Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Science Academy Plans A Women-Only Election (sciencemag.org)
greg65535 writes: In order to reduce its gender imbalance, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam will hold special election rounds, one in 2017 and one in 2018, for which only women can be nominated.
The plan "does not come at men's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck, because all the regular election rounds for membership will also still continue as planned. Currently 13% of the academy's 556 members are women, a slightly higher percentage than the 10% at Germany's national science academy and the 6% in the U.K. The plan was proposed by two male board members and approved by a 73% majority, though ironically, the first female president of the U.S. National Academy of Science says "I don't think we would do that. Other people might feel that women elected this way somehow did not meet the same standards as their male counterparts, or even other women elected through the regular process."
The plan "does not come at men's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck, because all the regular election rounds for membership will also still continue as planned. Currently 13% of the academy's 556 members are women, a slightly higher percentage than the 10% at Germany's national science academy and the 6% in the U.K. The plan was proposed by two male board members and approved by a 73% majority, though ironically, the first female president of the U.S. National Academy of Science says "I don't think we would do that. Other people might feel that women elected this way somehow did not meet the same standards as their male counterparts, or even other women elected through the regular process."
I thought we already knew separate was not equal?
first female president of the U.S. National Academy of Science says "I don't think we would do that. Other people might feel that women elected this way somehow did not meet the same standards as their male counterparts, or even other women elected through the regular process.
If you want people to stop using the "You only got _____ because of _____" you need to stop giving people ______ because of __________.
XX-chromosomes dept.
This is fucking slashdot. Not Reddit. I'm perfectly content with www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes existing. I have no qualms about them. However I don't read it because that's not what I want to read. Consequently I read slashdot for none of this shit.
Damn it new owners. You were doing good. And I'll admit that it's been better than the Dice years but Make Slashdot Great Again by cutting out this crap. There's enough in tech to not even ever have to bring up gender and politics.
Rrrriight...
So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago, the inequality of results is telling us something... Instead of admitting, that maybe, just maybe, there is something inherently different about the genders, these people double and triple on their dogmas.
We already have Women Grandmasters in chess — because appallingly few ladies could rise to the real GM. The Dutch will now have Women Academics. Though they wouldn't be as good as the real Academics, their titles and privileges will, no doubt, be made equally acceptable (and, perhaps, financially-rewarding) as the real thing. Not at men's expense? Indeed. At the expense of all the Dutch...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Black, white, yellow, green, male, female..... whatever happened to simple merit?
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Why not select a country's President this way? Oh, wait...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Racism and sexism by the new world order.
Of course you'd label men complaining about this misogynists, but when women complain, it's a-ok. You fail to grasp that by selecting people based on sex in either direction, you're making sexism acceptable as long as it favors women. If the goal is to eradicate it, you've failed before you started.
When the pendulum swings the opposite way, that's not an excuse.
The Dutch Academy has abandoned merit for political correctness. Who will take any of them seriously again?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What if the goal of a non-negligible fraction of feminists isn't to eliminate sexism, but to emasculate men ? that would match the fact pattern.
Fortunately there are some extremely good women feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers and Karen Straughan who are working to try ensure the 3rd wave feminists don't go too far - more power to them, I say.
Also, unworthy of any institution claiming to respect science. Correcting the result of an application of a metric is about the most stupid and unscientific thing possible. Any halfway competent scientist knows that.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
...and this is why you see a rise in Nationalism and Populism around the globe. We're sick of the immature and out-of-touch wealthy elitists running things into the ground with unproven beliefs brought on by feelings of guilt and shame and a desire to pat themselves on the back while they enjoy an expensive play hosted by dark skinned racists. The more they do this, the more we will rise. War will come, and they will lose, badly. Can't wait for them to show up on the battlefield with their feelings scribbled out on some cardboard shields. It will be easy picking.
It is good to see that Marcia McNutt is smarter than the Dutch.
Of course anyone elected in a special "we won't let others participate because of their gender" election will be viewed as being selected because of gender rather than pure merit. Because they _will_ be.
You want more women in the academy? Go meet some, and recommend them. Can't find enough candidates? Make some. Mentor somebody. Teach somebody. Encourage somebody. But don't give her a participation ribbon. Give her the knowledge and vision to go after the real thing.
Administration positions in science are not held by the best scientists anyway. It's not like a meritocracy where Einstein would be Top Chairman of Top Department. It's kind of a luxury to be exempted from the committees and the admin. Many of those who do admin (including locally to get grants, which is what university-level admin actually cares about) are just untalented nobodies slogging away to make a living. Anyone who volunteers to do admin even if they have other options should be allowed. Women should not be exempted.
Seriously, this is like giving an award to those who don't finish first.
Oh, please.
Nice Alt-Right bait.
Let the fury begin!
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Very much this. And it is pretty clear that in science there are no gender-based barriers to entry or advancement. These votes are about scientists. Gender is immaterial. As long as equal opportunity is a given, any "gender imbalance" is at best a thing to study, but most decidedly not something to correct. What they do is basically in the same moral level of faking statistical results in a scientific publication and entirely despicable.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The plan "does not come at men's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck, because all the regular election rounds for membership will also still continue as planned.
This guy is being a total Dijck.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
#DeleteChrome
The 4chan fact pattern.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You need to get over the fact that some people booed you at a Broadway show, sir.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Mansplaining.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
It's the usual trick, create a group to decide who can run for election in order to rig the outcome.
USA just had an election and the guy with FEWER votes is heading for the Whitehouse. And that will mean the "Red" team controls, Senate, Congress, President and Supreme Court. Which means they can pass whatever laws they want to ensure they continue to be in power, despite getting fewer votes.
This trick is the classic way of turning a democracy against itself, defining that only his chosen ones are allowed to run in elections. So the real power is in the hands of the person defining who can run for election.
And the Apparatchiks will do their job of enforcing those rules, so don't expect the FBI, CIA, NSA etc. to fix anything. They'll do exactly what is needed to enforce these new rules, and if they don't, well there are apparatchiks lower down who will promoted over them.
See how nobody is batting an eye here, that they're having an ELECTION that is pre-rigged? Why bother with the election at all? Why not just pick some women if the vote doesn't matter as much as the fact you're a woman!
