Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers takes a look at video games


Video Games

451 to 500 of 597 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Ashiel wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
|dvh| wrote:
But we're not talking about differences, we're talking about privileges. Things like women making less because employers assume they'll leave the workforce to have children, etc.

The gender wage gap uses bogus statistics

EDIT: more detailed information

Beat me to it. I've been practically swimming through miss Sommer's videos since I saw the first one, and I immediately thought of this when the "but the money!" thing came up.

The people that push this misinformation are usually either genuinely misled about the selective nature of the statistics or so dependent on a bogeyman for their ideology to survive. Many tend to forget that it's illegal to pay someone a different salary based on gender, orientation, ethnicity, etc. and few companies would take that risk in order to save cash. Discount employment suddenly gets expensive when lawyers are involved.


Necromancer wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
|dvh| wrote:
But we're not talking about differences, we're talking about privileges. Things like women making less because employers assume they'll leave the workforce to have children, etc.

The gender wage gap uses bogus statistics

EDIT: more detailed information

Beat me to it. I've been practically swimming through miss Sommer's videos since I saw the first one, and I immediately thought of this when the "but the money!" thing came up.
The people that push this misinformation are usually either genuinely misled about the selective nature of the statistics or so dependent on a bogeyman for their ideology to survive. Many tend to forget that it's illegal to pay someone a different salary based on gender, orientation, ethnicity, etc. and few companies would take that risk in order to save cash. Discount employment suddenly gets expensive when lawyers are involved.

Indeed.

EDIT: In a similar vein, the company I'm currently working for, working off the clock can get you fired (warning or two first, but they will fire you), because not paying people for their work is illegal, and they appreciate you not putting them into that position moreso than they appreciate getting some "free work".

It also serves as a sort of protective blanket too. If your manager tries to get you to work some hours off the clock (as a favor, or whatever), everyone knows not only to refuse, but if they do refuse that they are protected under the laws of the company for being in the right in any disagreement stemming from that.

Even if you have some big Scrooge McMisogynist running a company, the likelihood that his hatred of women (or anyone else) outpaces his love for money and financial security is probably non-existent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer wrote:


The people that push this misinformation are usually either genuinely misled about the selective nature of the statistics or so dependent on a bogeyman for their ideology to survive. Many tend to forget that it's illegal to pay someone a different salary based on gender, orientation, ethnicity, etc. and few companies would take that risk in order to save cash. Discount employment suddenly gets expensive when lawyers are involved.

Illegal, but very hard to win a case. Or even to start one, when many companies have policies prohibiting revealing or comparing salaries. And up until the Lily Ledbetter Act of 2009 you had to sue within 180 days of the first paycheck showing the difference, even if it continued (or even expanded with time) and even if you didn't know what others were making.

It's also very hard in many cases to show the discrepancy is because of gender, unless someone at the company is dumb enough to say it openly, which does happen. You usually need to show something as extreme as the Ledbetter case or be able to show a broad pattern over many employees.

And it's not illegal on the federal level or in many states to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Not only can you pay less, you can just fire LGBTQ people and give that as the reason.

Silver Crusade

Also, non-credible sources are non-credible. The American Enterprise Institute is about as biased as one can get on economic matters. They (and Sohmers) don't seem that keen on gender issues, either.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Necromancer wrote:


The people that push this misinformation are usually either genuinely misled about the selective nature of the statistics or so dependent on a bogeyman for their ideology to survive. Many tend to forget that it's illegal to pay someone a different salary based on gender, orientation, ethnicity, etc. and few companies would take that risk in order to save cash. Discount employment suddenly gets expensive when lawyers are involved.

Illegal, but very hard to win a case. Or even to start one, when many companies have policies prohibiting revealing or comparing salaries. And up until the Lily Ledbetter Act of 2009 you had to sue within 180 days of the first paycheck showing the difference, even if it continued (or even expanded with time) and even if you didn't know what others were making.

It's also very hard in many cases to show the discrepancy is because of gender, unless someone at the company is dumb enough to say it openly, which does happen. You usually need to show something as extreme as the Ledbetter case or be able to show a broad pattern over many employees.

And it's not illegal on the federal level or in many states to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Not only can you pay less, you can just fire LGBTQ people and give that as the reason.

And yet, there are a million different reasons for the wage gap. All of them far more believable and coherent than "every boss in the world discriminates against women".

One of them, as stated by literally every job interviewer who ever talked to me about the subject, might be that men are far more often willing to negotiate their salaries already during their job interview.

Men and women, in general, have different priorities. According to my last 3 bosses, at least, men aim at higher salaries, while women often favor having more free time.

This is, of course, anecdotal evidence. But Dr.Sohmers was kind enough to provide a much better insight into the supposed "23 cent wage gap".

|dvh| wrote:
Also, non-credible sources are non-credible. The American Enterprise Institute is about as biased as one can get on economic matters.

Unlike all those "feminist" studies and SJW, right? Those are completely unbiased and totally objective.

Not only there is obviously an unfair wage gap, it's also exclusively caused by "The Patriarchy" actively conspiring to put women down...

If it's so easy to get away with paying women less, why would any company even bother hiring men?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
People acting as if every time a white person does something bad to a black person, it's because of racism.

Exactly. If I do something bad to a black person, it's not because I'm a racist. It's because I'm an a@$%!$~.

:D

Silver Crusade

Lemmy wrote:
One of them, as stated by literally every job interviewer who ever talked to me about the subject, might be that men are far more often willing to negotiate their salaries already during their job interview.

So why isn't there standardized pay so women aren't paid less for the same work?

