Jordan Peterson: Telling Betas They are Alphas

[Maxima1]

As per markets: they don’t set wages - people and professions set perceptions. Then markets respond to perceptions.

Otherwise the idea is a “job that doesn’t pay enough for an American to do it” would be nonsense and we would allow tomato picking to become much better compensated than office worker.

But we don’t; because that’s not a “proper” profession and “those people” are not perceived as those who may become “legitimately wealthy”

I don't understand your point here. That labor pays low because low-skilled immigrants come here and are willing to do it for less. There are other factors to it. Like any low-skill labor, employers can aggressively keep the compensation low as you don't have any boosters (e.g. a required degree barrier) to keep others unqualified. One obvious reason why RNs make a lot is simply because universities/colleges don't seat enough qualified applicants in the pipeline.

Same holds for “women’s work;” the best predictor of total income fallling for a profession is an influx of women.

Now, no doubt, there are times when supply is so low and demand so high tradition and perception are overlooked - see nursing - but that is not the normal action of society.

What are some examples that you think fit this?

 

[realibrad]

I find this to be a valid critique of revolutionaries of any sort; not those who recognize the validity of Marxist arguments vis a vis economy and oppression and seek that third way. For example taking the payrol tax from 6.2% to 12% to create Medicare for all.

Expanding the unemployment tax from .6% to 2.6% to cover paid family leave for men and women.

Typical liberal tax and benefit society thinking; but taking inequality as the central problem to be solved.

As per markets: they don’t set wages - people and professions set perceptions. Then markets respond to perceptions.

Otherwise the idea of a “job that doesn’t pay enough for an American to do it” would be nonsense and we would allow tomato picking to become much better compensated than office worker.

But we don’t; because that’s not a “proper” profession and “those people” are not perceived as those who may become “legitimately wealthy”

Same holds for “women’s work;” the best predictor of total income fallling for a profession is an influx of women.

Now, no doubt, there are times when supply is so low and demand so high tradition and perception are overlooked - see nursing - but that is not the normal action of society.

Hmm, can you expand on what you mean by markets not setting wages? I see people influencing "markets" as being part of the market.

 

[woolfe9998]

For a whole mess of reasons. Some of those reasons stem from gender differences in personalities. Others may be a difference in social pressures. Some may come from physical differences.

For example, woman may choose nursing as their interests in people are typically greater than men's interest in people. Life being a set of choices that lead to different outcomes, would mean that each time a woman makes a choice where she could chose between things vs people, she will be more likely to choose people when given the choice.

Does that answer your question?

Yes it does. And I would point out that "social pressures" is a different manifestation of sexism in a culture from discrimination, and it is one far more difficult to root out. When we talked about this in a prior thread, I mentioned that my daughter, who was assessed as having high aptitude for math and science, nonetheless had no interest in any STEM profession because she associated computers and math with dorky boys she went to school with. These attitudes came from her female peers. Anyone who has attended an American high school should know that this is not an isolated case. These attitudes of disdain toward math and science by adolescent girls were dominant when I went to high school in the 80's. Girls who joined the math club, all two of them, were unpopular among their peers. They were socially punished for it.

Yet these attitudes did not arise all the sudden out of a social vacuum. Society tells us what professions are appropriate for men and women, and we form our preferences and desires accordingly.

Notice that women are doing well in medicine? Somewhere along the way, we decided that life science in general and medicine in particular is a "caring" profession and hence it fits the traditional female gender role. Not so with, for example, writing code. That's too cold and asocial of a profession, meaning it's still for men.

That's why the study which shows that women don't choose computer science or other heavily male dominated professions when given the choice in a progressive society is exactly what one should expect. Because solving discrimination - though necessary - doesn't really address the heart of the issue.

