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 2nd October 2017, 06:04 PM   #201
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Hey, give me some slack. Hyperbole is a great way to illustrate a point. You just need to make sure it's clear you're exaggerating.
I'd give you a lot more slack if I thought you grokked that it's not the term 'pussy' that I find offensive.
__________________
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 2nd October 2017, 06:07 PM   #202
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'd give you a lot more slack if I thought you grokked that it's not the term 'pussy' that I find offensive.
I'm not a *********** mind-reader, Cat. You responded to "pussy pass" saying it was offensive. You didn't detail further. Maybe the problem lies in your inability to fully express and support your ideas and arguments, so stop blaming me and clarify.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 2nd October 2017, 06:11 PM   #203
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm not a *********** mind-reader, Cat. You responded to "pussy pass" saying it was offensive. You didn't detail further. Maybe the problem lies in your inability to fully express and support your ideas and arguments, so stop blaming me and clarify.
I'm still laughing at this post of yours. Ahh, good times!
__________________
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 2nd October 2017, 08:32 PM   #204
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I AM offended by the discrimination. But calling it a 'pussy pass' is just about as bad as calling the increased sentencing for black mean '****** tax'. Either way, it's necessarily derisive, offensive, and comfrontational.
Are you actually offended by the discrimination? Nothing you said previously gave any indication that you would be, and I'm not sure how seriously to take your claim now.

As for being offensive, yes, it is. But it's also illustrative. Your sensibilities are what you care about most, reality takes a back seat. As soon as I said it, you couldn't talk about anything else. Dick move on my part? (or is that too gendered?) Sure. And yet, it was still your choice to focus on that, and ignore everything else.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 3rd October 2017, 10:02 AM   #205
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,041
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Not at all. You're the one who is applying an overly simplistic definition of what a man or woman is. Kindly don't project your own thoughts onto me.

In reality it's almost entirely genetic, but it is expressed in a great number of ways (primary and secondary characteristics, hormones, brain structure, bone and muscle structure, etc.) and I suppose one way to actually define "man" is to verify if enough of those boxes are checked. One thing you don't do is simply ask the person what they believe.

I know you don't want to hear this but gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, just like schizophrenia. And just like schizophrenia we don't treat those who have it like subhuman garbage; we help them just like we would a blind person or one with a missing leg. Now, I don't know if there exists medication to cancel out the effects of dysphoria, but I do know that one treatment is transition. As a courtesy, at the very least, we can consider that they have their stated sex once this procedure is complete. Humane and largely correct. So what's wrong with that? Aside from your emotiona reaction to reading it, that is.
I've explained what's wrong with that several times, and you ignore it. It isn't just mental, as I've explained at least twice in this thread alone. You repeating that doesn't make it true. You deciding that you can use the wrong title for someone until your criteria are met, which happen to be different from what is polite and accurate to the best of our current understanding of it is a reflection of you and your values, not mine. That you describe using accurate terms as a 'courtesy' is dismissive nonsense.

According to Zig, you're using the wrong meaning of 'gender' because that has changed, so get over it.



Quote:
You know I'm wrong because of anecdotal evidence? That's weak.
This exchange is why I'm very confident I know your argument and reasoning better than you do. I provided you with the fact that I did exactly what you requested I do, along with the reason I already had done that, and you then dismiss it as anecdotal directly afterword. It wasn't even something from page one; this was the very next post to me after the request was made.





Quote:
That's not what a contradiction is. You're also not describing what I'm saying, again.
Yes I am. You want to quantify only one factor to decide if it's a factor or not (and adding 'how much' doesn't change that, why you think it does is baffling), but you do not apply that standard to your own pet explanation of sexual dimophism.



Quote:
That's a contradiction. If you can't know how much, you can't know if it's much higher.
That's just factually wrong. Again, it doesn't matter if the exact number of people it would take to kick my ass is 2, 2.54, or 1, that they're using 10 makes the exact measure unneeded.

That we have less than 20% of elected officials are women in the US when other similar nations have higher is evidence something else is at play besides sexual dimorphism.



Quote:
Non sequitur. Cultural factors are also in play. Or are you contending that there is little to no discrimination in those countries comared to yours?
Those 'cultural factors' are the amount and impact of discrimination. Of all the nonsense handwaves regarding invalid discrimination, this has to be the most flaccid. We know as barriers to entry come down, the gender disparities in outcome tend to normalize very quickly. It's happened in almost every field it's been applied to.

Unless you believe that other countries women and men are less sexually dimorphic than the US?



Quote:
I never said it had no effect. At the risk of repeating myself, all I said is that we don't know how much of an effect each factor has, and therefore we don't know if and by how much discrimination affects representation.
You can keep repeating it, but you also keep repeating 'if and by how much'. Retract the 'if'. We know it to be a factor, and in every controlled test, it's a major one if not THE major one.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your entire argument here is actually illogical. Other countries being close to 50/50 and ours being close to 20% tells you nothing about what the correct percentage should be. Perhaps it should be 10%. How do you know? You don't. All you know is that you want it to be close to 50/50.

Furthermore, this presupposes that there's some universal percentage that all countries would obtain in the absence of discrimination. But that's not logical either. Plenty of things other than discrimination might make these percentages different. Suppose, for example, that we have a country with low flat taxes and little government social supports. In such an environment, there is a strong incentive to get the highest paying job you can, regardless of your personal work preferences. Suppose that we have a second country with high, very progressive taxes and generous government social support. There is much less incentive to get a high-paying job, and more incentive to pick a job you enjoy.

If women naturally prefer certain jobs (like primary education) based on factors other than salary, then we should expect that the gender imbalance in many professions would be larger in the second country than the first. And that's absent any gender discrimination.

So not only do you not know what the "natural" level of gender disparity is, there's no reason to believe that it's even constant or unaffected by factors other than discrimination.

How do you know the 'natural' level isn't 100% and discrimination is keeping them from dominating many fields? How do you know that the 'natural' level isn't 0%? Why allow women in any fields at all?

The 'natural' level is just over 50% of any field being women, and that's a fact of population and not a 'want' from progressives. All other factors combined result in the disparity. You point is that perhaps it's 'wrong' that many places have elected officials and the like at almost half women because it's been reached by some 'unnatural' means, and that absent discrimination the true level would be fewer women elected and such.

We know that isn't true because the alternate explanations aren't differing factors between the countries at play (with a few notable exceptions, like laws in African countries requiring at least 30% of elected officials being women). Men and women in Norway, England, and something like 37 other countries don't display less sexual dimorphism than the US. Further, the factors that have been changed have led to more equality and happiness overall. Things like men getting (and being expected to take) time off for children makes both men and women happier, has better health outcomes, and makes for better citizens (had a link for this, but I lost all my bookmarks in a PC fix).

