Men usually go into fields that pay more, because they are more demanding, while women go into fields that pay less. If you compare and men and women who work the same job, the wage difference is basically not existent.
[citation needed]
And how much do you mean by 'basically not existent'? There shouldn't be one at all.
You are attacking men though, by making false claims that demonize them with no proof.
How am I demonising and attacking men? For all I know, the officials discouraging women from running for office are women themselves. That doesn't mean it's not discrimination.
Please tell me how and why my argument is a strawman? I think my argument fits you perfectly. You are the person who is making the huge assumption that US society is discriminatory just because women are not 50% of the US senate and congress,
"Given the numbers I've already cited, it's pretty clear that men hold the power. Are you going to argue that 20% representation for women (and that's a record high) isn't "largely excluded"".
You said I had no basis to claim that US society was misogynistic. Which, seeing as I never said anything of the sort, was what I'd consider a strawman.
You also said I was attacking men. Which, as I wasn't, was what I'd consider a strawman.
Even if women were 0% on the senate and congress, it still would not prove your insane discrimination claims, maybe women on average just don't want job, or maybe, just maybe, men are better at the job, which is why they are picked more often, even by female voters.
Seeing as I've already posted evidence that women are discouraged from seeking office by political parties more than men are, and that a female head of state improves GDP in ethnically mixed countries compared to a male head of state, I'd quite like you to post evidence to back your claims up. A greater proportion of women not considering politics as a career is a direct result of the lack of woman politicians, which comes back to discrimination.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Seeing as I've already posted evidence that women are discouraged from seeking office by political parties more than men are, and that a female head of state improves GDP in ethnically mixed countries compared to a male head of state, I'd quite like you to post evidence to back your claims up. A greater proportion of women not considering politics as a career is a direct result of the lack of woman politicians, which comes back to discrimination.
Do you have any proof that the women who were discouraged from seeking office were actually qualified or a decent candidate?
Because you claim men have the power and you call said system they control is discriminatory. It is a baseless attack, and is on the same level as calling someone a racist with no proof.
Misogyny and discrimination mean the same thing in the conversation, because we are only talking about women. Discrimination is basically just a blanket term.
Yes, because if women are discouraged from going into a field, it must be sexist right? Discouraged isn't the same as forced out by the way.
"troubled nations" If a women could raise the GDP 6.9% in any western nation, trust me, they would be elected. The funny thing is that this study said in non heavily diverse nations choosing a female leader has no special benefit. This means that Americans will in fact gain nothing by electing a female leader. Proof isn't needed on my claim, if women where as good as men in the political sector, their numbers there would reflect it. Just like nursing is dominated by women, they are better at it than men. And again you go back to your baseless claims, " A greater proportion of women not considering politics as a career is a direct result of the lack of woman politicians, which comes back to discrimination", just because women are not picked doesn't prove discrimination.
Next time I have a job interview and don't get the job, I'll have my lawyer send them a lawsuit for discrimination.This is your exact logic. Pure insanity and extremely irrational in a grand attempt to paint women as victims.
@tiax, on my phone and yes it is simplistic. However I can deflate your entire argument with just one question:
Is grouping men together with children an example of misandry?
No more than grouping women together with children is by itself an example of misogyny. As I said, my argument is not as simplistic as "any time you put women and children in a group, that's misogyny".
You are the ones making baseless claims, not me. I don't have to actually prove anything, US laws provides equal rights to both women and men, so it is 100% on you to proof that women are actually discriminated against. On the same note, if said claims are false, under law it is considered slander.
So more of, if women are not 51% of the US senate and Congress it is because sexist men are keeping them down.
No more than grouping women together with children is by itself an example of misogyny. As I said, my argument is not as simplistic as "any time you put women and children in a group, that's misogyny".
Yes it is simplistic, but it is also entirely accurate.
Good I'm glad you said this. My question does indeed deflate your argument and it doesn't matter whether you answer yes or no.
Quote from Tiax »
I disagree - such a policy is perfectly understandable as misogynistic. Women are painted as weak and frail and in need of men's protection. Note that the policy is "women and children FIRST" not "women and children ONLY". The implication is that men are strong and able to fend for themselves while waiting for the women and children to be rescued. When you put the oxygen mask on your child first in an airplane, it's not because you're going to save the child while you die, it's that you're going to assist the person who needs help.
The phrase women and children first in context means that women and children should be saved or rescued over men. It doesn't imply anything else and everything you say here is nothing more than a bunch of non-sequitur.
