Jordan Peterson: Telling Betas They are Alphas

[Commodus]

What is something that falls under modern feminism but not under previous movements?

Fourth-wave feminism (the modern kind) draws attention to injustices in sexual assault and harassment, reproductive rights and equal pay for equal work. There's also attention given to intersectionality -- that is, the acknowledgment that women from minority groups will face different issues.

None of those are controversial topics, that's the thing. There are certainly fourth-wave feminists with radical views, but there have been radical feminists since the outset; that doesn't change the reasonableness of most feminists. Yet if you believed Livemike, all modern feminists are extremists that must be silenced.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find The subject of Jordan Peterson to be fascinating. If you read what people say about him you will see a gamut of responses from extremely negative to hugely positive. Therefore, what I see are people's opinions based on whatever reasoning process or conditioned thinking they bring to the evaluation. Personally, when I listen to Peterson himself, lecturing or in interviews, I hear what I hear which is the only truth that matters to me. I find that I disagree with most of what is said about him tremendously. Fortunately, worthless as my opinion actually is, it's the only one that matters to me. I can tell anybody how absolutely deluded their opinions of him actually are and argue it with passion and vociferously, but most people are only interested, like me, in their own opinion. Therefore, I would be willing to debate my opinions with only people who have an open mind and are as interested in him as I am. I find Peterson to be brilliantly articulate and profoundly well intentioned and inquisitive. I find him to have come into on line media naive and unsophisticated and young in his mastery of that space and to have made mistakes there. His lectures and interviews are incredible.

The most wonderful thing about my experience with listening to him is that he chose to be a somebody and I chose not to be anything.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yet if you believed Livemike, all modern feminists are extremists that must be silenced.

Out of curiosity and you can ignore me if you want: What is the argument that Peterson makes that feminists are Marxists and that lead to the death of millions? Then, what is wrong the the argument he makes. I believe that I have carefully followed his reasoning along those lines and that his argument is right.

 

[realibrad]

Fourth-wave feminism (the modern kind) draws attention to injustices in sexual assault and harassment, reproductive rights and equal pay for equal work. There's also attention given to intersectionality -- that is, the acknowledgment that women from minority groups will face different issues.

None of those are controversial topics, that's the thing. There are certainly fourth-wave feminists with radical views, but there have been radical feminists since the outset; that doesn't change the reasonableness of most feminists. Yet if you believed Livemike, all modern feminists are extremists that must be silenced.

Previous did not talk about sexual assault, harassment, and sexual rights? I'm pretty sure they absolutely did.

As for intersectionality, what does that have to do with women, and not men and women?

 

[Commodus]

Previous did not talk about sexual assault, harassment, and sexual rights? I'm pretty sure they absolutely did.

As for intersectionality, what does that have to do with women, and not men and women?

Oh, they certainly did, but it wasn't as much of a focus in some respects. Even reproductive rights. Yeah, that's long been an issue, but there's a host of Republicans trying to wind back the clock on those rights.

For intersectionality, it's fairly simple: a lot of the push for women's rights in the US (and other countries to some degree) revolved around white, straight women. But if you're black, hispanic, LGBT, or another minority, you probably face additional challenges or simply different challenges. It's basically an acknowledgement that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach to feminism.

 

[realibrad]

Oh, they certainly did, but it wasn't as much of a focus in some respects. Even reproductive rights. Yeah, that's long been an issue, but there's a host of Republicans trying to wind back the clock on those rights.

For intersectionality, it's fairly simple: a lot of the push for women's rights in the US (and other countries to some degree) revolved around white, straight women. But if you're black, hispanic, LGBT, or another minority, you probably face additional challenges or simply different challenges. It's basically an acknowledgement that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach to feminism.

I very much disagree that the other things were less if a focus. That still confuses me.

The issues a Black woman faces is different because she is Black. That means it's a race issue and not a female issue no?

 

[Commodus]

I very much disagree that the other things were less if a focus. That still confuses me.

The issues a Black woman faces is different because she is Black. That means it's a race issue and not a female issue no?

Well, those are the things that define the overall movement... at any rate, Livemike has a wildly unrealistic view of what modern feminists are like, I think that's reasonably safe to say.

I can't presume to speak with complete authority on what a black woman would experience, but there are a few things. Racial discrimination can compound the push for gender equality. And there are also different community issues to consider (what does the black community frequently expect from women, for example?). Think of it like scaling a mountain from different approaches: you might all have the same goal, but you're each going to climb it a different way.

 

[realibrad]

Well, those are the things that define the overall movement... at any rate, Livemike has a wildly unrealistic view of what modern feminists are like, I think that's reasonably safe to say.

I can't presume to speak with complete authority on what a black woman would experience, but there are a few things. Racial discrimination can compound the push for gender equality. And there are also different community issues to consider (what does the black community frequently expect from women, for example?). Think of it like scaling a mountain from different approaches: you might all have the same goal, but you're each going to climb it a different way.

Well, to be fair, even you have trouble explaining modern feminism and how its different.

I can get what Live is trying to get at. I also know that nobody really cares in this forum to talk about it either.

 

[Livemike]

Feminism is the pursuit of gender equality wherever possible. While there are certainly varying interpretations of what that means, if you oppose the general concept of feminism... guess what? You're a sexist asshole. And you're only digging that hole deeper when you make false, hyperbolic claims that all feminists are Marxists and that their ideology will lead to mass murder.

You also lie and spin about what women want. In my experience, they believe in due process and free speech. However, they also know that most sexual assault allegations are true, and that it's better to trust-but-verify than to default to trusting the accused. And free speech? What views do you think you'd be censored for speaking? Usually "muh free speech" from people like you is shorthand for "I don't want to face consequences for treating women like shit."

I know a number of feminists with legitimate interests. Emma Watson if you want a celebrity. Susan Fowler, who exposed Uber's sexist culture. I also know others who aren't as high-profile but are still important, like Julie Lalonde (who crusades against sexual violence). And speaking of which... issues? How about closing the pay gap for similar jobs, getting more women into tech, protecting reproductive rights and getting rid of "boys will be boys" apologists? None of those are "authoritarian crap;" they're just basic demands for equality and control over their own bodies.

