The latest Feminist deflection

a reply to: rockintitz

Your study ignores perception. An assertive male is perceived as being a go-getter. An assertive female is seen as being a bitch.

I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

a reply to: Semidemigod

Actually it was answered. Feminism isn't about equal rights. It's about equality in general.

Now why has no one answered the converse? What rights have men lost?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'll concede that if women and men made the same choices when it came to working the "wage gap" would probably be $1.25 to $1.00 in favor of women.

I took -5 percentage points for the random misogynist male bosses that just can't stand seeing them darn women out of the kitchen.

The end result is that after having made an application, women are 36% more likely to land the job then men. In essence, men are competing more but winning less

sauce

Companies are desperate to hire women. Women are far more likely to be hired for most jobs, which means they have more mobility.

The wage gap is on women to close. Funny how the people yelling the loudest about not having enough women engineers, or scientists, got their degree in gender studies.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: rockintitz

Your study ignores perception. An assertive male is perceived as being a go-getter. An assertive female is seen as being a bitch.

I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

Says you? Sounds pretty sexist.

Also, how is that even quantifiable? Lmfao

a reply to: Xcalibur254

As I'm from the UK I can only really talk about there . Men have lost no rights in regards to women. But you have to take into account the fact that the game has been skewed towards women as long as I have been alive . For example men in the UK retire at 65 whereas women retire at 60 . As a result women tend to live longer .

a reply to: rockintitz

Study shows gender bias in science is real. Here s why it matters.

But in a groundbreaking study published in PNAS last week by Corinne Moss-Racusin and colleagues, that is exactly what was done. On Wednesday, Sean Carroll blogged about and brought to light the research from Yale that had scientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the “males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student.

The scientists also offered lower starting salaries to the “female” applicants: $26,507.94 compared to $30,238.10.

Care to explain why this is the fault of women?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You make many assumptions.

Unfortunately, that fear is overblown to a ridiculous degree. You are right and that there are women who abuse the system like so, but at the same time many women are perfectly happy doing the right thing just like the rest of us. Its not like women are inherently devious and all looking to take advantage of every man they see.

I never said otherwise. However, if I have a bowl of M&Ms and I know 2 in that bowl are poison and I can't tell the difference, I am not going to grab a handful. You can, and if you do, I hope it works out well for you.

At the same time, we all know that you shouldn't be dating someone you work with.

Something I have never done, and actually something I have never personally seen turn out bad. I'm sure some have, and it isn't a good idea IMO, but I've never seen it become a problem. The experiences I have seen with sexual harassment charges have all, every single one, been a hateful attempt to get 'even' with a man someone didn't like.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I never said otherwise. However, if I have a bowl of M&Ms and I know 2 in that bowl are poison and I can't tell the difference, I am not going to grab a handful. You can, and if you do, I hope it works out well for you.

That's a very poor analogy you know? In order to really drive home the odds, you'd have to have a pile of M&M's the size of a city and only like 2 or 3 poisoned ones. There are 300 million people in this country. A little over half of them are women. Your analogy paints a VERY high percentage of women as trying to get one over on men.

Something I have never done, and actually something I have never personally seen turn out bad. I'm sure some have, and it isn't a good idea IMO, but I've never seen it become a problem. The experiences I have seen with sexual harassment charges have all, every single one, been a hateful attempt to get 'even' with a man someone didn't like.

TheRedneck

I've seen it go south quite a bit. The worst offense and one that has stuck with me for years is when I saw a secretary lose her job at Bank of America because she was having an affair with the boss. The boss didn't lose his job though. Granted they were both in the wrong for having the affair in the first place, but I think the woman being fired and the man not even being demoted is a good anecdote for the gender gap this thread is addressing.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Sorry, but we women have *some* self-responsibility. It used to be that we considered some situations to be risky. Just like driving after you are drunk is a bad move, getting drunk when you don't know and completely trust the company you are in is also a bad move ... for anyone, man or woman.

Do you know why it's such a bad move? Because by getting that drunk, you are removing your own capacity to act in a rational fashion to increasing degree. If you get too drunk, you may remove your capacity to act in even a physical degree and place yourself entirely at the mercy of the people you are with.

