Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

MRA's, Male Privilege, Men's Issues, etc.

116 replies to this topic
Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#61

Posted 30 July 2017 - 07:39 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 30 July 2017 - 07:48 PM.

The myth is that leftist violence is a unique and significant manifestation of political violence in the west.

It is, both of those. Neither right nor left wing terror currently reach the large scale murderousness of Islamic terror, but in terms of vandalism and assault they are significant. You can go check interpol data, and you'll find out they are. But you'd have to be purposefully blind after what happened in Hamburg to think it isn't. As I pointed out, an important Dutch political figure, Pim Fortuyn, was assassinated by a leftist. So I wouldn't deem leftist violence 'insignificant'.
 

This is you again dismissing a 100% factual statement because of its inconvenience to your rhetoric/viewpoint.

There is nothing factual about it. Your claim is 'it is not leftism because it is related to the state', when clearly the safe space snowflake pro censorship ideology is a leftist ideology that wants to protect 'victims', 'the disadvantaged', and 'the oppressed' through censorship from opinions that might be 'hurtful', or according to them 'violence'. But this is another of the continuing no true Scotsman fallacies you make, or 'no true leftism fallacy'.
 

With the state intact, it's merely regime change within an existing order and no longer leftist in nature.

Leftism exists on a spectrum. Within the context of the state and capitalism there are still movements that are more leftist than others. So this idea that if it is related to a statist and capitalist political structure, then it isn't leftism, is just not true. But it's the 'no true leftism' fallacy once more. 'Only a stateless genderless radical egalitarian utopia is leftist'. Well, no, that doesn't exist and never will, because it is at odds with many important innate human tendencies.
 

You’ve condemned the feminist tendency to suggest that men’s issues have solutions rooted feminism/women’s issues. Yet here you are constantly deflecting the focus to issues within feminism as if we cannot address men’s rights without fixing toxic feminism first.

If you put it like that, it would almost seem like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm not, haha. There is no contradiction at all between saying we can't understand men's issues through the current paradigm of feminist ideas, and that we have to lessen the influence of such misguided feminist ideas.
 

For ages, religious institutions have imposed moronic restrictions on who we can have sex with, when we can have sex with them (premarital rules), how we have sex with them (prohibited acts), why we have sex (restrict casual sex + banning birth control + banning abortion). If anything, they gave radical feminists the playbook on how to control male access to the female body. The church specializes in Anti-Access and Area Denial when it comes to sex.

What is interesting is how the current increasing tendency on campuses for authorities to want to control the sexual habits of young people has been considered a new Victorianism, where feminism in stead of being in favor of increasing sexual liberation and autonomy for women, is for treating women as unautonomous victims who need to be protected by authorities and guardians at all times. This analysis coming from me might sound like male chauvinism, but there are feminists increasingly making this point. It's an interesting development where certain 'feminist' practices are increasingly authoritarian, and decreasingly liberal.
 

Religious institutions are just one example I have chosen since you seem to dislike criticism of the state

The issue is that 'criticism of the state' is vapid contrarianism as long as there is no successful or viable alternative to statism. That's why I dislike it.
 

As you've accurately hinted at earlier with reference to female "societal beauty standards", these 'rights' issues that make both men and women miserable feed on insecurity around one's femininity or masculinity.

The fact that certain societal norms are able to make people insecure, doesn't mean we should coercively surpress them. 'Societal beauty standards', and norms for what it means to be masculine can be very harsh, but they weren't consciously constructed, and therefore we can't consciously surpress them without simultaneously surpressing natural human tendencies. Human beings make harsh judgements about one another when it comes to physical appearance or behaviour, but those judgements are not arbitrary constructs manufactured to oppress those who fail to meet them. They are part of natural innate tendencies of people that adapt to social context.
 

or as MRAs call it, the 'inner game'.

'Inner game' is a PUA term for correcting your insecurity and self image, in stead of just correcting the success of your behaviour by purely outwardly pretending to be confident.
 

Rampant (psychological) insecurity is incredibly profitable because it allows you to sell people back what they already have.  More importantly, it makes people easier to control by overstating the social value of essentially rent-seeking institutions whether they be corporate or not.

I'd agree with you that some institutions parasitically profit from the insecurities of people. But ultimately, people are also responsible for whether they allow themselves to be insecure.
 

The goal is to minimize senseless slaughter on a mass scale by continuing to socially evolve. People will still commit atrocities here and there.

Sure, but I do see a tendency for society to adapt to protect itself from the most cynical and evil possible terror, which from a leftist perspective on the surface seems like the arbitrary enforcement of authority and control. Human beings naturally have the intention to protect themselves from the worst possible behaviour by others.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#62

Posted 31 July 2017 - 02:16 AM

re:is leftism compatible with statism, the answer is yes. Lenin didn't appear out of a vacuum, Marx had already laid the basis for Leninism with his own views on the state. And frankly, a lot of anarchism is still statism. Leftism is a political project concerned with reorganising the state and management, with the assumption that when those things are handled communally, they will be abolished and replaced with something more organic. A workers' council is not the ideal way to handle production, it's an approximation of the role managers play under Capitalism. 

 

When anarchism doesn't acknowledge this, it descends into red socialism.

  • Tchuck, mr quick and Triple Vacuum Seal like this

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#63

Posted 01 August 2017 - 03:12 AM Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 01 August 2017 - 04:59 PM.

There is nothing factual about it.


Okay so let’s drill down on this…

"The bit about censorship is an irrelevant attack on the left because censorship is primarily a tool of the state more so than the left or right." - Fact

Censorship is present in all states. It’s present in other institutions as well, but the point still remains. Besides, I’d rather not get bogged down in the 'safe space' nonsense. In comparison to the economic aspects policy-making, the ‘safe space’ sh*t is petty. While redundant, safe spaces aren’t some drastic shift from the status quo.


"These schools with 'safe spaces' are state institutions." - Fact.
 
No elaboration necessary.


Both statements were factual.

 

But this is another of the continuing no true Scotsman fallacies you make, or 'no true leftism fallacy'.

 
No it isn’t. A true Scotsman fallacy in this case hinges on a claim that no leftist would resort to censorship. This is an extension of your straw man fallacy because I never made such a claim. By pointing out that censorship is most prominently a device of the state, I neither confirmed nor denied the presence of censorship on the left. I simply rendered the observation moot since such conduct is present in politics independent of any specific objective on the political spectrum.

