No it isn't. It can seem that way stripped of context and intent.
You getting upset and belligerent isn't going to make your case stronger. In fact you never even tried to deny that it is sexism.
You get that you applied the most uncritical argument in the universe, right? You went "you're oversimplifying" to someone who was trying to digest a completely unsupported, simplistic as hell slashdot hugbox opinion.
The whole "isolate someone I disagree with to deliver an argument that is 100x more applicable to the thing they're arguing against" makes you come across as slime without a flake of honest intent.
Except, of course, the entire idea of affirmative action is trying to break positive feedback loops with a sudden injection of change.
So, on some theoretical level, it might be nice to take "the high road" on everything, but if your goal is the real world actual dismantling of long-term discriminatory institutions, sometimes you want to give a "push".
"Why aren't you worried about [problem I am actually worried about]?"
You're like people who were arguing for pro-segregation bullshit because white people faced discrimination in Africa. Just because neither is just isn't a valid reason to abandon the former.
Go ahead, sue people who discriminate in scholarships against protected classes. You have my support. Don't prove people right about how you're just disguising sexism by using those things' existence to justify doing nothing about real problems.
You can sure say that, but MRAs never actually do that when they get involved in internet discussions. It's always shitbags demanding we stop anything looking at any sort of equality.
Always.
"Women make $0.77 on the dollar for what men make" "Let's not work on that in any legal way, because women don't work the same jobs" "Let's work on the social and education factors that might push women away from higher paying jobs, in one of the most male dominated fields in the country" "That's discrimination, let's not work on that"
You want to work on problems that face men, do so, but those of us who don't have our heads stuck up our asses are paying attention to where you actually speak up.
You, yourself, are engaged in this very waste of time that shows why your argument is only theoretical, and not actually true.
You stereotype all women, then proceed to complain that people talk about misogyny.
Like, if it weren't a self-defeating argument, it wouldn't be so annoying to see every damn time. Guess what. I'm male and I complain about misogyny too. It's actually relatively pervasive. Just because discrimination isn't one-directional doesn't mean it should be ignored.
I do care about mens rights. I just have also seen what the top all time posts of/r/mensrights are, and it's not a call to end injustice. It's whining about feminism.
People who identify as MRAs are pretty clearly just gesticulating against both justice and progress.
"Would X convince jurors" isn't actually a particularly applicable concern for approving a settlement. It reads a lot more like the judge having thoughts about the details of the case.
Yes, that's the kind of simplification that causes people to be sexist. Congratulations. Your genetic determinism argument is bad and you should feel bad.
There isn't even a clear "other side" here. Google used their own money and earmarked some for making progress on an issue they see in society. The "other side" is claiming there is no problem just because, even if the original concerns are incredibly data driven.
All the judge did, was ask whether historical fines to other companies are an appropriate precedent for Apple, Google, and the rest. This isn't "questioning the amount and logic" but regular old due diligence.
Because the vast majority of CS education related grant money goes to pay for mens' education, in spite of this. Period. We aren't being left behind at all.
Men's rights activists aren't actually interested in mens' rights. Every time they bring up any of their concerns, it's as an excuse to not make social progress.
I've never seen an MRA who posted anything that wasn't about rejecting feminism.
Oh forgot how nuanced and up for proper critical examination the stance of "sexism end of story" is.
No wait, it's not.
It's unthinking. And moronic. You're saying I'm being unfair in my fucking presumption? Why do you think to apply that "you're making assumptions" argument to me and not to that shit?
We do ask why, a lot of what we've seen implies early childhood cultural factors. But it would be a lot easier on the relatively simple-minded to assume girls are just different.
"Simple lack of interest" is such bullshit, because it absolves you of the actual question of what drives interest.
Sexism was also the beginning of the story. And this argument rings hollow, because if you break it down, it leads to supporting theses that suggest you don't actually care about sexism.
The apparent rational(without being a mind reader, and knowing what lead you to assert "end of story) looks like this: "Why are you trying to encourage more [massively underrepresented group X] into [profession Y]? That's discriminatory to [group !X]" "Isn't it fair to expect people to get a proportional piece of the [Y pie]?" "No, that's [!X]ist! Can't you just accept that there are fundamental and genetic/congenital differences between [X] and [!X] that affect their ability to [Y]???"
It's self defeating to claim sexism, since the argument apparently is predicated on sexism. And the "end of story" part just makes it seem you don't want attention drawn to that fact. If you believe that sexism is actually wrong as a basis to your argument, and are not just using that as an argument of convenience, we need to understand what non-sexist assertion you replace the third line with.
Right, because that stupid hypothetical "evil affirmative action" scenario has ever happened to any of us.
I get and even endorse the principal you're espousing. Equality is a high value, and doing it wrong can hurt it's own objective. But ridiculous hyperbole just makes you come across as completely disinterested in the actual idea, and only concerned with a the argument as a matter of convenience to your own interests.
Because the internet has programmed us to communicate entirely by pop culture references and oblique sexualized insults, leaving no room for actual critical examination of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Did I? Am I?
No it isn't. It can seem that way stripped of context and intent.
You getting upset and belligerent isn't going to make your case stronger. In fact you never even tried to deny that it is sexism.
You get that you applied the most uncritical argument in the universe, right? You went "you're oversimplifying" to someone who was trying to digest a completely unsupported, simplistic as hell slashdot hugbox opinion.
The whole "isolate someone I disagree with to deliver an argument that is 100x more applicable to the thing they're arguing against" makes you come across as slime without a flake of honest intent.
