Feminists don't understand statistics or care about the truth

[dismal]

Generalizing anecdotes to all feminists is illogical. I am sure we could find some anecdotes about gay Australians, but it would not merit a thread entitled "Gay Australians like kangaroo sex with Muslims."

Well, some do.

 

[Metaphor]

Except I believe (and I could be wrong here) that much of the inequality of "inputs" is gender based. I don't believe (and again, I could be wrong) that "feminists" necessarily disagree that from a distributive justice POV that unequal inputs lead to unequal outcomes when that inequality is not due to gender differences.

I believe I was too generous earlier when I said feminists are interested in distributive justice but they're just mistaken about whether they have it or not. Certainly some individual feminists simply don't care that women and men differ on any number of variables that lead to wage outcome differentials, like Jessica Valenti, who thinks employers should simply reduce the pay of men in their organisations until women are on par. Curiously, Valenti doesn't seem to advocate reducing women's college grades until they're on par with men's.

Feminists sometimes seem to recognise that absences from the workplace (such as women are more likely to take being more often the primary caregiver) lead to lower lifetime wages. Some think men need to be made to also take time off when the men become fathers, as if families can't decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work.

 

[laughing dog]

Except I believe (and I could be wrong here) that much of the inequality of "inputs" is gender based. I don't believe (and again, I could be wrong) that "feminists" necessarily disagree that from a distributive justice POV that unequal inputs lead to unequal outcomes when that inequality is not due to gender differences.

I believe I was too generous earlier when I said feminists are interested in distributive justice but they're just mistaken about whether they have it or not. Certainly some individual feminists simply don't care that women and men differ on any number of variables that lead to wage outcome differentials, like Jessica Valenti, who thinks employers should simply reduce the pay of men in their organisations until women are on par. Curiously, Valenti doesn't seem to advocate reducing women's college grades until they're on par with men's.

Feminists sometimes seem to recognise that absences from the workplace (such as women are more likely to take being more often the primary caregiver) lead to lower lifetime wages. Some think men need to be made to also take time off when the men become fathers, as if families can't decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work.

Or maybe that is an awkward attempt to
1) deal with the reality that such"family decisions" are more based on gender roles etc.... than the disinterested calculus you seem to believe is used,
2) bring awareness to men to the obstacles working women face, and
3) allow many men to experience the joys and hard work of raising babies.

 

[Toni]

Except I believe (and I could be wrong here) that much of the inequality of "inputs" is gender based. I don't believe (and again, I could be wrong) that "feminists" necessarily disagree that from a distributive justice POV that unequal inputs lead to unequal outcomes when that inequality is not due to gender differences.

I believe I was too generous earlier when I said feminists are interested in distributive justice but they're just mistaken about whether they have it or not. Certainly some individual feminists simply don't care that women and men differ on any number of variables that lead to wage outcome differentials, like Jessica Valenti, who thinks employers should simply reduce the pay of men in their organisations until women are on par. Curiously, Valenti doesn't seem to advocate reducing women's college grades until they're on par with men's.

Feminists sometimes seem to recognise that absences from the workplace (such as women are more likely to take being more often the primary caregiver) lead to lower lifetime wages. Some think men need to be made to also take time off when the men become fathers, as if families can't decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work.

I wasn't aware that Jessica Valenti and her views were actually variables that affected wage outcome variables.

Who knew?

 

[iolo]

Most people, especially most journalists, don't understand basic arithmetic, let alone statistics, or how would we still have capitalism? In the current situation, the number of useful statements you can make about all feminists hovers around 0.

 

[Toni]

Most people, especially most journalists, don't understand basic arithmetic, let alone statistics, or how would we still have capitalism? In the current situation, the number of useful statements you can make about all feminists hovers around 0.

You are really far too hard on Metaphor.

 

[Jokodo]

Except I believe (and I could be wrong here) that much of the inequality of "inputs" is gender based. I don't believe (and again, I could be wrong) that "feminists" necessarily disagree that from a distributive justice POV that unequal inputs lead to unequal outcomes when that inequality is not due to gender differences.

