Feminist Philosophy

[Blubbartron]

I've been doing research to try to give a cogent reply with proper citations about why that study is bullshit, but it's difficult. The world of social psychology research is complex, and they have a nasty habit of cloaking made up bullshit with impressive sounding terms. For example, a "power analysis", which is a major part in determining how large a sample size should be, is essentially gut feelings and guesswork. The general idea is that if your methodology/test has high "power", then it will provide data correctly indicating to reject the null hypothesis more often, which therefore means you can use fewer people (lower sample size) to conduct your study. This is desirable because it makes research cheaper and faster. However, if you fuck up the power analysis, you may use too few people and your data is effectively irrelevant. There is no such thing as a sample size which is too large, except that it could identify the existence of covariables that you hadn't anticipated (e.g. perceived sexism could depend on gender and location and age and field, and any number of things not thought of or listed here), which is good for science, but bad for researchers. No researcher wants to do a study involving 10,000 participants only to publish "welp, we couldn't reject the null hypothesis."

In this particular paper that archi is clinging to as gospel (even though it's unique research and there are no replications yet, or attempts to replicate that I'm aware of), they mention having done a power analysis and therefore their sample size is good enough. They don't go into the details of what their power analysis was, or why it was sufficiently thorough. We effectively have to take them at their word. That doesn't fly with me, and shouldn't for most people. I've barely scratched the surface in learning what goes on in professional research, and I can already see this paper is missing a lot of details it should have provided.

Maybe sometime in the next day or two I'll have brushed up on my statistics from nearly a decade ago enough to be able to dissect their analysis of the small amount of data provided. Ideally I would find their raw data and do the analysis myself to ensure I got the same answers, but I don't know if I'll even be able to find that. Kind of wish Sath would weigh in on this shit, as he has first hand experience dealing with research.

[archibaldcrane]

Serious question - other than a larger sample, what would you alter about this straightforward study to improve it?

[Byrthnoth]

I made a post here summarizing the male/female ratios in the most recent graduation rate data I could find at the time:
http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/111...=1#post6319777


Also, it's entirely unsurprising that faculty would be biased against hiring female lab techs. Labs are small and things fall to shit when critical personnel go on, for instance, maternity leave for 3 months. Most lab techs are young people trying to figure out WTF they want to do with their life, which is often answered by "settle down and have a family." The risk of maternity leave to a lab is not insubstantial.

These are the kind of things that would go away if paternity leave existed and was socially accepted. It would probably never go away in highly competitive environments like academia, though, because those places are all about pushing yourself to the limit to crank out one more experiment.


Just as a feasible example:
Your lab tech goes on a 3 month maternity leave and you can't find someone qualified to replace her for a 3 month stint (how could you?). Now the post doctoral fellow (who gets paid more than a tech) has to do the breeding and genotyping in your transgenic mouse colony. They go from doing 4 experiments a week to doing 1 experiment a week. Your lab generates less data/day and spending about the same $/day, so you're generating less data/$.

You run out of money. Your ox dies crossing the river. You're fucked. Now you close up shop at your dream job and teach barely literate undergrads for the rest of your life (assuming they let you stay on as a teaching faculty).

[Spicyryan]

Someone needs to blind Mazmaz with science instead of whatever the fuck you'd call his current pair of shades.

<starts humming the tune>

[Blubbartron]

Serious question - other than a larger sample, what would you alter about this straightforward study to improve it?

The larger sample is the key alteration because it's the one that can be done relatively safely without corrupting the test itself. Some of the important information/test variables are things like the personality of the grader, other recent applicants to compare the fake application to, currently hired people's skill levels and experience, budget size, available room in the budget, cost of living in the area, salary of the grader, average salary of similar positions at that institution, frequency of mentoring by grader, number of people currently being mentored, etc. These are things that are very difficult to control for, and sometimes downright impossible to determine (in particular if someone is a dick when grading, or the "everybody is awesome" approach, which is equally unhelpful). When you can't control for things, and they are reasonable factors that could impact the outcome of the experiment, you need to make the sample size larger in order to average out those differences. I haven't done enough brushing up on statistics to be 100% sure, but based on my education and general knowledge of mathematics, a sample size of 127 feels very, very small with all those factors playing a part in the judging of an application. Gender may have been the factor the researchers cared about, but no one in their right mind thinks gender is the ONLY factor in play when a hiring manager (of any kind, not just STEM) is judging an application.