There is absolutely nothing about being grouped with children that implies that one is not able to fend for themselves. Furthermore your point relies on the assumption that the following is true for the phrase in question:
Quote from Tiax »
It's motivated by a consideration of who is seen as capable of fending for themselves and who is seen as too weak to do. Children are not assisted first because children are more valuable, they're assisted first because they can't do it for themselves. In the historic instances of this policy, it was motivated by a similar view of women - that they could not save themselves and thus were in need of first priority.
When in fact we don't know that this assumption is true at all.
If context mattered to you, then you would find nothing misogynistic about that phrase at all because it values women and children over men.
But the context does not matter to you, you made that clear here:
Quote from Tiax »
Right, so let's draw a distinction between "is evidence of societal misogyny" and "is misogynistic". What I am suggesting in my first post is that the policy is misogynistic because of how it treats women as children. I am not, however, claiming that that policy is proof that society is inherently misogynistic. Considering that my position is that the policy is extremely rare and a mere historical footnote, it would make absolutely no sense for me to believe it was part of a larger societal misogyny. Regardless of its motivation, the policy is itself misogynistic, because it infantilizes women. This fact requires no assumptions about the motivations of the policy.
If context doesn't matter, then we have to question why being grouped with children infantilizes women and logically it must also stand that grouping men with children must also infantilize men for the same reasons.
Your argument fails on both on validity and soundness.
So, from the articles that you posted:
- When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents.
- When controlled for all factors other than gender, the earnings difference between men and women is about 6.6%
- The tech industry is unique in its history of being “equal pay for equal work”
To quote from the recent clip by John Oliver on the pay gap: “Let me put this in terms that are easy to understand. If someone takes a dump on my desk the size of the dump is not the issue. I’m not going to say ‘how big of a dump is it? Eight inches? Ten inches? Oh, just three inches! That’s almost like you didn’t take a dump on my desk at all!”
Because you claim men have the power and you call said system they control is discriminatory. It is a baseless attack, and is on the same level as calling someone a racist with no proof.
Men do have the power! 100% male presidents, 80% senators, 80% congress people, 67% supreme court justices, 95% Fortune 500 CEOs. That's not attacking anyone, it's stating a fact. And if the system weren't discriminating (given women make up over 50% of the population) you'd expect to see equal representation - there _must_ be some factor or factors that discriminates between men and women seeking or reaching office. Maybe part of it is from the lack of female political role models compared to male; maybe because there are so few women, there's a perception they're not suited to politics; maybe they _aren't_ actually suited to politics, as you suggest, though you have shown a startling lack of evidence for that claim.
Misogyny and discrimination mean the same thing in the conversation, because we are only talking about women. Discrimination is basically just a blanket term.
No, they don't. There's already been a discussion about whether the word misogyny was appropriate to use; I don't think it is, in this case, and have used a word that means precisely what I intend. You don't get to tell me my position in this discussion.
Yes, because if women are discouraged from going into a field, it must be sexist right? Discouraged isn't the same as forced out by the way.
It certainly meets a necessary criterion for sexism - discrimination against women. Is the discrimination justified? No one has yet shown a reason that would justify it.
"troubled nations" If a women could raise the GDP 6.9% in any western nation, trust me, they would be elected. The funny thing is that this study said in non heavily diverse nations choosing a female leader has no special benefit. This means that Americans will in fact gain nothing by electing a female leader. Proof isn't needed on my claim, if women where as good as men in the political sector, their numbers there would reflect it. Just like nursing is dominated by women, they are better at it than men. And again you go back to your baseless claims, " A greater proportion of women not considering politics as a career is a direct result of the lack of woman politicians, which comes back to discrimination", just because women are not picked doesn't prove discrimination.
Do you think the US isn't ethnically diverse?
Proof isn't needed on your claim? Oh yes it is. Your claim doesn't hold unless the only factor influencing the proportion of women in the political sector is their skill. And I've already shown evidence that that's not the case, so there is very definitely a burden for you to shoulder there.
Do you have any proof that the women who were discouraged from seeking office were actually qualified or a decent candidate?
That study was based on "a national sample of 1,969 men and 1,796 women in occupations that most commonly lead to political candidacy – business, law, education, and political activism". The study showed that men are more likely to run for office without encouragement from a political party, and also to be encouraged to do so. Women were more likely to be discouraged from doing so, but responded in the same rate as men to encouragement. It was a study around political ambition - whether the genders seek office in equal proportions - which, as you mentioned earlier, is one of the things that could influence the lack of parity in outcomes. Making sure that black people who might have the ability to become coaches understand their options, if I understood your analogy correctly.
And if the system weren't discriminating (given women make up over 50% of the population) you'd expect to see equal representation - there _must_ be some factor or factors that discriminates between men and women seeking or reaching office.
