Feminist Philosophy

[Salodin]

Assuming they interrupted a woman because she's a woman IS SEXIST. Yet, assuming the reason is always because she's a woman is sexist too. Maybe her ideas suck? Maybe she is proposing things the boss/company don't want to deal with at the current time? The interruption isn't sexist, yet that's what the video and Aks would have you believe.

Now, I agree, if they interrupt her because she's a woman that is sexist. Yet the onus is on you to prove it, because if you claim it and the man in question responds with a lucid reason for interrupting her, then quite frankly you're the sexist.

[archibaldcrane]

I didn't watch whatever shitty video you're talking about lol, so stop asking me about it

[Salodin]

I mean, you do realize it has nothing to do with not wanting to hear the opinion of a woman, right? It has to do with Maz and Archi being the loudest and most extreme of their side of the argument. People want to see how far to the other side this argument could go. It's the same thing as when people kept wondering what Hey would say next in the Trans thread. Or in any FF drama thread and people hope the person who stole the LS bank shows up.

We dealt with this in the trans thread too. People who think they should be involved or addressed feel slighted because they aren't called out as well. It's not sexist of me to ask for men's opinions on a piece, at least not if I asked for the right reasons. In fact, there's only one wrong reason that makes it sexist, and Aks I assure you the reason I didn't ask for your input is because you aren't as thick headed and stubborn as other males in this thread.

[archibaldcrane]

He doesn't value your opinion aks because you aren't forceful and masculine. Which is sexist.

I, on the other hand, don't value your opinion because you are terrible.

I hope everyone can understand the difference here. One is sexist, one is not.

[Salodin]

Comments like that would get hey temp banned, but because you're a male you won't be. That is sexist too.

[archibaldcrane]

What's the point of privilege if you can't abuse it at every turn?

[Salodin]

With great power comes great responsibility. Hopefully you won't abuse it and interrupt a man when there's plenty of woman who need interrupting because they're women.

[Stilzkin]

Assuming they interrupted a woman because she's a woman IS SEXIST. Yet, assuming the reason is always because she's a woman is sexist too. Maybe her ideas suck? Maybe she is proposing things the boss/company don't want to deal with at the current time? The interruption isn't sexist, yet that's what the video and Aks would have you believe.

Now, I agree, if they interrupt her because she's a woman that is sexist. Yet the onus is on you to prove it, because if you claim it and the man in question responds with a lucid reason for interrupting her, then quite frankly you're the sexist.

The idea that women get interrupted more isn't purely anecdotal. There seem to be studies that suggest that men do interrupt women more:

http://interruptions.net/literature/...erSocRev89.pdf

Basically in a mixed sex group men interrupt women more often, women interrupt men and women equally. Interestingly, the more women you have in a mixed sex group the more the interruptions between men become negatively toned.

It is an old study though, perhaps things have changed to some degree? Between couples the rate of interruption isn't affected by sex as much as it is by status and dominance in the relationship. The researchers in the study thought that long-term group relationships could perhaps override the effects of sex in the group.

[Abandon]

Comments like that would get hey temp banned, but because you're a male you won't be. That is sexist too.

oh jfc shut up rofl, i can smell the estrogen flowing from your fingers from the fucking middle east

[Salodin]

Snitches get stitches, but that comment would be ban worthy too. Just sayin

[#686578]

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.

lol

For fear of mansplaining let me preface this by saying I worship the ground you walk on and hope that one day I might be graced with the pleasure of cutting my dick off to join your superior species.

From my point of view, I see nothing but men bending over backwards to listen and believe whatever a woman says regardless of what she's saying or how she's saying it. This being to the exclusion of everything else, if a woman says it it must be true. From my point of view, in my line of work, in my life, woman are the dominant species. In the household everyone knows mom controls the physical force that is dad, mother is the strongest. In the workplace everyone knows women are the employees with the most power, "politically" speaking, whose words carry the heaviest weight. Likely because a woman is worth more than a man due to the very nature that she is a woman regardless of what other qualifications she might has as we have been taught and conditioned by society and the government with diversity requirements.

Please continue to tell me how third wave feminism's ultimate ideal of feminine superiority to the exclusion of all else (what else is there other than men?) doesn't affect men. Please tell me how false statistics about women don't hurt men in domestic abuse, rape, and child custody scenarios. Please tell me all about how hard it is for women to break into the heavy labor industry or why women just cant find a job in sanitization.