[Ksandra]

Also, it's entirely unsurprising that faculty would be biased against hiring female lab techs. Labs are small and things fall to shit when critical personnel go on, for instance, maternity leave for 3 months. Most lab techs are young people trying to figure out WTF they want to do with their life, which is often answered by "settle down and have a family." The risk of maternity leave to a lab is not insubstantial.

These are the kind of things that would go away if paternity leave existed and was socially accepted. It would probably never go away in highly competitive environments like academia, though, because those places are all about pushing yourself to the limit to crank out one more experiment.


Just as a feasible example:
Your lab tech goes on a 3 month maternity leave and you can't find someone qualified to replace her for a 3 month stint (how could you?). Now the post doctoral fellow (who gets paid more than a tech) has to do the breeding and genotyping in your transgenic mouse colony. They go from doing 4 experiments a week to doing 1 experiment a week. Your lab generates less data/day and spending about the same $/day, so you're generating less data/$.

You run out of money. Your ox dies crossing the river. You're fucked. Now you close up shop at your dream job and teach barely literate undergrads for the rest of your life (assuming they let you stay on as a teaching faculty).

I think you are looking at the bolded part incorrectly. You are right in that having paternity leave being normalized and socially acceptable can level the playing field since it wouldn't matter if you hire a man or woman, the risk of losing them for three months will still be there. With that said, paternity leave wouldn't solve any of the problems you listed because both can take it at the same time. It's not "either the man or woman stays at home."

I think the better solution is to do what countries like europe does and give them leave for like a year.

I think it's a lot more feasible to hire a temp for a year, than for three months.

As an aside, my husband couldn't get paternity with my first, but could with my second. Fucking amazing having him at home when I was only able to get two hours of sleep at a time.

Fuck feminists need to be all up in the paternity leave shit. It's not just about the man for that.

[Byrthnoth]

Checking my employer's current policies, they are:
1) Duration - Your job is legally protected for up to 60 days.
2) Insurance company involvement - Determined by the insurance company, which I don't have info for.
3) Payment structure for the first 30 days - You are required to burn all your sick days (for 100% pay) and can choose to take paid vacation days (for 100% pay) but these will otherwise be unpaid.
4) Payment structure for the last 30 days - You are eligible for 60% of your base pay for 2 weeks if you delivered naturally or 4 weeks if you had a C-section. You can also take paid vacation days for 100% pay during this period.
5) Gender split - Any event that qualifies for this leave (birth or adoption, basically) can be claimed by the man, the woman, or both. However, they are limited to a net total of 12 weeks of leave in a calendar year if they both work at the hospital.

So the hospital gives 60 days off, and you are guaranteed 60% pay for 14 or 28 days. The insurance company also potentially pays you during the first 30 days depending on their own rules.


Regardless how you design it, in jobs that require incredibly specific skill sets work just stops when someone important goes MIA.

[Ksandra]

Checking my employer's current policies, they are:
1) Duration - Your job is legally protected for up to 60 days.
2) Insurance company involvement - Determined by the insurance company, which I don't have info for.
3) Payment structure for the first 30 days - You are required to burn all your sick days (for 100% pay) and can choose to take paid vacation days (for 100% pay) but these will otherwise be unpaid.
4) Payment structure for the last 30 days - You are eligible for 60% of your base pay for 2 weeks if you delivered naturally or 4 weeks if you had a C-section. You can also take paid vacation days for 100% pay during this period.
5) Gender split - Any event that qualifies for this leave (birth or adoption, basically) can be claimed by the man, the woman, or both. However, they are limited to a net total of 12 weeks of leave in a calendar year if they both work at the hospital.

So the hospital gives 60 days off, and you are guaranteed 60% pay for 14 or 28 days. The insurance company also potentially pays you during the first 30 days depending on their own rules.

The sick day part is interesting. In cali, they have FMLA laws that allow for paternity leave. It's not perfect, but it's a start. State will pay the man for 6 weeks (but he can't get paid the first week, so basically 7 weeks with 6 weeks of pay). He can take them at any time throughout the year. Hubby did his all at once, BiL split his up. So no need to use sick days.

Regardless how you design it, in jobs that require incredibly specific skill sets work just stops when someone important goes MIA.