No feminism is not the pursuit of sexual equality at all. If it was it would not object whenever anyone tries to bring up men's rights it would not get people fired for saying that unequal representation is not necessarily sure to discrimination. It would not be against "hate speech" which in practice means spied the key does not like. They would nor be hostile to bringing up domestic and sexual violence against men. Simply dating that because I'm against these i am against equal rights for females is a rancid lie. Eben is tippy believe feminism is just opposition to sexual inequality you know i don't believe it. So being me being against feminism is proof of misogyny is rubbish.

The fact that you have to lie about my position make me sure that you know you're lying. I never said that all feminists were Marxists. I said feminism openly allies with Marxism. This is true and mobbed in this thread denied it.

Feminism is the pursuit of gender equality wherever possible. While there are certainly varying interpretations of what that means, if you oppose the general concept of feminism... guess what? You're a sexist asshole. And you're only digging that hole deeper when you make false, hyperbolic claims that all feminists are Marxists and that their ideology will lead to mass murder.

You also lie and spin about what women want. In my experience, they believe in due process and free speech. However, they also know that most sexual assault allegations are true, and that it's better to trust-but-verify than to default to trusting the accused. And free speech? What views do you think you'd be censored for speaking? Usually "muh free speech" from people like you is shorthand for "I don't want to face consequences for treating women like shit."

I know a number of feminists with legitimate interests. Emma Watson if you want a celebrity. Susan Fowler, who exposed Uber's sexist culture. I also know others who aren't as high-profile but are still important, like Julie Lalonde (who crusades against sexual violence). And speaking of which... issues? How about closing the pay gap for similar jobs, getting more women into tech, protecting reproductive rights and getting rid of "boys will be boys" apologists? None of those are "authoritarian crap;" they're just basic demands for equality and control over their own bodies.

No feminism is not the pursuit of sexual equality at all. If it was it would not object whenever anyone tries to bring up men's rights it would not get people fired for saying that unequal representation is not necessarily sure to discrimination. It would not be against "hate speech" which in practice means spied the key does not like. They would nor be hostile to bringing up domestic and sexual violence against men. Simply dating that because I'm against these i am against equal rights for females is a rancid lie. Even if you believe feminism is just opposition to sexual inequality you know i don't believe it. So being me being against feminism is proof of misogyny is rubbish.



The fact that you have to lie about my position make me sure that you know you're lying. I never said that all feminists were Marxists. I said feminism openly allies with Marxism. This is true and nobody in this thread denied it.

Notice how you said "women" were generally in favor of free speech not feminists. That's because you know feminists have consistently been against free speed. Anita Sakeesian for instance went before the UN to protest "harassment" which for her literally means being called a liar. Notice how you're defending feminists against someone who accused them off baking compelled speech and your not saying that's not typical of feminism, because it is. Feminists are pushing hate speech legislation that would punish people for saying things they don't like. Note that it's not about preventing "bullying" or "threats of violence" either. Threats of violence are already illegal and some of those who complain about "harassment" and want the "harassers" punished have more power than the "harassers". They are the bullies. i am not against people suffering consequences for being a dick. In fact I wish it would happen more often so people like you would learn to shut your lying mouths. They want people arrested for offending people. They want to be able to have someone say "X is true." with no threat, no violence, no hint of danger. This is their expressed preference. You can say I'm wrong about what feminists believe all you want, this is what they are arguing for. And if you know a time where having one class of people be able to punish another for offending them ended well tell me.

Also with due process you said women not feminists, fortunate as one of your examples of feminists with valid agendas is Julie Lalonde. This is the woman who said that an acquittal sent the anti-sexual-violence movement back 50 years. Feminists are trying to get cops to not write down things rape "victims" say that contradicts their initial story. That's a blatant concealment of exculpatory evidence. When Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty they were livid, because he used evidence that proved his accusers were lying. They don't want to allow that. Jessica Valenti is STILL mad that the Duke Lacrosse players got off on the threadbare excuse that they LITERALLY NEVER TOUCHED THE VICTIM. Feminism isn't against sexual violence, it's against women's accusations being questioned.

Oh and wanting more women in tech isn't an equality issue. They have just as much right to apply as men. They just don't. You do not have a right to a certain number of your demographic in a role and to think that's even desirable is insane. This is what we're talking about with the "murderous equality doctrine", the idea that they have a right to power, whether they have the drive or talent or not. And they will continue to increase their control until it becomes totalitarian because that's the only way they can cover up that they're morally bankrupt and don't deserve their jobs.

Oh and BTW the wage gap was shown to be a myth DECADES ago.

ReplyForward

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Thank you for sharing the totality of your thinking in this regard. As an honest person I will now demonstrate where each of your points is incorrect.

I expect you not to respond except with the same level of citation and argumentation; which is to say backing your claims with peer reviewed sources and to end your logical fallacies.

No feminism is not the pursuit of sexual equality at all.

Your first logical fallacy is the "all or nothing" fallacy. You argue that because you can find instances where you read a lack of equality, feminism is "not at all" about equality - this is false. Ideas, particularly those held by a generations of very different people, can have many different facets. In this case it is absurd to argue that that there is nothing about equality manifesting in the movement that gave women the right to vote [1], the right to have a bank account [2], and the right to not be raped by their husbands [3].

If it was it would not object whenever anyone tries to bring up men's rights

Ruth Bater Gensburg, as a feminist lawyer, was personally responsible for numerous lawsuits demanding equal rights for men. [4]
However your general point - that some ignore men's rights - is correct. A fantastic overview of the problem of 'tribes' is presented in this talk.

Keep in mind that, given how logically incorrect and hamfisted the extent of your thinking has been so far, you have demonstrated 100% that you are just as bigoted as any you care to find feminist.

it would not get people fired for saying that unequal representation is not necessarily sure to discrimination.

