Quote:
The US is miles behind the rest of the western world in terms of societal progress, but whatever floats your boat.
How about figures for:
% of all people that have been President
% of all people that are or have been SCOTUS justices
% of all people that sit on the Senate
% of all people that make up/have made up the House
% of eligible voters in USA that are female/male
Oh, we're upping the ante to all people, everywhere? Do you really want to go there?
Quote:
...93% of all workplace deaths are males, and it becomes apparent that it's statistically far more dangerous to be a man than a woman in the US.
two points:
1)that statistic generally leaves out women murdered in the course of sex work, because it's illegal in most states.
2)Men also make up ~89% of the Darwin Award recipients.
In other words, men choose to take on danger, and to do stupid things, in part because it is seen as 'masculine' to do so. The fact that they do so is part of the same poisonous ideology that says that men cannot wear makeup.
Quote:
Every one of these victims is important, yet the focus appears to be on a fraction of a fraction.
Death by industrial accident, death by voluntary stupidity, and death by murder are quite different things. If men would deign to take jobs that are considered 'women's work' like secretary or child care, or if they would refrain from harassing the men who do, and if they would refrain from harassing the women who try to take on 'men's work,' then the gender proportion of industrial accidents would change.
Here's an interesting essay on the topic:
http://inequalitybyinteriordesign.wordp ... ted-death/
Quote:
Suicide attempt statistics are notoriously inaccurate and rely almost exclusively on reports of those who have been admitted to hospital and where simple self-harm has not necessarily been ruled out.
Self-harm is, quite often, a prelude to suicide. Cutting of the arms results in what psychologists call "hesitation marks," a serious sign of suicide risk. Again, the fact that women want to go 'gently' and 'without mess' means that there is time for medical and pharmacological intervention, not that the did not mean to kill themselves. Having spent 15 years in a job that largely involved clinical work in an ER, I can state from my own experience that people who self-harmed with the goal of self harm were largely depressed to the level that they either did not care if they died, or actively sought death.
One thing that women have going for them, that men do not, is that women are already seen as 'weak' so there's not as much of a stigma to them asking for help. Again, if men were willing to fight against the repulsive, macho gender constructs that are imposed on them by society, and actually admit when they need help and seek it, they'd be better off.
Quote:
Quote:
Back when women weren't allowed into Universities, up until the point where female numbers surpassed male, it was said that the imbalance was because men were more rational, smarter, etc. Why does that explanation no longer fly? ;p
Why do you think it appropriate to trivialise such an important issue when it isn't one which affects women?
because I think that it's a historical (and American) anomaly that the university gender imbalance is as it is. It has become 'effete' to be learned in anything - men going more into those dangerous, macho professions, striving to be jocks rather than scientists - but that will change sooner or later.
There's also the vast disproportion in men and women in the STEM fields, but that's another whole argument.
Quote:
Likewise women are still seen (along with children) as more worthy of protection. Where do you stand on the subject of chivalric behaviour, where a man who requires protection relinquishes his masculinity but a woman retains her feminine identity?
In general, I think that chivalry is BS, and I think that weak-kneed women who allow themselves to be rolled with no struggle are pathetic. A 30-lb dog will do more to protect itself than some full-grown women, though thankfully that is changing.
It does seem to be true, though, that men (at least NT men) like to 'rescue' women; in general, if a woman comes across as incompetent, she gets a lot more male attention. It's like the Japanese phenomenon of 'kawai.'
Quote:
There should be far greater onus on the privilege of inheritance over the privileges of gender.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Hence the feminist philosophy of intersectionality.
Quote:
This one {intersectionality} I will need to see some evidence for.
first five links for 'intersectionality' on google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionalityhttp://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Intersectionalityhttp://socialdifference.columbia.edu/fi ... enshaw.pdf
http://www.uccnrs.ucsb.edu/intersectionalityhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... -care.html
You could also hang out on
http://feministing.com,
http://www.feministe.us/blog/http://www.rawstory.com/rs/category/pandagon/, or any number of active feminist sites rather than listening to Rush Limbaugh about what feminism is.
