@SlamPow
Nice way to make a spam post, quote a really long post for no purpose and then basically go "this bunch of links says I'm right". You do not seem to get the point of citations. Perhaps try to refer to something from the material you are citing?
Oh well, lets have a look then
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/sexist-workplace_n_2718249.htmlHow hillarious, besides not bothering to make any specific points based on your citations, your first citation is to another list of citations, most of which are feminist "researchers" looking at data and concluding everything is sexism. Wage gap, CEO positions, the same tired old nonsense.
Just the fact that the first thing you decided to cite was the huffington post says it all really.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...g-of-diplomacy/Ok, not a lot of women are ambassadors. Did you notice how this link doesn't investigate the cause, just the number of women serving as ambassadors? Do you understand how that does not support your claim that its sexism?
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR2015/cover.pdfOh, this 387 page PDF proves your point does it? Care to elaborate how? Did you read it? What pages are you refering to? Are you asking everyone here to read this 387 page report in order to disagree with your point? Jeez, how disingenuous can you get?
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088931Now you want me to watch some documentary about women in politics?
How about you try making a point instead. Instead of trying to copy paste others to compliance, try focusing on the basics of debating.
https://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171515760You are linking to some commisioners speech to prove your points about sexism? Are you even for real? It is very cute, I'll give you that. Remember the thing I said about focusing on the basics of debating? Consider this a second recommendation.
http://www.alternet.org/books/why-it-sti...infully-obviousYou found a blog by someone complaining that sexism is hard to prove despite the authors really stong feeling that its super obvious that women are oppressed? Oh mate, you are just priceless!
Checking your links is like reading dragon ball. As fights and special attacks get more and more exaggerated you think they could not possibly top this. But here you are, finding increasingly hillariously flawed reasons to support your point. Sorry but the wage gap is a myth.
There is a gap in average income, but its not caused by sexism. Try again.
https://hbr.org/2014/10/hacking-techs-diversity-problemNice one. Here is a fun citation from your citation:
"Organizations need to find out how, if at all, these four patterns affect women’s careers internally."
The very fact that they uncritically frame it as a problem that an industry does not have a 50/50 male female workforce is kind of telling. Why is it inherently a problem if men and women are not equally interested in the same things?
And I do find it interesting that these people interested in "representation" only ever seem concerned with representation in high status jobs. Why do we never see this kind of article about sewage workers, or the lumber industry, or why we have so few fisherwomen working alongside the fishermen?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/...f3f5_story.htmlOmg, yet again you are citing increasingly hillarious things. Allow me to simply quote the headline of your cicted article:
"At NIH, one woman says gender bias has blocked promotions"
O my! One woman says there is gender bias, quick! Someone call Emma Watson! No wait, call the new ghost busters! They should be able to catch this elusive patriarchy slithering its tentacles into everything.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/09/27/lean-in-study-women-in-the-workplace/91157026/Yet again, allow me to cite your citation back at you:
"There is an ambition gap, according to the study, which found that 80% of men desire a promotion, compared to 74% for women. Overall, 56% of men say they aspire to become a top executive. By contrast, some 40% of women do desire the same goal."
I think I se one of many possible contributing factors for why fewer women might become CEOs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spea...le-study-finds/Oh another article by an opinionated journalist. Its funny how you like to cite this particular type of "evidence". Dies it match your serachwords easier than other material since it usually has some sort of splashy title about how evil and ever present sexism is?
Oh by the way, can you comment on the aparant representation disparity in your cited material? I can't help notice that whenever you cite a news article or blog, the writer tends to be a woman. According to your logic, that has to be because you are sexist, right?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...favoritism.htmlAnother woman blogging thinks men are sexist pigs, well color me suprised. If we examine her academic credentials how likely do you think it is we would find a gender studies degree in there somewhere?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/uno...why-it-matters/Finally you actually cite some research. Well, you cited an article written about the research, but still. So a group of scientists have measured that both men and women display some bias when rating the hierability of an aplicant in their field.
First of all why did you not lead with this? Why are you citing speeches and blogs and all manner of crap before you even try citing something serious? Are you under the impression that whoever has the most random citations "wins"? Sorry but that's not how it works.
But good job about finally getting to an actual citation from a study that actually atempts to look at the possible causes behind gender disparities in the workplace.
You still have a long long way to go befoire you can point to this study and claim it explains everything. Among other things you have in the above cited stuff shown that men and women have differing attitudes towards striving for high positions.
With all your copy pasting you managed to produce one credible source that might actually point towards a mechanism that could be causing a gender representation disparity and that could be considered sexist. Then again you also produced evidence of a mechanism that shows women applying their free will leading to fewer women in leadership.
As for the finding of hierability by gender, what the study showed was a bias (equally found in both men and women) towards who they would hire. This still does not prove the cause was sexism. It could be a bias based on differences in how men and women behave in the work place.
One of them for example is more likely to take an extended period of parental leave.
That could affect how desierable someone is for hire.
Anyway you really need to figure out how this discuission thing works. To begin with this is a forum about a video game alpha, so if you really desire an academic debate I suggest you search for the correfct forum. Before you do that however you still need to work on how to actually debate. Spaming links to huffington post articles will make people laugh at you just as much as on a video game forum.
Finally you might want tp practice your reading comprehension skills as I have indeed given you citations when relevant.
So in short, try to learn when it fills any function to quote a post or when to simply reply.
Learn to make relevant citations. Link spaming is not being serious, and if you seriously don't understand what you're doing wrong when you throw a book at someone and go "read this, it says I'm right and you are wrong", well... if ytou really don't understand that I just feel sorry for you.