I'm not arguing for equal outcomes here. I just want real freedom of choice. Where we don't tell our children, students and peers first what they should be doing with their lives then pretend we're letting them decide for themselves. Once these pressures are dismantled, any remaining unequal outcome would presumably be down to biology and that is fine. However, we're not there yet.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes it does. And I would point out that "social pressures" is a different manifestation of sexism in a culture from discrimination, and it is one far more difficult to root out. When we talked about this in a prior thread, I mentioned that my daughter, who was assessed as having high aptitude for math and science, nonetheless had no interest in any STEM profession because she associated computers and math with dorky boys she went to school with. These attitudes came from her female peers. Anyone who has attended an American high school should know that this is not an isolated case. These attitudes of disdain toward math and science by adolescent girls were dominant when I went to high school in the 80's. Girls who joined the math club, all two of them, were unpopular among their peers. They were socially punished for it.

Yet these attitudes did not arise all the sudden out of a social vacuum. Society tells us what professions are appropriate for men and women, and we form our preferences and desires accordingly.

Notice that women are doing well in medicine? Somewhere along the way, we decided that life science in general and medicine in particular is a "caring" profession and hence it fits the traditional female gender role. Not so with, for example, writing code. That's too cold and asocial of a profession, meaning it's still for men.

That's why the study which shows that women don't choose computer science or other heavily male dominated professions when given the choice in a progressive society is exactly what one should expect. Because solving discrimination - though necessary - doesn't really address the heart of the issue.

I'm not arguing for equal outcomes here. I just want real freedom of choice. Where we don't tell our children, students and peers first what they should be doing with their lives then pretend we're letting them decide for themselves. Once these pressures are dismantled, any remaining unequal outcome would presumably be down to biology and that is fine. However, we're not there yet.

Well well. I hope you don’t feel offended if I point out how much I believe you have indirectly restated a theme is best explained by the fact that we have internalized the notion that our worth as individuals and our conformity to external identifications all have their origin in self hate. Your daughter learned she would be thought of as being worthless if she expressed her real potential but loved if she abandoned such a path. She saw and learned to fear being socially outcast and being put down.

I was going to say earlier but went to do other things that one reason women may make less than men is because they may feel unconsciously less deserving, that they have drank deeper of the poison of self hate.

My concern is that there are three ways to react to that. Do nothing. Allow the resentment of being put down to manifest as revenge. Become self aware and abandon the fear. Only one of these options will lead to societal change that will end well for all in my opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hmm, can you expand on what you mean by markets not setting wages? I see people influencing "markets" as being part of the market.

I see a big part of liberal government’s function to be the regulation of markets to prevent price fixing and outright monopoly of production etc.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't understand your point here. That labor pays low because low-skilled immigrants come here and are willing to do it for less. There are other factors to it. Like any low-skill labor, employers can aggressively keep the compensation low as you don't have any boosters (e.g. a required degree barrier) to keep others unqualified. One obvious reason why RNs make a lot is simply because universities/colleges don't seat enough qualified applicants in the pipeline.



What are some examples that you think fit this?

It would seem that because we can’t allow anyone to practice professions that really require expertise, what happens is the manifestation of self interest among those who have such training to keep the knowledge exclusive. If government were not owned by such people perhaps an aware population might do something about this. We could maybe have an Army Corp of Doctors.

 

[realibrad]

Yes it does. And I would point out that "social pressures" is a different manifestation of sexism in a culture from discrimination, and it is one far more difficult to root out. When we talked about this in a prior thread, I mentioned that my daughter, who was assessed as having high aptitude for math and science, nonetheless had no interest in any STEM profession because she associated computers and math with dorky boys she went to school with. These attitudes came from her female peers. Anyone who has attended an American high school should know that this is not an isolated case. These attitudes of disdain toward math and science by adolescent girls were dominant when I went to high school in the 80's. Girls who joined the math club, all two of them, were unpopular among their peers. They were socially punished for it.

Yet these attitudes did not arise all the sudden out of a social vacuum. Society tells us what professions are appropriate for men and women, and we form our preferences and desires accordingly.