Moreover, we know to a very meaningful level of scientific certainty, that discrimination and social expectations do keep men and women out of certain behaviors and fields, and restrict their advancement inside of them. Emily's Cat has linked to two well conducted studies in this thread alone that show that. As we removed barriers in the past, we had similar increases in equality. Are we to ignore that? What's the tragedy that happens if we address that and the levels don't reach 50% representation in a bunch of fields? Oh no, we've made the world a better place for a lot of people. Tragic.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 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 3rd October 2017, 10:47 AM   #206
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
How do you know the 'natural' level isn't 100% and discrimination is keeping them from dominating many fields? How do you know that the 'natural' level isn't 0%? Why allow women in any fields at all?
You just gave away the game, and have proven you're not actually interested in discussing this rationally. If the natural level was 100%, you wouldn't have to not allow women in the field, it would achieve that level in the absence of artificial intervention. The entire point about letting things reach a natural level is to NOT impose artificial interventions, like quotas or discrimination.

Quote:
The 'natural' level is just over 50% of any field being women, and that's a fact of population and not a 'want' from progressives.
Sure, that's true... if women and men have identical preference (which they don't), or if womens' and mens' preferences are irrelevant and should be disregarded in pursuit of some top-down social engineering goal. But this is a totalitarian impulse. It is as old as the hills, but always wears the mask of progress.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Quote:
You point is that perhaps it's 'wrong' that many places have elected officials and the like at almost half women because it's been reached by some 'unnatural' means, and that absent discrimination the true level would be fewer women elected and such.
No, tyr, that's not my point at all. My point is that you don't actually understand the dynamics at play, and so cannot even say what's right or wrong absent some axiomatic statement. Your belief in what the level should be is not based on any observation, it is not subject to change by any evidence, it is simply an article of faith.

Quote:
We know that isn't true because the alternate explanations aren't differing factors between the countries at play (with a few notable exceptions, like laws in African countries requiring at least 30% of elected officials being women). Men and women in Norway, England, and something like 37 other countries don't display less sexual dimorphism than the US.
I just gave you factors which ARE different, which do not depend on any biological differences between countries, and described a mechanism by which they could have an influence. And you simply ignored it. Your inability to even engage with what I said is further proof that you are not capable of engaging in this subject with anything approaching rationality.

Quote:
Moreover, we know to a very meaningful level of scientific certainty, that discrimination and social expectations do keep men and women out of certain behaviors and fields, and restrict their advancement inside of them.
Did I ever deny this? Nope.

Quote:
As we removed barriers in the past, we had similar increases in equality. Are we to ignore that?
I'm not ignoring anything. Point to a specific REAL barrier, and I'll help you pull it down. But you aren't doing that. Furthermore, the increases in equality across fields aren't even, and that unevenness can't be explained by disparities in the persistence of barriers in specific fields.

Quote:
What's the tragedy that happens if we address that and the levels don't reach 50% representation in a bunch of fields? Oh no, we've made the world a better place for a lot of people. Tragic.
Here's the thing, though. By your own admission, you believe it should reach 50%. So unless it reaches 50%, you will believe there's a problem that needs solving. And if you start with the assumption that there's a problem, sooner or later you'll manage to find something you believe is a problem. And that will justify an intervention. And when that intervention fails to achieve the 50% goal, you'll look for another problem. And you'll find another one. And you'll come up with another intervention. And it still won't solve the problem.

There will never be an end to your desire for intervention. And your pursuit of control, to deny people their free choice because they choose wrong, will not make the world a better place.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 3rd October 2017, 11:28 AM   #207
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You deciding that you can use the wrong title for someone until your criteria are met
You're assuming that the other "title" is correct, that's the problem. You have made no attempt to define what constitutes a man or woman, or to defend that definition. Since my attempts so far have not led to an understanding between us, how about you give it a try?

Quote:
That you describe using accurate terms as a 'courtesy' is dismissive nonsense.
It's rude not to call them by their prefered pronouns, but it's dismissive to do so out of simple humane concerns. I get the feeling that "shut up and do what you're told" is the prefered outcome, but that... well that just won't work with me.

Quote:
Yes I am.
Given that you've insisted that what I think I'm saying isn't what I'm saying, and thus that you have no compunction against making up my own thoughts for me, you'll forgive me if I don't give much weight to your intepretations of what I post. Speaking of not being rude to people, telling me that you know my argument better than I do falls into that category.

However, if you'd like to start over, I'd be more than happy to wash away the obvious bad blood between us and try to find some common ground to build a more pleasant and constructive conversation with you. What do you think?

Quote:
That's just factually wrong. Again, it doesn't matter if the exact number of people it would take to kick my ass is 2, 2.54, or 1, that they're using 10 makes the exact measure unneeded.
What part of "this is a terrible analogy" wasn't clear? You're using an analogy in which no other factor is in play, which makes it fail on the more basic level as an analogy to the current discussion. You have an aggregate number to work with, and you're assuring me that you can discern if it's too high without even knowing how much of it is due to discrimination. That just doesn't work.

Quote:
That we have less than 20% of elected officials are women in the US when other similar nations have higher is evidence something else is at play besides sexual dimorphism.
And? Do you think that the only other option beside biology is discrimination. I brought up biology as a major factor proponents tend to ignore, but it's by no means the only one, and some of them will vary from one culture to the next.

Quote:
We know as barriers to entry come down, the gender disparities in outcome tend to normalize very quickly. It's happened in almost every field it's been applied to.
Are there barriers to entry in the fields of coal mining and hairdressing?

Quote:
Unless you believe that other countries women and men are less sexually dimorphic than the US?
No, of course not.

Quote:
You can keep repeating it, but you also keep repeating 'if and by how much'. Retract the 'if'. We know it to be a factor, and in every controlled test, it's a major one if not THE major one.
That it has a known effect, and that it exists, doesn't mean it factors into the disparity. It could have too small an effect to be visible in the whole, or be canceled out in a large, complex society. You're making it sound simple but it's not that clear. That's why we need to remove the other causes, and I'm not sure that's even possible. Or if it is, no one is rising to the challenge so far.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 3rd October 2017, 11:30 AM   #208
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
The 'natural' level is just over 50% of any field being women, and that's a fact of population and not a 'want' from progressives.
Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but are you saying that there should be a 50% distribution in all fields? What do you base this on?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 3rd October 2017, 11:32 AM   #209
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
There are no other mitigating factors. That was the point of the several studies that explored this.

So, given that there were no other mitigating factors, and you think that it's not something we should expect or accept...

Are you willing to discuss those situations and others like them?