That is only true if we believe that women and men are exactly the same other than having different reproductive organs. It could be "discrimination" that is learned based on the differences between how the average boy and girl are raised, or it may not be a discriminating factor at all and simply be a biological pull toward leadership being more prevalent in males. (and I say more prevalent in males because I know that some woman desire being in a leadership role and I know that I personally as a male have zero desire to be in a leadership role).
That study was based on "a national sample of 1,969 men and 1,796 women in occupations that most commonly lead to political candidacy – business, law, education, and political activism". The study showed that men are more likely to run for office without encouragement from a political party, and also to be encouraged to do so. Women were more likely to be discouraged from doing so, but responded in the same rate as men to encouragement. It was a study around political ambition - whether the genders seek office in equal proportions - which, as you mentioned earlier, is one of the things that could influence the lack of parity in outcomes. Making sure that black people who might have the ability to become coaches understand their options, if I understood your analogy correctly.
I think the important or interesting factor there is that even without encouragement, men are more likely to run for office. Is it because women don't think it's an option? (that seems unlikely as there have been many women in politics at this point) Is it because women don't think they can succeed? Are those fears any different than men's fears? (maybe the genders face those fears in different ways) Is it something about the way they were raised that makes men desire the position more to go for it even without encouragement?
Going back to my analogy with NFL coaches... it's not even about making sure the coaches know it's an option. If I understand the process correctly teams basically invite coaches to interview for a head coaching job, it's not like a typical job opening where they collect resumes to see who might be interested. The teams go out and look at the current pool of qualified candidates and ask to interview them. The NFL just forces them to interview at least one black candidate. Which has lead to some odd situations like a well respected Defensive Coordinator for a team at one point had done something like a dozen interviews over a few seasons because he was one of the most qualified black head coaches so every team was sort of forced to interview him.
That is only true if we believe that women and men are exactly the same other than having different reproductive organs. It could be "discrimination" that is learned based on the differences between how the average boy and girl are raised, or it may not be a discriminating factor at all and simply be a biological pull toward leadership being more prevalent in males. (and I say more prevalent in males because I know that some woman desire being in a leadership role and I know that I personally as a male have zero desire to be in a leadership role).
Well, yes. If someone could demonstrate a biological factor that had that effect, that would make the disparity more acceptable. But the only evidence I've seen so far is of actual discrimination. I think that socialisation, and how people are raised, as you suggest, probably plays some part. I'd add that people who are raised to think that men are more suited to politics than women might also be the people who discourage women from running, and perpetuate the situation.
I think the important or interesting factor there is that even without encouragement, men are more likely to run for office. Is it because women don't think it's an option? (that seems unlikely as there have been many women in politics at this point) Is it because women don't think they can succeed? Are those fears any different than men's fears? (maybe the genders face those fears in different ways) Is it something about the way they were raised that makes men desire the position more to go for it even without encouragement?
Going back to my analogy with NFL coaches... it's not even about making sure the coaches know it's an option. If I understand the process correctly teams basically invite coaches to interview for a head coaching job, it's not like a typical job opening where they collect resumes to see who might be interested. The teams go out and look at the current pool of qualified candidates and ask to interview them. The NFL just forces them to interview at least one black candidate. Which has lead to some odd situations like a well respected Defensive Coordinator for a team at one point had done something like a dozen interviews over a few seasons because he was one of the most qualified black head coaches so every team was sort of forced to interview him.
I'm from a rugby-playing country; I know very little about the NFL! Vis-a-vis women not thinking it's an option - I think that the current (large) disparity would make it less likely for women to consider it an option.
There's been some interesting analysis recently of how gender causes people to be perceived, with transgendered people getting very different treatment pre- and post- transition, among co-workers unaware that they had transitioned. I don't think that could be replicated in the political arena - partly with small sample size, partly because political candidates have their past analysed in great detail.
Well, yes. If someone could demonstrate a biological factor that had that effect, that would make the disparity more acceptable. But the only evidence I've seen so far is of actual discrimination. I think that socialisation, and how people are raised, as you suggest, probably plays some part. I'd add that people who are raised to think that men are more suited to politics than women might also be the people who discourage women from running, and perpetuate the situation.
(I've been having major issues with quotes too)
I guess at this point I'd say it then comes down in some way to preference on where you believe duty lies to provide proof. I'm of the opinion that since there are no legal barriers I'm inclined to lean towards there not being an issue unless proven otherwise with any difference in numbers being explainable in a non-discriminatory way. I am guessing that you are of the opinion that if there is a difference in the number then there is a problem unless proven otherwise.
