Feminist Philosophy

[archibaldcrane]

When are we going to start complaining that teachers, nurses, social workers, etc are dominated by women?

If this bothers you, literally no one is stopping you from complaining about it.

If it doesn't bother you then don't bring it up.

[Spicyryan]

If this bothers you, literally no one is stopping you from complaining about it.

If it doesn't bother you then don't bring it up.

I wouldn't say it bothers me. However, while there is gender inequality it is not solely on one side.

I would say overall I notice that the mindset seems to be (subconsciously or otherwise) that 'it is only sexist when men do it'.

[archibaldcrane]

I wouldn't say it bothers me. However, while there is gender inequality it is not solely on one side.

I would say overall I notice that the mindset seems to be (subconsciously or otherwise) that 'it is only sexist when men do it'.

I think the expectation is simply "people complain about what bothers them" - so pointing out another "perceived wrong" doesn't fix a problem of women trying to break the STEM glass ceiling.

[Spicyryan]

I think the expectation is simply "people complain about what bothers them" - so pointing out another "perceived wrong" doesn't fix a problem of women trying to break the STEM glass ceiling.

Just outsource the field to eunuchs and solve the problem!

[Siatdiat]

I think the expectation is simply "people complain about what bothers them" - so pointing out another "perceived wrong" doesn't fix a problem of women trying to break the STEM glass ceiling.

Why do the women complaining about this generally have women's studies degrees and not STEM degrees? Also, why do they feel the need to try and control what other people do or control what others are interested in?

[Spicyryan]

Why do the women complaining about this generally have women's studies degrees and not STEM degrees? Also, why do they feel the need to try and control what other people do or control what others are interested in?

Penis envy breeding penis hate.

[archibaldcrane]

Why do the women complaining about this generally have women's studies degrees and not STEM degrees? Also, why do they feel the need to try and control what other people do or control what others are interested in?

Because the only feminism you hate-listen to is fringey online activists.

[Siatdiat]

Because the only feminism you hate-listen to is fringey online activists.

Oh sorry, so not TRUE FEMINISTS then. Explain to me then what TRUE FEMINISM is then.

[archibaldcrane]

There's tons of feminists, tons of people who care about impediments to women succeeding in certain fields.

Very few of them have women's studies majors. If those are the only people you hear on this issue, I think it has more to do with you than with the issue.

[Siatdiat]

There's tons of feminists, tons of people who care about impediments to women succeeding in certain fields.

Very few of them have women's studies majors. If those are the only people you hear on this issue, I think it has more to do with you than with the issue.

What are the specific impediments to women doing whatever they want? I mean, other than women's feelings, or women being afraid of what other people think, or even women not being interested in doing STEM work?

[archibaldcrane]

What are the specific impediments to women doing whatever they want?

Oh, so you don't even listen to what the women's studies feminists say.

ok

Don't ask questions if you aren't interested in the answers.

[Siatdiat]

Oh, so you don't even listen to what the women's studies feminists say.

ok

Don't ask questions if you aren't interested in the answers.

My point is they don't actually say anything that can be filed under legit argument. I knew you wouldn't be able to either, other than to make statements of how things supposedly are not fair, yet without being able to back it up with facts.

[archibaldcrane]

Oh, so you're making the "sexism does not exist" argument. Cool. I'll wait here for you to prove such an outlandish claim.

[archibaldcrane]

First hit on google is a solid place to start. Follow the links if you like.

http://www.businessinsider.com/7-thi...cience-2013-10

[GoggleHead]

That's good news. Now, we need to break down some of the cultural biases that prevent women from wanting to get into those fields in the first place. The "that's for boys" mentality, essentially. It's better than it was, though.

Ok, but follow me down this rabbit hole. What do we do if after breaking down all barriers women just straight up aren't interested as often as men are in pursuing these sorts of careers? If that is indeed the case, will feminism ever be able to admit that? Because from where I'm standing right now, it can't.

[archibaldcrane]

Goggle - do you see feminists complaining that women don't have equal representation on oil rigs or arctic fishing boats? Or even much about firefighting? Of course not. Most feminists recognize limitations in areas where they make sense. Saying "they just aren't interested in that work" wasn't a reasonable explanation regarding women being underrepresented as doctors or lawyers in the 60's, why would we think it is valid regarding science or math now?

[Gokku]

First hit on google is a solid place to start. Follow the links if you like.

http://www.businessinsider.com/7-thi...cience-2013-10

1-5on that list shouldn't be there lol those are basics of life faced by both sides.

[Blubbartron]

Arguing with archi is almost as big of a waste of time as arguing with hey was. He's not interested in a discussion, and he's not willing to consider the possibility he's wrong. It's like discussing religion with a believer. He is correct, and you are not, because the religion says he's correct, and anyone who disagrees is a misogynist.