Are you willing to refer to those sorts of situations as reflections of privilege? If not, please suggest an alternative term to use. I'll happily use some other term (assuming it makes sense) in order to move the discussion forward.
meanwhile in the real world blind recruitment actually harms women and has had to be stopped...
Quote:
Professor Michael Hiscox, a Harvard academic who oversaw the trial, said he was shocked by the results and has urged caution.

"We anticipated this would have a positive impact on diversity making it more likely that female candidates and those from ethnic minorities are selected for the shortlist," he said.

"We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist."

The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview.

Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door.

"We should hit pause and be very cautious about introducing this as a way of improving diversity, as it can have the opposite effect," Professor Hiscox said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-3...-study/8664888
ginjawarrior 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 3rd October 2017, 11:35 AM   #210
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
meanwhile in the real world blind recruitment actually harms women and has had to be stopped...


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-3...-study/8664888
So we actually have a bias towards women?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 3rd October 2017, 11:46 AM   #211
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So we actually have a bias towards women?
Yes. The science is settledTM.

Note, too, that the prof isn't advocating for fairness. She's advocating for "diversity", even if it isn't fair. Fairness simply isn't the goal. Equality of opportunity doesn't matter, only equality of outcome. The mask has slipped.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 3rd October 2017, 11:53 AM   #212
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Are you actually offended by the discrimination? Nothing you said previously gave any indication that you would be, and I'm not sure how seriously to take your claim now.

As for being offensive, yes, it is. But it's also illustrative. Your sensibilities are what you care about most, reality takes a back seat. As soon as I said it, you couldn't talk about anything else. Dick move on my part? (or is that too gendered?) Sure. And yet, it was still your choice to focus on that, and ignore everything else.
Maybe you should read some more of my posts. It's far from the only thing I talked about. You also seem to have jumped right over a while collection of posts discussing discrimination and privilege that goes the other direction.
__________________
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 3rd October 2017, 12:00 PM   #213
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
if women and men have identical preference (which they don't), or if womens' and mens' preferences are irrelevant
You know, I really love it when men tell me what women's 'natural' preferences are. Especially when those are NOT my preferences as a woman.

Should I feel bad that I don't want babies? Or that the idea of working at moderate to low wages as a caregiver cleaning up spittle and poop disgusts me? Should I feel a sense of shame that I am skilled in math and problem-solving? Should I work to curb my interest in a future executive role, and take a step back from my current career path?

I mean seriously, am I just such an incredible outlier for my gender? At what point do you decide that I'm behaving 'unnaturally' for women?
__________________
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 3rd October 2017, 12:20 PM   #214
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You know, I really love it when men tell me what women's 'natural' preferences are. Especially when those are NOT my preferences as a woman.
I never said what anyone's preferences are. All I said is that, on average, they're different. Moreover, individuals within a group can vary even more than the differences between groups. None of this should be in dispute.

Quote:
Should I feel bad that I don't want babies?
Of course not. Do you deny that lots of women do want babies?

Quote:
Or that the idea of working at moderate to low wages as a caregiver cleaning up spittle and poop disgusts me?
Again, of course not. Do you deny that many women find such work fulfilling?

Quote:
Should I feel a sense of shame that I am skilled in math and problem-solving? Should I work to curb my interest in a future executive role, and take a step back from my current career path? I mean seriously, am I just such an incredible outlier for my gender? At what point do you decide that I'm behaving 'unnaturally' for women?
You're an outlier, yes. Nothing incredible about that, though. Distributions are themselves natural. But you're obviously confused about what the argument here is. As far as I know, there is nothing unnatural about your interests. But your individual qualities do not extrapolate to population averages. And if you want to talk about percentages of people in different job categories, then population averages absolutely matter. They become irrelevant when discussing a specific individual applying for a specific job, but that wasn't the topic. If you want to make it the topic, feel free to do so, but you can't just pull what I said regarding averages and try to apply it to every individual. It doesn't work that way.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 3rd October 2017, 01:01 PM   #215
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I never said what anyone's preferences are. All I said is that, on average, they're different. Moreover, individuals within a group can vary even more than the differences between groups. None of this should be in dispute.
But if it's 'natural' that women aren't interested in leadership, then why would anyone bother to remove barriers for women in leadership roles? I mean, I'm the 'unnatural' one here, right? Why should anyone ever consider changing their processes and ways of thinking to accommodate an 'abnormality'?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Of course not. Do you deny that lots of women do want babies?
I don't know - do you deny that lots of men want babies? Is it 'natural' for men to want kids? Or are men who want kids 'unnatural'?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Again, of course not. Do you deny that many women find such work fulfilling?
Of course not - do you deny that many men find such work fulfilling? Is it 'natural' for men to find such work fulfilling, or are the men who do so ones you consider 'unnatural'?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You're an outlier, yes. Nothing incredible about that, though. Distributions are themselves natural. But you're obviously confused about what the argument here is. As far as I know, there is nothing unnatural about your interests.
Except that I'm an outlier for what is 'natural' for women, right?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But your individual qualities do not extrapolate to population averages. And if you want to talk about percentages of people in different job categories, then population averages absolutely matter.
Are women 'naturally' less suited to leadership roles? Are women's brains less 'naturally' capable at math and problem-solving? What's the population average for this?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
They become irrelevant when discussing a specific individual applying for a specific job, but that wasn't the topic. If you want to make it the topic, feel free to do so, but you can't just pull what I said regarding averages and try to apply it to every individual. It doesn't work that way.
Ahh... there's the rub. What's considered 'natural' and 'normal' for a woman in general is irrelevant when a woman is applying for a job that is 'traditionally' considered 'natural' for a man? Do you believe that's how it works in application, or is that the ideal that you believe should exist?
__________________
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 3rd October 2017, 01:21 PM   #216
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,041
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You just gave away the game, and have proven you're not actually interested in discussing this rationally. If the natural level was 100%, you wouldn't have to not allow women in the field, it would achieve that level in the absence of artificial intervention. The entire point about letting things reach a natural level is to NOT impose artificial interventions, like quotas or discrimination.
The first sentence isn't supported by anything else you said.

So how do you know the level shouldn't be 100% or 0%? I'd like to know, as much as you avoid doing anything in these threads besides attack liberals and progressives, because it would let me argue using your own reasoning.


Quote:
Sure, that's true... if women and men have identical preference (which they don't), or if womens' and mens' preferences are irrelevant and should be disregarded in pursuit of some top-down social engineering goal. But this is a totalitarian impulse. It is as old as the hills, but always wears the mask of progress.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Here you go again making up goals in your never ending crusade against progressives and liberal.

Show me where I advocated for government intervention, let alone as the only intervention.

And yes, as I explained in my last post, the 'natural' level is based on only population ratio, and all other factors would by that definition include preferences. Preferences don't happen in a vacuum though, so how do you (you personally or others) separate out innate preferences from socially imposed ones?