Notice that women are doing well in medicine? Somewhere along the way, we decided that life science in general and medicine in particular is a "caring" profession and hence it fits the traditional female gender role. Not so with, for example, writing code. That's too cold and asocial of a profession, meaning it's still for men.

That's why the study which shows that women don't choose computer science or other heavily male dominated professions when given the choice in a progressive society is exactly what one should expect. Because solving discrimination - though necessary - doesn't really address the heart of the issue.

I'm not arguing for equal outcomes here. I just want real freedom of choice. Where we don't tell our children, students and peers first what they should be doing with their lives then pretend we're letting them decide for themselves. Once these pressures are dismantled, any remaining unequal outcome would presumably be down to biology and that is fine. However, we're not there yet.

Keep in mind that while your daughter had the attributes, most girls don't. So, she is right in the sense that it's a field of mostly boys. So at her young age, her wanting to be in a field where is mostly women and not boys seems rational.

Not all social norms are sexist because they push people into gender roles. It's also true that society has tons of sexist ideas.

 

[realibrad]

I see a big part of liberal government’s function to be the regulation of markets to prevent price fixing and outright monopoly of production etc.

Anyone that thinks markets don't need regulations is wrong in my opinion. Child porn would be a market much larger if not for regulations.

But, price fixing and monopoly activity is not so easy. Often people cry monopoly and use it for political power. Take the EU forcing Microsoft to install 3rd party software on their install.

 

[woolfe9998]

Keep in mind that while your daughter had the attributes, most girls don't. So, she is right in the sense that it's a field of mostly boys. So at her young age, her wanting to be in a field where is mostly women and not boys seems rational.

Nope. Males and females appear to have the same abilities in STEM.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmo...irls-think-stem-is-not-for-them/#48eac15b7559

Meaning that it's "mostly boys" because of the same pressure which caused her to lack interest in pursuing it. The social pressure is self-perpetuating in that way.

Which raises the question of why one would conclude that their lack of interest is anything but a product of social pressure. It doesn't seem likely that evolution would grant them the same abilities but select for them having no interest in pursuing them. If it's biology, one would think the two would go hand in hand.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nope. Males and females appear to have the same abilities in STEM.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmo...irls-think-stem-is-not-for-them/#48eac15b7559

Meaning that it's "mostly boys" because of the same pressure which caused her to lack interest in pursuing it. The social pressure is self-perpetuating in that way.

Which raises the question of why one would conclude that their lack of interest is anything but a product of social pressure. It doesn't seem likely that evolution would grant them the same abilities but select for them having no interest in pursuing them. If it's biology, one would think the two would go hand in hand.

One could reply to this that it is biology of interest, not biology of ability. It would be hard to argue, if I am correctly informed, that apes live under the same social conditioning as humans, yet very young ape males and females show the same differentiation in interests between what equates in humans to what we refer to as people vs things.

 

[Moonbeam]

One could reply to this that it is biology of interest, not biology of ability. It would be hard to argue, if I am correctly informed, that apes live under the same social conditioning as humans, yet very young ape males and females show the same differentiation in interests between what equates in humans to what we refer to as people vs things.

Suppose also, as a theoretical consideration, that boys average from super intelligent in math to really bad at it, while girls score equally but without that big spread. In such a case we might expect the superior males to dominate fields that require that ability. Not saying that is the case, but I know that it's in the extremes that we would see such an effect if present. This would also apply to those with an extreme interest in things over people, my beloved pin head engineers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Anyone that thinks markets don't need regulations is wrong in my opinion. Child porn would be a market much larger if not for regulations.

But, price fixing and monopoly activity is not so easy. Often people cry monopoly and use it for political power. Take the EU forcing Microsoft to install 3rd party software on their install.

I agree but see this as belonging in another discussion.