To expand on my thoughts... when no black head coaches were hired one year. I assumed that it was because the majority of head coaches hired were offensive minded. If you go back 30-40 years when there coaches were playing, the majority of offensive players (Quarterback, Tight Ends, Linemen) were white. Seems to me that the reason the head coaches hired were white was because teams wanted offensive minded coaches and offensive minded coaches tended to be white. Other people assumed that despite a program in place that already forces every team to interview at least one black coach, the NFL needed to do more to promote black head coaches.
There's been some interesting analysis recently of how gender causes people to be perceived, with transgendered people getting very different treatment pre- and post- transition, among co-workers unaware that they had transitioned. I don't think that could be replicated in the political arena - partly with small sample size, partly because political candidates have their past analysed in great detail.
I would agree that the information would be interesting but I hardly believe it would be surprising. Honestly I would be surprised if people did act exactly the same to people of different genders. Simple example, in a business workplace environment I know that I can talk about things with my male co-workers that I dare not say around a female co-worker for fear of an HR event.
Grant there may be some other explanation(s) to explain why more women aren't in office or making the same pay as men.
The problem with some statistics is that they may not take in all the factors that come into account, so let's talk about the pay gap:
But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).
Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.
Further reading in the article about the study reveals that the wage gap doesn't apply everywhere. Cities where manufacturing is one of the top industries (hence more jobs in manufacturing) Men make more than women and on the other hand, jobs with more knowledge-based skills, women tend to earn more than men.
Women also leave the workforce to raise children and then return, so that may account for some of the gap too. Here are some more interesting findings about women from pew research:
Once you start factoring in all of these other factors, the pay gap isn't quite so clear cut as feminists would have you believe. These factors may also play a good reason as to why more women are not in politics compared to men. Not only that but we may have to consider that when anyone, male or female, run for politics - politics favors the incumbent and that it is also very expensive to raise money needed to run a campaign.
Perhaps then, given these other factors women might be less likely to devote the time needed for a political office, may miss out on networking opportunities that they would have gained if they had not taken any time off to raise children, and because of these reasons - may not have the connections or financial means to run a campaign.
The point is, we can't let a statistic that doesn't take into account many factors at play make appeals to our emotion without looking at everything. Maybe there is a problem, but before we start screaming that there is we need to understand it first and then see if there is a good solution.
I guess at this point I'd say it then comes down in some way to preference on where you believe duty lies to provide proof. I'm of the opinion that since there are no legal barriers I'm inclined to lean towards there not being an issue unless proven otherwise with any difference in numbers being explainable in a non-discriminatory way. I am guessing that you are of the opinion that if there is a difference in the number then there is a problem unless proven otherwise.
To expand on my thoughts... when no black head coaches were hired one year. I assumed that it was because the majority of head coaches hired were offensive minded. If you go back 30-40 years when there coaches were playing, the majority of offensive players (Quarterback, Tight Ends, Linemen) were white. Seems to me that the reason the head coaches hired were white was because teams wanted offensive minded coaches and offensive minded coaches tended to be white. Other people assumed that despite a program in place that already forces every team to interview at least one black coach, the NFL needed to do more to promote black head coaches.
I think there's several interconnected effects. We've talked already about how a relative lack of role models might discourage women from considering office, and how they're disproportionately discouraged from doing so. Ingrained opinions that women are worse politicians could contribute to the latter, and also, possibly, towards women receiving less votes - although given each election involves large numbers of people making personal decisions, it's really hard to quantify that. Example of differing attitudes: when news of Chelsea Clinton's pregnancy came out, there was a lot of speculation about whether being a grandmother would affect her decision to run. Mitt Romney has at least 22 grandchildren, but the issue wasn't even raised., I do think that the massive discrepancy currently observed warrants further investigation - maybe even if it is a result of sexism, it's the kind of generational sexism that will fade away as the next generation grows up, or maybe there needs to be an effort to encourage women to participate in politics more.
I would agree that the information would be interesting but I hardly believe it would be surprising. Honestly I would be surprised if people did act exactly the same to people of different genders. Simple example, in a business workplace environment I know that I can talk about things with my male co-workers that I dare not say around a female co-worker for fear of an HR event.
This was more around assessment of competence. People who transitioned to women were almost uniformly regarded as less competent, and the reverse for those who transitioned to men. That's the kind of discrepancy that makes me wonder whether something similar happens in the political arena.
I think the question raised earlier is interesting, though. If there's a macro-discrepancy between two groups (such as the political one we've been discussing), is it okay to correct that with micro-discrimination, giving (in this case) equally-qualified women more opportunity than men? That's discrimination, but is it more discriminatory than leaving the macro-discrimination in place?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Additionally, "For the most ethnically diverse nations —those with high EF ethnic fractionalisation — having a woman in the top national leadership position was correlated with a 6.9 percent greater increase in GDP growth in comparison to nations with a male leader." (http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/node/1633) So it might actually be a good idea.
