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."

Comments

Separate election?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we already knew separate was not equal?

Re:Separate election?

[hambone142]

Why not nominate someone based on their achievements?

The nomination would be pointless if it is not.

Re:Separate election?

[arglebargle_xiv]

By an amazing coincidence, there's already a Dutch (well, strictly speaking, Afrikaans) word for keeping groups of people apart like this.

Not Ironic.

[0100010001010011]

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.

Re:Not Ironic.

[serviscope_minor]

Uh... her quote was that you shouldn't do it because it will be perceived badly. She very much didn't say that the quality of applicants is being lowered.

Come to think of it neither did you.

How about we let good people be appointed and not give two flying fucks about what a bunch of randos on the internet thing?

Re:Not Ironic.

[drinkypoo]

Damn it new owners. You were doing good.

When was that?

There's enough in tech to not even ever have to bring up gender and politics.

And yet, they give us a new gender in politics story almost every day.

When you couple that with the fact that the new "editors" are just as shit at editing (and reading comprehension!) as the old "editors" I really don't think anything has improved outside of slashvertisements actually finally being labeled as such.

Re: Not Ironic.

[fferreres]

She said it the best way possible, because the perception would be founded, and because even if you don't care how you got there, it will never be respected because everyone will know it was rigged. So she speaks to women that care for equal opportunity and those that wan't equal outcomes.

Re:Not Ironic.

[AmiMoJo]

I actually agree with you on this one. I find stories about gender in tech interesting, but this is just rage-bait rubbish.

"Not at men's expense"

[mi]

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.

Rrrriight...

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.

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...

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[gweihir]

Indeed. Way to destroy quality in science, if merely having a different genetic makeup suddenly means you can be less competent. This is beyond stupid.

There are less exceptional female scientists. That is a fact and it does not stem from females having to work harder. It stems from fewer of them being willing to work hard in this area. That the ones that do are on-par simply means this is not a discrimination issue. Deal with it.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[Crashmarik]

I'd love to see whoever modded your post explain why it's flamebait.

Anyone who considers facts to be flamebait needs to examine their value system.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[Knuckles]

merely having a different genetic makeup suddenly means you can be less competent.

You do realise that this is exactly what has been going on for hundreds of years. That does not make an all-women election the right thing to do, but your anger seems misdirected.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[serviscope_minor]

So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago

Did we achieve that? Got any evidence?

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[gweihir]

I am aware that this has been going on in history. The thing is that most of Science has moved beyond that. What angers me is that they want to take Science back to the dark ages where the characteristics of the person of the scientist were deemed more important then the quality of the work performed.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[Actually, I do RTFA]

So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago, the inequality of results is telling us something

You're assuming that we achieved equality of opportunity. I believe the entire point of an election like this goes something like "inherit bias among men to selecting men means opportunity is not equal, and will remain unequal until the voting block is significantly gender mixed."

We already have Women Grandmasters in chess â" because appallingly few ladies could rise to the real GM.

Created a long time ago to jump start women into chess. And now, most women who hit WGM also hold gender-netural titles. Most IM, but the top ones are in the unrestricted GM category (source: Your link)

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[mi]

So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago

Did we achieve that? Got any evidence?

You are demanding, I prove a negative... Simply put, there is no law, that bars women from any pursuit whatsoever. What few sex-based restrictions there are, are anti-men, not anti-women.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[mi]

inherit [sic] bias among men to selecting men means opportunity is not equal, and will remain unequal until the voting block is significantly gender mixed.

That's why I used the term "dogma". A more polite word would've been axiom. That is, if your initial assumption (dogma or axiom) is that women are equally capable of and interested, on average, as men, then, indeed, the disparity in result can only mean one thing: sexism. Whose sexism — that of parents, or teachers, or colleagues, or even internalized, may be subject of some debate, but it can only be sexism.

If, on the other hand, you start with acknowledging the inherent differences between sexes — men can't give birth, can we? — then you may come up with a far less sinister explanation for the different results.

the top ones are in the unrestricted GM category (source: Your link)

The links also says:

As of February 2016, the FIDE rating list records 287 women holding the WGM title alone and an additional 33 who are GM.

