Feminists going full retard.

[TheDemonLord]

No, not depending on PoV, since it should be clear that the feminism group contains both those who just want equality, and those who want more.

Again, you are predicating your position on the notion that Feminism the group is conforming to Feminism the definition. By that same standard, Communism was a lovely society to live in.

You need to consider that inaction is an action that aligns with the core value as well. You seem to think the only feminists are those who are vocal, which is an unfounded assumption. What we know is that the feminism ideal was created as a way to get equal rights for women, and has made great progress in this area.

Yes - in the 1970s, when they won all the rights they asked for.

We also know these extremist muppets are getting fuck all traction, so you might even think the number of feminists supporting them was vastly less than the number supporting the equal rights that have gone through.

Getting fuck all traction?!? They invited Anita Sarkesian to the UN FFS for saying Video games cause sexism! This alone would be bad enough except for the fact for nearly 20 years the Moral brigade had been trying to say Video games cause Violence (and was debunked as Horse Shit). It's the same argument, made upon the same flawed premise.

Please tell me how this constitutes 'getting fuck all traction'.

The point where it stops being anecdotal evidence, skewed by your already demonstrated notion that only the loud/active ones are actually feminists.

Fundamentally false - I've only judged those who self-identify as Feminists.

The few crazy academics are most certainly in the minorty, as academics as a whole group are only a very small part of society, for the crazy feminist ones to be in majority of the feminist movement, the whole thing couldn't be larger than what, about 10,000 people? which clearly not the case.

They really aren't though - that is your issue, in fact one estimate from one university alone suggested that over the course of 20 years it will have turned out nearly 300,000 radicalised Feminist Activists.

That's not the core ideology at all, equality is (it's documented with the rise of feminism).

At this point - you are just committing the Appeal to Dictionary Fallacy.

You missed one, 0) cos men actually don't have issues. (ascribing that to patriachy and priveledge is an assumption based on the opinion you already hold, this is circular logic).

Except Men do have issues - for example - the leading cause of death for a young male adult in the UK is suicide. Men have issues with the state treating them as inferiors when it comes to their rights as a parent. Men have issues with recieving much harsher sentances than Women for the exact same crime.

And remember - it's not ME that's ascribing it to Patriarchy or Privledge - it's Feminists: (Take it away Big Red!)

Gainful employment is not the only place work gets done, to say they work less hard is insulting and incorrect;

When we are talking about a Wage gap - it's the only place that is relevant. Come on Bogan - you know better than to try and setup that strawman!

because the implication is that at the same job they would also work less hard. I've not put forward the pay inequality argument at all, so it is a strawman by the most basic definition.

But Feminists DO put forward the Pay inequality argument. In Vast numbers and on a regular basis. They are putting forward a Theory that is based on bad statistics, and using this as at base to try and gain inequality.

Utterly incorrect, science does remove political bias, that is why they show their working.

Social Science has a real problem with 30 years of Political Bias. It doesn't mean all it's research is wrong, but of some of the social science papers I've read, there are some massive a priori beliefs that are never quantified or tested, thus pulling the entire paper into question.

Some more proof for you:

Social scientists actively discriminate against peers who hold conservative views

The science I asked for is only a simply survey, and would be a trivial matter to show (or remove) any bias; as I've already shown the bias/unsuitability in some of your previous figures.

As always - I'm all for More science to be done on most issues - but considering this:

I made a point,
You made a counter point asking for Citation
I provided a Citation
Your position is now trying to downplay the scope or range of the citation, without a citation of your own.

Regardless, the interview still plays a very important part of the hiring process.

It depends on the field TBH, for some highly technical fields, the interview is more a formality than anything else.

You've stated 'feminism is not for equality' though. That is not the same as saying Feminism has a problem with inequality.

That is correct, I have stated that, because of what I see Feminists campaigning for both on the Micro and Macro scales. Tie this in to the fact that in the West, we have Equality for Women (but not for men) - so if it was about equality, it would stop.

I should add a Caveat - if Me and you were to go to India or Saudi Arabia - I'd happily declare myself a Feminist as they need a good dose of the Bra Burning liberation we saw in the 60s/70s.

It's the typical way in which people predisposed to disliking a group will attribute the actions of a subgroup (be it a 1%, 10%, 50%, 80% portion) as representative of the entire group to further their cause.

You assume a predisposition, which you have zero evidence for, in my case my dislike of Feminism is due to seeing What Feminism claims for itself, then seeing what it actually does - that was what has caused my Dislike. At some point one has to look at what the majority of the individuals within a group believe, and if one has a disagreement with that believe, it is entirely reasonable to say 'I disagree with this ideology as a whole'

It's abhorent when bigots do it against race, when done against religion, when done to generate hate towards the 'upper class'; and you should take a good look at yourself and why you are doing it here, the illogic you're using here is out of character with your normally logical and well grounded posts.

I'm doing it here because there are parts of Feminism that IMO are actively harming young men and Boys - and this fucks me off.

If that makes me a bigot - then so be it, I'll wear that label as there are more important issues other than myself.

[TheDemonLord]

ahhhh. statistics, where if it doesn't give the esult you want, you discard it. hurrah man-society.

Not at all - it's simply a statement that one model has a very high degree of accuracy for between 97-99% of the population.

oh irony!

Like for example Feminist redefinition of Racism (Power+privledge) then using that as justification for the phrase 'I can't be racist, I'm black! Now lets go kill all those crackers' (last bit may be paraphrased)

To everyone else - that statement is clearly racist, but to a Feminist (thanks to the conspiracy theory of Intersectionality) it's not.

quite. quite.

Quite

From a Evolutionary Psychology perspective - there is a very simple explanation for this - the more linear pathways in the Male brain are more suited to make quick decisive decisions, which for Hunting and Fighting makes perfect sense. Conversely when you have a large group of Females and Children (where problems can't be resolved via a fight to the death) much better social pathways are advantageous.

This is not to say this is definitive - there is still a lot of research to be done and still a lot of debate in this area, There is also the possibility that Transgender people feel the way they do because their brains are pathed independently of their genetic sex.

There is also the Mosaic brain theory too.

But from my PoV it comes down to this - as a species, there are certain biological and neurological traits needed in order to form a society (which is why Lions form prides and Tigers don't), extending that logic out, it isn't a large leap of logic to suggest that these certain biological and neurological traits may also inform other behaviors too.

[Akzle]

Not at all - it's simply a statement that one model has a very high degree of accuracy for between 97-99% of the population.

.

...because you discard the data that doesn't suit it :duh:

[bogan]

Again, you are predicating your position on the notion that Feminism the group is conforming to Feminism the definition. By that same standard, Communism was a lovely society to live in.



Yes - in the 1970s, when they won all the rights they asked for.



Getting fuck all traction?!? They invited Anita Sarkesian to the UN FFS for saying Video games cause sexism! This alone would be bad enough except for the fact for nearly 20 years the Moral brigade had been trying to say Video games cause Violence (and was debunked as Horse Shit). It's the same argument, made upon the same flawed premise.

Please tell me how this constitutes 'getting fuck all traction'.



Fundamentally false - I've only judged those who self-identify as Feminists.



They really aren't though - that is your issue, in fact one estimate from one university alone suggested that over the course of 20 years it will have turned out nearly 300,000 radicalised Feminist Activists.



At this point - you are just committing the Appeal to Dictionary Fallacy.



Except Men do have issues - for example - the leading cause of death for a young male adult in the UK is suicide. Men have issues with the state treating them as inferiors when it comes to their rights as a parent. Men have issues with recieving much harsher sentances than Women for the exact same crime.

And remember - it's not ME that's ascribing it to Patriarchy or Privledge - it's Feminists: (Take it away Big Red!)






When we are talking about a Wage gap - it's the only place that is relevant. Come on Bogan - you know better than to try and setup that strawman!



But Feminists DO put forward the Pay inequality argument. In Vast numbers and on a regular basis. They are putting forward a Theory that is based on bad statistics, and using this as at base to try and gain inequality.



Social Science has a real problem with 30 years of Political Bias. It doesn't mean all it's research is wrong, but of some of the social science papers I've read, there are some massive a priori beliefs that are never quantified or tested, thus pulling the entire paper into question.

Some more proof for you:

Social scientists actively discriminate against peers who hold conservative views



As always - I'm all for More science to be done on most issues - but considering this:

I made a point,
You made a counter point asking for Citation
I provided a Citation
Your position is now trying to downplay the scope or range of the citation, without a citation of your own.



It depends on the field TBH, for some highly technical fields, the interview is more a formality than anything else.



That is correct, I have stated that, because of what I see Feminists campaigning for both on the Micro and Macro scales. Tie this in to the fact that in the West, we have Equality for Women (but not for men) - so if it was about equality, it would stop.

I should add a Caveat - if Me and you were to go to India or Saudi Arabia - I'd happily declare myself a Feminist as they need a good dose of the Bra Burning liberation we saw in the 60s/70s.



You assume a predisposition, which you have zero evidence for, in my case my dislike of Feminism is due to seeing What Feminism claims for itself, then seeing what it actually does - that was what has caused my Dislike. At some point one has to look at what the majority of the individuals within a group believe, and if one has a disagreement with that believe, it is entirely reasonable to say 'I disagree with this ideology as a whole'



I'm doing it here because there are parts of Feminism that IMO are actively harming young men and Boys - and this fucks me off.

If that makes me a bigot - then so be it, I'll wear that label as there are more important issues other than myself.

It's a pretty solid notion though. Communism is a political movement with forced participation, so is not even close to being an applicable analogy.

And she makes the same mistakes you are, some video games are sexist, but not all of them. What has she managed to change? that's what I mean by getting fuck all traction.

So how do you survey those who are feminists, but have not identified themselves to you that way? The loud/active ones do, so your sample is skewed; so your judgement that the loud/active ones asking for favorable inequality make up the majority of feminists is invalid.

Surveys show around 10-20% consider themselves feminists, even in NZ that would make your 300k a minority; and I'm fairly sure that university wasn't in NZ...

As opposed to your, 'ignore reality and substitute my own' fallacy it looks rather good. You simply have no basis to say the majority goal of feminists has diverged from the documented and shown by result, original goal. Anecdotal evidence and loudmouthed 1 percenters is inadequate when you are trying to show majority info.

Sexual discrimination issues is what I was referring to when I said men don't have issues.

We are not talking about wage gap though, why do you persist in putting forward this strawman? (go look up strawman, just because other's make the argument doesn't mean it applies to me, since I am not making it) We are talking about the perception that women do not work as hard as men, both from the original article, and things you've said since.

The citation does not address my point, nor did I ask for it.

The majority of feminism has stopped in the west. You can't not be a feminist in one country, and then be one in another due to a change in circumstance; as that would require the definition of a feminist to change (and to a near polar opposite) with circumstance also.

And you're back to the majority belief circular logic again.

'There are parts', so how about you focus on those parts instead of the movement as a whole.

[TheDemonLord]

...because you discard the data that doesn't suit it :duh:

If my contention was ALL, then you would have a point, but my Contention is the Majority.

And last I checked - 97% was definitely considered an overwhelming majority.

[TheDemonLord]

It's a pretty solid notion though. Communism is a political movement with forced participation, so is not even close to being an applicable analogy.

Well, if I was to use your logic against you - I'd say that in the core idea of Communism there is no reference to Forced participation....

Do you see the problem?

We define Communism by what it's actions are, not solely by what it's theory states.

Same with Feminism.

And she makes the same mistakes you are, some video games are sexist, but not all of them. What has she managed to change? that's what I mean by getting fuck all traction.

Some video games ARE sexist, however the claim was that they CAUSE Sexism. She's also been invited to speak at numerous Feminist conventions and conferences, TEDx talks, She also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars - so clearly she IS getting some traction.

So how do you survey those who are feminists, but have not identified themselves to you that way? The loud/active ones do, so your sample is skewed; so your judgement that the loud/active ones asking for favorable inequality make up the majority of feminists is invalid.

Which would be entirely valid if Feminist theory from Academia was in conflict with those who identified as Feminist, If it was in conflict with major figureheads of the Feminist movement, If it was in conflict with what was written in Feminist Books, If it was in conflict with what is posted on Feminist websites.

Again - what Metric is acceptable to you? Because TBH - I think you are shifting the Goal Posts.

Surveys show around 10-20% consider themselves feminists, even in NZ that would make your 300k a minority; and I'm fairly sure that university wasn't in NZ...

That survey is for Women, only 10-20% of Women consider themselves Feminists - Wonder why that is? Maybe because they know they have the same rights as Men and are not oppressed? But what would 80-90% of the Female population know... They're just women right...

As opposed to your, 'ignore reality and substitute my own' fallacy it looks rather good. You simply have no basis to say the majority goal of feminists has diverged from the documented and shown by result, original goal. Anecdotal evidence and loudmouthed 1 percenters is inadequate when you are trying to show majority info.

Okay, define the Metric that you will accept to prove that it has moved from it's original intent.

Sexual discrimination issues is what I was referring to when I said men don't have issues.

And yet, they do....

We are not talking about wage gap though, why do you persist in putting forward this strawman? (go look up strawman, just because other's make the argument doesn't mean it applies to me, since I am not making it) We are talking about the perception that women do not work as hard as men, both from the original article, and things you've said since.

My original stance was there are some deep seated issues within Feminism - my proof of this claim was in the Wage Gap as put forward by Feminists. You said a couple posts ago that when talking about how hard (or not) women work, we shouldn't be focussing on Paid employment - but when that is the Metric raised in the original comment, it seems acceptable to reference it. The issue here is that on the whole a large portion of Women choose to not work, to work part time or to not go into careers/roles with high commitments.

From this PoV, even if the percentage is pulled from his arse, the original speaker has a point. I personally have no problem with them opting not to work full time or work at all - it's their choice afterall, but

However, we appear to arguing cross-purposes, I shall reframe the discussion:

Is the Wage Gap (as described by the majority of Feminists) the result of Sexism (as is claimed)
If not, then is it fair to say that this majority of Feminists believe in a Myth?
If they Believe in a Myth, is it then fair to say that there is some serious problems with Feminism, in that it believes in things that aren't real?

The citation does not address my point, nor did I ask for it.

Yeah, yah did:

I would like to see that 2:1 STEM hiring bias data,

The majority of feminism has stopped in the west. You can't not be a feminist in one country, and then be one in another due to a change in circumstance; as that would require the definition of a feminist to change (and to a near polar opposite) with circumstance also.

Modern Feminism wants to take down the Patriarchy - in Saudi Arabia, there is objectively a Patriarchal system, with legal discrimination against Women. On that basis, I'd be happy to call myself a Feminist as the goal of Feminism has not yet been achieved in that country.

And you're back to the majority belief circular logic again.

'There are parts', so how about you focus on those parts instead of the movement as a whole.

If we can't define a group by what the majority of it's members believe - then what is the point? Seriously?

It would be like me trying to argue that we shouldn't say Motorcyclists ride Motorbikes, because there are some people who have Trikes....

You are trying to pass the buck of the issues with the majority held opinions onto a subset or an imagined Minority.

[bogan]

Well, if I was to use your logic against you - I'd say that in the core idea of Communism there is no reference to Forced participation....

Do you see the problem?

We define Communism by what it's actions are, not solely by what it's theory states.

Same with Feminism.



Some video games ARE sexist, however the claim was that they CAUSE Sexism. She's also been invited to speak at numerous Feminist conventions and conferences, TEDx talks, She also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars - so clearly she IS getting some traction.



Which would be entirely valid if Feminist theory from Academia was in conflict with those who identified as Feminist, If it was in conflict with major figureheads of the Feminist movement, If it was in conflict with what was written in Feminist Books, If it was in conflict with what is posted on Feminist websites.

Again - what Metric is acceptable to you? Because TBH - I think you are shifting the Goal Posts.



That survey is for Women, only 10-20% of Women consider themselves Feminists - Wonder why that is? Maybe because they know they have the same rights as Men and are not oppressed? But what would 80-90% of the Female population know... They're just women right...



Okay, define the Metric that you will accept to prove that it has moved from it's original intent.



And yet, they do....



My original stance was there are some deep seated issues within Feminism - my proof of this claim was in the Wage Gap as put forward by Feminists. You said a couple posts ago that when talking about how hard (or not) women work, we shouldn't be focussing on Paid employment - but when that is the Metric raised in the original comment, it seems acceptable to reference it. The issue here is that on the whole a large portion of Women choose to not work, to work part time or to not go into careers/roles with high commitments.

From this PoV, even if the percentage is pulled from his arse, the original speaker has a point. I personally have no problem with them opting not to work full time or work at all - it's their choice afterall, but

However, we appear to arguing cross-purposes, I shall reframe the discussion:

Is the Wage Gap (as described by the majority of Feminists) the result of Sexism (as is claimed)
If not, then is it fair to say that this majority of Feminists believe in a Myth?
If they Believe in a Myth, is it then fair to say that there is some serious problems with Feminism, in that it believes in things that aren't real?



Yeah, yah did:





Modern Feminism wants to take down the Patriarchy - in Saudi Arabia, there is objectively a Patriarchal system, with legal discrimination against Women. On that basis, I'd be happy to call myself a Feminist as the goal of Feminism has not yet been achieved in that country.



If we can't define a group by what the majority of it's members believe - then what is the point? Seriously?

It would be like me trying to argue that we shouldn't say Motorcyclists ride Motorbikes, because there are some people who have Trikes....

You are trying to pass the buck of the issues with the majority held opinions onto a subset or an imagined Minority.

The problem is you're getting bogged down with all these analogies and anecdotes; instead of addressing the two main points:

1) extremist feminism is a subgroup of feminism, and the whole group should not be judged by their actions, especially considering you have no evidence showing them to be in majority
2) that women work as hard as men

Now, if you'd like to have a go at debating those without getting into communism and the wage disparity strawman that'd be great.

[TheDemonLord]

The problem is you're getting bogged down with all these analogies and anecdotes; instead of addressing the two main points:

1) extremist feminism is a subgroup of feminism, and the whole group should not be judged by their actions, especially considering you have no evidence showing them to be in majority

I've posted evidence to show that both the Academic and Populist sectors have common elements, you've simply asserted that these aren't representative of the Majority, without showing what the Majority is, but since you still ask for proof - name your standard of proof?

2) that women work as hard as men

By what Metric?
If you are talking about raw output and productivity for a company, then sorry Ladies, but on Average men work harder.
If you are talking about hard work in terms of risk factor, then again Men far exceed the ladies here.
If you are talking about productivity per hour worked - then I'd agree on average they work as hard as men - I'd posit that in some industries they work harder in others, not as hard - but I'd be happy to say on average using this metric, they work as hard.

Now, if you'd like to have a go at debating those without getting into communism and the wage disparity strawman that'd be great.

Considering much of Modern Feminist theory is built upon Marxist ideology, Communism is entirely relevant, and further considering that the Wage Gap is one of the 3 fundamental issues discussed by Modern Feminism, I'd say also - it is entirely relevant.

[bogan]

I've posted evidence to show that both the Academic and Populist sectors have common elements, you've simply asserted that these aren't representative of the Majority, without showing what the Majority is, but since you still ask for proof - name your standard of proof?



By what Metric?
If you are talking about raw output and productivity for a company, then sorry Ladies, but on Average men work harder.
If you are talking about hard work in terms of risk factor, then again Men far exceed the ladies here.
If you are talking about productivity per hour worked - then I'd agree on average they work as hard as men - I'd posit that in some industries they work harder in others, not as hard - but I'd be happy to say on average using this metric, they work as hard.



Considering much of Modern Feminist theory is built upon Marxist ideology, Communism is entirely relevant, and further considering that the Wage Gap is one of the 3 fundamental issues discussed by Modern Feminism, I'd say also - it is entirely relevant.

The standard of proof would be representative surveys, which are not biased towards activity, just self identification. Ie, are you a feminist? yes, do you believe women should be treated differently and preferentially to men as part of the feminism principals (or words to that effect).

The third metric is the only one that is applicable as a generalised statement. If the chancellor had kept this in mind he would still have a job.

It is relevant to your opinion of feminism, and the shortfalls in it you perceive. It is not relevant to the current discussion points.

[Katman]

Fuck me, this thread looks like some sort of Autistics Anonymous meeting.

[bogan]

Fuck me, this thread looks like some sort of Autistics Anonymous meeting.

Actually thought about making a bet to see how long it would take the fan club to come out with that 'gem'.

[yokel]

Finally, a solution to the gender pay gap.
Because you know women are equal to men.

[Grumph]

Fuck me, this thread looks like some sort of Autistics Anonymous meeting.

Can you be infracted for excessive use of the multi-quote button ?

If not, why not ?

[bogan]

Can you be infracted for excessive use of the multi-quote button ?

If not, why not ?

Like sands through the hourglass; these are, the questions of our time.

[Akzle]

Can you be infracted for excessive use of the multi-quote button ?

If not, why not ?

these aren't multi-quotes bra'
just slipping some [/quote] s in. it actually improves continuity and makes it less of a guessing game which of bog's irrelevant points shitlord is addressing.