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 5th October 2017, 02:28 AM   #241
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,279
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What, exactly, is "it" here? You have hidden a multitude of sins in this ambiguity.
See how strange it is? Twice now I've explained that the two shouldn't be confused, and in response she insists that they are one and the same!

Facts you disagree with => morals you disagree with. They just don't see a difference.
__________________
<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 5th October 2017, 05:16 AM   #242
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 6,969
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Facts you disagree with => morals you disagree with. They just don't see a difference.
It's similar to what I discovered on human races: acknowledge the fact that they exist, and it means you're a racist looking for ways & excuses to oppress some of them. It's what led me to realize that their position is really a special version of Creationism.

But it's also worth noting here, not just the switch from a subject of facts to a moral accusation, but at exactly what point it happened and what form it took at that moment. The specific point at which it happened was a statement that differences between the sexes might mean the expected ratio isn't 50/50 in all professions, and the form which the switch took was a leap to a straw man that the ratio must be 100/0 with no women ever working a paid job at all. Obviously "not 50/50" can mean a lot of other things than "100/0", like... "42.6/57.4". So the switch from talking about facts to talking about making accusations on morality was timed precisely to distract away from exactly that particular point. Coincidence?
Delvo 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 5th October 2017, 07:00 AM   #243
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
50% is the starting point.


Seriously, why do you expect men and women to be equally interested in becoming, say, computer scientists, structural engineers, database administrators, or fighter pilots? I've known women who excel in all of these fields, of course, and I'm happy to say that professional spaces should make them feel completely welcome. That said, why should we expect a 50/50 split in any given field?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 5th October 2017 at 07:06 AM.
d4m10n 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 5th October 2017, 07:26 AM   #244
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,279
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
But it's also worth noting here, not just the switch from a subject of facts to a moral accusation, but at exactly what point it happened and what form it took at that moment. The specific point at which it happened was a statement that differences between the sexes might mean the expected ratio isn't 50/50 in all professions, and the form which the switch took was a leap to a straw man that the ratio must be 100/0 with no women ever working a paid job at all. Obviously "not 50/50" can mean a lot of other things than "100/0", like... "42.6/57.4". So the switch from talking about facts to talking about making accusations on morality was timed precisely to distract away from exactly that particular point. Coincidence?
Well as I argue before, it's an ideology. Changing the subject or putting the other person on the defensive through various means once you're faced with an inconvenient fact is a staple of creationists.

- "I don't think we can say that there's any evidence for the existence of the supernatual."
- "Oh, so there's no morality and you can just kill people with abandon!"


...that sort of thing.

There is absolutely no rational excuse for making the jump from a cold fact to a moral judgment. The two just aren't related. Hell, even Skeptic Tank, who admits to being a racist and wanting to kick out non-whites from the continent, gets less emotional responses.
__________________
<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 5th October 2017, 07:29 AM   #245
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,279
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Quote:
50% is the starting point.
Seriously, why do you expect men and women to be equally interested in becoming, say, computer scientists, structural engineers, database administrators, or fighter pilots? I've known women who excel in all of these fields, of course, and I'm happy to say that professional spaces should make them feel completely welcome. That said, why should we expect a 50/50 split in any given field?
The only way that Tyr's point is valid is if he considers sexual dimorphism, and indeed any other factor, to be non-existent absent discrmination. If we could only stop treating women like cattle, the logic goes, suddenly you'd get a 50/50 distribution in coal mining, hairdressing, test pilots, CEOs, etc. It requires proponents of this idea to ignore human biology completely; and in fact it's the only way they can maintain their ideology. So it comes as no surprise that the mere mention of biology as a possible source of disparity is met with irrational responses. It's an attack on their ideology (which is the same as saying that it's an attack on their identity, and we all know how identity is important to them.)
__________________
<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 5th October 2017, 08:29 AM   #246
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,853
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
See how strange it is? Twice now I've explained that the two shouldn't be confused, and in response she insists that they are one and the same!

Facts you disagree with => morals you disagree with. They just don't see a difference.
Instead of responding to my post, which went into quite a bit of detail about the discussion between you and me, including the intersection of the two things you insist are mutually exclusive... you're going to fist-bump your pal Zig here, and slap each other on the back about how much better you are than 'those people'?