It's just plain stupid, and when feminists act like a woman should just be able to get as drunk as she wants with whoever happens to be wherever she happens to be at that moment, they are acting like humans are universally wonderful people who will never, ever in any way shape or form take advantage of the situation.

Or, to put it bluntly, feminists are stupid and living in la la land.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Your study ignores perception. An assertive male is perceived as being a go-getter. An assertive female is seen as being a bitch.

I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

At least we know how you feel.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure. It's the reason I said more likely to be hired for most jobs.

I just showed you data that shows there is evidence of bias in favor of hiring women, and your response is to complain that it's not that way everywhere?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your analogy paints a VERY high percentage of women as trying to get one over on men.

No, your interpretation of it does. I never specified how large the bowl was.

I would also point out that while you are correct and the percentage is small, trying to paint it as 2 in 150,000,000 is about ridiculous. Maybe 2 in 100 would be reasonable, certainly no lower than 2 in 1000. And despite the low odds, the consequences are terrible.

I've seen it go south quite a bit.

I agree that was biased judgement on handling that situation, and poor judgement from the participants on the hanky-panky. But since we're going anecdotal, try this on for size:

I used to work with a guy, an engineer, in a local engineering department back when such things existed across the US. He was, admittedly, fairly crude and forthright, but he also was a darn good engineer and never once went out of his way to offend anyone. One day he was walking down a hallway with a friend, and he cracked a somewhat lewd joke.

There was this woman who had been there a couple months. I knew her too. Her car was apparently down for the count, and she asked me one day of she could catch rides home with me; Her ride into work couldn't take her home. Being naive at that age, I agreed; it was no skin off my back and I liked helping people. I had no interest in her.... I was a young redneck and she was old and wrinkled, actually seemed somewhat grandmotherly at first. I quickly realized that wasn't a smart decision, though, when she spent every single day telling me all the way home how much she hated the South, how wonderful feminism was, how my eating a hamburger was going to destroy the planet, how my favorite show, the "Dukes of Hazzard," was an affront to all things decent and good. I just kept my mouth shut. I should have had my car conveniently break down rather than listen to all the berating, but I didn't want to leave her without a ride.

When my friend made that crack, she happened to be setting off to the side but within earshot. The next thing anyone knew, she had filed sexual harassment charges against him. The company tried to reprimand him, but that wasn't good enough. She showed up with lawyers and started making enough threats that they let him go. When I saw that, I realized how dangerous she was and conveniently had to change my route home... so I wouldn't be in the car with her any more. The next thing I know, she had filed charges against me.

Luckily, I had some friends come to my rescue. I kept my job (after several very uncomfortable meetings) and after a week she packed up and left. But I will never, ever, forget that experience, and I will never, ever, knowingly place myself in a situation where I might be alone with a woman not my wife.

In the workplace, that means for every woman I hire, I have to hire someone else to work right alongside her, preferably a man, to make sure I am never alone with her. And I doubt that attitude will ever change.

Keep telling me how men aren't affected.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Who said feminism was specifically about equal rights? It's about equal treatment. The reason there are laws that require companies to higher a certain number of people from certain demographics is because white males are still disproportionately overrepresented in pretty much every industry.

Can you link me to a definition of feminism anywhere, dictionary or website, where the words "women/female/girl's rights" are not mentioned within the full definition? Because IF what you are saying is true then the definition of feminism has AGAIN shifted the goal posts for what is considered a standard concrete definition. And no, feminism does NOT get the exclusive right to change definitions at whim without consequence — or at least pretend that it is immune from defining itself and expect the same benefits as it did when it's definition was more concrete and understood. That is not how a legitimate movement functions. Stop making excuses.

This fact alone means that anyone that is not a white male will have a leg up on any competition. I know people always talk about how this prevents people from hiring based on merit. But the truth is that wasn't happening in the first place. A person is more likely to react well to someone that looks like them. So if most positions that are in charge of hiring are white males then they are more likely to hire another white male. Regardless of qualifications.

Another person bringing up race into the thread? Why? It really does seem you have been brainwashed into thinking "the patriarchy" is an actual construct. Why else would you mention race when there is no logical reason to have brought it up in relation to the opening post or any of my subsequent replies? This thread is about a gender issue. Feminists can be white, black, asian, arab etc. People that are opposed to feminist ideology can be white, black, asian or arab. Am I missing something here other than your probable belief in a "patriarchy" of some kind?

Hopefully down the line these laws will become obsolete because there is an accurate representation of democratic across the workforce.

Oh, now its about representation? About an equality of outcome? So regardless of any work put in, any merit earned based on talent or skill, white people should be removed from the political, ergonomical and entertainment industries so that numbers based purely on population numbers should be reflected in the outcome of these areas?

No. You cannot choose "individual freedom" (equality of opportunity) for everyone and then complain when one group outperforms others in terms of outcome, temporarily suspend the individual rights you were promoting earlier and change the rules to accommodate your expected reality of justice.

Either you believe in equality of opportunity (everyone has the same opportunity to achieve anything) where equality of outcome (all people being equally represented according to their population numbers) is NOT guaranteed, OR you get rid of equality of opportunity and guarantee an equality of outcome (social justice, NOT individual justice).

Which do you want?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Sigh... Fine. You better not ignore it.
Study

We first find that women have significantly lower promotion rates than men across all ranks of the corporate hierarchy, even after controlling for a range of individual characteristics (age, education, tenure, experience) and including fixed effects for current rank, year, industry, and even work establishment.

We need to be clear if you are referring exclusively to promotion rates or having requests for raises considered fairly. They are not the same, studies like yours usually don't make it clear in this regard and make out as if the two are interchangeable words.

In terms of asking for a raise: do you think it is a regular occurrence that employers go up to their employees and say "wow, you are doing such a great job, I was wondering if you would like your pay increased? Hmm, let's say I don't know by 5-10% higher that it is now? I just want to show how good an employee you are and I want you to know that." NO, the "burden" of asking for a raise is on the employee. If women are not asking for raises as often or ambitiously as men, do you think making a law to force employers to accept whenever a female employee requests a raise that they MUST honour this request every time is a good idea?

If you are referring to a promotion: do you want equality of opportunity (anybody who works hard is entitled to a promotion) or equality of outcome (30% of the workforce in this company are women, therefore 30% those who have received a promotion do so in regard to their sex and not their merit or job performance?).

You need to define which you think is the fairer system for everyone.

Article about the study

Authors Astrid Kunze and Amalia R. Miller examined private sector employment data from Norway, known as a generally women-friendly country, between 1987 and 1997. They found that even when controlling for industry, occupation, age, education, experience, tenure, and whether workers are full or part time, women are 2.9 percentage points less likely to get a promotion than men. On top of that, they found that “[f]or men, fatherhood is associated with a greater chance of promotion,” but for women, “children have a negative effect on promotion rates and that effect is even more negative if they are younger.”

See above. And do you think what you just wrote could be more accurately explained by married men and married women making different choices in regards to taking time off and caring for their children? Or do you think it is far more likely employers (who also do happen to be women) actively only do it towards mothers because they dislike women and don't want more female employees?

Chances of promotion aren’t much better even if women stick it out with one company. Women experience internal promotion rates that are 34 to 47 percent lower than for men. It also doesn’t matter whether they’re entry-level or at the top of their company: at every level, women are less likely to be promoted to the next rung by the following year.

Women in the workplace Study

Again, you are asking for an equality of opportunity and expecting an equality of outcome, ignoring variables such as "how hard the individual has worked, how much money due to this hard work they have saved or brought to the company, and how much time they have asked to take off to deal with non-work related events" which DO make a critical difference in OUTCOME of companies that exist within a capitalist economy.

Women are less likely to receive the first critical promotion to manager—so far fewer end up on the path to leadership—and are less likely to be hired into more senior positions. Women also get less access to the people, input, and opportunities that accelerate careers. As a result, the higher you look in companies, the fewer women you see.

This can all be reasonably explained and clearly understood by my previous replies. If you are unhappy with the current system and believe it is biased against women, then you are suggesting we change the system to favour a higher female representation outcome. If so, then you are NOT in support of equal rights as you have repeatedly claimed.

Of course not! Don't be silly. There are many factors that contribute to it. I just want to address the biggest ones as well as the ones we as a society can work towards fixing. The part of the equation that is of women's own making is on them to fix.

I believe I have fairly addressed and provided good reasons to explain the conclusions you drew from the study you linked. There is no viable reason to suggest misogyny is the likely factor to explain those discrepancies. If you disagree, please demonstrate that misogyny is most likely the factor to explain all these differences (ignoring everything I have just explained) and I will stop and join you right now in working for greater female equality. Go ahead, please show me something that confirms your original contention.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You are cherry picking data PLUS you have completely ignored my evidence. You haven't even addressed a single piece I gave you. Your evidence doesn't magically make mine null-and-void. If anything, they are both true. Which means I'm still right and that women aren't equal with men. All you are doing here, by not refuting my evidence, is showing that part of the problem may be women's own doing. But that is only PART of the problem. Your problem doesn't replace the worse problem I'm pointing out.

PS: Address the evidence you demanded from me.

That member is actually 100% correct in their responses to your "objective" evidence. They probably don't have much experience trying to explain why they are right to the extent YOU are requesting they do. Well, I DO have experience and HAVE explained why your "evidence" is garbage. Check my reply before this one if you dare, or you can just stick to picking on somebody who does not have the same level of experience in defending their arguments on this particular issue.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Not really. That happens every day in America. That exact situation in fact.

Yes, you are correct. It does. But the reason is not that men want to keep women down, but rather that they don't want to face unfounded sexual harassment charges should their new employee ever disagree with them.

Because that happens every day in America too, because of feminist support.

TheRedneck

Confounding variable alert. TheRedneck has just alerted us to another variable which most of us did not even consider before he posted it which is VERY likely to further suggest misogyny is not the reason for these disparities.

Great job.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Unfortunately, that fear is overblown to a ridiculous degree. You are right and that there are women who abuse the system like so, but at the same time many women are perfectly happy doing the right thing just like the rest of us. Its not like women are inherently devious and all looking to take advantage of every man they see.

He never said nor implied women are inherently devious or looking to take advantage of every man they see, YOU did. You are projecting your own misconceptions about the issue onto somebody else because they disagree with you.

At the same time, we all know that you shouldn't be dating someone you work with. So MAYBE it would be in everyone's best interests not to hit on people you work with and that way you'd never have that problem anyways.

I was waiting for this. Male employees are to blame. Not the woman who apparently has no free will to resist, report and deny any advances immediately to the HR department, even if they prefer to give an initial warning first. It's all on the man. And if a female boss comes onto a male employee and he is put in exactly the same situation and reports her, he is a misogynist or gay for refusing her advances. Which DOES happen. I have seen it happen in my own work force. I have heard others experience the same thing and get LAUGHED at for reporting what they considered to be very inappropriate and uncomfortable behaviour from their female boss.

Let me guess: this clear double standard is acceptable because... "the patriarchy"?

originally posted by: Semidemigod
There is a question which has been asked and ignored 3 or 4 times in this thread . I am intrigued as to the answer .

What rights do men currently enjoy which women do not ?

In the opinion of feminists and their allies, if that question were to be answered accurately then their credibility would be destroyed the moment they make the admission. (Therefore, don't expect them to answer it any time soon.)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Study shows gender bias in science is real. Here s why it matters.

But in a groundbreaking study published in PNAS last week by Corinne Moss-Racusin and colleagues, that is exactly what was done. On Wednesday, Sean Carroll blogged about and brought to light the research from Yale that had scientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the “males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student.

The scientists also offered lower starting salaries to the “female” applicants: $26,507.94 compared to $30,238.10.

Care to explain why this is the fault of women?

Care to explain why we should just blame men instead of asking why the participants who took part in the study (which consisted of males and females) were not interrogated individually for their reasons as to why they decided what they did? Or at the VERY least, group the participants in separate samples based on sex, so gender bias could be established as the better reason to explain the results (which it currently does NOT).

Keep the studies coming. You are really helping enforce the arguments of the opening post and all the subsequent replies calling you out for your desire to assume misogyny, when there is yet to be any evidence or reason to do believe what you are claiming.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Your study ignores perception. An assertive male is perceived as being a go-getter. An assertive female is seen as being a bitch.

I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

You mean by both male and female employers that is the perception? If you can find a credible study showing male employees actively discriminating against female employees to a degree that is proportionately higher than the occurrence of female employers discriminating against female employees, I am happy to look at it.

Until then, your argument is invalid.