accept your argument on TDs and startups. Both of these are natural processes that don't exclude women (expect that women exclude themselves). Especially entrepreneurship (you mentioned startups... right? ) where the only barriers to entry are drive and creativity. It's is a true meritocracy. If you had gone with the CEOs of corporations angle you would at least have half of a half of a point. I also firmly believe that enforced quotas are damaging in these realms as they are both best person wins domains. If you read lean in (and other sources) you will see that women opt out of these positions (for good reason... soul destroying long hours and an at all costs lifestyle imbalance). There is other research that even when presented with a salary range position, women have been shown to start negotiations at the bottom whereas men go for the top of the range. There is something more complex in all this and it doesn't point to systematic oppression. To invert the question... In Ireland for example (aside from article 8) what is the purpose or big aim of feminism when you see that women are now better educated than men and job opportunities are equal? | |||
" Why is it relevant that something else eclipses their examples? Just because theres something worse doesnt mean that something bad stops being bad. " It's bad because we have reached peak Feminism. The inflection point when the cons outweigh the pros. Every second article in the mainstream media has a feminist tilt and there is a generation of young angry "activist" women who are missing a big chunk of perspective about what is happening globally and what to fight for. It's like giving a big fuck about littering when climate change eclipses it as something to care about. | |||
| |||
" Why is it relevant that something else eclipses their examples? Just because theres something worse doesnt mean that something bad stops being bad. It's bad because we have reached peak Feminism. The inflection point when the cons outweigh the pros. Every second article in the mainstream media has a feminist tilt and there is a generation of young angry "activist" women who are missing a big chunk of perspective about what is happening globally and what to fight for. It's like giving a big fuck about littering when climate change eclipses it as something to care about. " They are trying to take over the world lol. | |||
 | |||
"Would that be so bad.Weve had a patriarchal society let's try a matriarchal one. "can't we skip that and just go straight to the egalitarian society that we have always deserved?  | |||
" Why is it relevant that something else eclipses their examples? Just because theres something worse doesnt mean that something bad stops being bad. It's bad because we have reached peak Feminism. The inflection point when the cons outweigh the pros. Every second article in the mainstream media has a feminist tilt and there is a generation of young angry "activist" women who are missing a big chunk of perspective about what is happening globally and what to fight for. It's like giving a big fuck about littering when climate change eclipses it as something to care about. " And you don't feel that your post is somewhat ironic, given that you are, in essence deciding on womens' behalves what is important for them to care about? What should be important to women? | |||
"Would that be so bad.Weve had a patriarchal society let's try a matriarchal one.
can't we skip that and just go straight to the egalitarian society that we have always deserved? "Sounds good to me. | |||
| |||
| |||
"No they don't... Are you not a STEM student? A keen coder if I recall? " Sorry, I should have known better than to make a little joke at the expense of STEM students past and present, it wasn't going to be received well outside it's intended audience. I was being serious about Meritocracies not being real though. | |||
| |||
| |||
"But before the "big reveal" what are your thoughts on why entrepreneurship isn't a meritocracy? " Because it obviously isn't. We know for a fact that people decide within the first 30 seconds or so if they are going to be positively disposed towards someone or not. We also know that people who are taller are more likely to be paid more and their opinions taken more seriously. Indeed, men who are fathers are also more likely to be paid and promoted above their childless male peers. We also know that all things being equal people will select the right job for the man. Studies have been done where two fictional candidates were presented to two groups of people for the role chief of police, one male, one female. For one group, the male candidate was "street smart", the woman was experienced legal professional. For the other, the woman was street smart, the man was the experienced legal professional. In both cases, the groups selected the male candidate. We also know that identical CVs sent to the same company but with different addresses will be treated differently. Companies will consistently reject the versions of the CV where the applicant is female, from a poorer part of town, or has an non-sterotypical white name. How can a meritocracy possibly exist where actual merit comes second a bunch of extraneous factors that have nothing to do with ones ability? And yes, this applies to the internet as well. | |||
| |||
If I had a vagina the same would apply.