The gender-disparity is mind-boggling — approaching that of the physical sports — and can not possibly be blamed on colleagues...

Probably, because the efforts required to rise — and remain — above 2300 is seriously detrimental to giving birth and rearing children.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[Knuckles]

No they don't. The Acadamy, like the sibling post says, is a social club, not science. Its membership reflects the history you are aware of. They hold an additional election for women-only to speed up the change of the academy membership in order to better reflect the current male/female ratio instead of the ratio from decades ago.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[serviscope_minor]

So, your assertion is that there's no law therefore equality has been achievd?

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[jandersen]

It is all too easy to dismiss inequality when you are yourself on the side that enjoys the benefits of that inequality - that is what he establishment has always done throughout history; the consequences are well documented, I think: revolutions, among other things. If you are one of those that voted for Trump, you should at least in principle have some sympathy - I say in principle, because I don't think his supporters have much understanding, in practice, for the inequality that women face.

That women aren't represented equally in science, technology and engineering is well known and has been discussed even on slashdot - I think, even if don't think there is a problem or disagree with what others are trying to do to address it, scoffing at them only serves to set you apart as an ignorant contrarian. In my view, women only elections are not really going to address the problem, which is that parenting is allowed to get in the way of women's careers - this is a problem that can be addressed, though, for example by making high-profile careers more flexible in terms of work time or other conditions. Women are no less able than men when it comes to academia, but if you take out several years to care for the family, then you get too far behind; a little bit of flexibility and willingness to find a solution, on the part of universities, would help immensely.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[Kjella]

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.

In chess perhaps, because nobody can stop you from playing like a world champion. But in almost every other walk of life where you depend on recognition from your peers or your potential or actual employers there can be a lot of non-legal barriers. Not to mention the social acceptance from everyone around you from colleagues, friends and family to society at large could disproportionally discourage one sex over the other.

For example, I really doubt that a porn actress is treated the same way as a porn actor is even though they both have sex on camera for money. Getting paid for fucking pussy all day would probably lead to a round of cheers and high fives in many high school locker rooms, don't quite see women reacting the same way. Pretty sure there would be questions and concerns you'd never ask a guy too.

It's tough to say when you've reached equality in practice, when people are genuinely treated the same regardless of sex. Some people think that if it's less than 50% share then there must be some hidden glass ceiling or discrimination going on and sometimes they're right. Sometimes it just doesn't appeal to most men or most women, those who choose it are treated fairly but they're just not very many.

Of course some see that as a cultural problem too, that we should work on it with programs and quotas until all the imbalances are evened out and we have 50% female fire fighters and 50% men in daycare. It's back to nature vs nurture, how much are boys and girls as they are because of genetics and how much is imposed social roles that says girls like baby pink and boys baby blue. The experts disagree...

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[AmiMoJo]

Being a high ranking chess player is probably not helping the men procreate either.

Anyway, even in physical sports many top ranked women have children. Ennis-Hill took some time out to have a child and still won back to back Olympic medals. Seems like it would matter even less with chess.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[religionofpeas]

How do you explain the lack of men in nursing and teaching ? Genetically less intelligent ?

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[mi]

That being the case, how do you explain the lack of women/certain races/people from certain economic backgrounds?

I have no idea. Fortunately, the burden of proof is not on me...

As far as women go, to stay on topic of TFA, my only speculation is that the burdens of reproduction is what prevents females from a better showing in science and other pursuits. But we can't say with any higher degree of certainty, because to even pose the question is enough to be thrown out of today's "scientific" circles.

Genetically less intelligent?

This is why I mentioned "dogma" in my original post. For you kind, races being genetically identical is even more of an axiom, than Earth rotating around the Sun. You discount our obviously visible differences — eye-shape, skin-color — as superficial. The less obvious ones — like resistance to certain diseases and ability to digest milk — are less known and you quietly ignore them.