Well, yes of course. But that should be a shitty thing about life, not a shitty thing about hiring a woman.

[Byrthnoth]

How?

If she can't work because birth is a huge bodily injury and you can't replace her because she's incredibly talented or no one can replace her because she's essentially self employed then . . . where's the solution? She's always going to be compared to her peers that are unable or unwilling to have a baby.

Imagine that Academia is some kind of highly skilled stone piling competition. You get a job when you make a huge pile of stones. If she takes 3 months off from stone piling, no one will hold it against her. If she chooses to see her family instead of working 14 hour days, no one will hold it against her. If she chooses to spend a week moving to a better school district for her kid, no one will hold it against her. Those are still times when she wasn't piling stones, though, and if only the people with the highest piles get jobs then she probably won't get hired. Men are necessarily going to be shifted more towards the other group (barring socially accepted paternity leave), so this will introduce gender bias.

The reality is that academia is more like mining for gemstones and making a pile. If you're smart about where you mine and get a bit lucky then you can live a relatively normal life and be in academia. I don't know anyone gunning for a professorship that has taken more than a month off for childbirth, though.

[Aksannyi]

Fuck feminists need to be all up in the paternity leave shit. It's not just about the man for that.

I think most of the good ones are already all about it, it's just the bad ones who think they need to take everything away from men. Same as good feminists want to see baby changing stations in mens rooms and better resources for male victims of rape, sexual abuse, and domestic violence.

[Ksandra]

How?

If she can't work because birth is a huge bodily injury and you can't replace her because she's incredibly talented or no one can replace her because she's essentially self employed then . . . where's the solution? She's always going to be compared to her peers that are unable or unwilling to have a baby.

I don't think you are paying attention to what I am writing.

I am saying that when someone looks at a female applicant they should have to face the reality that they could lose her for three months due to birth.

And when someone looks at a male applicant they should have to face the reality that they could lose him for three months due to birth (wife/gf).

The first is already a reality. The second is slowly becoming a reality, and should be on equal footing with maternity leave.

[edit] I should also mention it would be nicer to have more than three months, but I am all for leveling the field first. At least in my experience, it was nicer having hubby home and having three months off, than it was when I was a SAHM for like a year without him home at all.

[archibaldcrane]

Also, it's entirely unsurprising that faculty would be biased against hiring female lab techs.

There's a big difference between saying "there's good reason to discriminate against women" and "discrimination against women doesn't occur". The argument you lay out for doing so makes sense (not that that makes it right), but I'm first simply trying to get people to acknowledge the existence of said discrimination.

[#686578]

>"I dont understand why age, race, or gender should ever come into play with anything"
>already has the best age, race, or gender combination that affords him all the best things in life

Sure, I'll take the obvious bait

No, I dont get any benefits of affirmative action. I do not comply for any benefits of helping "numbers" in any environment. I and several of my friends have been negatively effected by this. One obvious example is highschool, the highschool that I went to has a lottery system. Or had a lottery system. Anyone could apply to go to this school and they would have been entered into a pure lottery. The year that I applied to go they changed to a seeded lottery system where if you were a girl you automatically got in. This still continues until this day because they're trying to aim for a 50% gender ratio. When I attended there were about 5 girls in my grade every year.

No, I do not get any special treatment or any help because of my race. In fact, if anything, I'm automatically looked over for interviews because I dont meet the race requirement. I'm overlooked for scholarship opportunities as well. It's difficult for me to find a graduate level scholarship or grant for my field that doesnt have to do with race or gender.

Age? You personally dont know who I am but many on BG do, so I'll just go with that you're assuming I'm young. Let me tell you the struggles of my constant hard work over the years.

Spoiler: show

From a young age I've constantly been ahead of the class, I did a ton of work in highschool so that when I entered college I had most of it completed already. I worked 30 hours a week in highschool doing internships in my field. I worked double full time while in college on TOP of my full time job. And let me tell you I worked to TRY to find scholarships and applied to every scholarship that didnt require any effort (the ones that exist solely for being black or a woman) and then of course all the ones that required essays etc that I could do. I ended up ONLY getting the scholarships for making good grades that my school offered and the state scholarship for making good grades while in highschool, basically the only two that COULDNT be denied to me. I couldnt apply for any additional government help because my expected family contribution was incredibly high despite the actual contribution of being zero. I paid rent.