Your hypothesis has failed before it even got out of the gate. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"God you are insufferable. You dug up a months old thread to bizarrely say that meritocracies don't exist (a very small point) and now you can't even defend what you are saying. I'll ask you to address the points I made or kindly piss off
"It resurfaced without my input, I think you'll find. As for your point, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that is. Surely you're not trying to argue that if something doesn't happen to you then it simply does not happen? Because that's demonstratively false. | |||
| |||
"The (many) exceptions invalidate any attempt at defining a rule. " Well, no. Firstly, because rules having exceptions does not diminish them as rules. I But secondly, and perhaps more importantly for this, the advantages that people get for things like their height, or where they live, or being male aren't rules in the sense that you're using them to misrepresent the information you've been given. It's not a hard rule, of the variety where IF you have trait X THEN you get reward Y but rather IF you have trait X THEN you are more likely to get reward Y than someone who is as meritorious as you, but lacks trait X. Which is exactly what I said when I was listing examples of why there can't be a meritocracy, when people are more likely to be treated favourably because of things like their height, weight, conventional attractiveness, gender and where they live. That you've concluded that you are shorter but also believe you are better paid than someone in the same company doesn't invalidate anything, because firstly you'd need to compare like with like and pick people who are your peers in terms of work, responsibilities, and expectations and secondly as your sample size is only one person, your experience isn't significant. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Also remember that the original point you tried to attack was entrepreneurship.... Which measures ideas and their saleability plus the drive and quality of decisions made in the implementation with minimal emphasis on the arbitary biases which some people hold. Your reasoning is exactly why feminism serves to limit people with a sense of victimhood and the world being against them. Sure all women are working for free for the rest of 2017 so why even bother making an effort.... Right? "Entrepreneurship isn't a meritocracy for the same reason nothing else is. People do not make decisions in a vacuum, and the rational consumer is but a myth. The same people who decided that the CV from a "good" part of town was worth an interview while discounting one from a "bad" part of town are the same people who buy products. Were there rational consumers, betamax would have trumped VHS, and we'd have pursued FireWire over USB. In short the fantasy of meritocracies only really persist because it allows people who don't want to acknowledge the imbalances in society to simply explain them away as the result of insufficiency on the part of those who suffer from those imbalances. And it's doubly compelling because it also incorrectly attributes the entirety of their own success to their own efforts, and nothing else. | |||
" Regardless of your imaginary rules...the only limits are one's real abilities and not any perception of their abilities. " Is it an 'imaginary rule' that studies consistently show that a CV with a stereotypically 'white' name on it will get more invites to interview than the same CV with a 'black' name on it? | |||
| |||
" And it's doubly compelling because it also incorrectly attributes the entirety of their own success to their own efforts, and nothing else. " You are right, there's a degree of luck sure but you can't ignore talent either. But you sure can subvert it with your style of the "world is against you before you even start". You are also acting as if these irrational consumers (I agree) make their choices based on who founded the company and if they are from a good part of town, or their skin colour or genitals. | |||
"You are still ignoring the fact that many many many people overcome these imaginary barriers you are constructing and reach extreme success despite their "circumstances". " The barriers aren't imaginary. Research shows this to be a fact. And you are making a basic logic error. The fact that people can succeed despite barriers is not proof that barriers don't exist, or that they don't matter. Insisting that there is no prejudice left anywhere is false to the point of absurdity. | |||
"You are still ignoring the fact that many many many people overcome these imaginary barriers you are constructing and reach extreme success despite their "circumstances". The barriers aren't imaginary. Research shows this to be a fact. And you are making a basic logic error. The fact that people can succeed despite barriers is not proof that barriers don't exist, or that they don't matter. Insisting that there is no prejudice left anywhere is false to the point of absurdity. " It depends how much of a figurative weakling you wish to be. | |||
" And you are making a basic logic error. The fact that people can succeed despite barriers is not proof that barriers don't exist, or that they don't matter. " You wouldn't know logic if it slapped you in the face
The entire scientific method is based on trying to whittle down to what is true by seeking to find evidence to disprove what is not.
