Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Gender inequality talk is starting to annoy people

Recommended Posts

On 5/3/2018 at 8:58 PM, Argus said:

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

I think this cite deserves a mention.  First of all, this is a blog and not a scientific journal so it isn't rigorous.  That said, it's an article written by a woman doctor, Rebekah Bernard MD and has some good insights.  Since you are citing it, do you agree with her that:
"We [women] need to negotiate our salaries, and we can start by requesting a 30% raise effective immediately."

Also there is nothing in the article that says women are 'unable to take the hours'.  I feel that you filled that in from the implications Dr. Bernard makes.  I looked through it a few times and couldn't find that.  Furthermore, this is an example of your typical pivot from scientific discussion to a moralistic/values based discussion.

A scientific discussion of causes is separate from a moralistic or values-laden and subjective discussion.  Both are valid but they are separate.  A discussion of causes doesn't include a football coach's talk at the end admonishing people for not being able to "take" the hours.  I applaud your desire to go back to hard metrics when there is dispute of what is happening in reality, but you tend to infuse the observations with the conclusions you arrive at the discussion with.

....

I do applaud your interest in helping these discussions with hard metrics.  And I also feel you do have principles.  The hard thing to do is change ones mind when faced with principles and metrics (which I have done in the past, for example with Jordan Peterson).

Share this post


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

"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.  

Progressives ARE ignoring biology and reality when they pretend that the mere existence of a gender disparity means this is evidence of sexism and discrimination. Haidt actually says this in so many words.

Quote

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

The fight between conservatism and progressives is a part of the battle between Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalist supporters (mainly conservatives) point out that it is the only economic system proven to enrich the people. Socialists (virtually all progressives) have often pie-in-the-sky beliefs about human incentives and motivations. As an economic system it is a total flub, and its adherents today basically advocate redistribution of the wealth created by the capitalism they often despise.

I believe some amount of Socialism is necessary to soften the harsher elements of Capitalism. I can accept the value of some strains of Socialism (there are many). However, the harder line Socialists who seek to replace Capitalism are morons and contribute nothing of value whatever. All of these people are progressives (that does not infer all progressives are hard-line Socialists).

I frankly don't see much value in progressives - as opposed to liberals. I think they are idealists, but tend to zealotry. They increasingly see the world in the light of oppressors/oppressed, and if you're not on one side you're on the other. Most mean well, but their theories rarely help anyone

Quote

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

In fact, I have pointed out on many occasions that it is the Left which imputes morality to political beliefs, not the right. I see progressives largely as idiots, not evil. Progressives, on the other hand, see Conservatives as evil. And this 'caricature' , to use your term, has spread through much of the Left. This is why so many discussions about political beliefs, theories or ideas on these forums wind up with those on the Left ignoring the actual subject in order to castigate the people who hold conservative opinions, impugn their morals, and invent  motivations for their 'evil' thoughts and beliefs.

Which is what you have done on this topic. So congratulations on so ably fulfilling the cliche.

 

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


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

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.

Peterson has never posed as a 'publc unifying figure'. Nor does he work for the rebel.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.  

But it wasn't money from the rebel. It was a crowdfunding appeal they launched largely on the basis of the belief he was being punished by progressives for his un-progressive views.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

It's difficult for me to see much nuance in your views of Peterson. They seem to be akin to a priest from the medieval times screaming "Anathema! Blaspheme! Heretic!" Most of what he says echoes Haidt but he says them in a more snappish and impatient manner. And while Haidt will speak in a cautionary tone about certain types of thinking and the psychology behind it - on an academic level, Peterson doesn't hesitate to actually condemn that behaviour and those who espouse it both in the academic world and in society and politics.

Share this post


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

1) Peterson has never posed as a 'publc unifying figure'. Nor does he work for the rebel.

2) But it wasn't money from the rebel. It was a crowdfunding appeal they launched largely on the basis of the belief he was being punished by progressives for his un-progressive views.

3) They seem to be akin to a priest from the medieval times screaming "Anathema! Blaspheme! Heretic!"

4) Most of what he says echoes Haidt but he says them in a more snappish and impatient manner. And while Haidt will speak in a cautionary tone about certain types of thinking and the psychology behind it - on an academic level, Peterson doesn't hesitate to actually condemn that behaviour and those who espouse it both in the academic world and in society and politics.

1) That is interesting and reveals an assumption on my part.   Do you think that he is not a public figure ?  Not a unifying figure ?  Do you think he would describe his efforts (as a publicly paid professor) as 'disunifying' ?  Perhaps 'unifying' is an ambiguous term.  Should professors lead such discussions, do you think ?  I think that is a generally accepted idea.  And I would say some kind of forward motion on such public discussions contributes to a common understanding if not outright unity.

2) Fair enough but an ethical stance would be to not accept assistance.

3) Hyperbole.  Would the priest say he supported some of the heretics ideas, leaving out your characterization of me as hysterical.

4) I only saw the one video you posted of Haidt and it seemed reasonable.  'Condemnation' and moralizing is not normally the result of public discussions but something you hear from the pulpit.  In fact, that is one of the hazards of leftist proselytization on campus - ie. the degeneration of free thought.  I thought that was something you were concerned about.  If not, I guess we have to fund right- and left- wing universities now.

Quote

 

5) Progressives ARE ignoring biology and reality when they pretend that the mere existence of a gender disparity means this is evidence of sexism and discrimination. Haidt actually says this in so many words.

5) So now you are stating that 'progressives typically ignore reality' is NOT an insult but a supportable fact.  Ok then.  Do you still stand by this or am I supposed to accept your slams of progressives as facts and quietly accept them ?  From you :
"I don't regard that as a 'one side vs the other' battle, or even a battle - until YOU made it one."

Quote

6) If you're not on one side you're on the other

6) Given how you have divvied up 'the' public, and apparently put me on the side of progressives there seem to me to only be two sides in your world anyway.  At least you said you don't see MUCH value in progressives, implying that you see some. :)

Quote

7) Progressives, on the other hand, see Conservatives as evil. And this 'caricature' , to use your term, has spread through much of the Left

7) I hadn't thought of that.  I don't think I have characterized anybody as 'evil' here but inconsistent and with 'mushy thinking'.  Also, if I recall the debate on the Ontario Minimum Wage rise, Freedom of Speech on Campus and Gender Inequality there is always an aspect of morality (understandably and reasonably) in the rights arguments.  So there is an aspect of both perhaps on both sides.  But everybody is different.  Thanks for answering that.

Share this post


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

1) That is interesting and reveals an assumption on my part.   Do you think that he is not a public figure ?  Not a unifying figure ?  Do you think he would describe his efforts (as a publicly paid professor) as 'disunifying' ?  Perhaps 'unifying' is an ambiguous term.  Should professors lead such discussions, do you think ?  I think that is a generally accepted idea.  And I would say some kind of forward motion on such public discussions contributes to a common understanding if not outright unity.

Lindsay Sheppard, the TA at Wilfred Laurie found out the hard way that some university faculty do not want those types of discussions to take place.

Share this post


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

Lindsay Sheppard, the TA at Wilfred Laurie found out the hard way that some university faculty do not want those types of discussions to take place.

And as Ms. Lawton found - if whiny university students can't get an evil leftist fired, the conservative politicians will step in and do it for her - even as the group they expected to back them says first free speech rights apply to everyone, even rude people

I suppose the right-wing lot won't be satisfied until (leftist) free speech is *outlawed*; no more nasty yelling from leftists then, eh?   Can just toss them in jail.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Lindsay Sheppard, the TA at Wilfred Laurie found out the hard way that some university faculty do not want those types of discussions to take place.

Exactly.  So if this is a question of fairness and balance (as I think it should be) then we should admonish the university for discouraging dialogue.  If Peterson is a proponent of dialogue, why does he accept assistance from an organization that purposely promotes discord ?  Isn't that the same as the WLU profs calling Peterson "alt right" ?


What is fair here ?

Share this post


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

 I suppose the right-wing lot won't be satisfied until (leftist) free speech is *outlawed*; no more nasty yelling from leftists then, eh?   Can just toss them in jail.  

On the contrary, I think there are people in power on both left- and right- who prefer to paper over dissenting opinions and there are groups grabbing for power who want to make it appear as there is more dissent than there is.

Share this post


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

On the contrary, I think there are people in power on both left- and right- who prefer to paper over dissenting opinions and there are groups grabbing for power who want to make it appear as there is more dissent than there is.

Way too reasonable a viewpoint, Michael.  So what if its true?  The point here isn't reasonable discussion; its to throw shade at the other side through extreme statements.  

Share this post


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

The point here isn't reasonable discussion; its to throw shade at the other side through extreme statements.  

Often that's the case, but if they're doing it to sell dissent we should wise up.  

Share this post


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

7) I hadn't thought of that.  I don't think I have characterized anybody as 'evil' here but inconsistent and with 'mushy thinking'.  Also, if I recall the debate on the Ontario Minimum Wage rise, Freedom of Speech on Campus and Gender Inequality there is always an aspect of morality (understandably and reasonably) in the rights arguments.  So there is an aspect of both perhaps on both sides.  But everybody is different.  Thanks for answering that.

I've ignored the rest. I'm not interested in any further discussion of your complaints about how I talk about progressives. If you want to start a topic about how progressives are being unfairly denigrated, fine. This is not such a thread.

As to moralizing political opinion I will say, as I did above, that most discussion between Left and Right revolves around capitalism vs socialism and how much of each is best for society. The position of those on the Left is that everything they want in the way of Social policies is designed to help people in need of help. Therefore, those who oppose those policies must not care about or want to help those in need of help.

