Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Texas
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Texas
Do you know why I'm not being serious? Why I don't care? Why I'm not even going to bother explaining these things to you? It's because I feel bad about arguing with you. I find you overly inarticulate, misinformed, and unable to comprehend basic information. Demonstrably so. I'm not looking for scholarly debate; I'm looking to change one person's mind, and I did that. I linked you information because you asked for it. I didn't analyze it because I felt that the data speaks for itself. But, apparently you don't feel that's good enough. Let's see why.

Originally Posted by Skallewag
Oh another article by an opinionated journalist.


You really think the Huffington Post isn't a reputable source?

Originally Posted by Skallewag
O my! One woman says there is gender bias, quick! Someone call Emma Watson!


Uh huh. Not even going to address this.

Originally Posted by Skallewag
Oh, this 387 page PDF proves your point does it?


Actually, it is the most informative thing I linked, and only one page is relevant. Page 357.

Originally Posted by Skallewag
How hillarious, besides not bothering to make any specific points based on your citations, your first citation is to another list of citations,


Really? I did that intentionally, for your benefit, so you could do further reading if you were interested.

You see? Most of your posts fail to understand the basic tenants of credibility, to explain anything, or to add to the discussion. They are filled with hot air. They are condescending. Dismissive. Hell, I bit the bullet and gave you actual evidence, and you aren't even reading it. I'm not going to explain why "More than a third (34.1%) of scientists surveyed reported feeling pressure to play a traditionally feminine role" is a problem. Because I shouldn't have to. It's reading comprehension on a kindergarten level. I'm not going to try to convince you that women comprising 2/5ths the population of men in STEM is what we're dealing with, that men are 30% more likely to be managers is a problem, that 10% of people on boards of studied companies are women should be recognized as an issue. because the data speaks for itself.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, because at this point, I feel like either you must be trolling me, or so bad at listening/debating/trying to make a point that I feel bad for you. I literally cannot find a single substantial statement in anything you've said. I mean, just look at this.

Originally Posted by Skallewag
No, there is not a general trend of discrimination against women in the workplace anymore, it has been made largely illegal


And I linked you a whole article that disproves this. And what did you say about it?

Originally Posted by Skallewag
You 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?


That "someone complaining" has a law degree, more than 10 years of experience in the business world, and if you read the rest of the book that this is an excerpt from (under the bus, and yes, I've read it), it has a whole host of firsthand accounts and examples. But you don't mention this. You dismiss it.

And again, you say things like

Originally Posted by Skallewag
One of them for example is more likely to take an extended period of parental leave.


Which is an inherently sexist statement. I don't even need to debate this - women sometimes get paid maternity leave. Men rarely do. This doesn't even affect hireability, since both are equally likely to be parents.

But here's the real gem.

Originally Posted by Skallewag
With all your copy pasting you managed to produce one credible source


Harvard. SEC. Slate. USAtoday. Scientific American. All incredible? Do you know what the meaning of that word is? Do you know anything about these sources at all?

I almost feel like I'm wasting my breath, because I have never in my life met someone who dismisses hard evidence, who doesn't even read something they asked for, and who says a scientific blog is just whinging. Either you are really bad at trolling, really bad at debating, or just so uninformed - willfully so, if your inability to take anything away from those sources is any indication - that I almost have moral objections to debating you, because even when you bring sources into the debate, it's literally too easy for me to even feel good about talking about them. You even fail to grasp even the most basic principles of what constitutes gender inequality. I can prove this, because you cited a source saying that women make up a minority of applicants - a clear indicator that there is a problem - and then blame women themselves. No analysis of "why". No attempt to understand. But if you look through my links again, you'll see why this is the case - because women feel discouraged from applying. See? Ten seconds of googling completely shatters any of your logic, and a basic analysis of your points show that you rely on condescension and personal attacks against the credibility of the articles to dismiss them, without providing any proof or explanation as to why they're not credible. It's not even arguing at this point. I don't feel that your points are strong enough to constitute an attempt at discussion.

Last edited by SlamPow; 05/10/16 12:51 PM. Reason: Made the tone more respectful.
Joined: Dec 2009
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2009
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Games are fantasy worlds and they have nothing to do with reality.

Actually they do, they are part of culture and experience. And if in all or most the experiences you get as you grow up women are shown as sexualized no-brain, it has an impact on the way you see and asses other people intelligence (or your own).

No game or movie or book will do that by itself, but multiply it by thousands of those, everyday, and in the end the message seeps in.
That's simple opinion manipulation.

Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
Or it is simply displaying a backward world where they are less evolved in society stuff.

Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
@SlamPow
I don't know about everything else but the huffington post is questionable in their bias

And gender disparity in population doesn't indicate a problem in and of itself. That's like saying there are more female than male nurses and thus a problem. If follows that if there are more women than there are more men in higher positions. On the nurse thing:sometimes gender disparity simply comes from natural inclinations of the sexes. Just like there are more left voters as teachers and right voters as military.

Also, anecdotal and/or perceivied evidence from any one individual, no matter their education or experience, is always questionable. Highly so. Some of the most intelligent people I know would disagree on issues such as this and racism and well even be looking at the same scenario and data. Interpretation and perception influence critical analysis as the brain tries to validity emotional logic with rational or to prove a rationalization given a pre emotive assumption or previously accepted data point that will influence the person. In this case, if an individual feels strongly about sexism and accepts the idea tht sexism is still a large issue before encountering a given scenario than they are much more liable to then find reasons to validate the previous feelings or thoughts. That's why no one person can be an acceptable source of information, especially when they can't prove something beyond a shadow of doubt when confronted with opposing views and/or when they're points largely rely on personal anecdotes and inferences. Furthermore, given certain large topics such as sexism it's quite easy to find a large following of people that'll coraborate a given inference and view. I can find a lot of people that'd be able to give first hand accounts on how whites are overlooked for others of color, that blacks are the direct cause for most issues in their communities, or that their life experiences have shown them that giving money/charity always ended in futility: does this prove that there's something happening to look into? Sure. Does it prove that they're right? Not really. Just indicates there's data to be gotten. At which point more data my shed light onto an issue to say that the person didn't know something, wasn't aware of something, overlooked something, or even misinterpreted something.

Which is why I don't give much account to personal anecdotes in and if themselves as indicative of anything of a larger scale. Our population is so big that even if they're rift it they're individual cases, they'd still be a drop in the bucket. Making the data stastically insignificant for the whole.

As for maternity leave -> I don't see that as sexist but as a realistic cost and benefits analysis of why you'd hire one person and not the other. Females will always be ones who carry the child, thus they'll always be the ones leaving for maternity if it pops up on the job. I've actually discussed this at length with people in my apartment, two of them women. I don't and can't consider it wrong to judge an individual on their biology and how that might effect the bottom line of a company. It's like not hiring people with certain medical histories or such and such in the military or government whether as a whole or for specific positions. It's not an "unjust" prejudice; just an acknowledgment of gender and there differences. As for men vs women for maternity leave and how they're treateddifferently. It's a very large grey area since you can't rightly directly compare the two and most of it lies in morality and individual case by case basis. You can't/should t be able to enforce a company to be nice in a legal sense.

Im just following along y'all conversation. By the by, ;p so much easier to but in when I'm not the one needing to prove something on either side and both of y'all comment on each other's data and your own such that it's easy to follow along.

Also, the personal accounts of the women on these forums have actually refused the premise the the industry they work in, STEM, is sexist. Which is on direct contrast to things it seems your data and experience say. Funny thing is there's also data supporting both sides and lots of women that te different stories. Interestingly though, is not sure if this is provable but it might be that most critically analysis of Stem sexism and the bows and whys come from those outside the industry. Not to say it doesn't exist at all; when imply there's no sexism I imply that issue isn't nearly as serious of some would have others believe. This in the context of present day discussion of it.

Edit: typing on phone so sorry for the grammar and stuff in some cases

Last edited by aj0413; 05/10/16 02:37 PM.
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
This has 5 pages.

Thats what ive been talking about.

