|
stone cold posted:women's studies 101 questions Perhaps if you could say, "don't post unless you have read x, y, or z." Or even, "no asking a question before at least looking at the Google results for it."
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:I wonder why this isn't happening in my "men's issues in a feminist lens" thread? Oh right, because that is a space explicitly set out for men, so men don't feel threatened by it and freak the hell out and come in to be like BUT WHAT ABOUT MY VIEWPOINTS because they see women talking, women who might even be happy to talk to each other without them around. Guy Goodbody posted:The men's feminism thread had a clearer focus from the beginning, as opposed to this thread, where stone cold had to repeatedly update the OP to narrow the scope of the thread. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:This is a textbook example of the assumed incompetence problem people were talking about earlier. You hate a woman talking, so a women talking must have done it incorrectly. If Stonecold hadn't updated her OP magically that would be proof of her incompetence. Thanks for providing the visual aid. I'm sure you'll provide many more. But how are people making snap judgements based on Stonecold being a woman? I've seen nothing to indicate that Stonecold is not a man. The OP's of earlier feminist threads in D&D were always men. e: Right, spoke a moment too late.^^ stone cold posted:and I used to pose as a man elsewhere on the internet for this exact reason. Phyzzle fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:It has (to an extent), same with "guys". Problem is they used to be male terms that became gender-neutral, while there has never been a female term that has done so. Because anything that refers to women is offensive, automatically. Note that bro is fine, "sissy" is an insult. Sir is fine, "madam" runs a whorehouse. Guys are fine, "gals" is a bit condescending. Then on the other hand 'guy', a nasty insult, became acceptable by being used to refer to men for a while. The same thing has sort of happened in some places with 'dog' and even 'oval office'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:The dog purports to desire a thing, then acts in a deleterious manner towards achieving that goal. This is a metaphor for dumb male behaviour. Please leave. You're no Tiny Bronto. e: You said "Please". Phyzzle fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Here's a fun feminism topic: Stalkers. A man can do anything he wants to a woman, up to and including following her around the internet and creating bizarre elaborate conspiracy theories about her, but if a woman so much as makes a You mean people have complained about your posting before? The stalking is coming from inside the house.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 04:10
|
|
face in response she's "overreacting"
|
Concerning disparities in wages and STEM fields, these two studies are very difficult to reconcile: https://scienceprogress.org/2012/10/closing-the-pay-gap-in-stem-fields/ This study had STEM professors across the country rate applicants for a lab manager position based on CVs and recommendations and personal statements. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions The other study had STEM professors across the country rate applicants for a professorship based on CVs, recommendations, and narrative summaries. The first study (from Princeton) showed a notable bias against women candidates (especially from women employers). The other study (from Cornell) came up with a surprising bias against male candidates. Did one of the sides fudge their results, or is there some crucial, non-obvious difference here? In the original published text, the first study was asking about “purported” applicants while the second asked about “hypothetical” applicants. Is “hypothetical” some sort of social science code for the second study coming out and telling the employers that it was only a study? If so, that might explain it. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You follow me around the forums with an elaborate theory that I'm secretly some other black girl you hate for I'm sure completely non-bigoted reasons. I Killed GBS posted:https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3577891&pagenumber=1&perpage=40#post421169558 I’m glad some of my humorous copy-pastes are remembered, but is this thread for Helldumping old posts? If you’re cool with people Helldumping post histories here, let me know, but it may not be conducive to interesting discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So a question I have been wondering about is "do women managers lowball women hires?" I mentioned this one before, but here is a better link: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/ This study had STEM professors across the country rate applicants for a lab manager position based on CVs and recommendations and personal statements. They gave lower ratings to identical applications from women, and lowballed them with a 20% reduced suggested salary. Both male and female professors consistently lowballed by the same amount. Then there was this one: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions It had STEM professors across the country rate applicants for a professorship based on CVs, recommendations, and narrative summaries. But this other study came up with lower ratings against the identical male candidates. (Since it was for a professorship instead of a lab manager, they unfortunately didn't put any questions about salary.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 21:29
|
|