So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon 401 Replies latest social current

• 

  Simon

  Politics is a zero sum game. There's an election, one person wins it. That's the culmination of all the political rhetoric and campaigning - the winning side get to make the rules and set the tone for the next term.

  You sound like someone who believes that using the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism" will cause "moderate" muslims to take up Jihad. I don't believe speaking truth or pointing out wrong behaviour ever has a negative effect.

  If we think truth causes damage, then we are probably looking at something with too much political bias.
• 

  azor

  I have no problem calling a spade a spade like radical Islamic terrorism. Politics is not a zero sum game. There is much nuance and gray areas. People that see and try to pidgeon hole large swaths of people into a black and white group scare me. I have no doubt that the majority of the people that went to this march have the noblest of intents. I do not believe it is appropriate to insult them with the minority that are highlighted.

  Opposition forces must stand up against the other side, and will as it is how the world turns. I like how Haidt speaks to the discord we are seeing as a western religiously initiated manacheistic thinking. Us vs. Them. Rather then the more natural way of the world which is more daoist.
• 

  Mage

  Simon, I was reading one of the articles you mentioned on gender pay gap: https://spectator.org/57585_so-now-obamas-against-inefficient-bureaucracy/ and it says "The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.”" but later it says "Many men tend to go into science and engineering fields which generally pay more. Women who stay at home with children are factored in as earning nothing. Therefore, the 77 cent stat is a misleading one." But I thought the 77 percent was only comparing full time jobs. Am I missing something? I am very interested in articles like this as some women at my workplace were talking about the pay gender gap (even though the company's boss already released data to say there isn't at our company :P) and I was trying to find resources on this.
• 

  Simon

  Yes, it compares full time jobs but the difference in pay is driven by the difference in those jobs, not the gender of the people in them.

  i.e. if there were only 2 jobs, engineer and teacher, and all men became engineers and all women became teachers then the gender pay-gap would be the difference between what engineers were paid on average vs what teachers were paid on average.

  This incorrect slicing of data and reaching an incorrect conclusion is played out in crime statistics with race as well, anything where there is some predominant identifier that is useful to someone for political reasons becomes the way to slice the data and assumed to be the root cause of whatever disparity is then found, often ignoring other more significant factors.

  With the pay gap, it's down to the overlap between gender and the tendency for women to not pursue the STEM fields which are ultimately higher paying. Throw in shorter working periods, leaving to have children etc... and you quickly get a nice juicy headline, ripe for misuse.

  Putting women down as earning nothing when taking care of children I guess shouldn't impact things too much because it's median income but it does seem to ignore that aspect and also that many women are more likely to work in part time positions (I'm guessing).

  That Obama's own administration produced the report and put the warning on the first page shows to me that he intentionally used it knowing it to be wrong. Thus feeding the narrative of oppression and unfairness that divides people, hopefully so Clinton could get those women voters. Cynical politicking.

  Women are done a disservice with this crap because nothing can change due to simple economics. What would be better and more likely to benefit women is to decide, as a society, that we should put greater value on the softer sciences like teaching and nursing and pay them accordingly. e.g. invest in the "Singapore" method of teaching.
• 

  Mage

  Right, that's how I understood it. I think that one sentence in the article is a little misleading by mentioning the stay home women - as the data did not include them.

  I am sure many women were/are furious because they believed from the way Obama quoted this number that women are treated unfairly (good job Obama!). Even at my company where women DO work STEM jobs quickly jumped at the mentioning of 77%. One woman said "what's our CEO doing to address this issue??". I was amazed at her quickly arrived conclusion that 77% automatically applied to where she works. And in general you'd think based on the type of job she's at least decently intelligent.

  I have heard stories women told me that they felt offended at work based on remarks men made and etc. And I don't doubt there are still men who haven't learned good manners so I don't dispute there's still mistreatment (and these women had no reason to lie to me so I chose to believe their words). But I often see women who are being completely illogical when it comes to gender issues and I feel discouraged to even associate myself with them *sigh*.
  
• 

  JRK

  I am lost, what the hell is a SJW?

  JK
• 

  cofty

  Interestingly in some Scandinavian countries where obstacles to gender freedoms have been removed the split between female and male career choices is significant. Women mostly choose to pursue stereotypically female careers and vice-versa.

  When you minimise the nurture factors of gender difference, the effects of nature become even clearer.
• 

  azor

  JRK Social Justice Warrior
• 

  bohm

  JRK:

  A "social justice warrior" is a term used for a particular type of advocate for feminism. I don't know who invented the term; it is used by some in a highly derogatory fashion to mean a "crazy feminist" and by some to mean something positive ("a very engaged feminist").

  The typical person who would be called a SJW is someone who believe that the patriarchy is a real thing influencing in a very negative way the lives of women (and men), that we have a systemic rape culture and who often subscribe to marxist ideas as well as postmodern notions of gender and gender identity. Note there is a huge range of opinions and persons that fall under the umbrella term.
• 

  Simon

  SJW = Social Justice Warrior

  A pitiful and annoying creature that screetches loudly when anyone encroaches in their "safe space" or says any one of a million trigger words that does or might offend them, anyone they know or anyone who has ever lived or will ever live.

  They often "virtue signal". It's not enough to do good or to be fair, in the age of social networks you have to be seen to be doing good and be fair so as to get applause.

  I don't seem them as the feminists themselves, usually the men that swoop in to defend them. Probably because they want to get laid (the "sneaky fucker" technique as Glad Saad would say).

  The left hate the Scandinavian countries because they show that gender roles are natural, not some forced assignment by society. Women are more often naturally carers and nurturers, and men the idiots doing dangerous / stupid shit that requires hospitalization (the warriors / protectors).