Quote:
No, tyr, that's not my point at all. My point is that you don't actually understand the dynamics at play, and so cannot even say what's right or wrong absent some axiomatic statement. Your belief in what the level should be is not based on any observation, it is not subject to change by any evidence, it is simply an article of faith.
I don't retract my earlier summery of your 'point' but thanks for the admission you're also arguing based on bad-faith of me personally and my understanding of what's at play (and from the above, a bad reading of what I've actually said).



Quote:
I just gave you factors which ARE different, which do not depend on any biological differences between countries, and described a mechanism by which they could have an influence. And you simply ignored it. Your inability to even engage with what I said is further proof that you are not capable of engaging in this subject with anything approaching rationality.
Right back at you champ. I don't see where you did that, could you quote yourself?



Quote:
Did I ever deny this? Nope.
You do realize that I was explaining the logic you deny in using comparisons to other countries, right? Your response doesn't make any sense.



Quote:
I'm not ignoring anything. Point to a specific REAL barrier, and I'll help you pull it down. But you aren't doing that. Furthermore, the increases in equality across fields aren't even, and that unevenness can't be explained by disparities in the persistence of barriers in specific fields.
Of course it can be explained by different fields having more or fewer barriers and more or less discrimination. Some discrimination is general, some specific. I've seen a lot of toxicity to women in some specific fields like programming and video game, and in the US political office. This is on top of the general 'back of the mind' ideas like 'women are going to work less because children/men won't and can't take time off for children'. Some fields have internal cultures that fight against or for this ideas.

Want specific? Women wearing suits have been attacked for just wearing suits in the political field. You going to argue against that? People disparage women for 'bleeding', including people in high political office, are you going to hold them accountable? In my experience, you're much, much more likely to attack people speaking out against such things. That isn't taking governmental action, but social action.



Quote:
Here's the thing, though. By your own admission, you believe it should reach 50%.
No, not in everything. Re-read without the political blinders on.

Quote:
So unless it reaches 50%, you will believe there's a problem that needs solving. And if you start with the assumption that there's a problem, sooner or later you'll manage to find something you believe is a problem. And that will justify an intervention. And when that intervention fails to achieve the 50% goal, you'll look for another problem. And you'll find another one. And you'll come up with another intervention. And it still won't solve the problem.

There will never be an end to your desire for intervention. And your pursuit of control, to deny people their free choice because they choose wrong, will not make the world a better place.
Again, you're just railing against your boogyman/strawman progressives. No one has argued that the great disparities in representation alone is how we know there's a problem. No one is talking about taking people's free choice away.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 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 3rd October 2017, 01:30 PM   #217
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
But if it's 'natural' that women aren't interested in leadership
You still aren't paying attention to the actual argument, only a straw man version of it. Women on average may be less interested. Individual women may be just as interested.

Quote:
then why would anyone bother to remove barriers for women in leadership roles?
Because women who are interested in it should have the same opportunity. But a disparity in participation doesn't suffice to prove the existence of barriers.

Quote:
I mean, I'm the 'unnatural' one here, right?
You were already corrected on this once. Repeated use of the same straw man after an explicit correction demonstrates deliberate dishonesty.

Quote:
I don't know
Then you're either a liar or clueless.

Quote:
do you deny that lots of men want babies? Is it 'natural' for men to want kids? Or are men who want kids 'unnatural'?
Of course lots of men want babies. They often want a different role in raising those babies than women do, but plenty of men want them. Is this a surprise to you?

Quote:
Of course not - do you deny that many men find such work fulfilling?
The evidence suggests that fewer (though not zero) men do.

Quote:
Is it 'natural' for men to find such work fulfilling, or are the men who do so ones you consider 'unnatural'?
This is getting pathetic. There is a difference between natural and typical. Untypical behavior and preferences can still be natural. I made that pretty clear in my last post.

Quote:
Except that I'm an outlier for what is 'natural' for women, right?
Again, wrong. You are an outlier for what is typical for women (and honestly, men who are really into math are outliers for what's typical of men too). But the whole distribution, including the outliers, is natural. Why do I have to keep telling you this? You can't honestly be this clueless.

Quote:
Are women 'naturally' less suited to leadership roles?
I think women tend to prefer it less. Leadership roles aren't axiomatically better.

Quote:
Ahh... there's the rub. What's considered 'natural' and 'normal' for a woman in general is irrelevant when a woman is applying for a job that is 'traditionally' considered 'natural' for a man? Do you believe that's how it works in application, or is that the ideal that you believe should exist?
Leaving aside your continued and deliberate confusion of natural and typical, that's how it should exist. To the extent that it differs from the ideal, you have yet to demonstrate how much.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 3rd October 2017, 01:56 PM   #218
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
The first sentence isn't supported by anything else you said.

So how do you know the level shouldn't be 100% or 0%?
Of course that first sentence is supported.

Suppose I believed that the natural level was 100% men. Would it follow that I would want to prevent women from those jobs? No. That would still explicitly contradict what I had already said. That you proposed it as if it would follow demonstrates what this is about for you: control.

Quote:
I'd like to know, as much as you avoid doing anything in these threads besides attack liberals and progressives, because it would let me argue using your own reasoning.
As for how I know, well, if you want to get really epistemological, I don't. I expect that it's neither 100% or 0%, because the cases I see where it is 100% or 0% require obvious barriers (like what you proposed) and that's exactly what I'm opposed to.

Quote:
And yes, as I explained in my last post, the 'natural' level is based on only population ratio, and all other factors would by that definition include preferences.
If you're discounting preferences, then either you don't care about preferences, or the entire descriptor is useless. In the former case, you share no goals in common with me, and there can be no compromise or agreement between us. In the later case, you're arguing about something that, by the way YOU have defined it, no longer even matters.

Quote:
Preferences don't happen in a vacuum though, so how do you (you personally or others) separate out innate preferences from socially imposed ones?
You can't. It's impossible. Hell, it's not even desirable to remove socially influenced preferences. As Miss Manners once said about raising children, "I don't want them to act natural. I want them to act civilized."

Quote:
Right back at you champ. I don't see where you did that, could you quote yourself?
Easy:
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Suppose, for example, that we have a country with low flat taxes and little government social supports. In such an environment, there is a strong incentive to get the highest paying job you can, regardless of your personal work preferences. Suppose that we have a second country with high, very progressive taxes and generous government social support. There is much less incentive to get a high-paying job, and more incentive to pick a job you enjoy.

If women naturally prefer certain jobs (like primary education) based on factors other than salary, then we should expect that the gender imbalance in many professions would be larger in the second country than the first. And that's absent any gender discrimination.
You quoted all of this. How did you miss it?