It's nice how you completely ignore my post, and just jaunt right on down the path of backhanded insults.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 08:31 AM   #247
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Have you forgotten your own words?
So no, I didn't say you would. Thanks for clearing that up.




Quote:
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.



This too is nonsense. The definition of a word doesn't determine what can and cannot be measured or studied.



It's not a layer of abstraction, it's an actual effect. Furthermore, it's an effect that we don't need to eliminate.



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.

Yes, I'm arguing is such bad faith that I explained what I meant and why not only the first time I said it, but again after that. It isn't bad faith that resulted in you not addressing the stipulated definition properly the first time.

No, your example isn't a separate mechanism at all. Remove the sexual dimorphism part and it has zero chance of having a measurable effect. Although thinking about it, all the arguments here are one or two steps removed from that anyway. The social pressures wouldn't be there without it either if there was only one sex, making the entire argument moot. However, your example still entirely relies on there already being an innate preference, not an outside pressure, and that difference is by definition due to sexual dimorphism. If women 'naturally', as you seem to want to call it, prefer some fields over another, one cannot then say anything leveraging this preference is a separate factor. It isn't.

You calling it nonsense doesn't make it so. The base rate is 50/50. This is a trivial fact that you want to object to and call nonsense. Your objection is meaningless, and your constant resorting to calling my arguments bad faith is a plain dodge.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 08:39 AM   #248
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,853
Okay. I suggest that you take a moment, and step back, and think about this objectively and without defensiveness.

Claims:
1) In general, women are disadvantaged in US society. They do not have equal opportunities, and this affects the outcomes beyond any argument from biology. References and research supporting this claim has been presented several times.

2) In general, people who are advantaged by social norms and expectations are very frequently unaware of the disadvantages of people who are not in their group. In general, the advantaged group often tends to assume that their experiences moving through society are what everyone experiences, and it can be extremely hard for them to see that other groups do not have those same advantages.

3) In general, the advantaged group is often both blind and deaf to the claims of the disadvantaged group. Because they have never experienced it, and because they tend to assume that their experience is what everyone experiences, they often tend to disregard claims by the disadvantaged group that any disadvantage exists at all. They tend to argue against the existence of that disadvantage, and they tend to dismiss the experiences of the disadvantaged group.

Now... given those claims... Does it give you any pause for thought at all that the only people arguing vigorously against the existence of any male privilege or female disadvantage are all men?

You are being blind and deaf to the claims of a disadvantaged group. You have never experienced this disadvantage, and you assume that your experience as men is the same experience that women have, becuase you have never had a different experience and you don't believe that those disadvantages exist. You have dismissed and disregarded the evidence and research presented to you on this topic.

You've even gone so far as to falsely accuse both Dipayan and I of being zealots, of passing moral judgment on you, and of treating this as faith. You've framed it in such a way that you feel justified in dismissing the claims made, without ever having to actually consider the issue open-mindedly.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 08:44 AM   #249
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,038
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post


Seriously, why do you expect men and women to be equally interested in becoming, say, computer scientists, structural engineers, database administrators, or fighter pilots? I've known women who excel in all of these fields, of course, and I'm happy to say that professional spaces should make them feel completely welcome. That said, why should we expect a 50/50 split in any given field?
Please reread what I've said. I didn't argue that we should expect a 50/50 split in any given field. Women are half the population, and any differences in that ratio would have to be explained by other factors. Start the 'discussion' (mostly it's been handwaving and goalpost moving) with one of those factors 'built in' (in this case sexual dimorphicly driven preference) lets those who dismiss the other factors just adjust the number to whatever they want. Women are less than 20% of elected officials in the US? Well, that's the 'natural' number then, and it's other countries that have it 'wrong' and in fact the comparison isn't even valid. 10% programmers? We don't have to deal with the active hostility from a significant number of male programmers because who's to say it isn't because women tend not want to code?

And sadly as it always happens the side that wants nothing done uses the reasonable debate about magnitude of the issue (and the hyperbolic arguments of the other extreme) to argue against any changes at all. We don't need to do x, because it's not that big an issue, even if 'x' constitutes basically calling people out for being an ass. I doubt this is a conscious effort, but it's an all too common deflection method for human thinking. Twice in this thread posters have called for something, only to move the goalpost (once by calling it 'anecdotal' and once by just dropping that line) once it was provided.