Silver Crusade

Lemmy wrote:
Unlike all those "feminist" studies and SJW, right? Those are completely unbiased and totally objective.

Maybe you should use fewer pejoratives when trying to make a point.

Even when that point is not relevant to what was brought up. I was discussing the AEI, not whatever straw man you're trying to interject into the discussion.


thejeff wrote:
And it's not illegal on the federal level or in many states to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Not only can you pay less, you can just fire LGBTQ people and give that as the reason.

Good point, I forgot about the absence of federal laws. My state's "employment at will" (meaning any dismissal is fine as long as it's not technically illegal), so everyone else's grass always looks greener.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
|dvh| wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
One of them, as stated by literally every job interviewer who ever talked to me about the subject, might be that men are far more often willing to negotiate their salaries already during their job interview.
So why isn't there standardized pay so women aren't paid less for the same work?

There is. Women who bother to do the same, will have the same pay as any man.

Or maybe it's THE PATRIARCHY... Don't you receive your monthly newsletter telling you how to stomp women into submission? Like... Letting them spend less time than men in jail for committing the exactly same crime?

Sexism exists. But it's not nearly as prevalent and one-sided as these internet SJW make it out to be.

But what do I know? I'm just a "potential rapist who doesn't check his privilege".


Lemmy wrote:


One of them, as stated by literally every job interviewer who ever talked to me about the subject, might be that men are far more often willing to negotiate their salaries already during their job interview.

Men and women, in general, have different priorities. According to my last 3 bosses, at least, men aim at higher salaries, while women often favor having more free time.

The salary vs free time thing might be part of it, though I've never been at a job where time off was part of the job interview negotiation. It was always a given, standard policy for the company - or at least for the division.

For salary negotiation, there is evidence that's part of it, there's also evidence that when women negotiate for higher salaries they tend not to get them as often as men and are more likely not to get the job in first place. People react to men and women differently. Men taking tough negotiating stances are often seen as take charge go-getters. Women are often seen as pushy.

But my real main point was just that "It's illegal, so it can't be happening" is nonsense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
|dvh| wrote:
Also, non-credible sources are non-credible. The American Enterprise Institute is about as biased as one can get on economic matters. They (and Sohmers) don't seem that keen on gender issues, either.

Data is data and deliberately obscure statistics (the 77% garbage) are always agenda-driven.

As for gender issues, I think you should watch this. No connection to AEI whatsoever.


thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

One of them, as stated by literally every job interviewer who ever talked to me about the subject, might be that men are far more often willing to negotiate their salaries already during their job interview.

Men and women, in general, have different priorities. According to my last 3 bosses, at least, men aim at higher salaries, while women often favor having more free time.

The salary vs free time thing might be part of it, though I've never been at a job where time off was part of the job interview negotiation. It was always a given, standard policy for the company - or at least for the division.

That's usually not part of the initial job interview, it's more about seeking positions where you have more free time, often to spend with their families. My father did the same when my siblings and I started getting jobs. He decided that since we could mostly support ourselves, he'd look for job opportunities where he would have more free time to spend with his children, eventually, with his grandchildren.

thejeff wrote:
For salary negotiation, there is evidence that's part of it, there's also evidence that when women negotiate for higher salaries they tend not to get them as often as men and are more likely not to get the job in first place. People react to men and women differently. Men taking tough negotiating stances are often seen as take charge go-getters. Women are often seen as pushy.

That may be true, but again, men do tend to be more abrasive than women, and often feel more comfortable pushing for better salaries and whatnot. That's not to say that women are less capable of doing the same, just it's not as common for it to happen.


Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For salary negotiation, there is evidence that's part of it, there's also evidence that when women negotiate for higher salaries they tend not to get them as often as men and are more likely not to get the job in first place. People react to men and women differently. Men taking tough negotiating stances are often seen as take charge go-getters. Women are often seen as pushy.
That may be true, but again, men do tend to be more abrasive than women, and often feel more comfortable pushing for better salaries and whatnot. That's not to say that women are less capable of doing the same, just it's not as common for it to happen.

How much of that is because they get better results. Not because they're more or less capable, but because people respond differently.

Of course, it's easier just to blame women. No need to think there might be anything left of the sexism that was legal, socially acceptable and widely practiced a generation or two ago. Even though there are still plenty of people around, I'm sure that's all completely gone now.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For salary negotiation, there is evidence that's part of it, there's also evidence that when women negotiate for higher salaries they tend not to get them as often as men and are more likely not to get the job in first place. People react to men and women differently. Men taking tough negotiating stances are often seen as take charge go-getters. Women are often seen as pushy.
That may be true, but again, men do tend to be more abrasive than women, and often feel more comfortable pushing for better salaries and whatnot. That's not to say that women are less capable of doing the same, just it's not as common for it to happen.

How much of that is because they get better results. Not because they're more or less capable, but because people respond differently.

Of course, it's easier just to blame women. No need to think there might be anything left of the sexism that was legal, socially acceptable and widely practiced a generation or two ago. Even though there are still plenty of people around, I'm sure that's all completely gone now.

Please, do point out where I (or anyone else in this thread, really) said that there is no such thing as sexism. Or that it's women's fault.

My point here is that claims of bigotry are often exaggerated and inaccurate. The current victim-worship culture says that every difference in treatment, wealth and well-being is due to bigotry.


Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For salary negotiation, there is evidence that's part of it, there's also evidence that when women negotiate for higher salaries they tend not to get them as often as men and are more likely not to get the job in first place. People react to men and women differently. Men taking tough negotiating stances are often seen as take charge go-getters. Women are often seen as pushy.
That may be true, but again, men do tend to be more abrasive than women, and often feel more comfortable pushing for better salaries and whatnot. That's not to say that women are less capable of doing the same, just it's not as common for it to happen.