Quote:
You do realize that I was explaining the logic you deny in using comparisons to other countries, right? Your response doesn't make any sense.
You have lost it completely here. The existence of discrimination does not mean that we can use comparisons with other countries to prove how much there is.

Quote:
Of course it can be explained by different fields having more or fewer barriers and more or less discrimination.
No, it can't. Different academic disciplines, for example, were all subject to very similar pressures to open themselves up to women. The difference in results cannot be explained without considering actual preference differences between men and women.

Quote:
No, not in everything. Re-read without the political blinders on.
It's not my political blinders, but your own bizarre rhetorical strategy that is to blame if I believed otherwise. If 50% isn't the goal everywhere, then the whole "natural" criteria is irrelevant, and you had no reason to debate it to begin with. It's not my fault I assumed you were trying to make a relevant point.

Well, actually, maybe it is.

Quote:
Again, you're just railing against your boogyman/strawman progressives. No one has argued that the great disparities in representation alone is how we know there's a problem.
Actually, that's precisely the argument you made, that disparity in representation between countries proved a problem.

Quote:
No one is talking about taking people's free choice away.
Then why were you trying to define "natural" in a way that excluded that free choice?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 3rd October 2017, 02:04 PM   #219
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Snipping for brevity

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...
Because women who are interested in it should have the same opportunity. But a disparity in participation doesn't suffice to prove the existence of barriers.
...

They often want a different role in raising those babies than women do, but plenty of men want them.
...

The evidence suggests that fewer (though not zero) men do.
...

I think women tend to prefer it less. Leadership roles aren't axiomatically better.
From where I am observing this, it seems that you have some circular logic. It seems that you are observing the ratio of men/women in various jobs and you're combining that with the gender roles that society has defined in the past... and then you're assuming that the observed difference in rates in those roles is reflective of a preference. You seem to be discounting the possibility that those gender roles can proscribe what roles are perceived as appropriate and suitable for men versus women.

I agree that there is likely to be an uneven distribution of men and women in many roles. But there is ALSO a social barrier to entry for those roles based on gender. Regardless of whether an individual man wants to be a pre-school caregiver, it will be harder for him to be accepted into that role because of how society views the gender-role of men. Because in general, a man who wants to spend his days taking care of young children is frequently looked at with suspicion.

Similarly, there's a social barrier to men gaining primary custody of their children in a divorce, regardless of how much they want them or how good of a parent they are. There's a social convention that views women as the primary and appropriate caregiver for children. A man will be considered less able to be the primary custodian for his children, regardless of his actual ability - right out of the gate he will have an uphill battle trying to prove that he can be 'as good of a parent' as the average woman would be... even in cases where the mother is demonstrably bad at parenting!

Disparity in outcome doesn't necessarily prove the existence of barriers, no of course not. But neither does a presumed difference in preference prove that no barriers exist.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 3rd October 2017 at 02:06 PM.
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 3rd October 2017, 02:06 PM   #220
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You know, I really love it when men tell me what women's 'natural' preferences are. Especially when those are NOT my preferences as a woman.
That's not what Zig did. He simply said that men's and women's preferences are not the same. This is a statistical statement, not an absolute one.

Quote:
Should I feel bad that I don't want babies?
See, this is indicative of a way of thinking that I simply don't understand. Describing fact is not proscribing behaviour. Saying that women by and large want babies does not, in any way, make a moral judgment upon those who don't. Too often in these discussions people confuse the descriptive for the prescriptive.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 3rd October 2017, 02:09 PM   #221
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Hell, it's not even desirable to remove socially influenced preferences.
It's desirable to me. I want to work in the roles that society has deemed aren't really appropriate or normal for women to want. I don't want to have kids and be a mommy. I want to be in leadership. I want to be in a technical field. I want to influence the direction of my industry. Those socially influences preferences limit my ability to accomplish those personal and individual goals. They place barriers around my agency.
__________________
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 3rd October 2017, 02:11 PM   #222
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
See, this is indicative of a way of thinking that I simply don't understand. Describing fact is not proscribing behaviour. Saying that women by and large want babies does not, in any way, make a moral judgment upon those who don't. Too often in these discussions people confuse the descriptive for the prescriptive.
That would be because too often, in real life, those descriptive elements are used prescriptively.

Like "Heidi" being described as someone you wouldn't want to work with, and being considered selfish where "Howard" was considered a natural leader and a confident, decisive person.

Even though it was the exact same case study with only the name and the pronouns changed.
__________________
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 3rd October 2017, 02:14 PM   #223
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You can't. It's impossible. Hell, it's not even desirable to remove socially influenced preferences. As Miss Manners once said about raising children, "I don't want them to act natural. I want them to act civilized."
It's strange how some seem to want to eliminate social pressure, as if it's bad in and of itself. I'm sure a lot of my decisions in life were, unbeknownst to me, influenced by others. And? They're still my decisions. It doesn't mean I'm not free to choose my own path.

It's just one more way to get the results they want. It isn't about freedom, but serving an ideology.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 3rd October 2017, 02:15 PM   #224
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That would be because too often, in real life, those descriptive elements are used prescriptively.

Like "Heidi" being described as someone you wouldn't want to work with, and being considered selfish where "Howard" was considered a natural leader and a confident, decisive person.
That's not prescriptive either. That's still descriptive. It's your interpretation that makes it a moral judgment, and that's the issue I was talking about. We're here talking about the facts of the issue, so I think we can assume, absent clear indications otherwise, that we're all talking about the descriptive.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 3rd October 2017, 02:26 PM   #225
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
From where I am observing this, it seems that you have some circular logic. It seems that you are observing the ratio of men/women in various jobs and you're combining that with the gender roles that society has defined in the past... and then you're assuming that the observed difference in rates in those roles is reflective of a preference.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that preferences likely account for some of that difference. I'm also saying that you haven't demonstrated how much of that difference is due to other factors. Because I do not see preference as being a factor which needs correction, it's only these other factors which we should care about changing. But if you can't identify how much of the difference is due to these other factors, then you can't actually describe the scale of the problem.

I am NOT saying that factors other than preference play no role.

Quote:
You seem to be discounting the possibility that those gender roles can proscribe what roles are perceived as appropriate and suitable for men versus women.
In modern America? Yes, I'm discounting the possibility that social pressures proscribe roles for women. We're constantly flooded with messages that women can do anything. In terms of roles being proscribed, that applies much more to men.

Now, I do NOT discount the possibility that social pressures affect preferences. Unless we try to do away with the concept of gender completely, that seems inevitable to some degree. And efforts to abolish gender are doomed to failure, and seem to harm both men and women in the process. So you'll have to get more specific about particular pressures if you want me to object to any.