When you attribute censorship to the left as a whole, it’s akin to mistaking a single obstructive branch on a tree for its trunk, or perhaps even its roots.

 

Leftism exists on a spectrum. Within the context of the state and capitalism there are still movements that are more leftist than others. So this idea that if it is related to a statist and capitalist political structure, then it isn't leftism, is just not true. But it's the 'no true leftism' fallacy once more. 'Only a stateless genderless radical egalitarian utopia is leftist'. Well, no, that doesn't exist and never will, because it is at odds with many important innate human tendencies.

 
That’s a bit hysterical. This casual contempt for the state has nothing to do with leftist activism. It’s actually rooted in the very sense of cynicism that you imply is lacking among left sympathizers. And I’m hardly a leftist unless we’re speaking in broad terms that exaggerate the character of anti-right worldviews.

Also not sure what exactly are you responding to with the ‘Only a stateless genderless…’ bit. Never mentioned gender but whatever. I merely said socialism is incompatible with the state (because it seeks to replace it). State’s don’t welcome their own obsolescence.

Confusing this with a variant of the no true Scotsman fallacy is akin to labeling the acknowledgement that penguins don’t fly as a variant of the ‘no true penguin fallacy’.

And the idea something is deemed leftism because it’s left of a particular point on the spectrum, with disregard for the center, is nonsensical. On that basis, Tea Party Republicans are leftists because they aren’t Nazis.


 

The issue is that 'criticism of the state' is vapid contrarianism as long as there is no successful or viable alternative to statism. That's why I dislike it.

 
Contrarianism perhaps. Though you’ve got to give credit for exploitation where it’s due, instead of deflecting it other dubious sources like feminism.

 

re:is leftism compatible with statism, the answer is yes. Lenin didn't appear out of a vacuum, Marx had already laid the basis for Leninism with his own views on the state. And frankly, a lot of anarchism is still statism. Leftism is a political project concerned with reorganising the state and management, with the assumption that when those things are handled communally, they will be abolished and replaced with something more organic. A workers' council is not the ideal way to handle production, it's an approximation of the role managers play under Capitalism. 
 
When anarchism doesn't acknowledge this, it descends into red socialism.

 
Yes. Leftism more broadly is compatible in the sense that a democratic state might give people space to develop peaceful opposition to state authority. But the overruling government order will either reside with a state government or a socialist government.


 

Sure, but I do see a tendency for society to adapt to protect itself from the most cynical and evil possible terror, which from a leftist perspective on the surface seems like the arbitrary enforcement of authority and control. Human beings naturally have the intention to protect themselves from the worst possible behaviour by others.


I don’t follow. Evil is a bunch of vague jargon. If you mean immorality, then that’s more of an outgrowth of depraved environmental conditions that can be minimized through economic well-being. As I said, people will always commit little atrocities here and there. However, it’s no coincidence that most dangerous people either come from desperate conditions where morality is perceived as a luxury, or they are neglected in some way. In short, keep people paid and they’ll keep their hands to themselves for the most part.
 
And I don’t see how cynicism poses any sort of a threat to public safety either. Contrary to what’s portrayed in the entertainment media, cynicism is not some diabolic detachment maintained by sociopaths. Cynicism is an acknowledgement that institutions are full of sh*t, but not necessarily ineffective, often in contrast with idealism which can be dangerous in its own right.


 

'Inner game' is a PUA term for correcting your insecurity and self image, in stead of just correcting the success of your behaviour by purely outwardly pretending to be confident.

 
Perhaps I’m corralling all of that Red Pill stuff into one. But yeah that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about and probably one of the more healthy elements of the otherwise suspect PUA movement.

Many men have been emasculated by materialism (especially by working themselves to death to support materialistic urges) and other superficial expectations much like how many females are disempowered by the same values or lack thereof.

 

What is interesting is how the current increasing tendency on campuses for authorities to want to control the sexual habits of young people has been considered a new Victorianism, where feminism in stead of being in favor of increasing sexual liberation and autonomy for women, is for treating women as unautonomous victims who need to be protected by authorities and guardians at all times. This analysis coming from me might sound like male chauvinism, but there are feminists increasingly making this point. It's an interesting development where certain 'feminist' practices are increasingly authoritarian, and decreasingly liberal.


It pales in comparison to what limits churches impose on both sexes, but I wouldn’t put it past some of these crazy campus radicals. Some people get off to controlling folks to feel better about their own deficiencies.

 

we have to lessen the influence of such misguided feminist ideas.

 
I agree. In reference to the bad feminism, sure.

…but addressing men’s issues while closing your eyes to dogma projected by institutions that largely predate feminism? Lol good luck with that.
 
The vast majority of MRA grievances predate feminism. Even the injustices highlighted by MRAs that ostensibly benefit women predate feminism.  This is why people don’t take the MRAs seriously. The movement is perceived as little more than a thinly-veiled effort to vent anger at women as opposed to actually fixing the problems at hand.


These undisciplined pop feminist are merely a fly in the soup, a distracting annoyance. Not some existential threat to masculinity as these MRAs suggest. No feminist is going to rob you of your testosterone at the end of the day.
  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#64

Posted 01 August 2017 - 04:30 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 01 August 2017 - 04:32 AM.

"The bit about censorship is an irrelevant attack on the left because censorship is primarily a tool of the state more so than the left or right." - Fact

That's not a fact. That's actually complete nonsense. Censorship is a tool for those who value the collective over the individual, which is a tendency both the far left and far right have. There are states with very high levels of freedom of speech, and states with very little. You are comparing a real world example to an irrelevant anarchist utopian thought experiment. This negative relation you have imagined between statism and freedom of speech/censorship is not based on real life examples, but on your personal prejudice. Historically freedom of speech as a right originates in the enlightenment and liberalism, not in anarchism.
 

"These schools with 'safe spaces' are state institutions."

Which tells us almost nothing that is meaningful. And it isn't even really true. They are often at least part privatized, and governed quite autonomously.
 

When you attribute censorship to the left as a whole, it’s akin to mistaking a single obstructive branch on a tree for its trunk, or perhaps even its roots.

I didn't attribute censorship to the left as a whole. What I did was attribute censorship to a specific group of leftists, namely safe space snowflakes who are indoctrinated with postmodern neomarxism.
 