Quote:
...the majority of men are not Presidents, Senators, Justices, Representatives, etc.
However, the majority of men are vastly better represented by presidents, senators, justices, etc. than are the majority of women. This has been patently clear in the last decade, with laws not only clawing back advances in abortion rights but
de facto making women wards of the state (largely in southern states) when they're pregnant.
Quote:
The degree of privilege offered by being born into wealth is of far greater significance.
True, but, again: the two are not mutually exclusive. I'm a socialist as well as a feminist.
Quote:
When it comes to the fair evaluation of individual circumstances, sociology is irrelevant.
BS. When employers are more likely to hire a white felon than a black man with a clean record, your pretensions of 'fair evaluation' fly out the window. You might not like it, but statistical differences in how people are treated do accumulate not only over a lifetime, but over a society, in the same way that minuscule advantages in fitness accumulate in a population over thousands of generations.
Quote:
I can only surmise, from your chosen form of response, that you are not pro-equality. Either you value people for their individuality, or you see them as disposable stereotypes.
1)false dichotomy
2)it depends on what you mean by 'equality.' I am in favor of equality of opportunity, which we patently do not have in the US at this time, and I am in favor of taking measures to correct that.
Quote:
No, I'm not, though I agree that it's unfair.
Well, I'm not going to dig through the thread again trying to ferret out the quote that you meant. If you care about it, reiterate it.
Quote:
It's okay to lump all men together based solely on their gender, but it's not okay to loosely group feminists together based on their shared ideology?
the validity of lumping depends on the context, and you missed my point. I was saying that women who enjoy chivalry are largely *not* feminists, and largely would not claim to be so. Not all women are feminists.
Quote:
If you've read my previous posts and responses in this thread, you'll be fully aware that the conflation of 'feminist' with 'woman' is a behaviour I find tiresome - not to mention all too common.
Uh, yeah. My point?
Quote:
The statistics we've reviewed so far in this thread suggest the part in underlined bold is subjective interpretation.
I disagree, and the scientists who study the matter back me up on that despite your dismissal of the field because you don't like its conclusions.
Quote:
Expecting everyone to fly the same flag, and attempting to shame those who do not, is not so fine.
*snort*
that borders on chastising me for getting into an argument on an internet forum built for arguing. Disagreeing with you does not mean that I want everyone to 'fly the same flag,' nor that I am 'shaming you,' any more than you disagreeing with me means that you think those things.
Quote:
Of those advocating feminism in this thread alone, you are thus far the only one to not do either in lieu of an actual point.
That's a little bit of a backhanded complement, but I think it's largely because I've been scientifically trained and I've been doing this for a while. People get emotional in this sort of argument, on both sides.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A woman with high self esteem and intelligence =/= feminist.
ad-hominem. That's about on the level of 'women of quality aren't interested in the vote.'
Only if you misunderstand what I wrote, which you seem to have. Unless you're actually saying that all feminists are women with high self-esteem and intelligence?
*snort* you need to study some basic mathematical logic, darling.
Mathematics when applied to linguistic concepts is more an art than a science, but I'll play anyway.
Perhaps the addition of brackets will help:
(A woman with high self esteem and intelligence) =/= feminist
Still reads much the same.
Perhaps if we reverse the positions of the arguments:
Feminist =/= a woman with high self esteem and intelligence.
Still open to misinterpretation.
How about super simplifying the equation to make my point more clear:
Feminist =/= a woman.
I hope that removes any ambiguity.
Yeah, it makes it clear that I was absolutely correct with my initial interpretation.
17 Dec 2014, 10:43 am
It's happened before. The female nurses who were killed in Montreal years ago... of course they should all be expelled but that won't stop the hate. But since I have an objection to such things... FEMINIST!
