Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Gender inequality talk is starting to annoy people

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

That article does a terrible job of articulating his concerns.  Those concerns were actually of interest to me because he pointed out that when human rights legislation 'compels' speech, you are moving from a situation that protects rights to one that imposes thinking and behaviour on individuals.  I found it interesting in that he articulated a clear tipping point at which protecting rights spills over into imposing compliance and thinking on individuals.

That said, his presumption that speech would be compelled under this bill was preposterous and seemed to be without basis.  I was defending him publicly until he sold his soul for money by associating with The Rebel.

Share this post


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

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.

Yes, it is, in fact, common knowledge. Evidence of it is everywhere.

Men work longer hours, in general, than women.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/06/30/new-report-men-work-longer-hours-than-women/#15f9ed018b4e

Women doctors burnout at twice the level of men, unable to take the hours

http://www.medicaleconomics.com/medical-economics/news/why-do-women-physicians-experience-burnout-more-men

Women lawyers (as Peterson mentioned) burnout and leave at far higher rates than men.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-women-law-20180205-story.html

Female journalists burnout and leave the profession at a higher rate than men

https://news.ku.edu/2015/03/23/study-shows-journalism-burnout-affecting-women-more-men

Female managers burnout at twice the rate of men.

https://carlaclarissa.com/blog/2017/06/27/burn-hits-women-leaders-twice-often/

As for women in physical jobs, like the military and police, they are far less capable than men.

In fact, this summary doesn’t do justice to the dramatic disparity the study documented. The women weren’t slightly less capable than the men; they were profoundly less capable. All-male units performed better in 93 of 134 categories evaluated, and there were “notable” differences in accuracy in “every individual weapons system.” Physically, the top 25th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 25th percentile of men, and they possessed less anaerobic power, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic capacity than their male colleagues. Women undergoing entry-level infantry training were injured at “more than six times the rate of their male counterparts.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/09/women-in-combat-marine-corps-study/

Edited by Argus

Share this post


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

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

Of course it is, if women can't work the same hours, if they have to take more time off to take care of kids, if they go into professions they prefer - which aren't as high paying as some of the ones men do and won't dedicate themselves to the job above all else like to the same degree as some men, it's gong to be reflected in who earns what.

Share this post


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

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. 

Doddering? Why does everyone seem to find ageism to be the new acceptable sneer? He's 55, by the way, hardly doddering. But I guess if you want to insult someone today you insinuate they're old because old means senile and incapable, right? He mentions all kinds of studies and references any number of books in his speeches.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

It's a helluva lot more than you've presented. And it isn't so much what he's saying is revolutionary as it is patently obvious, and totally opposed to the current popular belief that the reason women aren't in certain jobs like STEM fields or reach the CEO positions in the same numbers as men is simple sexism. I note you've not mentioned Haidt. Perhaps because he's harder for you  to dismiss as a nasty old conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 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.

Actually, it is the opposite.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360

Share this post


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

Yes, it is, in fact, common knowledge. Evidence of it is everywhere.  

Thank you for the cites.  I will look at these... lots to review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Actually, it is the opposite.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360

Clearly, it is not the "opposite"; again, this article talks about faculty - not Corporate hiring or advancement.  Finding *one* area where women are preferred does not mean sexist hiring practices do not exist in the other realms.

However, it is good news - where universities lead, so will the rest of the world follow.  :)    

Share this post


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

 

1)   if women can't work the same hours, if they have to take more time off to take care of kids, if they go into professions they prefer - which aren't as high paying as some of the ones men do and won't dedicate themselves to the job above all else like to the same degree as some men, it's gong to be reflected in who earns what.

2) Doddering? Why does everyone seem to find ageism to be the new acceptable sneer? 

3) He mentions all kinds of studies and references any number of books in his speeches.

4) It's a helluva lot more than you've presented.

5) And it isn't so much what he's saying is revolutionary as it is patently obvious, and totally opposed to the current popular belief that the reason women aren't in certain jobs like STEM fields or reach the CEO positions in the same numbers as men is simple sexism.

6) I note you've not mentioned Haidt. Perhaps because he's harder for you  to dismiss as a nasty old conservative.

1) How does any of that support your assertion that this is in the realm of psychology ?  

2) Doddering doesn't necessarily have anything to do with age.  I should have used 'plodding' to be less ambiguous.