And when the election laws are passed in the USA, you won't complain, just as you're not complaining that a man with fewer votes, is heading to the Whitehouse, with the support of foreign state hackers.
They wouldn't be called feminists if they wanted equality. Slavery abolitionists didn't want an equal number of free people to slaves. This isn't a "civil rights" or "women's rights" movement, it's a feminist as there are communists or rationalists, it's not an equality of opposing views or people they want.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Only a fool would believe that a wrong can be righted by doing more of it.
As equality. Equality being bent to mask discrimination. So I applaud those who hold everyone to the same standards based on knowledge, not based on labels. Still tho, how is this ironic? Does the writer not know the word? Jw
Mathematically incorrect. A plan which foresee a woman only election, if the number of member is maintained constant, can only be at the expense of the men's number. Now the obvious goal is to put more women, whether one find that good or bad is up to one's ethic and socio political feeling. But to say it won't come at men's expense is a lie. If men are excluded no matter their capacities because forcefully the number of women is increased by artificially having women's election, then you are doing at their expense. Again I am not judging whether it is right or not to do that, just that the it will come at the expense of men which would have been elected otherwise.
The problem I have with all that is simple , I think this is the wrong approach. What we should strive for , is equality of opportunity, not equality out of outcome. Equality out of outcome is artificial and forcefully place people with lesser capacities, take the place of people of better capacity , to have a certain goal non related to their work capacity. E.g. you want a 50/50 women/men no matter how good people are, you will most probably forgoe better hire just to have a quota filled. What we should strive for is an equality of opportunity, e.g. striving to make sure your gender or race do not matter, what is your work quality should. That is an equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome are never good, they have by definition enforce a sexist selection, to get that outcome.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Here's the way the rest of us see it.
Here I am, postdoctoral fellow, as good as any other candidate out there right now. I'm up for, let's say a professorship, they open up the Anita Sarkeesian Endowed Professorship and Chair of Fucking Over Men. The 85 year old men who joined the department in 1960 before the school was even reputable all sign off on it saying that they had unfair advantages that got them into their professorships. The move doesn't effect them, but fucks all of the men my age over.
We all see you. We think it's fucking sad.
Not an argument.
Look at who his audience was at that theatre. He was just phrasing it in terms they would understand. Turns out, they don't even understand their own lingo. Sad state of affairs the liberal education system has left us with.
Maybe next time he should just be blunt about it: "We're here to see a show, so shove your butt-hurt political message up your thoroughly-kicked asses and get on with it!"
Madam Curie won two nobel prizes, one in chemistry (1911), one in physics.(1903). She didn't need "women's privilege" to do it. She did it the old fashioned way, she earned it. All women's privilege does in any area is debase it. But if the Dutch wish to debase their science for reasons of gender pandering and political correctness, that is their right. Too bad. They can kiss goodbye to respect for Dutch scientific achievement.
E Proelio Veritas.
Will their banquets be "Dutch Treat" now?
First, the obvious one: Rigging an election to give a group of people an advantage is not going to result in it being fair or the outcome being the best possible. But the problem is much bigger than that. Because it will accomplish exactly the opposite of its stated goal. Instead of improving the status of female scientists, it will deteriorate it. Because, well, why did they get that job? On merit? Nah. Because of the lack of dangling bits between their legs.
Scientists are a merit-crazy bunch. Status is not a matter of money or influence, but one of fame and merit. What did you publish, what did you patent and also where do you work. And they react very poorly if there is even as much as a hint that you do not "deserve" the position you have.
So even if these women are the best scientists this planet has to offer, they will always be regarded as only having that position because of their vagina, not their brains.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sure it is fair. Women can't compete with men on a fair level playing field. I used to believe that they could, but this election proves me wrong. So the only fair thing to do is have a women only contest, where the superior men are excluded. Perfectly fair for finding the woman who is almost as good as the average man.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
In order to reduce its gender imbalance, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam will hold special election rounds, one in 2017 and one in 2018, for which only men can be nominated.
The plan "does not come at women's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck, because all the regular election rounds for membership will also still continue as planned. Currently 13% of the academy's 556 members are men, a slightly higher percentage than the 10% at Germany's national science academy and the 6% in the U.K. The plan was proposed by two female board members and approved by a 73% majority, though ironically, the first male president of the U.S. National Academy of Science says "I don't think we would do that. Other people might feel that men elected this way somehow did not meet the same standards as their female counterparts, or even other men elected through the regular process."
If it had read as edited here, feminists would be shitting blocks of osmium.
Basically this has nothing to do with equality. This is all about "special" treatment because some selfish individuals simply can't understand that equal representation doesn't always happen, and even if it does, it takes TIME for it to percolate through every layer of society and profession.
This hurts EVERYONE. Because it's telling people that if you can claim to be in a suitably "oppressed" segment of society, that it's perfectly OK to lower standards just to let you get by...
In the end, it just becomes a race to the bottom, and the honors of such positions are rendered meaningless.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If we want more women in science academia, the obvious solution is to enlarge the hiring pool, which is faculty. If tenured position could be reached before menopause, it would be more attractive.
The pendulum has swung so far to the left, they've become the Nazi's of the new world. It's literally a frightening thing to observe. They, like the Nazi's, believe they're doing what's right for mankind. What's right for the world. They don't get it. They're so indoctrinated that what they're doing is good, they can't see outside of their little bubble. Very frightening indeed.
This is not even affirmative action, which an argument can be made for. it's like telling say, a person of dark pigmentation that they specifically can't get in because of their genetics. Well, I give them credit for honesty. not so much for achieving equality purposeful sexual discrimination
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Here we go again idiots
I'm assuming you forgot the tag
The Paralympics make sense to me. I don't think I need to get into detail about this (Including the mandatory note of an amputee running faster than a fully organic champion).
Is that what they are saying for women in science ?
I'm not enough of a misogynistic bastard to think it makes sense, and that's saying a lot.
Contemplating this silly idea disqualifies the Dutch science academy from ever being taken seriously again.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
Most people know this. It's that so many feminists claim to be all about equality and say that's what feminism is about.
What if i wouldnt label men complaining about this "misogynist" but more "you have too much time on your hands"? The Alt-Right's crusade to save white males from the horrible persecution we are apparently experiencing feels like Fox News' classic "War on Christmas". Most of the news stories feeding it are a clear case of "if you look hard enough you can find dumb people doing dumb things that verify whatever conspiracy you want to believe". Christmas is still around and us white men are still doing just fine.