Preference/sexual dimorphism, social expectations, legal forces, and outright discrimination are all factors that must be used to explain the difference from the 50/50 split. This is trivially true. To start at anywhere be the actual population ratio builds in bias.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 08:51 AM   #250
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Yes, I'm arguing is such bad faith that I explained what I meant and why not only the first time I said it, but again after that. It isn't bad faith that resulted in you not addressing the stipulated definition properly the first time.
No, tyr. You didn't define it. You said what levels you thought were natural. That isn't the same thing as providing a definition at all, since nothing in what you said indicated you considered this to be absent any differences due to preferences or capabilities. And I'm not the only one who was confused. Nobody thought you were defining it that way, because nobody thought you were using such an absurdly stupid definition of "natural".

Lesson learned, though.

Quote:
No, your example isn't a separate mechanism at all. Remove the sexual dimorphism part and it has zero chance of having a measurable effect.
But 1) you can't remove sexual dimorphism from people, and 2) the whole god damn point of the argument is to examine the effects of sexual dimorphism absent discrimination.

And you wonder why I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

Quote:
You calling it nonsense doesn't make it so. The base rate is 50/50. This is a trivial fact that you want to object to and call nonsense. Your objection is meaningless, and your constant resorting to calling my arguments bad faith is a plain dodge.
It's nonsense to think that there's any point in starting with that as the base, since again, it's impossible to remove sexual dimorphism, and the whole argument is about what happens WITH sexual dimorphism but ABSENT discrimination. Who the **** cares what happens in the absence of sexual dimorphism? Yes, under your nonsense definition it's trivially true, but it's so trivial that I couldn't imagine you'd be even trying to debate that point.

But again, lesson learned. You will try to argue such trivial irrelevancies.
__________________
"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 5th October 2017, 08:56 AM   #251
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,279
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Yes, I'm arguing is such bad faith that I explained what I meant and why not only the first time I said it, but again after that.
Maybe what you meant is not what you think you meant. Maybe what you really meant was "penis".
__________________
<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 5th October 2017, 09:00 AM   #252
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,279
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But 1) you can't remove sexual dimorphism from people
Not so fast! Some of the far-left think biological sex is a social construct. If we could only... re-educate men and make men more feminine, utopia would follow.

Quote:
It's nonsense to think that there's any point in starting with that as the base, since again, it's impossible to remove sexual dimorphism, and the whole argument is about what happens WITH sexual dimorphism but ABSENT discrimination. Who the **** cares what happens in the absence of sexual dimorphism?
Well, as I said before, sexual dimorphism is the boogeyman of the far-left. Its existence demolishes their entire ideology.
__________________
<Roar!>


Last edited by Argumemnon; 5th October 2017 at 09:02 AM.
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 5th October 2017, 09:49 AM   #253
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Preference/sexual dimorphism, social expectations, legal forces, and outright discrimination are all factors that must be used to explain the difference from the 50/50 split. This is trivially true. To start at anywhere be the actual population ratio builds in bias.
It's possible that I don't understand what you mean by "start at" here. I don't start at the assumption that women/men are (or should be) equally interested in much of anything, given the various innate and inculturated differences between men and women.

There are some cases where I would favor a policy deliberately designed to enforce gender equality, for example, each state being alloted one man and one woman in the U.S. Senate.

There are other cases, such as the gender imbalance in undergraduates pursuing social work or civil engineering degrees, where I'm content to allow people to make their own life choices without any policy interventions beyond standard anti-discrimination policies.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 5th October 2017, 11:50 AM   #254
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,238
Well, Cam Newton just said basically that women have no business commenting on Football.....

http://www.bbc.com/sport/american-football/41508759
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; 5th October 2017 at 11:51 AM.
dudalb 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 5th October 2017, 12:02 PM   #255
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,038
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It's possible that I don't understand what you mean by "start at" here. I don't start at the assumption that women/men are (or should be) equally interested in much of anything, given the various innate and inculturated differences between men and women.
Do you assume they don't then? That would be a problem when the discussion is about gender privilege and its impact. Again, I'm not arguing what it 'should be' by starting at the population ratio.