 

[realibrad]

Nope. Males and females appear to have the same abilities in STEM.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmo...irls-think-stem-is-not-for-them/#48eac15b7559

Meaning that it's "mostly boys" because of the same pressure which caused her to lack interest in pursuing it. The social pressure is self-perpetuating in that way.

Which raises the question of why one would conclude that their lack of interest is anything but a product of social pressure. It doesn't seem likely that evolution would grant them the same abilities but select for them having no interest in pursuing them. If it's biology, one would think the two would go hand in hand.

Please read what I wrote, and not what you think I'm going to say. I specifically did not say abilities, I said attributes. If you don't read what I say, then who an I taking to?

 

[woolfe9998]

Please read what I wrote, and not what you think I'm going to say. I specifically did not say abilities, I said attributes. If you don't read what I say, then who an I taking to?

If I misunderstood your meaning, then you need to translate for me what you wrote because I otherwise have no idea what this means.

Keep in mind that while your daughter had the attributes, most girls don't. So, she is right in the sense that it's a field of mostly boys. So at her young age, her wanting to be in a field where is mostly women and not boys seems rational.

You can start by what you mean by "attributes" since you're telling me that my understanding of the word was not what you meant.

Oh, and FYI, I did read what you wrote. More than once actually. I clearly just could not understand it.

 

[Paratus]

Nope. Males and females appear to have the same abilities in STEM.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmo...irls-think-stem-is-not-for-them/#48eac15b7559

Meaning that it's "mostly boys" because of the same pressure which caused her to lack interest in pursuing it. The social pressure is self-perpetuating in that way.

Which raises the question of why one would conclude that their lack of interest is anything but a product of social pressure. It doesn't seem likely that evolution would grant them the same abilities but select for them having no interest in pursuing them. If it's biology, one would think the two would go hand in hand.

I don’t think @realibrad is going to understand this as he will never directly feel or even see the societal pressure women get when pursuing STEM careers.

My mother did when she was a PHD computer science student and later working as a programmer.

My mother in-law did while in medical school and later as a doctor.

My wife did when her high school physics teacher tried to talk her out of taking physics because she was a girl. She still gets it today. She’s an engineer and the boss of 20-30 other engineers. Yet when they had a contractor give a sales pitch on their services he refused to look at her and directed the answers to her questions to her male underling.

My daughter has experienced it at school. The immense pushback by the principal and her teachers against her moving up a year in math while the district asked a coworker if they wanted her son accelerated. (My daughter has maintained straight A’s and is in honor society so it’s not like we were wrong to accelerate her. She intends to be a engineer)

Then when brad suggests women don’t have the “attributes” to be successful in STEM, or want to choose STEM or whatever, I have to look and my own experience with the women around me.

While anecdotes aren’t data, 100% of my family and my wife’s family excel in math and science and are either already in STEM or want to go into STEM. What’s interesting is in our families both parents (my wife and I, my mom and dad, and my in-laws) have similar STEM degrees. So for the kids is something men and women can both do. My mother on the other hand was raised by her mother and older sister since her dad passed away when she was little. So she never had anyone in the family to tell her girls don’t do computer science.

100% of the women I work with chose and are successful at STEM. My group is 40% women. Hell a decade ago the International Space Station assembly flight I was lead on our team was 30-40% women. Including the three flight directors.

When I see what women who want to be in STEM can accomplish and also know they’ve had to overcome obstacles I haven’t it become pretty obvious why there are still fewer women in STEM.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don’t think @realibrad is going to understand this as he will never directly feel or even see the societal pressure the women get when pursuing STEM careers.

My mother did when she was a PHD computer science student and later working as a programmer.

My mother in-law did while in medical school and later as a doctor.

My wife did when her high school physics teacher tried to talk her out of taking physics because she was a girl. She still gets it today. She’s an engineer and the boss of 20-30 other engineers. Yet when they had a contractor give a sales pitch on their services he refused to look at her and directed the answers to her questions to her male underling.