It's not much of a step then to impugn their morals and claim they are heartless and uncaring. We see this from Liberal and NDP politicians every single election. We saw it in the last federal election. We're seeing it in Ontario even before the election writ is dropped. If you don't want to spend ever more money (regardless of whether we have it ) in helping this or that group that they think needs help, then you must be a terrible person. Mike Harris wasn't motivated by the need to reform a system that had one in eight members of the population on welfare and a budget near collapse, no, he hated the poor. People actually said this. Not fringe groups either, but union leaders and politicians.

Share this post


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

1) I'm not interested in any further discussion of your complaints about how I talk about progressives. If you want to start a topic about how progressives are being unfairly denigrated, fine. This is not such a thread.

2) Therefore, those who oppose those policies must not care about or want to help those in need of help.

3) Mike Harris wasn't motivated by the need to reform a system that had one in eight members of the population on welfare and a budget near collapse, no, he hated the poor. People actually said this. Not fringe groups either, but union leaders and politicians.

1) Ok, but I can't tell if you're taking this back: " I don't regard that as a 'one side vs the other' battle, or even a battle - until YOU made it one."   You were interested enough to make that comment and now you're just strolling away.  If I were unkind, I could make some comments about conservatives, accountability... blah blah blah.. as we have a live example here... But I don't believe your failings apply to all conservatives, so...

2) This is apt.  There is a point at which everyone decides to be charitable and some people think that if you pick a point 1 cent less than them then you are immoral.

3) Maybe Harper is a better example for your thesis.  Harris made disparaging generalizations about poor people and didn't make an effort to counter the image people painted of him.

 

 

Share this post


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

1) Ok, but I can't tell if you're taking this back: " I don't regard that as a 'one side vs the other' battle, or even a battle - until YOU made it one."   You were interested enough to make that comment and now you're just strolling away. 

Because I realized I had allowed you to lead me off the topic. As I pointed out, it happens often on these forums that when a cherished program or belief of the Left is challenged the people on the Left, rather than actually responding to the points raised, try to turn the discussion onto one about the individual who made the challenge. Grats, but I'm now bored talking about me.

 

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) This is apt.  There is a point at which everyone decides to be charitable and some people think that if you pick a point 1 cent less than them then you are immoral.

It is an overwhelmingly popular tactic the Left uses against Conservatives whenever they call for cuts to spending. Since all spending is meant to help someone, cutting ANY spending is declared immoral and mean spirited and, of course, the old canard - greedy. People who don't want to pay for all these wonderful programs, and more wonderful programs being lined up, must be greedy. I have not noticed the right using the same sorts of moral arguments towards the Left with the exception of social conservatives and abortion. And that discussion is largely off the table anyway, except when some Left wing politician brings it up to scaremonger, as Kathleen Wynne is doing in Ontario now (shades of Donald Trump telling gun owners only Repulicans will protect their right to own firearms).

 

Share this post


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

Exactly.  So if this is a question of fairness and balance (as I think it should be) then we should admonish the university for discouraging dialogue.  If Peterson is a proponent of dialogue, why does he accept assistance from an organization that purposely promotes discord ?  Isn't that the same as the WLU profs calling Peterson "alt right" ?


What is fair here ?

Those profs should loose their jobs. Plain and simple.  And Peterson is only dubbed alt-right, by those who don't understand what he is saying.  The W.L. apology letter to her was just as insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 9:56 AM, Argus said:

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

He has no qualifications for anything as far as I am concerned. Just all talk, no walk. If he does not want to agree with you then you are just full of it. Just saying. 

Share this post


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

He has no qualifications for anything as far as I am concerned. Just all talk, no walk. If he does not want to agree with you then you are just full of it. Just saying. 

If you're going to respond to something from 5 days ago, you should look at the fact that I already responded.  That way you can add a substantive response, instead of an insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason why people in my organization have openly started to rebel against this sexism.

Equality for opportunity - great! I support this.

Equality of outcome? Bullshit, that's sexist. Don't you ever tell me to hire a woman because she's a woman. That's sexist against men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to a Harvard study there IS no such thing as gender inequality in wages.

Harvard Study: "Gender Wage Gap" Explained Entirely by Work Choices of Men and Women

https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study-gender-pay-gap-explained-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 8:48 PM, Argus said:

So according to a Harvard study there IS no such thing as gender inequality in wages.

Harvard Study: "Gender Wage Gap" Explained Entirely by Work Choices of Men and Women

https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study-gender-pay-gap-explained-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/

 

I don’t understand why this isn’t news, the mainstream media seems like it’s purposely ignoring it.  I don’t think it fits their preferred narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 4:36 PM, Truth Detector said:

I don’t understand why this isn’t news, the mainstream media seems like it’s purposely ignoring it.  I don’t think it fits their preferred narrative.

Our preferred narrative you mean.  The mainstream media takes its orders from us not the other way around, but clearly someone needs to have a word with Harvard.

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...