Indeed some firms over react; rather than being caring and helping people see the light - as I am here with you - they will just get rid of people who are toxic and hateful. In the specific case at google that you are talking about, while the man's job was to question everything, the conclusion he drew was not as you frame it. He was fired for DEFENDING that argument with bigoted stereotypes [5]

It's the difference between saying "unequal representation of Asians in auditing is not necessarily caused by discrimination" and "because, you know, Asians are bad at math." Nothing wrong with the first part - it's when you start defending your argument by being a bigot that you've become well... a bigot.

It would not be against "hate speech" which in practice means spied the key does not like.

Often hate speech is free speech unless it insights violence, but we have a LONG history of censorship - almost all of it to suppress the opressed [6] - but I think what you mean is bigots should be free to make a firm look bad and keep their job. Sorry buddy, the only people in society we protect from being fired for being abjectly wrong are professors, pundits, and priests.

They would nor be hostile to bringing up domestic and sexual violence against men.

No one is against reducing domestic and sexual violence against men - they just wrongly assume it is rare, less impactful, and being brought up as a canard to distract form women's issues. This is where many feminists are wrong, but this has little to nothing to do with the general thrust of the feminist movement; or even all the work toward equality they engage in.

Simply stating that because I'm against these i am against equal rights for females is a rancid lie.

Correct; you can be for equality and wrongly think that being against feminism in general is not a problem. But as I have demonstrated, that wrong thinking is based on buying the lies of bigots. Now that I've shown you the facts I am sure that you will see that you were wrong, change your mind, and apologize for being mistaken.

I said feminism openly allies with Marxism. This is true and mobbed in this thread denied it.

As a cultural Marxist leading a conspiracy against Jordan Peterson, I would like to confirm for you that eco- feminist- gay- and other 'human' rights movements are all, fundamentally, Marxist.

However, and of this I am 100% sure: You don't know what your talking about when it comes to Marxism. Marxism, in a modern sense, calls for people to all be treated like they matter - equally - even if they are poor, or presently discriminated against. It points out that equal outcomes for all is NOT a desirable state of affairs; but systematic, large, unequal outcomes across race, gender, and so on is a flag that should warn us "here may be systematic discrimination; seek what part of the system you can control." And thus we seek to change the social system to help overcome systematic errors [7]

Notice how you said "women" were generally in favor of free speech not feminists. That's because you know feminists have consistently been against free speed.

Liable is not free speech; nor is slander.

Anita Sakeesian for instance went before the UN to protest "harassment" which for her literally means being called a liar. Notice how you're defending feminists against someone who accused them off baking compelled speech and your not saying that's not typical of feminism, because it is. Feminists are pushing hate speech legislation that would punish people for saying things they don't like. Note that it's not about preventing "bullying" or "threats of violence" either. Threats of violence are already illegal and some of those who complain about "harassment" and want the "harassers" punished have more power than the "harassers". They are the bullies. i am not against people suffering consequences for being a dick. In fact I wish it would happen more often so people like you would learn to shut your lying mouths. They want people arrested for offending people.

You have engaged in the rhetorical fallacy of synecdoche; which is where a person takes a single part of a collective and uses it as a representation of the collective. [8] No more is David Duke a representative of the part of the nation that voted for Trump than a fat, purple haired, ugly human that yells "MAN SPLANING" on the internet all day representative of feminism. You don't want people to be bigots against you because you are on a side that has a few shitty people on the fringes; so why should you treat others that way?

The answer is you don't know you're doing it. Now you do. So now you change.

Oh and BTW the wage gap was shown to be a myth DECADES ago.

I have a friend that is literally one of the top scholars in this field, and the fact is that you are simply, empirically, incorrect. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20].... [108] Literally thousands of articles confirm, help explain and theorize, and add to our collective knowledge of the wage gap.

Calming "there is no wage gap" is as ignorant as saying the earth is flat, the globe isn't warming, or vaccines do more harm than good.

Spoiler

[1]
Ramirez, F. O., Soysal, Y., & Shanahan, S. (1997). The changing logic of political citizenship: Cross-national acquisition of women's suffrage rights, 1890 to 1990. American sociological review, 735-745.

[2]
Hallward-Driemeier, M., Hasan, T., & Rusu, A. B. (2013). Women's legal rights over 50 years: progress, stagnation or regression?. The World Bank.

[3]
Campbell, J. C., & Alford, P. (1989). The dark consequences of marital rape. The American journal of nursing, 89(7), 946-949.

[4]
Pressman, C. (1997). The House That Ruth Built: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Gender and Justice. NYL Sch. J. Hum. Rts., 14, 311.

[5]
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo

[6]
Curtis, M. K. (2000). Free speech,“the people’s darling privilege”: Struggles for freedom of expression in American history. Duke University Press.

[7]
Althusser, L. (2005). For marx (Vol. 2). Verso.

[8]
Seto, K. I. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. Metonymy in language and thought, 91-120.

[9]...[108] (titles only to conserve space; see scholar.google.com for full citations)