My daughter has experienced it at school. The immense pushback by the principal and her teachers against her moving up a year in math while the district asked a coworker if they wanted her son accelerated. (My daughter has maintained straight A’s and is in honor society so it’s not like we were wrong to accelerate her. She intends to be a engineer)

Then when brad suggests women don’t have the “attributes” to be successful in STEM, or want to choose STEM or whatever, I have to look and my own experience with the women around me.

While anecdotes aren’t data, 100% of my family and my wife’s family excel in math and science and are either already in STEM or want to go into STEM. What’s interesting is in our families both parents (my wife and I, my mom and dad, and my in-laws) have similar STEM degrees. So for the kids is something men and women can both do. My mother on the other hand was raised by her mother and older sister since her dad passed away when she was little. So she never had anyone in the family to tell her girls don’t do computer science.

100% of the women I work with chose and are successful at STEM. My group is 40% women. Hell a decade ago the International Space Station assembly flight I was lead on our team was 30-40% women. Including the three flight directors.

When I see what women who want to be in STEM can accomplish and also know they’ve had to overcome obstacles I haven’t it become pretty obvious why there are still fewer women in STEM.

I haven't mentioned all examples I've personally encountered. I didn't mention the situation with my wife because it doesn't involve STEM, but her dad tried to talk her out of going to law school, said she should be a secretary instead. And worse yet, refused to provide her with any financial help while she went through it, which is why she wound up with a lot of debt coming out.

The important point here being, that had she decided not to go to law school because without help she couldn't afford it, this would not have been a measurable form of "discrimination." Because sexism isn't all about discrimination, certainly not in its most obvious forms.

 

[realibrad]

If I misunderstood your meaning, then you need to translate for me what you wrote because I otherwise have no idea what this means.



You can start by what you mean by "attributes" since you're telling me that my understanding of the word was not what you meant.

Oh, and FYI, I did read what you wrote. More than once actually. I clearly just could not understand it.

Have you ever tried to code? It's awful in my opinion. If I had to code for a living I would be miserable. It's not for lack of ability, it's lack of desire. In my opinion, a big part for why I lack it comes from the idea of sitting down and going over line after line after... It's too much. I simply don't have the personality for long tedious and isolated work.

So, from the sounds of it, your daughter sems to want to have peers she can closely related to. My guess is she is more of an extrovert and wants to engage with people. So it's rational for her to want to engage with girls more than boys.

So attributes means abilities and things like personality.

Sticking to personal examples, I have a sister that majored in mathematics. She was considering getting a doctorate or to stop. She had the ability, and, being a woman was pushed into going into a make dominated field. I too pushed her arguing the money side. She ultimately decided to teach at a university and to stop at a master's degree.

The reason she gave, was that she hated doing research. It's not that she was bad at it, in fact, she was always at the top of her class. She just hated how tedious and unengaged it was. So instead she took a lower paying job as a university professor. Not bad, but, nowhere where she could have been.

 

[Livemike]

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.

This from the man who used Vox as a source.

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

No i did not argue that at all. If feminism we divided on these subjects in any significant way it could still be about equality. But logically a movement that was about equality would have some significant element that supported men's rights or free seach. That you had to go back to Ruth Bader-Ginsburg's lawer days tells me you can't think of an example of this either. I do not deny that the occasional person who calls themselves a feminist supports men's rights. Just that the vast majority of feminists and the most important ones do. Do you need a citation for this? Really?

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].

No that's only absurd at all, even if you assume the movement hasn't changed at all since those times. Every one of those changes is consistent with giving women more power. People who support them need not care about equality at all. In fact many of the suffegetts were pro-conscription, which they never suggested be extended to women. But let's suppose thir women were all about equality. You had to go back decades for examples. Oh and BTW men and women were ewen in their marital rights before, as you put it supreme were given the thought not top be raped by their husbands. The women who campaigned (rightly) for this right were not campaigning for legal equality arty all stone it was, in this context it was already achieved.

Ruth Bater Gensburg, as a feminist lawyer, was personally responsible for numerous lawsuits demanding equal rights for men. [4]

Which would be relevant if we were disguising what feminism was decades ago. We are not.

However your general point - that some ignore men's rights - is correct.


But that's not my point. If they inked men's rights i would understand compelled completely, just as i largely ignore black-specific rights issues. It doesn't mean i don't want equality for them, just that i spend my tone on other issues. Feminists in general however are consistently hostile to any attempt to bring up men's issues and automatically slammer anyone who describes themselves as a men's rights activist or brings up for instance male victims of domestic violence.

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.

Keep in mind that since you are not honest enough to even address the points i made you have no business calling me logically inconsistent. And even if i wad Lithuania incorrect that would not make me a bigot.

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.

Firstly you are not rob to make me see the light. You are trying to Billy me by calling me names. If you were trying to make me see the light you would condemn those who actively seek the sort of control i describe feminists as seeking. Instead you defend them.

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]l.

No he defended his berries with soli empirical research. Even those that disagreed with his conclusion that the trait differences s he discussed were biological agree they existed. He was not bigotted and specifically rejected the idea of judging some one by group characteristics. I have read the memo. It merely says that the gems have different characteristics and that this is probably partly biological. This is not bigooted. He was fired for providing the exact feedback he was type to provide.

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..

Except tharty of course he didn't do tharty did he? He made no claims about how good women are at math. He made reference to women's preferences and their possible effect on employment at google. It is not bigotted to say that women in general are less likely to want to do something than men. Now you're an idiot i assume, but not everyone in the feminist community is. So why the unanimous call for his firing? Because they want to control the narrative and punish anyone who goes against it. Name one time this had not leaf to mirrors regimes.

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.

Recruit that he didn't say anything bigotted did he? And I'm OK with firing for any cause whatsoever, provided is not for actually doing his job. I'm just pointing out that when you seek to destroy a career for opposing your views with facts that's a good sign you're not an equality movement.

Sorry buddy, the only people in society we protect from being fired for being abjectly wrong are professors, pundits, and priests.
hateful.

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.

No if they thought it was just rare they would not object to it being investigated. They would not push push police standards that say the police have to arrest the one who appears most able to do harm. This ofter results in men being arrested after they call the police. If they actually thought that it wad a canard to distract from women's issues they'd just say "Greats research the fuck out of it. "

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.

If had everything to do with the general thrust of the feminist movement. Widen feminists openly harass men's rights activists you dint heat other feminists defend the MRAs. It is not a minority group that went after James Damore. You are still doing it, . There wasn't a massive rush of appologies after Gian Ghomeshi was found not guilty and hours accussers found to have lied. When MRAs were linked to Elliot Roger the crooners didn't stop after people pointed out he had literally never visited an MRA website, blog or meeting.

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.

Not site if you're being sarcastic here.

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.

No it calls for what is always called for victims and power. This is why Jorden Peterson says it's a murderous equality doctrine, because you don't care about how many people will die.

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]

OK so Marxism confirmed.

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?

Bit they're not on the fringes. The feminists who sought to fire Damore for saying that biological differences may play a role in his many women are on tech werea substantial part of the women ingoogle. They were practically every feminist i ever heard of. Same with those who were incensed that Larry Summers said that men were more likely to be in the hough iq reamed needed to do research phyics, which again is undeniable FACT. It is not a few nutcases on twitter tharty call for more internet censorship, it is the ones who get to speak directly to the UN.

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.

No you don't and no I'm not
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

[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, 735-745u.

[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
[/spoiler-]

 

[Livemike]

I'm not going to respond to each one of your points because DixyCrat took you down pretty well, but I will summarize my thoughts.

This just proves that you really are a passive-aggressive sexist. Oh, you say that you don't hate women, but you treat all of feminism as a threat. You only want freedom for women so long as you get to dictate what they're allowed to do... so it's really more like male permission rather than actual freedom.

I'd add that you're outright lying about many of those situations. Sarkeesian did not just have people calling her a liar, for example; you know damn well that she received explicit and sometimes serious threats.

You should really sit down and watch the movie Polytechnique... you identify pretty well with the main male character.

Firstly I don't say i didn't hate women. In general in for them incredibly entitled to the extent that men can literally be dying at ten times the rate they are and they would still claim they are the victims. They can hit a boy 900 times a year and then say "patriarchy is the cause of male violence". They can openly say 'kill all men" and not even undertake why that's offensive. Again this is in general and there are many women i admire.

What i said was that i can oppose a movement is consistently aiming to limit my rights and not be a misogynist. Claims that feminism is for equality depend on a definition of equality that means women get half when they don't so heald the work, and get what they worked for when they do more than half the work. Note you can disagree with me that this is what feminism is. The trouble e us that Ali the male feminist organisations are pulling the same way. The fact that i oppose their agenda doesn't mean I want to remove rights from women.

Oh and I never said that all Sarkessian faced was people calling her a liar. So I did not lie. You lie however when tippy say i know she faced serious threats. I know nothing of the kind. I do know that she specifically said that harrassment wasn't just the threats it was being called a liar too. So by her standards youy harassed me.

 

[Livemike]

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.

First of all the biggest injustice in reproductive rights* is that men have to pay the majority of child support but have the minority of choice to prevent birth. I don't see too many feminists dealing with that injustice.

I never anyone should be silenced so you're directly lying about my position. Nor did i say they were all anything. Even if feminist could be defined they spoiled not all be extremists. I merely argue that feminism is cancerous, not that every cell is malignant. When you have to misrepresent someone it means they're right.

^ In the West at least.

 

[Livemike]

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.

First of all the biggest injustice in reproductive rights* is that men have to pay the majority of child support but have the minority of choice to prevent to birth. I don't see too many feminists dealing with that injustice.

I never anyone should be silenced so you're directly lying about my position. Nor did i say they were all anything. Even if feminist could be defined they spoiled not all be extremists. I merely argue that feminism is cancerous, not that every cell is malignant. When you have to misrepresent someone it means they're right.

^ In the West at least.

 

[Commodus]

Firstly I don't say i didn't hate women. In general in for them incredibly entitled to the extent that men can literally be dying at ten times the rate they are and they would still claim they are the victims. They can hit a boy 900 times a year and then say "patriarchy is the cause of male violence". They can openly say 'kill all men" and not even undertake why that's offensive. Again this is in general and there are many women i admire.

What i said was that i can oppose a movement is consistently aiming to limit my rights and not be a misogynist. Claims that feminism is for equality depend on a definition of equality that means women get half when they don't so heald the work, and get what they worked for when they do more than half the work. Note you can disagree with me that this is what feminism is. The trouble e us that Ali the male feminist organisations are pulling the same way. The fact that i oppose their agenda doesn't mean I want to remove rights from women.

Oh and I never said that all Sarkessian faced was people calling her a liar. So I did not lie. You lie however when tippy say i know she faced serious threats. I know nothing of the kind. I do know that she specifically said that harrassment wasn't just the threats it was being called a liar too. So by her standards youy harassed me.

First things first: you're really not helping your case by being incoherent and sometimes flubbing basic reading comprehension. Please, please learn to read and write.

I have to laugh... you effectively said "I'm not a misogynist, but women are extremely over-entitled and all feminists are bad." Sorry, but you don't get to wield sexist claims (especially when you use hyperbolic nonsense like "hit a boy 900 times a year") and then pretend you're not sexist so you can sleep at night.

And you seem to have missed the point. Feminism in general terms only means pressing for equality for women wherever possible. You don't get to change that definition on a whim, especially when you make unsupported claims that most or all feminists support one incredibly specific view or another.