They just never run out of steam do they?
Thats the problem with crusading ideologues. So convinced that they are doing the good deed that it consumes them. I just dont have the time to respond to every single one of those annoying threads that all have the same nonsensical goal: Remove a piece of content that is deemed inapropriate for ideological reasons. The reasons of course seem to change every threa.
One time its sexism then its realism then its "integrity" and then its about women again.


Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by aj0413
I don't know about everything else but the huffington post is questionable in their bias

To be fair, I'd extend that criticism to anything that publishes news, at least here in the UK. It's not a matter of whether or how much they're biased, but in which particular direction. Which isn't a dig at Mr Pow at all, just someone who's become weary of the, er, "special" reliability of the news. It's probably just something that happens when one reaches a certain age. Or a certain degree of cynicism, as I suspect a lot of people arrive at that conclusion in less time than it took me.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by aj0413
I don't know about everything else but the huffington post is questionable in their bias

To be fair, I'd extend that criticism to anything that publishes news, at least here in the UK. It's not a matter of whether or how much they're biased, but in which particular direction. Which isn't a dig at Mr Pow at all, just someone who's become weary of the, er, "special" reliability of the news. It's probably just something that happens when one reaches a certain age. Or a certain degree of cynicism, as I suspect a lot of people arrive at that conclusion in less time than it took me.


Oh that's very true lol it's why I don't really bother with the news anymore -_- Everyone is pushing their own agenda. It's just not worth wading through and filtering it all

Edit: and I don't know about the rest of U.K. but here in the states? Politics and nearly everything about it seems like a circus. It's like everyone slowly lost their marbles this year and than it hit critical mass @_@

Last edited by aj0413; 05/10/16 02:33 PM.
Joined: Dec 2012
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2012
Why I love Larian:

"Politician talent: Gain +2 in charisma and loose +2 in intelligence"

Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Texas
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Texas
I see what you are saying.

So let's leave out the huffington post articles and the scientific blogs. Let's look at studies like this one:

http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/motherhoodpenalty.pdf

A quote from the HBR link summarizes this nicely: "The subjects received identical résumés, but the candidate who was a mother varied. The researchers found that mothers were 79% less likely to be hired, half as likely to be promoted, offered an average of $11,000 less in salary, and held to higher performance and punctuality standards."

Even barring the maternity leave, why should this have long-lasting ramifications on her career? Is it assumed that the mother will be the one caring for the children? Because that is the definition of sexism, and patently false:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/06/05/growing-number-of-dads-home-with-the-kids/

While you think about that, I'll analyze this:

Originally Posted by aj0413
As for maternity leave -> I don't see that as sexist but as a realistic cost and benefits analysis of why you'd hire one person and not the other. Females will always be ones who carry the child, thus they'll always be the ones leaving for maternity if it pops up on the job. I've actually discussed this at length with people in my apartment, two of them women. I don't and can't consider it wrong to judge an individual on their biology and how that might effect the bottom line of a company. It's like not hiring people with certain medical histories or such and such in the military or government whether as a whole or for specific positions. It's not an "unjust" prejudice; just an acknowledgment of gender and there differences. As for men vs women for maternity leave and how they're treateddifferently. It's a very large grey area since you can't rightly directly compare the two and most of it lies in morality and individual case by case basis. You can't/should t be able to enforce a company to be nice in a legal sense.


Again with the personal anecdotes, but out of the three mothers I've known who have given birth on the job, only one of them took maternity leave. The fact that men often take paternity leave is demonstrable, too:

https://www.dol.gov/asp/policy-development/paternityBrief.pdf

So, this logic is invalid, since paternity leave is equally as likely to be taken as maternity leave.

Also,

Originally Posted by aj0413
Also, the personal accounts of the women on these forums have actually refused the premise the the industry they work in, STEM, is sexist.


Please direct me to one of the posts where a woman in STEM has rejected the premise.

Last edited by SlamPow; 05/10/16 02:47 PM.
Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Just ask Lady V and Elwyn above if you want. They're who I'm referring to. One made a post on being reasearcjer and the other working in IT. In both cases it seemed apparent that sexism wasn't within the workplace.

And I wouldn't call the logic invalid. Not all women take maternity leave and obviously some men will. You can't even really expect to know how someone will react so basing it off gender and biology isn't that bad. To me, it's an issue that should be clarified before employment begins. That way all parties are clear on what's expected instead of assumptions on either end. And if someone doesn't like options presented than they can just not sign the dotted line.