The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations
Networks and misallocation: Insurance, migration, and the rural-urban wage gap
Bargaining, sorting, and the gender wage gap: Quantifying the impact of firms on the relative pay of women
The gender wage gap and domestic violence
Rising wage inequality, the decline of collective bargaining, and the gender wage gap
Changes in returns to task-specific skills and gender wage gap
Separate and not equal? Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap
Home production, market production and the gender wage gap: Incentives and expectations
The informal sector wage gap: new evidence using quantile estimations on panel data
Occupational segregation and the gender wage gap: A job half done
Separate and unequal in the labor market: human capital and the jim crow wage gap
Occupational segregation and the gender wage gap in private‐and public‐sector employment: a distributional analysis
Working across time zones: Exporters and the gender wage gap
International trade and the gender wage gap: New evidence from India's manufacturing sector
What drives the gender wage gap? A look at the role of firm and job-title heterogeneity
Unequal depression for equal work? How the wage gap explains gendered disparities in mood disorders
Pay formalization revisited: Considering the effects of manager gender and discretion on closing the gender wage gap
Which gender wage gap estimates to trust? A comparative analysis
Is the Decrease in the Gender Wage Gap the Principal Driver of the Sustained Rise in Female Labor Market Participation?
The intra-firm gender wage gap: a new view on wage differentials based on linked employer–employee data
How competitiveness may cause a gender wage gap: Experimental evidence
Performance pay and the white-black wage gap
International trade, the gender wage gap and female labor force participation
Decomposing the gender wage gap with sample selection adjustment: evidence from Colombia
Agents of change or cogs in the machine? Reexamining the influence of female managers on the gender wage gap
Distributional changes in the gender wage gap
Exploring the public-private sector wage gap in European countries
Ideological wage inequalities? The technical/social dualism and the gender wage gap in engineering
Manager impartiality: Worker-firm matching and the gender wage gap
When Time Binds: Substitutes for Household Production, Returns to Working Long Hours, and the Skilled Gender Wage Gap
The gender wage gap by education in Italy
Where do immigrants fare worse? Modeling workplace wage gap variation with longitudinal employer-employee data
Can minimum wages close the gender wage gap? Evidence from Indonesia
From wage regulation to wage gap: how wage-setting institutions and structures shape the gender wage gap across three industries in 24 European countries and …
Monopsonistic discrimination, worker turnover, and the gender wage gap
The motherhood wage gap: What about job amenities?
… do occupations dominated by women pay less? How 'female-typical'work tasks and working-time arrangements affect the gender wage gap among higher education …
Gender wage gap in the Czech Republic and central european countries
Human capital, discrimination, and the gender wage gap in Bangladesh
Long work hours, part-time work, and trends in the gender gap in pay, the motherhood wage penalty, and the fatherhood wage premium
Public–private sector wage gap in Australia: variation along the distribution
Job mobility and the gender wage gap in Italy
The immigrant wage gap in Germany: Are East Europeans worse off?
The gender wage gap among recent post‐secondary graduates in Canada: a distributional approach
The regional wage gap in the Spanish hospitality sector based on a gender perspective
Mind the gap: Collective bargaining and wage inequality
Why is there a gender wage gap according to occupational prestige? An analysis of the gender wage gap by occupational prestige and family obligations in Sweden
When time binds: returns to working long hours and the gender wage gap among the highly skilled
Pay secrecy and the gender wage gap in the United States
Adieu Rabenmutter—culture, fertility, female labour supply, the gender wage gap and childcare
Bargaining and the gender wage gap: A direct assessment
Human capital quality and the immigrant wage gap
Personality and the gender wage gap
Stagnation only on the surface? T he implications of skill and family responsibilities for the gender wage gap in S weden, 1974–2010
The structure of the wage gap for temporary workers: Evidence from Australian panel data
Benchmarking, social partnership and higher remuneration: Wage settling institutions and the public-private sector wage gap in Ireland
“Life is short, art is long”: the persistent wage gap between Bohemian and non-Bohemian graduates
Understanding the native–immigrant wage gap using matched employer-employee data: evidence from Germany
Disappointing facts about the black-white wage gap
The impact of segregation and sorting on the gender wage gap: Evidence from German linked longitudinal employer-employee data
Public–private wage gap in Latin America (1992–2007): A matching approach
Globalization: a woman's best friend? Exporters and the gender wage gap
When does transition increase the gender wage gap? An application to Belarus 1
The gender wage gap and its institutional context: a comparative analysis of European graduates
The gender wage gap in developed countries
The gender wage gap in the Canadian provinces, 1997–2014
Wage compression and the gender pay gap
Why has the gender wage gap narrowed?
Unions and the gender wage gap in South Africa
Beyond the Paycheck Fairness Act: Mandatory wage disclosure laws-a necessary tool for closing the residual gender wage gap
Changes in returns to task-specific skills and gender wage gap
State liberalism, female supervisors, and the gender wage gap
The gender wage gap and the role of reservation wages: New evidence for unemployed workers
Gender wage gap in Poland–Can it be explained by differences in observable characteristics?
The gender wage gap in the United States and cross nationally
The gender reservation wage gap: evidence from British panel data
Child-related career interruptions and the gender wage gap in France
Gender wage gap across the wage distribution in different segments of the Indian labour market, 1983–2012: exploring the glass ceiling or sticky floor phenomenon
Occupational segregation and the gender wage gap in Brazil: an empirical analysis
The effects of gender differences in career interruptions on the gender wage gap in Spain
Equal Employment Opportunity Law and the gender wage gap in Japan: A cohort analysis
“Family-friendly” fringe benefits and the gender wage gap
Déjà vu? An updated analysis of the gender wage gap in the US hospitality sector
Explaining the gender wage gap in STEM: Does field sex composition matter?
Performance pay and the gender wage gap: evidence from Spain
The motherhood wage gap in the UK over the life cycle
What is the effect of housework on the market wage, and can it explain the gender wage gap?
Reassessing the Gender Wage Gap in Madagascar: Does Labor Force Attachment Really Matter?
Explaining the gender wage gap: Estimates from a dynamic model of job changes and hours changes
The politicians' wage gap: insights from German members of parliament
Are public sector workers underpaid in Russia? Estimating the public-private wage gap
Economic growth, gender wage gap and fertility rebound
The informal sector wage gap among Vietnamese micro-firms
Does part-time employment widen the gender wage gap? evidence from twelve european countries
Skills, the gender wage gap, and cities
Employer-sponsored health insurance and the gender wage gap
The gender wage gap in highly prestigious occupations: a case study of Swedish medical doctors
Selection, heterogeneity and the gender wage gap
The reverse wage gap among educated White and Black women
A distributional analysis of the gender wage gap in Bangladesh

 

[realibrad]

Thank you for sharing the totality of your thinking in this regard. As an honest person I will now demonstrate where each of your points is incorrect.

I expect you not to respond except with the same level of citation and argumentation; which is to say backing your claims with peer reviewed sources and to end your logical fallacies.