I say the spoilered shit to put into context that I'm exceptionally young given my experience. My resume belies my age. However when I'm currently IN a position I very CLEARLY cannot advance due to age. My masters degree gives me no help because no one is willing to pay someone my age the amount of money that anyone else with my experience would get. When I look to other companies they are obviously trying to short change me after the interview when they can SEE how young I am. They don't ask how young I am but you can see the shock on their face every time you go to shake their hand. If there's another person in the waiting room they're always at least 10-15 years older than I am and they're shocked they're interviewing for the same position I am. If you ever tried to look for work in my field you would know the plague that is "# years experience worked with X" that is very difficult to get around, and even when I DO have the "# years experienced worked with X" I'm just barely meeting minimum "# years worked experience" (general, just years worked). The ONLY situation where being younger is better is for shit jobs with shit pay as far as I can tell. Silicon Valley programming jobs where they want you to live on 40k-60k/year straight out of college which would be decent if you didnt have to pay the Silicon Valley prices for everything. If you're not willing to move to California you miss out on 100% of the job opportunities for young people that are actually for real careers.

No, I dont think my age, race, or gender positively affects me in any way when it comes to the important things in my life like actually getting a good job with good pay. I often interview with other races and genders and exclusively of people older than me that I feel are threatened by how young I am. I dont qualify for ANY government help in any way. Yes, I'm very afraid of having a long term spouse because of the governments disdain for men. I dont actively try to come into this thread to shit it up so I dont post all of the things that affect men such as when courts actively deny prenups, deny children, and some governments have started accepting the argument from lawyers that "they lived together in what is effectively a marriage" despite having no children or shared assets.

In short everything in this WORLD from my perspective is Women, Children, People of Color, and the Eldery first. Everyone else stand in line and wait to die.

[Darus Grey]

@numbers. I've faced very similar issues in my career as well. When people see I have a decade of C tier executive experience but am only just over thirty, it's incredibly difficult for me to find work at my experience and education level that would pay the same as if I were 40 as opposed to 30 with the same tenure, ageism clearly works against me for being abnormally accomplished, just like it does you.

[Byrthnoth]

That definitely depends on your field. In Academia the progression is expected to be something like this now:
* College until 21
* PhD until 27
* Post-doc until you strike gold or build up enough silver that someone wants to hire you
* Get a tenure track faculty position.

If you hit 40 without starting down the tenure track, you should look for something else (that'd be academia's agism). Of course, at that point you have essentially no real-world work experience and your diverse education is far behind you. Toss in that your PhD that demands a higher salary and you're almost unemployable. If you're going to maintain the industry option, you don't want to spend more than 6 years post doc in academia. The competition for the few faculty positions available makes it hard to snag one with only a little more than a decade (22 to 33) of time spent in research, though. So you either go for bust or you might as well not go.

[Vandalhart]

It seems there's been a bit of a lul here so I'm going to post a video and get some opinions and conversation going.

This is a TEDx talk titled Lessons for my Son.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZKOGyojrUc

I feel my opinion on the matter may be a bit skewed as I watched it with a commentary at the same time. Instead of jumping in with my own feelings I'd rather hear some other peoples input and go from there.

[Blubbartron]

Going to watch the whole thing and jot down thoughts as it goes, this will probably be long.

In the first 30 seconds she puts forth the MASSIVE presumption that a desire to procreate someone like yourself (i.e. same gender, same interests, etc) is a learned behavior based on fucking toys. There is absolutely no evidence to support this assertion, and she just blithely states it as if it's fact, or even remotely likely. I'm already mad.

1:40 in and we have the prevailing flaw in the masses of feminists - the only thing that matters is what we can do to help women. Fuck what this kid may have to offer all of humanity in general, the only important thing is women. I'm aware she was joking with regards to the comment about "after some consideration I decided not to throw him back", but damn if that isn't distasteful considering that there are actual feminists that have decided to abort purely because their child was male.

4 minutes in and I'm beginning to dread watching the rest of this. She's beginning the "I'm just as oppressed as women in the 50's were" speech. I'm going to be watching for her to make the assumption that the issues she faced were due to sexism, because she's already setting it up with the claim that "the challenges I faced were less overt." If something isn't overtly sexist, it isn't necessarily sexist. If motivations are not openly shown, you're basically fucking guessing at why someone has done something, and jumping to sexism rules out the possibility that you weren't good enough, weren't experienced enough, or that male colleagues would be handled in the exact same fashion.