But to suggest, that, maybe, some other such differences may play part in differences between academic and other achievement — as you are baiting me to do — is a more reliable way to lose an argument, than even tripping the Godwin's Law would be.

So, I will not make any such statement. The woeful underperformance of Blacks in today's America is much better explained by the scandalous rate of single-parenthood in Black families, for example. And let me preempt your saying "persecution" by pointing out the sad story of Jews — persecuted for centuries throughout Europe, they have a lot to complain about. But not about being underrepresented in Science (nor Chess)...

That said, we are veering off topic here, from differences between sexes to those between races. I shall not continue.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[mi]

Being a high ranking chess player is probably not helping the men procreate either.

Actually, it does — winners are attractive. Man's participation in the actual reproduction is measured in minutes, so he can dedicate much more time and effort to becoming — and remaining — a winner. Though both parents take part in rearing children, the main burden, especially in the first couple of years, remains on the mother.

When you have children of your own, recall this conversation...

That women are achieving some success in Science (and, indeed, Sports) at all, is a testament to technology, that makes these burdens easier.

Ennis-Hill took some time out to have a child and still won back to back Olympic medals.

We aren't talking about outliers here, we are talking about averages. According to TFA, 13% of Dutch academics are already female too...

Seems like it would matter even less with chess.

A close relative of mine was and remains a chess-player with a rating well above 2000. After high school, he had to choose between going to college or continuing to train for another 6-12 months to become a GM. No, he could not have done both — that's how demanding the sport is.

Having witnessed it closely, I can confirm, that pregnancy — even early pregnancy — is only more taxing, than merely attending college.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[AmiMoJo]

So basically, you don't know what the problem is but you do know it had better not be anything that implies it could be fixed by reducing men's dominance a little.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[mi]

No one — your pompous self included — know, what the problem is. You can only speculate. Indeed, it is not at all obvious, there is a problem to begin with. Only 13% of Dutch academics are women? So what?

But you do want to "reduce men's dominance" for some reason and look for excuses to justify your actions — even if that means lowering the overall quality (and prestige) of Science.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[microbox]

So basically, you don't know what the problem is but you do know it had better not be anything that implies it could be fixed by reducing men's dominance a little.

Oh dear. Let me get this correct. Unless you can /prove/ that men /aren't/ the cause of a problem, then the absence of proof is ipso facto, evidence of guilt.

Meanwhile, in non-science denying parts of academia, we have already firmly established that the genders differ in significant ways, esp. when it comes to preferences. And we don't discount cultural explanations for disparate racial outcomes, simply because we're showing off how virtuously non-racist we are -- while simultaneously judging white people by the color of their skin, and without any trace of irony.

Pathetic.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The gender-disparity is mind-boggling

Is it though? I mean, those ratios of scores seem comprable to men. That is, among men, I would assume that approx 7.5x as many men would qualify for WGM alone as GM

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because men become doctors and professors.
'Nurse' and 'teacher' aren't exactly the more intellectually demanding and rigorous fields where a person can gain prestige.

.

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[AmiMoJo]

You say "no one" knows what the issue is, but you seem damn certain what the solution isn't.

I don't know why you keep coming back to this "lowering the quality of science" bullshit. Do you have any evidence that is happening? Or that opening the institution up to the other 50% of the population a bit more won't have any benefit?

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[mi]

You say "no one" knows what the issue is

Bzzz, caught. I said, I no one knows, what the problem is, not issue. The terms are almost synonyms, but not quite... So, allow me to reiterate. We do know — from TFA — that only 13% of Dutch Science Academy are women. We do not know why — what is the problem the ladies have (though I suspect, it is their selfish desire to have children).

I further question, whether this objectively known figure of 13% is in any way problematic to begin with.

but you seem damn certain what the solution isn't.

