|
Somfin posted:We can agree on that. In the case of shooting, I believe that the women's version was deliberately created to keep women out of the 'real' version pf the sport, and the rules were changed so that the scores couldn't be directly compared. Do you agree with this assessment? It seems very possible. I'm absolutely not dismissing it as a possibility. The big thing that keeps me from going whole-hog into this idea is having been around competitive swimming and seeing how fervently many people within the organization are currently trying to find female competitors who can beat or match established male times. This is happening in a lot of sports because of the monetary effect it could possibly have. If there's ever a woman who manages to eclipse a winning male's time in the same event at the olympics it would be a million-dollar moment for a shitload of people. Maybe the culture was different back in Barcelona, maybe the shooting community are a bunch of throwback traditional shitheads who hate women more than money there are a lot of possible reasons. I personally don't have a problem with women trying to compete with men at any level as long as doing so doesn't negatively effect the health of women's sports as a whole. I think outright integration in many sports would do absolutely that.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
No sports should be segregated. And yeah, many olympics organizers are a bunch of poo poo heels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Manchild King posted:No sports should be segregated. And yeah, many olympics organizers are a bunch of poo poo heels. The end result of this is the death of many women's sports. Look past the absolutism of your ideology to the end result of the policy you want to implement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The end result of this is the death of many women's sports. Look past the absolutism of your ideology to the end result of the policy you want to implement. Yes, eliminating segregation by gender in sports will eliminate most women's sports. Isn't that self-evident? Wales Grey fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jan 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:Yes, eliminating segregation by gender in sports will eliminate women's sports. I don't see how this is not a self-evident proposition? And will drastically reduce the amount of women who can participate in comparison to the current system. Is upholding the lovely ideology of your choice really worth punishing the people it claims to represent?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:And will drastically reduce the amount of women who can participate in comparison to the current system. Is upholding the lovely ideology of your choice really worth punishing the people it claims to represent? I dunno if I'd give up the multi-million dollar salary of a professional field hockey player because they integrated the league with dudes. I think that the competition could really sort the women from the girls. In all seriousness though, segregation by gender in sports at the college and professional levels is pretty irrelevant to the discussion of feminism unless you'd like to argue that because a given woman can't deadlift she is a worthless human being who has no reason to be alive or have equal rights or not be paid the same (or better) than a man working an office job So I'd like to redirect the discussion to the most pressing issue in modern feminism: the portrayal of Mikiko Ebihara in John Romero's Daikatana. Empowered female character or nefarious stereotype?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:Yes, eliminating segregation by gender in sports will eliminate most women's sports. Isn't that self-evident? Eliminating segregration by gender in sports will absolutely eliminate competitive women at the top level in the vast majority of sporting events. Even if you believe that genetics doesn't play a role in differing performance between men and women, the difference itself absolutely exists in almost every sport and is sort of beyond question. If your argument is, eliminate any gender gaps in performance, and then eliminate segregation, then sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
enki42 posted:If your argument is, eliminate any gender gaps in performance, and then eliminate segregation, then sure. It's not an argument, just an observation about how things die when they are killed. Put succinctly: • A exists, and consists of subsets B and C • The union of sets B and C (elimination of gendered sports) is a set equivalent to set A • A = A • Please write exactly what you mean to say instead of accidentally vomiting tautologies
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:So I'd like to redirect the discussion to the most pressing issue in modern feminism: the portrayal of Mikiko Ebihara in John Romero's Daikatana. Empowered female character or nefarious stereotype? I think that the real question is whether or not a woman discussing a video game is allowed to do say anything, negative or positive, without facing a barrage of death and rape threats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Are you trying to close the thread with gamergate chat?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
I think feminism is pretty cool and people who won't shut up about how bad it is are pretty uncool.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
How do people deal with expressing your negative views of feminism in public/social settings, just hold your tongue? I don't view myself as sexist, however I can't abide the spread of dishonest positions like the gender pay gap, "1-in-3", domestic violence stats, the push for guilty until proven innocent in sexual assault crimes etc. I always try to argue respectfully but these are pretty loaded topics emotionally for a lot of people and I've gotten myself into some hot water socially when expressing my position on topics like this. Has anybody found a way to keep the conversation calm but still get your points across and not have people assume you're some rape apologist monster?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I think feminism is pretty cool and people who won't shut up about how bad it is are pretty uncool. But don't you know that women are biologically worse at literally all sports!?!? How can feminism possibly survive this bombshell E: Smorgasbord posted:How do people deal with expressing your negative views of feminism in public/social settings, just hold your tongue? I don't view myself as sexist, however I can't abide the spread of dishonest positions like the gender pay gap, "1-in-3", domestic violence stats, the push for guilty until proven innocent in sexual assault crimes etc. You can start by not having viewpoints that conflict with widely accepted peer-reviewed studies. E: Or, y'know, actually cite the information that you do have that proves that the stuff you're saying is actually untrue E2: Like, do it here, in the thread, so that we know what kind of thing we're working with re: you and what you believe in Somfin fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jan 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Fair enough. My position on the gender pay gap is that the data doesn't state that women are paid less for the same work at the same level of performance and experience as men, but does demonstrate that women generally choose lower paid professions and are more likely to work lower hours than men so on an aggregate level are paid less. Whether those choices are a result of other societal influences on women is a different argument that the discussion usually pivots to. This runs counter to the argument that the majority of feminists put forward, that the stats show a 20%+ gender pay gap for the same job at the same level of hours, performance, and experience between men and women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Smorgasbord posted:Fair enough. My position on the gender pay gap is that the data doesn't state that women are paid less for the same work at the same level of performance and experience as men, This is wrong on its face. Even when you control for experience, qualifications, and yknow, being the same job, women make less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Smorgasbord posted:Fair enough. My position on the gender pay gap is that the data doesn't state that women are paid less for the same work at the same level of performance and experience as men, but does demonstrate that women generally choose lower paid professions and are more likely to work lower hours than men so on an aggregate level are paid less. Whether those choices are a result of other societal influences on women is a different argument that the discussion usually pivots to. This runs counter to the argument that the majority of feminists put forward, that the stats show a 20%+ gender pay gap for the same job at the same level of hours, performance, and experience between men and women. How do you explain the study that showed that a female sounding name was enough to prompt a reduced pay offer for an applicant? E: Also, post data please. Actual studies, that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Here's from Professor Claudia Goldin, a labor economist, ca. 2014:quote:Take doctors and surgeons. Women earn 71 percent of men’s wages — after controlling for age, race, hours and education. Women who are financial specialists make 66 percent of what men in the same occupation earn, and women who are lawyers and judges make 82 percent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Here's from Professor Claudia Goldin, a labor economist, ca. 2014: Yeah but does this study take into account what Smorgasbord feels about the subject? Controlling for that you'll find that women actually make 103% of what men make because anything else makes him uncomfortable
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Yeah but does this study take into account what Smorgasbord feels about the subject? I mean smorgasbord is technically correct that it's not a twenty percent pay gap, it's much worse 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Somfin posted:But don't you know that women are biologically worse at literally all sports!?!?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Manchild King posted:Did anyone in this thread actually say that or are you just making stuff up? sethex, a troll, and new phone who dis, a gamergator so no, nobody said that
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Sorry, I should have been more specific - I dispute the scale of the gender gap stated by mainstream media and feminists based on the ONS figures here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...pay-differencesquote:It should be noted that the figures do not show differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs, as they are affected by factors such as the proportion of men and women in different occupations. For example, a higher proportion of women work in occupations such as administration and caring, that tend to offer lower salaries. It is inevitably positioned as an outright gap of 20-30% when all factors are controlled for other than gender which is patently untrue. I wish there was more thought and analysis put into properly controlling for all contributing factors so we can identify the real gap and have a proper discussion about what can be done. The starting point for that to me is an honest discussion about what the stats mean (that at an aggregate level men do earn 20-30% more than females, but this does not mean that women are paid less for the same performance in the same role by 20-30%). This allows for a much more valuable discussion about the choices made by men and women around employment and any improvements we can make to balance up family commitments , but it's difficult to get there because of the statistical misrepresentation put forward in the media and popular feminism. Basically I'm looking for a way to get around the dishonest use of the statistics to push an agenda, and get down to the actual core reasons for the difference. I am completely willing to accept that there likely is a gender bias in there at some level but I think we can all agree it's not 20-30% in the same job. edit: apparently we can't all agree on that Smorgasbord fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Jan 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Here's from Professor Claudia Goldin, a labor economist, ca. 2014: Pay for judges is standard depending on location and there's no way you don't know you're arguing from bad faith using stats here. To even try to suggest that public servants are paid differently for the same position is is a stupid one to take since anti-discrimination laws expressly forbid it. What you're citing is a change in either experience or time on the job and then using that to try and insinuate the devil patriarchy is somehow responsible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Here's from Professor Claudia Goldin, a labor economist, ca. 2014: From the article: “The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours,” she wrote in a paper published this month in The American Economic Review. Occupations that most value long hours, face time at the office and being on call — like business, law and surgery — tend to have the widest pay gaps. That is because those employers pay people who spend longer hours at the office disproportionately more than they pay people who don’t, Dr. Goldin found. A lawyer who works 80 hours a week at a big corporate law firm is paid more than double one who works 40 hours a week as an in-house counsel at a small business. No loving poo poo Sherlock, people who work more get paid more. That drat patriarchy, I tell ya!