| |||
"You are still ignoring the fact that many many many people overcome these imaginary barriers you are constructing and reach extreme success despite their "circumstances". " Nobody is 'ignoring' that people can succeeded in spite of these inequalities. What you're being told is that because people can and do succeed in overcoming these inequalities, it doesn't mean that they don't exist, and therefore meritocracies are impossible. Your line of thinking is as claiming that there can't possibly be short people, because even if items on high shelves exist, you can get them, even if that means getting a stepladder. | |||
I'm still pressing you to take on the point about victimhood and the limiting on one's ambitions. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Why do I argue with idiots
I'm still pressing you to take on the point about victimhood and the limiting on one's ambitions. "Ah, well apart from my meandering above, I think the paradox neatly set out in your quoted article has much truth in it. But the lady is likely to be buried by a deluge of hostile responses. One of the developments of feminism has been its securing of a place in the curriculum in higher education systems something akin to theology, and produces acolytes with something of the fervour of seventeenth century Calvinists! | |||
" One of the developments of feminism has been its securing of a place in the curriculum in higher education systems something akin to theology, and produces acolytes with something of the fervour of seventeenth century Calvinists!" Hopefully people are starting to see through it and the current fervour will boil dry soon. | |||
"Why do I argue with idiots
I'm still pressing you to take on the point about victimhood and the limiting on one's ambitions. "I wouldn't have the faintest idea why you would argue with idiots. When you see them, perhaps you should ask them. As for your point about 'victimhood', you continue to make this argument, but it has no merit. You wrongly assume that the correct course of action when presented with an injustice is to pretend it doesn't exist, and if you do acknowledge it's existence you're being "weak" Patronising rubbish, utterly devoid of anything approaching critical thought. Its the same kind of lack of thinking that would tell a depressed person to simply "cheer up". | |||
"Thirty years ago, I would have regarded myself as a feminist in that then the issues really did concern equality of opportunity, of treatment and esteem. And I certainly regarded those opposing change then as both unreasonable and irrational. As action was taken across the fields of employment law and education for example to address structural obstacles to equality, things gradually became a little murkier. On the one hand many women continued to feel disadvantaged in some way, (however justified that feeling,) and focussed more upon less tangible things such as male “ attitudes” , and language and behaviour , so that the very existence of masculinity can sometimes seem inimical to women feeling properly treated. On the other hand large numbers of men now see a disjunction between much of the rhetoric which still characterises feminist journalism and their own experience of life. They have seen assessment methodologies and teaching approaches change with girls now achieving higher grades almost throughout the school curriculum and outnumbering boys in securing places at good universities. And while politicians express concern about boys underachievement the response in a female dominated profession has been disappointing to say the least. In the workplace it is a mixed picture if we only look at outcomes. But simplistic analyses are as misleading as they are frequently repeated. The alleged pay gap is controversial among economists: it really depends on how much you take account of different choices ( and then an argument which goes beyond the simply factual about how real those choices are, and are they “ fair”). For the vast majority of us equal pay is the reality in the places we work, yet you would think from reading the press that was far from the case. Similarly policies such as targeting equal numbers on boards or parliaments etc can only really feel “fair” if equal numbers are seeking places. Otherwise it is a recipe for resentment as individuals get promoted on the basis of their sex not their ability . And the resentment isn’t dispelled by the argument that somehow this is a fair recompense for the perceived unfairness suffered by previous generations! So would I think of myself as a feminist today. Well no, not because I have changed, but that the term is no longer one to which anyone who believes in equality can happily subscribe, but describes an approach to the relationship between men and women which often to me appears aggressive, divisive and intolerant." There's always a small cluster of people who in the wake of a move for civil rights and social justice for people that are not themselves that decide that there's been quite enough progress, thank you very much. They're always wrong. | |||
| |||
"Only an idiot would draw parallels between women and depressed people suffering a similar plight and then some metaphorical nonsense about the so called disadvantaged not being able to use footstools for themselves. I'm done with your shite - enjoy the crusade " Calling people weak because they're disadvantaged by circumstances beyond their control is exactly the same kind of privileged behaviour that leads to telling people with depression to just cheer up. And if pointing that out to you causes such a strong reaction, then perhaps it's time to reexamine your point of view. | |||
| |||
