Feminist Philosophy

**Thunder** · 2015-04-23 20:21

Originally Posted by 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?

I don't think that's right to say, false equivalence?

If I don't support a study it doesn't mean I support the absolute opposite of what it proved. I think sexism exists everywhere... but I think it stems out of self-esteem issues and political-correctness suffocating people, which a lot of the "crazy feminism" supports by keeping people's self esteem low/lower by focusing on shunning people, yelling, negativity, etc

And yeah, this is exactly the type of study that would prove sexism exists... but how do you combat it? How do you go about changing the minds of the people who think females are less competent, smaller salary, etcetctectect

**Blubbartron** · 2015-04-23 20:28

Originally Posted by 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?

I think it's bullshit because it's an oversimplification of the immensely complex human experience. The methodology for determining if there's bias is fine, providing the sample is random and quite large to average out the multitude of other factors that aren't (and can't be) controlled for. This similar kind of oversimplification is the kind of thing that leads to the bullshit pay gap - that's a statistical "fact" as well, but it's bullshit because of how misleading it is. People forget just how much science there is outside of the numbers in this kind of research. I admit that I'm biased against statisticians in general, but more people need to be aware of how often numbers are used to obfuscate and mislead. When a study comes along that seems to perfectly confirm a certain popular and powerful narrative, it deserves extra scrutiny under the "too good to be true" logic.

**archibaldcrane** · 2015-04-23 20:34

Originally Posted by Blubbartron

I think it's bullshit because it's an oversimplification of the immensely complex human experience.

I think you are overstating how complicated the process of "looking at a resume and considering whether you are interested in employing this person" is, which is exactly what this study is analyzing.

**archibaldcrane** · 2015-04-23 20:37

All I'm saying is, if your (anyone in this thread's) demand is "there must be evidence", and when provided with evidence your cry is simply "there must be more evidence!" you need to be cognizant of the fact that you can literally do that forever, and it makes you look like an asshole who has no interest in the topic at hand unless the topic is "shitting on feminism".

**Blubbartron** · 2015-04-23 20:38

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

I think you are overstating how complicated the process of "looking at a resume and considering whether you are interested in employing this person" is, which is exactly what this study is analyzing.

And that question has much, much more in consideration than just gender, to effectively everyone.

**Blubbartron** · 2015-04-23 20:39

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

All I'm saying is, if your (anyone in this thread's) demand is "there must be evidence", and when provided with evidence your cry is simply "there must be more evidence!" you need to be cognizant of the fact that you can literally do that forever, and it makes you look like an asshole who has no interest in the topic at hand unless the topic is "shitting on feminism".

While true that you can do it forever, the fact that you can do it forever does not make basing your opinion on one pilot study a good idea. That's not how science is done. This study is grounds for further study (and especially a larger study), I'll grant you that much.

**archibaldcrane** · 2015-04-23 20:46

If you reject all other evidence that sexism hurts women every step of the way towards STEM fields and only give this single study a shred of potential credence, then sure I could see why you'd think I was "basing my opinion" on just this single study.

But I don't do that. You do - that's what you do. I'm only harping on this study because it's the only thing you have shown any interest in discussing seriously in the slightest - everything else you dismiss offhand as anecdotes or "unscientific" or "lacking data". Because, again, you have no interest in acknowledging that sexism exists, other than just saying "sure it exists but..."

**Blubbartron** · 2015-04-23 20:58

Sorry I have no interest in jumping to conclusions and attributing things to sexism without adequate study? A healthy skepticism is the basis of scientific study. My bad that I haven't drunk the "listen and believe" koolaid. We'll not see eye to eye on this.

**Thunder** · 2015-04-23 21:01

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

All I'm saying is, if your (anyone in this thread's) demand is "there must be evidence", and when provided with evidence your cry is simply "there must be more evidence!" you need to be cognizant of the fact that you can literally do that forever, and it makes you look like an asshole who has no interest in the topic at hand unless the topic is "shitting on feminism".

But.. there SHOULD be more evidence, that's not crazy to say given how many studies there are out there saying the opposite of that one

here's the copy/pasted of that semi-viral picture from reddit. The person's response is actually kind of fitting here lol

Spoiler: show

I did some quick digging on the authors of that study going around here and it looks like the main author is from Skidmore university and the rest are from Yale, the main author didn't study from Yale but she's the youngest of them all so I have a sneaky suspicion there's a reason the bigger dawgs aren't doing more studies like this. Because it sure would be awesome for everyone involved if we could get some more good testing done instead of one side being majority anecdotal evidence vs getting blown out of the water (imo) by studies on the other side

That said, I don't really doubt sexism and the other -isms exist, I just don't think it has to do as much with the wage gap as it does people's butthurt tolerance being so low and being made lower thanks2westernfeminism and other garbage like fat acceptance and other stupid political correctness

**archibaldcrane** · 2015-04-23 21:13

Originally Posted by Blubbartron

Sorry I have no interest in jumping to conclusions and attributing things to sexism without adequate study? A healthy skepticism is the basis of scientific study. My bad that I haven't drunk the "listen and believe" koolaid. We'll not see eye to eye on this.

