Feminists going full retard.

[Laava]

Don't take this personally guys but I am reminded of this pair. And it made me laugh a bit...

[husaberg]

Don't take this personally guys but I am reminded of this pair. And it made me laugh a bit...

[TheDemonLord]

Right, so dodgy stats used to falsely accuse one of the sexes for doing something is sexist. Isn't that exactly what the chancellor did?

Is the Chancellor calling for corrective action to correct this imbalance? And further more - It's not Dodgy Stats to say that over 50% of Women will have Kids, and of those - if they work, they are going to take a significant amount of Time off from work - That is not a Dodgy Stat, the degree to which this results in non-productivity - that is up for debate.

Then you are trying to reclassify those who self-identify as feminists, to drop the 20% down to the 1% or so found in the organisations/protests/academia etc.

No, I'm reclassifying it to those who actively participate in the Movement.

What you are suggesting is that if a Survey of People said that 80% of them were motorcyclists, but only 10% of them had ever ridden a Motorbike, that the 80% figure is accurate.

The moderate feminists are not required to moderate the other feminists. Complicit by inaction is absolute rubbish.

If they want to avoid the Label of Extremists, then abso-fucking-lutely they do. If (as you are trying to suggest) that they are standing by whilst Radicals are speaking in their name, then by their inaction, they are condoning the evil that is being done in the name of their movement.

Scale up by what factor? one greater than the reducing factor for those who do not have kids? You got 17.5%, a far cry from the 60% number you seek to justify

I said that it's not as outlandish as first appears if you consider taking 7 years out of the work force during your peak productive years. I think 60% is probably a stretch though.

By not both identifying the chancellor's words as sexist, and condemning him for them, are you not guilty of the exact same thing you say the 'moderate feminists' are guilty of?

The difference is - the Majority of women have kids, the Majority of these women take significant time out of the work force to have/raise their kids. In order for me to condemn his comments as sexist, You are asking me to condemn not only the choices of these Women as Sexist, but also Biology itself as Sexist.

[bogan]

Is the Chancellor calling for corrective action to correct this imbalance? And further more - It's not Dodgy Stats to say that over 50% of Women will have Kids, and of those - if they work, they are going to take a significant amount of Time off from work - That is not a Dodgy Stat, the degree to which this results in non-productivity - that is up for debate.



No, I'm reclassifying it to those who actively participate in the Movement.

What you are suggesting is that if a Survey of People said that 80% of them were motorcyclists, but only 10% of them had ever ridden a Motorbike, that the 80% figure is accurate.



If they want to avoid the Label of Extremists, then abso-fucking-lutely they do. If (as you are trying to suggest) that they are standing by whilst Radicals are speaking in their name, then by their inaction, they are condoning the evil that is being done in the name of their movement.



I said that it's not as outlandish as first appears if you consider taking 7 years out of the work force during your peak productive years. I think 60% is probably a stretch though.



The difference is - the Majority of women have kids, the Majority of these women take significant time out of the work force to have/raise their kids. In order for me to condemn his comments as sexist, You are asking me to condemn not only the choices of these Women as Sexist, but also Biology itself as Sexist.

Yes, he's proposed/implemented changes to get more male vets passing the first year of the course. It's a dodgy stat to say women vets are worth 40% of male ones, why can you not see this? you've been completely unable to justify it; so there's clearly a logic blind spot around this issue for you.

That is exactly the reclassification I outlined, which would not longer be a figure you have nay numbers for at all.

Please desist with the terrible analogies. My contention is feminism is not a state of being or doing (one apparently shared by many who self identify as one, and also by the original definition), but of equality; adjusting you analogy to be valid, would be that a survey said 80% of them respected motorcyclists as equals on the road.

"If they want to avoid the label", big if. Some are, by no longer self classifying as feminists; what other way should they attempt to redress the 'evil' being done (which, there's a pretty strong case for it being non-existent and never likely to exist either). And why should they change the way they self identify simply because some people can't tell the difference between feminists who are for equality, and those for superiority?

