Why I Fight.

[Erttheking]

Wow. Apparently this thread was so "influential", it caused someone to sign up (or make an alt account) to post two propaganda videos. Hmmm.

SJWs offend me so i'm trying to change their minds. It's obviously futile though, and if you change propaganda to common sense then yes. Maybe if you exposed yourself to opposing viewpoints instead of adhering to your insane ideology you wouldn't be so naive.

It's futile because the post you made directed at me only acknowledged a fifth of my post, took that fifth out of context and only served to insult me. With an approach like that, you're not gonna be changing anyone's mind.

 

[Flutterguy]

I think you're a bit too concerned and seeking definition in an already dead argument. Whatever leaves you with the impression you're doing good is always good and not just conceited self flattery. Right?

 

[Erttheking]

Your point just seemed so...there. It just seemed baseless and needlessly nihilistic.

Isn't that one of the challenges when you get anything more than knee deep into science and/or philosophy? Being able to accept your view of things was flawed or ill adjusted without going into denial because you lose all meaning?

As for baseless, well, sorry. You had a guy in this thread explain things to you over multiple posts in a better fashion than I can with my poor English. If you still think its baseless, nothing will change your mind.

Yes, but it helps if people explain how these things work when they say them as opposed to just leaving them hanging there. When I say "Needlessly nihilistic" I meant it sounded like it was just being nihilistic for the sake of being nihilistic. By all means challenge my viewpoints, I enjoy exploring philosophy, but to just say that out of nowhere without structuring it...it's jarring.

I still have no idea which guy you're talking about. The one who talked about how society conditioned us or the one who talked about how atoms affected how we think? Because if you're talking about the first I can see where you're coming from. The second...not so much

 

[Erttheking]

Feminists don't want equality they want special treatment, they want to censor things they don't personally like and complain.

I need some evidence to accept a claim about such a gigantic, diverse group of people.

Spoiler

We're seriously looking at Anita to represent feminism? Last time I checked even feminists on this website didn't like her very much.

 

[Silvanus]

Spoiler

Well, you've proven something about one feminist. What of the millions of others, including the majority who will have never even heard of Anita Sarkeesian?

 

[lacktheknack]

Feminism won decades ago and now all that's left of a once useful movement is moaning, whining and irrelevance. Feminism is an outdated dogma which, like sexism, are relics of the past.

Feminism has "won", the job is done?

Do you consider the pay gap, or the incidence of harassment and sexual assault to be of importance?

and you prove my point

That may be the most simplistic explanation I've seen today.

Is it true of people who support equality for other groups, too? I don't eat meat, so I suppose I'm just trying to get animals to like me so they'll go out with me.

Feminists don't want equality they want special treatment, they want to censor things they don't personally like and complain.

Then instead of ripping down feminism, why don't you spend time raising up egalitarianism? You know... actually offering proper alternatives? :/

 

[verdant monkai]

when comic book covers featuring 5 male Spider-Man variations including a goddamned PIG-MAN are all in powerful poses emitting strength, while the lone Spider-Girl is curled up in a T&A pose that makes her seem timid. This shit is everywhere and you can't stop seeing it. Which is why I fight.

Because I fight daily, in every action I take. I make sure that I try to walk behind every woman on the street in a way that does not make me seem a threat to them. Because as much as I don't think I am, I might be to her. My 6'2" 300 pound fat frame looks ridiculous in the mirror, but to a 5 foot and change slim woman walking down the street, I am quite possibly a potential monster. I try to educate my friends about this, and slowly they are starting to see it.

but my heart is in the right place...I hope.


There are a myriad of possible responses I am going to get for this post. I anticipate the hair-splitters, the semantic arguers, the outright name-callers and mod baiters, the ones who read the first paragraph and leaped at the chance to comment with smart arse responses, and the comedians too; I also hope to see some genuine support and maybe even a few people wondering if I might have a point.

It always kind of bothers me when anyone goes after someone else's art calling it sexist or socially poisonous or whatever. If you feel so strongly about this art then I suggest you take up comic book art and create your own safe for women covers. And I'd say the same to any girl offended by it, or anyone offended by any piece of art for that matter. If you don't like it and you think an altered version would make the world a better place, then bloody do it yourself.