These kinds of research results -- in all fields that rely on Pearson-Fisher statistical methods, but particularly in social social sciences -- are almost always wrong.
In particular, this study runs afoul of (at least) Ioannidis' corollaries 3 and 4.
Corollary 3 says that the more possible contributing causes an effect has, the less likely it is that a study that asserts the primacy only one of those causes is correct, even if that study has statistical significance. Colloquially speaking, think of all the different factors that could impact a nation's GDP growth, then imagine seriously making the claim that of all of those factors, the genitalia of the leader was the deciding one, then imagine publishing a paper saying that, then imagine people taking you seriously. That's a remarkable chain of coincidences, and their joint unlikelihood lowers what Ioannidis calls the R-value, and hence also the probability of the study producing a true result.
Corollary 4 says that the more wiggle room an examiner has in methodology, the more he can use that wiggle room to get the answer he wants, and in no science is there more wiggle room than in social science. You can see an example of creative use of wiggle room in the design of this experiment. If you wanted to measure the efficacy of female world leaders, why not do the obvious thing and look at every female world leader? Why focus on a subset generated by this made-up buzzword "ethnic fractionalization"? Well, I'll spoil it for you: First they did look at every country. They didn't get the answer they wanted, so they restricted themselves to a preferred subset instead.
I think the question raised earlier is interesting, though. If there's a macro-discrepancy between two groups (such as the political one we've been discussing), is it okay to correct that with micro-discrimination, giving (in this case) equally-qualified women more opportunity than men? That's discrimination, but is it more discriminatory than leaving the macro-discrimination in place?
How many wrongs make a right? You can't ever correct an injustice by introducing further injustice.
Example of differing attitudes: when news of Chelsea Clinton's pregnancy came out, there was a lot of speculation about whether being a grandmother would affect her decision to run. Mitt Romney has at least 22 grandchildren, but the issue wasn't even raised., I do think that the massive discrepancy currently observed warrants further investigation - maybe even if it is a result of sexism, it's the kind of generational sexism that will fade away as the next generation grows up, or maybe there needs to be an effort to encourage women to participate in politics more.encourage women to participate in politics more.
Well here's another explanation for that, perhaps this narrative only exists within the news media in order to attract viewers on television, clicks on the internet, or get people to buy their news paper or magazine.
Just because the media might talk about these things, does not mean that the media speaks for how society feels. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of voters don't care that Hilliary Clinton is going to be a grandmother, despite what the media says.
Okay, so when I quote someone, it automatically nests the quotes, then automatically displays them wrong. I'm not deliberately snipping dialogue to remove context; any level of quoting beyond one seems to break things.
Well here's another explanation for that, perhaps this narrative only exists within the news media in order to attract viewers on television, clicks on the internet, or get people to buy their news paper or magazine.
Just because the media might talk about these things, does not mean that the media speaks for how society feels. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of voters don't care that Hilliary Clinton is going to be a grandmother, despite what the media says.
a) That doesn't explain why Clinton and not Romney.
b) The relationship between the media and society is not one-way. Society can shape the media, but the media can also shape society. If the media appear to care about a particular topic, society can begin to as well. Speak a lie often enough, etc.
How many wrongs make a right? You can't ever correct an injustice by introducing further injustice.
So let us say, for example, that men have 100%/80%/80% representation in Presidency/Senate/Congress, and that unless some action is taken to improve the participation in/acceptance of women in government, this state of affairs will continue.
Are you suggesting that it's better to leave the current state of discrimination in place, than discriminate to improve it? It's not a choice between justice and injustice; it's a choice between one injustice and another.
These kinds of research results -- in all fields that rely on Pearson-Fisher statistical methods, but particularly in social social sciences -- are almost always wrong.
In particular, this study runs afoul of (at least) Ioannidis' corollaries 3 and 4.
Corollary 3 says that the more possible contributing causes an effect has, the less likely it is that a study that asserts the primacy only one of those causes is correct, even if that study has statistical significance. Colloquially speaking, think of all the different factors that could impact a nation's GDP growth, then imagine seriously making the claim that of all of those factors, the genitalia of the leader was the deciding one, then imagine publishing a paper saying that, then imagine people taking you seriously. That's a remarkable chain of coincidences, and their joint unlikelihood lowers what Ioannidis calls the R-value, and hence also the probability of the study producing a true result.
