|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 30, 2017 13:38:01 GMT
Why do you never use anything to support your claims that actually supports your claims? Those pieces are talking about how women fear being alone at night, right? SO what does that have to do with your claim that men get attacked more because they feel more free to walk alone at night? Literally everything. Fixed it for you. If women feel afraid at night, they will go out less, and therefore won't provide potential targets to muggers. Where are the statistics that show that women and men are present equally outside at night? My guess: They don't exist. Moving the goalposts from victims to bystanders? Why am I not surprised? I repeat: People who are not on the streets will not be attacked on the streets. If more men than women are on the streets, then more men than women are likely to be attacked on the streets. So what you're saying is that because men fear violence less, they get attacked more. And because women fear violence more they get attacked less. And somehow in your head this translates into "male Privilege?" And of course they don't exist. Why would they? What would be the point of that? Do you expect police to record the gender of everyone they see atfer sunset? Why would they do that? And do you actually think that most people assaulted, robbed or murdered are walking home from work at night? How many people do you think work nights then walk home for miles? Oh for fucks sake....They would have to know the TOTAL number of people. Simply recording the victims will show more men than women because more men are attacked.That doesn't tell you what percentage of the people on the streets are male and female does it? If you are trying to say that it is because more men are on the streets you need to know the gender of the non victims as well. Jesus Christ.....
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 30, 2017 14:17:06 GMT
Nobody could have pushed me into mathematics or stem cell research. I wanted to be a teacher and I'm happy and satisfied that's what I went for. Good for you. I tried to become a teacher at one point; but found out that this job is not really for me.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 30, 2017 14:20:03 GMT
KLS above just confirmed she is a teacher because that is the career she wanted. Given she chose a career over a job, I would assume she is the kind of person who is likely to work to get what she wants. Good luck explaining to her how she really wanted to be a chemical engineer, but was coursed by "Teh Patriarchy" to have a good girly job. And after you've convinced her, maybe you could do the same for the hundreds of thousands of women teachers and nurses and care workers in the UK. I'm sure they'll accept your manspalaining with good grace. Good luck finding quotes from me telling KLS she chose the wrong career. Actually, you won't need good luck; just dishonesty. Because I never told her she was "coursed".
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 30, 2017 14:23:46 GMT
Every effort to boost female admission into areas like physics and maths has failed..More women attend and graduate from University, but they don't tend to do science, maths or engineering Feminists refuse to accept this is a natural occurrence, because they don't want to accept that there are differences in the genders. So they start banging on about how women are held back somehow from doing STEM but can't really offer any explanation for it. Feminists don't accept this as a natural occurrence because, unlike you, they don't have their heads up their asses. Though gender differences are real, there is no scientific basis whatsoever and never has been to justify the notion that job distributions, pay, and prestige are biological in nature. They are cultural constructs. Sexism is real and limits opportunities for pay and advancement even in cases where women desire to be in STEM fields. Here is discussion of a recent study, which you will ignore since facts are merely nuisances to you: blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/Furthermore, cultural biases as a result of sexism shape and mold women's preferences an choices in subtle and unconscious ways. People will pick up on the many quiet psychological cues that form networks of behaviors and assumptions which produce the results documented above. And some of those cues aren't exactly subtle. Remember that astronomer who thought wearing a t-shirt depicting women posing provocatively in bathing suits was perfectly appropriate attire for an international press conference? (You probably loved the guy, being who you are.) Outside of a strip club or seedy bar, that t-shirt would have been considered utterly unacceptable in most professional work environments. The very fact that the culture of his office had people like him working there would certainly have made it an unwelcome place for many women to work at--and that culture does not exist in a vacuum, but starts with the shaping of attitudes in children as they decide what professions they will seek out.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 30, 2017 15:07:25 GMT
Responding to "countless studies have been linked..." with Youtube token vids feels like something I'd post while lampooning him. Missed my window I guess. Risking yet another "responding to the same post twice" hypocrisy that you pull to actually respond... because this thread is so full of fun. NOBODY QUESTIONS THE STUDIES, STUPID...I question you're interpretation of those studies... "Studies show that blacks are 75% are more likely to receive harsher sentences"... NOBODY QUESTIONS THAT. That is a problem that needs to be rectified. It's the "WHITE PEOPLE HAVE LIFE ON THE EASY SETTING BECAUSE THEY ARE 75% MORE LIKELY TO RECIEVE A LIGHTER SENTENCE AFTER COMMINTING A CRIME!" that's questionable. And even that doesn't mean that it is exclusively based on racism... granted, I believe that it is... Who knows? Maybe blacks are 75% more likely to tell a judge to go fck himself.. and therefore are more likely to have the book thrown at them. Now that's just hypothetical and I wouldn't be surprised if it's not true, but..... YOU CAN'T EVEN GET KNOWN FACTS RIGHT.In this very thread, you told a Brit that "blacks here [in the US] didn't even get the vote until '65" when they (well.. the men, anyways) received that right to do so in 1870.Sure, there were some southern states that had some overbearing requirements that were intended to keep the uneducated and poor (specifically as many black people as possible) from voting.. and those restrictions were deemed unconstitutional in 1965... but, that's not how you put it... ..because: You are a disingenuous fcking idiot who distorts facts and "countless studies".
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 30, 2017 15:37:00 GMT
KLS above just confirmed she is a teacher because that is the career she wanted. Given she chose a career over a job, I would assume she is the kind of person who is likely to work to get what she wants. Good luck explaining to her how she really wanted to be a chemical engineer, but was coursed by "Teh Patriarchy" to have a good girly job. And after you've convinced her, maybe you could do the same for the hundreds of thousands of women teachers and nurses and care workers in the UK. I'm sure they'll accept your manspalaining with good grace. Good luck finding quotes from me telling KLS she chose the wrong career. Actually, you won't need good luck; just dishonesty. Because I never told her she was "coursed". I didn't say you did, I suggested you should, since that is what your narrative claims.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 30, 2017 15:47:46 GMT
Every effort to boost female admission into areas like physics and maths has failed..More women attend and graduate from University, but they don't tend to do science, maths or engineering Feminists refuse to accept this is a natural occurrence, because they don't want to accept that there are differences in the genders. So they start banging on about how women are held back somehow from doing STEM but can't really offer any explanation for it. Feminists don't accept this as a natural occurrence because, unlike you, they don't have their heads up their asses. Though gender differences are real, there is no scientific basis whatsoever and never has been to justify the notion that job distributions, pay, and prestige are biological in nature. They are cultural constructs. Sexism is real and limits opportunities for pay and advancement even in cases where women desire to be in STEM fields. Here is discussion of a recent study, which you will ignore since facts are merely nuisances to you: blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/Furthermore, cultural biases as a result of sexism shape and mold women's preferences an choices in subtle and unconscious ways. People will pick up on the many quiet psychological cues that form networks of behaviors and assumptions which produce the results documented above. And some of those cues aren't exactly subtle. Remember that astronomer who thought wearing a t-shirt depicting women posing provocatively in bathing suits was perfectly appropriate attire for an international press conference? (You probably loved the guy, being who you are.) Outside of a strip club or seedy bar, that t-shirt would have been considered utterly unacceptable in most professional work environments. The very fact that the culture of his office had people like him working there would certainly have made it an unwelcome place for many women to work at--and that culture does not exist in a vacuum, but starts with the shaping of attitudes in children as they decide what professions they will seek out. Bullshit. Gender differences are observed in both humans and closely related species from infancy. Males show more interest in "boy" toys and females show more interest in "girl toys" What kind of baffling moron would not think that these seemingly innate gender differences would be expressed in adulthood? Where women are given freedom to choose careers, they don't choose the ones you want them to. Sweden does more than any nation to eliminate gender differences in childhood and shows no marked difference from the gender career patterns of other Western Nations. Present your evidence that the reason we see more women in careers like teaching and nursing and more men in engineering are down to societal pressure. Actual evidence, not your usual blogs and opinion pieces by a person who works for Salon.Com. Your link show evidence of a recruitment bias. That isn't what we are talking about, so like PhDe above, you are not backing your point. Oh grow up. You think if a woman wants to be a scientist she will be put off by a bloke wearing a shitty shirt? How pathetic do you think women are? Do you have any evidence that he dressed like that for work? You know damned well why he wore it so you're being typically dishonest. You live in a fantasy world.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 30, 2017 18:20:07 GMT
You can't even get the known facts right.In this very thread, you told a Brit that "blacks here [in the US] didn't even get the vote until '65" when they (well.. the men, anyways) received that right to do so in 1870.Sure, there were some southern states that had some overbearing requirements that were intended to keep the uneducated and poor (specifically as many black people as possible) from voting.. and those restrictions were deemed unconstitutional in 1965... but, that's not how you put it... You're the one that seems to think that rights on paper == actual rights, and who of course casually tosses out "some overbearing requirements" for the black codes, exclusionary voting laws, direct physical intimidation, trump charges, widespread lynchings, mass murders and the like. I took a boat from Africa. Your granddad says "Hi".
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 30, 2017 18:58:19 GMT
Women make up about 45% of the UK workforce. Yet men are 95% of workplace deaths, 66% of murders, 70% of robberies and 60% of assaults. Another thing: These numbers are worthless anyway, because of Simpson's paradox.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 30, 2017 19:58:44 GMT
Bullshit. Gender differences are observed in both humans and closely related species from infancy. Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points, is it? Considering I said as much in plain English. I did. There were links within the discussion to the studies themselves. If you are so monumentally stupid and ideologically driven that you don't understand this, that's your problem, pumpkin. At any rate, now it is your turn: submit scientific evidence from a mainstream source showing it is gender differences that explain employment choices and opportunities rather than cultural norms. Don't worry, everyone here knows you won't and can't. Weren't paying attention or even thinking, were you? It wasn't just recruitment bias. It was pay bias and advancement bias. It was evidence that there is a general bias against women in science, over their skill, value, and worth. If you don't understand how this is evidence of a purely cultural problem that has absolutely nothing to do with gender differences, you are too stupid for words. One can't expect a knuckle-dragging sexist pig to understand human psychology, I know. The outrage expressed by female scientists when they saw the press conference is probably a deep mystery to people like you, as is the general prohibition within almost all professional environments against attire like what he was wearing. Modern sensibilities must be so puzzling to a Neanderthal. Um, cutey-pie, let me hold your hand, because you need it: A press conference on behalf of his organization WAS WORK. Not only that, but it was a very special day at work, where he represented his entire organization.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 30, 2017 22:17:10 GMT
Bullshit. Gender differences are observed in both humans and closely related species from infancy. Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points, is it? Considering I said as much in plain English. I did. There were links within the discussion to the studies themselves. If you are so monumentally stupid and ideologically driven that you don't understand this, that's your problem, pumpkin. At any rate, now it is your turn: submit scientific evidence from a mainstream source showing it is gender differences that explain employment choices and opportunities rather than cultural norms. Don't worry, everyone here knows you won't and can't. Weren't paying attention or even thinking, were you? It wasn't just recruitment bias. It was pay bias and advancement bias. It was evidence that there is a general bias against women in science, over their skill, value, and worth. If you don't understand how this is evidence of a purely cultural problem that has absolutely nothing to do with gender differences, you are too stupid for words. One can't expect a knuckle-dragging sexist pig to understand human psychology, I know. The outrage expressed by female scientists when they saw the press conference is probably a deep mystery to people like you, as is the general prohibition within almost all professional environments against attire like what he was wearing. Modern sensibilities must be so puzzling to a Neanderthal. Um, cutey-pie, let me hold your hand, because you need it: A press conference on behalf of his organization WAS WORK. Not only that, but it was a very special day at work, where he represented his entire organization.Well done on quotemining. That wasn't my point was it? You dishonest hack. ACtually no. But feel free to actually link one of them, rather than linking to something unrelated and expecting me to check every hyper link to find what you are supposed to be evidencing. Well, I don't need to do I? You are making the claim not me. You're the one claiming that observable reality is caused by patriarchy or some other made up gender studies crap. You are the one that sees a problem with the gender split in career choice, not me. You support your made up claims. Pay attention sweetheart. Nothing in your link supports your claim that women tend to choose certain careers because Muh Patriarchy! Not one single thing. Here, what does this show about mens career choices? www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/domestic-policy/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-services-shortlisting-processesHow about you answer the question, sweetie? Do you think women are so pathetic that they couldn't possibly do a job if a bloke wore a crap shirt? Yes he wore it because his friend specifically made it for him for his birthday. If you have any evidence that Dr Taylor wore this kind of thing regularly? That he in any way demonstrated a sexist attitude or was sexist to female co-workers?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 30, 2017 22:17:55 GMT
Women make up about 45% of the UK workforce. Yet men are 95% of workplace deaths, 66% of murders, 70% of robberies and 60% of assaults. Another thing: These numbers are worthless anyway, because of Simpson's paradox. Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 31, 2017 12:38:56 GMT
yet after all this time you cannot offer a single example of any non white male you think should be amongst the top earners.
And, after all this time, you still cannot show why this statement of yours doesn't, at bottom, suggest that no ethnic or female would be ever be worth such inclusion in a group of employees where two-thirds earning more than £150,000 are white, male. This as the same time, it may be noted, as two of the women who have done well - Vanessa Feltz and Claudia Winkleman - are even then alleged to have succeeded only since they are Jewish (i.e. supposedly with no talent).
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40773710
So, you find yourself in good company.
And, in connection with your oft-repeated question and to assert that there is 'just now' no comparable black and female talent: in order to best judge my reply, you would need to be familiar with the entire pool of current, and potential, BBC talent and the attempts of the BBC to see it out. Are you? If you are not, it is just even more one person's fame & gain-candidate against another's, whatever I suggest. By contrast, it does not take an expert to see inequality at the BBC more generally, with regards to salary, whether the Corporation has addressed it honestly or not.
In which case, talent being presumably colour and sex blind, one can ask why this is state of affairs not represented so at the BBC, can we not? Oh I forgot: it is just not so "presently" is the case, is it not? LOL Pointing to a possible inequality elsewhere does not justify it at the BBC, or make it right, even if this was not a false equivalence. But I think you really know that.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 31, 2017 15:36:20 GMT
Which of the ones discussed on the IMDB of yore do you think were... er... "gangster"? And why? There were several, but "global warming" holds a special place in my heart... Ah, so... not race disparity threads. Gotcha. Watch out for those geology gangsters man! The one that crowd-funds his own submissions and lives on a yurt in Greenland yearly to collect ice cores is especially dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 31, 2017 16:07:39 GMT
Nobody could have pushed me into mathematics or stem cell research. I wanted to be a teacher and I'm happy and satisfied that's what I went for. Good for you. I tried to become a teacher at one point; but found out that this job is not really for me. It's simultaneously the most rewarding and frustrating job on earth.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 31, 2017 18:14:34 GMT
Good for you. I tried to become a teacher at one point; but found out that this job is not really for me. It's simultaneously the most rewarding and frustrating job on earth. I guess. In the end, the frustration was higher for me, and probably the students as well.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 31, 2017 18:27:16 GMT
"I leave you to..." must be frat-code for "Rant moar plz".