On what basis? Repeating a popular misconception doesn’t make it factual.

"the safe space snowflake pro censorship ideology is a leftist ideology that wants to protect 'victims', 'the disadvantaged', and 'the oppressed' through censorship from opinions that might be 'hurtful', or according to them 'violence'." That's why it is leftist. I perfectly explained it to you.

 

If you mean immorality, then that’s more of an outgrowth of depraved environmental conditions that can be minimized through economic well-being.

Even in wealthy countries people still put locks on their doors.
 

These undisciplined pop feminist are merely a fly in the soup, a distracting annoyance.

You are challenging me to write a more elaborate reply to explain why the indoctrination of young women with this far left nonsense, and this political correct garbage and fake controversy in the mainstream media is a significant issue, and maybe I'll do so later. It's not 'some small annoyance'. Many young women in college are being indoctrinated and radicalized with far left social justice nonsense, and young men are increasingly radicalized to the right.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#65

Posted 01 August 2017 - 06:46 AM

For the millionth time: you are not an individualist. Not of any stripe. I'm not much of one either, because I don't have much of a framework. But I have more of a connection to it than someone who thinks we live in an individualist society, and that mainstream thinkers in that society espouse individualism. 

 

 

 

Historically freedom of speech as a right originates in the enlightenment and liberalism, not in anarchism.

That's because anarchism superseded liberalism. At any rate, rights are the weakest affirmation of the principles they represent. Freedom of speech is only meaningful under a system that has vested interest in restricting your speech. It's like an abusive relationship with hard limits ("don't call me stupid"), hardly the furthest the enlightenment has gone. 

 

People who advocate organic social functioning are individualists. If you think that's not 'human nature' (a claim that's as meaningful now as in ancient China, that is not at all) fine, but it precludes you from being an individualist. 

  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#66

Posted 01 August 2017 - 01:20 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 01 August 2017 - 01:21 PM.

But I have more of a connection to it than someone who thinks we live in an individualist society,

We clearly do. There have never been more individualist societies than among others the ones we live in.

 

People who advocate organic social functioning are individualists.

Left libertarians are not the most individualist, right libertarians are. The left in left libertarianism implies you have to subordinate your individual pursuit of what you think is good to a common good.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#67

Posted 01 August 2017 - 01:53 PM

 

But I have more of a connection to it than someone who thinks we live in an individualist society,

We clearly do. There have never been more individualist societies than among others the ones we live in.

 

Really? How about literally every society that doesn't revolve around the assembly line and pre-packaged class identities? 

 

 

 

Left libertarians are not the most individualist, right libertarians are.

There are no right-libertarians. 'Left-libertarian' refers to Randoids that support some kind of welfare state, not to anarchists. Anarchism however is divided into class struggle anarchism and individualist anarchism, at least for now. Some of us would like to take a sledgehammer to that wall. 

 

 

 

The left in left libertarianism implies you have to subordinate your individual pursuit of what you think is good to a common good.

No, it implies that were you in parliament, you would caucus with the Labour Party. 


Dealux
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#68

Posted 06 August 2017 - 04:21 PM

For those who think that the left isn't largely responsible for the lack of dialogue in public discourse about certain topics, take a look at this article: http://gizmodo.com/e...Gizmodo_twitter

 

Big companies like Google already subscribe to the leftist ideology that discrepancies between genders are inherently sexist and any opinions that counter these beliefs are dismissed as intolerant essentially. At this point I think the only way forward is for leftism to completely take over and fail (it's already showing signs of failure given that even with the best efforts to combat gender differences, they still persist in companies and society in general). And maybe then we can have an honest conversation about things.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#69

Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:48 PM

A male software developer in what is probably the most heavily man-oversaturated/woman-underrepresented skilled industry there is rallies against attempts to encourage diversity and broaden appeal as being "authoritarian", yet argued in favour of the notion that women are physiologically less suited to a career in IT than men?

And you use this as a representation of "the left" being responsible for the lack of dialogue?

Sounds to me like a good old fashioned chauvinist and bigot has managed to get his five minutes of fame, and has chosen to use it to denigrate the few women we have working in the IT sector by casting them as physiologically inferior to men in that role. And you wonder why it's a disproportionately male dominated profession? There's your answer- c*nts like him.
  • Tchuck and Melchior like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#70

Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:07 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 06 August 2017 - 07:10 PM.

A male software developer in what is probably the most heavily man-oversaturated/woman-underrepresented skilled industry there is rallies against attempts to encourage diversity and broaden appeal as being "authoritarian"

Did you actually read it? "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes." What he takes issue with seems to be affirmative action and discrimination, because he on reasonable grounds doubts that it will be effective. He thinks it is bad business and a waste of resources, and he takes issue with the fact that there is a stifling politically correct culture where it can't be questioned. All of that seems completely reasonable to me.
 

yet argued in favour of the notion that women are physiologically less suited to a career in IT than men? 

Pre natal testosterone strongly affects human development. It does so in many other species, and also in human beings. There are innate differences between men and women which affect the choices men and women make.
 

And you use this as a representation of "the left" being responsible for the lack of dialogue? Sounds to me like a good old fashioned chauvinist and bigot

Haha, you are answering your own question.
 

use it to denigrate the few women we have working in the IT sector by casting them as physiologically inferior to men

He didn't do that at all. He didn't cast anyone as inferior. And he didn't judge anyone on an individual basis. Different does not equal inferior. That is your own addition, that those who don't succeed in classically male domains must by definition be inferior. This aspect of 'inferiority' is added by you. You seem to be the one making the case that femininity is inferior really.
 

And you wonder why it's a disproportionately male dominated profession?

Because men and women are by nature interested in different things. Hence why psychology and many medical fields are increasingly female dominated. That is not because those fields discriminate men, but because men and women have tendencies towards different interests.


Dealux
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#71

Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:39 PM Edited by ΣΓ, 06 August 2017 - 07:41 PM.

A male software developer in what is probably the most heavily man-oversaturated/woman-underrepresented skilled industry there is rallies against attempts to encourage diversity and broaden appeal as being "authoritarian", yet argued in favour of the notion that women are physiologically less suited to a career in IT than men?