Your remark pretends to be snark and seems to imply, my stance is somehow illogical. But it is perfectly possible to reject certain "solutions" without knowing, what exactly the problem is (or whether, indeed, there is one). For example, I may have a mole on my skin — I do not know, whether it is benign or cancerous, but I certainly am not going to listen to proposals to "solve" it by redefining it as "skin pigmentation" or something else. Changing the criteria will neither tell me, whether I have a problem, nor solve it, if I do.

And that — changing the criteria — is what the discussed action does. If there is sexism in Dutch society, it is not addressing it. It simply lowers the requirements for women.

"lowering the quality of science" bullshit

It is perfectly real. It is safe to assume, membership in the Academy is not purely honorific — it bestows certain financial and otherwise tangible rewards and adds weight to the person's statements. If simply having a uterus helps someone achieve the distinction they would not otherwise have achieved, those rewards will be undeserved. Worse — someone else more deserving may be passed on, and thus unable to communicate his insights as comfortably and to as receptive an audience.

This is no different (if less dramatic) from American SJWs' efforts to increase the number of women in combat roles — even if that means lowering the requirements . Certainly you agree, that such lowering will mean a weaker force?

Re:"Not at men's expense"

[GoblinKing]

I read something a while back that the NRA is removing the gender-specific categories for shooting competitions since the men and women were scoring so closely to each other that there was no discernible difference in performance by gender.

Not sure if they still are or what the current status is but it's a step in the right direction. For all those things where gender should be irrelevant ... it will be.

What happened to merit?

[innocent_white_lamb]

Black, white, yellow, green, male, female..... whatever happened to simple merit?

Re:What happened to merit?

[epyT-R]

It was rated ET-10: CONDEMNED by special snowflakes who never grew out of their childlike understanding of fairness.

Re:What happened to merit?

[SirSlud]

Reality has never nor will ever be a meritocracy. Sorry buddy. You are where you are in part because of your merit, and in part because of things you have no control over. Join us in reality.

Re:What happened to merit?

[epyT-R]

Granted, but why 'strive' for such double standards? Answer that, and you've got the real motivations for this brand of 'social justice.'

Re:What happened to merit?

[rtb61]

This is worse because effectively the Duct Science Academy is saying the only way poor ineffectual women can have any impact in science is with the protection of men. If they want it they individual will seek to get it. Want more women in science they drop physics and chemistry and take up the science of fashion and gossip science talk. Reality is those females who want to make it and are capable will likely do so.

Re:What happened to merit?

[epyT-R]

Because it prevents some A-group individuals from earning their selections on merit in order to select some members from B-group just because they're B-group, whether they've truly earned their selections or not. This demonizes A-group in the eyes of B-group and infantilizes B-group in the eyes of A-group, keeping the prejudice between them inflamed. This is hypocritical since the stated goal is to eliminate this prejudice. The best way to do this is to judge on relevant attributes, ie merit. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome, especially in diverse populations.

You got it backwards. It's the people who (consciously or not) realize they don't measure up, so they muddy the waters with appeals of oppression in order to cover it up and/or get a leg up on their betters. If you're holding back better employees in order to favor other less represented groups on the basis of supposedly irrelevant attributes (like race, sex etc), you're doing your organization a disservice. You're likely leaking talent out to your competitors and creating resentment among the ones who choose to remain.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Bigotry and Misogynist but the left is ok with it

[Anonymous Coward]

When the pendulum swings the opposite way, that's not an excuse.

And just like that...

[jcr]

The Dutch Academy has abandoned merit for political correctness. Who will take any of them seriously again?

-jcr

Re:And just like that...

[Celarent Darii]

No one takes these things seriously, as the real world doesn't care about the Dutch Academy. The country will soon be overrun by Muslims anyway.

Re:And just like that...

[Darinbob]

Don't interrupt a good rant just because of facts!

Re:And just like that...

[Idefix97]

Dutch is not Danish!

Re:And just like that...

[yuriklastalov]

C'mon, you don't seriously expect us to believe that, do you?

Re:And just like that...

[Imrik]

Political correctness is in large part discrimination in favor of the historically powerless.

Re:And just like that...