Does this mean the Alt-Right has never had a good point on their favorite subject? Absolutly not. I just see stuff like the above as a waste of time to be bothered by. Do I think the Dutch Science Academy should be doing this? I guess not as I do believe very much in merit based success. On the other hand promoting a more female image even by just having a few more women involved in higher positions might help bring more women into the field in general. Right now the scientific community is missing out on a lot of sharp female minds who apparently find this field of work unappealing. So basically, I disagree a bit with what they're doing but I really just dont see it as a very big deal.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Because there are so many men-only elections
Name one.
So is 'decimate' is back to being only 10% an 'literally' an antonym to 'figuratively', or will you acknowledge that the original intent behind words and their common use can differ over time?
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
That complete skips over the crux of the issue: Is it equality of opportunities, or equality of outcomes?
98% of chess tournaments are won by men. Is that a result of sexism? Or are men inherently superior? Or is it because most women think chess is a pointless waste of time? Is this a problem that our society needs to fix, and if so, what is the solution?
And women elected in these will forever be branded as "diversity hires" and never given credit for anything, even if they deserve it. The only thing that "affirmative action" shit like this accomplishes is it creates deeply seated prejudice. It may be hidden, but it's there, and people don't forget. The only way to avoid this is by promoting strict, unyielding meritocracy.
They wouldn't be called feminists if they wanted equality. Slavery abolitionists didn't want an equal number of free people to slaves.
This would be a better comment if not for the problem that you'd have to be implying some sort of neuter-gender was involved for this to make sense.
There's a pretty clear difference between "free" and "slave" that implies opposition. Between "male" and "female" does not necessarily create the same construction.
This isn't a "civil rights" or "women's rights" movement, it's a feminist as there are communists or rationalists, it's not an equality of opposing views or people they want.
Who would? Really, what kind of idiot would want to give sanction to the views that "It's ok to keep people as slaves" or "It's ok to treat women as less than men" or "The Jews have a secret conspiracy to rule the world" or some other such view?
Sometimes I think you don't quite know what you're saying, you're just mumbling arguments along without thinking too deeply about them.
Oh well, at least you're not running for president.
Well you've kinda hit the nail on the head there, it's that second definition that the grandparent is complaining about. This touches on a complex issue: can equality be achieved by pursuing advocacy of one group over another, even if the promoted group is started from a disadvantaged position?
I'm not going to try to argue this, there's a lot to be said about it, but just stating that "feminism is about promoting equality" or "feminism is inherently sexist" is not a complete description.
Equality my ass. World is full of double standards.
When people complain when things are unfair, that's good. When people complain because trying to make things slightly more fair constitutes being unfair, that's dumb.
I'm confused. Are you saying the DAS is making things more fair, or are you saying they are making things unfair by caving into the complainers?
It will be much better to have the election with men voting for women and women voting for men.
(LGBT is tricky issue here but let's forget about it for a moment.)
This way, the academic merit will be much more focused on since you can't vote on gender.
The solution is obviously government regulation paying women to play chess and artificially punishing men for doing so until it's 60-40 in women's favor. It's the only way to be fair.
It's why I've left the Left. I'm still mostly liberal (come at me bros) but I no longer stand with Democrats.
Your comparison would only make sense if people winning the Paralympics were awarded medals in the Olympics.
us white men are still doing just fine.
We are? If I believe what I hear from the left, we (white men) are a couple of grades lower than dirt.
What amounts to equality can be messy as real life is shades of grey rather than black and white. Just because messiness is involved in regards to what needs to be "fixed" and what doesnt, doesnt mean the overall goal is not noble or not worth pursuing.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
You didn't answer the question. Do you want equality of opportunity or of outcomes? Because it not noble or worth pursuing if you end up being sexist in order to overcome sexism. And that's why there's a big discrepancy between people who are for equal rights versus what actually occurs under the label of "feminism".
I disagree. I think the second part is strictly just pointing to the advocacy movement seeking the first. That's why it's the secondary definition.
Should a group that feels disadvantaged not advocate for positive change? That notion seems completely contrary to what a Republic should be about.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I see the majority of the comments here coming from tunnel vision. Would a female nerd feel welcome here at /. ? I don't think so.
The playing field of women in a man' s world is hardly related to merit, but much more to hidden and unconscious sexism, hidden and unconscious exclusion.
Just look at the nature of the majority of comments here, and you will notice that woman are framed in a position of weakness and shortcomings.This has nothing to do with the capabilities of woman, but much more with the bind spot of men.
Of course they can change over time but I don't think it's a good idea to let people redefine terms just because they disagree with the core tenements. What is happening with the term "feminist" is much the same that has been happening with the terms "socialist" or "liberal". There has been an intentional movement among American conservatives to re-brand any terms that conflict with their ideology in a negative context so that rather than try to compete with these ideas in an ideological context they just remove the means for people to accurately express them thus limiting the ability of the opposing ideologies to discuss their ideas.
Very few people in this country are against equal rights for women as a concept but throw the term "feminism" around nowadays and people try to make it sound like it's bad. Likewise, no one on the Left in this country attempts to demonize the term conservative the way "socialism" has been made to be almost a bad word in the context of politics.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Wow, you completely glossed over my "the world is shades of grey not black and white" comment didn't you? That was pretty much the answer but here goes number 2.
Do we want more role models in a given category of person in order to inspire more participation by that category? Maybe we need to fudge the numbers a bit then in the name of a good goal. Maybe not. I'm not peddling easy answers so there is no easy answer to your question because that's just not how the world works. The real world requires compromise to work properly most of the time. Debate over what compromises need to be made is right and proper but demonizing a term like "feminism" because you want to eliminate the language of the opposition is Orwellian in the worst way.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Wow, that's not my experience at all. I feel like you get too much of your news from news sources that want you to feel like a victim.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
That's disingenuous, "positive change" is good by definition. The question is whether advocacy for one group, exclusively, can lead to equality.
As for why it's the secondary definition: definitions in the dictionary are listed in order of usage, they don't have anything to do with one another. The first definition is the most common usage of the word, the second definition is the next most common, etc.