"You are the one saying they are inhibited and operating from a position of weakness in society. I'm endowing people with strength to overcome the trivial bias of a few. Get a grip on reality. " Except, we know it's not "the trivial bias of a few" we know it's endemic to society. So, you're not empowering anyone, you're doing nothing and demanding that anyone who is impacted simply just "get on with it". And expecting to be thanked for it too, apparently. And that's before we get into how you can possibly believe yourself to be endowing people with strength to overcome a problem you were adamant didn't exist... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'll leave you to figure it out champ" Of course. A more suspicious mind might conclude that you've invented this "inversion" as a way to stop having a conversation you are no longer comfortable with. | |||
"If “ it” is endemic in society if must be very easy to produce examples of “ it”. Actual real examples as opposed to vague generalities, and indignant abuse of anyone who challenges conventional platitudes." You're welcome to scroll up to where I cited multiple examples, when disabusing the other poster of the notion of meritocracies. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"If I called most realms a quasi-meritocracy (some more than others) would that satisfy your ridiculous pedantry? It would certainly kill off your piss weak argument that no one can get anywhere because of the huge impenetrable barriers you've conjured up for people in your own head by over-interpreting the findings of a field that tries to call itself a science. Thankfully we haven't started handing out participation medals in life just yet and opportunities are there for those who want them. " I never said "nobody can get anywhere" I said a meritocracy cannot exist because society doesn't treat people on just their merits. Why you've needed to create other positions, assign them to me and tried to argue against them, well I couldn't possibly say. | |||
| |||
"No. A few unsubstantiated assertions regarding alleged research on appointments, together with a lot of “ we all know” stuff. Now there as been I would agree , mountains of research, but it does not provide the conclusive evidence you seem to assume it does. I’m referring here purely to potential sex discrimination, not generally to the persistence of some prejudices. That you could find some corners where women are disadvantaged to some extent I would not doubt, as you could as easily find them where the reverse obtains. I would include probably the whole education sector among the latter. I would guess, though cannot speak with the same confidence, that the financial sector might be an example of the former. But generally, and I speak as a father who wants the same opportunities in life for my son and my daughter, I cannot accept that either is particularly disadvantaged owing to their sex." That you do not wish it to be true, doesn't matter. Though denying the problem exists certainly does. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Backtrack.com It was endemic half an hour ago. " And it still is. | |||
| |||
"Where? Again you confuse assertion with argument. There are no structural barriers, and have not been for decades, to men or women succeeding in their chosen professions. " That is incorrect. I have cited multiple examples of how people (not just women) can be more likely to benefit from traits that do not have anything to do with their suitability for a given role. | |||
| |||
"Back in the real world... You go for an interview and if you are unlucky enough to meet someone with a particular bias against whoever you are then you keep interviewing elsewhere until you meet with someone from the majority who want to hire strong candidates - if that's you. Rinse and repeat until you are doing well in life. Or you can roll over and die, become an -ism of some sort blogger and project your anger at yourself back at the world. It's easy to be blinded by pseudoscience. " And those biases can also prevent people from getting an interview in the first place. But the mistake you make constantly is, you assume that people who are aware of these biases have two choices, ignore them or "give up" and become a caricature you can sneer about. But, in reality, people do have to struggle on in this system, because they have no other choice, but highlighting that it exists and as a consequence trying to change it isn't "giving up". That people highlighting and changing something that you do not believe affects you bothers you so much is really petty. You're insistent that there ought to be meritocracy, but when the reason why that isn't possible right now are explained to you, your response is to pretend that's not real and pretend that they do exist. And if you honestly believe that meritocracies are a good thing, why would you insist that biases that prevent that from happening are simply to be ignored as opposed to being removed so that you can have the system you think is so meritorious? | |||
"Well that is rather different: of course people have different traits which lead prospective employers to have opinions as to their suitability for jobs. Perfectly rationally in most circumstances. But not always of course. Which is why those from public schools, men and women, continue to dominate the most attractive jobs. I see nothing to justify a view that this prejudice applies to women generally. Forty years ago, certainly, but those women who were genuinely hindered on the grounds of their sex are virtually all retired." That's a nice fantasy you have. But that's all it is. Women are constantly treated poorer than their male counterparts, and pretending otherwise isn't going to change that. There was the "right job for the man" example I provided earlier, but also multiple examples of when men and women swap signature when corresponding with clients, especially in tech, that women noticed that they had to fight less to get the client to agree to changes, where as their male colleague found they had to work harder and had their opinions ignored. But I'm certain those people are up for retirement any day now. | |||
" And you are making a basic logic error. The fact that people can succeed despite barriers is not proof that barriers don't exist, or that they don't matter. You wouldn't know logic if it slapped you in the face
The entire scientific method is based on trying to whittle down to what is true by seeking to find evidence to disprove what is not.