And I'd imagine that mothers are treated that way, because they have a child and thus can't be trusted to be as reliable or willing to work as much as a non parent. Then you throw in the maternity leave possibility and stuff and they become an undesirable employee. In the same vain, fathers are less desirable than a non parent. And then there's always age to take into account.

There's a lot going on there in the equation; not some unjust prejudice. Just people more concerned about their wallets than their employees

Edit: I do think most parents would want to take maternity leave if it was a viable option without upsetting their lives

Edit: curse big thumbs and iphone typing

Last edited by aj0413; 05/10/16 03:16 PM.
Joined: Dec 2012
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2012
Originally Posted by SlamPow


Please direct me to one of the posts where a woman in STEM has rejected the premise.


I work in STEM and out of my personal experience (I do not claim here that my personal example is universally valid), the sexism issue in my working environment is absolutely a non-existing issue.

Last edited by Elwyn; 05/10/16 03:12 PM.
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Texas
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Texas
Okay, it seems that they believe discrimination to be a non-issue. My bad. However,

Originally Posted by aj0413
And I'd imagine that mothers are treated that way, because they have a child and thus can't be trusted to be as reliable or willing to work as much as a non parent. Then you throw in the maternity leave possibility and stuff and they become an undesirable employee. In the same vain, fathers are less desirable than a non parent. And then there's always age to take into account.


The study clearly shows that fathers do not have the same problem mothers do, not even ones that take paternity leave. How is that not the definition of discrimination, and therefore sexism? Also,

Originally Posted by aj0413
You can't even really expect to know how someone will react so basing it off gender and biology isn't that bad..


But this is the absolute, by-the-book definition of sexism. There is nothing more sexist than making a clear distinction between the capabilities of men and women in the workplace based on gender.

Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by SlamPow
Okay, it seems that they believe discrimination to be a non-issue. My bad. However,

Originally Posted by aj0413
And I'd imagine that mothers are treated that way, because they have a child and thus can't be trusted to be as reliable or willing to work as much as a non parent. Then you throw in the maternity leave possibility and stuff and they become an undesirable employee. In the same vain, fathers are less desirable than a non parent. And then there's always age to take into account.


The study clearly shows that fathers do not have the same problem mothers do, not even ones that take paternity leave. How is that not the definition of discrimination, and therefore sexism? Also,

Originally Posted by aj0413
You can't even really expect to know how someone will react so basing it off gender and biology isn't that bad..


But this is the absolute, by-the-book definition of sexism. There is nothing more sexist than making a clear distinction between the capabilities of men and women in the workplace based on gender.


Let's clarify sexism -> "unjust" prejudice or distinction

Distinction itself is okay. What you're arguing here is if it's "unjust" in the case of maternity leave

And I'm honestly just taking your word for whatever study says :P I don't think you'd lie. I'm not actually reading the links ya know?

If you say the study says that fathers (even ones taking maternity) leave aren't treated same as moms. Then consider a list of less desirable qualities:
Can get pregnant
Might take maternity leave
Age
Personal responsibilities ex parent
Medical history

Given this it seems to me a mom would match to more than a guy.

Now if your data or data you have says that even when it's clear that a woman won't get preganant again and both her and the father plan for maternity leave (and that statistics show both are as likely to take it -> even if it's more a neccisty for women on average (the birth and healing from it)) and in all other accounts they're equal but the mom gets shafted -> I'd say that is a problem.

Also, guys leaving for maternity leave as often as women should be taken into account nearly as often. But not everyone knows that (I didn't) and don't care enough to look it up so they just go with what makes sense to them given biology.

That's not being "unjust" just not fully informed. Which isn't sexist. And will probably work itself out as it becomes more common knowledge

Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Texas
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Texas
Originally Posted by aj0413


Let's clarify sexism -> "unjust" prejudice or distinction

Distinction itself is okay. What you're arguing here is if it's "unjust" in the case of maternity leave


Uh, actually,

Search Results
sex·ism
ˈsekˌsizəm/
noun
noun: sexism

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

It is merely a stereotype that women are going to be taking maternity leave when the child is born. Thus, it is sexist.