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Smorgasbord posted:Sorry, I should have been more specific - I dispute the scale of the gender gap stated by mainstream media and feminists based on the ONS figures here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...pay-differences Number one, I can cite numbers, too. Number two, men and women all things controlled aren't being paid the same, so you're sealioning. Number three, kvetching about the "mainstream media" is not a good sign. Number four, it was really funny that you were literally just kvetching that those dang feminazis change the argument to society and social choices, when that is in fact what you are doing. Number five, quote:The gender pay gap also varies by occupation. For full-time employees the gap is "positive" for all the main occupation groups, ranging from 4.3% for sales and customer service, to 24.6% for skilled trades occupations in April 2015. But nobody's getting paid 20-30% less, eh comrade? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:From the article: You're almost there...!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Pay for judges is standard depending on location and there's no way you don't know you're arguing from bad faith using stats here. To even try to suggest that public servants are paid differently for the same position is is a stupid one to take since anti-discrimination laws expressly forbid it. What you're citing is a change in either experience or time on the job and then using that to try and insinuate the devil patriarchy is somehow responsible. Laws exist, therefore discrimination is over, said Chief Justice John Roberts, as he destroyed the voting rights act.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Number one, I can cite numbers, too. "Sealioning" jesus christ just post a link to your Tumblr already. You know drat well those stats are being furiously massaged by activists to present the best spin possible. Even normal people realize how dishonestly these articles and statements are being made because someone bothered to check their work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Also, for the thousandth time, gamergator new phone who dis, you gonna actually cite anything or are you gonna keep throwing a pissbaby tantrum?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:"Sealioning" jesus christ just post a link to your Tumblr already. The bureau of labor statistics, well known for being staffed by those drat sjws.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
stone cold posted:The bureau of labor statistics, well known for being staffed by those drat sjws. The entire premise of the link you're posting is using the overall earning of both groups as the baseline, which we know is bullshit. It also doesn't account for any other factors when comparing fields like actual job title, experience, age, or hours worked. It's overly-broad unusable data that falls apart under further scrutiny because as it turns out men actually work more hours in their chosen profession and the pay gap becomes almost negligible once you start controlling for more factors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The entire premise of the link you're posting is using the overall earning of both groups as the baseline, which we know is bullshit. It's funny that like you can't actually read because both links are actually controlling for the same goddamn job. The first link controls for age, race, experience, etc. Sorry that thinking makes your head hurt~
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
stone cold posted:It's funny that like you can't actually read because both links are actually controlling for the same goddamn job. The first link controls for age, race, experience, etc. Right, and then they go on to say that AMOUNT OF HOURS WORKED is what becomes the driving factor, not gender. Right in your own link.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Right, and then they go on to say that AMOUNT OF HOURS WORKED is what becomes the driving factor, not gender. Right in your own link. Gee, I wonder if there's a gendered factor behind that. Nah, women must just be being sluts and bitches again, just like gamergate, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Gee, I wonder if there's a gendered factor behind that. Overtime pay: servant of the patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Right, and then they go on to say that AMOUNT OF HOURS WORKED is what becomes the driving factor, not gender. Right in your own link. Also quote:Take doctors and surgeons. Women earn 71 percent of men’s wages — after controlling for age, race, hours and education. Women who are financial specialists make 66 percent of what men in the same occupation earn, and women who are lawyers and judges make 82 percent. must be real hard being functionally illiterate
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Overtime pay: servant of the patriarchy. you're so close, duder sorry that bidya gaems broke ur brain 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:"Sealioning" jesus christ just post a link to your Tumblr already. Why are you so angry about Tumblr seriously it's increasingly seeming like that is where you get 100% of your information from And by information I mean you hate-read feminist troll tumblrs that are deliberately designed to piss off gamergaters and not reflective of genuine feminist thought
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Number one, I can cite numbers, too. 1. direct quote from your linked study: "These comparisons of earnings are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that may be important in explaining earnings differences." e.g this is useless. 2. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here but my post that you quoted stated quite clearly that I'm arguing the scale of the discrepancy and freely admit there likely is an element of gender bias 3. That's the main source of the people I have these discussions with. When the data is dishonestly framed by the media and feminism it becomes socially dangerous to even question the data. 4. That's not what I did at all, I'm quite happy to have that discussion because at least it's honest and progress might be able to made but unfortunately it's very difficult to get past the headline pay gap figures. Also I did not and have not ever used the word feminazi, I'm not trying to misrepresent you please give me the same courtesy. 5. I refer you back to the quote at (1.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
new phone who dis posted:"Sealioning" jesus christ just post a link to your Tumblr already. No one is going to add you as a friend on Tumblr.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 06:17
|
|