"Oh boy. Do you have any conception how stupid you make yourself look? Firstly, you haven't even addressed my point. Secondly, the scientific method does not consider claims disproved if they don't apply in 100% of cases. Do you think 'smoking causes cancer' is an incorrect claim because not every smoker gets cancer? | |||
| |||
" The idea that somehow we've eradicated both conscious and unconscious bias is real head in the sand stuff. " No one is arguing that....there is a fair argument that the degree of bias is easily surmountable and of little consequence by those without a victim complex. Everyone experiences some sort of bias and people they don't like and people who don't like them... That's the human experience. I await your attempted strawman of what in saying | |||
| |||
| |||
" The idea that somehow we've eradicated both conscious and unconscious bias is real head in the sand stuff. No one is arguing that....there is a fair argument that the degree of bias is easily surmountable and of little consequence by those without a victim complex. Everyone experiences some sort of bias and people they don't like and people who don't like them... That's the human experience. I await your attempted strawman of what in saying " What evidence (your personal opinion does not count) do you have that the level of bias is easily surmountable and of little consequence? | |||
"Why accept these inequalities at all?" Come back to me when you've discovered how to change human nature | |||
" What evidence (your personal opinion does not count) do you have that the level of bias is easily surmountable and of little consequence? " Every successful woman ever..... or even every gainfully employed woman if I was to take your studies at the weighting you seem to give them. | |||
"Why accept these inequalities at all? Come back to me when you've discovered how to change human nature "It's always curious that people who believe themselves unaffected by things like this are so quick to write it off an an intractable fact of life. | |||
" What evidence (your personal opinion does not count) do you have that the level of bias is easily surmountable and of little consequence? Every successful woman ever..... or even every gainfully employed woman if I was to take your studies at the weighting you seem to give them. " How is it that you don't even understand the claim being made? It is not 'the level of bias is so high that women/ethnic minorities can't succeed' It's simply that it can make it harder to get that success. And that's not fair. Certain groups shouldn't have to work harder than others to get the same rewards. So we should try and address it. That's literally all the argument is. | |||
"Why accept these inequalities at all? Come back to me when you've discovered how to change human nature
It's always curious that people who believe themselves unaffected by things like this are so quick to write it off an an intractable fact of life.
"To the contrary I believe that everyone experiences bias in some shape or form. | |||
"Why accept these inequalities at all? Come back to me when you've discovered how to change human nature
It's always curious that people who believe themselves unaffected by things like this are so quick to write it off an an intractable fact of life.
To the contrary I believe that everyone experiences bias in some shape or form. "But you also believe that because you don't imagine yourself as being affected by them, therefore they're of no consequence to anybody. | |||
"Why accept these inequalities at all? Come back to me when you've discovered how to change human nature
It's always curious that people who believe themselves unaffected by things like this are so quick to write it off an an intractable fact of life.
To the contrary I believe that everyone experiences bias in some shape or form.
But you also believe that because you don't imagine yourself as being affected by them, therefore they're of no consequence to anybody. "A find bit of exaggeration x bourgeoisie feminism I'm out... Go find something important to care about | |||
| |||
"Continually asserting that women as a sex experience this so disproportionally that it still represents a major structural obstacle to them in career terms needs justification. And where is that? " It has been provided in abundance on this thread already. | |||
" It has been provided in abundance on this thread already. " The easiest person to fool is yourself. You've tripped over your own argument here twice already. | |||
" And you are making a basic logic error. The fact that people can succeed despite barriers is not proof that barriers don't exist, or that they don't matter. You wouldn't know logic if it slapped you in the face
The entire scientific method is based on trying to whittle down to what is true by seeking to find evidence to disprove what is not.
Oh boy. Do you have any conception how stupid you make yourself look?