5:30 in, I have to indoctrinate my child who hasn't even had an opportunity to see the work force for himself about how terrible conditions are for women. I have to do this so that he'll advocate for women. Also thinly veiled "listen and believe" rhetoric. She doesn't have to show any data or proper evidence showing that women have it so bad in the workplace, she just has to tell her anecdotal stories.

6 minutes in, dropped the statistic that out of her graduating class of 200 women, only 75% are still working full time, whereas 95% of the men were working full time. Inb4 she claims that the women were chased out of the workplace instead of giving women the right to choose for themselves if they'd like to be stay at home moms or whatever (or disability, or independently wealthy and just don't care to work).

6:30 in, she said it wasn't because the women weren't ambitious or talented, but because they found it too difficult to juggle a full time career and having a family. Well no fucking shit, that's because you have a finite amount of time in a day, and doing something that takes time means you have less time to do something else. This is why people prioritize based on what they care about. Also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with allowing people to make this choice.

7 minutes in, here we go, "I was the only woman in these meetings, and sometimes I was asked to take notes, or get coffee, or something else that I've decided was demeaning and therefore the only reason was because I'm the only woman." If she was being asked every single time, maybe she has an argument, but she hasn't put it in that context. Granted, asking a woman to take notes in the age of paper and pen is kind of a logical thing to do. Women very often have legible handwriting and men very often don't. It's the same reason I'd ask the person that can type 120 wpm to take notes nowadays - the person with the skills to do it well should be the one to do it.

7:20 in, I'm so lonely being the only woman, jokes are made that I'm not fond of, woe is me. Grow the fuck up.

8 minutes in, welp, more retardation rears its ugly head. Mean, misogynistic comments were written about me online purely because I'm a woman in gaming. No, as has been covered by countless others, people are shitheads on the internet. If you are a public personality, there are people on the internet who will spend a large chunk of their day just hating on you. They always do this in the way more personal to you. Whether it be racism, sexism, or any other bigoted ideology, they'll use it to make you feel bad, simply because they can. It has nothing to do in particular with you being a woman, or you being in the world of vidya, or even the intersection of those two things.

8:30 in, more quota-based ideology that women and men are exactly the same and therefore anywhere that percentages of female and male participation can be measured, it should be 50/50. But really it only matters for prestigious or well-paying areas. I don't really give a fuck if 95% of coal miners are male, or 99% of trash collectors are male. Sigh.

9:30 in, she lists great things her son believes in (equality of opportunities, same pay for same job, etc), and then says that these things are only "a good start." Are you fucking kidding me lady? Those are the goals, not a good fucking start. If you want something more for women than equality of opportunity, you're basically saying you want female privilege.

10 minutes in, she's finally getting to the lessons for her kid. Lesson #1 is "encourage your female colleagues to speak up, share their ideas, and 'go for it'". Basically the idea is "hold women's hands and make them feel valuable." Why? This isn't done for men. Men feel similarly discouraged from sharing their ideas, especially if they lack the seniority or experience of others. It's not the responsibility of men to make women more self-confident. If you want to argue that all people occasionally suffer from crises of self-confidence (which they do), then your argument needs to be from a position of everyone helping everyone, not men helping women. That's bullshit.

11:45 in, she makes a claim that there's been studies done that show men don't suffer from the same lack of confidence that women do. I'd agree that men have a tendency to be more "brave" (choosing to act despite doubt), but I really want to see this study to see exactly what the methodology was and what conclusions can legitimately be drawn. The difference could be as simple as men realizing (or being told by male confidants) that the requirements on job postings are mostly bullshit. Companies always exaggerate requirements of skills and experience because they want to get the best candidate for the least money. They reject the people that actually have the requirements met because they're so far along in their careers they won't accept the pittance the company is willing to pay.

12:20 in, she finally gets a bit egalitarian when she corrects herself after saying "my son should be the kind of man that never interrupts a woman." Good catch. Too bad the problem with interrupting is that it's corporate nature. People don't want to sit in a meeting for 4 hours while some idiot waxes philosophically about something that doesn't matter. People interrupt to keep things on track, and to cut off things that aren't worthwhile. Happens to be both men and women, all the time. Women most likely just internalize getting interrupted as if they're somehow worthless. It's silly, but women do happen to be the touchy-feely sex as compared to men, so it makes sense.