I believe I was too generous earlier when I said feminists are interested in distributive justice but they're just mistaken about whether they have it or not. Certainly some individual feminists simply don't care that women and men differ on any number of variables that lead to wage outcome differentials, like Jessica Valenti, who thinks employers should simply reduce the pay of men in their organisations until women are on par. Curiously, Valenti doesn't seem to advocate reducing women's college grades until they're on par with men's.

Feminists sometimes seem to recognise that absences from the workplace (such as women are more likely to take being more often the primary caregiver) lead to lower lifetime wages. Some think men need to be made to also take time off when the men become fathers, as if families can't decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work.

When women are presumed to eventually take time off their work once they get kids and are thus already paid lower without any prior absences from the workplace; when at the same time men are bullied when they do express an intention to take time of when they become fathers; then we are far, far away from "families deciding for themselves".

Making it so that employers need to expect a man to take time off when he becomes a father as much as they expect a woman to take time off when she becomes a mother may just be what we need in order to make families free to actually decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work.

 

[Metaphor]

I believe I was too generous earlier when I said feminists are interested in distributive justice but they're just mistaken about whether they have it or not. Certainly some individual feminists simply don't care that women and men differ on any number of variables that lead to wage outcome differentials, like Jessica Valenti, who thinks employers should simply reduce the pay of men in their organisations until women are on par. Curiously, Valenti doesn't seem to advocate reducing women's college grades until they're on par with men's.

Feminists sometimes seem to recognise that absences from the workplace (such as women are more likely to take being more often the primary caregiver) lead to lower lifetime wages. Some think men need to be made to also take time off when the men become fathers, as if families can't decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work.

I wasn't aware that Jessica Valenti and her views were actually variables that affected wage outcome variables.

Who knew?

Well, who knew you were not above childish point-squabbling over the construction of a sentence, when anyone with a limited grasp of English would clearly understand 'Jessica Valenti' is the referent for the earlier 'individual feminist' rather than the referent for 'variables'.

 

[Metaphor]

When women are presumed to eventually take time off their work once they get kids and are thus already paid lower without any prior absences from the workplace;

First, there is no evidence that this happens. When a number of variables are controlled for, young women outearn young men.

Second, where is this happening? That's flagrant sex discrimination and the employer ought to be sued. It seems like an open and shut case.

when at the same time men are bullied when they do express an intention to take time of when they become fathers; then we are far, far away from "families deciding for themselves".

Making it so that employers need to expect a man to take time off when he becomes a father as much as they expect a woman to take time off when she becomes a mother may just be what we need in order to make families free to actually decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work.

Feminists will never get what they want (which is equality of outcome between men and women) because feminists are wrong about the fundamentals.

 

[Jokodo]

First, there is no evidence that this happens. When a number of variables are controlled for, young women outearn young men.

Second, where is this happening? That's flagrant sex discrimination and the employer ought to be sued. It seems like an open and shut case.

when at the same time men are bullied when they do express an intention to take time of when they become fathers; then we are far, far away from "families deciding for themselves".

Making it so that employers need to expect a man to take time off when he becomes a father as much as they expect a woman to take time off when she becomes a mother may just be what we need in order to make families free to actually decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work.

Feminists will never get what they want (which is equality of outcome between men and women) because feminists are wrong about the fundamentals.

You might want to actually reply to my post at your convenience.

 

[Toni]

I wasn't aware that Jessica Valenti and her views were actually variables that affected wage outcome variables.

Who knew?

Well, who knew you were not above childish point-squabbling over the construction of a sentence, when anyone with a limited grasp of English would clearly understand 'Jessica Valenti' is the referent for the earlier 'individual feminist' rather than the referent for 'variables'.

For someone who insists in absolute precision when discussing mathematics, I am surprised that you are so lax with your sentence construction.

Here's the thing: you are actually extremely sloppy when discussing 'feminists' and their many flaws. You clearly haven't actually read anything written by Valenti and seem to be unaware of the origins of 'paying the guys a little less so the girls can have more.' Hint: It wasn't Valenti. The sloppy writing is indicative of sloppy reasoning and lack of basic research or understanding what you are lambasting.

That inattention to detail undermines the rest of your arguments or 'arguments.'

 

[rousseau]

Why centre out 'feminists' (as if they were a homogeneous group)? It's not like any other group in the world cares about truth either.

Feminism is an example amongst a variety of examples of groups fighting for their own survival and rights. God forbid women make a play to help turn around their oppression that's been going on for the entirety of recorded history.

Must people engage in wilful deceptions or reckless indifference to the truth to fight for their 'survival'?

In most cases, yes.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why centre out 'feminists' (as if they were a homogeneous group)? It's not like any other group in the world cares about truth either.

Feminism is an example amongst a variety of examples of groups fighting for their own survival and rights. God forbid women make a play to help turn around their oppression that's been going on for the entirety of recorded history.

You're right, they're not a homogeneous group. In fact the disparate ideologies that use the label are so disparate that there is absolutely no common ground left between them making the label meaningless.

 

[Metaphor]

It absolutely was Valenti that advocated it http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/world-wage-gap-pay-women-more-men-less

 

[Toni]

It absolutely was Valenti that advocated it http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/world-wage-gap-pay-women-more-men-less

I know about the article. Did you read it? If you did, you would know that this was not an original idea of Valenti. She gave credit in the article linked.

 

[Nexus]

Must people engage in wilful deceptions or reckless indifference to the truth to fight for their 'survival'?

In most cases, yes.

There's no point in debating people that are willfully deceptive. And at what point in the 1000's of years on civilization have females been on the brink of extinction and needed feminism's dishonest tactics to survive?

 

[Nexus]

It absolutely was Valenti that advocated it http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/world-wage-gap-pay-women-more-men-less

I know about the article. Did you read it? If you did, you would know that this was not an original idea of Valenti. She gave credit in the article linked.

Metaphor specifically said she advocated it. And your response is she didn't originate it. Are you trying to contradict Metaphor point or change the subject?

 

[Toni]

I know about the article. Did you read it? If you did, you would know that this was not an original idea of Valenti. She gave credit in the article linked.

Metaphor specifically said she advocated it. And your response is she didn't originate it. Are you trying to contradict Metaphor point or change the subject?

Did she advocate it?

Did you read the article? Are you familiar with Valenti 's work?

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor specifically said she advocated it. And your response is she didn't originate it. Are you trying to contradict Metaphor point or change the subject?

Did she advocate it?

Did you read the article? Are you familiar with Valenti 's work?

Yes, she did advocate it. She fucking well says so.

Now, I never thought I’d find myself arguing against something in the US Equal Pay Act, and I understand that men may not exactly love the idea of taking pay cuts – or giving up power more broadly – in the name of gender justice. But the scales have been tipped toward the men for too long, and if fixing a huge systemic inequality means that some guys’ paychecks need to take a hit – I’m always OK with privileging the marginalized.

Toni, do you really think you're winning points here ... denying the obvious?

Do you know what the word 'advocate' means? I'm just the wogboy son of non-English speaking immigrants but even I know what it means.

I've read more than one article from Valenti. She is somewhere between 'unhinged' and 'loony toons'.

 

[Metaphor]

First, there is no evidence that this happens. When a number of variables are controlled for, young women outearn young men.

Second, where is this happening? That's flagrant sex discrimination and the employer ought to be sued. It seems like an open and shut case.



Feminists will never get what they want (which is equality of outcome between men and women) because feminists are wrong about the fundamentals.

You might want to actually reply to my post at your convenience.

I did reply to your post. You have not addressed my points.

You are arguing that families don't have a 'real choice' because employers expect women to take time off but they ridicule men for taking time off. If employers were gender-neutral, then this additional choice-shaping variable would not favour one gender staying at home over another.

So either you're advocating social attitude change (be my guest) or you are advocating legal paternalism -- "we know what's best for families and we'll force you to do it".

So, if you advocate legal compulsion, tell me specifically what you advocate.