The bit about walking behind women in the street is quite literally one of the creepiest things I've ever heard. Its just weird, no one gives a fuck about how you walk in front or behind them. They are too busy getting to where they are going to worry about you and how unthreatening you look. What do you do? please don't say you smile at them if they turn round.
I cant speak for everyone but I dont think most girls would appreciate this kind of obsessive behaviour. It's odd and makes you come off as the nice guy from Hell. It would also be very sexist if you didn't do the same for men, as you are treating the two groups differently.

I honestly think your heart is in the right place and you are trying to be a good guy. But tone it down a bit bro.

I dont know which of these categories you will stick me in but I'm afraid I don't support you or think you have much of a point. You're post however was an interesting read.

I think men and women should have equal rights and pay and all that, but I wouldn't consider myself a feminist activist, women are quite capable of fighting their own battles. I would say I dislike feminism as it leads mostly to misandry and the belief that women should have special privileges, which is not equality.
To bring this back to gaming, sorry if I sound harsh but if some women feel that various games are sexist and need changing, they can fuck off. Games are art and the artist should be allowed free artistic reign, censorship is bad for culture and entertainment in general. If women feel unrepresented and objectified, then women need to make games and comics that represent them well. not muscle in on everyone else's stuff. The way to change a system is to do it legitimately and with the system, not rage and demand against it.

 

[lacktheknack]

Then instead of ripping down feminism, why don't you spend time raising up egalitarianism? You know... actually offering proper alternatives? :/

I think his viewpoint is we don't really need any alternatives, we're fine without feminism full stop.

Spoiler

STANNIS STANNIS STANNIS

The post he quoted asked:

Do you consider the pay gap, or the incidence of harassment and sexual assault to be of importance?

... which he entirely avoided answering.

I'm assuming he cares about these things a bit, like most pleasant people would, but just didn't think to answer.

 

[JediMB]

There are a myriad of possible responses I am going to get for this post. I anticipate the hair-splitters, the semantic arguers, the outright name-callers and mod baiters, the ones who read the first paragraph and leaped at the chance to comment with smart arse responses, and the comedians too; I also hope to see some genuine support and maybe even a few people wondering if I might have a point.

Here's my response:

You have my utmost respect. Our views seem to largely align, although I personally identify as some manner of radical feminist. I'm not even sure how that happened, but yeah... once I saw it I couldn't unsee it. Three or four years ago I started to get more involved in "LGB" issues, and since then I've complemented that with the "T" and the "Q" and gone from a generic feminist to radical. I've learned a lot in the last few years, but of course there's plenty more I'm still ignorant about.

Hell, I don't even know who I am.

 

[teamcharlie]

So you wanted to make a long post explaining the rationale behind your feminist activism, got the negative feedback you expected, then apparently didn't actually want to talk about it after the first page or so. I think I expected more fight from a 'Why I Fight' topic.

Anyway. Sexism sucks. Good luck with the war, I guess?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Not to sound inflammatory but... do you actually do anything or is fighting to you the same as posting about it online?

 

[Saetha]

The post he quoted asked:

Do you consider the pay gap, or the incidence of harassment and sexual assault to be of importance?

... which he entirely avoided answering.

I'm assuming he cares about these things a bit, like most pleasant people would, but just didn't think to answer.

Hey, sorry if you're not the one who really asked this question, but I just saw this quote and had to comment - the Pay Gap isn't actually a result of discrimination. Maybe four or five cents is (They haven't been able to figure it out) but for the most part it comes down the women choosing between their family and their career, and how that drags down the national average for women.

(Source:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 )

I'm also not sure I'd qualify sexual harassment and assault as a feminist issue, seeing as nearly half the victims of such crimes are men, but if the quote deals with sexual assault being a general issue, then... sorry again.

(Source:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html )

Also sorry if you've seen this information before, but people need to start talking about it, the second one especially.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

However, it does piss me off, to no small degree, when someone tries to reduce a person's standing by claiming the opinion is less relevant because it came from a woman. I can only reply to such statements with: So what? What difference does it make if it came from a man, a woman or an invertebrate? Even if the statement annoys you because it goes against what YOU believe in, there's no reason to start being unreasonable and attacking their person. It's not how discourse works, and if that's how you're going to react to it, then you have no place in the public room.

Done by all sides everywhere.