How much of that is because they get better results. Not because they're more or less capable, but because people respond differently.

Of course, it's easier just to blame women. No need to think there might be anything left of the sexism that was legal, socially acceptable and widely practiced a generation or two ago. Even though there are still plenty of people around, I'm sure that's all completely gone now.

Please, do point out where I (or anyone else in this thread, really) said that there is no such thing as sexism. Or that it's women's fault.

My point here is that claims of bigotry are often exaggerated and inaccurate. The current victim-worship culture says that every difference in treatment, wealth and well-being is due to bigotry.

Lemmy wrote:
There is. Women who bother to do the same, will have the same pay as any man.

Followed by lots of talk about how women don't negotiate for pay or look for other things or just aren't as comfortable pushing for better salaries.

That's saying the differences in pay are the women's fault.

You're not that there's such a thing as sexism. Just saying that it's not involved in the topic at hand.


thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For salary negotiation, there is evidence that's part of it, there's also evidence that when women negotiate for higher salaries they tend not to get them as often as men and are more likely not to get the job in first place. People react to men and women differently. Men taking tough negotiating stances are often seen as take charge go-getters. Women are often seen as pushy.
That may be true, but again, men do tend to be more abrasive than women, and often feel more comfortable pushing for better salaries and whatnot. That's not to say that women are less capable of doing the same, just it's not as common for it to happen.

How much of that is because they get better results. Not because they're more or less capable, but because people respond differently.

Of course, it's easier just to blame women. No need to think there might be anything left of the sexism that was legal, socially acceptable and widely practiced a generation or two ago. Even though there are still plenty of people around, I'm sure that's all completely gone now.

Please, do point out where I (or anyone else in this thread, really) said that there is no such thing as sexism. Or that it's women's fault.

My point here is that claims of bigotry are often exaggerated and inaccurate. The current victim-worship culture says that every difference in treatment, wealth and well-being is due to bigotry.

Lemmy wrote:
There is. Women who bother to do the same, will have the same pay as any man.

Followed by lots of talk about how women don't negotiate for pay or look for other things or just aren't as comfortable pushing for better salaries.

That's saying the differences in pay are the women's fault.

You're not that there's such a thing as sexism. Just saying that it's not involved in the topic at hand.

No. That's saying that's the individual's fault more often than not, and that bigotry is not the only reason (or even the main reason) why disparities exist.

There is a subtle, but important difference in saying that "this behavior is not seen in this group" and "this behavior is not seen in this group as often as it's seen in this other group".

If you actually read my posts, you'll see that my point is that there are countless reasons why women generally make less money than men, and that while bigotry is one of them, it doesn't have nearly as much weight as you claim it has. And then, I gave you other possible reasons for the disparity, both from personal experience and from listening to people who actually decide who gets the job and how much they will be paid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For salary negotiation, there is evidence that's part of it, there's also evidence that when women negotiate for higher salaries they tend not to get them as often as men and are more likely not to get the job in first place. People react to men and women differently. Men taking tough negotiating stances are often seen as take charge go-getters. Women are often seen as pushy.
That may be true, but again, men do tend to be more abrasive than women, and often feel more comfortable pushing for better salaries and whatnot. That's not to say that women are less capable of doing the same, just it's not as common for it to happen.

How much of that is because they get better results. Not because they're more or less capable, but because people respond differently.

Of course, it's easier just to blame women. No need to think there might be anything left of the sexism that was legal, socially acceptable and widely practiced a generation or two ago. Even though there are still plenty of people around, I'm sure that's all completely gone now.

There's tons of sexism that's legal. I'm 99.99% positive Lemmy actually just referenced blatant sexism in the legal system. It just wasn't against women, so you act like it doesn't matter or ignore it; which is why I think yours and mechaPoet's position is bigoted.

I mean look at yourselves.

mechaPoet wrote:
JurgunV wrote:
mecaPoet wrote:
-when these people suffer this violence, it often isn't taken as seriously, e.g. women facing slut-shaming when they are raped, from their communities and legal systems
Try being a male rape victim, domestic abuse victim or white victim of a hate crime if you think those groups have it so bad. The police will flat out tell you they will not help, the perp will not see any punishment and i say this from experience.
I'm not saying that men who experience rape and domestic abuse somehow "don't count" or don't face stigma in reporting these crimes or being taken seriously for it. But the reasons for this are still rooted in sexism and misogyny. Because men are supposed to be "manly and tough" and women are supposed to be "weak and non-violent," violence committed by women against men is dismissed because femininity is seen as weak and undesirable. Men who are raped by women are seen as "getting lucky," because our insane paradigm of sexual discourse says that men should be having as much sex as they possibly can with women. Men who suffer from domestic abuse aren't taken seriously because men are supposedly inherently able to defend themselves, and because women aren't as often seen as "seriously" capable of violence. The moral of the story for these male victims is that they don't count because they "aren't real men," or because "real men don't act like this."

Look at this s@$$. One acts like one side is the only victim and suffering for X, Y, Z. The other points out that both sides are being victimized for X, Y, and Z, and what happens? The first immediately redirects it into all being caused by sexism (yes) and the hatred of women (whoa now, wait, what?).

That's right. This is the kind of mindset that I'm seeing you guys displaying. When bad things happen to women it's because of the hatred of women, and when bad things happen to men...it's also because of the hatred of women.

Does. Not. Compute.