Firstly, you haven't even addressed my point.
Secondly, the scientific method does not consider claims disproved if they don't apply in 100% of cases.
Do you think 'smoking causes cancer' is an incorrect claim because not every smoker gets cancer? "In the interest of humility I must admit that this gave me food for thought. On reflection, it is an incorrect statement... The correct statement is that "smoking MAY cause cancer" in much the same way that we see "may cause drowsiness" on the ads for some medications. What I said about the scientific method is still true. Disconfirming evidence tell us with certainty what is not fully correct and needs re-examination. We can say that prejudice MAY impact your career/life but it's not a huge factor overall. Looking at your pet study about the name on a CV... while the "wrong" name might be a factor in getting the CV chucked in the bin by someone prejudicial, we can look at the other side of the coin and be fairly certain that the whitest of white names on a CV lacking qualifications will also get chucked. Do you your beloved studies use a control of this sort or aim to weight the factors? I would bet my life savings that on a statistical basis, well qualified CV's with the "wrong" names have a higher success rate than unqualified CVs with the "right" names. After all, we don't live in a world where people are allowed to perform brain surgery or fly planes having left school at 15 because they are tall, handsome, white men from the right part of town. Of course qualifications (merit) matter. Is it a pure meritocracy? No (we're dealing with humans after all) but talent and hard work will always win out and this is what we should be preaching. Positivity over negativity and presenting opportunities over a whingey and ultimately wrong narrative of oppression. | |||
| |||
| |||
"On reflection, it is an incorrect statement... The correct statement is that "smoking MAY cause cancer" in much the same way that we see "may cause drowsiness" on the ads for some medications. " Actually, it's more like 'often does' than 'may'. But this is irrelevant and does not disprove my point. Smoking/cancer is a proven link that does not hold 100% true in every case. As is the situation with women/ethnic minorities experiencing detrimental bias. Hence 'look at successful women!' is not evidence against bias existing, anymore than 'look at this smoker who never had cancer!' is evidence against that hypothesis. "What I said about the scientific method is still true. Disconfirming evidence tell us with certainty what is not fully correct and needs re-examination. " You're conflating two different types of knowledge/observation. In maths or chemistry for example, if we have an equation which does not work in all cases then yes, it is not fully correct. But observations about disease occurrence, gender bias, etc - these are a different class of claim that are more about possible/likely outcomes. They're not equations that have to hold true in 100% of cases to be useful or considered accurate. This is really basic stuff, honestly. "We can say that prejudice MAY impact your career/life but it's not a huge factor overall." You prefer to think that it's not a huge factor because that suits your assumptions and biases. "Looking at your pet study about the name on a CV... while the "wrong" name might be a factor in getting the CV chucked in the bin by someone prejudicial, we can look at the other side of the coin and be fairly certain that the whitest of white names on a CV lacking qualifications will also get chucked." Completely irrelevant. The argument is not that being white is a super power that gets you any job you want regardless of qualifications. This is a strawman. And that isn't 'the other side of the coin' in any way. These studies (its not just one, by the way, but many carried out over many years) are not about qualifications. "Do you your beloved studies use a control of this sort or aim to weight the factors? I would bet my life savings that on a statistical basis, well qualified CV's with the "wrong" names have a higher success rate than unqualified CVs with the "right" names." They use the same CV with different names to demonstrate the effect of subconscious prejudice when everything else is equal. Why would they then use different CVs? You understand that to test a variable you need to keep everything else the same, right? Your bet is, again, completely irrelevant to the studies and the evidence they provide. "After all, we don't live in a world where people are allowed to perform brain surgery or fly planes having left school at 15 because they are tall, handsome, white men from the right part of town." Here we go again. You claim other people use strawman arguments, but you're the biggest culprit. The argument isn't that gender/racism bias is such a powerful factor that 15 year olds fly planes. It's just that an uneven playing field exists, and that simply isn't unfair. It doesn't have to be proven to destroy lives or prevent people from achieving success. Just that it makes things harder. And simply, there's no reason why some groups of people should have to work harder than others for the same results. You ignored this explanation last time, because of course you can't answer why we shouldn't have a fair system. You have to strawman or drone on about 'victims'. "Of course qualifications (merit) matter. Is it a pure meritocracy? No (we're dealing with humans after all) but talent and hard work will always win out and this is what we should be preaching." You're so naive/blinkered. Talent and hard work do not always win out. It's sad but true. "Positivity over negativity and presenting opportunities over a whingey and ultimately wrong narrative of oppression. " Yawn. This is all you've got, isn't it? 'be positive, don't be a victim' is a useless message. If something is unfair, it's not 'whingey' to point that out. Staying silent achieves nothing. | |||