Originally Posted by aj0413
consider a list of less desirable qualities:
Can get pregnant
Might take maternity leave
Age
Personal responsibilities ex parent
Medical history


I don't see how these are "less desirable qualities", since all of these could apply to a man (minus getting pregnant). Heck, men can even suffer from post partum depression and pregnancy sickness! (fun fact)

Originally Posted by aj0413
Now if your data or data you have says that even when it's clear that a woman won't get preganant again and both her and the father plan for maternity leave (and that statistics show both are as likely to take it -> even if it's more a neccisty for women on average (the birth and healing from it)) and in all other accounts they're equal but the mom gets shafted -> I'd say that is a problem.


Oh, but it does! In the study, both mothers and fathers mention in the interview that they plan to take leave to be with the child, and the woman still gets the short end of the stick. I'd tell you more, but the paper refrences a study I don't have access to. frown

Originally Posted by aj0413
Also, guys leaving for maternity leave as often as women should be taken into account nearly as often. But not everyone knows that (I didn't) and don't care enough to look it up so they just go with what makes sense to them given biology.


Remember: stereotyping is still sexism, and this is stereotyping. Uninformed or not.

Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Well, huh it seems google agrees with you.

I was rocking off what I read on Webster some time which makes a pint to mention unjust

Well in that case, I should clarify that unjust distinction is the only one I care about *shrug*

Also that was kind of my point a women had one more undesirable quality and not a small one

Also -> we are talking about maternity leave (both medical and family leave included) where the woman must take time off for birth and healing? But the family leave is optional for both genders after the birth.

Cause when I talk about maternity leave in conjunction with gender and employment, it's the medical leave that I'm really pointing to here that causes a distinction that's justified


Edit: o.O and I wouldn't call that a fun fact. Not having to worry about the effects of pregnancy was a plus in my book. You're taking part of that away from me...

Edit2: I probably should've clarified the medical leave part earlier

Last edited by aj0413; 05/10/16 03:53 PM.
Joined: Dec 2012
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2012
The last time I checked our rules for interviewing an applicant for a position, it was an absolute no-go to ask them about whether they are going to take a maternity leave or not...

Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Elwyn
The last time I checked our rules for interviewing an applicant for a position, it was an absolute no-go to ask them about whether they are going to take a maternity leave or not...


This is what I thought to according to my uncle...but I wouldn't be surprised if they did a test case of "pretend" interviews and asked for employer input afterwards.

Also, I totally think it should be asked. It's a big problem when the employer and employee aren't on the same wavelength about that both the medical and family leave portion


Last edited by aj0413; 05/10/16 03:59 PM.
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Texas
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Texas
Originally Posted by aj0413

Also -> we are talking about maternity leave (both medical and family leave included) where the woman must take time off for birth and healing? But the family leave is optional for both genders after the birth.

Cause when I talk about maternity leave in conjunction with gender and employment, it's the medical leave that I'm really pointing to here that causes a distinction that's justified


This is a very real concern, I'll concede. However, I sadly cannot say what the merit to this is. Here is the best article I could find on the subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...r-giving-bith-will-it-take-me-to-recover

According to the article, some people take 6 weeks due to the trauma giving birth wracks on their body. Others take days.

In my family, women were expected to take off a couple of days to give birth, and that was it. Hell, my aunt worked from the delivery room on her laptop!

In short: I cannot discuss this meaningfully with you, because A) there is no good data out there on it, and B) from what little I can gather, it varies heavily from woman to woman.

Joined: Sep 2016
Z
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Z
Joined: Sep 2016
Where is Sordak when you need him?

Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
That's fine. I've discussed this with my girlfriend and we had different opinions. And that's al anyone can really have at the moment or ever I think. It's more a moral quandry than anything in my opinion and you can't force morality into business.

Lol your family is lucky in that regard. Damn your aunt is a boss for that.

But yeah, that's what I was basing my argument about it not really being sexism when it comes to employee evaluation; just some biology and stuff.

Last edited by aj0413; 05/10/16 04:05 PM.
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5