The whole thing is a fucking scam, just like religion, and only uncritical thinkers fall for the bullshit. Let's have a fun experiment of dissecting the fallacies and straight up manipulative tactics of articles in support of feminist concepts like a "STEM glass ceiling." I think this is highly relevant considering archi's amazing dodge of "I refuse to answer your legitimate question because... reasons."

http://www.businessinsider.com/7-thi...cience-2013-10

#1 - Special pleading. This point assumes that teasing in high school will change the career path of the overwhelming majority of women, despite the fact that the men fulfilling these roles are also teased mercilessly for being nerds. My favorite part of this is trying to claim scientific evidence for their position, stating with a hyperlink that "studies have shown" <insert claim here>, but the hyperlink points to the index for an entire fucking journal of research. No indication of any particular study at all.

#2 - Anecdotal evidence, with a dash of non sequitur. This point gives a couple examples and then concludes that the overwhelming majority of women do not continue on to STEM fields (even if they're already IN a STEM degree program) because no one told them that they should keep going. This is absurd, and in no way logically follows. It's also incredibly condescending of women, what with the subtle implication that they have to be told what to do and can't make decisions for themselves.

#3 - More special pleading, and more non sequitur. A whole paragraph describing how women are wronged by stereotypes, and then one small sentence of back peddling ("these stereotypes also extend into how we portray male scientists"). My favorite part is also the incredibly misleading study linked in this section. The studies are not regarding typical computer scientists, and are therefore irrelevant. The fact that you can convince young women to be interested in computer science after you mislead them about their cohort is not exactly something to be proud of.

#4 - I don't even know how to label this one. The "no shit" fallacy? Basically, women don't like the negatives that come from pursuing STEM work. Long hours interfere with life (whether that be with kids or not). If you don't fucking LOVE doing science-y stuff, then that negative plays a huge part in your choices. The thing I'm most concerned about is how open ended they leave this criticism. Do they think that these jobs should change to allow more flexible, or reduced hours? What about all the other jobs that women DON'T want that have equally inflexible and strenuous hourly requirements? Guess that's a bit of special pleading as well.

#5 - More of the same, combined with the hypocrisy of only acknowledging that women are different in cases where they can use it argue that something should change. Women aren't terribly competitive by nature, so therefore any competitive environment is bad and should change.

#6 - I don't know again, and I'm too tired of writing up all this shit that should be obvious to anyone with a brain. It's probably a non sequitur though. They acknowledged in a previous point that women often leave STEM fields mid-career (because life/kids/whatever), and then they bitch in this one that the average female software developer earns 80% of the average male. The most obvious explanation for the difference is tenure. Tenure would also completely explain why female research scientists generally got smaller labs and financial backing. Capital is a finite resource, and more of it will be concentrated in people that are proven and experienced.

#7 - Finally a point that has something decent, though it has no direct source to the study itself, so it's a claim without evidence. Unfortunate. If people in hiring positions are taking the same resume and grading it differently based on the name at the top, then that is clearly discrimination. There is some small economics argument to be made regarding probabilities that the person behind the resume has passion for the job, but that's something that should be discovered with job interviews, and not as part of the rating of resumes. This positive point in the article is short lived, as they immediately follow it up with the "no shit" fallacy and mention that women only account for 8% of tech startups in Silicon Valley. Well no shit they account for a small percentage when women are currently a small percentage of people in computer science. Double no shit when you take into account that women are less competitive by nature, and doing a startup requires a confidence in yourself that is closely related to a competitive nature (the belief that you're better than others at something, and the desire to prove it).

You see this type of shit over and over again in every article linked in favor of ridiculous feminist ideals, and these are the credible ones. This isn't the tumblr level of crazy feminists, this is the shit they're teaching in women's studies courses. It's not scientific, and it's far from rational.

[archibaldcrane]

1-5on that list shouldn't be there lol those are basics of life faced by both sides.

You think stereotypes discourage men from seeking STEM jobs more than they discourage women from doing so? "Everyone gets teased" isn't an argument unless you mean "in equal proportion".

[archibaldcrane]

"This point assumes that teasing in high school will change the career path of the overwhelming majority of women" Why would teasing alone have to dissuade an overwhelming majority of women? The point here is that institutional sexism is pervasive and each instance chips a little bit more off the block. Teasing, lack of role models/encouragement, stereotypes, inflexible working conditions for mothers, marginalization in the field and straight-up hiring bias each take their victims along the way.

The argument that NONE of these things have ANYTHING to do with wildly disparate participation rates between genders is fucking absurd. The only argument is "how much is due to these instances of institutional sexism, and how much is due to biological factors"? Jumping straight to the latter and dismissing the former is the bastion of the sexist.