Perhaps someone can explain to me why this "civilized" society keeps maintaining its old fashioned ideas of lesser worth because of gender?

Source?

Why women are treated like nothing more than "cum-dumpsters", to be taken advantage of and cast aside once you're done? That since they're "lesser beings", their feelings are not worth considering?

A source that isn't some dudebro asshole or some facetious person?



Look, yes. There are issues with women's rights. We all know that. The issue is that feminism (and other kinds of activism) has been taken over by radical tumblerites and like-minded folk, who think that people looking at women in revealing clothing are 'literally raping' her and who do not understand that "look, if you're going to go out alone, be mindful of your drinks" is meant to be sound advice, instead of victim blaming. They're the people who think that any voice who disagrees with them must be a women-hating piece of scum and should be silenced and shunned.

And you yourself are a victim of this as well, OP. As you said: you think you may look intimidating to women, women specifically. Either you're thinking they're weak-bodied pixies who need to be protected from possible threats, in which case you're clearly not accepting women to be equal to men, or that they somehow deserve the special treatment because of years of being oppressed by men, in which case you're not wanting anything egalitarian.

The Bureau of Labour Statistics also tracks earnings within job categories, rather than between them, and found a pay gap does exist [http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf].

So, it really doesn't seem as if differences in employment trends between the sexes actually accounts for the pay gap. There's significant evidence that it exists within job categories, and in the same professions.

Just out of interested: the data doesn't seem to be normalised for working hours/experience/training. Can you find anywhere if it is or not?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

The point isn't whether it exists (pretty much all the authors agree it does) but why it exists. If you compare the salary of someone who works at McDonald's and someone who is a Petrochemical Engineer, even if they both work exactly 40 hours a week, there is going to be a significant "wage gap", but that doesn't mean the gap is morally wrong, unfair or the result of discrimination.

Likewise, as the articles and Dr. Farrell point out, the long-held use of the "wage gap" was to try and make the point of "women earn less money than men on average, therefore discrimination, sexism, patriarchy, etc.", when in fact numerous easily explainable and demonstrable factors show why and how the gap exists, and when factoring in the aforementioned reasons, any remaining effects that can be attributed (but almost never actually proven) to "discrimination" are, at best, extremely small.

Putting it down entirely to job differences seems just as reductionist as putting it down entirely to discrimination, doesn't it?

A pretty good read about differences in pay within occupations can be found here [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html?_r=0]. More in-depth stuff is here [http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/goldin_aeapress_2014_1.pdf].

The Bureau of Labour Statistics also tracks earnings within job categories, rather than between them, and found a pay gap does exist [http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf].

So, it really doesn't seem as if differences in employment trends between the sexes actually accounts for the pay gap. There's significant evidence that it exists within job categories, and in the same professions.

Actually, Claudia Goldin's study (the 2rd link you posted and also the basis of the 1st article) pretty much explains it all:
"What, then, is the cause of the remaining pay gap? Quite simply the gap exists because hours of work in many occupations are worth more when given at particular moments and when the hours are more continuous. That is, in many occupations earnings have a nonlinear relationship with respect to hours. A flexible schedule often comes at a high price, particularly in the corporate, financial, and legal worlds."

Men, on average, work longer hours than women, are more willing to have an inflexible schedule, and they are also significantly less likely to switch to part-time work (or drop out all together) when children are born, no matter what occupation they are in (hopefully you can read this link, but if not several articles above also explain much of the same, including Dr. Farrell's speech).

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296

So in other words, even when you attempt to compare two people in the same occupation, you're still not comparing apples to apples. A male lawyer who is willing to work 80 hours a week with an inflexible schedule will not only obviously make more overall than a female lawyer who only works 40 and wants a flexible schedule, he's more likely to get promoted faster and get raises as well, thus leading to more average earnings.

Now, one could argue that the fact that women are more likely to drop out of the workforce or go part-time is the result of sexism and women expecting to maintain "traditional roles", and that would be a very legit point, but that is very different than out and out discrimination.

 

[Silvanus]

Actually, Claudia Goldin's study (the 3rd link you posted and also the basis of the 2nd article) pretty much explains it all:
"What, then, is the cause of the remaining pay gap? Quite simply the gap exists because hours of work in many occupations are worth more when given at particular moments and when the hours are more continuous. That is, in many occupations earnings have a nonlinear relationship with respect to hours. A flexible schedule often comes at a high price, particularly in the corporate, financial, and legal worlds."

