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.