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 31, 2017 18:34:38 GMT
Another thing: These numbers are worthless anyway, because of Simpson's paradox. Prove it. With pleasure. Picture the (fictional) country of Maskulistan. 22.000.000 people live there; 11M men and women each. The official media of that country, all organized in the Maskulistan Reporter's Association (MRA), trumpet that women are safer in their country than men; and offer the official numbers: In the past year, 5.100 men were victims of violent crimes, but only 3.000 women. The University of Smartville in the neighboring country of Simpsonia is suspicious and decides to analyze the numbers further. And they find out: The society of Maskulistan is a very patriarchalic society. Women are expected to stay at home; or if they go out, to wear some sort of Barely Unwearable Rag, Quaintly Amorphous (BURQA). As a result, in the past year, 10 million men spent more time outdoors than indoors; but 10 million women spent more time indoors than outdoors. The Simpsonian scientists then find out that for people outdoors, the risk to become a crime victim is higher than for people indoors. In fact, they find out the following numbers. Mostly indoor men: 1 M. Among them victims of violent crimes: 100. Rate: 0,01%. Mostly outdoor men: 10 M. Among them victims of violent crimes: 5.000. Rate: 0,05%. Mostly indoor women: 10 M. Among them victims of violent crimes: 2.000. Rate: 0,02%. Mostly outdoor women: 1M. Among them victims of violent crimes: 1.000. Rate: 0,10%. So: If the Smartville scientists consider the difference between people becoming victims mostly indoors or outdoors, they find out that the risk for women is twice as high to become crime victims than for men. But since there are much more women in the relatively safe indoor space, they are less in numbers. A fact trumpeted by the MRA. Now the Smartville scientists decide to use these numbers for a statistic exercise. 1) How big are the odds that people with a mindset like Maskulistans believe that women are safer than men? 2) How big are the odds that people with a mindset like Maskulistans will post threads on Internet message boards, trumpeting this statistically erronous finding? The answer, as can be evidenced on this board, is 1 in both cases. QED. As you can see, I proved that because of Simpson's paradox, your numbers can not be used to claim that women are safer than men. Now it would be up to you to prove that the assumption that women spend more time indoors than outdoors is false. But since earlier you tried to call it "irrelevant", I can safely assume that you are neither able nor willing to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 31, 2017 18:35:33 GMT
"I leave you to..." must be frat-code for "Rant moar plz". Well.. considering that you're the one who said it.. and you're still crying like a bitch... It must mean "I'll rant moar" in cuntese. Wait.. You teach?...Actual human beings???.. I pray to God it's not history!!... Or civics.... or......
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 31, 2017 20:50:37 GMT
With pleasure. Picture the (fictional) country of Maskulistan. 22.000.000 people live there; 11M men and women each. The official media of that country, all organized in the Maskulistan Reporter's Association (MRA), trumpet that women are safer in their country than men; and offer the official numbers: In the past year, 5.100 men were victims of violent crimes, but only 3.000 women. The University of Smartville in the neighboring country of Simpsonia is suspicious and decides to analyze the numbers further. And they find out: The society of Maskulistan is a very patriarchalic society. Women are expected to stay at home; or if they go out, to wear some sort of Barely Unwearable Rag, Quaintly Amorphous (BURQA). As a result, in the past year, 10 million men spent more time outdoors than indoors; but 10 million women spent more time indoors than outdoors. The Simpsonian scientists then find out that for people outdoors, the risk to become a crime victim is higher than for people indoors. In fact, they find out the following numbers. Mostly indoor men: 1 M. Among them victims of violent crimes: 100. Rate: 0,01%. Mostly outdoor men: 10 M. Among them victims of violent crimes: 5.000. Rate: 0,05%. Mostly indoor women: 10 M. Among them victims of violent crimes: 2.000. Rate: 0,02%. Mostly outdoor women: 1M. Among them victims of violent crimes: 1.000. Rate: 0,10%. So: If the Smartville scientists consider the difference between people becoming victims mostly indoors or outdoors, they find out that the risk for women is twice as high to become crime victims than for men. But since there are much more women in the relatively safe indoor space, they are less in numbers. A fact trumpeted by the MRA. Now the Smartville scientists decide to use these numbers for a statistic exercise. 1) How big are the odds that people with a mindset like Maskulistans believe that women are safer than men? 2) How big are the odds that people with a mindset like Maskulistans will post threads on Internet message boards, trumpeting this statistically erronous finding? The answer, as can be evidenced on this board, is 1 in both cases. QED. As you can see, I proved that because of Simpson's paradox, your numbers can not be used to claim that women are safer than men. Now it would be up to you to prove that the assumption that women spend more time indoors than outdoors is false. But since earlier you tried to call it "irrelevant", I can safely assume that you are neither able nor willing to do so. So you've proved it by citing a hypothetical example, the conditions of which perfectly match your hypothesis, which magically proves your hypothesis correct. Just brilliant.
|
|