Sexist I can agree with. Sexism swings both ways, it's not a one-way street. Yet here is mechaPoet framing this in such a way as to make it seem like it's because of hatred and sexism against women, undermining and marginalizing the suffering of others for his own agenda. Literally taking an example that runs contrary to his argument of unfair gendered bias against women, and then declaring it be because of unfair gendered bias against women. It's sick. It's disrespectful. It's hurtful. It's sexist and it's bigoted. It's refusing to acknowledge the validity of other people's suffering and experiences because it doesn't conform to his neo-feminist ideology which is innately bigoted and sexist from the ground up.

Bad things happen to everyone. We should be honestly, earnestly, trying to work these things out rationally. We need to accept that violence happens to everyone (including sexual violence; my grandfather told me in confidence once to be careful and be on guard, because he was raped by a woman when he was a taxi driver. She pulled a gun on him and had her way with him. It was frightening, scary, and he felt violated and ashamed, and felt like he couldn't tell anyone; he told me he never even told my grandmother about it because he was afraid that she would view it as his fault or that he consented to it. And he asked that I not tell anyone else about it, because he still didn't want to speak openly about it, but that he wanted me to be careful and be aware so I wouldn't get hurt).

This sensationalism and pointing fingers isn't going to solve problems. It drives us apart. I think all sexism should die. I think it should be perfectly expected and natural for both sexes to enjoy be benefits of both sexes, and then we will be a unified whole. Not men, or women, but human beings; where human beings can be tough, and strong, and gentle, and emotional. Where two people are equal in the law instead of being treated like a different crime was committed depending on which gender they belong to.

So I'll continue to push for helping everyone and moving past these issues, and you can go on doing as you like. There is a reason why "modern feminists" are seen as they are and why a lot of us want to have nothing to do with them. There is a reason my sister would be angry if you called her a feminist. There's a reason Sommers has to try and salvage what can be salvaged by trying to restore credibility and reality to the issues.

And that reason is not bigotry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

More cool-headed points on the pay-gap thing by Miss Sommers.
The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth.

The reason I've come to have so much respect for Miss Sommers in such a short amount of time is she seems to be a no-BS sort of person, and ends her lecture on how women are best served by good information and accurate data, rather than crap (paraphrasing the latter half of that sentence).

If Miss Sommers said, "There is a disparity here, we should look into this," I'd instantly take it seriously. If one of the tumblr feminists tried to rally for the same thing, I'd probably assume a skeptical posture immediately. That's a learned response, and there is no one to blame but themselves.


In order to provide a broader perspective (since it appears most of the discussion is done from the point of view of solely the US reality), here in Chile man-woman average income disparity currently sits at about 18%, up from 13% in 2003 and down from 20% in 2012 (movement consistent with the economic downturn). For self-employed people, it sits at 7.3%.

The biggest disparity happens in mining regions, where it can reach up to 52%, whereas in regions dominated by the service and agriculture industries (almost every other region that doesn't have mining operations) is drops to the 6-15% range. In the most populated region (Metropolitan Region, which accounts for about 40% of the national population), disparity is at 15%.

There are two factors often cited as for why this difference happens:

1.- Mining activities are male-dominated jobs, primarily because very few women apply for them. And since they are the highest-paying non-executive jobs in the country, they tend to skew the average.

2.- Even though about 56% of the jobs created within the last 15 years have been occupied by women and that universities are currently enrolling more female students than male ones (except in the engineering and scientific fields), female workers on average have access to lower-paying job as a result of the lower level of preparation that women born before the 1980's had, which in turn was directly correlated to the predominant role of women in the family.

Interestingly, while inherent factors to the female population do make female workers more risky and expensive (we have mandatory 6-month postnatal paid leaves and any company with 15+ female employees is obligated to have daycare facilities or pay the women to send their children to one), these are factors that do not directly influence wage, but rather the likelihood of getting hired. However, this effect is primarily seen in low-paying jobs (for small companies tend to avoid hiring too many females in order to stay below the 15 margin), so in fact this phenomenon actually increases the average income of the female working population (as most medium-to-large companies pay above minimum wage even for the lowest jobs, and generally have some kind of either union or prestation arrangement to deal with the other requirements of the law).

So while historical female discrimination still has a noticeable effect on the average income of women in Chile (admitedly a small sample, as we're less than 18 million heads), actual discrimination today has very little effect in determining how much a female worker makes (if anything, the discrimination is more prevalent in the very high-paying jobs of traditionally male-dominated CEO positions).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Sexist I can agree with. Sexism swings both ways, it's not a one-way street. Yet here is mechaPoet framing this in such a way as to make it seem like it's because of hatred and sexism against women, undermining and marginalizing the suffering of others for his own agenda. Literally taking an example that runs contrary to his argument of unfair gendered bias against women, and then declaring it be because of unfair gendered bias against women. It's sick. It's disrespectful. It's hurtful. It's sexist and it's bigoted. It's refusing to acknowledge the validity of other people's suffering and experiences because it doesn't conform to his neo-feminist ideology which is innately bigoted and sexist from the ground up.

Actually, he didn't do what you said. You completely misread him.

He said, and I agree, that the thing you describe is an aspect of the same attitude. Not "hatred against women", but the sexist attitude that prescribes gender roles. Men are supposed to be tough and sexually aggressive. Women are supposed to be weak, non-violent and definitely not sexually aggressive.
Men weak enough to be beaten or raped by women aren't really men.

It's all part of the same thing. It's the same thing you're talking about, even if you don't see it. Breaking those gender stereotypes is a good part of what feminism is about and has been for decades.