Men, on average, work longer hours than women, are more willing to have an inflexible schedule, and they are also significantly less likely to switch to part-time work (or drop out all together) when children are born, no matter what occupation they are in (hopefully you can read this link, but if not several articles above also explain much of the same, including Dr. Farrell's speech).

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296

So in other words, even when you attempt to compare two people in the same occupation, you're still not comparing apples to apples. A male lawyer who is willing to work 80 hours a week with an inflexible schedule will not only obviously make more overall than a female lawyer who only works 40 and wants a flexible schedule, he's more likely to get promoted faster and get raises as well, thus leading to more average earnings.

Now, one could argue that the fact that women are more likely to drop out of the workforce or go part-time is the result of sexism and women expecting to maintain "traditional roles", and that would be a very legit point, but that is very different than out and out discrimination.

It certainly looks like a factor, yes. It's notable, though, that while the wage gap is smaller for women who do not have children, it still exists [http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ321/orazem/anderson_motherhood-penalty.pdf]. There's a better source I had on that point a while ago, and I'll post it once I've found it again.

It often seems to me that people are willing to reach pretty far to believe a problem doesn't exist. I'm not accusing you of this; I just feel it's generally the case with certain issues. We want to believe there's one thing fewer to worry about, when really, I find it rather difficult to think that differences in flexibility can account for the size and consistency of gap-- especially considering the attitudes people had in the very recent past regarding women in the workplace.

It seems tremendously unlikely to me that traditional, entrenched attitudes, which pervaded society on all levels just a few decades ago, have now all but disappeared.

 

[Directionless]

Snip

Actually I ran this past a friend of mine who is good with science and he said that when it comes to this stuff and how the brain works, atoms don't matter at all. It all comes down to chemical reactions. I'm just gonna post what he said.

We can control the reactions by sheer belief, based primarily on physical actions associated with the belief, what we eat, where we are, who is around us, and if you want to put things in your intense, deep nerve stimulation technologies, the last of which directly influences how parts of the brain perform.

You can argue that the inherent reactions in our brain will determine if we will react in chemistry-changing ways, and how we change that chemistry based on outside input, but that's chaos theory, and proving that will take considerable effort.

You cannot control the reactions with sheer belief. The point is that whatever thoughts you have are already the results of atomic reactions. There can be a perceived feedback loop, but if you think about it, even the actions taken to manipulate brain chemistry are already pre-determined by atomic attraction and subsequent reactions, by their very nature.

Sure, chaos theory comes into it. But it doesn't change the atomic reactions. It means they are not wholly predictable, but that doesnt change anything about this idea.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

It certainly looks like a factor, yes. It's notable, though, that while the wage gap is smaller for women who do not have children, it still exists [http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ321/orazem/anderson_motherhood-penalty.pdf]. There's a better source I had on that point a while ago, and I'll post it once I've found it again.

I've actually heard the opposite: at least in their 20's, women without kids actually earn MORE (on average) than men without kids:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/12/women-wage-gap-cx_wf_0512earningmore.html

It often seems to me that people are willing to reach pretty far to believe a problem doesn't exist.

I honestly think the problem is the complete opposite: I think people are far too willing to believe anything they're told just so long as it matches up with their perception of "how the world is".

To give a perfect example, look at the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal (Wikipedia it if unfamiliar). In a nutshell, three white lacrosse players at Duke University (a very prestigious and "preppy" school) were accused of raping a poor black stripper. Immediately it dominated the airwaves, and many people had basically already decided long before any evidence came out that they were guilty. Why? Why no presumption of innocence in this particular case?

In my opinion, it's because those people wanted it to be true, because it so perfectly fit their perception of "how the world is". 3 rich, white, probably right-wing kids taking advantage of a poor black woman and thinking they'd get away with it thanks to them being rich and having "white male privilege"? You couldn't write propaganda this perfect if you tried.

So people wanted it to be true, and therefore they didn't bother to check facts or wait for evidence or anything, they just needed vindication to know that their worldview was correct. And to me, this is why people so often swallow anything they're told without bothering to check on it.