Except, of course, the entire idea of affirmative action is trying to break positive feedback loops with a sudden injection of change.
So, on some theoretical level, it might be nice to take "the high road" on everything, but if your goal is the real world actual dismantling of long-term discriminatory institutions, sometimes you want to give a "push".
"Why aren't you worried about [problem I am actually worried about]?"
You're like people who were arguing for pro-segregation bullshit because white people faced discrimination in Africa. Just because neither is just isn't a valid reason to abandon the former.
Go ahead, sue people who discriminate in scholarships against protected classes. You have my support. Don't prove people right about how you're just disguising sexism by using those things' existence to justify doing nothing about real problems.
What I'm saying: you have no real ideas.
You can sure say that, but MRAs never actually do that when they get involved in internet discussions. It's always shitbags demanding we stop anything looking at any sort of equality.
Always.
"Women make $0.77 on the dollar for what men make"
"Let's not work on that in any legal way, because women don't work the same jobs"
"Let's work on the social and education factors that might push women away from higher paying jobs, in one of the most male dominated fields in the country"
"That's discrimination, let's not work on that"
You want to work on problems that face men, do so, but those of us who don't have our heads stuck up our asses are paying attention to where you actually speak up.
You, yourself, are engaged in this very waste of time that shows why your argument is only theoretical, and not actually true.
You're doing it right now.
Oh, I like this argument so much.
You stereotype all women, then proceed to complain that people talk about misogyny.
Like, if it weren't a self-defeating argument, it wouldn't be so annoying to see every damn time. Guess what. I'm male and I complain about misogyny too. It's actually relatively pervasive. Just because discrimination isn't one-directional doesn't mean it should be ignored.
Can you name a bigger name in the field of mens' rights?
Yes, this is a problem, intermediate schools are failing male youth and we need an approach to that problem, too.
"Social problems swing both ways" isn't an excuse to not work on social problems. It's the exact opposite of that.
You're ignoring [blatantly sexist statement]
No, I'm not.
I do care about mens rights. I just have also seen what the top all time posts of /r/mensrights are, and it's not a call to end injustice. It's whining about feminism.
People who identify as MRAs are pretty clearly just gesticulating against both justice and progress.
"Judge: $324M Settlement In Silicon Valley Tech Worker Case Not Enough"
Overstatement.
"Would X convince jurors" isn't actually a particularly applicable concern for approving a settlement. It reads a lot more like the judge having thoughts about the details of the case.
Yes, that's the kind of simplification that causes people to be sexist. Congratulations. Your genetic determinism argument is bad and you should feel bad.
There isn't even a clear "other side" here. Google used their own money and earmarked some for making progress on an issue they see in society. The "other side" is claiming there is no problem just because, even if the original concerns are incredibly data driven.
Denialism isn't debate.
All the judge did, was ask whether historical fines to other companies are an appropriate precedent for Apple, Google, and the rest. This isn't "questioning the amount and logic" but regular old due diligence.
Because the vast majority of CS education related grant money goes to pay for mens' education, in spite of this. Period. We aren't being left behind at all.
Men's rights activists aren't actually interested in mens' rights. Every time they bring up any of their concerns, it's as an excuse to not make social progress.
I've never seen an MRA who posted anything that wasn't about rejecting feminism.
Oh forgot how nuanced and up for proper critical examination the stance of "sexism end of story" is.
No wait, it's not.
It's unthinking. And moronic. You're saying I'm being unfair in my fucking presumption? Why do you think to apply that "you're making assumptions" argument to me and not to that shit?
I'm saying that the argument is apparently predicated on a contradiction, and thus complete bullshit.
It could just be apparent and not actual, but OP apparently is +5 informative for basically not justifying their position in any meaningful way.
Saying "end of story" with a gross simplification is stupid as all goddamn hell.
We do ask why, a lot of what we've seen implies early childhood cultural factors. But it would be a lot easier on the relatively simple-minded to assume girls are just different.
"Simple lack of interest" is such bullshit, because it absolves you of the actual question of what drives interest.
Sexism was also the beginning of the story. And this argument rings hollow, because if you break it down, it leads to supporting theses that suggest you don't actually care about sexism.
The apparent rational(without being a mind reader, and knowing what lead you to assert "end of story) looks like this:
"Why are you trying to encourage more [massively underrepresented group X] into [profession Y]? That's discriminatory to [group !X]"
"Isn't it fair to expect people to get a proportional piece of the [Y pie]?"
"No, that's [!X]ist! Can't you just accept that there are fundamental and genetic/congenital differences between [X] and [!X] that affect their ability to [Y]???"
It's self defeating to claim sexism, since the argument apparently is predicated on sexism. And the "end of story" part just makes it seem you don't want attention drawn to that fact. If you believe that sexism is actually wrong as a basis to your argument, and are not just using that as an argument of convenience, we need to understand what non-sexist assertion you replace the third line with.
Right, because that stupid hypothetical "evil affirmative action" scenario has ever happened to any of us.
I get and even endorse the principal you're espousing. Equality is a high value, and doing it wrong can hurt it's own objective. But ridiculous hyperbole just makes you come across as completely disinterested in the actual idea, and only concerned with a the argument as a matter of convenience to your own interests.
I think it's a little generous to provide "genetics or whatever" as a null hypothesis.
But your sentiment is in the right sciency place.
Martok with his mind blown.
It never occurred to me that that episode was a dire prediction of our future.
Because the internet has programmed us to communicate entirely by pop culture references and oblique sexualized insults, leaving no room for actual critical examination of anything.