ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Does gender privilege exist in the US?
Yes, gender privilege does exist in the US + I am male 73 76.04%
No, gender privilege does NOT exist in the US + I am male 5 5.21%
Yes, gender privilege does exist in the US + I am NOT male 16 16.67%
No, gender privilege does NOT exist in the US + I am NOT male 2 2.08%
Voters: 96. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 25th October 2017, 05:34 PM   #481
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,393
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, you're wrong. Because although several posters say they acknowledge biology, every time this topic is brought up, they conveniently forget about it, claim that disparity X is due to discrimination, get called on it again, and round and round we go. Blame the people who keep trotting out their prefered conclusions, not me.
When your "calling them" on their "forgetfulness" rests on you repeatedly ignoring piles of research that EXPLICITLY AND COMPLETELY control for all factors (including biology) EXCEPT FOR BIAS... your "calling them out" rings hollow.

Seriously. You bring up the "what about biology" ploy when you're presented with evidence that literally controls everything except bias. You bring up the "what about biology" ploy whenever ANYTHING EXCEPT biology is discussed in any fashion at all.

I have YET to see you acknowledge the impact of any factor other than biology in any context that deals with women. Why don't you start there? We've all provided a huge amount of research and evidence, we've all repeatedly acknowledged that biology is one factor but that others also have an impact, we've all patiently gone through this with you over and over again.

You keep erecting strawmen and singing a lovely tune about biology. You have not done anything else at all. You have not once conceded any other factor as having a role. Not once.

Your position isn't being misrepresented and isn't nuanced. It's one-dimensional and transparent.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2017, 06:11 PM   #482
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 70,784
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
When your "calling them" on their "forgetfulness" rests on you repeatedly ignoring piles of research that EXPLICITLY AND COMPLETELY control for all factors (including biology) EXCEPT FOR BIAS... your "calling them out" rings hollow.
That's because you keep broadening my own claims and arguments. I've explained my point to you again this very day. Don't pretend again like I haven't.

Quote:
Seriously. You bring up the "what about biology" ploy when you're presented with evidence that literally controls everything except bias.
That's not true. Nothing that's been presented "literally" or otherwise controls for "everything except bias". That is a bald-faced lie.

Quote:
I have YET to see you acknowledge the impact of any factor other than biology in any context that deals with women.
Quote:
You have not once conceded any other factor as having a role. Not once.
Yeah, not once:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Social pressure, culture, individual preferences, discrimination, etc.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Again, nothing to do with inferiority, rather with expected social roles.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Why? When biology is being ignored, I pop in to point it out. If social factors were ignored, which they are not, I'd do the same.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm asking him to support the idea that social values are the only factor here.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Mirroring a time when women stayed at home because social pressures were pushing them in that direction
Is there no limit to your dishonesty? The last time you made this lie I reminded you that I have repeatedly acknowledged that these other factors exist, and have important impacts. Now I've posted examples from this thread, just this month, that show that you have lied repeatedly about my posts.

I think you owe me an apology.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2017, 09:51 AM   #483
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,393
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I've explained my point to you again this very day.
You've explained it yes. You're just wrong. Insisting that you've explained it doesn't make you right about it.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That's not true. Nothing that's been presented "literally" or otherwise controls for "everything except bias". That is a bald-faced lie.

Identical case studies, identical resumes - literally identical. Every single piece of information on them is the same EXCEPT for the gender of the applicant. Those IDENTICAL pieces information result in DIFFERENT views of the applicant. The only difference is the gender. That literally controls for everything except bias. Literally.

Do you want to retract your accusation?


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yeah, not once:

Is there no limit to your dishonesty? The last time you made this lie I reminded you that I have repeatedly acknowledged that these other factors exist, and have important impacts. Now I've posted examples from this thread, just this month, that show that you have lied repeatedly about my posts.

I think you owe me an apology.
Yes, I owe you an apology. You did actually say that they exist.

Here's the problem. Yes, you say that these things exist. But in every interaction you have argued against them as a factor. You give lip-service to them... but you consistently take positions that attempt to invalidate them as having any impact on any situation that is discussed. Where does that leave us? If you never accept any other factor as having an impact in any situation or study discussed... what am I left to conclude? Should I end up inferring that you truly believe they have impacts and that somehow the entirety of research done has just fallen short of finding any impact? Why would I reach that conclusion?

Furthermore, you have NOT indicated that you think they have important impacts. At best, you've said that whether or not they have important impacts should be discussed. You've even gone to the point of saying it's worth serious discussion whether men should 'win' and keep women's agency limited, or whether women should 'win' and have equal agency and economic freedom. You've consistently suggested (but never outright said, oh no, you need to retain deniability!) that it's acceptable that women's opportunities are more limited, and that there is a social bias against women in many aspects of life. You've conceded that it's social pressure, you just take a position that leaves a very, very strong impression that you think it's acceptable that those social pressures exist. You've 'questioned' whether there's any actual need to change them. You've 'questioned' whether it's actually a detriment to women to have fewer opportunities than men... and you've suggested that it might not be a detriment, because women 'choose' to have fewer opportunities because of their biology.