Your first logical fallacy is the "all or nothing" fallacy. You argue that because you can find instances where you read a lack of equality, feminism is "not at all" about equality - this is false. Ideas, particularly those held by a generations of very different people, can have many different facets. In this case it is absurd to argue that that there is nothing about equality manifesting in the movement that gave women the right to vote [1], the right to have a bank account [2], and the right to not be raped by their husbands [3].



Ruth Bater Gensburg, as a feminist lawyer, was personally responsible for numerous lawsuits demanding equal rights for men. [4]
However your general point - that some ignore men's rights - is correct. A fantastic overview of the problem of 'tribes' is presented in this talk.

Keep in mind that, given how logically incorrect and hamfisted the extent of your thinking has been so far, you have demonstrated 100% that you are just as bigoted as any you care to find feminist.



Indeed some firms over react; rather than being caring helping people see the light - as I am here with you - they will just get rid of people who are toxic and hateful. In the specific case at google that you are talking about, while the man's job was to question everything, the conclusion he drew was not as you frame it. He was fired for DEFENDING that argument with bigoted stereotypes [5]

It's the difference between saying "unequal representation of Asians in auditing is not necessarily caused by discrimination" and "because, you know, Asians are bad at math." Nothing wrong with the first part - it's when you start defending your argument by being a bigot that you've become well... a bigot.


Often hate speech is free speech unless it insights violence, but we have a LONG history of censorship - almost all of it to suppress the opressed [6] - but I think what you mean is bigots should be free to make a firm look bad and keep their job. Sorry buddy, the only people in society we protect from being fired for being abjectly wrong are professors, pundits, and priests.


No one is against reducing domestic and sexual violence against men - they just wrongly assume is rare, less impactful, and being brought up as a canard to distract form women's issues. This is where many feminists are wrong, but this has little to nothing to do with the general thrust of the feminist movement; or even all the work toward equality they engage in.


Correct; you can be for equality and wrongly think that being against feminism in general is not a problem. But as I have demonstrated, that wrong thinking is based on buying the lies of bigots. Now that I've shown you the facts I am sure that you will see that you were wrong, change your mind, and apologize for being mistaken.



As a cultural Marxist leading a conspiracy against Jordan Peterson, I would like to confirm for you that eco- feminist- gay- and other 'human' rights movements are all, fundamentally, Marxist.

However, and of this I am 100% sure: You don't know what your talking about when it comes to Marxism. Marxism, in a modern sense, calls for people to all be treated like they matter - equally - even if they are poor, or presently discriminated against. It points out that equal outcomes or all is NOT a desirable state of affairs; but systematic, large, unequal outcomes across race, gender, and so on is a flag that should warn us "here may be systematic discrimination; seek what part of the system you can control." And thus we seek to change the social system to help overcome systematic errors [7]





Liable is not free speech; nor is slander.


You have engaged in the rhetorical fallacy of synecdoche; which is where a person takes a single part of a collective and uses it as a representation of the collective. [8] No more is David Duke a representative of the part of the nation that voted for Trump than a fat, purple haired, ugly human that yells "MAN SPLANING" on the internet all day representative of feminism. You don't want people to be bigots against you because you are on a side that has a few shitty people on the fringes; so why should you treat others that way?

The answer is you don't know you're doing it. Now you do. So now you change.



I have a friend that is literally one of the top scholars in this field, and the fact is that you are simply, empirically, incorrect. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20].... [108] Literally thousands of articles confirm, help explain and theorize, and add to our collective knowledge of the wage gap.

Calming "there is no wage gap" is as ignorant as saying the earth is flat, the globe isn't warming, or vaccines do more harm than good.

Spoiler

[1]
Ramirez, F. O., Soysal, Y., & Shanahan, S. (1997). The changing logic of political citizenship: Cross-national acquisition of women's suffrage rights, 1890 to 1990. American sociological review, 735-745.

[2]
Hallward-Driemeier, M., Hasan, T., & Rusu, A. B. (2013). Women's legal rights over 50 years: progress, stagnation or regression?. The World Bank.

[3]
Campbell, J. C., & Alford, P. (1989). The dark consequences of marital rape. The American journal of nursing, 89(7), 946-949.

[4]
Pressman, C. (1997). The House That Ruth Built: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Gender and Justice. NYL Sch. J. Hum. Rts., 14, 311.

[5]
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo

[6]
Curtis, M. K. (2000). Free speech,“the people’s darling privilege”: Struggles for freedom of expression in American history. Duke University Press.

[7]
Althusser, L. (2005). For marx (Vol. 2). Verso.

[8]
Seto, K. I. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. Metonymy in language and thought, 91-120.

[9]...[108] (titles only to conserve space; see scholar.google.com for full citations)