Quote:
I agree that there is likely to be an uneven distribution of men and women in many roles.
Alright then.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 3rd October 2017, 02:49 PM   #226
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 5,976
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So we actually have a bias towards women?
Sure, if by "we" you mean Australian public servants, asked to judge hypothetical job applications for a hypothetical job. You could even argue that this study shows that in the absence of de-identified job applications, (and without the pressure of actually having to fill a job) some public servants tend toward what they perceive as socially desirable answers. Which means that bias plays a significant role in such decision making.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Note, too, that the prof isn't advocating for fairness. She's advocating for "diversity", even if it isn't fair.
Accuse me of "assuming one's gender" all you want, but I am going to guess that Professor Michael Hiscox very likely identifies as male.

Quote:
Fairness simply isn't the goal. Equality of opportunity doesn't matter, only equality of outcome. The mask has slipped.
I am greatly in favour of de-identified job applications, but even I admit that in some fields (such as public service) it may be more important to have a workforce that is a fair representation of the population than having the highest skilled workers. Sometimes public trust is more important that having the fastest pencil lickers and strongest paper pushers.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn 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 3rd October 2017, 07:06 PM   #227
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,041
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Of course that first sentence is supported.

Suppose I believed that the natural level was 100% men. Would it follow that I would want to prevent women from those jobs? No. That would still explicitly contradict what I had already said. That you proposed it as if it would follow demonstrates what this is about for you: control.



As for how I know, well, if you want to get really epistemological, I don't. I expect that it's neither 100% or 0%, because the cases I see where it is 100% or 0% require obvious barriers (like what you proposed) and that's exactly what I'm opposed to.
The hell are you on about? What exactly do you think I proposed? Where did I say you'd prevent women from jobs?



Quote:
If you're discounting preferences, then either you don't care about preferences, or the entire descriptor is useless. In the former case, you share no goals in common with me, and there can be no compromise or agreement between us. In the later case, you're arguing about something that, by the way YOU have defined it, no longer even matters.
Again, the hell? I'm not discounting preferences because I don't care about them. In the specific case of what the 'natural' level would be, you'd start with the expected based solely on population ratios. All the proposed factors would have to then add up to the discrepancy of outcome, and sexual dimorphism is one of those proposed factors. This is a trivial truth. You desire to have that factor taken as granted from the start, but doing so doesn't leave us a way to study it's magnitude compared to other proposed factors. That's what we were supposed to be discussing right?



Quote:
You can't. It's impossible. Hell, it's not even desirable to remove socially influenced preferences. As Miss Manners once said about raising children, "I don't want them to act natural. I want them to act civilized."
Then why support some 'natural' gender ratio? Again, the hell?



Quote:
Easy:


You quoted all of this. How did you miss it?
I didn't miss that, but that's just adding a layer of abstraction to the sexual dimorphism argument; it's an aggravating factor.



Quote:
You have lost it completely here. The existence of discrimination does not mean that we can use comparisons with other countries to prove how much there is.
In the strict sense, it isn't proof; it's evidence. With all the other factors being so similar across groups, it's valid to examine those comparisons.



Quote:
No, it can't. Different academic disciplines, for example, were all subject to very similar pressures to open themselves up to women. The difference in results cannot be explained without considering actual preference differences between men and women.
Who said we couldn't consider them?



Quote:
It's not my political blinders, but your own bizarre rhetorical strategy that is to blame if I believed otherwise. If 50% isn't the goal everywhere, then the whole "natural" criteria is irrelevant, and you had no reason to debate it to begin with. It's not my fault I assumed you were trying to make a relevant point.

Well, actually, maybe it is.
50% is the starting point.



Quote:
Actually, that's precisely the argument you made, that disparity in representation between countries proved a problem.
That it's evidence of it, and combined with the other lines of evidence, does reflect it.

This isn't different from doing such comparisons to show racial discrimination.



Quote:
Then why were you trying to define "natural" in a way that excluded that free choice?
Do you think I've been advocating for the 'natural' way? Do you think I've been putting it in quotes because I think it's good?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 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 4th October 2017, 08:51 AM   #228
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
The hell are you on about? What exactly do you think I proposed? Where did I say you'd prevent women from jobs?
Have you forgotten your own words?
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
How do you know the 'natural' level isn't 100% and discrimination is keeping them from dominating many fields? How do you know that the 'natural' level isn't 0%? Why allow women in any fields at all?
Quote:
Again, the hell? I'm not discounting preferences because I don't care about them. In the specific case of what the 'natural' level would be, you'd start with the expected based solely on population ratios.
Well, no. Not only is that not what I meant by "natural", it's not even a sensible starting point for this discussion.

If you want to substitute your own nonsense definitions for terms that should have been obvious (in this case, "natural" meant without discrimination, ie, the levels you would get if there was equal opportunity), then at least make it plain that you're making up bull **** definitions.

Quote:
You desire to have that factor taken as granted from the start, but doing so doesn't leave us a way to study it's magnitude compared to other proposed factors. That's what we were supposed to be discussing right?
This too is nonsense. The definition of a word doesn't determine what can and cannot be measured or studied.

Quote:
I didn't miss that, but that's just adding a layer of abstraction to the sexual dimorphism argument; it's an aggravating factor.
It's not a layer of abstraction, it's an actual effect. Furthermore, it's an effect that we don't need to eliminate.

Quote:
Do you think I've been advocating for the 'natural' way? Do you think I've been putting it in quotes because I think it's good?
And here I again confess my error. I assumed that you were arguing in good faith, trying to work from the same definition I was using, to form something resembling a coherent position. I must stop assuming this.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 4th October 2017, 08:57 AM   #229
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Well, no. Not only is that not what I meant by "natural", it's not even a sensible starting point for this discussion.
To begin with, saying that the "natural" level would follow population-evel ratios assumes that, at the very least, sexual dimorphism doesn't exist at all.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 4th October 2017, 09:00 AM   #230
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
To begin with, saying that the "natural" level would follow population-evel ratios assumes that, at the very least, sexual dimorphism doesn't exist at all.
Technically, no. If you use a nonsense definition of your own (as tyr appears to have done), you can have it mean whatever you want, regardless of how things are.

It's like Humpty Dumpty talking to Alice.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 4th October 2017, 09:05 AM   #231
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Technically, no. If you use a nonsense definition of your own (as tyr appears to have done), you can have it mean whatever you want, regardless of how things are.
Well, yeah, if you throw logic out the window there's no such thing as inference, implication or causality.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 4th October 2017, 12:13 PM   #232
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That's not prescriptive either. That's still descriptive. It's your interpretation that makes it a moral judgment, and that's the issue I was talking about. We're here talking about the facts of the issue, so I think we can assume, absent clear indications otherwise, that we're all talking about the descriptive.
First - typo on my part, should have been 'proscriptive' not 'prescriptive'.