Incorrect, his comments are sexist because they grossly misrepresent figures; in the same way that the wage gap is being grossly misrepresented.

[husaberg]

[TheDemonLord]

Yes, he's proposed/implemented changes to get more male vets passing the first year of the course.

No, he didn't.

The course changes was to address the shortage of Large animal vets in the country - the article suggests that the change

appears the course changes are designed to get a better male/female balance

however it then goes on to say that this:

Meaning students will be faced with the reality that New Zealand needs large-animal vets rather than those wanting only to work with small animals in the cities.

Which is not Gendered in of itself.

There is some interesting info however when taking the above into context with this study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340187/

Which is that Female Vets tend to prefer working as Pet Vets, as opposed to Agricultural vets - when considered with the statement that in NZ there is a Shortage, I posit this is simple supply and demand issue - the course is tailoring itself to what the market needs - this just so happens to be a specialization that is more appealing to Men and less so to Women.

It's a dodgy stat to say women vets are worth 40% of male ones, why can you not see this? you've been completely unable to justify it; so there's clearly a logic blind spot around this issue for you.

I said without data it shouldn't be taken as a truth, but I also said that given the trends that we know of around Professional Women, the average age of Child birth and the amount of time away from the workforce a Woman takes to raise kids and maintain their desired work/family balance, it is not as sexist as it first seems.

It's not a Logical blind spot to say that Women (on average) spend significantly less time in full-time paid employment when compared to their male counterparts - and if one is basing the worth on gross output of a worker over the course of their working lifetime - it is not sexist to say that women are 'worth' less - especially if the context is 'we have a shortage of people'.

That is exactly the reclassification I outlined, which would not longer be a figure you have nay numbers for at all.

This however is based on what is said by prominent feminists themselves, it is also based on the same methodology we use for defining other groups based on an active belief and/or participation.

Please desist with the terrible analogies.

You are only saying it's terrible because it succinctly disproves your point in regards to self-identification and actual participation (where the latter is the criteria for belonging to a group).

My contention is feminism is not a state of being or doing (one apparently shared by many who self identify as one, and also by the original definition), but of equality;

2 Points here - firstly that is NOT the definition - That would be the Definition of Egalitarianism - You missed a key part that changes the definition completely - it is defined as equality equal to that of Men.

That last part is very important as it separates Feminism from Egalitarianism.

Second point - you have called it a Movement, Wikipedia also defines it as a Movement and the key thing about a movement is that it moves to obtain a goal. If one is not actively participating, then one cannot be considered a part of the movement - even if you hold the same ideological beliefs as the Movement.

This is where you apologia falls down - because we can point to figureheads in the movement that are active, we can point to organizations that are active, we can point to Youtube channels, Websites, Academics etc. etc. etc. that are all active and all indicative of the Majority. When viewed, there are some disturbing notions that are often repeated unchallenged.

If there is a Majority that you speak of - I ask you this - show me proof of their existence and participation and show me them challenging the things that I have issue with.

adjusting you analogy to be valid, would be that a survey said 80% of them respected motorcyclists as equals on the road.

But as our actual data shows - a shit tonne of people believe in equality, who aren't feminists, then when we compare it to what Feminism actually does - your 'Majority' (as you are trying to define them) disappears.

"If they want to avoid the label", big if.

It's not so big an if, when the results of your actions are contrary to your stated goals.

Some are, by no longer self classifying as feminists;

Indeed - Like Cassie Jaye, you should look her up.

what other way should they attempt to redress the 'evil' being done

1: Take patriarchy theory and throw it out the window.
2: Same with the Wage Gap.
3: Same with Intersectionality.
4: Publicly and vocally call out the Man hating sections, the Female supremecists, the SWERFs, the TERFs, the RadFems etc.
5: Regularly engage with people who hold opposing view points and listen to their views without dismissing them as sexist or misogynist.
6: In fact, anyone who uses those terms should be treated with the utmost suspicion as too often then are buzzwords designed to poison the well.
7: Acknowledge the fact that in the Western world, Women have the most rights, the most legal protection, the most spent on them and their needs by the 'Evil Patriarchal heirachical goverment that hates women so much it spends more of its tax dollars on them
8: Acknowledge that Men have problems too and some of these aren't caused by Toxic Masculinity and some of them are partially due to Women.
9: Seriously look at how the peer review system in Gender studies and Feminist courses is conducted, as too much is asserted without basis, but is accepted as the reviewers often hold the same a priori beliefs as the publisher.