*roll my eyes*
Fine captain language, how about "Should a group that feels disadvantaged not advocate for change towards their goal of equity?"
Means the exact same thing in common parlance but satisfies your linguistic issues.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
It's entertaining to watch alt-right squeaking in horror: "Somewhere, a women-only election is being held! Argh! Injustice!".
Sometimes they even delve in alt-science. Remember sometime there was German phisics (as opposed to Jewish phisics).
I'm sorry is this /. or onion news?
The theater is not a safe space. Stay at home of you get triggered that easily.
Being Dutch, let me first say I am terribly ashamed of this news. But perhaps all is not yet lost. There is this pesky thing called our Grondwet (constitution)... Let me quote its very first and most important part, Artikel 1:
"Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan."
Translation: "All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, gender or any other grounds whatsoever, is not permitted."
There is recent legal precedent on this issue, by the way. A tiny extremist religious party in The Netherlands tried to exclude women from running as candidate for that party because, according to their religious views, God did not intend women to lead the people (or something like that). A judge then ruled in very clear language that, in this country, you cannot exclude people based on gender.
It drives me nuts that the 'politically correct' want to forget that our nation gained independence after 80 years(!) of bitter war, which was fought in order to -wait for it- ..... put an end to discrimination. Sure, back then it was mainly about Catholics discriminating against Protestants, but it was no accident that *gender* was included so explicitly in Artikel 1.
get over it
every time i hear a dutch female scientist talk about the atoms in her vagina i go crazy
It's not the news, it's how people look at you in the street. It's the fact that you have to make sure that you don't look at a woman in the street for more than a few secs. It's the fact that in some countries you are conscripted to die in a meaningless war. Being a man was never easy, no matter what anyone else is saying.
Watching a bunch of people in the Netherlands compromise the objective process of science by purposely voting in people who will by sheer probability alone will exclude candidates more qualified than the limited pool of selection in this case. Yay science!
Nothing like setting yourself up for mediocrity before you even start. God forbid that you try to get the best person for the role - it's clearly far better to restrict your choice by some arbitrary metric.
If the best person for a job is a woman, which is often the case, that result would show itself through in an open and fair contest. How is this not sexism again?
Is that what they are saying for women in science ?
Now this is a text book example of framing...
This hurts EVERYONE. Because it's telling people that if you can claim to be in a suitably "oppressed" segment of society, that it's perfectly OK to lower standards just to let you get by...
Now this is a text book example of framing... Why do you think that representation of women is solely a matter of academic standards and quality? Your reasoning (and tone of voice of bringing your argument across) is really framing women into equality and lesser standard.
Wow, you completely glossed over my "the world is shades of grey not black and white" comment didn't you?
Because it's a dodge. Yes, the world is shades of gray, but there are poles too.
Do we want more role models in a given category of person in order to inspire more participation by that category? Maybe we need to fudge the numbers a bit then in the name of a good goal.
And this is where you have to define the "goal". Are you not going to stop until you see equality of outcome? Why is it a "good goal" to have more women in STEM if that's not where their interests lie? There are differences between the sexes, statistically, when it comes to interests and abilities.
Debate over what compromises need to be made is right and proper but demonizing a term like "feminism" because you want to eliminate the language of the opposition is Orwellian in the worst way.
What's Orwellian is politically clubbing people over the head with the noble idea of equal rights and then using it to excuse all kinds of abominations of unequal treatment. That's why modern feminism has such a bad name.
What a great idea. I wonder if it's been tried before?
Yes, the world is shades of gray, but there are poles too.
Only if you perceive it that way. If the "world" is a toroid, there are no poles.
Why is it a "good goal" to have more women in STEM if that's not where their interests lie? There are differences between the sexes, statistically, when it comes to interests and abilities.
And this is where your presumption comes in, as you are asserting in your argument that their interests do not lie there, a claim of a nature that has a long history of being invalid, with a variety of manifestations.
What if the goal is to remove the impediments that create the false impression that their interests do not lie there?
That's why modern feminism has such a bad name.
Npoe, modern feminism has a bad name because of the aforementioned desire to get it conceptualized as harmful. It is nothing new, there is a long history of that too.
I was going for "sarcasm", but I don't blame you. The tone of voice doesn't translate well into text.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
Only if you perceive it that way. If the "world" is a toroid, there are no poles.
Blah blah. There's a clear distinction between equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.
And this is where your presumption comes in, as you are asserting in your argument that their interests do not lie there, a claim of a nature that has a long history of being invalid, with a variety of manifestations.
It's not a presumption, it's a reflection of reality. The arrogantly presumptuous are the ones who want to deny reality and force-fit the world into their presumed idea of what should be.
What if the goal is to remove the impediments that create the false impression that their interests do not lie there?
You presume the impression is false. Women can make up their own mind. Gender studies reveal that differences between interests in the sexes are innate that go beyond any kind of social construct.
Npoe, modern feminism has a bad name because of the aforementioned desire to get it conceptualized as harmful.
It has a bad name because of the actions and words of feminists. They beat up Western society over a mythical rape culture while condemning those who speak out against importing Muslims from societies with actual rape culture problems. They cry for safe spaces and preferential treatment.
They've created a culture where a man can be tried for sexually assaulting a woman while video evidence shows what was claimed was clearly impossible.
They've created a culture where the female star of The Big Bang Theory felt fine figuratively giving her fans the finger when they complained after she cut her hair, but fell over herself backpedaling after the media made a big ruckus when she said didn't identify as a feminist, because, you know, she didn't really face inequality, and that, *gasp*, she likes cooking for her husband.
I know, how terrible. Thank god the feministas set her straight.
Ahh, so that explains college graduation rates.
No, it's not the same. The whole point is that advocating towards a goal of equity is not necessarily accomplished by promoting a disadvantaged group, when it's done to the exclusion of others. In that case, it would not represent a "positive change."
So the 'regular' version will be men only? otherwise it's just discrimination, as why do women get their own price but men don't. Discrimination is illegal, even if it's positive discrimination, it's still discrimination.
Do not forget - nomination of black scientists, oriental scientists, disabled scientists and last but not least LGBT scientists.
Jokes aside, I would reject any award given to me if it would be made because of political reasons,not achievements.
I find this really offensive to women.