And "descriptive" results in Howard being considered for the position and Heidi being rejected for the position even though it's the exact same information on the resume.

How are you not seeing this as a problem?
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 12:16 PM   #233
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
To begin with, saying that the "natural" level would follow population-evel ratios assumes that, at the very least, sexual dimorphism doesn't exist at all.
Only if you assume that it's 'natural' for men to work and women to stay home and raise babies...
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 12:19 PM   #234
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
First - typo on my part, should have been 'proscriptive' not 'prescriptive'.
Yeah I sometimes get confused between the two. Stupid words!

Quote:
And "descriptive" results in Howard being considered for the position and Heidi being rejected for the position even though it's the exact same information on the resume.
I'm not sure what the argument you're making is. I made a comment that we shouldn't confuse the two. If your argument is that people sometimes do, that doesn't change what I said: we shouldn't, because otherwise we're mixing up two different things.

As for your example, if both those people are described in the same way, then it's not the description that's the problem, is it? It's the interpretation of the people reading it, but the description is still not prescriptive, contrary to what you said.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 4th October 2017, 12:22 PM   #235
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Quote:
To begin with, saying that the "natural" level would follow population-evel ratios assumes that, at the very least, sexual dimorphism doesn't exist at all.
Only if you assume that it's 'natural' for men to work and women to stay home and raise babies...
Let me get this clear: you are saying that the only way to argue that sexual dimorphism could cause disparity in representation in a particular field is for all women to stay home?

I'm sorry, but this is such a stupid thing to say that it's hard to believe you didn't say it specifically to cause trouble in the conversation. When I mention biology as a source of disparity, I mean exactly that: a source of disparity. "women staying home" is something you invented wholecloth. Why? Why would you introduce that into the conversation if not to derail the conversation entirely rather than discuss what you actually quoted? What's your purpose in the conversation here?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 4th October 2017, 12:29 PM   #236
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
First - typo on my part, should have been 'proscriptive' not 'prescriptive'.

And "descriptive" results in Howard being considered for the position and Heidi being rejected for the position even though it's the exact same information on the resume.

How are you not seeing this as a problem?
This little subthread started off by you getting upset when I said men and women had different preferences. Your stated justification for getting upset seems to be nothing more than you having a specific set of desires, and seemed to believe (based on no evidence) that I had a problem with you having those desires. It was completely nonsensical. You were called out on it. Since then, you have moved your goalpost so far I'm not sure you even remember how this began.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 4th October 2017, 01:01 PM   #237
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
The sort of stuff I responded to in my last post is both frustrating and fascinating. People in general really don't seem capable of distinguishing descriptive from prescriptive, nor can they accept nuance and complexity in a topic. To them, if you disagree with any part of what they accept on a particular topic, you must by definition not only agree with everything they disagree with, but also have the exact opposite moral standing.

This explains why, when it was suggested that discrimination might not account for the majority of the disparities observed and that other factors such as biology may be involved, several posters went into a fit. See, on this topic they see only two options: you either accept that gender privilege exists, that it's entirely due to discrimination (most of the time, blamed entirely on evil men) and that this is a great societal evil; OR you reject that gender privilege exist and want women to go back to the kitchen. This is despite the fact that any rational person can see that these things have nothing to do with the other. It's entirely possible to believe that women should be afforded the same opportunities as men, but that because of various non-discriminatory factors parity may never be reached. But that's too nuanced and complicated. Nuance and complexity mean doubt, and doubt is the archnemesis of faith.

Because let's not kid ourselves, this particular claim about gender privilege is an ideology, and to accept it means you accept all of its tenets. Reject one, and you are an apostate. It makes no difference for the adherents whether you accept other tenets because since you reject the one, you might as well reject all of them. You're a heretic.

And no better example is to be found than the one provided by Cat in that last post. If you think biology has anything to do with gender disparity in a field, then you are a misogynist who wants women to be subjugated. We see it in SJW circles all the time. How are you supposed to have a conversation with someone like that? The best thing to do might be to identify them early one and just ignore them, at least as far as these topics are concerned. There's no way to convince them because to do so would mean that _they_ would become heretics (well, they call them sexists and other words, but it all means the same thing), and there's no worse fate.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 4th October 2017, 02:19 PM   #238
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yeah I sometimes get confused between the two. Stupid words!


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm not sure what the argument you're making is. I made a comment that we shouldn't confuse the two. If your argument is that people sometimes do, that doesn't change what I said: we shouldn't, because otherwise we're mixing up two different things.

As for your example, if both those people are described in the same way, then it's not the description that's the problem, is it? It's the interpretation of the people reading it, but the description is still not prescriptive, contrary to what you said.
I don't follow your line of reasoning here.

It stemmed from me being a bit snarky with Ziggurat, and his/her position that women and men are different, with the implication that this makes it all okay... and the 'observation' that women 'in general' want babies. I responded by pointing out that if the starting assumption is that women want babies, then women who don't want babies are viewed as abnormal. At least, that was the intention on my part.

You responded with this:
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
See, this is indicative of a way of thinking that I simply don't understand. Describing fact is not proscribing behaviour. Saying that women by and large want babies does not, in any way, make a moral judgment upon those who don't. Too often in these discussions people confuse the descriptive for the prescriptive.
I countered by pointing out that what you're seeing as 'descriptive' translates into an effective proscription. That assumption of normalcy has impacts on women. People assume that women want babies. Women who don't want babies are then abnormal. This impacts in two ways (at least). First, employers assume that women applicants are going to want to have babies and will leave the workforce, so they end up getting fewer job offers, or they get hired, but they get fewer opportunities for advancement, because they're seen as a risky investment (because they might want babies!). Secondly, because women who don't want babies are viewed as being abnormal... and being abnormal has a cost - if you don't conform to the expectation of what a woman is supposed to be like, then you're acting unfeminine, you're cold, you're heartless and ruthless, etc.

So I don't follow where you've gone with the descriptive/proscriptive line here. At the end of the day, that 'standard description' results in a limitation of agency, a reduction of opportunity, and a barrier for any people who don't conform to the standard.

As a sideline attempt at analogy, that barrier exists for gay people in a huge way, on a topic that straight people take completely for granted: casual conversation about your interactions with your significant other. A straight person can easily have a conversation about what they did with their s.o. over the weekend, the romantic dinner and evening out, or the vacation they're planning together... and nobody thinks anything of it. Straight people talk about their partners all the time, and nobody ever takes note of it. It's expected behavior for a straight person to talk about their life with their s.o.