Corollary 4 says that the more wiggle room an examiner has in methodology, the more he can use that wiggle room to get the answer he wants, and in no science is there more wiggle room than in social science. You can see an example of creative use of wiggle room in the design of this experiment. If you wanted to measure the efficacy of female world leaders, why not do the obvious thing and look at every female world leader? Why focus on a subset generated by this made-up buzzword "ethnic fractionalization"? Well, I'll spoil it for you: First they did look at every country. They didn't get the answer they wanted, so they restricted themselves to a preferred subset instead.
The article you linked was an interesting read. However, I think you're asserting that the article I linked only investigated ethnically fractionalised countries, when that's not the case. They used a dataset of 188 countries; I've attached one of the salient figures.
a) That doesn't explain why Clinton and not Romney.
b) The relationship between the media and society is not one-way. Society can shape the media, but the media can also shape society. If the media appear to care about a particular topic, society can begin to as well. Speak a lie often enough, etc.
a) Because the clicks show that readers are more likely to click on "woman to be mother/grandma" stories more so than "dude to be dad/grandfather" stories. I imagine that the majority of readers for that kind of article are women and they identify with a story about women more so than a story about a man in that situation. Most males probably don't give two poops on the extended family of a politician.
b) True, but it also just shows interest not necessarily a view point. When Brett Favre retired the NFL could basically throw his name at the top of any story and bam! clicks. Do people actually care that he shaved yesterday? Hell no, but they care about him and so click on anything with his name on it. Some people consume media on the Kardashians because they hate the Kardashians... and then perpetuate the medias constant pushing stories on them. In the case of Clinton... maybe women were reading that story because they disagreed with it, not because they necessarily thought the idea had any merit. All we know is that people consumed the media. I consume a lot of media that I disagree with. When media is consumed media producers will keep producing similar media.
So let us say, for example, that men have 100%/80%/80% representation in Presidency/Senate/Congress, and that unless some action is taken to improve the participation in/acceptance of women in government, this state of affairs will continue.
Are you suggesting that it's better to leave the current state of discrimination in place, than discriminate to improve it? It's not a choice between justice and injustice; it's a choice between one injustice and another.
Well, first of all, I see no reason to accept as reasonable the hypothetical notion that said state of affairs would continue unchanged without intervention. The trend line for representation of women in politics is already pointing upward.
But more importantly, we seem to have different ideas about justice. You've pinned your notion of justice to these numbers, as if justice were a pair of pink and blue lines on a graph. As long as the blue line is above the pink one, that's injustice, and only when they meet at a single point will justice be achieved.
To me, that's not justice, it's bean counting. I don't consider the NBA an unjust organization because its black representation line is above its white one.
By my lights, justice has to do with how society treats individual human beings, and no mistreatment of one human being can ever cancel out, rectify, or make right the mistreatment of another. Putting in place a policy of (Crashing00-)injustice toward men might make the lines on your chart look prettier to you, and that may make you feel like you've achieved (Grant-)justice. But by my lights it's simply increasing the amount of (Crashing00-)injustice in the world. You only decrease (Crashing00)-injustice by treating people in a just manner as individuals, not as micro-contributions to lines on a chart or a statistical average.
It comes back to the famous trolley problem from moral philosophy: would you push a fat man onto a train track to stop a moving train from killing five people further down the track? Most morally normal people answer "no." If you are one of those people, then you must also say "no" to throwing men under the bus in order to increase female representation, because it's effectively the same question.
Now, in fairness to you, if we look past the dubious studies, you have pointed out some examples of things that I would agree are injustices. For instance, if a female candidate is being actively discouraged from running solely on the basis of being female, that would be an injustice. But in what sense would you correct that injustice by doing the same thing to men?
You wouldn't, as far as I can see. The only way to correct injustice is to, well, correct the injustice. Stop actively discouraging female candidates from running.
The article you linked was an interesting read. However, I think you're asserting that the article I linked only investigated ethnically fractionalised countries, when that's not the case. They used a dataset of 188 countries; I've attached one of the salient figures.
No, that is not what I am asserting. I'm asserting that a person studying the efficacy of female leadership has no proper motive for conditionalizing on "ethnic fractionalization." They chose the variable "ethnic fractionalization" (rather than, say, "preference for chocolate ice cream") as a tertiary variable because they looked at a wide variety of possible ways of crunching the data and found that particular approach yielded the result they wanted. In fact, if you read the Ioannidis paper, he points out that there is software that does exactly this. Punch in the conclusion you want and it spits out a supporting data set.
Look, it's like the wage gap thing. One side thinks it's discrimination, the other doesn't. The pro-discrimination side has all these studies. They control for education, experience, background, et cetera. They still show a gap even after all that. All these studies are statistically significant and methodologically sound, as they go.