You're picking quotes to make it sound like I'm pushing an agenda i go out of the way to say I'm not then getting outraged about it.
You've got a real victim's mentality going here. Maybe stop reading alt-right news sources that tell you, you are and live in the real world.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
It would positive for the group i was discussing which I feel most people would have gotten given that English, like most human language, is contextual sometimes. If you want to nit pick and be overly literally that's fine, I'll play your silly game but you've done nothing to refute my points.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
You're picking quotes to make it sound like I'm pushing an agenda
No, I'm just trying to peg down where you stand on what you insist is a "noble goal" when what I see is the opposite in modern feminism. I don't consider equality of outcome, in and of itself, to be a "noble goal". Do you?
You've got a real victim's mentality going here.
That's feminism in a nutshell.
Maybe stop reading alt-right news sources that tell you, you are and live in the real world.
Maybe you should look at the ctl-left without your rose-colored glasses on.
Blah blah. There's a clear distinction between equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.
Which has nothing to do with your conceptualization of either. You really don't have to think of them as having poles.
It's not a presumption, it's a reflection of reality. The arrogantly presumptuous are the ones who want to deny reality and force-fit the world into their presumed idea of what should be.
Yes, yes, you'll proclaim you're the one with the greater connection to reality, which doesn't make you seem at all arrogant, so you can completely avoid thinking about the presumptions you're continually making.
This is very important for you. Very much so.
You presume the impression is false. Women can make up their own mind. Gender studies reveal that differences between interests in the sexes are innate that go beyond any kind of social construct.
You presume that there are no false impressions, and that people are not influenced by outside effects. Numerous studies reveal the existence of a multitude of factors that influence life choices, even irrespective of gender.
It has a bad name because of the actions and words of feminists.
Nope, it has a bad name because it's important for its opponents that it has a bad name. It's not new. It's standard practice.
They beat up Western society over a mythical rape culture while condemning those who speak out against importing Muslims from societies with actual rape culture problems.
Ah, now you're still confused about that. Really, no matter how many times you rant about it as if it were some intent to foster those attitudes, the whole point is to get the refugees into a position where they can be influenced for the better. Has no one ever been able to set you straight, or will you keep on screaming about it in obtuse hysteria for a few more years?
They cry for safe spaces and preferential treatment.
I just don't know if it's a joke.
I really don't.
I actually do think he's that unable to handle criticism. It reminds me of the past.
They've created a culture where a man can be tried for sexually assaulting a woman while video evidence shows what was claimed was clearly impossible.
Yes, yes, and we have a world where a father complains that his son was punished excessively for 20 minutes of action, where a man got a suspended sentence for raping his 12-year old daughter, well, we could trade dueling stories for a long while.
They've created a culture where the female star of The Big Bang Theory felt fine figuratively giving her fans the finger when they complained after she cut her hair, but fell over herself backpedaling after the media made a big ruckus when she said didn't identify as a feminist, because, you know, she didn't really face inequality, and that, *gasp*, she likes cooking for her husband.
I know, how terrible. Thank god the feministas set her straight.
A celebrity comment's is considered meaningful? What a world! What is it shaped like?
Read carefully. The still ongoing practice is to reward the GM-title to a woman winning championship among other women — the top WGM becomes a GM automatically regardless of how she'd stand against real GMs.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You really don't have to think of them as having poles.
They are a fairly direct correspondence to free markets versus communism. We see equal opportunity being quashed in the name of equal outcomes.
Numerous studies reveal the existence of a multitude of factors that influence life choices, even irrespective of gender.
And numerous studies also reveal the inherent differences between the sexes, so force-fitting equality of outcome is an active step in sexism instead of letting people make their own choices.
Really, no matter how many times you rant about it as if it were some intent to foster those attitudes, the whole point is to get the refugees into a position where they can be influenced for the better.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You're seriously claiming that Western societies should import rape culture to teach them not to commit sexual assaults and rape? I guess those 1,400 girls in Rotherham and the 1,200 women in Cologne can console themselves in doing their part. The amount of liberal stupidity here is through the roof.
I just don't know if it's a joke.
Trump's childishness doesn't excuse the childishness coming out of feminists, and more broadly, to the diaper-wearing "social justice" movement.
Yes, yes, and we have a world where a father complains that his son was punished excessively for 20 minutes of action
So a father is defending his son. And? Do you think there's a murder culture every time a mother defends her murdering son?
where a man got a suspended sentence for raping his 12-year old daughter, well, we could trade dueling stories for a long while.
It could be it was consensual and hence statutory rape. Yeah, it's still sick, but I don't see this as any evidence for "rape culture" of the hysterical nature demonstrated so profoundly by the Rolling Stones gang rape hoax that gained nationwide attention.
A celebrity comment's is considered meaningful?
It's meaningful that she was willing to give a figurative "fuck off" to her fans, but couldn't take the heat from some mild comments about not being a feminist.
I don't know what she is really thinking, but a person getting a million dollars an episode? Not sure I'd consider that anything but an outlier.
It's almost as if she gets paid according to her stardom and ability to draw in audiences. Funny how that works. Funny how the "wage gap" also disappears once you account for factors that would naturally affect pay regardless of sex.
And an important thing to remember is that the show itself handwaves a lot of issues and considerations. It's a comedy. Problems, conflicts, interactions and relationships exist for the purpose of comedy, not legitimacy.
Oh yes, this is really important. Because I really give a fuck about a feminist analysis of the show.
I suppose most activist feminists these days fall right into the "organized activity on behalf of women's interests", not equality. It's definitely not the academic/scientific theory they subscribe to.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
That's the problem exactly, who would want equality between the sexes? Neither men nor women want it, everybody wants to be 'on top'. If it was truly equality you wanted, you would've stopped arguing some time in the 1950-70s.
Women's rights have been overcompensated for and are now infringing on men's (and as a result male gay and human) rights, it's very clear in court cases regarding alleged sexual assaults, domestic or custody disputes and it's becoming ever clearer in work places.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I dont think I'm going to disuade you from your victim hood here so I'm done. Hopefully you'll find some way to survive the living hell feminists are making for you
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Again, I feel like you're getting too much news from alt right sources (and tabloids apperently too). I have zero awareness of those events because they're just not real news.