But if a gay guy talks about the romantic dinner he had with his life partner, and how sweet he was to cook him his favorite dinner... people take note. I've lost track of the number of times I've heard someone make a comment along the lines of "I don't care if Bob is gay, I just wish he would stop flaunting it and pushing it in my face." Bob hasn't done anything different than what the average straight guy does. But because Bob's partner is the same gender as Bob, it becomes noteworthy. And even if there's no ill will, the fact that it is noteworthy and comment-worthy carries a cost for a gay person - it's a barrier and a disadvantage to them. This becomes a part of everyday life (a normal part of life that is just as important to them as it is to any straight person), that they are effectively proscribed from talking about.
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 02:41 PM   #239
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
There's a lot wrong in your post here, that I take issue with. I'm going to try to go through it in order, but I'm going to focus on a few specific statements as the lynch-pins for my points.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
People in general really don't seem capable of distinguishing descriptive from prescriptive, nor can they accept nuance and complexity in a topic. To them, if you disagree with any part of what they accept on a particular topic, you must by definition not only agree with everything they disagree with, but also have the exact opposite moral standing.
I think your interpretation here is incorrect, for several reasons. First, I've stated several times that biology may be part of it but that it is NOT the only part of it. You are free to disagree with any part of it... but you've repeatedly disagreed with ALL parts of it. I have yet to see you even concede that social biases could be a contributor to the difference in outcomes. I have only seen you argue that biology is a contributor to it. When you've been presented with research and evidence that points to something other than biology, you have seemed to dismiss it - you have found fault with every piece of evidence you've been provided. I have not passed any sort of moral judgement on you, nor has Dipayan, despite several snide and offensive comments being directed toward both of us. I don't require you to agree with everything I say, but it's very hard to view you as not being in complete opposition when you appear to not agree with anything.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
This explains why, when it was suggested that discrimination might not account for the majority of the disparities observed and that other factors such as biology may be involved, several posters went into a fit. See, on this topic they see only two options: you either accept that gender privilege exists, that it's entirely due to discrimination (most of the time, blamed entirely on evil men) and that this is a great societal evil; OR you reject that gender privilege exist and want women to go back to the kitchen. This is despite the fact that any rational person can see that these things have nothing to do with the other. It's entirely possible to believe that women should be afforded the same opportunities as men, but that because of various non-discriminatory factors parity may never be reached. But that's too nuanced and complicated. Nuance and complexity mean doubt, and doubt is the archnemesis of faith.
Ignoring the fact that nobody has gone into a fit, and that you're dismissing the entire premise as being baloney by framing it as 'faith'... you seem to not understand the impact of your own position. You say discrimination might not account for the majority of observations... but the nuance that you want us to accept is that women have the same opportunities, and non-discriminatory factors account for the differences. The nuance that you want me to accept is one that has no nuance, and does not leave open any discussion of factors other than biology. At no point are you willing to engage on the topic of other factors. It comes across as if what you want is for me and Dipayan to concede that biology is the cause of the difference... and then shut up about it, end of discussion. You do not seem remotely open to discussing any non-biological factor... and this is despite you having time and again been provided evidence that the opportunities are not equitable.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Because let's not kid ourselves, this particular claim about gender privilege is an ideology, and to accept it means you accept all of its tenets. Reject one, and you are an apostate. It makes no difference for the adherents whether you accept other tenets because since you reject the one, you might as well reject all of them. You're a heretic.
And again, you claim that Dipayan and I are not accepting the nuance and complexity of the situation... and yet your are dismissing the entirety of the concept as an ideology, with tenets, based on faith. You frame it as if you've only rejected a tiny bit of this topic, and that you've been met with insult and offense... and yet both Dipayan and I have been very patient and have repeatedly tried to explain the nuances to you, complete with supporting evidence. By framing it as tantamount to religion, you take a position wherein you reject it in its entirety. You're not engaging in discussion, you're closing it down. Furthermore, you're taking offense at a perceived slight that doesn't exist, and you're using your own offense as justification for rejection of the concept as a whole.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And no better example is to be found than the one provided by Cat in that last post. If you think biology has anything to do with gender disparity in a field, then you are a misogynist who wants women to be subjugated. We see it in SJW circles all the time. How are you supposed to have a conversation with someone like that? The best thing to do might be to identify them early one and just ignore them, at least as far as these topics are concerned. There's no way to convince them because to do so would mean that _they_ would become heretics (well, they call them sexists and other words, but it all means the same thing), and there's no worse fate.
At no point whatsoever have I claimed or implied that you're a misogynist, nor that you want women subjugated. And you're supposed to have a conversation with someone like me by having a conversation. Your solution here is to just ignore me, to dismiss the entire concept. Why? Because I don't accept that biology is a factor? I have accepted that, repeatedly. Because I insist upon talking about other factors than biology alone? That's the point of the discussion.

What factors other than biology have you accepted as factors that contribute to disparities in the opportunities and outcomes in jobs based on gender?
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 08:05 PM   #240
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't follow your line of reasoning here.

It stemmed from me being a bit snarky with Ziggurat, and his/her position that women and men are different
This is factually true.

Quote:
with the implication that this makes it all okay...
What, exactly, is "it" here? You have hidden a multitude of sins in this ambiguity.

But leaving that aside for a moment, it strikes me as quite strange that you find the implications of true facts to be objectionable. There are many true facts whose implications I find disturbing, tragic, unfortunate, etc. But there's never any sense in hiding from them.

Quote:
and the 'observation' that women 'in general' want babies.
First off, that's not what I said. I said many women (not women in general) do. This, too, is factually correct, and you have not actually contested it. I also said that many men do, but you seem to have studiously ignored that part. And thank goodness so many people want babies, or our species would not survive the advent of birth control.

Second, you introduced the question of women wanting babies, not me. You asked if I thought you should feel bad for not wanting any. I said of course not. Yet you're still responding as if I said you should. It's quite peculiar.

Quote:
I responded by pointing out that if the starting assumption is that women want babies, then women who don't want babies are viewed as abnormal. At least, that was the intention on my part.
"Abnormal" has a negative connotation, and you will note that I never used the word. If you only mean the word as a purely statistical description, there would be no reason to object to it as a descriptor, unless it was factually incorrect. But you haven't contested the factual correctness of any of this. So obviously it is the negative connotation you are concerned with. But I have on multiple occasions explicitly stated that I attach no negative meaning to atypical qualities or preferences.

You have from the start been arguing against a straw man. It's time to give that up. It isn't helping you.

Quote:
I've lost track of the number of times I've heard someone make a comment along the lines of "I don't care if Bob is gay, I just wish he would stop flaunting it and pushing it in my face."
Maybe the problem is simply the company you keep. The solution to that problem is not available on this board.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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
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 12:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.