It's the same kind of attitude that pushes women towards certain (generally lower paying) occupations and pushes men away from them - shaming men who do "women's work" or worse, are "house-husbands".

It's the same prejudice. Twisted around and pointed in the other direction, but the same roots.


Then maybe you should use words that describe what you mean. Misogyny literally means the hatred of women. Misandry is the hatred of males, which has just as much validation in that response as misogyny, which would be more accurately described as "not at all". Because here, we are talking about the mutual suffering of us all.

No one is hating either gender. We're pointing out things that we all see as unfair and inappropriate. But if it's true that that isn't what was meant, it's definitely true that it is what was said, because of the insistence of throwing around the word misogyny in connection with the victims of violence as it pertains to males.

And you wonder why we ignorant masses reject your messages.

I agree it's sexist, but that's most definitely not what he said.


Some related humor.

everyone likes Downfall resubs, right???


Ashiel wrote:

Then maybe you should use words that describe what you mean. Misogyny literally means the hatred of women. Misandry is the hatred of males, which has just as much validation in that response as misogyny, which would be more accurately described as "not at all". Because here, we are talking about the mutual suffering of us all.

No one is hating either gender. We're pointing out things that we all see as unfair and inappropriate. But if it's true that that isn't what was meant, it's definitely true that it is what was said, because of the insistence of throwing around the word misogyny in connection with the victims of violence as it pertains to males.

And you wonder why we ignorant masses reject your messages.

I agree it's sexist, but that's most definitely not what he said.

One word in a paragraph which goes on to describe exactly what you're talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
He said, and I agree, that the thing you describe is an aspect of the same attitude. Not "hatred against women", but the sexist attitude that prescribes gender roles. Men are supposed to be tough and sexually aggressive. Women are supposed to be weak, non-violent and definitely not sexually aggressive. Men weak enough to be beaten or raped by women aren't really men.

Yep. Super sexist. And I agree 100%. Funny that, right? All us ignorant yahoos over here and our agreeing with things being problems and yet we can't agree with you. Sexism, again, swings both ways. I don't want anyone to suffer. Ever. Both sexes suffer at the hands of sexism and that needs to be addressed for certain, but again, we might disagree on the methods.

Quote:
It's all part of the same thing. It's the same thing you're talking about, even if you don't see it. Breaking those gender stereotypes is a good part of what feminism is about and has been for decades.

It is also what I've been about for my entire life really. My sister and I played with hot wheels, legos, Barbie dolls, Polly Pockets, and we watched X-Men and Spiderman and Winnie the Pooh and Rainbow bright. Stereotypes can die in a fire. I also agree with the old feminism movements. Everyone should be able to be an independent citizen, with the right to vote, to own property, to work an honest job for an honest wage, etc. I believe in Miss Sommers' level-headed quest for the improvement and equality of everyone.

I don't believe in what you're selling. I don't believe in what the tumblr feminists are selling. I am disgusted by what I read on feminist bees about a year ago. There is a disconnect here, and it's not because of our being part of the problem, it's that we find your medicine to be poisonous and we don't want to drink.

Quote:

It's the same kind of attitude that pushes women towards certain (generally lower paying) occupations and pushes men away from them - shaming men who do "women's work" or worse, are "house-husbands".

It's the same prejudice. Twisted around and pointed in the other direction, but the same roots.

Yep. But as you yourself notes it goes both ways. Both sexes are victims of this collective stupidity. It's significantly harder for men to get jobs working with children for example. People assume than men have dark motives if they hang out with children, enjoy being around children, or seek a profession that deals with children (especially young children).

It works both ways.


thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Then maybe you should use words that describe what you mean. Misogyny literally means the hatred of women. Misandry is the hatred of males, which has just as much validation in that response as misogyny, which would be more accurately described as "not at all". Because here, we are talking about the mutual suffering of us all.

No one is hating either gender. We're pointing out things that we all see as unfair and inappropriate. But if it's true that that isn't what was meant, it's definitely true that it is what was said, because of the insistence of throwing around the word misogyny in connection with the victims of violence as it pertains to males.

And you wonder why we ignorant masses reject your messages.

I agree it's sexist, but that's most definitely not what he said.

One word in a paragraph which goes on to describe exactly what you're talking about.

A paragraph which has been framed based on the statement before it. Accept responsibility. Either you admit that it's a problem either way and drop the nonsense of misogyny from it, or don't.

But if it's not what you mean, then don't say it.


Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
He said, and I agree, that the thing you describe is an aspect of the same attitude. Not "hatred against women", but the sexist attitude that prescribes gender roles. Men are supposed to be tough and sexually aggressive. Women are supposed to be weak, non-violent and definitely not sexually aggressive. Men weak enough to be beaten or raped by women aren't really men.

Yep. Super sexist. And I agree 100%. Funny that, right? All us ignorant yahoos over here and our agreeing with things being problems and yet we can't agree with you. Sexism, again, swings both ways. I don't want anyone to suffer. Ever. Both sexes suffer at the hands of sexism and that needs to be addressed for certain, but again, we might disagree on the methods.

Quote:
It's all part of the same thing. It's the same thing you're talking about, even if you don't see it. Breaking those gender stereotypes is a good part of what feminism is about and has been for decades.

It is also what I've been about for my entire life really. My sister and I played with hot wheels, legos, Barbie dolls, Polly Pockets, and we watched X-Men and Spiderman and Winnie the Pooh and Rainbow bright. Stereotypes can die in a fire. I also agree with the old feminism movements. Everyone should be able to be an independent citizen, with the right to vote, to own property, to work an honest job for an honest wage, etc. I believe in Miss Sommers' level-headed quest for the improvement and equality of everyone.

I don't believe in what you're selling. I don't believe in what the tumblr feminists are selling. I am disgusted by what I read on feminist bees about a year ago. There is a disconnect here, and it's not because of our being part of the problem, it's that we find your medicine to be poisonous and we don't want to drink.

Quote:
It's the same kind of attitude that pushes women towards certain (generally lower paying) occupations and pushes men away from them - shaming men who do "women's work" or worse, are
...

And you're horribly upset at me for saying the same thing you're saying.

The only difference is that I think it does affect women worse. I think they face more limitations and more damaging ones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
And you're horribly upset at me for saying the same thing you're saying.

I'm not horribly upset with you. I just am unimpressed with your claims, and I'm unimpressed with your methods. I find them dishonest and reeking of hypocrisy in most cases. Even now, instead of taking responsibility for the reason why others view your stance as driven by agenda and bias, you're trying to side-step and reflect.

Why would we want to be a part of that? We're working on it in our own, inclusive way. We have no needs for divisive drivel.

I'm not convinced that they face more limitations and more damaging ones yet either (most of the evidence presented for that seems pretty fishy), and and I think a lot of publicity is given to one rather than the other.

The fact that violence against men is so under-reported, ignored, and/or suppressed is quite telling. Is that not oppression? Why can we not want equality for all, instead of equality for all but?


Thanks Ashiel, i thought maybe i was being oversensitive reading that the same way.

Words matter, they have meaning and set the tone. A single word can make the whole page have a different meaning or tone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
|dvh| wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
|dvh| wrote:


Not really, no.

Could you be more specific?
Can you? Your original blanket statement wasn't very specific either.

Male Privlidge implies that its a 1 way street: that everything is better if you're male. This is simply not the case. Men are 4 times more likely to die violently, 9 times more likely to be in prison, less likely to get social services in the same circumstances, and less likely to be awarded custody of their children. If a man can get welfare or a job where the loss of life and limb is a real possibility then he'd better hope he's not too attached to his limbs. A man hitting a woman is an atrocity but a woman hitting a man is just funny. Women don't get drafted to fight in armies. Men are more respected but people are nicer and more helpful to women. Women are allowed to be offended and set the bar for social interaction in group settings.

Yes, women are discouraged from top leadership positions but its not as simple as women being pushed down. Women are pushed towards the middle while men are pushed towards the extremes. Jack goes homeless, Jill gets welfare is just as real as the glass ceiling.

The different ways that life sucks for both genders are simply incomparable. There is no way to compare X times more likely to be victim of assault with Y times more likely to be blown to smithereens on a battlefield. About the absolute worst interpretation you can come out of with such a complex interaction is "males are privileged". Its at least half false and makes it seem like you're using a sociobabble buzzword in place of an argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... BNW... has there ever been a lack of sociobabble buzzwords in this particular debate?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JurgenV wrote:

Thanks Ashiel, i thought maybe i was being oversensitive reading that the same way.

Words matter, they have meaning and set the tone. A single word can make the whole page have a different meaning or tone.

You're welcome. I was involved in an incident of child molestation that went unreported (I was the child, I hope that much is obvious) and will go unreported (I think the situation was complicated and I harbor no ill will towards the other person), but it, along with accounts from my grandfather, and knowing other people who have been subjected to certain things, that these things do happen.

While I'm not upset with thejeff or even mechaPoet themselves, I will say that that particular exchange did upset me. It upset me that mechaPoet just reduced your experiences into fuel to toss out the word misogyny again because the apparent quota of hypocrisy had not been met today. I recognized how that would make me feel if someone had said "Oh well you were a little boy, molested by a woman -- it doesn't happen enough to matter / it was because of hatred against women / you were a boy so you must have enjoyed it". I've had at least one friend who became privy to my experiences who said it would have been worse if it was a man who molested me or if I was a little girl. It didn't make me feel very nice, I'm sorry to report.

I'm not asking for pity, or sympathy, or any sort of righteous anger against anyone for any perceived wrongs. What I am saying is I think that the world is complex and rarely black and white, and I sympathize with you, and I believe that your experience matters and is just as important as anyone else's.

I believe we need to focus on being more inclusive, tearing down our false walls, and attacking the problems directly. People are complex creatures and we need to let them be more open, more free, and help everyone. Some of this involves forgiveness, and all of it involves honesty.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Male Privlidge implies that its a 1 way street: that everything is better if you're male. This is simply not the case.

I'd say it means you're better off overall. Not in every single way. There are always exceptions.

And just to point at one thing, tied into the point about feminism fighting against gender roles in general: It's feminists who've been pushing to let women into the military and into combat roles in particular. Not trying to keep themselves safe and get men blown to smithereens.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Male Privlidge implies that its a 1 way street: that everything is better if you're male. This is simply not the case.

I'd say it means you're better off overall. Not in every single way. There are always exceptions.

And just to point at one thing, tied into the point about feminism fighting against gender roles in general: It's feminists who've been pushing to let women into the military and into combat roles in particular. Not trying to keep themselves safe and get men blown to smithereens.

That's right. And some of them are honest about it too, like Miss Sommers who has also been pushing for better education in schools for boys who are getting an unfair shake. She's being real. She's being honest, and the ones who like to throw around words like "patriarchy" do what they can to shut her down for it.

How are those feminists doing on rectifying those other problems? How many of them are going to line up and demand to be put on draft lists if it ever comes to that? How many of them are going to insist that the floor be raised for those males that BNW points out; the ones who end up homeless or struggling? How many of them are fighting for the rights of fathers for their children, or rallying against the injustice of the legal system in regards to men vs women?