I'm sure some idiot feminists, who are just as eager to find a culture war under every stone as you seem to be, jumped on her over the cooking comment but there are idiots who take their ideology too far in any given group. Is the Tea Party rascist because a few idiots show up at their rallys with rascist Obama banners? Does that make the Tea party ideology rascist? No, it makes those individuals rascist.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
What points? All you've really said is that your notion of a republic is one of competitive bargaining, in that individual groups should advocate for their own best interests. So I guess feminists would look to promote women and there'd be some other group, meninists, who would look to promote men and we'd all just have to hope that would work itself out once they had gotten tired of fighting.
That sounds terrible. Competition is by no means part and parcel of representative government, we still operate under the notion of cooperative problem solving even if special interests have weaseled their way in to an alarming degree. Elected representatives are there to ensure that their constituents are a part of this cooperative effort, in principle they are not there to grab whatever they can. In principle.
They are a fairly direct correspondence to free markets versus communism. We see equal opportunity being quashed in the name of equal outcomes.
Only because your choice of conceptualization requires you to be mislead that way. So you see things that aren't there, since you can't imagine them otherwise. The idea space is actually more complex than your views seem to encompass.
And numerous studies also reveal the inherent differences between the sexes, so force-fitting equality of outcome is an active step in sexism instead of letting people make their own choices.
Yes, yes, that's the windmill you're tilting against, thinking they're actual giants. They're windmills, Don Quixote. Not even alive! And they serve a useful purpose.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You're seriously claiming that Western societies should import rape culture to teach them not to commit sexual assaults and rape?
Nope! I'm telling you that refugees deserve a chance to get out of it, so they aren't suffering from it.
I swear, it's like you have no idea how obvious you are.
I guess those 1,400 girls in Rotherham and the 1,200 women in Cologne can console themselves in doing their part.
Sadly, they are not alone, as sexual abuse scandals have rocked the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, Jehovah's Witnesses, various factions of Mormons, Penn State and more. Just last month, Operation Cross Country X picked up almost 100 minors, and over 200 traffickers. Internationally? The scope may be titanic.
All I can give you is commiseration, sorry.
The amount of liberal stupidity here is through the roof.
That's ok, no worse than the conservatives who seem to be intent on diving into the basement.
It's a finished basement, so it's concrete you know, concrete. It really hurts when you hit it.
Trump's childishness doesn't excuse the childishness coming out of feminists, and more broadly, to the diaper-wearing "social justice" movement.
That's ok, for me it's about taking the pretentiousness out of such claims. Lots of childishness to go around.
If this shocks you, I have only to remind you of Niven's 17th Law.
So a father is defending his son. And? Do you think there's a murder culture every time a mother defends her murdering son?
It may surprise you to learn that mothers are criticized all the time for defending their children, and yes, there are allegations of such cultures. Haven't you heard of them? Or you know, spoken of them yourself.
But enough of that, look at the defense the man chose to include. He'd have been a lot wiser to be more selective. Ah, such hubris on his part. When the sentence to others, was laughably lenient.
It could be it was consensual and hence statutory rape.
Way to look for excuses there. At least stick to the man having severe brain damage or something.
Yeah, it's still sick, but I don't see this as any evidence for "rape culture" of the hysterical nature demonstrated so profoundly by the Rolling Stones gang rape hoax that gained nationwide attention.
Is that supposed to bother me for some reason? I wasn't making that argument, I was pointing out that the world contains many facets to it. You can link o
Stopped in the 1950s? Oh my, that's an idea that would have people laughing as badly if you suggested it to the rest of the civil rights movement. Even ignoring the lingering issues across the globe, it is still a joke.
But no, your conceptual presentation is not one I find agreeable. I see no reason to present it as a matter of being "on top" as that implies something that is not necessary at all. You may also be one of the people who confuses equality with conformity. A sad distortion that only leads to problems, not clarity.
And your purported victimization is no more valid now than it was when presented in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1870s, 1990s, 1910s, or well, you get the picture. Or perhaps not.
You went from, "I'm done" to replying to another post 6 minutes later.
Again, I feel like you're getting too much news from alt right sources (and tabloids apperently too). I have zero awareness of those events because they're just not real news.
Just because you didn't personally hear a story doesn't mean it was news. It happened, news sites picked up on it, and she felt the need to backpedal. That didn't happen in a vacuum.
And as for the guy who had his life turned upside down over a ludicrous sexual assault claim, that's the kind of thing that should be reported more widely instead of buried by a feminist press.
But go on, keep on ignoring the ctl-left and avoid answering questions on whether equality of outcome is desired, in and of itself.
So you see things that aren't there
Like women-only elections. Totally my imagination.
Nope! I'm telling you that refugees deserve a chance to get out of it, so they aren't suffering from it.
Bullshit. This is what you said: "the whole point is to get the refugees into a position where they can be influenced for the better"
That's you talking about influence in response to importing an actual rape culture. The majority of the "refugees" are men in their sexual prime and economic migrants. You want to "influence" them.
Sadly, they are not alone
So where were the mass sexual assault at public celebrations before the immigrants arrived? This is an entirely new problem. Where were the press and police covering up the sexual scandals you mentioned? This also seems to be a new problem.
Lots of childishness to go around.
You're comparing a shitposting board on the Internet and a random shooter to university students playing with coloring books because the bad man got elected? That infantile attitude, crying for "safe spaces", and throwing temper tantrums until their demands are met is rife in the "social justice" movement.
You can link one story, I can link another.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the comparisons are equal.
Or maybe she just didn't like how people were trying to use her to advance their own arguments. Can't read her mind, sorry.
Uh huh. Either way, it's a complete reversal.
I wouldn't try to account for it with sitcom performers. They are very much not in the common paradigm.
Good news. Studies have already shown this example holds to the wider work force, as I mentioned in my last post. The wage gap is a myth, and Obama can stop worrying about his daughter not getting equal pay for equal work.
Except that observation actually had nothing to do with feminism, it's a reflection of the nature of television.
I don't give a fuck what your perspective is, it had nothing to do with anything. You brought up the content of the show, not me. You claimed it was important, not me. I have no interest in analyzing it just because I talked about a real-life event concerning one of the stars.
Meritocracy is the only way to achieve social justice. Electing someone based on his /her gender is just another form of discrimination. I come from a Country ( India ) which has practiced +ve discrimination for decades and we are all the worse for it.
Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
Fudging is not a good idea- it opens up the fudged upon to unnecessary self doubt or in the worst case to incompetence.
Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
Except gender shouldn't even be a consideration when it comes to leadership. It should be your qualifications and running platform. Making "women only" elections is a promotion of the very sexist attitude they want to prevent. It's a clear statement saying "women are so inferior we need to stack the deck in order for them to win". It's needlessly denigrating them.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Discriminating on the grounds of gender is entirely illegal.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
You people can cite that as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that they don't to what they claim to do. Some guy put it like this:"They propagate egalitarsim, but apply misandry".
that only keeps structural sexism in place.
the way to eradicate structural bias is to purposely elevate numbers of un(der)represented minorities.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
its because 98% of the people playing chess tournaments are men.
because it's seen as a man's area.
so yes, its a result of sexism, specifically structural sexism.
lack of representation causes a positive feedback loop that causes further lack of representation.
you posit a choice of equality of outcome or opportunity.
its a false dichotomy.
the correct answer is: BOTH.
under ideal conditions both an equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes will result, as there is no inherent advantage in male chess players compared to women. an equality of opportunity will lead to an equality of outcome in the aggregate. ie, over time you'd expect the population of chess tournament winners to reflect the base population, which is ~53% women. the fact it doesn't is what itself reveals the self-selecting nature of structural sexism.
this stuff is not a difficult concept.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that what was being asked for by the universal suffrage movement was EQUALITY.
This isn't equality. This is special treatment because equal treatment hasn't resulted in equal outcome.
This is awarding of a position because of reproductive anatomy, rather than intellectual anatomy.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Well there's this Muslim countr- nvm I don't want to be racist.
The point being made here is the discrepancy between what feminists say they are and what they actually do. Quoting the dictionary is a non sequitur.
Heh, I started to reply before I realized who I was replying to in that next post, then said "aw, fuck it" and kept going. What can I say? I'm a glutton for punishment
As for content, I wasn't stating that I hadn't heard about the event you describe as a means of refuting it. By "not real news" I mean it's stupid twitter crap of no real societal importance. It doesnt matter in any context. It's not real news. I don't refute it happened
As stated before there's always a category of person looking to be outraged by something. Take your self for instance. You're at the same dumb outrage party that the people who complained about her are. Just because they do so in the name of feminism doesnt make it mainstream. Likewise I don't take you seriously either. That's why I don't go to websites that report on such garbage. It's for drama queens who want drama and something to be upset about. Who even reads about what celebrities say in their personal lives?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
So "Women's interests" can't be equality? Sure seems like that would be in their interests.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Yeah, us white males are in a living in hell right now because of feminist, arent we?
Wait, I'm certainly not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that there's some great culture war drama queen nonsense happening on the internet every day that basically amounts to people pointing to the worst of any movement and choosing to get outraged by it by claiming it's the norm. I'm sure this outrage make these people feel terribly important and that's great but don't expect me to care.
Two categories of people who don't matter at all in the world but matter terribly in certain online contexts: Radical feminists and those who want to claim all feminism is evil and oppressive to men because of the actions of a few idiots.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
So you're saying that people shouldn't advocate for their own interests in a Republic? Is that really what you're saying? If so that's the stupidest thing I've heard in quite a long time.
Of course compromise is part of republican governance but how does anything happening if people don't pursue interests? "Sure, I believe in lower taxes but pursuing personal interests is wrong so I'll just sit here" "Sure, I believe in higher taxes but that's pursuing personal interests so I'll just sit here". What do you think government is? Sitting around waiting until everyone in the room comes up with the same idea?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
aaaand if you actually read what I said you'd know I didn't say it was a good idea.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I believe I was quite clear: "This touches on a complex issue: can equality be achieved by pursuing advocacy of one group over another, even if the promoted group is started from a disadvantaged position?" It is entirely possible that the whole can cooperatively agree that one group is disadvantaged, and can further agree that promoting said group, to the exclusion of others, is the road to equality. I raised the point that this may not be the right path. Thus if your interests are equality, rather than grabbing everything you can for yourself, it might be in your interests to think a little harder on the subject.
The whole bit about governance was something you brought up, I don't know why. I'm done with your insults though, you can argue with yourself if you want.
By "not real news" I mean it's stupid twitter crap of no real societal importance.
It did not occur in a vacuum. It's a reflection of society at large. It was even clear when she was answering the question that she knew it was "bad" to say it, and she felt pressure to backtrack, even though she felt fine giving her fans a figurative finger when she cut her hair. It says something about the politically correct dogma around feminism, but you don't want to admit it.
And that was only one of the examples I gave. Funny how you ignore the much more serious example of a man having his life turned upside down for a year because of a ridiculous accusation that should have been dismissed early on, let alone brought to trial.
You're at the same dumb outrage party that the people who complained about her are. Just because they do so in the name of feminism doesnt make it mainstream.
The mainstream is the dumb outraged feminist/"progressive" party. That's why Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt was forced to resign over some silly comments taken out of context. That's why the project lead for the team that landed a probe on a comment gave a crying apology over all the mainstream outrage because he wore a "sexist" shirt his female friend made for him. That's why there was all this mainstream outrage over any time Trump insulted a woman, as if he was insulting all woman.
Yes we are. We're no longer 'allowed' to speak out when we're mistreated. We're told, in various ways, to "check our privilege" like that somehow justifies what's happened. It's now perfectly ok to mistreat and discriminate against people as long as they're white|straight|male. It's just not talked about except when it's time to shame those who dare speak about it in the mainstream. It hurts us when HR shuffles resumes to the bottom to meet racial/sexual quotas. Same with college applications. It's ok to have all-girls schools, businesses, clubs. Not so with men. When women do it, they're 'empowered', when men do it, the assumed justification is they're sexist misogynists. Most men have now internalized this, taking feminism on as the new chivalry and shaming other men for non-compliance (a nice counter-example of the 'internalized misogyny' argument feminists love to use against non-compliant women).
Then there's the argument of 'systemic oppression.' Well there it is, codified into the law in the form of 'affirmative action.' Affirmative action law has been around quite some time and has done real damage to our culture, which has accepted the idea that women need help by default, and that men are now 'a problem'. This demonizes men and infantilizes women, eroding natural, healthy relations between them. There is nothing equal, healthy, or viable about this.
That drama queen shit on the net is merely the most outspoken elements of those groups expressing themselves on relatively new fronts of the culture war (eg gamergate), but don't kid yourself. This problem is not 'just a few idiots' online. They have been damaging society for decades now.
When has the "whole" ever agreed to anything? Human history has been nothing but competing interests. Society is either lined up by authoritarianism or adopts a system of compromise which is what a Republic is. Furthermore, pursuing a goal is how you accomplish something. Just because you're pursuing it doesn't mean you're "grabbing everything you can for yourself".
Also, I like how you've taken the "high road" now after pursuing nonsense semantics as a means of undermining my point. I only started insulting you when you got annoying and started getting overly literal with my language rather than address anything I was saying. I even reworded the sentence you has an issue with and you kept talking semantics rather than the topic at hand.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I've only once in my life felt I was shafted because of my gender (oh no, poor me!) and I've never been asked to check my privilege or even had it implied.
As for affirmative action in favor of women, I don't really see this. I've seen if for ethnic groups, sure, but women? Not really,
And please tell me, how have they been "damaging society for decades now".
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Don't want to admit some tabloid crap has deep social meaning? You're talking about a celebrity's hair for the love of god.
As for the second example, I do dimly remember you bringing up the point but back-tracking from this post doesnt bring it up. If I remember correctly I didn't acknowledge it because I wasn't familiar enough with what you were talking about and you didn't really provide a link or anything meanwhile with your celebrity gossip I felt I had enough content to comment on.
As for your examples, by Tim Hunts own words he wasn't "taken out of context", he says it was a joke. NASA shirt guy? Wearing a shirt like that during a business interview is massively unprofessional in any context. Who gave him the shirt is irrelevant. As for Trump, you completely miss the point of why people were bothered. It's not that he insulted a woman in a neutral way. He didn't call any women a shit head or anything. It's that he sought to undermine them based on things like them supposedly being on their period rather then address what they were saying. If that's not sexist then nothing is.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Don't want to admit some tabloid crap has deep social meaning? You're talking about a celebrity's hair for the love of god.
It's an anecdotal example of the current zeitgeist. You're just too snobbish to acknowledge it and choose instead to dismiss it out of hand.
If I remember correctly I didn't acknowledge it because I wasn't familiar enough with what you were talking about and you didn't really provide a link or anything
I provided a link. It's still there.
I also talked about the mythical rape culture and the real rape culture being imported via mass migration.
meanwhile with your celebrity gossip I felt I had enough content to comment on
Yes, you chose the easiest one to dismiss as being frivolous and ignored the others.
As for your examples, by Tim Hunts own words he wasn't "taken out of context", he says it was a joke.
He was taken out of context in several writeups. Read the Wikipedia section on it. The full context isn't nearly as bad as the shortened context makes it out to be.
Wearing a shirt like that during a business interview is massively unprofessional in any context.
I agree, but so what? I also think "mohawk guy" has an unprofessional hairdo, but he became a minor celebrity over it.
Who gave him the shirt is irrelevant.
It was claimed to be sexist and misogynistic. It was claimed this kind of thing held back women in science. It's fucking ridiculous.
It's not that he insulted a woman in a neutral way. He didn't call any women a shit head or anything. It's that he sought to undermine them based on things like them supposedly being on their period rather then address what they were saying. If that's not sexist then nothing is.
Trump insults everybody who challenges him. Who fucking cares if he alluded to her being on her period.
He also commented on Fiorina's face, and supposedly that's an insult against all women too. Give me a break. How many comments has Trump gotten over his own appearance?
It's feminism with a hair trigger, willing to cry sexism and misogyny over the slightest things.
I'm just going to finish this off with my War on Christmas analogy (which I don't remember if I used in this thread or not) because some of your comments are incomprehensible to me (discounting a women's opinion because of her perfectly natural body functions isn't sexist? What on earth is then?). Much like Fox news wants there to be a war on Christmas to drive viewership and viewers want one so they can put themselves up on a cross, there has never been one. Only the actions of a small minority of Americans which 20 years on has not managed to make any real dent in Christmas despite an increasing number of non Christians in this country. Don't get me wrong, some of what Fox broadcasted was probably 100% factual. It's just that these truly dumb actions performed by idiots never added up to some sort of grand conspiracy.
Likewise with this. Sure, if you fish around long enough you can find all sorts of stuff to to be offended by. Celebrity gossip is the best for this because it's pure drama (and who the hell is "mohawk guy"?) but you can also apparently find it in insignificant actions done in a tiny country or in something that happened to a lone NASA rep a number of years ago. The only thing truly threatening men's top dog status in our country though, is our current shit-hole high school and college graduation rates. Maybe focus on something important like that rather than dramatizing minor events. I feel like if the alt-right spent half as much time advocating for educational reform to address this actual real life, statistically provable problem, as they do being offended by pop nonsense the country might find itself improved by their movement.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
discounting a women's opinion because of her perfectly natural body functions isn't sexist? What on earth is then?
It's mildly sexist, but who fucking cares? He insults both sexes for trivial reasons. Notice how you ignore the Fiorina example, which was also an attack against "all women", and all he did was comment on her face.
It's just that these truly dumb actions performed by idiots never added up to some sort of grand conspiracy.
I never said there was a grand conspiracy. I'm just talking about the current zeitgeist and what passes for modern feminism.
What do modern feminists have to actually complain about in the West? A mythical wage gap, a phony rape culture, "mansplaining", "manspreading", etc. Wrongheaded fixations on equal outcomes, when men and women have different interests and strengths.
And yet they try to sweep under the rug the real rape culture and subservient treatment of women they're importing with mass migration.
and who the hell is "mohawk guy
Here.
but you can also apparently find it in insignificant actions
Notice how you again focus on the more trivial problems and ignore the serious problems I've brought up.
The only thing truly threatening men's top dog status in our country though, is our current shit-hole high school and college graduation rates. Maybe focus on something important like that rather than dramatizing minor events.
Maybe they'd be doing better if society stopped pandering to shitty feminism and treated those issues just as seriously.
Woosh, whole post right over your head.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Nope, you just don't want to address the arguments, focus on trivial things that you accuse me of, and otherwise bury your head in the sand.