[thegarbz]

No one takes these things seriously, as the real world doesn't care about the Dutch Academy. The country will soon be overrun by Muslims anyway.

It's not often you get a troll trolling about entirely the wrong country, using a link that additionally entirely disproves their point (5% of the Danish a Muslims, fear them for they are mighty!)

Re:Seems fair to me

[zapadnik]

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.

What a repulsively sexist thing to do

[gweihir]

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.

Well.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[gweihir]

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.

Gotta say it

[93 Escort Wagon]

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)

Re:Gotta say it

[thegarbz]

There's a sticking a finger in a dijk joke there somewhere but I can't for the life of me find it.

Re:Seems fair to me

[PopeRatzo]

that would match the fact pattern.

The 4chan fact pattern.

Re:Women don't belong in science

[PopeRatzo]

Women don't belong in science.

You need to get over the fact that some people booed you at a Broadway show, sir.

This needs some serious

[SpaghettiPattern]

Mansplaining.

• Gender equality improves society as a whole and we should aspire to achieving that.
• Preventing competition weakens the ones that are favoured as incentive to achieve is reduced.
• Having said that, there is a tendency to appoint extremely mediocre men. Gender nepotism is what should be tackled first. Striving for a true meritocracy.

Re:This needs some serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Gender equality improves society as a whole and we should aspire to achieving that.

Can you provide a citation? What do you mean by "improves"? In particular, please provide some sort of quantitative measure of "improvement", and argue why I might want to use that measure. After you've done that, the conversation can continue. For example, I might propose an alternate measure of improvement...

Re:This needs some serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw in Diversity, while your at it. You'd think a bunch of academic weenies could do better than a bald tautology in "Diversity is good because diversity is good."

Re:This needs some serious

[SpaghettiPattern]

Can you provide a citation? What do you mean by "improves"? In particular, please provide some sort of quantitative measure of "improvement", and argue why I might want to use that measure. After you've done that, the conversation can continue. For example, I might propose an alternate measure of improvement...

Happens to be MHO. I can expand a little. Given that male/female are divided in 50/50, both should mostly be represented in equal ratios in most activities. Through that both the male and the female POVs are taken into consideration. In the longer term that should be beneficial to all because both sides will be represented and hence the activities in question will have more authority and be able to achieve targets more effectively. That's what I mean by improving.

As a rational person, have you ever tried to sometimes blindly follow your SO? The new insights and new possibilities may be significant. For example, my wife liked the idea of sailing. I never cared much for anything nautical or water related. Then I went along with the idea and took it perhaps a bit more seriously than my wife meant. Since then I sailed from Norway to the scotland, did a bit of English channel, the Irish sea, and of course I took the family on sailing trips. Wouldn't have happened if I had dismissed my wife's idea. Still consider her POVs alien to mine -and that's mutual- but I'll play ball intensely and unreservedly. Life's too short to miss new experiences.

Re:This needs some serious

[religionofpeas]

Given that male/female are divided in 50/50, both should mostly be represented in equal ratios in most activities

That doesn't follow at all. Men and women have, on average, completely different interests. For instance, when I go for a walk or bike ride in the weekend, I see plenty of people fishing along the canals. Over the years, I must have seen hundreds of them. I don't recall ever seeing a woman among them. Fishing is a very low barrier kind of activity. All you need is a cheap license and some starter gear for less than $100, and then find a free spot along the water. The fact that so few women are fishing can only be explained by the fact that most of them think it's a stupid and boring activity. On the other hand, knitting and crocheting are very low barrier activities too, and they are mostly done by women.

Re:Seems fair to me

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a fool would believe that a wrong can be righted by doing more of it.

Re:Nice Alt-Right bait.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, PopeRatzo! I guess that you assume that the people in this thread are Trump supporters, and you provided that link to insult them. Unfortunately, we're not Trump supporters, we're scientists. We dislike Trump almost as much as you. Does it surprise you that somebody who's not a Trump supporter could be opposed to a women-only election? Here, let me help you reason it through: There are people who actually care about science, and don't really care about taking sides in your culture war. No matter what our political inclinations, we see that this move by the Dutch Science Academy is bad for science, so we oppose it. Of course, I know it's difficult for you to understand that people can have motivations aside from tribal allegiance (that is, aside from SJW vs. Alt-Right), but please pause for a moment and try to understand.