Those are off the top of my head.

(which, there's a pretty strong case for it being non-existent and never likely to exist either).

See the above list, there are more issues I have, but those are probably the biggest ones - as they are the ones that result in good intentioned people doing horribly sexist things in the name of their ideology

And why should they change the way they self identify simply because some people can't tell the difference between feminists who are for equality, and those for superiority?

And why can't these people tell the difference? Is it because the ones who say that they are for equality are also the ones pushing for more rights and protections and special privileges for Women (over and above what Men currently have) - which makes them by definition Supremacists (even if they don't identify as such)

Incorrect, his comments are sexist because they grossly misrepresent figures; in the same way that the wage gap is being grossly misrepresented.

That is a Massively false comparison.

Feminism uses the figures to maintain a narrative that Women are systematically oppressed by Men.
He's using the figure to say that a higher percentage men graduating would fill the shortages that they currently have.

[WristTwister]

No, he didn't.

The course changes was to address the shortage of Large animal vets in the country - the article suggests that the change
Feminism uses the figures to maintain a narrative that Women are systematically oppressed by Men.
He's using the figure to say that a higher percentage men graduating would fill the shortages that they currently have.

You don't even realise what you sound like do you? What a sanctimonious prick.

He had nothing to back-up his assertion that shortages were caused by women having families (a thing that men do too funnily enough). Some people just aren't attracted to operating a practice in rural NZ, even though there is demand for it, but if fewer males dropped out, then therefore more would graduate.

And this whole "narrative that women are systematically oppressed by men" speil - no one is taking your rights away buddy, chill out!

[TheDemonLord]

You don't even realise what you sound like do you? What a sanctimonious prick.

I know exactly what I sound like

He had nothing to back-up his assertion that shortages were caused by women having families (a thing that men do too funnily enough).

Yes, Men have Families - the difference being on average Women take a lot more time off than Men when they have them - something like 3 years per child (on average), whereas Men often take a matter of Weeks - that is presuming however that the Woman goes back to work at all (it's something like 19% of Professional Women will go back to working a full time job after becoming a Mother). Assume for the minute that the Veterinary practice is no different - For Female Vets between 25-35, that is potentially 40% of that segment of the workforce unavailable (assuming 60% of the women become mothers - which is about the national average) - If there is a Shortage, I dunno about you, but 40% of a 10 year group of your workforce working part time (or not working at all) might not be helping the situation.

Now - I should point out that they don't have to make these choices - but a significant number of women do, choices which men choose differently.

So while his assertion does seem inflated, it is based on some very real patterns we see on the choices that Men and Women make in regards to Work and Family.

There are some other industry specific patterns that I suspect he is referring to when he made that claim - especially around which fields of Vet work Men and Women tend to go for.

Some people just aren't attracted to operating a practice in rural NZ, even though there is demand for it, but if fewer males dropped out, then therefore more would graduate.

For sure - working in the country isn't everyone cup of tea - however reading the original article, it seems that the previous course was geared more towards residential vets, as opposed to agricultural.

and as per the link I posted earlier - Women tend to prefer not to work in the Agricultural sector.

And this whole "narrative that women are systematically oppressed by men" speil - no one is taking your rights away buddy, chill out!

Who said taking rights away from men? I said granting more rights to women compared to men - there is a very key difference (especially in respect to the definition of Feminism).

And remember - that speil is the one coming from Feminists - you should look up the theory of Intersectionality - basically says Straight White Men can never experience oppression.