3) In the video you posted he just blathers making familiar generalizations, some of which beg explanation.

4) True, but I am not the 'pro' in this argument, I am the 'anti' so my job is easier.

5) Why do people get famous for saying obvious things ?  I guess the answer is that he is surfacing truths that are adhered to by a segment of the population that hasn't had a chance to discuss them yet.  If that is the answer, it's a shame he threw away his chance to broker a broad discussion.  Truly a missed opportunity.

6) Harder for me how ?  I saw one talk by him and it seemed pretty reasonable.  I don't know why you have to line up every argument as one-side-versus-the-other like a Civil War re-enactment.  Did you happen to MISS the point that I supported Peterson for awhile there ?  I'm sure you have to ignore that or your worldview of us-vs-them will cause cognitive airbags to deploy in your brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the usual simplistic arguments favored by the OP , the reasons women don't progress in the corporate world are more complicated than "women don't/won't work as hard".  Societal norms affect all of us, men and women.  Male parents can work longer hours because of the expectation that the women in their life  (wife, mother) will do the majority of home care and childcare.  Female parents are expected to be the ones to take maternity leave, to leave early when their child is sick, to stay home with that sick child, to manage the household in addition to their career aspirations.  Do most men *want* to work longer, or would they rather have the freedom to spend more time with their kids and family?   Do most women *want* to be the default caretaker of home/children, or would they like the support to focus on their career?   

Men, no less than women, are forced into roles that they may not necessarily want by society expectations based on gender.  Equality shouldn't be just about women making certain quotas, or how many get hired where - but about equal opportunity and acceptance to be parents and CEOs, whether male or female. 

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


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

1) How does any of that support your assertion that this is in the realm of psychology ?  

Because the different psychology, the different emotional attributes and needs of men vs women, are the cause of this - along with physical differences, of course.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Doddering doesn't necessarily have anything to do with age.  I should have used 'plodding' to be less ambiguous.

Oh come on. And he seems to be pretty darn energetic in that video, and in a number of others I've seen.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4) True, but I am not the 'pro' in this argument, I am the 'anti' so my job is easier.

Only if you think sneering without offering any reasonable rebuttal is easy - which I suppose it is. I've put a lot of evidence out there and you've contradicted none of it nor offered any cites to counter mine.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6) Harder for me how ?  I saw one talk by him and it seemed pretty reasonable.  I don't know why you have to line up every argument as one-side-versus-the-other like a Civil War re-enactment.  

I put forth a position which I regard as reasonable, that much of the basis for demanding 'gender equity' is simply an uneven number of women in certain professional positions. But as Haidt says, correlation is not causation. That they occupy fewer of these positions than men is not evidence of discrimination which requires reverse discrimination to repair. There are other possible reasons why there are fewer women in certain positions and jobs. I don't regard that as a 'one side vs the other' battle, or even a battle - until YOU made it one.

Share this post


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

I don't regard that as a 'one side vs the other' battle, or even a battle - until YOU made it one.

 

From the OP

 

Quote

Which, I suppose, is pretty typical of progressives like Trudeau.

Not enough female CEOs? So what? Who really gives a damn other than progressives? 

You started out the thread with your favourite habit of peopling your post with caricatures...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Because the different psychology, the different emotional attributes and needs of men vs women, are the cause of this - along with physical differences, of course.

I don't think it's the sole cause.

I think men's emotional and physical attributes have always been accomodated in the workplace.  Traditionally, in our patriarchal society, women's emotional and physical attributes have not been accomodated.  We're working on it, but it's slow.

I'm also not sure that men's ability to work long overtime hours while ignoring their families has been a positive thing for society.  Or for men.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


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

 

 I don't regard that as a 'one side vs the other' battle, or even a battle - until YOU made it one.

Your initial post started out by making it "the reasonable side" vs. "The evil progressives".  You set it up that way, as you usually do; of course you lack both insight and honesty so you'll deny it in ever escalating insults.

Share this post


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

That article does a terrible job of articulating his concerns.  Those concerns were actually of interest to me because he pointed out that when human rights legislation 'compels' speech, you are moving from a situation that protects rights to one that imposes thinking and behaviour on individuals.  I found it interesting in that he articulated a clear tipping point at which protecting rights spills over into imposing compliance and thinking on individuals


That said, his presumption that speech would be compelled under this bill was preposterous and seemed to be without basis.  I was defending him publicly until he sold his soul for money by associating with The Rebel.