The anti-discrimination side has their own studies. They say that when you control for hours actually at desk, career choice, leave taken, et cetera, the gap narrows to nothing -- and indeed reverses for women in their prime who have no family are totally career-focused. All these studies are statistically significant and methodologically sound.
What Ioannidis is telling us is that none of these studies has even the slightest chance of telling us the metaphysical truth about what's going on, because there are so many possible explanations for the phenomenon and so much room for Procrustean manipulation by social scientists with an agenda one way or another that the probability that any one of these results is true is essentially nil.
Well, first of all, I see no reason to accept as reasonable the hypothetical notion that said state of affairs would continue unchanged without intervention. The trend line for representation of women in politics is already pointing upward.
But more importantly, we seem to have different ideas about justice. You've pinned your notion of justice to these numbers, as if justice were a pair of pink and blue lines on a graph. As long as the blue line is above the pink one, that's injustice, and only when they meet at a single point will justice be achieved.
To me, that's not justice, it's bean counting. I don't consider the NBA an unjust organization because its black representation line is above its white one.
By my lights, justice has to do with how society treats individual human beings, and no mistreatment of one human being can ever cancel out, rectify, or make right the mistreatment of another. Putting in place a policy of (Crashing00-)injustice toward men might make the lines on your chart look prettier to you, and that may make you feel like you've achieved (Grant-)justice. But by my lights it's simply increasing the amount of (Crashing00-)injustice in the world. You only decrease (Crashing00)-injustice by treating people in a just manner as individuals, not as micro-contributions to lines on a chart or a statistical average.
It comes back to the famous trolley problem from moral philosophy: would you push a fat man onto a train track to stop a moving train from killing five people further down the track? Most morally normal people answer "no." If you are one of those people, then you must also say "no" to throwing men under the bus in order to increase female representation, because it's effectively the same question.
Now, in fairness to you, if we look past the dubious studies, you have pointed out some examples of things that I would agree are injustices. For instance, if a female candidate is being actively discouraged from running solely on the basis of being female, that would be an injustice. But in what sense would you correct that injustice by doing the same thing to men?
You wouldn't, as far as I can see. The only way to correct injustice is to, well, correct the injustice. Stop actively discouraging female candidates from running.
No, that is not what I am asserting. I'm asserting that a person studying the efficacy of female leadership has no proper motive for conditionalizing on "ethnic fractionalization." They chose the variable "ethnic fractionalization" (rather than, say, "preference for chocolate ice cream") as a tertiary variable because they looked at a wide variety of possible ways of crunching the data and found that particular approach yielded the result they wanted. In fact, if you read the Ioannidis paper, he points out that there is software that does exactly this. Punch in the conclusion you want and it spits out a supporting data set.
Look, it's like the wage gap thing. One side thinks it's discrimination, the other doesn't. The pro-discrimination side has all these studies. They control for education, experience, background, et cetera. They still show a gap even after all that. All these studies are statistically significant and methodologically sound, as they go.
The anti-discrimination side has their own studies. They say that when you control for hours actually at desk, career choice, leave taken, et cetera, the gap narrows to nothing -- and indeed reverses for women in their prime who have no family are totally career-focused. All these studies are statistically significant and methodologically sound.
What Ioannidis is telling us is that none of these studies has even the slightest chance of telling us the metaphysical truth about what's going on, because there are so many possible explanations for the phenomenon and so much room for Procrustean manipulation by social scientists with an agenda one way or another that the probability that any one of these results is true is essentially nil.
I only proposed the no-change-without-intervention hypothetical to simplify discussion of the macro- vs micro- discrimination tangent, that I found interesting. I should probably clarify that I don't view 50-50 male-female as a requirement for justice, but I think that the current ratios suggest that it could be worth investigating to find whether there're reasons for the discrepancy that _are_ discriminatory (in much the same way that if I flipped a coin and it came up heads a hundred times in a row, I'd be looking quizzically at the coin). Particularly as there's the work I linked already around disproportionate discouragement of women.
The GDP study found no difference overall between men and women leaders prior to the breakdown by EF, and frankly, for the purposes of my argument here, I think that's enough to support my contention that women _aren't_ inherently worse leaders, and so that's not a good reason for their lack of representation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
What does gender really have to do with much? There's genetic variances along with individual preferences for activities, with women tending towards adopting male activities more often than males adopting female activities from childhood onwards.
Feminism has failed to elicit a collective corollary since the Seneca Falls Convention and related people failed to form a unified civil rights movements with the likes of Frederick Douglas. In part, because the people could not collude on strategy and that continues today with the women's movement. The Civil Rights movement was born out of a fusion betwixt various religious groups, former slaves, those living under the yoke of Jim Crow, victims of terrorism, and was able to bring in sympathizes to turn them into activists. Frankly, I feel there's a reason why the Civil Rights Movement itself is synonymous with the Black Power Movement, since it was the spear head that opened the door for modern feminism and still yet other movements such as the Indian Civil Rights Movement that occurred at the same time.