Sounds to me like a good old fashioned chauvinist and bigot has managed to get his five minutes of fame, and has chosen to use it to denigrate the few women we have working in the IT sector by casting them as physiologically inferior to men in that role. And you wonder why it's a disproportionately male dominated profession? There's your answer- c*nts like him.

You basically demonstrate the impossibility of discussing such topics from multiple points of view in your own post. And you call yourself a "radical centrist" lol.

 

It would probably be useful to debunk his points then. He merely points to certain differences that exist between men and women and why these might account to some extent to the wage differences between men and women. He's not even saying that these differences are naturally or inherently good. In fact if these differences are as tangible as the evidence suggests then you would think that someone wanting to make things better for women would take these things into account, right? But the left doesn't actually want to admit that maybe women suck at negotiating (due to their agreeable nature) because that's sexist and most of these big companies are very left leaning so good luck speaking out like this without getting fired.

 

Edit: Your interpretation is pretty common among people on the left. They mistake an interpretation of something as a justification for the status quo. He's not even defending the way things are.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#72

Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:48 PM

Did you actually read it? "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and dont endorse using stereotypes."

I read some weasel words that essentially constitute a slightly more convoluted version of "I'm not racist but..."

What he takes issue with seems to be affirmative action and discrimination, because he on reasonable grounds doubts that it will be effective. He thinks it is bad business and a waste of resources, and he takes issue with the fact that there is a stifling politically correct culture where it can't be questioned.

I don't see him presenting any real evidence, or even a coherent argument, in support of any of these. There's a difference between feeling like your voice is excluded and your views suppressed because they don't tally with wider organisational values, and actively having your views suppressed or being discriminated against. And my suggestion is most of his grievances boil down to the former, not the latter.

I mean we're talking about an organisation that's being dragged through the wringer over pay disparity at the moment.

Pre natal testosterone strongly affects human development.

Find me one peer reviewed academic study that concludes that women are intrinsically inferior at IT roles due to biological factors and I'll concede this. But I think you'll struggle because it's a patently ridiculous assertion.

I think it's far likelier that women are out of from IT roles because it's a boy's club with all the decorum and inclusiveness of an amateurs league football club dressing room. And that's coming from someone whose been working in the industry in one capacity or another for the best part of a decade.

When I remark about how far the IT industry has progressed, it's not a praising or embracing of the position the industry is in, it's a condemnation of the state it was five or so years ago.

Haha, you are answering your own question.

Commenting that someone comes across as chauvinistic and bigoted isn't an attempt to end a dialogue, it's an enticement to defend one's views. Quite the opposite.

Is calling a spade a spade currently objectional to you? Ironic.

He didn't do that at all.

But a few lines ago you acknowledge he did by commenting on literally the exact same argument that this can be explained by prenatal testosterone (which it can't). So which is it? Because he does say that women's biological differences make them less suited to s career in IT, despite you seeking to claim otherwise.
  • Tchuck and Argonaut like this

Dealux
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#73

Posted 06 August 2017 - 08:01 PM

Find me one peer reviewed academic study that concludes that women are intrinsically inferior at IT roles due to biological factors and I'll concede this. But I think you'll struggle because it's a patently ridiculous assertion.

I think it's far likelier that women are out of from IT roles because it's a boy's club with all the decorum and inclusiveness of an amateurs league football club dressing room. And that's coming from someone whose been working in the industry in one capacity or another for the best part of a decade.

Except that the Google engineer wasn't even making this point. You missed this part apparently:

"Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

And the guy in the article isn't denying that such sexism exists to some extent (it's in the intro of his post). It also seems that Google is taking steps to mitigate this and his issue is with the way they are doing it and not the fact that they want to do something about discrimination.
  • Sunrise Driver likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#74

Posted 06 August 2017 - 08:13 PM

Except that the Google engineer wasn't even making this point. You missed this part apparently:

The fact he even brings it up in the context of the deficit of woman in IT implies exactly that, though. Pretty much everyone acknowledges there are physiological, emotional and psychological differences between men and women; it's not really up for debate.

The issue is asserting, without evidence, that these factors are the likely drivers behind a lack of women wanting careers in IT whilst ignoring the far more blatant organisation factors that many women who work in the industry cite as the reason for a lack of participation. It's simply denialism.
  • Tchuck likes this

Dealux
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#75

Posted 06 August 2017 - 08:45 PM Edited by ΣΓ, 06 August 2017 - 08:46 PM.

Except that the Google engineer wasn't even making this point. You missed this part apparently:

The fact he even brings it up in the context of the deficit of woman in IT implies exactly that, though. Pretty much everyone acknowledges there are physiological, emotional and psychological differences between men and women; it's not really up for debate.

The issue is asserting, without evidence, that these factors are the likely drivers behind a lack of women wanting careers in IT whilst ignoring the far more blatant organisation factors that many women who work in the industry cite as the reason for a lack of participation. It's simply denialism.

No. If you were a journalist saying that about another public figure making these exact same points you'd be liable for slander. In fact the sort of logic you're employing basically encapsulates what is wrong with journalism today; it is the mechanism by which opposing viewpoints are routinely and intentionally misrepresented by journalists and politicians (especially on the left). It is perfectly fine to bring up facts in a discussion even if these facts are used by other people to prop up sexist worldviews. Facts are just facts. Maybe we should f*cking pay attention to what people are actually saying instead of assuming that where there's smoke there must be fire.

The lack of evidence is likely due to the fact that there is strong opposition to even discuss these differences (and those who attempt to do it end up being labeled in a nasty way). So it's basically a catch-22 situation. Who is going to fund a study that attempts to find out whether women are worse at handling stressful jobs for instance?

This stuff goes back to the wage gap and you pointed out a while ago that women don't get promoted as much as men because of the way promotions are set up (i.e. it's not based on qualifications, but rather on one's ability to negotiate or essentially "bullsh*t"). I'm not sure if you can make the case that this is intentionally set up to prevent women from getting more money. In an ideal world you would have companies giving more money to people who deserve it but companies are mostly driven by profit motives and they don't always have their employees' interests in mind. I mean it's more profitable to just not promote people until they ask for it. I'm not saying it's a good thing but I also don't see this as evidence of discrimination. If anything, women should just learn to lie like men do if that's what it takes. I mean that's the easiest solution.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#76

Posted 07 August 2017 - 06:18 AM

No. If you were a journalist saying that about another public figure making these exact same points you'd be liable for slander.