"does not come at men's expense"

[aepervius]

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.

Re: Watch the USA

[JWW]

Yeah because the system we use to choose Presidents is brand new, right?!?

Go read the Constitution and STFU!!

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[Z80a]

You ended with a crappy president because you selected the democrat candidate this way, even with it being incredibly corrupt and hated by the general populace.
Any other candidate that was competing would win against the annoying orange.

Madam Curie

[Sqreater]

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.

Re: Madam Curie

[cheva]

You do realize that Madame Curie did not live to see women given the right to vote in France, right? Yes, she was an outstanding, devoted scientist, but she did not exist in a world where women had a level playing field with men. Who knows how many other women could have contributed to science if they did not face such hurdles to do so. Although some have been broken down in the days since, do not presume that there are not some that still exist.

Re:Madam Curie

[ljw1004]

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.

You're doing it wrong. Science is when you respect it for its theories, their significance, their correctness. If your respect is being swayed by anything else then you're doing politics not science.

Re: Madam Curie

[Anonymous Coward]

Non sequitur. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Do not breed.

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[serviscope_minor]

You ended with a crappy president because you selected the democrat candidate this way, even with it being incredibly corrupt and hated by the general populace.

You ended up with an even more corrupt president. He just had to settle a farud lawsuit for a substantial fraction of the value of the lawsuit.

And if you have to use the excuse that he was never convicted, then remember neither was Hillary.

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[Z80a]

Yes, indeed.
But the point is that if dems did voted on the one that public was more in favor of than choosing the female in sake of being the female, they would had won this election.
This is what happens when you let anything go over actual qualification.

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[yuriklastalov]

They didn't choose her because she is a woman, they chose her because she is Hillary Clinton. It was her fucking turn, and you deplorable scum ruined it for her!!

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[Imrik]

He may be corrupt, but he's inexperienced as a politician, making it more difficult for him to exercise his corruption.

Re:Fuck you

[yuriklastalov]

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.

Sounds like the typical Baby Boomer shenanigans.

This is not a good idea. For more than one reason

[Opportunist]

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.

Ah. Sexism at its finest.

[Chas]

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.

Work on faculty

[manu0601]

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.

Re:Bigotry and Misogynist but the left is ok with

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not so certain

[Ol Olsoc]

While this academy president thinks the plan "does not come at men's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck" It actually does. It comes at the women's expense. They want 10 new members this year, and 6 next year. Thos members have a qualification that they must be female. That is how they will get the position - Being female. It's rather pernicious that there are 16 positions that a male is specifically and based on his gender, not allowed to get. Read TFA if you don't believe me.

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

Re:Seems fair to me

[murdocj]

I'm assuming you forgot the tag

A bit like the Paralympics ... but for science ?

[Thanatiel]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[aevan]

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?

Re:Seems fair to me

[ShanghaiBill]

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

[melted]

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.

Re:And women elected in these

[Ceaus]

The only way to avoid this is by promoting strict, unyielding meritocracy.

Which will never happen as the academic world is a men's only world, You would be surprised if you knew the abundence of sexism, racism and paternalism in the academic world. It's appalling and we need to stop it. Read Critical Mass Theory and Women’s Political Representation to understand why males (myself included) are the cause of this.

Re:And women elected in these

[melted]

I work in a computer science research lab, and about 30% of our researchers are women. What was your point again?

Re:Seems fair to me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[guises]

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.

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[Anonymous Coward]

You ended with a crappy president because you selected the democrat candidate this way, even with it being incredibly corrupt and hated by the general populace.

You ended up with an even more corrupt president. He just had to settle a farud lawsuit for a substantial fraction of the value of the lawsuit.

And if you have to use the excuse that he was never convicted, then remember neither was Hillary.