[husaberg]

[yokel]

Yes, he's proposed/implemented changes to get more male vets passing the first year of the course. It's a dodgy stat to say women vets are worth 40% of male ones, why can you not see this? you've been completely unable to justify it; so there's clearly a logic blind spot around this issue for you.

That's not what he said you stupid child,

And his (hope I'm using the right pronoun?) 2/5 th stat is clearly a guesstimation that maybe quite correct.

Now as every vet that leaves the profession is going to be replaced with some chicky that's love's fluffy cute things.

Coincidently there was a chicky in our antenatal classes that was studying to be a vet, wonder how that will work out for her?

Anyone who calls someone "sexist" is a moron.

[yokel]

WTF is that gay shit sister?

Do you understand what that phrase "opposite sex" means?

Do you even know what a female is ?

[bogan]

No, he didn't.

The course changes was to address the shortage of Large animal vets in the country - the article suggests that the change



however it then goes on to say that this:



Which is not Gendered in of itself.

There is some interesting info however when taking the above into context with this study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340187/

Which is that Female Vets tend to prefer working as Pet Vets, as opposed to Agricultural vets - when considered with the statement that in NZ there is a Shortage, I posit this is simple supply and demand issue - the course is tailoring itself to what the market needs - this just so happens to be a specialization that is more appealing to Men and less so to Women.



I said without data it shouldn't be taken as a truth, but I also said that given the trends that we know of around Professional Women, the average age of Child birth and the amount of time away from the workforce a Woman takes to raise kids and maintain their desired work/family balance, it is not as sexist as it first seems.

It's not a Logical blind spot to say that Women (on average) spend significantly less time in full-time paid employment when compared to their male counterparts - and if one is basing the worth on gross output of a worker over the course of their working lifetime - it is not sexist to say that women are 'worth' less - especially if the context is 'we have a shortage of people'.



This however is based on what is said by prominent feminists themselves, it is also based on the same methodology we use for defining other groups based on an active belief and/or participation.



You are only saying it's terrible because it succinctly disproves your point in regards to self-identification and actual participation (where the latter is the criteria for belonging to a group).



2 Points here - firstly that is NOT the definition - That would be the Definition of Egalitarianism - You missed a key part that changes the definition completely - it is defined as equality equal to that of Men.

That last part is very important as it separates Feminism from Egalitarianism.

Second point - you have called it a Movement, Wikipedia also defines it as a Movement and the key thing about a movement is that it moves to obtain a goal. If one is not actively participating, then one cannot be considered a part of the movement - even if you hold the same ideological beliefs as the Movement.

This is where you apologia falls down - because we can point to figureheads in the movement that are active, we can point to organizations that are active, we can point to Youtube channels, Websites, Academics etc. etc. etc. that are all active and all indicative of the Majority. When viewed, there are some disturbing notions that are often repeated unchallenged.

If there is a Majority that you speak of - I ask you this - show me proof of their existence and participation and show me them challenging the things that I have issue with.



But as our actual data shows - a shit tonne of people believe in equality, who aren't feminists, then when we compare it to what Feminism actually does - your 'Majority' (as you are trying to define them) disappears.



It's not so big an if, when the results of your actions are contrary to your stated goals.



Indeed - Like Cassie Jaye, you should look her up.



1: Take patriarchy theory and throw it out the window.
2: Same with the Wage Gap.
3: Same with Intersectionality.
4: Publicly and vocally call out the Man hating sections, the Female supremecists, the SWERFs, the TERFs, the RadFems etc.
5: Regularly engage with people who hold opposing view points and listen to their views without dismissing them as sexist or misogynist.
6: In fact, anyone who uses those terms should be treated with the utmost suspicion as too often then are buzzwords designed to poison the well.
7: Acknowledge the fact that in the Western world, Women have the most rights, the most legal protection, the most spent on them and their needs by the 'Evil Patriarchal heirachical goverment that hates women so much it spends more of its tax dollars on them
8: Acknowledge that Men have problems too and some of these aren't caused by Toxic Masculinity and some of them are partially due to Women.
9: Seriously look at how the peer review system in Gender studies and Feminist courses is conducted, as too much is asserted without basis, but is accepted as the reviewers often hold the same a priori beliefs as the publisher.