Most articles do a terrible job of supporting or pushing back on Peterson.  I suggest listening to the hearings instead.

Peterson appeared on The Rebel a few times. He's also been on many platforms, what evidence do you have that indicates he sold out? So there is an unsupported generalization which you have no evidence of.

Share this post


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

  He's also been on many platforms, what evidence do you have that indicates he sold out? So there is an unsupported generalization which you have no evidence of.

https://www.therebel.media/support_jordan_peterson_research

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/xw7ezn/the-chill-woman-who-pwned-infowars-discusses-life-after-going-softly-viral

The Rebel raises money for him.... now making $500K a year which is great money but really only for divisive media figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dialamah said:

However, it is good news - where universities lead, so will the rest of the world follow.  :)   

Yes. 2:1 ratio of female to male students in universities.

 

Clearly, everything is fine.

 

Giant puzzle as to why the ratio is so female favoured.

 

It's almost like the gender that is pushed and encouraged the most in schools to excel academically, the gender that has the most gender-specific academic programs to help that gender excel, and the gender that has the most access to university scholarships is doing better. Nah, that couldn't possibly be, we live in a patriarchy after all.

Share this post


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

 

From the OP

 

You started out the thread with your favourite habit of peopling your post with caricatures...

I said trudeau was a progressive and no one really cares about the gender ration in STEM fields and the like  but progressives. Did I say nasty things about progressives? Was my suggestion progressives are the ones mostly behind this incorrect?  What 'caricature' did I create about progressives? That they pursue gender equality? Is that really a caricature? Did I say nasty things about you? You've been pretty adamant that you aren't a progressive. Are you now saying you actually ARE a progressive and were offended?

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Goddess said:

I don't think it's the sole cause.

It's probably the main cause of these profressions.

9 hours ago, Goddess said:

I think men's emotional and physical attributes have always been accomodated in the workplace.  Traditionally, in our patriarchal society, women's emotional and physical attributes have not been accomodated.  We're working on it, but it's slow.

You're correct to a degree. I frankly think the long hours lawyers and doctors work is stupid. I think those CEOs who work 80 hour work weeks even though they're already rich are crazy. But here's the thing, if you won't work those hours, someone will. So for high up positions in business and law, they'll hire the person who puts in 80 hour work weeks. Why wouldn't they? They don't even pay overtime!

9 hours ago, Goddess said:

I'm also not sure that men's ability to work long overtime hours while ignoring their families has been a positive thing for society.  Or for men.

I'm sure it's not. I know I wouldn't do it. Most men wouldn't do it. But of those 'people' who are willing to do it, most seem to be men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Yes. 2:1 ratio of female to male students in universities.

Clearly, everything is fine.

Schools have become extremely female centric, from daycare on up. They're organized and designed according to what's best for girls, and boys 'rambunctious' behavior is frowned upon and leads to discipline if not drugs. And society doesn't really care. In some university courses and some professions women outnumber men by a huge margin, but no one cares. Only when men outnumber women is it suddenly a national crisis in need of government intervention.

Share this post


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

https://www.therebel.media/support_jordan_peterson_research

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/xw7ezn/the-chill-woman-who-pwned-infowars-discusses-life-after-going-softly-viral

The Rebel raises money for him.... now making $500K a year which is great money but really only for divisive media figures.

You seem to have identified The Rebel as the source of all evil on this earth, and anyone it supports must, by inference, be evil as well. The government took away his grant, one he'd been getting for years without a problem, probably because they didn't like his views. The Rebel passed the hat to get his research funded again.

Obviously he should be killed for accepting it, and nothing he says is now anything but pure evil. 

Congratulations on your clear and unbiased thinking.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dialamah said:

Your initial post started out by making it "the reasonable side" vs. "The evil progressives".  You set it up that way, as you usually do; of course you lack both insight and honesty so you'll deny it in ever escalating insults.

What, exactly, did I say that insulted progressives? I didn't call them evil. I didn't call them anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dialamah said:

Despite the usual simplistic arguments favored by the OP , the reasons women don't progress in the corporate world are more complicated than "women don't/won't work as hard". 

I didn't say any of it was because women didn't work hard. I said there was a difference in the psychological makeup of the male vs female brain. As Haidt puts it, men like working with things. Women like working with people. There are certain professions women are largely uninterested in. Just as there are some men are mostly uninterested in. I don't regard that as an issue, and I don't believe we ought to try to remedy it by working hard to persuade women to apply for those certain jobs,  by lowering standards to get them into those jobs, and by discriminating against better male applicants in favor of women.

That women 'don't work as hard' is merely a symptom of female physical and psychological realities. Women are hard-wired to want families, to want to have children. This affects them disproportionately than it does men. Yes, it's unfair, but nature often IS unfair.

12 hours ago, dialamah said:

Societal norms affect all of us, men and women.  Male parents can work longer hours because of the expectation that the women in their life  (wife, mother) will do the majority of home care and childcare.

Yes. But men can't HAVE the baby, for one thing. And it's still an instinctive thing where children want mom when they're sick, not dad, and that mothers want to stay with their kids a lot more than men do (in general). 

12 hours ago, dialamah said:

 Female parents are expected to be the ones to take maternity leave, to leave early when their child is sick, to stay home with that sick child, to manage the household in addition to their career aspirations.  Do most men *want* to work longer, or would they rather have the freedom to spend more time with their kids and family?   Do most women *want* to be the default caretaker of home/children, or would they like the support to focus on their career?   

In my experience, most women want both. But that's very hard. The ones who want both the most are the ones who have an actual career, as opposed to a job. That's the ones like CEOs and upper level managers and lawyers and doctors. Unfortunately, those are also the professions that require the most time from people, both men and women. And make it very hard to progress upwards unless you're willing to devote that time. 

 

Share this post


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

I said trudeau was a progressive and no one really cares about the gender ration in STEM fields and the like  but progressives. Did I say nasty things about progressives? Was my suggestion progressives are the ones mostly behind this incorrect?  What 'caricature' did I create about progressives? That they pursue gender equality? Is that really a caricature? Did I say nasty things about you? You've been pretty adamant that you aren't a progressive. Are you now saying you actually ARE a progressive and were offended?

"completely ignore human biology and reality. Which, I suppose, is pretty typical of progressives like Trudeau."  In NO WAY is this simply calling Trudeau a progressive.  Did you say a nasty thing ?  You said they ignore reality.  Seems like a slam to me.  

Do you see any use in progressives at all ?  Do you think the world would be better if they all died overnight ?  

That's the difference between you and me.  I actually see conservatives as essential to progress, whereas you see progressives as evil.

I don't take your comments about 'progressives' personally at al.  But am I a progressive ?  I don't know by your definition, and I don't remember denying it although I for sure would have denied being one of the caricature types you portray.

 

Share this post


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

1) You seem to have identified The Rebel as the source of all evil on this earth, and anyone it supports must, by inference, be evil as well.

2) The government took away his grant, one he'd been getting for years without a problem, probably because they didn't like his views. The Rebel passed the hat to get his research funded again. 

To be clear, I didn't read this post before I made my last 'reply' so any similarities are pure coincidence

1) Hyperbole.  I am simply saying it's a confluence of interest for someone to pose as a public unifying figure and work for an organization that values divisiveness and profits from that.

2) Yes, and that is a BIG problem.  That is what we should be talking about.  It definitely led Peterson to taking money from The Rebel, however the ethical choice would have been to say no.   I'm reminded of Pete Seeger (I think it was) who was being urged by his folksinger band mates to take ad money for a cigarette company because they needed the money.  "We don't need it that much" was his response.  

I think it's difficult for you to accept my nuanced opinion on Peterson.  When his replacement comes up (and he/she WILL) then we can forget about this bland clown and rally behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 8:58 PM, Argus said:

Yes, it is, in fact, common knowledge. Evidence of it is everywhere.

Men work longer hours, in general, than women.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/06/30/new-report-men-work-longer-hours-than-women/#15f9ed018b4e

The Forbes articles posts good questions, but actually doesn't help the discussion because the author only talks about one factor - longer hours - and doesn't normalize for that.  Further to that he links to a previous article where 'many factors' are discussed, but the best part of THAT article is it links to a better Slate article.  In general I agree that the discussion has been generalized down to a statement that doesn't provoke much thought and we could do well with some discussion on this.

 

There are, of course, plenty of examples of sexism even if some have been addressed and even if great strides have been made.  

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...