The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations
Networks and misallocation: Insurance, migration, and the rural-urban wage gap
Bargaining, sorting, and the gender wage gap: Quantifying the impact of firms on the relative pay of women
The gender wage gap and domestic violence
Rising wage inequality, the decline of collective bargaining, and the gender wage gap
Changes in returns to task-specific skills and gender wage gap
Separate and not equal? Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap
Home production, market production and the gender wage gap: Incentives and expectations
The informal sector wage gap: new evidence using quantile estimations on panel data
Occupational segregation and the gender wage gap: A job half done
Separate and unequal in the labor market: human capital and the jim crow wage gap
Occupational segregation and the gender wage gap in private‐and public‐sector employment: a distributional analysis
Working across time zones: Exporters and the gender wage gap
International trade and the gender wage gap: New evidence from India's manufacturing sector
What drives the gender wage gap? A look at the role of firm and job-title heterogeneity
Unequal depression for equal work? How the wage gap explains gendered disparities in mood disorders
Pay formalization revisited: Considering the effects of manager gender and discretion on closing the gender wage gap
Which gender wage gap estimates to trust? A comparative analysis
Is the Decrease in the Gender Wage Gap the Principal Driver of the Sustained Rise in Female Labor Market Participation?
The intra-firm gender wage gap: a new view on wage differentials based on linked employer–employee data
How competitiveness may cause a gender wage gap: Experimental evidence
Performance pay and the white-black wage gap
International trade, the gender wage gap and female labor force participation
Decomposing the gender wage gap with sample selection adjustment: evidence from Colombia
Agents of change or cogs in the machine? Reexamining the influence of female managers on the gender wage gap
Distributional changes in the gender wage gap
Exploring the public-private sector wage gap in European countries
Ideological wage inequalities? The technical/social dualism and the gender wage gap in engineering
Manager impartiality: Worker-firm matching and the gender wage gap
When Time Binds: Substitutes for Household Production, Returns to Working Long Hours, and the Skilled Gender Wage Gap
The gender wage gap by education in Italy
Where do immigrants fare worse? Modeling workplace wage gap variation with longitudinal employer-employee data
Can minimum wages close the gender wage gap? Evidence from Indonesia
From wage regulation to wage gap: how wage-setting institutions and structures shape the gender wage gap across three industries in 24 European countries and …
Monopsonistic discrimination, worker turnover, and the gender wage gap
The motherhood wage gap: What about job amenities?
… do occupations dominated by women pay less? How 'female-typical'work tasks and working-time arrangements affect the gender wage gap among higher education …
Gender wage gap in the Czech Republic and central european countries
Human capital, discrimination, and the gender wage gap in Bangladesh
Long work hours, part-time work, and trends in the gender gap in pay, the motherhood wage penalty, and the fatherhood wage premium
Public–private sector wage gap in Australia: variation along the distribution
Job mobility and the gender wage gap in Italy
The immigrant wage gap in Germany: Are East Europeans worse off?
The gender wage gap among recent post‐secondary graduates in Canada: a distributional approach
The regional wage gap in the Spanish hospitality sector based on a gender perspective
Mind the gap: Collective bargaining and wage inequality
Why is there a gender wage gap according to occupational prestige? An analysis of the gender wage gap by occupational prestige and family obligations in Sweden
When time binds: returns to working long hours and the gender wage gap among the highly skilled
Pay secrecy and the gender wage gap in the United States
Adieu Rabenmutter—culture, fertility, female labour supply, the gender wage gap and childcare
Bargaining and the gender wage gap: A direct assessment
Human capital quality and the immigrant wage gap
Personality and the gender wage gap
Stagnation only on the surface? T he implications of skill and family responsibilities for the gender wage gap in S weden, 1974–2010
The structure of the wage gap for temporary workers: Evidence from Australian panel data
Benchmarking, social partnership and higher remuneration: Wage settling institutions and the public-private sector wage gap in Ireland
“Life is short, art is long”: the persistent wage gap between Bohemian and non-Bohemian graduates
Understanding the native–immigrant wage gap using matched employer-employee data: evidence from Germany
Disappointing facts about the black-white wage gap
The impact of segregation and sorting on the gender wage gap: Evidence from German linked longitudinal employer-employee data
Public–private wage gap in Latin America (1992–2007): A matching approach
Globalization: a woman's best friend? Exporters and the gender wage gap
When does transition increase the gender wage gap? An application to Belarus 1
The gender wage gap and its institutional context: a comparative analysis of European graduates
The gender wage gap in developed countries
The gender wage gap in the Canadian provinces, 1997–2014
Wage compression and the gender pay gap
Why has the gender wage gap narrowed?
Unions and the gender wage gap in South Africa
Beyond the Paycheck Fairness Act: Mandatory wage disclosure laws-a necessary tool for closing the residual gender wage gap
Changes in returns to task-specific skills and gender wage gap
State liberalism, female supervisors, and the gender wage gap
The gender wage gap and the role of reservation wages: New evidence for unemployed workers
Gender wage gap in Poland–Can it be explained by differences in observable characteristics?
The gender wage gap in the United States and cross nationally
The gender reservation wage gap: evidence from British panel data
Child-related career interruptions and the gender wage gap in France
Gender wage gap across the wage distribution in different segments of the Indian labour market, 1983–2012: exploring the glass ceiling or sticky floor phenomenon
Occupational segregation and the gender wage gap in Brazil: an empirical analysis
The effects of gender differences in career interruptions on the gender wage gap in Spain
Equal Employment Opportunity Law and the gender wage gap in Japan: A cohort analysis
“Family-friendly” fringe benefits and the gender wage gap
Déjà vu? An updated analysis of the gender wage gap in the US hospitality sector
Explaining the gender wage gap in STEM: Does field sex composition matter?
Performance pay and the gender wage gap: evidence from Spain
The motherhood wage gap in the UK over the life cycle
What is the effect of housework on the market wage, and can it explain the gender wage gap?
Reassessing the Gender Wage Gap in Madagascar: Does Labor Force Attachment Really Matter?
Explaining the gender wage gap: Estimates from a dynamic model of job changes and hours changes
The politicians' wage gap: insights from German members of parliament
Are public sector workers underpaid in Russia? Estimating the public-private wage gap
Economic growth, gender wage gap and fertility rebound
The informal sector wage gap among Vietnamese micro-firms
Does part-time employment widen the gender wage gap? evidence from twelve european countries
Skills, the gender wage gap, and cities
Employer-sponsored health insurance and the gender wage gap
The gender wage gap in highly prestigious occupations: a case study of Swedish medical doctors
Selection, heterogeneity and the gender wage gap
The reverse wage gap among educated White and Black women
A distributional analysis of the gender wage gap in Bangladesh

To be clear, you just linked a bunch of studies on the differences for the wages of men and women. Just looking at the first study, "The gender wage gap and its institutional context: a comparative analysis of European graduates", it looks like its just explaining the non sexist reasons for the differences in wages.

Let me show you the most important part of that article.

The detailed decomposition analysis allows us to identify which variables are more important in accounting for the gender wage gap. Table 1 shows the estimates from the decomposition analysis; since the OLS regression and the Heckman selection model produce analogous results, those from the former model are reported. The most relevant endowments are occupational-related variables (26.3%), followed by working hours (19.7%), human capital (9.8%) and family–work reconciliation indicators (6.4%). Among the human capital variables the most important is field of study: all else being constant, if the distribution of women across fields of specialization were to change to become similar to that of men, the wage gap would be reduced by about 7%. Course length and foreign language skills account for the remaining 3%, while other factors do not play a relevant role.

The way they also define discrimination is by saying if they cant explain it, its discrimination.

The most common approach to studying gender differences in earnings in the field of labour economics is to estimate the wage gap using regression models and apply variants of the famous Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method, which separates the part of the gap that can be imputed to differences between men and women in productivity characteristics (such as education or work experience) from a residual part that cannot be accounted for by these variables, and which is usually referred to as discrimination (Blinder, 1973; Oaxaca, 1973)

That seems silly to include to back up your argument no?

 

[fskimospy]

To be clear, you just linked a bunch of studies on the differences for the wages of men and women. Just looking at the first study, "The gender wage gap and its institutional context: a comparative analysis of European graduates", it looks like its just explaining the non sexist reasons for the differences in wages.

Let me show you the most important part of that article.

The way they also define discrimination is by saying if they cant explain it, its discrimination.

That's how basically every empirical social science study in the entire world works. It's baffling that you would bring that up as a problem.

 

[realibrad]

That's how basically every empirical social science study in the entire world works. It's baffling that you would bring that up as a problem.

They say that if you cant explain it, then it must be caused by x?

 

[fskimospy]

They say that if you cant explain it, then it must be caused by x?

Uhmm, yes? The whole idea is that you controlled for all relevant factors other than discrimination because you can't measure discrimination explicitly. How else would you study the effects of discrimination? It's not like people twirl their mustaches and say 'I'm paying you less because you're a dirty woman!'. Remember that landmark study about black vs. white employment? The error term was defined as racism, same as here.

Now there's always a possibility that they didn't account for relevant factors that would also affect their study but you would need to provide empirical evidence that those were not accounted for and do not strongly correlate with other factors that are accounted for. Again, it's very odd that you would complain about basically industry standard research design.

 

[realibrad]

Uhmm, yes? The whole idea is that you controlled for all relevant factors other than discrimination because you can't measure discrimination explicitly. How else would you study the effects of discrimination? It's not like people twirl their mustaches and say 'I'm paying you less because you're a dirty woman!'. Remember that landmark study about black vs. white employment? The error term was defined as racism, same as here.

Now there's always a possibility that they didn't account for relevant factors that would also affect their study but you would need to provide empirical evidence that those were not accounted for and do not strongly correlate with other factors that are accounted for. Again, it's very odd that you would complain about basically industry standard research design.

That does not make sense. Why would science presume a conclusion in the absence of evidence? All other fields of science only come to a conclusion with the presence of evidence. You are telling me that its opposite here?

 

[fskimospy]

That does not make sense. Why would science presume a conclusion in the absence of evidence? All other fields of science only come to a conclusion with the presence of evidence. You are telling me that its opposite here?

Of course it makes sense and of course there is evidence, after all, that's what the study was about! They compiled the evidence and came to a conclusion. It's genuinely amazing to me that you're this ignorant about the basics of much of social science. Honestly, I've probably cited dozens of papers to you about discrimination and every single one of them has used a similar definition and you only just now noticed it. It does indicate to me that you never read the research I cite to you though, haha.

Discrimination cannot be measured directly because not only do people not admit to it, they would be placing themselves in legal jeopardy if they did. We know it exists though. We know lots of other things that affect wages though that you can measure! Age, experience, education, performance, etc, etc. So, you control for all of those and the remainder is most likely discrimination.

Again, if you can find other factors that you can empirically establish that weren't controlled for then by all means share them! The idea that we can't evaluate things we can't directly measure though is really weird to argue.

 

[realibrad]

Of course it makes sense and of course there is evidence, after all, that's what the study was about! They compiled the evidence and came to a conclusion. It's genuinely amazing to me that you're this ignorant about the basics of much of social science. Honestly, I've probably cited dozens of papers to you about discrimination and every single one of them has used a similar definition and you only just now noticed it. It does indicate to me that you never read the research I cite to you though, haha.

Discrimination cannot be measured directly because not only do people not admit to it, they would be placing themselves in legal jeopardy if they did. We know it exists though. We know lots of other things that affect wages though that you can measure! Age, experience, education, performance, etc, etc. So, you control for all of those and the remainder is most likely discrimination.

Again, if you can find other factors that you can empirically establish that weren't controlled for then by all means share them! The idea that we can't evaluate things we can't directly measure though is really weird to argue.

The paper did not find evidence. What the paper did was to take factors, and see how those factors played out in the data. When they did that, they find about 7% that was unexplained and left it there. If they had compiled evidence pointing to discrimination then fine. What they did was to say there was a void and that is the discrimination.

I get that discrimination is not always explicit and overt. I also think that to say that the 7% that is unexplained must be discrimination. I know of no other field of science where the unexplained is accepted. This is diverting from the point though. The paper did not support being linked in his post. All that paper did was to look at given factors and see how that would relate to the data. Given the factors they used, it eliminated the vast majority of the difference by showing it was not discrimination.

 

[fskimospy]

The paper did not find evidence. What the paper did was to take factors, and see how those factors played out in the data. When they did that, they find about 7% that was unexplained and left it there. If they had compiled evidence pointing to discrimination then fine. What they did was to say there was a void and that is the discrimination.

I get that discrimination is not always explicit and overt. I also think that to say that the 7% that is unexplained must be discrimination. I know of no other field of science where the unexplained is accepted. This is diverting from the point though. The paper did not support being linked in his post. All that paper did was to look at given factors and see how that would relate to the data. Given the factors they used, it eliminated the vast majority of the difference by showing it was not discrimination.

They didn't say it MUST be discrimination, just that it was the most likely explanation. Science doesn't make conclusions, it offers evidence.

Thank you for admitting your basic ignorance of social science though, that basically covers it. You took issue with his paper because you simply didn't understand the topic. There's no shame in that. There's also no point in discussing this further because you just showed you don't know what you're talking about. It also indicates to me that linking research to you is a waste of time because you clearly never read anything else I linked or this ignorance would have surfaced sooner.

 

[realibrad]

They didn't say it MUST be discrimination, just that it was the most likely explanation. Science doesn't make conclusions, it offers evidence.

Thank you for admitting your basic ignorance of social science though, that basically covers it. You took issue with his paper because you simply didn't understand the topic. There's no shame in that. There's also no point in discussing this further because you just showed you don't know what you're talking about. It also indicates to me that linking research to you is a waste of time because you clearly never read anything else I linked or this ignorance would have surfaced sooner.

First, they said it was by definition. So yes, they said it must be.

"from a residual part that cannot be accounted for by these variables, and which is usually referred to as discrimination."

Second, first you are baffled and now you think its understandable?

 

[fskimospy]

First, they said it was by definition. So yes, they said it must be.

"from a residual part that cannot be accounted for by these variables, and which is usually referred to as discrimination."

No, this is how they described it if you actually bothered to read the thing you are complaining about:

second component measures the contri- bution of differences to the coefficients associated with the characteristics included in the model (and differences in the intercept), and is usually attributed to discrimination, but also captures all potential effects of differences in unobserved variables.

lol. Even after being called out for not reading things you still didn’t read it. Thanks for owning yourself yet again.

Second, first you are baffled and now you think its understandable?

I think being ignorant of how social science works is understandable but I am baffled that you’ve argued about it so much but never bothered to learn anything.

There is no point to discussing this further. I know you will never stop and you have already shown yourself to be entirely ignorant about even the basics of social science. Instead of arguing with me take the time to educate yourself.

 

[realibrad]

No, this is how they described it if you actually bothered to read the thing you are complaining about:



lol. Even after being called out for not reading things you still didn’t read it. Thanks for owning yourself yet again.



I think being ignorant of how social science works is understandable but I am baffled that you’ve argued about it so much but never bothered to learn anything.

There is no point to discussing this further. I know you will never stop and you have already shown yourself to be entirely ignorant about even the basics of social science. Instead of arguing with me take the time to educate yourself.

I'm not sure what your point here is. I quoted where they said that the standard way of defining it is to say that the unexplained gap is discrimination. You then go after me saying that you find it baffling that I did not know that is how it is. Then you say that its perfectly fine to attribute an outcome to something without evidence. Then you try to tell me that in this paper they do not do it. Did you forget that I simply pointed out that labeling something as discrimination because its unexplained was my position?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure what your point here is. I quoted where they said that the standard way of defining it is to say that the unexplained gap is discrimination. You then go after me saying that you find it baffling that I did not know that is how it is. Then you say that its perfectly fine to attribute an outcome to something without evidence. Then you try to tell me that in this paper they do not do it. Did you forget that I simply pointed out that labeling something as discrimination because its unexplained was my position?

They said it included discrimination and all other unaccounted for variables. In no way did they say the error term must be discrimination as you claimed. You would know this if you bothered to read the paper you were criticizing. Thanks again though for confirming that providing you with research is pointless because you're unwilling or incapable of reading and understanding it.

This is my last reply to you on this topic. Please take my suggestion to heart and go educate yourself about social science.

 

[Moonbeam]

Uhmm, yes? The whole idea is that you controlled for all relevant factors other than discrimination because you can't measure discrimination explicitly. How else would you study the effects of discrimination? It's not like people twirl their mustaches and say 'I'm paying you less because you're a dirty woman!'. Remember that landmark study about black vs. white employment? The error term was defined as racism, same as here.

Now there's always a possibility that they didn't account for relevant factors that would also affect their study but you would need to provide empirical evidence that those were not accounted for and do not strongly correlate with other factors that are accounted for. Again, it's very odd that you would complain about basically industry standard research design.

I like to think that discrimination in the form we are discussing here is a bad thing. It offends my sense of justice. But because most of what has brought me to a greater sense of worth in living has come at the price of what I had unconsciously assumed and unconsciously absorbed as a result of nurture within a culture, I have developed perhaps some atypical tendency to take note and question what I seem to find myself believing.

What if discrimination as we or at least I see it here isn’t wrong at all because it simple is and will always be, that men don’t discriminate against women owing to inculturation in a biased and bigoted historical upbringing, but do so as the result of genetic predisposition? What if men are biologically innately programmed in such a way they will inevitably treat women in discriminatory way for which our sense of justice can’t correct?

And since I am still deeply fascinated by the disparity I see between what I hear Jordan Peterson saying and what other people see him saying, I would like to ask another question:

Peterson says, or what I hear him saying, and I hope I can get this right, is that in those countries which have made the most progress in gender equality, the gender divide within stereotypically masculine and feminine jobs increases, not decreases as one interested in seeing more equality might hope for or expect. If so, what do you make of this purported fact that gender equality creates greater evidence of gender discrimination?

I wonder about about this because it seems to me that if reducing gender discrimination leads to women choosing inferior lines of work, maybe the problem isn’t that women aren’t inferior, only our notions of what we judge to be inferior are.

 

[realibrad]

They said it included discrimination and all other unaccounted for variables. In no way did they say the error term must be discrimination as you claimed. You would know this if you bothered to read the paper you were criticizing. Thanks again though for confirming that providing you with research is pointless because you're unwilling or incapable of reading and understanding it.

This is my last reply to you on this topic. Please take my suggestion to heart and go educate yourself about social science.

I know it said that in this paper. I was taking issue with the larger point that attributing it to discrimination because its unexplained is a problem.

So, how can the typical way of finding discrimination be to find something unexplained and that be a good method? You are arguing against something I did not say. If you took the time to have a conversation rather than rush to a judgement and attack me, you would not be so annoyed.

So to be clear, you are saying that its typically done the way I said it was done, but, in this paper they noted that they did it slightly differently. Then, you attack me for having a problem with it as a general thing.

 

[realibrad]

...

I wonder about about this because it seems to me that if reducing gender discrimination leads to women choosing inferior lines of work, maybe the problem isn’t that women aren’t inferior, only our notions of what we judge to be inferior are.

Well done.