13:30 in, she reveals that lesson 2 is "be the kind of boss that champions and mentors women." She then continues on to explain times where male bosses have pushed her into getting advancements she wouldn't have otherwise gotten. My favorite is the 2nd one she gets into, where she straight up admits that the male boss simply wanted a female on the board. She says she met the criteria for the job, and I don't doubt that, but I wonder how many men both met and exceeded the criteria didn't get the job because quotas are fucking awesome (read: bullshit, and why does anyone think this should be legal).

15 minutes in, 3rd lesson is "be a husband that supports his wife's professional dreams." Anyone else noticing the pattern of subservience to women? Men only being there to hold women up, etc. Got news for you lady, if you want at least one parent to be with the kids at all times (no nannies or the like), then one of you has to make sacrifices in terms of your career. It doesn't really matter if that's the man or woman in the relationship, but you can't both pursue your careers to the fullest of your abilities and be with your kids all the time. It just doesn't work out that way until they're older, and by that point you're out of the game, or at best substantially behind others your age.

16:30 in, we're talking about equality in raising children, combined with a bit of gender stereotyping (otherwise known as statistics). Things cannot be perfectly equal in raising children unless you both have jobs and you're paying someone else to raise your children. That's the only way it will be perfectly equal. If one person sacrifices their career to spend more time with the kids, THEY ARE GOING TO SPEND MORE TIME WITH THE KIDS. This is not fucking difficult to realize.

18 minutes in, she claims that businesses statistically do better when there are more women in leadership and in the workplace. I need to see some fucking data to believe this, and even then I think the best they'll have is a correlation, which is not causation. If the secret to success is truly meritocracy (having the best people in the right positions), then the sex of the person filling the positions are 100% irrelevant. This data would be contradicting the belief that people should be paid based on their skills or contribution to goals. It's a much bigger claim than it seems to be at face value.

18:30 in, after almost 20 minutes of rambling about how women need support, now she makes the claim that holding up women will benefit men as well. 18 minutes about how to make women better, last 1 minute about "nah guys, seriously, it'll help you too, just do it." Equality.


Tl;dr - a lot of presumptions, a lot of strong claims, and very little evidence to support them. I feel like I just wasted a half hour of my life watching this video and jotting down my thoughts.

[Salodin]

I would love to see a response from Mazmaz or Archi on your points.

[Aksannyi]

I would love to see a response from Mazmaz or Archi on your points.

I know it's because those two are not generally taken seriously here, but doesn't anyone else find it funny that a discussion about feminism and things that affect women is being primarily made by men wanting to discuss these things with other men? I don't have the time or the energy to devote to Blubb's post because of finals, but I do find it amusing that women bring up their struggles to men, and men say, "I've never seen that." When women say that it's because it's an issue that primarily affects women, men then call us sexist and accuse us of forgetting about men's issues.

The one thing I do want to address is speaking up in meetings. I have experienced it firsthand. Women are interrupted, talked over, and told our opinions don't matter. Or, if I say something valid, another man will often repeat it (sometimes verbatim!) and he will get the credit for the idea, even though I literally just said that. Women are tired of being talked over. If you want women to be more assertive, then you need to tell men to shut the fuck up and listen to us.

And then actually listen to us.

Talking about feminism with mostly men who cannot know what types of things we encounter is just kind of silly, if you want my opinion. I do my best to post in this thread, but I butt up against so many people with perceptions that nothing I'm saying is valid because it isn't true in their experience. Well, it wouldn't be. You (mostly) are men, and you don't experience the world the way I do as a woman. Most of the time, I just have to ignore it because some of the stuff is so reactionary and defensive - if you're feeling defensive, maybe it's because something struck a chord. We aren't trying to attack anyone personally. But if these are behaviors that you subscribe to and if women speaking out is getting you to notice them, maybe it's time to attempt to change them. Just a thought.

I really can't write a fucking dissertation on this today but I just find it really amusing. You're asking for the opinions of men, on issues that primarily affect women. That pretty much entirely proves my point about the opinions of women not counting.

[archibaldcrane]

Lol, I don't care nearly enough about arguing with brick walls who literally believe sexism doesn't exist to watch some long ass video and discuss it point by point.