3 ms·

> I disagree with you characterisation "worrying about sexism and teaching their child about it". There's nothing wrong with that. That's not all that's going o

by Latty 10y ago

> I disagree with you characterisation "worrying about sexism and teaching their child about it". There's nothing wrong with that. That's not all that's going on here. Yes, it is. That was the point of the article - but you are so scared of the feminists coming and pushing you down you have dreamed up some crazy interpretation of it. > Googling is not research. No, but it's a good place to start. >the original comment was "We know that we are all a little bit sexist" - what motivated this? Give one good example. Things like http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract - there are a lot of studies that show doing a lot of things as men and as women result in higher acceptance rate of women if gender isn't known. We know that historically and culturally we have gender roles pushed on us. It is worth inspecting when you are making decisions that affect others if you have bias. > Can you demonstrate this? If it where true, wouldn't the 'crazy' feminists be called out more. Wouldn't the 'crazy' feminists have less influence? There aren't enough of them and they have so little influence that is rare. People do call them out when they pop up online in forums and stuff, which is about the extent you see them. You are characterising normal reasonable people under the crazy banner. Show me the policies that are being implemented by these radical feminists you claim have so much influence and are so common. Show me the articles in respected publications espousing pushing men down to pull women up. It's not a commonplace thing or a big problem, that's why it's not being 'called out more'. > and we also need an objective, and equally applied definition of sexism. Not one that is "historically defined". History informs the present. I've given my definition of sexism, you have a problem with it? > your type? I'm not sure it's all feminism at all. It is. You have constructed this fantasy of the feminist oppressors as extremists because it allows you to feel persecuted, and allows you to ignore everything - as long as you aren't going around raping people and telling women to make sandwiches for you, you can't be sexist!

Chris2048 10y ago
> Yes, it is If you say so... > No, but it's a good place to start. Not really. A search engine brings you what you are looking for, and can be easily biased by many factors, including the popularity and phrasing implications of a question > Things like [this] This study applies to one context. Many studies only apply to many contexts. You need at least one study applying to the universal context, i.e on a random selection of the population, to prove it of society in general. More hand waving "lot of studies" - are these studies representative? Many studies are performed in certain areas because there is a previous suspicion of bias there. Many studies focus on gender due to the popularity of the subject, when in fact the biases exist due to correlations with other factors (wealth, education, etc) or the narrow focus of the study (high earners, but not low earners); so even studies that show sexual "bias" needn't imply unfairness or sexism if either the relevant factor isn't sex (just something that correlates), or if the underlying cause isn't unfair (by some definition). Incidentally, social science, and in particular the field of psychology, have had issue reproducing results, e.g http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full.pdf > they have so little influence that is rare > You are characterising normal reasonable people under the crazy banner. Given what you consider reasonable, this maybe begs the question. I think maybe your "crazy" is a straw feminist that you have already counted yourself as not being one. > Show me the articles Any article covering the wage gap with the implication that "something must be done" > It's not a commonplace thing or a big problem Not to feminists, no. > you have a problem with it? Yes, it assumes what that influence is without evidence >> I'm not sure it's all feminism at all. >It is Well, here's hoping for an enlightened fourth-wave then. That said, #notallwomen #notyourshield > You have constructed.. whatever you say, doc
- Latty 10y ago
  Ah yes, the good old "studies can be wrong" and moving the goal-posts to require impossible to perform studies. It's not possible to show something like sexism universally because what is the indicator everyone does you test? You call it hand-waving, but you are the one hand-waving away the evidence we have that sexism exists. You focus on the wage gap, but that's just one argument people make - and just because some people interpret the data wrongly (expecting 1:1 to be the right outcome, disregarding the difference in common career paths), that doesn't make it entirely wrong (sexism could still be a factor - it's hard to tell), and it doesn't make it malicious or the whole of feminism somehow invalid. I see plenty of discussion about that, and I don't see people trying to force through 1:1 as the standard. Yes, amazingly there are people who call themselves feminists and are wrong, like with anything. If we had a site that was citing the wage gap, demanding 1:1 pay regardless of situation, etc... I would be onboard with calling it wrong. That doesn't magically make a site tarnishing feminists with legitimate arguments and aims as wrong. That article was reasonable unless you think teaching a child about feminism is wrong, which implies that feminism is inherantly wrong, not just potentially in the wrong hands.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Ah, the good old "the good old". Diagnosing everything I say as some classic fallacy only works if you can explain why it's wrong. Did I not post a contradicting study? http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s... Again, please expand; where did I move the goalpost? > It's not possible to show something like sexism universally It might be, it'd just be hard. I assume from the above you are accepting I was right? > but you are the one hand-waving away the evidence we have that sexism exists This isn't what 'hand waving' in the former context means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving The burden is on you to provide evidence for your overly general statements. > that's just one argument people make I picked that as a good example. Do you have a better one? > that doesn't make it entirely wrong It doesn't make what wrong? The wage gap? ok - but I never claimed it was - there is no evidence it is a problem, and by default we don't act on things that are not wrong. Sexism can, and to some degree will, be a factor; The question is what can be shown by reasonable analysis, as opposed to ideological rhetoric. I think you are the one moving the goalposts here. You appear to have gone from "sexism definitely exists, we are all a little sexist" to "we don't know sexism doesn't exist". > or the whole of feminism somehow invalid Please stick to the things I said. This is the second time I'm saying this now. you are the one making generalizations here. > I don't see people trying to force through 1:1 as the standard Yet, it's the wage gap "problem" than inspires things like https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/germany-gender-quota-legislation-boardroom-law-women https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/germany-gen... > unless you think teaching a child about feminism is wrong I'm going to stop arguing this because I think you are being willfully ignorant. I clearly don't thing "teaching a child about feminism" is the correct characterisation, nor accept your "implication" (I've said twice now I believe the feminism shown here not to be "all" feminism) so repeatedly trying to frame it like this is not productive.