This is ridiculous. In reality there's very little a man cant understand. We're all human and we all experience the same things. We all face hunger, humiliation, shame, strife, discomfort, pain, and struggles whatever they might be. To say that no man can even speak to a topic just because of their genitalia is insulting not just to men but to women who must by the same notion be unable to understand a man and what a man goes through. We cannot experience the same experiences, but no two humans can. You're insulting every wife who sees her husband come home frustrated and upset, who empathizes with her husband and knows all he needs is for someone to listen to his problems. You're insulting every husband whose wife comes home frustrated and upset, who empathizes with his wife and knows all she needs is for someone to listen to her problems. The reality is we're human beings and a large part that separates us from other animals is our combined ability to empathize with each other and recognize that what's good for others in our society is also what's good for ourselves. What's insulting about feminism to everyone men and women both is thinking that we're any different. What I find "funny" is that Feminism is still a thing rather than Equalism. If you want to start truly talking about the issues that affect women you should remove gender from the equation entirely. All humans should have the same rights and privileges regardless of what their gender is and until Feminism starts to realize that everyone else isn't going to take it seriously like they used to during the first and second wave.

To be perfectly blunt it isn't Women's opinions that aren't worth counting. It's Feminists.

[#686578]

Snitches get stitches, but that comment would be ban worthy too. Just sayin

More like snatches get stitches amirite guys? Talkin bout hittin women here, holler at me dude bros. Heyyooooo

[archibaldcrane]

I love this thread so much. I just can't leave it.

[GoggleHead]

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.

Cubicle dweller here, can confirm that interrupting people is goddamn important. There's a guy in our office who will literally talk to you for hours if you don't interrupt him. Interrupting people is an important skill to develop if you want to get shit done. Sorry, but no one gets a free pass to rattle on with impunity.

[Teryu]

Now that I think about it, I think it's important to know what that lady is talking about when she said she worked for Nintendo:



1:30 mark is where you see her.

[Thunder]

lol

just stop blubb

did you figure out why the sample size isn't large enough yet? aren't you a math major? statistics shouldn't be a bridge too far yo

Statistics runs on choosing a threshold value (usually 5%, sometimes 1%). So there's a p-value, and that's the function of observed sample (results, basically) and then you compare the p value to the threshold value, so you'll often see p>5% or p<5% in anything that ever uses the phrasing "statistically proven"

If the p value is equal or smaller than the threshold value then the hypothesis is "statistically proven false" which is what most papers/scientists are doing. Proving things false

Anyway, the long and short of it is even if it's a published article we might not know a few things (things the very best in science make sure to ameliorate):
1) how many times did you run your experiment and just tossed the non-confirming data out?
2) what's the TOTAL size of whatever you sampled? Usually this is known and people don't find issue with it, but when you're doing a social experiment where you're trying to form a hypothesis about 300,000,000 people (the US) and you sampled ~200 then that's kind of silly
3) what's the % chance of your results being coincidence? which leads to, how many times have YOU redone the experiment with similar results and how many times have OTHERS been able to replicate the results

Here's a cool comic that exemplifies how dishonest a published "statistically proven" fact can be:
http://i.stack.imgur.com/QZsY3.png

[archibaldcrane]

I'm well aware of how P-values work. The assertion wasn't "this study wasn't repeated a satisfactory number of times with the same result" it was simply "the sample size isn't large enough but I can't explain why statistically".

(All the "statistically significant" values in the study sighted had P-values < .01 - some were < .001)

The competence, hireability, salary conferral, and mentoring scales were each submitted to a two (student gender; male, female) × two (faculty gender; male, female) between-subjects ANOVA. In each case, the effect of student gender was significant (all P < 0.01), whereas the effect of faculty participant gender and their interaction was not (all P > 0.19). Tests of simple effects (all d > 0.60) indicated that faculty participants viewed the female student as less competent [t(125) = 3.89, P < 0.001] and less hireable [t(125) = 4.22, P < 0.001] than the identical male student (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Faculty participants also offered less career mentoring to the female student than to the male student [t(125) = 3.77, P < 0.001]. The mean starting salary offered the female student, $26,507.94, was significantly lower than that of $30,238.10 to the male student [t(124) = 3.42, P < 0.01] (Fig. 2).