But no, you never actually *say* those things. You dance around them, you insinuate them, you transparently suggest them... but you don't actually commit to them. You leave it just vague enough that you can claim to be misrepresented and maligned because that's not what you *actually* said.

I will admit that I've overstepped by saying you've never acknowledged any other factor. You've acknowledged them in a millimeter deep way with no actual meaning and you haven't engaged on any of those factors. You've instead suggested that their impacts are so negligible in comparison to biology as to make them virtually meaningless. You've implied that they're not a problem.

To keep things fair... You've committed the same error that you've called me on. You've repeated accused me, as well as xjx and Dipayan of ignoring biology:
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Because although several posters say they acknowledge biology, every time this topic is brought up, they conveniently forget about it, claim that disparity X is due to discrimination, get called on it again, and round and round we go.
I think that you and I are accusing the other of doing the same thing: ignoring whatever factor we want to focus on.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2017, 10:01 AM   #484
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 70,784
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Yes, I owe you an apology. You did actually say that they exist.

Here's the problem. Yes, you say that these things exist. But in every interaction you have argued against them as a factor.
So yes but no. I said they exist and have an impact, and explained why I focus on biological factors, but I didn't say all that with the right intonation and facial movements while doing the correct dance to the proper tune. I didn't say it enough. I didn't say it had enough impact for your tastes. I didn't say it often enough or loudly enough. You'll just find ways to move the goalposts again and again to continue your lies no matter what, even when I've demonstrated time and time again that they are lies and that I did address it.

I don't think you're confused by anything anyone says at all, in any thread. I think you know exactly what it is I'm saying, but you just can't accept that one can actually support gender equality without agreeing on every part of the discussion on it. You think that if you were to concede a point to me on something we disagree, it'd be just as if you didn't support equality anymore. So you lie to avoid making the concession, no matter what.

I guess that answers my question: there is no end to your dishonesty. No depth to which you won't sink to protect your dogma.

And we're done.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2017, 10:03 AM   #485
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,393
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
A ridiculous set of strawmen as only you can provide. I don't have time to deal with nonsense. Either come up with a showing that you understand what I'm telling you, or don't post at all.
You know, it really doesn't look like it's all that ridiculous:
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I donít think the naming conventions of the ancient Romans are all that big a deal when Sextus could fully participate in his society and Prima could not.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Could he? Couldn't she?
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Meaningless distinctions.

While not all men could participate in all aspects of their society, most men could participate in many aspects of their society. While some very few women were able to participate in some aspects of their society, the vast majority were not allowed to participate in a very large amount of their society.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yes, that's what I said. I'm taking issue with the use of the word "allowed", hence my questions.
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I am actually confused here. Is it your contention that women were allowed to participate... and they just chose not to? What is your contention with the use of the word allowed, specifically? Because not having the right to vote, not having the right to purchase land, not having the right to negotiate and sign contracts on their own, and being actively discriminated against in the work-force as well as in the body politic all pretty much qualify as "not allowed" in my book. I genuinely don't understand how you could possibly see it as anything else.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I will remind the thread again that for most of history men didn't have the right to vote either, and that the period of time between all men having the vote and all women having it was short. As for the rest, some of it indeed does not qualify as not being allowed, and the rest is a generalisation.
Hmm. That seems to be pretty darned close to this:
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Claim: Women have been historically undervalued and face a more challenging route to financial success than men; in part this is due to women historically being not being viewed as independent entities from the men associated with them, and having been ostracized from the body politic by not being allowed to vote.
Counter-claim: Well, for a long time not all men were allowed to vote either.
In fact, I'm not really seeing any meaningful distinction there. One uses a lot more words, but the sentiment is the same.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2017, 10:10 AM   #486
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,393
Again:
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That's not true. Nothing that's been presented "literally" or otherwise controls for "everything except bias". That is a bald-faced lie.
Identical case studies, identical resumes - literally identical. Every single piece of information on them is the same EXCEPT for the gender of the applicant. Those IDENTICAL pieces information result in DIFFERENT views of the applicant. The only difference is the gender. That literally controls for everything except bias. Literally.

Do you want to retract your accusation?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2017, 10:29 AM   #487
Crawtator
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 106
EC, I think you really need to look at the linked video. Not sure that the "Howard-Heidi" test was statistically significant. I think further analysis is required, because Anderson Cooper and CNN did the study and didn't come to the same conclusion, at all.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/1...men-perceived/

I can't find anything on the sample size in the original "Heidi/Howard" experiment and the only links I could find that seem promising are locked behind paywalls. Anybody have any information on this?
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 09:32 PM   #488
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,817
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
EC, I think you really need to look at the linked video. Not sure that the "Howard-Heidi" test was statistically significant. I think further analysis is required, because Anderson Cooper and CNN did the study and didn't come to the same conclusion, at all.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/1...men-perceived/

I can't find anything on the sample size in the original "Heidi/Howard" experiment and the only links I could find that seem promising are locked behind paywalls. Anybody have any information on this?
Think you might be onto a loser with that.

When I tried to post the video of it EC seemed to be incapable of seeing a massive box with an arrow button on it.

At least that is what I presume. As I got an I can't see it and then silence

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With todayís Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.