Sexism in the workplace is the baseline. Arguing that it isn't an issue (an extraordinary claim) puts the burden of proof on you.

**archibaldcrane** · 2015-04-23 21:15

Originally Posted by Thunder

But.. there SHOULD be more evidence, that's not crazy to say given how many studies there are out there saying the opposite of that one

here's the copy/pasted of that semi-viral picture from reddit. The person's response is actually kind of fitting here lol

Spoiler: show

I did some quick digging on the authors of that study going around here and it looks like the main author is from Skidmore university and the rest are from Yale, the main author didn't study from Yale but she's the youngest of them all so I have a sneaky suspicion there's a reason the bigger dawgs aren't doing more studies like this. Because it sure would be awesome for everyone involved if we could get some more good testing done instead of one side being majority anecdotal evidence vs getting blown out of the water (imo) by studies on the other side

That said, I don't really doubt sexism and the other -isms exist, I just don't think it has to do as much with the wage gap as it does people's butthurt tolerance being so low and being made lower thanks2westernfeminism and other garbage like fat acceptance and other stupid political correctness

We aren't really talking about the wage gap in general here - we're talking specifically about women in STEM.

**Thunder** · 2015-04-23 22:11

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

We aren't really talking about the wage gap in general here - we're talking specifically about women in STEM.

Right, I got thrown off by "sexism" in general. But to be fair, the salary disparity after graduation that prior study had is basically wage gap, just specific to graduates

Plus, that long quote had two about STEM

Women In Science: No Discrimination, Says Cornell Study

http://www.science20.com/news_articl...ll_study-75984

Let’s be real about the lack of women in tech

http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-...n-tech-2010-10

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

Sexism in the workplace is the baseline. Arguing that it isn't an issue (an extraordinary claim) puts the burden of proof on you.

I'm not totally following here.. why is saying there's no discrimination against women an extraordinary claim and sexism in the workplace the baseline? There's legislature out there prohibiting it (lol), there's studies (multiple) out there that provide evidence contrary to it... I just don't get why you'd go as far as use the extraordinary claim language as if someone's talking about the existence of god

**Marootsoobutsu** · 2015-04-23 22:12

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

We aren't really talking about the wage gap in general here - we're talking specifically about women in STEM.

Did you read through all of the "Here are links"? A fair number of them discussed women in science and tech, and found women the beneficiaries.

Also, I dispute that woman-damaging sexism in the workplace is the baseline. I do not dispute that it was in the 1980s and earlier. I do dispute that it's an issue now. I have not seen that it is the case; the vast majority of people I have spoken with-- male and female, feminist and not-- do not find that it is the case. The preponderance of evidence that I have seen in research has not found that it is the case, and even most niche "Well, in THIS field", the majority of evidence is disagreeing with the claim. I do not dispute that sexism /happens/ any more than I dispute that white-cops-shoot-blacks-for-unjustifiable-reasons; I dispute that it is actually common, and I suspect that the culture that says "THIS IS THE EXPECTATION!" is more responsible for it remaining the expectation than reality is. I suspect that the hostility of the "other side" does more harm than good, and that the re-education that is necessary is not for men as a whole, but for feminists.

THAT might be an extraordinary claim, but I find it less extraordinary than to claim damaging sexism the baseline for women in the workplace, or even STEM fields specifically.

**Zetanio** · 2015-04-23 22:35

Originally Posted by Salodin

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

Bae pls. Take a week off.

**Koul** · 2015-04-24 00:34

I hate when I agree with Megyn Kelly.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/23/megy...to_toughen_up/

also, that can't be real, right. safe rooms with playdoh and puppy dog whimpers. I'm so giddy and eager to see how things turn out once these pussified humans get into the real world. If anything, I'm sure they'll just write some blogs and become a pop culture critic and make money being angry/outraged all the time.

**Teryu** · 2015-04-24 01:15

They had those rooms when CH Sommers was doing a presentation at some college.

There was a clip somewhere about an alternative presentation in protest of CH Sommer's presentation informing them about available safe spaces with bubbles and shit but I can't find it.

Edit: Found it.

**BaneTheBrawler** · 2015-04-24 04:08

Originally Posted by Zetanio

Bae pls. Take a week off.

waste. i'd have hit him for it. backseat modding in the most annoying way.

**archibaldcrane** · 2015-04-24 11:23

Originally Posted by Thunder

I'm not totally following here.. why is saying there's no discrimination against women an extraordinary claim and sexism in the workplace the baseline?

Because sexism has been a major factor determining women's careers for thousands of years and it isn't over. Why would "sexism is over" be the baseline when it isn't?

**Marootsoobutsu** · 2015-04-24 12:16

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

Because sexism has been a major factor determining women's careers for thousands of years and it isn't over. Why would "sexism is over" be the baseline when it isn't?

Do... you realize how many things are wrong with this?

**archibaldcrane** · 2015-04-24 12:19

Shall I put you in the "sexism is over" camp?

Thread: Feminist Philosophy

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads