Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Gender inequality talk is starting to annoy people

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

When studies demonstrate that merely changing the name on an otherwise identical resume from female to male results in better call back, then the claims made by Argus and supported by Ghosthacked are just more patriarchal BS designed to deny anti-female bias in the corporate world.

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Argus said:

Not according to Haidt and Peterson. What is YOUR psychological qualification to dispute their findings?

Argument by authority.  Go ahead and post the thesis in a separate thread I am pretty sure we can pull apart Peterson's vapid equalizations quite easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I applied no value to any of this.  That's your action.  To say I myself am ill-equipped to be a CEO is the understatement of the year.

 

So what you are saying is all men are ill-equipped to be a CEO?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Argument by authority.  Go ahead and post the thesis in a separate thread I am pretty sure we can pull apart Peterson's vapid equalizations quite easily.

You argue from authority often. Strange that this would be an issue here.  Peterson is a professional psychologist of 40 years.  He IS an authority on this and a very valid (not vapid) one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Did I say that? Is this about white male violence? What the hell are you even talking about?  

2) As far as I can tell virtually the entire Left is in love with gender imbalances equating to mysogeny and sexism, and addicted to policies which address this. 

1) No.  But your extremely faulty methods of extrapolating generalities to support your personal anecdotal view could come up with such a conclusion also.

2) Your slam on 'the entire Left' has nothing to do with your faulty logic. I noticed in your arguments that they tend to slide into those comfortable caricatures when your initial thesis starts to fall apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Meanwhile I am annoyed by dumb generalizations and specifically making conclusions based on them.

Then stop making those dumb generalizations?  Good place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

1) You argue from authority often. Strange that this would be an issue here. 

2) Peterson is a professional psychologist of 40 years.  He IS an authority on this and a very valid (not vapid) one.

1) From my own authority, sure.  Because I can also defend my points.  Calling out authority as in "so-and-so says this is true and they are a PhD" is a fallacy.

2) Who cares ?  I say he's a moron.  Post his point and we'll discuss those.  He's the Oprah of the right ... the left is yawning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Frommy own authority, sure.  Because I can also defend my points.  Calling out authority as in "so-and-so says this is true and they are a PhD" is a fallacy.

Your own authority means squat here.   Peterson was the only one who went up against the Canadian government regarding Bill C-16. His points where clear and concise.

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Who cares ?  I say he's a moron.  Post his point and we'll discuss those.  He's the Oprah of the right ... the left is yawning.

 

You can say he is a moron, but you would be a moron for saying that. 

This goes back to my other thread regarding Peterson.  People who are saying his is a moron have NOT been listening to what he is saying. You are hearing what you WANT to hear and ignore the rest to suit your views.

He said A, you wanted to hear B and kept rolling with it. Is that a problem with Peterson? Or is that a problem with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

1) Your own authority means squat here.  

2) Peterson was the only one who went up against the Canadian government regarding Bill C-16. His points where clear and concise.  

1) Ok, well I accept posters who assert authority in a topic.  Just not 'argument by authority.

2) 'Went up against' = posting hysterical overreaction that didn't come to pass.  Much like the so-called 'Islamophobia' bill it was a whole lot of nothing.

 

15 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

3) You can say he is a moron, but you would be a moron for saying that. 

4) People who are saying his is a moron have NOT been listening to what he is saying. You are hearing what you WANT to hear and ignore the rest to suit your views.

5) He said A, you wanted to hear B and kept rolling with it. Is that a problem with Peterson? Or is that a problem with you?

3) The correct academic framing for your statement is "I know you are but what am I"

4) I don't actually think he's a moron but I tend to name call him when his fawning admirers over praise him.  I thought he had a valid academic point over C-16 but it was not a real fear.  And he money-grubbed from The Rebel, making it clear he had no professional interest in becoming someone who could clarify such issues for all Canadians regardless of politics.

5) I didn't want to hear anything in particular.  His ideas are dull.  Most of the people who like him seem to have never heard a professor speak before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

Are there "CEO"s among faculty, because that is what your original post talks about.  Women failing to progress up the Corporate ladder is entirely different than being hired on to Universities. 

Here's information that you, like many men, will belittle and dismiss; your attitude is described in the second link.

http://www.businessinsider.com/women-are-less-likely-to-get-promoted-2015-10

https://womenintheworkplace.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Argument by authority.  Go ahead and post the thesis in a separate thread I am pretty sure we can pull apart Peterson's vapid equalizations quite easily.

Your entire belief in Peterson's beliefs being 'vapid' is based on him disagreeing with your own rigid ideological beliefs. I doubt you've seen or read anything from him. And, I note, you're dismissing Haidt, who completely agrees with him.

It's clear you have no interest in inquiring into this topic so much as castigating anyone who dares to go against you ideological beliefs. Much as Haidt postulates. People, esp on the Left, have constructed an ideological belief system which they treat with a religious reverence and attack any who challenge it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) From my own authority, sure.  Because I can also defend my points.

You defend nothing. You have made no point in this topic other than to sneer at the points made by others for violating your cherished and poorly constructed ideological beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Is that a problem with Peterson? Or is that a problem with you?

I begrudgingly gave the video a viewing.  I shouldn't say he's an idiot but he's really not that interesting and any well-informed person will likely learn almost nothing from his strident and unsupported assertions.

Some examples:

It's unclear if feminism has been good for women
Women are suffering from not being able to marry 
Most 'wealthy' people are self-made 

 
I still don't get it.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Are there "CEO"s among faculty, because that is what your original post talks about.  Women failing to progress up the Corporate ladder is entirely different than being hired on to Universities. 

I spoke about CEOs, police, firefighters, colleges and a lot else.

As to progress up the corporate ladder, you might have a look at Peterson's video. He talks about how he was a consultant to a large legal firm for a decade. He speaks of the incredibly bright young women he met, who made their way up to partner level and then found, at 30, that this meant 80 hour work weeks and no social life. The big law firms, he said, cannot keep women, because they find themselves in this position and quit so they can have a life, have a family. It is the same in corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

1) You defend nothing.
2) You have made no point in this topic other than to sneer at the points made by others for violating your cherished and poorly constructed ideological beliefs.

1) The question is whether I use 'argument from authority' in general, not if I have done it on this thread.  I don't believe I have

2) You are forced to make up some idea that I am offended by Peterson's boring and facile observations.  Otherwise you have to admit that they aren't revolutionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Your entire belief in Peterson's beliefs being 'vapid' is based on him disagreeing with your own rigid ideological beliefs. I doubt you've seen or read anything from him. And, I note, you're dismissing Haidt, who completely agrees with him.

I have stated several times that I appreciated some of his points but generally he's a waste of time.  I'm not offended or shocked by his drive-by assertions, except that they are seen as insightful by people desperate for a right-wing Oprah.

Quote

It's clear you have no interest in inquiring into this topic so much as castigating anyone who dares to go against you ideological beliefs. Much as Haidt postulates. People, esp on the Left, have constructed an ideological belief system which they treat with a religious reverence and attack any who challenge it.

I like Haidt actually.  I can say something is boring and it doesn't mean that I'm offended or shocked.  I am not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I begrudgingly gave the video a viewing.  I shouldn't say he's an idiot but he's really not that interesting and any well-informed person will likely learn almost nothing from his strident and unsupported assertions.

Some examples:

It's unclear if feminism has been good for women
Women are suffering from not being able to marry 
Most 'wealthy' people are self-made 

 
I still don't get it.  
 

Because you ignored the gist of what he said, which is that only a small number of insane men are willing to put in the 80 hour work weeks to force their way to the top, and that women, bearing the burden of the desire for motherhood and such, aren't willing to put in those kinds of hours except in very, very tiny numbers, even smaller than the men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) The question is whether I use 'argument from authority' in general, not if I have done it on this thread.  I don't believe I have

2) You are forced to make up some idea that I am offended by Peterson's boring and facile observations.  Otherwise you have to admit that they aren't revolutionary.

Look back on everything you've posted in this topic. None of it carries argument. All of it simply sneers at the argument being put forth, and at me, dismissing the argument of hand without offering any counter. It's clear the argument angers you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I have stated several times that I appreciated some of his points but generally he's a waste of time.  I'm not offended or shocked by his drive-by assertions, except that they are seen as insightful by people desperate for a right-wing Oprah.

You can't even talk about him without insulting him.  The man was an associate professor of clinical psychology at Harvard and you dismiss him as an oprah, despite the fact he is speaking of psychological matters which, as far as I can determine, are not disputed among his colleagues.

Quote

I like Haidt actually.  I can say something is boring and it doesn't mean that I'm offended or shocked.  I am not. 

Then dispute what Haidt says in the video I posted. Dispute the argument with more than sneers and insults.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) 'Went up against' = posting hysterical overreaction that didn't come to pass.  Much like the so-called 'Islamophobia' bill it was a whole lot of nothing.

He did.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/u-of-t-professor-opposes-transgender-bill-at-senate-committee-hearing/article35035768/

Quote

University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson spoke against Bill C-16 at a Senate committee hearing Wednesday, arguing that support for the legislation was ideologically motivated.

You can also find the hearings via Youtube. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

Because you ignored the gist of what he said, which is that only a small number of insane men are willing to put in the 80 hour work weeks to force their way to the top, and that women, bearing the burden of the desire for motherhood and such, aren't willing to put in those kinds of hours except in very, very tiny numbers, even smaller than the men.

Yes, I heard that.  I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I didn't learn anything from his story.  Can you, he or anyone provide a cite for this or is this just "common sense" I'm supposed to swallow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

Look back on everything you've posted in this topic. None of it carries argument. All of it simply sneers at the argument being put forth, and at me, dismissing the argument of hand without offering any counter. It's clear the argument angers you.

I haven't posted anything but criticism of Peterson's facile and unsupported claims.  I can do more than sneer if somebody provides more than a doddering talking head giving us some stories.  I'm not angered, but merely mystified why people think this is so revolutionary.  Certainly you've heard these ideas before yes ?  It may even be true if we could get some written evidence.  But it's all videos... and not that compelling.  Again... mystifying why people think there's anything to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

You can't even talk about him without insulting him.  The man was an associate professor of clinical psychology at Harvard and you dismiss him as an oprah, despite the fact he is speaking of psychological matters which, as far as I can determine, are not disputed among his colleagues.

Dr. Phil is a doctor too, I think.  Oprah is a billionaire.  I give their ideas equal disdain.  

Women's earning vs men in the workplace doesn't seem to me like a psychological matter.

---------------------------------------

For what it's worth, I have also found a lot of pop academics insufferable, at a rate of about 50%.  Chomsky is a jumbo-sized bore and doesn't offer any theories of interest to me.  He parses politics down to an unreasonable level also and has little usefulness to the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...