Remember, they are arguing that comparing like countries and the drastically different outcomes in these ratios is not evidence of discrimination because of preferences arising from sexual dimorphism. 'Starting at' a point where that sexual dimorphism is built into the base rate is nonsense inside that context. It is being employed specifically as a hand-wave.

Quote:
There are some cases where I would favor a policy deliberately designed to enforce gender equality, for example, each state being alloted one man and one woman in the U.S. Senate.

There are other cases, such as the gender imbalance in undergraduates pursuing social work or civil engineering degrees, where I'm content to allow people to make their own life choices without any policy interventions beyond standard anti-discrimination policies.
I haven't argued that people shouldn't make their own life-choices, and I'd in fact be against your Senate idea. Don't let Ziggs straw-manning of my posts color what I've actually said.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 12:14 PM   #256
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, tyr. You didn't define it. You said what levels you thought were natural. That isn't the same thing as providing a definition at all, since nothing in what you said indicated you considered this to be absent any differences due to preferences or capabilities. And I'm not the only one who was confused. Nobody thought you were defining it that way, because nobody thought you were using such an absurdly stupid definition of "natural".

Lesson learned, though.
Quote:
I don't have any illusions you'll learn in this thread. Those two sentences show exactly how I'm using the term.

Although you already argued that you don't want 'natural' level anyway, and want 'civilized' behavior instead, which is remarkably tone-deaf consider the history of such 'civilized' behavioral norms enforcing gender restrictions. While others argue that the 'natural' level might be a detriment because some tasks actually benefit more from the gain in diversity of experience than from some other considerations at times, you're arguing that it's more 'civilized'... in response to huge disparities in elected officials being women between western nations.


Quote:
But 1) you can't remove sexual dimorphism from people, and 2) the whole god damn point of the argument is to examine the effects of sexual dimorphism absent discrimination.

And you wonder why I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
I never said you could remove it, but that doesn't make it a separate mechanism.

The point of the argument is that some are embracing a ridiculous hand-wave in order to deny evidence of discrimination. Sexual dimorphism doesn't explain this still, and that's also trivially true.



Quote:
It's nonsense to think that there's any point in starting with that as the base, since again, it's impossible to remove sexual dimorphism, and the whole argument is about what happens WITH sexual dimorphism but ABSENT discrimination. Who the **** cares what happens in the absence of sexual dimorphism? Yes, under your nonsense definition it's trivially true, but it's so trivial that I couldn't imagine you'd be even trying to debate that point.

But again, lesson learned. You will try to argue such trivial irrelevancies.

It's completely relevant to disprove the hand-wave of the extreme disparities in western countries ratios. This is still not explained by sexual dimorphism.

And I already knew you'd argue against trivial truths no matter how germane to the topic they are if I'm the one employing them in an argument.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 12:15 PM   #257
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Remember, they are arguing that comparing like countries and the drastically different outcomes in these ratios is not evidence of discrimination because of preferences arising from sexual dimorphism.
But the countries in question are NOT actually like. That's the point. There are reasons other than discrimination which could contribute significantly to these differences. Not once have you ever provided any argument for why the factors I listed do not contribute to the different observed outcome.

Quote:
'Starting at' a point where that sexual dimorphism is built into the base rate is nonsense inside that context. It is being employed specifically as a hand-wave.
No, it's not a hand-wave. I was directly addressing the central question: what we should expect in the absence of discrimination. The only handwaving was from you, when you decided to change the definition of a term I was using to a nonsensical one without explaining that you were changing the definition. NOBODY understood that you had changed the definition. That isn't my fault, that's yours.
__________________
"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 5th October 2017, 12:17 PM   #258
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
It's completely relevant to disprove the hand-wave of the extreme disparities in western countries ratios. This is still not explained by sexual dimorphism.
How would you know? Seriously, you're just declaring this to be so. You have no actual evidence to back up this assertion.
__________________
"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 5th October 2017, 12:24 PM   #259
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But the countries in question are NOT actually like. That's the point. There are reasons other than discrimination which could contribute significantly to these differences. Not once have you ever provided any argument for why the factors I listed do not contribute to the different observed outcome.

Stop right there, do they? Could the disparity be due to the discrimination?

The factors you listed don't even address the specific example I keep using.