" Why would they then use different CVs? You understand that to test a variable you need to keep everything else the same, right? " 1.I deliberately created extreme examples to try to get this simple point about epistemology into your thick skull. If you can't understand why you need to stress test the limits of your "discovery" then you are either lost or a fraud. 2. You still have no clue as to how significant a factor prejudice really is.... You are just projecting your own world view. 3. Life is unfair, nothing is perfect but you can choose to win or to lose. Again positivity and capability is the message. 4. I'd love to hear what practical steps you have to eliminate all prejudice from the world (and to do it without damaging second order effects like creating division between men and women) | |||
" Why would they then use different CVs? You understand that to test a variable you need to keep everything else the same, right? 1.I deliberately created extreme examples to try to get this simple point about epistemology into your thick skull. If you can't understand why you need to stress test the limits of your "discovery" then you are either lost or a fraud. 2. You still have no clue as to how significant a factor prejudice really is.... You are just projecting your own world view. 3. Life is unfair, nothing is perfect but you can choose to win or to lose. Again positivity and capability is the message. 4. I'd love to hear what practical steps you have to eliminate all prejudice from the world (and to do it without damaging second order effects like creating division between men and women) " 1. We're talking about peer reviewed studies and meta studies here (eg "Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time") I don't accept your assertion that a stress test of using different CVs would be necessary. But feel free to read the studies and satisfy yourself that everyone one of them are flawed. And honestly the irony of calling anyone 'thick skulled' whilst trying to argue that if something doesn't happen 100% of the time, it doesn't happen... 2. I'm not projecting anything. I'm looking at studies and seeing evidence of a problem of bias. No, I can't quantify that - how could one? There isn't a scale for this. But the level is not zero. It's your blinkers that makes you insist it is zero despite the evidence. 3. Absolutely nothing of interest to respond to here, just silly assertions. 4. There are all kinds of organizations and people working on fighting various prejudices, in all kinds of ways. Raising awareness, teaching in schools, research, policy making, working for positive representation in media and against stereotypes, inclusion policies in workplaces, and many others. It's a messy and difficult problem. You know what definitely won't work? Doing nothing and telling other people they're wrong to even talk about it. | |||
" And honestly the irony of calling anyone 'thick skulled' whilst trying to argue that if something doesn't happen 100% of the time, it doesn't happen... " That's not what I've said..prejudice happen all the time.. You are twisting my words to try to weasle out where you know you are wrong. "Peer reviewed" studies over interpreted in an intellectual vacuum. Run along lost sheep. | |||
" And honestly the irony of calling anyone 'thick skulled' whilst trying to argue that if something doesn't happen 100% of the time, it doesn't happen... That's not what I've said..prejudice happen all the time.. You are twisting my words to try to weasle out where you know you are wrong. "Peer reviewed" studies over interpreted in an intellectual vacuum. Run along lost sheep. " That's exactly what you said. That the existence of succesful women disproves the idea that women encounter bias. And so we reach a real demonstration of the quality of your argument: a dismissal of evidence you don't like you, and a silly little jibe. How persuasive. | |||
| |||
"It disproves that it's a limitation...... " You keep making the same mistake over and over, and I keep correcting you, and you keep doing it. Why is that? For the 3rd or 4th time, the point is not that bias stops people dead in their tracks or prevents success. It's that bias is not fair. Person A should not have to work harder than person B for the same results due to their gender or race. And as such, succeeding does not disapprove the idea that achieving that success was unfairly harder. | |||
| |||
"As a white male have you never encountered unfairness? " None that I would attribute to being due to my sex or gender, no. At any rate, we are talking about systemic issues that require more than one person's evidence to demonstrate. | |||