"Egalitarianism" as an intellectual strand has to be created whole cloth that steals the best out of feminism and then over time slowly, but surely replaces it generationally as a more inclusive movement. Perhaps it has come long time to begin a push towards giving a real intellectual alternative to some of these ideologies, by creating a different one. Failure is all I see, disillusionment coming at the destruction at what once was to see everything burn once again to human frivolity. Edit, revise, move on. If you want that intellectual foundation, build it yourself. Gods are created of humans who build.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
[citation needed]
And how much do you mean by 'basically not existent'? There shouldn't be one at all.
For a start: http://news.yale.edu/2012/09/24/scientists-not-immune-gender-bias-yale-study-shows
How am I demonising and attacking men? For all I know, the officials discouraging women from running for office are women themselves. That doesn't mean it's not discrimination.
You said I had no basis to claim that US society was misogynistic. Which, seeing as I never said anything of the sort, was what I'd consider a strawman.
You also said I was attacking men. Which, as I wasn't, was what I'd consider a strawman.
Seeing as I've already posted evidence that women are discouraged from seeking office by political parties more than men are, and that a female head of state improves GDP in ethnically mixed countries compared to a male head of state, I'd quite like you to post evidence to back your claims up. A greater proportion of women not considering politics as a career is a direct result of the lack of woman politicians, which comes back to discrimination.
Do you have any proof that the women who were discouraged from seeking office were actually qualified or a decent candidate?
Is grouping men together with children an example of misandry?
Quote breaks when i quote you so they post may look weird.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html
http://qz.com/182977/there-is-no-gender-gap-in-tech-salaries/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
Because you claim men have the power and you call said system they control is discriminatory. It is a baseless attack, and is on the same level as calling someone a racist with no proof.
Misogyny and discrimination mean the same thing in the conversation, because we are only talking about women. Discrimination is basically just a blanket term.
Yes, because if women are discouraged from going into a field, it must be sexist right? Discouraged isn't the same as forced out by the way.
"troubled nations" If a women could raise the GDP 6.9% in any western nation, trust me, they would be elected. The funny thing is that this study said in non heavily diverse nations choosing a female leader has no special benefit. This means that Americans will in fact gain nothing by electing a female leader. Proof isn't needed on my claim, if women where as good as men in the political sector, their numbers there would reflect it. Just like nursing is dominated by women, they are better at it than men. And again you go back to your baseless claims, " A greater proportion of women not considering politics as a career is a direct result of the lack of woman politicians, which comes back to discrimination", just because women are not picked doesn't prove discrimination.
Next time I have a job interview and don't get the job, I'll have my lawyer send them a lawsuit for discrimination.This is your exact logic. Pure insanity and extremely irrational in a grand attempt to paint women as victims.
No more than grouping women together with children is by itself an example of misogyny. As I said, my argument is not as simplistic as "any time you put women and children in a group, that's misogyny".
You are the ones making baseless claims, not me. I don't have to actually prove anything, US laws provides equal rights to both women and men, so it is 100% on you to proof that women are actually discriminated against. On the same note, if said claims are false, under law it is considered slander.
So more of, if women are not 51% of the US senate and Congress it is because sexist men are keeping them down.
Swing and a miss. You might want to look up what that word means.
Yes it is simplistic, but it is also entirely accurate.
Good I'm glad you said this. My question does indeed deflate your argument and it doesn't matter whether you answer yes or no.
The phrase women and children first in context means that women and children should be saved or rescued over men. It doesn't imply anything else and everything you say here is nothing more than a bunch of non-sequitur.
There is absolutely nothing about being grouped with children that implies that one is not able to fend for themselves. Furthermore your point relies on the assumption that the following is true for the phrase in question:
When in fact we don't know that this assumption is true at all.
If context mattered to you, then you would find nothing misogynistic about that phrase at all because it values women and children over men.
But the context does not matter to you, you made that clear here:
If context doesn't matter, then we have to question why being grouped with children infantilizes women and logically it must also stand that grouping men with children must also infantilize men for the same reasons.
Your argument fails on both on validity and soundness.
So, from the articles that you posted:
- When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents.
- When controlled for all factors other than gender, the earnings difference between men and women is about 6.6%
- The tech industry is unique in its history of being “equal pay for equal work”
To quote from the recent clip by John Oliver on the pay gap: “Let me put this in terms that are easy to understand. If someone takes a dump on my desk the size of the dump is not the issue. I’m not going to say ