Senate Let's Talk: Feminism

A ****

 

B-but they're bad for pH.

I assumed so, but whatever caused that amount of sarcasm must've been really, really out there.

As long as it's not one of those little pendants and badges everybody has, I love it by default.

 

Yes you responded with your typical bullying, but completely ignored the point being made.

As usual.

You can shave those, you know.

 

Right, so I missed this article in the last year apparently:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html

I'm not sure what to make of this. For a lot of reasons.

1) Let's leave aside (for the moment) the somewhat internalized-misogyny potential at the heart of the "Women, far more than men, appear to be drawn to jobs in the caring professions; and men are more likely to turn up in people-free zones. In the pursuit of happiness, men and women appear to take different paths." argument and focus on the numbers. Is this true? Do they add up?

2) Is it also true that the efforts to involve women in STEM have been studied and don't work true, or is the pigeonholing into "pink-collar" jobs (hilariously passive-aggressive term) more accurate?

3) The woman who wrote the article is an excellent writer (I've read several of her books) but she's hardly unbiased. She's actually the one who (supposedly; citation needed!) coined "equity feminism" (which is essentially what the modern feminism movement is -- equality for all, focusing on women since they are unequal now) but... with a different application in mind. Having written Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies Are Hurting Our Young Men... sooooo, yeah. I'm not sure if I trust her numbers?

Boba Nekhbet -- please chime in, since I'm more apt to believe you.

 

Always best changed to "I'm a sexist, and…" or "I'm a racist, and…"

 

This is why I'm interested in Dani's info because, generally, Hoff Sommer's numbers are usually good -- but she may be cherry-picking to suit / frame her arguments (and then editorializing the above). I'm genuinely curious about this.

 

I don't really have any numbers or independent research to add to this, and I agree with Tracy's post for the most part. I'm not familiar with Christina Hoff Sommers beyond this article. All that being said... I've got some hot takes.

I'm no statistical whiz, but surely there are many, many different ways to "take these relevant factors into consideration" and arrive at many, many different wage gap numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if she was cherry-picking or adjusting her model to arrive at a decently low wage gap. Conveniently, she doesn't explain her methodology or how she arrived at the five cent wage gap at all.

Also, regardless of controlling for those many factors, the point of the wage gap discrepancy seems to get misconstrued a lot, maybe by both sides at times. The point, of course, is that if we had true gender parity and gender equality, then men and women would equally achieve and occupy all occupations, positions, education, job tenure, and hours worked per week. The mere fact that you have to adjust for those things is evidence itself of inequality. The argument is really over once the other side essentially concedes that they're going to have to do some statistical wizardry because men occupy more prestigious, higher paid positions for longer than women do. Yes, exactly, that's the problem.

I'm not sure how anyone can really sit down in the post-Gamergate world and seriously argue that women aren't pushed out of pursuing computer science degrees by forces beyond their control. Women taking computer science classes in college now are taking classes with the people who send Anita Sarkeesian death threats all day long. You think that hasn't affected womens' enrollment in computer science programs?

She also doesn't offer anything to support her claims that womens' interests "tend to lie elsewhere." The fact that the numbers of women earning engineering and computer science degrees have ebbed and flowed over time doesn't really indicate at all that womens' interests don't lie in those fields. In fact, to me it would indicate the opposite, that given the right circumstances, more women WILL earn those degrees, and something happened between 2000 and 2011 to make it harder for those women. I mean, really, what is she arguing? Does she think the extra 10% who earned comp sci degrees in 2000 were forced into it or something?

Finally, it isn't "demeaning" to acknowledge that some women don't care to stick their necks out and stomach the constant sexism and boys club atmosphere of many STEM careers. It isn't weak or helpless or "being manipulated" to make a choice not to subject yourself to an unhealthy or negative environment. Boiled down, that last sentence of hers is a really old argument that always gets trotted out in basic, uninspired arguments about oppression - "acknowledging sexism is sexist." No, it isn't, pretending that the forces of patriarchal power don't affect the choices women make is sexist.

 

Just a quick peel. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...omen-in-combat-experiment-gets-mixed-results/

This is exactly what I predicted. Too many of you are so blinded by how you wish the human condition was that you can't see what the human condition is.

Men and women are different.

 

That's not what I took. I got that there were both male and female dropouts and that most evidence was anecdotal so will have a bias.



I did get that you will take any evidence you can find to support a sexist narrative.


Some of these women did well and some were highlighted too.

That to me supports that some women can do the role and some can't.
Just like men.

 

The Marine Corps Times report cites a number of instances where women had a difficult time completing physical tasks, like moving 200 pound dummies off the battlefield or from the turret of a “damaged” vehicle.

of course there will be instances of this. there will also be instances where men have a similar difficulty. that's the way these things usually work.

Augello, according to the report, also noted that relationships between the female and male Marines in his platoon sometimes turned romantic and in turn became a distraction

lol clearly the women's fault. them all being there with their boobs and stuff. if these guys are so distracted by women in training, perhaps they're not the best candidates in the first place.

And the two women who stayed until the experiment’s conclusion told the Marine Corps Time they had found their true calling as infantrywomen.

i don't think jRod made it this far into the article

 

This is what I was referring to:

Lance Cpl. Chris Augello, a reservist who prior to the experiment was pro-integration, submitted a 13-page essay—which he shared with the Marine Corps Times—on why he had changed his mind. “The female variable in this social experiment has wrought a fundamental change in the way male [non-commissioned officers] think, act and lead,” he wrote, referring to the female presence and its effect on how Marine Corps small-unit leaders do their job.
Augello, according to the report, also noted that relationships between the female and male Marines in his platoon sometimes turned romantic and in turn became a distraction. Integration, Augello wrote, is “a change that is sadly for the worse, not the better.”

 

One persons opinion then.

 

who says a fundamental change in the way male officers think, act and lead is a bad thing? what change is he even talking about? if these male officers can't handle being around women then, again, maybe they should grow up and learn how to actually... think, act and lead. that statement is so vague that i don't understand how you can reason anything out of it.

 

J-Rod is merely looking for ways to sustain the status quo, which he sees as objectively correct. In fact it's not, but he and many others have been conditioned to think that it is.

 

MacArthur dramatically reformed West Point in 1919, only to have those reforms be thrown out by the old guard and graduates who insisted "No, this is how it should be." MacArthur was soon vindicated as his reforms were, in ensuing years, accepted and reintroduced. The point here is that attitudes, requirements, and needs change with the times.

Granted, the Marine Corps historically held a grudge against MacArthur, so there you go.

 

Basic training is designed to weed out the weak and unsuitable. If anyone makes it through, they've proven themselves capable, regardless of gender.

 

There was also this part:

So a few people have some reservations, so what. So some women dropped out, so did some men. Look at the two women who completed Army Ranger School. Yes, the majority dropped out, but men drop out too, only about half the people graduate that start. They weren't given preferential treatment, they did the exact same thing the men did and they made it. Not all women would be able to do it, but not all men could either.

 

So you want the armed forces to be 100% female?

In all seriousness, there's bound to be a bit of a novelty factor. I think it would wear off pretty quickly.

In terms of physical differences, sure, testosterone helps with both strength and recovery. Military training is far more about mental strength, though; the strength of will to just keep pushing on regardless. Also, there are plenty of women who can pick up and carry a 200lb load without problems. I know a few.

There may be some validity when it comes to elite units. The Spetsnaz strength requirements, for example, would be very tough.

 

Well said. That type of immature and sometimes irrational behavior is what annoys a lot of people.