Those are off the top of my head.



See the above list, there are more issues I have, but those are probably the biggest ones - as they are the ones that result in good intentioned people doing horribly sexist things in the name of their ideology



And why can't these people tell the difference? Is it because the ones who say that they are for equality are also the ones pushing for more rights and protections and special privileges for Women (over and above what Men currently have) - which makes them by definition Supremacists (even if they don't identify as such)



That is a Massively false comparison.

Feminism uses the figures to maintain a narrative that Women are systematically oppressed by Men.
He's using the figure to say that a higher percentage men graduating would fill the shortages that they currently have.

Oh, it just has the added 'benefit' of giving an advantage to male students then? Female vets are every bit as capable as male vets, large animals or small; there was absolutely no reason to bring gender into the equation if it were simply about getting enough large animal vets (of which any shortfall seems to be attributable to them being expected to work in bumfuck nowhere anyway).

No, that is still a sexist statement. Since it's judging based on gender, not individual worth; and applying an opaque value judgment on their worth as a group. Also when the worth is given in numerical terms that are way out of line with reality, it is sexist.

I'm saying the analogy is terrible because you still make no allowance for a person to be a feminist, yet not push for female superiority; despite all the data pointing to an overwhelming majority of people who self classify as feminists doing exactly that. Write as much walls of text as you like, unless you start at this part, anything that follows is just more circular illogic. The majority need not cast down the extremists or challenge that which you have issues with. The logic is simple, around 20% self identify as feminists; feminist support (all active sources) for female superiority is vastly less than this figure; ergo, the majority are inactive. There is no need to apply your value judgements to the evaluation of this figure, the numbers do not lie.

That's a big list of your value judgements, I'm sure a feminist extremist could come up with a similar one from the other side; neither of which would be shared by the larger group.

Because they're not good with numbers I'd say.

It's a very good comparison actually, both are overstating a 'problem' using shonky figures. Both figures point to a system appearing to favor one gender over the other. An inability to see the similarities here points to a double standard when it comes to this issue.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh, it just has the added 'benefit' of giving an advantage to male students then?

If you have 2 demographics in a course, group 1 primarily goes into sub-field 1 and group 2 primarily goes into sub-field 2 and both groups have full autonomy and agency - if you have a shortage in sub-field 2, making the course designed to appeal to those going into sub-field 2 to fill the shortage - you are seriously trying to say that is Sexist because group 2 happens to be men.

I put it to you that this is simple supply/demand market forces.

At a massive stretch, you could maybe claim it was Affirmative action, but if you want to call that Sexist, then you'd have to also call the last 20-30 years of Feminist Activism sexist...

Female vets are every bit as capable as male vets, large animals or small;

When you consider that with Larger animals, ones physical strength, fitness and toughness becomes more and more relevant, I don't think this is an accurate statement.

In fact the article I linked to talked about that it was only better sedation methods were available for Larger animals that they saw an increase in the uptake by Female graduates.

there was absolutely no reason to bring gender into the equation if it were simply about getting enough large animal vets (of which any shortfall seems to be attributable to them being expected to work in bumfuck nowhere anyway).

Except the disparity exists along Gendered lines - 3 times the number of Men will opt for Large animal work than Women. This is consistent with the Nordic Paradox.

Part of the shortfall MAY be wanting them to work in Bumfuck nowhere - however seeing as the disparity between choice of specialisations exists elsewhere in the Western World (with other geographic layouts) it would suggest that this is a minor factor.

No, that is still a sexist statement. Since it's judging based on gender, not individual worth; and applying an opaque value judgment on their worth as a group. Also when the worth is given in numerical terms that are way out of line with reality, it is sexist.