Quote:
No, it's not a hand-wave. I was directly addressing the central question: what we should expect in the absence of discrimination. The only handwaving was from you, when you decided to change the definition of a term I was using to a nonsensical one without explaining that you were changing the definition. NOBODY understood that you had changed the definition. That isn't my fault, that's yours.

Still a hand-wave. You still have no evidence that market forces are keeping women out of politics, nor that the market forces are even substantially different between the nations being compared (they actually are, which makes their all having such higher rates of women representatives be even more an outlier).

And here is actually an appropriate example of how we can be blinded by our own perspectives. Nobody understood? Two people are not everyone in the thread.

How about those examples of discrimination and social pressures you'd said you'd speak out against? We had another one not even from me recently.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 12:26 PM   #260
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How would you know? Seriously, you're just declaring this to be so. You have no actual evidence to back up this assertion.
Because women in Norway aren't less sexually dimorphic than US women!

This is tedious and silly. Next time a woman complains about their perspective and problems not being taken seriously, they're talking about you too. I'm done. Have fun not helping anyone.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 12:33 PM   #261
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,228
I feel that both camps might be talking past each other.

If I had to make broad categories for what could account for disparities, I'd list them as such (order irrelevant):

1) sexual dimorphism
2) cultural differences
3) discrimination

I _think_ we all accept that 1 and 2 are major driving forces, but are getting hung up on 3? Can we have category 2) without having category 3), or is this a meaningless distinction? I think they are distinct factors because I don't consider norms to be outright discrimination...
thoughts?
pharphis 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 5th October 2017, 12:35 PM   #262
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,853
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Not so fast! Some of the far-left think biological sex is a social construct. If we could only... re-educate men and make men more feminine, utopia would follow.
Okay, great. Who in this thread do you think exhibits this behavior?
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 12:40 PM   #263
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Because women in Norway aren't less sexually dimorphic than US women!
But according to you, other factors besides discrimination which affect preferences still fall under the category of dimorphism. So it doesn't matter if they're equally dimorphic, if the environments are different, then that dimorphism may manifest itself differently. And guess what: the environments are different. Hell, I didn't even touch on perhaps the biggest one of all: the jobs of politicians in Norway are not the same as the jobs of politicians in the US. So why would American and Norwegian women have equal preferences for them?

Quote:
This is tedious and silly.
That is correct: your entire argument has from the start been tedious and silly. And you still can't say why differences other than discrimination can't have an effect. Hell, you have never once even attempted such an argument. Saying that dimorphism is the same doesn't suffice, because (again) dimorphism will manifest different behaviors under different conditions. And the conditions are different.

Quote:
Next time a woman complains about their perspective and problems not being taken seriously, they're talking about you too. I'm done. Have fun not helping anyone.
You can't back up your claims, so you'll take your ball and go home. No surprise there.
__________________
"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 5th October 2017, 12:41 PM   #264
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,853
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
I feel that both camps might be talking past each other.

If I had to make broad categories for what could account for disparities, I'd list them as such (order irrelevant):

1) sexual dimorphism
2) cultural differences
3) discrimination

I _think_ we all accept that 1 and 2 are major driving forces, but are getting hung up on 3? Can we have category 2) without having category 3), or is this a meaningless distinction? I think they are distinct factors because I don't consider norms to be outright discrimination...
thoughts?
I consider them to be separate categories. If I'm being picky, I'd suggest rewording item 2) as "societal norms", as opposed to cultural differences. Only because calling it cultural differences leads it to a discussion of the differences between different countries, and obscures the impact that norms within a society have on the opportunities and outcomes.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 12:45 PM   #265
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,853
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Well, Cam Newton just said basically that women have no business commenting on Football.....

http://www.bbc.com/sport/american-football/41508759
Okay, this is a bit of a derail, but I think this must be the most epic tu quoque ever:

Quote:
Newton, 28, said it was "funny to hear a female" talk about football when questioned by Jourdan Rodrigue, a reporter for the Charlotte Observer.
...

Rodrigue later apologised after it emerged she had posted racist tweets several years ago.
So this guy makes a sexist comment now... and the woman he made the comment to ends up having to apologize becuse a long time ago she made some racist remarks? Well, I know he made a sexist comment, but she made a racist one, so there!
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 12:48 PM   #266
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,853
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But according to you, other factors besides discrimination which affect preferences still fall under the category of dimorphism. So it doesn't matter if they're equally dimorphic, if the environments are different, then that dimorphism may manifest itself differently.
Are you claiming that the cultural environment makes Norwegian women less feminine than US women?

Because if that's not what you're saying, then you are making my point for me: Culture and social norms affect the choices that women make (and are expected to make) beyond the biological differences inherent in a sexually dimorphic species. Cultural pressures are NOT biological explanations - they're cultural explanations, which is exactly the point of this discussion.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 12:58 PM   #267
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Are you claiming that the cultural environment makes Norwegian women less feminine than US women?
Did you actually read what I wrote about possible non-discriminatory factors? Because it doesn't seem like you did. Nothing I said has anything to do with making women more or less feminine.

Plus, as I just said to tyr and apparently need to say to you again, the job of a politician in Norway is not the same as the job of a politician in the United States.
__________________
"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 5th October 2017, 01:41 PM   #268
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,279
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Did you actually read what I wrote about possible non-discriminatory factors? Because it doesn't seem like you did. Nothing I said has anything to do with making women more or less feminine.
You're wasting your time. In their mind, there is no distinction between what you say and what they claim you say.
__________________
<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 5th October 2017, 04:29 PM   #269
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,238
And now we have the Harvey Weinstein case...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/u...legations.html

If we condemn this disgusting behavior at Fox News we have to condemn it from Weinstein, I don't care how big a donor he was to the Democrats.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 5th October 2017, 04:35 PM   #270
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,853
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Did you actually read what I wrote about possible non-discriminatory factors? Because it doesn't seem like you did. Nothing I said has anything to do with making women more or less feminine.
You wrote about one possible factor - economics. It seemed fairly speculative, to me, I didn't read it as you providing discussion around non-discriminatory factors. I apologize if I missed your intent.

That said, I don't see that your assessment fits well with observation. For example, in countries with little to know government-funded social support, we tend to see fewer women in the workplace at all, and where we do see women working, it tends to be in very low-wage jobs. In countries with large social support networks and progressive policies, we tend to see closer to even distributions of women in most fields. Case in point would be Norway. Not exactly 50/50, of course, but closer. So it seems like a reduction of economic burden and insecurity generally results in more women in the work-force, as well as a higher proportion of women in leadership and high-paying positions.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Plus, as I just said to tyr and apparently need to say to you again, the job of a politician in Norway is not the same as the job of a politician in the United States.
What are the differences, and how do they intersect with biologically driven gender-based differences?
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 05:27 PM   #271
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You wrote about one possible factor - economics. It seemed fairly speculative, to me, I didn't read it as you providing discussion around non-discriminatory factors. I apologize if I missed your intent.

That said, I don't see that your assessment fits well with observation. For example, in countries with little to know government-funded social support, we tend to see fewer women in the workplace at all, and where we do see women working, it tends to be in very low-wage jobs.
If you're talking third-world countries, then sure. They also have considerably more discrimination (which, again, I never denied exists). So this isn't a single-factor analysis here.

Quote:
In countries with large social support networks and progressive policies, we tend to see closer to even distributions of women in most fields. Case in point would be Norway. Not exactly 50/50, of course, but closer. So it seems like a reduction of economic burden and insecurity generally results in more women in the work-force, as well as a higher proportion of women in leadership and high-paying positions.
Hold on. Now you're talking about the entire workforce. I was talking about job-specific distributions. And in engineering, for example, Norway is no better off than the US. And the UK is considerably worse.

Quote:
What are the differences, and how do they intersect with biologically driven gender-based differences?
One of the big differences is that they use proportional representation and a multi-party system. The US doesn't. So candidates don't stand for election individually in Norway, but they do in the US. This places different demands on politicians. Campaigning, fundraising, even constituent service is different as a result. I can speculate as to how that might make a difference in gender preference, but I don't really need to. Because again, I'm not trying to prove that preferences are the only cause of the difference. I'm merely pointing out that it could contribute, and until you account for it, you cannot say how much is due to discrimination.
__________________
"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 5th October 2017, 05:42 PM   #272
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,279
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Hold on. Now you're talking about the entire workforce.
Mirroring a time when women stayed at home because social pressures were pushing them in that direction, I wonder how many women today work because it's socially unacceptable to be a housewife.

Quote:
Because again, I'm not trying to prove that preferences are the only cause of the difference. I'm merely pointing out that it could contribute, and until you account for it, you cannot say how much is due to discrimination.
Clearly that means you think women should stay home.
__________________
<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 6th October 2017, 04:06 AM   #273
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,842
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Mirroring a time when women stayed at home because social pressures were pushing them in that direction, I wonder how many women today work because it's socially unacceptable to be a housewife.

I've heard people talk about this. (Mostly on NPR, my most common drive-time listening.) From what I've read, or heard, that was a real phenomenon especially among the baby boom/gen-xers, i.e. the first group of women to come of age after "women's liberation". They really felt pressure to have a career. In the last decade or so, more have opted for stay-at-home mom status.

Sorry. No stats or links. Just an "I heard it on NPR."
Meadmaker 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 6th October 2017, 08:53 AM   #274
Crawtator
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Not so fast! Some of the far-left think biological sex is a social construct. If we could only... re-educate men and make men more feminine, utopia would follow.



Well, as I said before, sexual dimorphism is the boogeyman of the far-left. Its existence demolishes their entire ideology.
This reminds me of a hilarious moment in a Joe Rogan podcast with Ben Shapiro. They were discussing Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner receiving the courage award (Arthur Ashe Award, I think). As they went back in forth about the arguments against him/her receiving it, one of them says (and I am paraphrasing),

"This should piss women off further! If there is no sexual di-morphism, then there is no difference between men and women! Hell, men are so much better than women that men are better than women at being women!"

Not that I agree, but I laughed.....HARD.
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 01:00 PM   #275
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,675
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
The base rate is 50/50.
Only if you assume perfectly spherical genders.
theprestige 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 6th October 2017, 01:11 PM   #276
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,853
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you're talking third-world countries, then sure. They also have considerably more discrimination (which, again, I never denied exists). So this isn't a single-factor analysis here.
Nobody said it was a single-factor analysis. I'm just noting that your broad assumption doesn't appear to align with reality. If your claim is that your assumption is based on a dynamic that doesn't exist in reality, we can talk about that... but as it stands, your general premise seems unsound. Please feel free to refine in a way that will allow you to separate the discrimination for the economic factors and demonstrate how those economic factors amplify or reduce gender dimorphic preferences.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Hold on. Now you're talking about the entire workforce. I was talking about job-specific distributions. And in engineering, for example, Norway is no better off than the US. And the UK is considerably worse.
No... I'm talking about BOTH the entire workforce AND job-specific distributions. But let's simplify: Let's talk about 1) overall representation in the workforce as a whole and 2) type of job.

https://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap
Quote:
When looking at the uncontrolled gap, it is true that the median salary for men is roughly 24 percent higher than the median salary for women.

But what often gets lost in translation is what the uncontrolled gap truly represents—that women are less likely to hold high-level, high-paying jobs than men. The more stubborn gap is one of opportunity rather than "equal pay for equal work." When we compare men and women who hold the same jobs, the median salaries are significantly closer and the pay gap becomes less substantial. But even then, there is a gap: the controlled gender pay gap. Nationally, when we control for job title, job level and other important influencers of wages (like years of work experience), women still only make 98 cents for every dollar earned by men.
Quote:
Men are 85 percent more likely than women to be VPs or C-Suite Execs by mid-career, and 171 percent more likely to hold those positions late in their career. Conversely, by the time they reach age 60, more than 60 percent of women are still working in individual contributor roles, but less than 45 percent of men are still in this type of job.
Toward the bottom of this article, there's a chart showing the wage gap by type of work - even in female dominated jobs, men are paid more.
http://www.aauw.org/research/the-sim...ender-pay-gap/

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
One of the big differences is that they use proportional representation and a multi-party system. The US doesn't. So candidates don't stand for election individually in Norway, but they do in the US. This places different demands on politicians. Campaigning, fundraising, even constituent service is different as a result. I can speculate as to how that might make a difference in gender preference, but I don't really need to. Because again, I'm not trying to prove that preferences are the only cause of the difference. I'm merely pointing out that it could contribute, and until you account for it, you cannot say how much is due to discrimination.
Actually, I really think you do need to speculate on how that might make a difference in gender preference. That's pretty much the point of disagreement here. You've claimed that a difference in the role of a politician in Norway creates a different result from the same gender dimorphism. You've claimed that a different job role for politicians in other countries results in different proportions of genders in those roles, as a result of biologically-driven gender preferences. I think it's rather important that you speculate on how that difference in job role results in a gender difference. Merely claiming that it can, without even a plausible explanation of how, is pretty much hand-waiving.
__________________
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 6th October 2017, 01:19 PM   #277
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Remember, they are arguing that comparing like countries and the drastically different outcomes in these ratios is not evidence of discrimination because of preferences arising from sexual dimorphism. . . . It is being employed specifically as a hand-wave.
I'm not fully on board with the idea of "like countries" given that I live in a nation with an exceptionally balkanized heathcare system and an exceptionally robust global investment in military personnel and equipment, not to mention an exceptionally high prevalence of vestigial honor culture for a modern society. The U.S. stands out at the bottom (or top) of too many OECD charts for me to expect straightforward generalization from them to us.

All that said, I doubt that between-the-ears sexual dimorphism explains much unless we are talking specifically about sexual selection, interpersonal aggression, or general risk aversion.

On an unrelated note, have there been any unarguable examples of gender privilege provided in the last six pages? I can think of at least one which doesn't require doing any sociology or statistical inference: 50 U.S. Code §3802.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 6th October 2017 at 01:23 PM.
d4m10n 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 6th October 2017, 02:06 PM   #278
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Nobody said it was a single-factor analysis. I'm just noting that your broad assumption doesn't appear to align with reality.
If it's not a single-factor analysis, then there is no grounds on which to conclude that my position doesn't align with reality.

Quote:
No... I'm talking about BOTH the entire workforce AND job-specific distributions. But let's simplify: Let's talk about 1) overall representation in the workforce as a whole and 2) type of job.

https://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap
You're not making any sense. Why are you presenting evidence for pay differentials within the United States when the question we were debating was about participation rate differences between countries? You've lost the thread of the discussion completely.

Quote:
Actually, I really think you do need to speculate on how that might make a difference in gender preference. That's pretty much the point of disagreement here. You've claimed that a difference in the role of a politician in Norway creates a different result from the same gender dimorphism.
No, that is not what I've claimed. I've claimed that this is a possible factor, and unless you account for this factor, you cannot make the comparison tyr wanted to make. The difference may appear subtle, but it's important.

Quote:
Merely claiming that it can, without even a plausible explanation of how, is pretty much hand-waiving.
Unless you want to take the position that women and men don't have different preferences for different jobs, or you want to take the position that the jobs are essentially identical, then no, I really don't need to do that.
__________________
"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 6th October 2017, 03:46 PM   #279
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,853
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, that is not what I've claimed. I've claimed that this is a possible factor, and unless you account for this factor, you cannot make the comparison tyr wanted to make. The difference may appear subtle, but it's important.
This is a silly argument. You claimed that something *might* be a factor, yet you've provided no support or evidence for it actually being a factor. Additionally, you've declined to even theorize on how it might work as a factor. Yet you want to insist that your completely speculative and unexplained hypothetical needs to be included as a factor? That's nonsense.

A: The weather patterns and geography of these two regions are pretty similar, one would expect them to have about the same amount of rainfall.
B: Well, the difference in butterfly population might be a factor.
A: How would that even work? How would that make a difference?
B: I don't have to explain it. If you haven't accounted for the difference in butterfly populations, you can't even compare the two.



Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Unless you want to take the position that women and men don't have different preferences for different jobs, or you want to take the position that the jobs are essentially identical, then no, I really don't need to do that.
How does this even relate? You made a claim, you stipulated what you think is a possible factor. But you have declined to even vaguely explain how it might be a factor... And you think you don't need to explain how it could even possibly be a factor because... reasons? Even if they do have different preferences for different jobs, you would have to explain how the difference in the role of politician in Norway would even begin to play into that preference. You seem to be kind of hand-waving and passing the buck here.
__________________
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 6th October 2017, 04:24 PM   #280
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
I'm not passing the buck, I'm putting the burden of proof where it correctly lies: the one making positive claim. And I'm pointing out that the claim has not been supported adequately. Neither you nor tyr have even considered factors other than discrimination.
__________________
"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 01:55 AM.
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.