4 ms·

She probably became combative because you were deploying the lump of labour fallacy and in doing so either explicitly or implicitly blaming women working for th

by pmyteh 10y ago

She probably became combative because you were deploying the lump of labour fallacy and in doing so either explicitly or implicitly blaming women working for the failures of economic policy since the 70s. Although this would at least make a refreshing change from the usual gambit of blaming immigrants, unfortunately you seem to have managed to do that as well. Your 'just tried to explain' (wrongly) is a classic example of why the expression 'mansplaining' is a thing. Please stop.

rhapsodic 10y ago
>She probably became combative because you were deploying the lump of labour fallacy and in doing so either explicitly or implicitly blaming women working for the failures of economic policy since the 70s. That's not a valid reason to become combative. If she felt the GP was wrong, she could have simply, with facts and logic, explained why she felt that way. In my observation, when people respond to an argument with combativeness, it usually means they realize they cannot refute the argument with facts and logic. So they get all nasty and start name-calling (e.g. "you're a racist!") or they deploy some childish, imbecilic bromide like accusing the other person of "mansplaining".
- pmyteh 10y ago
  Sure. And people also beecome combative when the person arguing with them is being a dick. Case in point: my previous post has attracted a rapid slew of (not exactly undeserved) down votes, and precisely one person (you) even attempting facts and logic. And even yours pitches 'childish, imbecilic', which isn't uncombative itself, in context.
  - rhapsodic 10y ago
    >And even yours pitches 'childish, imbecilic', which isn't uncombative itself, in context. The term "mansplaining", and the use of it, is in my view extremely childish and imbecelic, in just about every scenario in which I've seen it used. And it's based on a gender-based generalization that is as illogical as if I had said "she became combative because women are driven by emotions rather than reasoning! She should stop fem-plaining!"
  - Clubber 10y ago
    I down voted your post too. You told him he was mansplaining and to please stop. How does that help anything in the discussion? I appreciate the wage gap problem, but throwing terms like "mansplaining," are typically done by garbage websites trying to get clicks by stirring up gender tensions. It actually stands to freeze progress rather than further it, but hey, ad revenue right?
    - slavik81 10y ago
      I'd like to note, though, that it was a good post aside from the personal attack. I would have upvoted if the text dedicated to admonishing the parent were instead dedicated to expanding on how the lump of labour fallacy applied.
      - Clubber 10y ago
        Yes, I would also like to know how doubling the work force as a factor in pushing down wages is a fallacy (particularly in the 80s). I understand it's a complex problem. Another factor in stagnant wages is automation and much of what we tout as worker productivity isn't necessarily workers working 10x faster or harder, but automation allowing them to get 10x more done. Think in terms of Excel vs "running the numbers" manually, databases vs. file cabinets, etc. As an aside, part of the reason the VA is so inefficient is that many of their patient records are (were?) in file cabinets. The worker doesn't do 10x the work out of pure skill (though learning to use Excel is part of it) but the investment in licenses and software done by the business. It's fair to say if the business invested in building a software system, they should reap the benefits of the productivity it yields, even though that stagnates wages. I also believe a worker who understands Excel should have higher wages than one that doesn't, though today, it's a requirement for a job in accounting.
  - weberc2 10y ago
    Downvoter here. First of all, downvoting isn't combativeness. Secondly, if you want fewer drive-by downvotes, you might try making it worth a reader's time to respond--don't post obviously bad ideas (no one wants to explain the obvious); demonstrate that you're thoughtful, well-intentioned, and reasonable (only trolls want to debate an unreasonable person); etc.
virmundi 10y ago
I don't think I'm committing that fallacy given history. Look where women went to work: office level work, or service work if you will. Look where men were transitioning during the late 60s: office level work, or service work if you will. Now you've got 2 groups of people competing for the same work. Historically with a constrained pool of labour, you'd expect wages to rise to get the few available candidates to work for you. Since the 1970's, that pool is essentially 33-60% great than what it could have been. Also during the 1970's you saw an increased rate of women attending university. Again, gaining skills and accreditations required by the general employers at the time. As to mansplanning, I didn't do that. I never said the individual was a woman. In fact it was a portly, hairy MALE friend of mine. I also didn't say women in the workplace was bad. Just there are consequences of expanding the labour pool with more intelligent hard working people.
- cbhl 10y ago
  I want you to consider the way you phrased your statement, and compare it to the way I phrased my question. You: "[The] reason for wage stagnation is that women hit the workforce" Me: "because women weren't expected to have jobs" The way you phrased your statement can be interpreted as saying that women are the cause of wage stagnation. Surely, that's not what you meant at all. The way I phrased my statement implies that society, and the change in society's expectations of women, are the trigger. This shifts the "blame", if you will, from women, to everyone. I realize I'm being nit-picky about words, but in my experience, women and minorities care about words a lot, and so taking care in the way you use words can help them be more receptive to your facts and ideas.
  - rhapsodic 10y ago
    *>I realize I'm being nit-picky about words,..." If you were nit-picky about words, you would realize that the entire post you quoted from was utterly inoffensive to anyone not trying to find offense. FFS, he (excuse me for assuming that) even said "I made no judgement on women working."
  - weberc2 10y ago
    I really perceive no difference between those phrasings. I also don't have a strong desire to pander to those who go so far out of their way to avoid charitable interpretations. Fortunately, I know very few such people (male or female, majority or minority).

by pmyteh 10y ago

rhapsodic 10y ago

>She probably became combative because you were deploying the lump of labour fallacy and in doing so either explicitly or implicitly blaming women working for the failures of economic policy since the 70s. That's not a valid reason to become combative. If she felt the GP was wrong, she could have simply, with facts and logic, explained why she felt that way. In my observation, when people respond to an argument with combativeness, it usually means they realize they cannot refute the argument with facts and logic. So they get all nasty and start name-calling (e.g. "you're a racist!") or they deploy some childish, imbecilic bromide like accusing the other person of "mansplaining".

pmyteh 10y ago
Sure. And people also beecome combative when the person arguing with them is being a dick. Case in point: my previous post has attracted a rapid slew of (not exactly undeserved) down votes, and precisely one person (you) even attempting facts and logic. And even yours pitches 'childish, imbecilic', which isn't uncombative itself, in context.
- rhapsodic 10y ago
  >And even yours pitches 'childish, imbecilic', which isn't uncombative itself, in context. The term "mansplaining", and the use of it, is in my view extremely childish and imbecelic, in just about every scenario in which I've seen it used. And it's based on a gender-based generalization that is as illogical as if I had said "she became combative because women are driven by emotions rather than reasoning! She should stop fem-plaining!"
- Clubber 10y ago
  I down voted your post too. You told him he was mansplaining and to please stop. How does that help anything in the discussion? I appreciate the wage gap problem, but throwing terms like "mansplaining," are typically done by garbage websites trying to get clicks by stirring up gender tensions. It actually stands to freeze progress rather than further it, but hey, ad revenue right?
  - slavik81 10y ago
    I'd like to note, though, that it was a good post aside from the personal attack. I would have upvoted if the text dedicated to admonishing the parent were instead dedicated to expanding on how the lump of labour fallacy applied.
    - Clubber 10y ago
      Yes, I would also like to know how doubling the work force as a factor in pushing down wages is a fallacy (particularly in the 80s). I understand it's a complex problem. Another factor in stagnant wages is automation and much of what we tout as worker productivity isn't necessarily workers working 10x faster or harder, but automation allowing them to get 10x more done. Think in terms of Excel vs "running the numbers" manually, databases vs. file cabinets, etc. As an aside, part of the reason the VA is so inefficient is that many of their patient records are (were?) in file cabinets. The worker doesn't do 10x the work out of pure skill (though learning to use Excel is part of it) but the investment in licenses and software done by the business. It's fair to say if the business invested in building a software system, they should reap the benefits of the productivity it yields, even though that stagnates wages. I also believe a worker who understands Excel should have higher wages than one that doesn't, though today, it's a requirement for a job in accounting.
- weberc2 10y ago
  Downvoter here. First of all, downvoting isn't combativeness. Secondly, if you want fewer drive-by downvotes, you might try making it worth a reader's time to respond--don't post obviously bad ideas (no one wants to explain the obvious); demonstrate that you're thoughtful, well-intentioned, and reasonable (only trolls want to debate an unreasonable person); etc.

virmundi 10y ago

I don't think I'm committing that fallacy given history. Look where women went to work: office level work, or service work if you will. Look where men were transitioning during the late 60s: office level work, or service work if you will. Now you've got 2 groups of people competing for the same work. Historically with a constrained pool of labour, you'd expect wages to rise to get the few available candidates to work for you. Since the 1970's, that pool is essentially 33-60% great than what it could have been. Also during the 1970's you saw an increased rate of women attending university. Again, gaining skills and accreditations required by the general employers at the time. As to mansplanning, I didn't do that. I never said the individual was a woman. In fact it was a portly, hairy MALE friend of mine. I also didn't say women in the workplace was bad. Just there are consequences of expanding the labour pool with more intelligent hard working people.

cbhl 10y ago
I want you to consider the way you phrased your statement, and compare it to the way I phrased my question. You: "[The] reason for wage stagnation is that women hit the workforce" Me: "because women weren't expected to have jobs" The way you phrased your statement can be interpreted as saying that women are the cause of wage stagnation. Surely, that's not what you meant at all. The way I phrased my statement implies that society, and the change in society's expectations of women, are the trigger. This shifts the "blame", if you will, from women, to everyone. I realize I'm being nit-picky about words, but in my experience, women and minorities care about words a lot, and so taking care in the way you use words can help them be more receptive to your facts and ideas.
- rhapsodic 10y ago
  *>I realize I'm being nit-picky about words,..." If you were nit-picky about words, you would realize that the entire post you quoted from was utterly inoffensive to anyone not trying to find offense. FFS, he (excuse me for assuming that) even said "I made no judgement on women working."
- weberc2 10y ago
  I really perceive no difference between those phrasings. I also don't have a strong desire to pander to those who go so far out of their way to avoid charitable interpretations. Fortunately, I know very few such people (male or female, majority or minority).