The Anti-femnism thread - Stop fem-splaining to me.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Anti-femnism thread - Stop fem-splaining to me.

Smorgasbord: Jun 18, 2004; Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 06:36

Smorgasbord: Jun 18, 2004; Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.

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: Jun 18, 2004; Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.

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

quote:

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

Smorgasbord: Jun 18, 2004; Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.

stone cold posted:

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,

But nobody's getting paid 20-30% less, eh comrade?

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

Smorgasbord: Jun 18, 2004; Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.

Somfin posted:

If you're still interested in how to go about bringing this up, I recommend that you just stop having female friends, since quibbling over the scale of an obvious problem that you admit exists is a great way to lose friends while gaining nothing.

How about that whole 'guilty until proven innocent' thing regarding sexual abuse? Wanna bring up what the gently caress you're on about regarding that?

I think I'll just take my chances, doesn't seem like either you or stone cold are interested in engaging in good faith discussion.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2017 06:32

Smorgasbord: Jun 18, 2004; Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.

Somfin posted:

"You bitches deserved to get raped by someone and if you think I did anything wrong you're just PMSing" is probably a bad approach by they by

E: If you actually do want to approach in good faith, I'll respond- I promise I will- but you have to understand that you're in the same thread as a guy who believes that American universities are about to set up private courts to be able to freely jail men for false rape claims

Your initial reply tells me all I need to know about your willingness and/or ability to engage in good faith discussion about any of these issues.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2017 06:35

Smorgasbord: Jun 18, 2004; Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.

foolish_fool posted:

I think that the first step is to think about how you are assigning motive to things. If you start with the assumption that evil femminists are dishonestly trying to push an agenda, then that is where you are going to end. But if you can conceive that maybe people are actually acting in good faith, you might get somewhere. The gaps you see in headlines aren't dishonest, they are starting points into an incredibly complex discussion (or even without the discussion, you want to get people thinking). "I wish there was more thought into proper analysis" is along the same lines, it assumes that the people doing this are lazy or incompetent or something whereas maybe its just insanely hard / they did what was possible given their expertise and the data. And then if you go into an actual discussion from the starting point of trying to refute the evil "statistical misrepresentations", obviously people are going to be defensive / respond in equally bad faith (as has been the result in this thread). Whereas if you are willing to actually accept things as useful data points as pieces of a puzzle, and actively want to make the world a better place for everyone, then you can more productively think about/discuss how we fix problems or even better collect/analyse/market information, etc..

Aside:
If you try to take your hardcore science etc study and get someone to write a news article about it, the journalist inevitably tries to get from you the key messages, the big ticket things that are going to get people reading the article. And an easy to understand overarching statistic is like that. This process can be pretty frustrating for all parties involved because you know the thing you've done and how excited you are about the details but they don't know anything about your expert thing but they know what people actually want to read (which probably isn't your statistical methodology). The result can often be a bit worrying as the non-journalist. But one thing I was once told is that you probably want to think of media type stuff and science type stuff differently, they have very different goals and styles.

The media and the columnists who perpetuate this have well and truly exhausted the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this topic. They have been repeatedly shown exactly why what they are saying is wrong and misleading but they continue to push it. The only conclusion possible is that they don't care that it's not correct, they care that it is popular.

The average person who reads and believes theses columns on the other hand, I agree they deserve the benefit of the doubt, which I endeavour to give them. The problem I encounter is the misrepresentation is so pervasive, and seen as so morally just that to oppose it (no matter how gently and fact based your approach) is incredibly hard to do and results in accusations and ad-hominens as displayed in this thread. I am genuinely interested in the root causes of the earnings gap, and any genuine societal problems we can fix to improve everyone's lot but I see the "gender wage gap" as an obstacle to meaningful progress on this as the falsehood dominates the narrative.

Smorgasbord fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Jan 29, 2017

# ¿ Jan 29, 2017 07:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 06:36

Smorgasbord: Jun 18, 2004; Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.

foolish_fool posted:

"The media" aren't really a single entity so much as a wide collection of different people. I think it is possible or even likely that there are some columnists that are deliberately misleading (from any side). And if they continue to make deliberate errors then you should obviously not trust what they say and encourage people you know to seek more reliable sources.

But, if you are saying that anyone who mentions/highlights that there is an overall gap between earnings of women and men is being misleading, then I think again, you are assigning malice or dishonesty (and indeed misleadingness) when none exists. At worst, a journalist misunderstands the boffin they are trying to talk to and makes an innocent mistake. More likely, they actually say useful things but maybe just using words or narrative you don't like? A journalist or columnist probably isn't an expert statistician but instead an entertainer and communicator, and a column is not a piece of scientific literature. And quoting an overall most basic figure to get people to read and think about stuff isn't misleading or wrong or not correct, it is just a headline, a starting point.

And I think that if you think that people are so stupid that they are going to read the first number of one article then turn off their brain, then I think you really aren't giving the audience the benefit of the doubt. People read the rest of the article. And effectively combine what new info they may have learned with their understanding of the world and society. They think and discuss with their friends. Then they read another article a month later and it adds to what they know.

For the bulk of articles on this topic, the whole article and all future articles from the columnists e.g Guardian are just expansions of the misleading headline, they do not ever make any attempt to contextualise the statistics. You have to read the comments for any meaningful analysis. If you don't think the blanket coverage of gender pay gap as a headline without context directs the narrative, why do so many countries have an "Equal Pay Day" or equivalent where it is asserted that women are not paid for the rest of the year because of the pay gap? This day and the statements of organisers almost always go unchallenged by media outlets, reinforcing the 'truth' of the position in the mind of the public.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2017 08:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Anti-femnism thread - Stop fem-splaining to me.