Not at all. It's a reasonable conclusion drawn from the context. He's discussing the lack of female participation in IT, and puts it down to the physiological differences between men and women. There's nothing slanderous or dishonest about my comments; I'm literally repeating what the author has said.

Ironic that on one hand you accuse "the left" of wishing to shut down conversation and refusal to engage, but the accuse me of slander when I simply repeat a comment made by the very source you cited. Perhaps you should learn to practice what you preach.

it is the mechanism by which opposing viewpoints are routinely and intentionally misrepresented by journalists and politicians


There's no misrepresentation taking place, though. He explicitly pinpoints differences in biological gender characteristics as a driver for limited female engagement in IT:

...Im simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we dont see equal representation of women in tech...

Do you think of the biological differences he cites have any impact on the ability of women in IT? Or for that matter impact on a woman's desire to work in the industry. I can't really see any that do.

So it's basically a catch-22 situation. Who is going to fund a study that attempts to find out whether women are worse at handling stressful jobs for instance?

You really don't understand how properly objective scientific studies work. You don't predefine a hypothesis out of thin air and then attempt to prove it, you set out a neutral question or reference an earlier piece of work and draw your hypothesis from the results.

This stuff goes back to the wage gap and you pointed out a while ago

This is one of the few areas that the author actually makes some good points on. He acknowledges that men are typically driven by status and women by outcome and collaboration. Even he seems to think that organisations should cultural change themselves to help account for these differences and ensure that proportion is done on competence rather than bravado, so why don't you think this is sensible?

Dealux
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#77

Posted 07 August 2017 - 02:57 PM Edited by ΣΓ, 07 August 2017 - 02:59 PM.

No. If you were a journalist saying that about another public figure making these exact same points you'd be liable for slander.

Not at all. It's a reasonable conclusion drawn from the context. He's discussing the lack of female participation in IT, and puts it down to the physiological differences between men and women. There's nothing slanderous or dishonest about my comments; I'm literally repeating what the author has said.

Ironic that on one hand you accuse "the left" of wishing to shut down conversation and refusal to engage, but the accuse me of slander when I simply repeat a comment made by the very source you cited. Perhaps you should learn to practice what you preach.

Do you think of the biological differences he cites have any impact on the ability of women in IT? Or for that matter impact on a woman's desire to work in the industry. I can't really see any that do.

You really don't understand how properly objective scientific studies work. You don't predefine a hypothesis out of thin air and then attempt to prove it, you set out a neutral question or reference an earlier piece of work and draw your hypothesis from the results.

This is one of the few areas that the author actually makes some good points on. He acknowledges that men are typically driven by status and women by outcome and collaboration. Even he seems to think that organisations should cultural change themselves to help account for these differences and ensure that proportion is done on competence rather than bravado, so why don't you think this is sensible?

Your post was a knee-jerk reaction given how you can't really point out any part of the text where he's actually saying that women are inferior. Saying that women are different is not the same as saying that they are inferior and studying these differences might actually matter if we want to make things better for them. Also, again, at no point was he defending the status of society in regards to these issues.

Except the part where you called him a "chauvinist and bigot". That is slander because it would be hard to point at any part of the text and draw the conclusion you're drawing.

To me it seemed like he was talking more about preferences rather than abilities. He's not specifically addressing any supposed lack of ability that women have that makes them less suited for IT. The only thing that comes close to that is the part where he said that women don't handle stressful situations as well as men due to higher levels of neuroticism and that's why they tend to avoid stressful jobs. I don't think he ever said that that makes them less suited for IT and I don't think it's reasonable to assume that he meant that given that he repeatedly said that he's not creating a defense for the way things are. His larger point basically boils down to "maybe being aware of these differences matters" because then you know what you're working with and that way you can make the required changes to give everyone a chance (as opposed to having gender\race specific hiring practices based on quotas which can potentially discriminate against other groups that are equally qualified).

I did a bit of research and apparently there are studies that address the neuroticism personality aspect, and yes women do appear to have a disadvantage here (but on the flipside they score higher in agreeableness, which most of the time is a very useful trait to have). However, even if this is true, it could also be true that women and men don't respond to all types of stressful situations the same way. I think my point was that there are some things that people don't want you to study like IQ differences which is a no-go area for a lot of people (especially on the left) but this factor might be relevant if you want to give everyone a fair chance. I mean you could invest more in education in certain areas where IQs are low instead of lowering the bar for hiring.

I kinda alluded to that but concluded that it would be easier for women to adapt to the male competition. I don't think anyone was making the point that they are not qualified because they're women. We're mostly talking about preferences and tendencies, so yeah, it would be nice if companies adapted in such a way to address these difference. But that was exactly the larger point the Google guy was making. Instead of having quotas that potentially lower the bar for hiring companies should be aware of these differences (and not outright ignore them) and adapt to them.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#78

Posted 07 August 2017 - 03:31 PM

Your post was a knee-jerk reaction given how you can't really point out any part of the text where he's actually saying that women are inferior.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Saying that women are less suited to IT work because of their biological disposition is doing exactly that. If you can't grasp that, it's a comprehension issue on your part.

Except the part where you called him a "chauvinist and bigot".

Both of which I've reasonably supported with evidence, namely his own comments.

To me it seemed like he was talking more about preferences rather than abilities.

In isolation that makes sense as a reading, but in the context of his detailed comments on the apparent fundamental physiological differences between men and women which are absolutely not preference based, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make.

He's not specifically addressing any supposed lack of ability that women have that makes them less suited for IT.

Except when he goes to great lengths to list a set of traits that he associated with women which he says make them less suited to IT and more suited to social type careers. This list is particularly laughable given that many of the common traits he ignores that are particularly useful in IT, such as analytical reasoning, are typically associated more strongly with women.

We're mostly talking about preferences and tendencies

He's not, though. He totally ignores the cultural and environmental drivers that push women away from a career in IT. If it were truly a case of preference, you'd expect to see similar levels of disparity in IT focused education but you simply don't. Men doing IT centric degree courses outnumber women, yes, but not by the 10 or 15 to one that is seen in many tech companies. That suggests it's not a lack of fundamental interest in the subject that results in lower levels if hiring but organisational factors.
  • Tchuck and Dealux like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#79

Posted 07 August 2017 - 10:34 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 08 August 2017 - 01:14 AM.

Find me one peer reviewed academic study that concludes that women are intrinsically inferior at IT roles due to biological factors and I'll concede this. But I think you'll struggle because it's a patently ridiculous assertion.

It is a ridiculous assertion, an assertion noone in this discussion has made. It's a strawman actually. The scientifically supported argument that hormones affect the development of play behaviour, interests, and cognitive tendencies related to sex, is thus an argument about interests, and not about 'intrinsic' abilities. Someone can be talented in something, but not be interested in developing it. But you intend to equate these things to create a strawman of male chauvinism. The person writing the google manifesto does mention ability, but ability is also distinct from talent. A reason for developing ability is interest, which varies on the basis of sex differences.

 

There are many studies on the effects of pre natal testosterone on sex differences. The idea that the difference in female and male interests is completely socially constructed has very little credibility. I'm open to the possibility that there are also differences in innate ability, and I would even say this seems to me likely, but harder to substantiate than the obvious differences in interests which affect development. There are reported differences in spatial and verbal ability of men and women, and the consensus seems to be that intelligence differences are generally at least partly genetic. The idea that IQ or intelligence differences are completely socially constructed is as implausible as the idea that gender is socially constructed. So the idea that the intelligence differences that are gender typical are completely socially constructed is implausible for multiple reasons.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/18633782

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4350266/

 

It's a perfectly credible explanation that the female tendency towards increased empathizing draws women towards work that involves working with people rather than things. This is also quite coherent with how hormonal differences have been noted to affect child play behaviour. It is interesting that Mexico has the highest ratio of women obtaining computer-science tertiary degrees, eventhough it seems to be a more traditional and less gender egalitarian culture than many Scandinavian countries where the percentage of women obtaining such a degree is lower. The reason women choose computer-science in Mexico more often is probably economical necessity. Countries with high equality of opportunity and material wealth show large disparities.

Women also tend to be more often multitalented than men. Studying 1490 people who had participated in a longitudinal study, the researchers found that "mathematically capable individuals who also had high verbal skills were less likely to pursue STEM careers than were individuals who had high math skills but moderate verbal skills." They emphasize this "notable" fact: "[T]he group with high math and high verbal ability included more females than males." The people who ended up in STEM fields tended to have "high math and moderate verbal abilities. http://www.sciencema...-women-out-stem

As the scientific articles pointed out, those with higher pre natal testosterone have a stronger tendency towards systematizing. It seems to me likely that such an increased male cognitive tendency to obsess and systematize can be related to the fact that males more often have a one sided intelligence profile, and women are more often multitalented.

Women and men have the same average IQ, though the male standard deviation is larger. There are more male morons, and more male geniuses. Whether that is caused by biology or socialization is not clear. But you could speculate that the increased female tendency to empathize and be social might push women more to the mean in terms of ability.
 

I don't see him presenting any real evidence, or even a coherent argument, in support of any of these. 

I would like to point to the lack of evidence on the part of the social constructionist thesis. Social constructionism is dogma on the basis of leftist ideology. Noone has as of yet explained how the differences in gendered behaviour originate completely out of learned behaviour. And that is probably because it is completely wrong.
 

There's a difference between feeling like your voice is excluded and your views suppressed because they don't tally with wider organisational values, and actively having your views suppressed or being discriminated against. And my suggestion is most of his grievances boil down to the former, not the latter.

Those seem rather synonymous.
 

I think it's far likelier that women are out of from IT roles because it's a boy's club with all the decorum and inclusiveness of an amateurs league football club dressing room. And that's coming from someone whose been working in the industry in one capacity or another for the best part of a decade. 

The thesis that women will be discouraged to do certain work if it means they have to work in a completely male dominated space is actually pretty credible and likely to be true. But it is not likely or credible that it is the sole reason for disparities.
 

Commenting that someone comes across as chauvinistic and bigoted isn't an attempt to end a dialogue

It is. It is a moral condemnation. You are condemning the intent of the person writing the manifesto as hateful, which relieves you of engaging with the content of what he is saying.
 

Is calling a spade a spade currently objectional to you? Ironic.

Now you are sounding like Diablo.
 

 Pretty much everyone acknowledges there are physiological, emotional and psychological differences between men and women; it's not really up for debate. 

"There are physiological, emotional and psychological differences between men and women" and "gender is a social construct" are conflicting arguments.
 

Even he seems to think that organisations should cultural change themselves to help account for these differences and ensure that proportion is done on competence rather than bravado, so why don't you think this is sensible?

Negotiating is a valuable skill that will often lead to reward. The idea that we can restructure the economy to the point that the increased negotiating skills of males become irrelevant is incredibly naive.

And at the same time, being equally competent but willing to work for less can actually be a competitive advantage for women. That would lead to employers hiring more women. So being agreeable can give you a competitive advantage. Women being willing to work for less can also suppress the wages of the males competing with them. It's kind of interesting how feminists never really think that through.

 

analytical reasoning, are typically associated more strongly with women.

There is research indicating that women perform better at some aspects of verbal intelligence, but that 'women are more strongly associated with increased analytical reasoning' is a very dubious claim. Spatial ability is an aspect of analytical reasoning, where men have increased ability compared to women.

 

Who is going to fund a study that attempts to find out whether women are worse at handling stressful jobs for instance?

Those studies already exist. Personality differences between men and women are well researched. Women score higher on neuroticism, and that could explain why women could be less often employed in stressful jobs (I don't know whether they are). But 'stressful job' is probably hard to empirically substantiate. It would require a lot of questionnaires.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#80

Posted 08 August 2017 - 07:52 AM

A reason for developing ability is interest, which varies on the basis of sex differences.

As I've already pointed out, the disparity in employment in the tech industry is not reflected in relevant educational studies to anything like the same degree. A substantially higher proportion of women studying IT or computer forensics than actually being employed in the industry doesn't really suggest a lack of interest, does it? Talk of "differing interests" in this context is clearly a red herring; the problems tech companies have in recruiting and retaining women are organisational.
 

I would like to point to the lack of evidence on the part of the social constructionist thesis.

I would like to point out this is a tu quoque fallacy.l, because I've neither mentioned nor alluded to social constructs. And even if I had, it wouldn't be in the absolutist, black-and-white terms you seem only to address the subject in under the mistaken belief that acknowledging one somehow invalidates the other.

Those seem rather synonymous.

Not really. Someone suffering from persecutory delusions isn't evidence of them being persecuted. Feeling like you can't speak your mind because of a cultural disparity between your own views and a wider organisation's is a subjective, personal, emotional reaction, not a logical evaluation.


But it is not likely or credible that it is the sole reason for disparities.

On what basis are you making this assertion? I've already highlighted the disparity between the number of women studying IT and related subjects at an undergraduate or postgraduate level and the numbers employed in the industry. I would remark, as I already have (and which again you decided to quietly reinterpreted as absolutes) this is a strong indicator of organisational causes being the primary driver. I never once claimed it was unequivocally an exclusive one.

Now you are sounding like Diablo.

That doesn't really answer the question, though. Is voicing my view that someone's comments are bigoted and chauvinistic actually objectionable, or are you simply taking an issue with this characterisation because you don't agree? The latter is fine, but don't pretend it's the former to try and imply some kind of moral superiority. You spend half your time on this forum throwing insults at ghostly "leftist" apparitions so let's not pretend you have any issues with calling a spade (or at least what you think looks like a spade) a spade.

"There are physiological, emotional and psychological differences between men and women" and "gender is a social construct" are conflicting arguments.

Er, no they're not. The fact there are psyiological and emotional differences between men and women does not preclude gender from being a primarily social construct. But yet again this is a straw man because I've nit made any statements up til this point about gender being a social construct, and I have never suggested or implied it is entirely one at all.

Negotiating is a valuable skill that will often lead to reward.

Negotiation and mediation are fundamentally the same thing. In both instances you take two or more disparate positions and condense them into a happy medium that all involved parties find agreeable. The issue isn't one of skill or willingness; by your own admission women are empathetic and therefore apparently well suited to mediation. The issues are cultural and organisational.

Spatial ability is an aspect of analytical reasoning

Not really.
  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#81

Posted 08 August 2017 - 03:19 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 08 August 2017 - 04:12 PM.

As I've already pointed out, the disparity in employment in the tech industry is not reflected in relevant educational studies to anything like the same degree. A substantially higher proportion of women studying IT or computer forensics than actually being employed in the industry doesn't really suggest a lack of interest, does it? Talk of "differing interests" in this context is clearly a red herring; the problems tech companies have in recruiting and retaining women are organisational.

You've proven none of that though. The percentage of women acquiring a computer-science tertiary in the United States is slightly over 20%. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/there-are-only-3-countries-where-girls-feel-more-comfortable-with-math-than-boys/284272/  18% of technology jobs are held by women, Google said 21% of the workers it hired for technology jobs last year were women. https://www.theguard...e-and-asian-men

So your point that the disparity is far larger than in the relevant educational background is not true. It's almost exactly the same percentage. I already pointed out, I agree that the fact that it is a male dominated space likely disgourages more women, so it isn't unlikely to me google is already practicing affirmative action. So what we can conclude is that therefore the entire point about innate differences between men and women as made in the manifesto and elaborated upon by me stands completely, and is likely a driver of the disparities.

Oh, btw, just found out the guy who wrote the memo was fired. The media tend to agree with sivispacem that it was fair because he was a chauvinist, sexist, misogynist, womanhating bigot.

Also, I would like to correct my point on the previous page that women were happier in the 1950's. It turns out to be the 1970's.

  • Khephera likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#82

Posted 08 August 2017 - 04:19 PM

You've proven none of that though. The percentage of women acquiring a computer-science tertiary in the United States is slightly over 20%.

18% of technology jobs are held by women, Google said 21% of the workers it hired for technology jobs last year were women

Google is an exception in the sphere in that it commonly hires far more women that comparable firms. When taken across the wider industry, the difference is stark.

In 2014, 13% of computer science graduates in the UK were women according to UCAS, the body which is responsible for monitoring higher education applications in the UK.

In the following year, the Institute for Engineering and Technology put the proportion of female IT and computing engineers at three percent.

http://www.computerw...lining-3621040/

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#83

Posted 08 August 2017 - 04:41 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 08 August 2017 - 05:58 PM.

Negotiation and mediation are fundamentally the same thing. In both instances you take two or more disparate positions and condense them into a happy medium that all involved parties find agreeable. The issue isn't one of skill or willingness; by your own admission women are empathetic and therefore apparently well suited to mediation. The issues are cultural and organisational.

I forgot responding to this. What I meant by saying that men are better negotiators, is that men are probably tougher negotiators for a raise or a promotion, because men are less agreeable than women. Women being more agreeable, probably work better in teams than men though.
 

Google is an exception in the sphere in that it commonly hires far more women that comparable firms. When taken across the wider industry, the difference is stark.

Probably a lot of women with IT degrees eventually decide to do different work, because they don't enjoy working in a group of 80 to 90 percent men. And then that can escalate to the point that it is a group of 97% men.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#84

Posted 08 August 2017 - 05:29 PM

Probably a lot of women with IT degrees eventually decide to do different work, because they don't enjoy working in a group of 80 to 90 percent men.

And why do you think that might be? Clue- the culture that an organisation that's disproportionately one gender typically fosters.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#85

Posted 08 August 2017 - 06:14 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 08 August 2017 - 06:33 PM.

Yeah, I've agreed with that all along actually. On the one hand there is interesting research indicating the differences between men and women concerning the type of interests or ambitions they have have innate origins. On the other hand, it is not just in the workplace where women opt out of IT due to it being a male dominated space. It is also in education itself probably. We can only speculate whether innate differences or social context are a more powerful cause. But it's problematic when it becomes taboo to point out the innate differences possibly causing the different outcomes. It's problematic when people are only allowed to think all differences in outcome are due to discrimination in society, because that is certainly a very dubious and probably untrue claim.

 

And apart from that, affirmative action programs should definitely be able to be scrutinized. There are many legitimate arguments against such practices. Diversity is laudable and worthy of pursuing, but when women themselves routinely opt out of studying and working IT, because it is almost inevitable that they'll work in a male dominated space, and because their interests are different, then that is a tough issue to solve. When some large companies start sacrificing competence to pursue diversity and equality of outcome, that can be problematic. And it should be open to discussion whether that is a good idea. It's actually questionable whether such discrimination on the basis of sex and race is or should be even legal.


Dealux
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#86

Posted 08 August 2017 - 07:30 PM Edited by ΣΓ, 08 August 2017 - 07:53 PM.

Your post was a knee-jerk reaction given how you can't really point out any part of the text where he's actually saying that women are inferior.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Saying that women are less suited to IT work because of their biological disposition is doing exactly that. If you can't grasp that, it's a comprehension issue on your part.

To me it seemed like he was talking more about preferences rather than abilities.

In isolation that makes sense as a reading, but in the context of his detailed comments on the apparent fundamental physiological differences between men and women which are absolutely not preference based, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make.

He's not specifically addressing any supposed lack of ability that women have that makes them less suited for IT.

Except when he goes to great lengths to list a set of traits that he associated with women which he says make them less suited to IT and more suited to social type careers. This list is particularly laughable given that many of the common traits he ignores that are particularly useful in IT, such as analytical reasoning, are typically associated more strongly with women.

We're mostly talking about preferences and tendencies

He's not, though. He totally ignores the cultural and environmental drivers that push women away from a career in IT. If it were truly a case of preference, you'd expect to see similar levels of disparity in IT focused education but you simply don't. Men doing IT centric degree courses outnumber women, yes, but not by the 10 or 15 to one that is seen in many tech companies. That suggests it's not a lack of fundamental interest in the subject that results in lower levels of hiring but organisational factors.

But floating the idea that women simply might not chose to enter this particular field due to these differences is not in itself sexist. It's illogical to assume that it is given that he's at no point making the case that women can't do these jobs. He's still talking about choices. Not whether women qualify or not. Even if he's wrong about some of the points he brings up it doesn't make him sexist by default. He's not saying that women shouldn't be in IT.

What's not preference based? Sex traits? Who even said that? He's saying that women chose different things based on these differences. That's basically his only point.

But that is not sexist either. There's a long way going from "less suited" to "incapable". There are probably jobs that men, on average, are less suited to do than women. Is saying that also sexist? Or do we have these types of knee-jerk reactions whenever something like that is said about women? The point is that he can be wrong about that or in other words ill-informed but that doesn't make him a bigot since he's not making the case at all that women shouldn't be in IT.

That's a good point actually. One that he's probably not aware of. I would have preferred a response like that from people instead of the usual reactions you get for stuff like this.

Edit: It's not so much that he's ignoring those things. He does admit that discrimination exists in these places but rather than focusing on that which everyone (including Google) does all the time, he wanted to address the things that are ignored. Not only ignored, but are no-go areas for a lot of people that prefer to pretend that everyone is perfectly equal.

Edit 2: I found a perfectly reasonable "takedown" of the memo by several scientists (oh, and they didn't react negatively to it at all): https://web.archive....ntists-respond/

It's an archive link since the main site is down for some reason.
  • Eutyphro likes this

fast and bulbous squid
  • fast and bulbous squid

    you can call me... SUPERLIGHTDUSKMASTER99

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2015
  • None
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#87

Posted 08 August 2017 - 09:31 PM Edited by Small Moist, 08 August 2017 - 09:32 PM.

My main problem with MRAs is that they often look at the world from a one-sided perspective. I can't necessarily blame them for that, as that would be hypocritical - I fell into the anti-feminism camp for a while myself, and I am a strong believer that people are a product of their environment. Just like African Americans are more likely to live violent lifestyles due to decades of oppression that have left their communities in shambles, guys on the internet are more likely to have one-sided views regarding sex because they hang out in online spaces that are predominately male with similar points of view - an echo chamber, if you will.

As such they tend to either
A: Overreact to radical feminists and act like they are more common then they actually are, or
B: Claim that actually reasonable arguments by feminists are insane because they're looking at things as relatively sheltered males who don't have to deal with the problems some other people do.

After looking at things from a bipartisan perspective, it became pretty clear to me that there's LOTS of anti-feminists that make some ridiculous claims and have viewpoints that are very close-minded. Yes, even more so than the oh so crazy feminists they rail against.

So I don't necessarily hate MRAs and anti-feminists, I'm just frustrated by them.

Dealux
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#88

Posted 08 August 2017 - 09:40 PM

But both sides are largely one-sided, at least on the internet. Feminists tend to be social constructivists (to the point where they deny basic concepts like sexual dimorphism) and the other side has a tendency to over emphasize biological differences or often times call them just or something. I've been on both sides somewhat but I think these movements are mostly obsolete now. I'd rather just be a guy with opinions than someone full of labels.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#89

Posted 08 August 2017 - 09:49 PM

I think generally MRA's in terms of how they view society and human nature have a far more balanced and realistic view than radfems. Radfems really live in a completely delusional fantasy world of bullsh*t that is reinforced through what the mainstream tells them. They are also a far larger group than MRA's. MRA's generally don't want to pretend men are complete victims, whereas almost any feminist will pretend women are. Most MRA's simply want to correct the popular dogma and point to some disadvantages in terms of alimony and reproductive rights of men. The main issue for me are the men who have become misogynist through negative experiences with women, and who are completely bitter. That's an increasing 'MRA' group. The MGTOW, or as I would call it, 'men removing themselves from the gene pool'.

  • Khephera likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#90

Posted 09 August 2017 - 07:10 AM

There are literally a few thousand radical feminists world wide. It is the smallest social movement in our society. You probably get the impression that MRAs are a smaller community because they are useless at organising, and so have zero policy victories under their belt. 

 

 

 

The main issue for me are the men who have become misogynist through negative experiences with women, and who are completely bitter.

Yeah that is a big issue for you. I would suggest making female friends. I mean, you have no articulated views you just like to point to studies about brain differences and then pretend feminists all deny their existence. In actuality, they just don't care, because it is painfully obvious to anyone that knows what a human being is, that pre-natal testosterone and a lack thereof doesn't form the basis of our social structure. 

 

You also don't seem to understand what it is nurses and psychologists do. They do not kiss you on the forehead, they are basically less-qualified doctors and lifestyle analysts respectively. Social intelligence does not help in either profession, at least not anymore than it hinders you, same as teaching. Teachers spend more time disciplining students than coddling them. And that's not even mentioning jobs that are dominated by women for seemingly no reason. Editors are always women, same as the mounted police. Speaking of the police, women are better represented on the NSW police force than at Google. Make of that what you will.  

  • Tchuck likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users