Then, by that logic - it's Racist to say that Maoris make up the majority of the Prison Population - but you've already agreed this isn't a racist statement.

You're shifting the goalposts from looking at people as a group (and making predictions along what the majority of the group is likely to do based on good data) to looking at people as individuals when it suits your argument.

I'm saying the analogy is terrible because you still make no allowance for a person to be a feminist, yet not push for female superiority;

No, I'm not making allowances for people who say they are Feminists, but don't do anything related to Feminism. There is a difference.

My contention is the Majority have good intentions, but they are so wrapped up in the core belief that Women are still oppressed by Men - that they view any disparity which favors Men as proof of Sexism and then do activism to redress this balance - without considering any other factors (such as biological aptitude) - and in doing so and without realising it, they are working towards Female superiority.

despite all the data pointing to an overwhelming majority of people who self classify as feminists doing exactly that.

Yet again, you seem to be taking peoples intentions and conflating that with the results of their actions.

Write as much walls of text as you like, unless you start at this part, anything that follows is just more circular illogic.

Your starting point is fundamentally flawed as it assumes that peoples intentions have a direct positive correlation on their actions.

I'm saying it's possible for people to have good intentions and fuck up.

The majority need not cast down the extremists or challenge that which you have issues with.

"All that is needed for evil to flourish, is for good people to stand by and do nothing"

I think they do. Just as I think the Moderate Muslims need to do a better job of calling out Extremist Mosques and Imams. Just as I call out Katman etc. when they go on Nazi Apologetics.

The logic is simple, around 20% self identify as feminists; feminist support (all active sources) for female superiority is vastly less than this figure; ergo, the majority are inactive.

85% Believe in the Wage Gap. The net result of this belief is a push towards Female Superiority.
If this majority is Inactive (as you claim), then they are ineligible from being considered an active part of the movement.

There is no need to apply your value judgements to the evaluation of this figure,

My Value judgements comes from interacting with them - anecdotal evidence aside.

the numbers do not lie.

Indeed - 85% of them believe in something with results in attempts to push an agenda that results in Female superiority.

That's a big list of your value judgements, I'm sure a feminist extremist could come up with a similar one from the other side; neither of which would be shared by the larger group.

Value judgements formed by listening to their arguments, looking at their data, looking at their actions, reading their published works, actively debating/arguing with them.

And yes, Extremists (and even moderates) could come up with a list for my side - several points would probably have rings of truth to them.

Because they're not good with numbers I'd say.

Or they've smelt the Feminist Bullshit and wanted no part of it....

It's a very good comparison actually, both are overstating a 'problem' using shonky figures.

Fundamentally wrong - in one the 'problem' is due shonky figures to support an a priori cause for the problem, in the other the problem is objective - his explanation for the cause of the problem is using shonky figures.

Both figures point to a system appearing to favor one gender over the other.

You are trying to put the chicken before the Egg - the system is favoring more graduates for where demand is greatest. The Gender disparity occurs because of free choice, not oppression.

This is a massive massive difference.

An inability to see the similarities here points to a double standard when it comes to this issue.

Only if you are creating a false equivalence as you did above. As you have explained it, it would be a double standard, but how you have explained it is incorrect - which is why it ISN'T a double standard.

[husaberg]

WTF is that gay shit sister?
?

You seem confused

Do you understand what that phrase "opposite sex" means ?

different but equal.

Do you even know what a female is ?

Are they something you have to purchase?
From poor Asian third world country?
Simply becuause you are too ignorant and repugnant to be able to find one locally, that will even consider having a relationship with you?
in a country of 4 million people?

[bogan]

If you have 2 demographics in a course, group 1 primarily goes into sub-field 1 and group 2 primarily goes into sub-field 2 and both groups have full autonomy and agency - if you have a shortage in sub-field 2, making the course designed to appeal to those going into sub-field 2 to fill the shortage - you are seriously trying to say that is Sexist because group 2 happens to be men.