*crickets chirping*

I see women like Christina Sommers and Karen Straughan and I am impressed. I can agree with them and they make good sense. And they do it with reason and integrity.


thejeff wrote:

I'd say it means you're better off overall.

And I don't think you can even say that because its an apples and oranges comparison. How do you rate double the likelyhood for being a millionaire vs double the likelihood of being homeless?

Quote:
It's feminists who've been pushing to let women into the military and into combat roles in particular

The social trend is going to outlast the legal mandate. Probably until wars are fought with t 1000s.


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Male Privlidge implies that its a 1 way street: that everything is better if you're male. This is simply not the case.

I'd say it means you're better off overall. Not in every single way. There are always exceptions.

And just to point at one thing, tied into the point about feminism fighting against gender roles in general: It's feminists who've been pushing to let women into the military and into combat roles in particular. Not trying to keep themselves safe and get men blown to smithereens.

Very arguable. More "likely" statisticly to be a ceo? sure. More likely in reality to go homeless? a damn fact.

Let me know when tens of thousands of women are forced into a war and all men can stay safely at home.


JurgenV wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Male Privlidge implies that its a 1 way street: that everything is better if you're male. This is simply not the case.

I'd say it means you're better off overall. Not in every single way. There are always exceptions.

And just to point at one thing, tied into the point about feminism fighting against gender roles in general: It's feminists who've been pushing to let women into the military and into combat roles in particular. Not trying to keep themselves safe and get men blown to smithereens.

Very arguable. More "likely" statisticly to be a ceo? sure. More likely in reality to go homeless? a damn fact.

Let me know when tens of thousands of women are forced into a war and all men can stay safely at home.

Given the usual civilian casualties and treatment of women during war, that really only applies if you can arrange to have all your wars safely in someone else's country.

And the US hasn't had a draft in 40 years, so that hardly applies to today's conditions. Do you really want to argue that women were even close to equal back in the '70s? Or earlier.


JurgenV wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Male Privlidge implies that its a 1 way street: that everything is better if you're male. This is simply not the case.

I'd say it means you're better off overall. Not in every single way. There are always exceptions.

And just to point at one thing, tied into the point about feminism fighting against gender roles in general: It's feminists who've been pushing to let women into the military and into combat roles in particular. Not trying to keep themselves safe and get men blown to smithereens.

Very arguable. More "likely" statisticly to be a ceo? sure. More likely in reality to go homeless? a damn fact.

Let me know when tens of thousands of women are forced into a war and all men can stay safely at home.

[sarcasm]

Haven't you heard? Women are the real victims in war and death is just painless when it happens to men.
[/sarcasm]


Thejeff wrote:
And the US hasn't had a draft in 40 years, so that hardly applies to today's conditions. Do you really want to argue that women were even close to equal back in the '70s? Or earlier.

If you're going to argue that cultural factors are oppressive to women for unfairly keeping them out of the top spots then its equally valid that cultural factors unfairly keep men in high risk mediocre reward job- even before you get to a draft.

I think its a moderate to mild biological base being exacerbated by culture.


thejeff wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Male Privlidge implies that its a 1 way street: that everything is better if you're male. This is simply not the case.

I'd say it means you're better off overall. Not in every single way. There are always exceptions.

And just to point at one thing, tied into the point about feminism fighting against gender roles in general: It's feminists who've been pushing to let women into the military and into combat roles in particular. Not trying to keep themselves safe and get men blown to smithereens.

Very arguable. More "likely" statisticly to be a ceo? sure. More likely in reality to go homeless? a damn fact.

Let me know when tens of thousands of women are forced into a war and all men can stay safely at home.

Given the usual civilian casualties and treatment of women during war, that really only applies if you can arrange to have all your wars safely in someone else's country.

And the US hasn't had a draft in 40 years, so that hardly applies to today's conditions. Do you really want to argue that women were even close to equal back in the '70s? Or earlier.

And men who fought and bled and watched friends die remember it still. Think on that when you accuse them of privilege. Tell a one legged homeless vet how hard women have it, how easy his life is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Look, I don't like the concept a whole ton, but you have to understand something before you bash it, eh?

In your scenario the homeless, one legged vet would lack privilege for being both poor, and disabled, while having privilege for being male.

The woman would only lack privilege for being female, but would have privilege for being both able bodied and having a better economic status.

So the one legged homeless vet (who also probably has PTSD, so there's another lack of privilege for psychological issues) is less privileged than the woman.

Privilege would say, however, a one legged homeless FEMALE vet would probably have it worse.

IMO it's dumb to compare hardships that way, like they're trading cards or something, but it's not as lopsided as you make it out to be.


So how many male privilege equal one able-bodied privilege? You would just have to set up an exchange table and then you could mathematically assign levels of victimhood to everyone! Even better, this could be tracked online like the stock market prices so you could be certain to have a spot victimhood value that depends on the current changes in the various victim labels! It would be equally applicable in precisely every situation! Just think of the efficiency gains inherent in not having to wonder if someone is more or less a victim than you are!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Male Privlidge implies that its a 1 way street: that everything is better if you're male. This is simply not the case.

I'd say it means you're better off overall. Not in every single way. There are always exceptions.

And just to point at one thing, tied into the point about feminism fighting against gender roles in general: It's feminists who've been pushing to let women into the military and into combat roles in particular. Not trying to keep themselves safe and get men blown to smithereens.

That's right. And some of them are honest about it too, like Miss Sommers who has also been pushing for better education in schools for boys who are getting an unfair shake. She's being real. She's being honest, and the ones who like to throw around words like "patriarchy" do what they can to shut her down for it.

How are those feminists doing on rectifying those other problems? How many of them are going to line up and demand to be put on draft lists if it ever comes to that? How many of them are going to insist that the floor be raised for those males that BNW points out; the ones who end up homeless or struggling? How many of them are fighting for the rights of fathers for their children, or rallying against the injustice of the legal system in regards to men vs women?

*crickets chirping*

I see women like Christina Sommers and Karen Straughan and I am impressed. I can agree with them and they make good sense. And they do it with reason and integrity.

Hold on there this is hypocrisy.

You are demanding an impossible standard for real feminists while giving men who would never help women get an equal share the pass. You can only argue so many issues before your viewpoint becomes diluted and irrelevant. I would LOVE to see the reaction you would get if you said "shut up and also help all those other people who are suffering too like Latinos, disadvantaged white children, or women" to all those mobs fighting for equal rights for blacks. I have never met a real feminist who didn't care that some boys were being mistreated and if presented with an opportunity to make things better wouldn't have hesitated to do so. BUT those little steps forward that Dr Sommers likes to point to as proof we should all shut up would NEVER have happened without real feminists bringing those issues forward. Sexism is the single largest -ism facing the world today not just for the appalling treatment of women in third world countries but also the way we are still treated here at home in the first world. The time for us to shut up will be when inclusivity and equality is the NORM not the outlier. It gets real annoying being a real feminist when on one side you have fake feminists like Dr. Sommers saying every thing is roses and the other tiny few but VERY vocal extreme feminist man haters out there making bad press...


JurgenV wrote:
And men who fought and bled and watched friends die remember it still. Think on that when you accuse them of privilege. Tell a one legged homeless vet how hard women have it, how easy his life is.

It's not an accusation. It really isn't. That's the whole point.

But are you really arguing that men fighting in wars justifies sexism?

Especially when feminists have been trying to get the military to allow women in for decades.


Sissyl wrote:
So how many male privilege equal one able-bodied privilege? You would just have to set up an exchange table and then you could mathematically assign levels of victimhood to everyone! Even better, this could be tracked online like the stock market prices so you could be certain to have a spot victimhood value that depends on the current changes in the various victim labels! It would be equally applicable in precisely every situation! Just think of the efficiency gains inherent in not having to wonder if someone is more or less a victim than you are!

Look up intersectionality. They don't add up or replace each other. There's no "victimhood value" involved.

A rich black woman is obviously better off than a homeless white male. No one is arguing otherwise. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't still have to deal with racism and sexism.


Rynjin wrote:

Privilege would say, however, a one legged homeless FEMALE vet would probably have it worse.

It would also predict that black women are worse off than black men, which doesn't seem to be the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

It would also predict that black women are worse off than black men, which doesn't seem to be the case.

I am curious why you don't think so?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Hold on there this is hypocrisy.

You are demanding an impossible standard for real feminists while giving men who would never help women get an equal share the pass.

...whut?

Quote:
You can only argue so many issues before your viewpoint becomes diluted and irrelevant.

"The (unmolested) data shows that there is some unfairness. Let's fix it," isn't exactly spreading your viewpoint very thin. You must have an excessively cynical view on the capabilities of the conscious human mind.

Quote:
I would LOVE to see the reaction you would get if you said "shut up and also help all those other people who are suffering too like Latinos, disadvantaged white children, or women" to all those mobs fighting for equal rights for blacks. I have never met a real feminist who didn't care that some boys were being mistreated and if presented with an opportunity to make things better wouldn't have hesitated to do so. BUT those little steps forward that Dr Sommers likes to point to as proof we should all shut up would NEVER have happened without real feminists bringing those issues forward. Sexism is the single largest -ism facing the world today not just for the appalling treatment of women in third world countries but also the way we are still treated here at home in the first world. The time for us to shut up will be when inclusivity and equality is the NORM not the outlier. It gets real annoying being a real feminist when on one side you have fake feminists like Dr. Sommers saying every thing is roses and the other tiny few but VERY vocal extreme feminist man haters out there making bad press...

Dr. Sommers was a feminist when feminism actually meant something. The woman is a 60 year old professor of philosophy and ethics (something a few feminists today could definitely use today). She represents a purer, uncorrupted, brand of feminism that is based in rational thought and higher standards of data collection and presentation.

I'm sorry she has been too busy doing things like trying to help ensure the equal quality of education and open discussion for students in America, rather than tackling the real feminist issues like how oppressed Princess Peach is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

It would also predict that black women are worse off than black men, which doesn't seem to be the case.

I am curious why you don't think so?

One in every three african american males can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.

Black men being shot by police for being scary black men

Black women are starting to earn more money than black men (They call it a recession. I say its the new normal)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
So how many male privilege equal one able-bodied privilege? You would just have to set up an exchange table and then you could mathematically assign levels of victimhood to everyone! Even better, this could be tracked online like the stock market prices so you could be certain to have a spot victimhood value that depends on the current changes in the various victim labels! It would be equally applicable in precisely every situation! Just think of the efficiency gains inherent in not having to wonder if someone is more or less a victim than you are!

Look up intersectionality. They don't add up or replace each other. There's no "victimhood value" involved.

A rich black woman is obviously better off than a homeless white male. No one is arguing otherwise. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't still have to deal with racism and sexism.

Doesn't mean he doesn't either. Which is where the underlying problem with your position rears its ugly head. It's only racist when it's against a non-white, and only sexist when it's against a non-male. A bigoted double-standard if there ever was.

451 to 500 of 597 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Video Games / Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers takes a look at video games All Messageboards