If there was 100 different factors on which women and men were judged, and 1 of those happened to be significant to the P < 0.01 level, your comic strip would be apt. But all of the effects measured were significant to the P < 0.01 level and some even to the P < 0.001 level. I'd love to see another research team repeat the experiment, because that is an important part of the scientific method, but the "random chance happens" argument doesn't hold up well here.

[Blubbartron]

Yeah Thunder, you hit the basics of why it's not a great study on the head, but archi's post is exactly why I haven't gone that route in explaining why it's a shit study.

Most of the stuff I'm researching at the moment is proper methods for power analysis when determining sample size, as well as conditions under which t-test analyses produce type 1 errors. So far what I'm understanding is that t-tests are perfectly usable for small sample sizes (and in fact that's why t-tests exist), but that the "correctness" of the test depends almost entirely on your ability to have a "sufficiently random and representative" sample. I lamented the sheer number of factors that could impact someone's judging of a resume in a previous post, and having no idea how you could possibly control for them, I just have this educated inclination that a sample size of 127 isn't enough to average out those factors. There's somewhere on the order of 200,000 STEM professors in the U.S., and 127 is nowhere close to a significant sample of that many people. Having too small of a sample size means that the calculation of mean and standard deviation (used in the t-test analysis) is not necessarily closely related to the population's mean and standard deviation. If the mean and standard deviation are off, it kind of throws the whole thing off, but I'm having trouble pinning down equations or online calculators to determine just how far off it could possibly be with these numbers. It also doesn't help that I can't find the original dataset to see if there are other possible factors that they didn't see or neglected to report (like one particular university randomly getting a preponderance of female tests, and that university just shat all over them as not being up to their standards).

[Thunder]

I'm well aware of how P-values work. The assertion wasn't "this study wasn't repeated a satisfactory number of times with the same result" it was simply "the sample size isn't large enough but I can't explain why statistically".

(All the "statistical significant" values in the study sighted had P-values < .01 - some were < .001)

The competence, hireability, salary conferral, and mentoring scales were each submitted to a two (student gender; male, female) × two (faculty gender; male, female) between-subjects ANOVA. In each case, the effect of student gender was significant (all P < 0.01), whereas the effect of faculty participant gender and their interaction was not (all P > 0.19). Tests of simple effects (all d > 0.60) indicated that faculty participants viewed the female student as less competent [t(125) = 3.89, P < 0.001] and less hireable [t(125) = 4.22, P < 0.001] than the identical male student (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Faculty participants also offered less career mentoring to the female student than to the male student [t(125) = 3.77, P < 0.001]. The mean starting salary offered the female student, $26,507.94, was significantly lower than that of $30,238.10 to the male student [t(124) = 3.42, P < 0.01] (Fig. 2).

If there was 100 different factors on which women and men were judged, and 1 of those happened to be significant to the P < 0.01 level, your comic strip would be apt. But all of the effects measured were significant to the P < 0.01 level and some even to the P < 0.001 level. I'd love to see another research team repeat the experiment, because that is an important part of the scientific method, but the "random chance happens" argument doesn't hold up well here.

Thanks for quoting/bolding the article

About the "random chance happens" though, there's something else more nuanced in the comic strip - how many times was the test repeated and only one of the tests published? I btw agree that it doesn't hold up well and shouldn't be mentioned in a hand-wavy conversation so we can leave it at that


I just can't get behind 1 team's research's conclusion, no matter how damming it may be and most scientists/statisticians would agree. Needs to be repeatable and shown to be repeatable. It was the same thing with the light speed broken, schizophrenia gene found, and the other gene-type papers out there done by one team (grad student usually)

Blub thinks it's fishy, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, albeit I think it's fishy because it hasn't been repeated by anyone else (afaik) and the results on salary contradict other studies done

[archibaldcrane]

Both of you seem to think these results are fishy - but isn't that saying specifically that you don't think sexism that hurts women in science exists (and that's why you think it's "fishy" [or "bullshit" as Blubb puts it])? If sexism that hurts women in science existed, wouldn't this be exactly the type of study that would reveal it?