I put it to you that this is simple supply/demand market forces.

At a massive stretch, you could maybe claim it was Affirmative action, but if you want to call that Sexist, then you'd have to also call the last 20-30 years of Feminist Activism sexist...



When you consider that with Larger animals, ones physical strength, fitness and toughness becomes more and more relevant, I don't think this is an accurate statement.

In fact the article I linked to talked about that it was only better sedation methods were available for Larger animals that they saw an increase in the uptake by Female graduates.



Except the disparity exists along Gendered lines - 3 times the number of Men will opt for Large animal work than Women. This is consistent with the Nordic Paradox.

Part of the shortfall MAY be wanting them to work in Bumfuck nowhere - however seeing as the disparity between choice of specialisations exists elsewhere in the Western World (with other geographic layouts) it would suggest that this is a minor factor.



Then, by that logic - it's Racist to say that Maoris make up the majority of the Prison Population - but you've already agreed this isn't a racist statement.

You're shifting the goalposts from looking at people as a group (and making predictions along what the majority of the group is likely to do based on good data) to looking at people as individuals when it suits your argument.



No, I'm not making allowances for people who say they are Feminists, but don't do anything related to Feminism. There is a difference.

My contention is the Majority have good intentions, but they are so wrapped up in the core belief that Women are still oppressed by Men - that they view any disparity which favors Men as proof of Sexism and then do activism to redress this balance - without considering any other factors (such as biological aptitude) - and in doing so and without realising it, they are working towards Female superiority.



Yet again, you seem to be taking peoples intentions and conflating that with the results of their actions.



Your starting point is fundamentally flawed as it assumes that peoples intentions have a direct positive correlation on their actions.

I'm saying it's possible for people to have good intentions and fuck up.



"All that is needed for evil to flourish, is for good people to stand by and do nothing"

I think they do. Just as I think the Moderate Muslims need to do a better job of calling out Extremist Mosques and Imams. Just as I call out Katman etc. when they go on Nazi Apologetics.



85% Believe in the Wage Gap. The net result of this belief is a push towards Female Superiority.
If this majority is Inactive (as you claim), then they are ineligible from being considered an active part of the movement.



My Value judgements comes from interacting with them - anecdotal evidence aside.



Indeed - 85% of them believe in something with results in attempts to push an agenda that results in Female superiority.



Value judgements formed by listening to their arguments, looking at their data, looking at their actions, reading their published works, actively debating/arguing with them.

And yes, Extremists (and even moderates) could come up with a list for my side - several points would probably have rings of truth to them.



Or they've smelt the Feminist Bullshit and wanted no part of it....



Fundamentally wrong - in one the 'problem' is due shonky figures to support an a priori cause for the problem, in the other the problem is objective - his explanation for the cause of the problem is using shonky figures.



You are trying to put the chicken before the Egg - the system is favoring more graduates for where demand is greatest. The Gender disparity occurs because of free choice, not oppression.

This is a massive massive difference.



Only if you are creating a false equivalence as you did above. As you have explained it, it would be a double standard, but how you have explained it is incorrect - which is why it ISN'T a double standard.

Skip the subgroups and just make it appealing to sub feild 2. That the disparity exists along gender lines is irrelevant.

Physical strength is not required for large animal vets. OSH etc kind of discourage any practice which requires that in fact.

It would be racist to say maori's are criminals. The specificity and accuracy of the context are important, the 'women vets are worth 2/5ths of men' is neither specific nor accurate. Based on good data? where have you been hiding that then? Bad data, and bad context, is the beginning of treating individuals based on the average of that group; which is stereotyping. Is a statement made of bad data and bad context sexist/racist, I guess that is a little bit subjective on how much is read into it.

There is no difference, not where females are treated as equals. You only say they should take action based on your value judgements of what needs doing; they judge there to be no requirement to do anything.

The problem is not objective in his case, certainly not with regards to gender bias. The gender disparity occurs because of free choice and not oppression in both cases; what is the massive difference?