| |||
"But you have encountered unfairness? " Irrelevant when we are discussing unfairness stemming from gender/racial bias. | |||
| |||
"Avoiding the point. If things are as bad as you make out you'd be doing more good in the world if you out on the streets in a task force councilling some young ladies over their grief of being born with a vagina and helping them with their plight instead of embarrassing yourself here arguing with me. I'll bid you good day and hope that someday you wake up from your intellectual coma and see how you've been blindsided by the media zeitgeist. " Oh dear. Let's review this 'debate': You've dismissed peer reviewed evidence simply because you don't like what it shows. Very scientific. I've shown repeatedly that you misrepresent and strawman the argument, and you have no come back for this. You've shown yourself not to understand basic logic, in that that overcoming barriers does not prove barriers don't exist. Now you're reduced to arguing that I need to be in a 'task force' counselling people. Actually I do volunteer in an area that isn't a million miles away from that, but it's completely irrelevant. What a person does or doesn't do personally doesn't affect the facts. So this is another useless 'argument'. And then at the end of a long string of fails, you run away. Embarrassing indeed. | |||
| |||
" It has been provided in abundance on this thread already. The easiest person to fool is yourself. You've tripped over your own argument here twice already. " You keep saying that. But you never show how. | |||
"Prisons aren't secured by 3ft high walls "Well, that little bit of 'wit' sure disproved the long list of your errors that I highlighted. | |||
" It has been provided in abundance on this thread already. The easiest person to fool is yourself. You've tripped over your own argument here twice already. You keep saying that. But you never show how." I've decided to stop wasting my own time - you are too dogmatic and illogical. To stove...you are mostly talking the same sort of "boffins say" bad science that The Sun newpaper would be proud of.... so the same applies. Fair ye well gentlemen | |||
" To stove...you are mostly talking the same sort of "boffins say" bad science that The Sun newpaper would be proud of.... so the same applies. " Wrong, again. The meta study I referenced earlier was published in PNAS. Not exactly the Sun, if you know anything about it, or care to look. You're making assertions on the quality of research that you haven't even looked at, on the basis that you don't like what it has found. That you apparently don't see any problem with that is telling. Or, it would be telling if you hadn't already demonstrated the poor quality of your thinking over and over again. | |||
| |||
| |||
" It has been provided in abundance on this thread already. The easiest person to fool is yourself. You've tripped over your own argument here twice already. You keep saying that. But you never show how. I've decided to stop wasting my own time - you are too dogmatic and illogical. " So you keep saying, but then you circle back to say that you've spotted flaws in arguments, before claiming you can't be bothered showing what they are, and now you're leaving! For good this time! Honest! I'd prefer you'd stand your ground and make your case, to be honest. It's the least you could do when other people have shown you the same courtesy. | |||
| |||
"Aw such courteous lads, do you miss me??? Xxx Stove... It pains me to have to repeat myself and point out the obvious for your benefit but just to put the nail in your coffin of an argument... I wasn't disputing the study but your interpretation of its relevance to the real world in practical terms. You are the bad scientist... Not the researchers. It has also dawned on me that while you really really love a fair level playing field you are quick to chastise any guys who might complain about not having an easy time around these fab parts. That demonstrates the domain dependency of your thinking. Adios" The third return, and then the fourth exit of the thread! I wonder how many more we can get to. Maybe if you didn't keep coming back to read, you wouldn't keep getting drawn in? Just a tip, as you seem to be having difficulties sticking to what you say you want to do. My posts on other subjects have nothing to do with the matter in hand, but nice attempt at a distraction. Sticking on topic, I see your claim has changed again. Previously it was that the studies were flawed. Now you recognise their legitimacy but claim that they don't have real world importance. But this is certainly wrong. If a CV stands a greater chance of rejection if it has a 'black name', which has been conclusively shown, it is logical that black people will have to try harder to get jobs. The authors of the study themselves believe that their study reflects and demonstrates real world prejudice. So I'm afraid you can't paint this as just something I'm mistakenly coming up with. And before you come back with your usual 'just work hard to overcome prejudice' - it isn't fair that some people should have to work harder than others. Which I keep saying, and you keep ignoring because you have no answer. | |||
| |||
| |||