by Latty 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

> Yes, it is If you say so... > No, but it's a good place to start. Not really. A search engine brings you what you are looking for, and can be easily biased by many factors, including the popularity and phrasing implications of a question > Things like [this] This study applies to one context. Many studies only apply to many contexts. You need at least one study applying to the universal context, i.e on a random selection of the population, to prove it of society in general. More hand waving "lot of studies" - are these studies representative? Many studies are performed in certain areas because there is a previous suspicion of bias there. Many studies focus on gender due to the popularity of the subject, when in fact the biases exist due to correlations with other factors (wealth, education, etc) or the narrow focus of the study (high earners, but not low earners); so even studies that show sexual "bias" needn't imply unfairness or sexism if either the relevant factor isn't sex (just something that correlates), or if the underlying cause isn't unfair (by some definition). Incidentally, social science, and in particular the field of psychology, have had issue reproducing results, e.g http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full.pdf > they have so little influence that is rare > You are characterising normal reasonable people under the crazy banner. Given what you consider reasonable, this maybe begs the question. I think maybe your "crazy" is a straw feminist that you have already counted yourself as not being one. > Show me the articles Any article covering the wage gap with the implication that "something must be done" > It's not a commonplace thing or a big problem Not to feminists, no. > you have a problem with it? Yes, it assumes what that influence is without evidence >> I'm not sure it's all feminism at all. >It is Well, here's hoping for an enlightened fourth-wave then. That said, #notallwomen #notyourshield > You have constructed.. whatever you say, doc

Latty 10y ago
Ah yes, the good old "studies can be wrong" and moving the goal-posts to require impossible to perform studies. It's not possible to show something like sexism universally because what is the indicator everyone does you test? You call it hand-waving, but you are the one hand-waving away the evidence we have that sexism exists. You focus on the wage gap, but that's just one argument people make - and just because some people interpret the data wrongly (expecting 1:1 to be the right outcome, disregarding the difference in common career paths), that doesn't make it entirely wrong (sexism could still be a factor - it's hard to tell), and it doesn't make it malicious or the whole of feminism somehow invalid. I see plenty of discussion about that, and I don't see people trying to force through 1:1 as the standard. Yes, amazingly there are people who call themselves feminists and are wrong, like with anything. If we had a site that was citing the wage gap, demanding 1:1 pay regardless of situation, etc... I would be onboard with calling it wrong. That doesn't magically make a site tarnishing feminists with legitimate arguments and aims as wrong. That article was reasonable unless you think teaching a child about feminism is wrong, which implies that feminism is inherantly wrong, not just potentially in the wrong hands.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Ah, the good old "the good old". Diagnosing everything I say as some classic fallacy only works if you can explain why it's wrong. Did I not post a contradicting study? http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s... Again, please expand; where did I move the goalpost? > It's not possible to show something like sexism universally It might be, it'd just be hard. I assume from the above you are accepting I was right? > but you are the one hand-waving away the evidence we have that sexism exists This isn't what 'hand waving' in the former context means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving The burden is on you to provide evidence for your overly general statements. > that's just one argument people make I picked that as a good example. Do you have a better one? > that doesn't make it entirely wrong It doesn't make what wrong? The wage gap? ok - but I never claimed it was - there is no evidence it is a problem, and by default we don't act on things that are not wrong. Sexism can, and to some degree will, be a factor; The question is what can be shown by reasonable analysis, as opposed to ideological rhetoric. I think you are the one moving the goalposts here. You appear to have gone from "sexism definitely exists, we are all a little sexist" to "we don't know sexism doesn't exist". > or the whole of feminism somehow invalid Please stick to the things I said. This is the second time I'm saying this now. you are the one making generalizations here. > I don't see people trying to force through 1:1 as the standard Yet, it's the wage gap "problem" than inspires things like https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/germany-gender-quota-legislation-boardroom-law-women https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/germany-gen... > unless you think teaching a child about feminism is wrong I'm going to stop arguing this because I think you are being willfully ignorant. I clearly don't thing "teaching a child about feminism" is the correct characterisation, nor accept your "implication" (I've said twice now I believe the feminism shown here not to be "all" feminism) so repeatedly trying to frame it like this is not productive.