On Sarkeesian... well, if you know that she faced far more serious threats, why did you distort things by saying she was there to complain about people calling her a liar, and nothing else? It's a bad argument at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. You know that's not the main thing she was there for; and besides, in a case like that it's about systemic harassment where men are rallied to hurl accusations. Imagine if you have a Twitter account and thousands of people continually flood your mentions with personal attacks because someone on a forum doesn't like you. That's wrong even if it's not directly threatening.

 

[Commodus]

First of all the biggest injustice in reproductive rights* is that men have to pay the majority of child support but have the minority of choice to prevent to birth. I don't see too many feminists dealing with that injustice.

I never anyone should be silenced so you're directly lying about my position. Nor did i say they were all anything. Even if feminist could be defined they spoiled not all be extremists. I merely argue that feminism is cancerous, not that every cell is malignant. When you have to misrepresent someone it means they're right.

^ In the West at least.

No, the biggest injustice is that there are numerous countries where abortion isn't legal under any circumstance, and that some states are effectively trying to ban abortion by making it extremely difficult to obtain service. Child support imbalances are a serious problem, but I'm more concerned about a woman being forced to have a child against her will. The former is a headache; the latter is a nightmare.

And I'm still laughing at your ability to contradict yourself in a single paragraph. You say feminists aren't all extremists, but then say feminism is "cancerous" with an implication that much of the movement is inherently dangerous, not just its fringes. So which is it? I don't see any falsehoods on my part, since you literally just equated feminism with cancer and have previously said that feminism as a whole is the problem, not just its extremes.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

This from the man who used Vox as a source.

As I said, I expect a level of thoughtful engagement equal to the thought I gave you. Instead you start with an attack on me as a person rather than my ideas. This is the ad-hominem fallacy.

You use fallacious reasoning and therefore you lose. Further dialogue is worthless as we aren’t arguing from a logical starting ground. Enjoy holding positions which I have clearly demonstrated are rooted in bigotry.

 

[Livemike]

First things first: you're really not helping your case by being incoherent and sometimes flubbing basic reading comprehension. Please, please learn to read and write.

I have to laugh... you effectively said "I'm not a misogynist, but women are extremely over-entitled and all feminists are bad." Sorry, but you don't get to wield sexist claims (especially when you use hyperbolic nonsense like "hit a boy 900 times a year") and then pretend you're not sexist so you can sleep at night.

And you seem to have missed the point. Feminism in general terms only means pressing for equality for women wherever possible. You don't get to change that definition on a whim, especially when you make unsupported claims that most or all feminists support one incredibly specific view or another.

On Sarkeesian... well, if you know that she faced far more serious threats, why did you distort things by saying she was there to complain about people calling her a liar, and nothing else? It's a bad argument at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. You know that's not the main thing she was there for; and besides, in a case like that it's about systemic harassment where men are rallied to hurl accusations. Imagine if you have a Twitter account and thousands of people continually flood your mentions with personal attacks because someone on a forum doesn't like you. That's wrong even if it's not directly threatening.

Don't accuse me of flubbing basic reading comprehension when you made no less than two basic reading comprehension mistakes in your party,. I specifically said i didn't say i didn't hate women. I did specifically said i did not know that Sarkeesian faced serious threats.

Oh and being called a liar a lot isn't systematic harassment. Feminists call people mic worse occupational and over again and you dint mind. Member recurrence far more personal attacks especially MRAs, but nihilism seems to object to that. Fair enough you can call me what you will, just pick a standard any standard.

Thirdly i have heard offer and over again that feminism supposed aims at equality, not just female power. You are the one changing that definition.
You accuse me of making sexist claims but you dint even ask where i got that figure. It's not a sexist, it's based on a scientific sorry of women who admit hiting their kids. They were recorder and the number of times the recording picked up the mother hitting their kids was counted.

"Eavesdropping on the family:A pilot investigation of corporal punishment in the home" by Dr. George Holden