Right, except Sanders was supposed to be the Democratic candidate. He didn't because he got screwed by the DNC as they pushed Clinton through because she was a puppet of big banks. This is why Trump was elected.

This is what happens when you screw with democracy.

Re:Seems fair to me

[ShanghaiBill]

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?

Re:Seems fair to me

[fredgiblet]

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.

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[fredgiblet]

Clinton didn't lose because she's a woman, she lost because she was an astoundingly weak candidate for a number of reasons. She should never have been nominated, the DNC should have recognized what the Republicans were doing for the last 8 years, pulled her aside and quietly offered her a nice posting to fuck off for the election.

They didn't, so now we have Trump.

Re:Bigotry and Misogynist but the left is ok with

[fredgiblet]

It's why I've left the Left. I'm still mostly liberal (come at me bros) but I no longer stand with Democrats.

Re:Seems fair to me

[chipschap]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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".

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[Raenex]

Your sarcasm meter. It's broken.

Tunnel vision

[Ceaus]

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.

Re:Watch the USA

[harlequinn]

Just to be super clear here, Hillary Clinton did not "win the popular vote". She didn't win it because there was no competition around the popular vote measure.

The competition wasn't about the most votes in total across the nation. The competition was about winning the most electoral college votes. That is the metric by which the winner was measured. The metric was announced several hundred years beforehand.

Complaining about losing the competition because you have some other totally unofficial metric by which the loser measured as better is the same as complaining about the results of a football match because the loser had more yards gained / ball control / ball passes / whatever.

Back on topic. I thought we were over this hurdle. Jobs are meant to be earned on merit.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[guises]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

*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.

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[jbssm]

Yes, and that's the sexist issue here. She didn't lost the presidential election because she is a woman, but she won the Democratic Primaries in part by playing the: "I'm a woman" card to the public while in the back stage she was manipulating the DNC.

Re:A bit like the Paralympics ... but for science

[Ceaus]

Is that what they are saying for women in science ?

Now this is a text book example of framing...

Re:Ah. Sexism at its finest.

[Ceaus]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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.

Separate but Equal.

[biggaijin]

What a great idea. I wonder if it's been tried before?

Re:A bit like the Paralympics ... but for science

[Thanatiel]

I was going for "sarcasm", but I don't blame you. The tone of voice doesn't translate well into text.

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[fredgiblet]

It's not entirely fair to put that solely on her. The Left in general has become so hyper-focused on "social justice" that she didn't really even need to play the card, it was played for her, and she would have had to be stupid not to try and use it to her advantage.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[guises]

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."

Discrimination

[SuperDre]

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.

Re:Why not select a president this way?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Nah, she won the primaries by being the Heir Apparent to the Clinton Dynasty, while nobody in the DNC recognized that America doesn't want or need a political dynasty.

Also, the DNC was so busy appealing to everybody except mainstream America that they completely lost mainstream America.

That said, yes, there was a lot of 'lets make history by electing me as the first woman president!' which is regretful.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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.

WGMs and GMs

[mi]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[guises]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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.

Any discrimination is discrimination - +ve or -ve

[robinsc]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[robinsc]

Fudging is not a good idea- it opens up the fudged upon to unnecessary self doubt or in the worst case to incompetence.

Re:Seems fair to me

[kuzb]

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.

Illegal.

[CountBrass]

Discriminating on the grounds of gender is entirely illegal.

Re:Seems fair to me

[dywolf]

that only keeps structural sexism in place.
the way to eradicate structural bias is to purposely elevate numbers of un(der)represented minorities.

Re:Seems fair to me

[dywolf]

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.

Re:Ah. Sexism at its finest.

[Chas]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[epyT-R]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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?

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

So "Women's interests" can't be equality? Sure seems like that would be in their interests.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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?

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

aaaand if you actually read what I said you'd know I didn't say it was a good idea.

Re:Seems fair to me

[guises]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[epyT-R]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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".

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[skam240]

Woosh, whole post right over your head.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Raenex]

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.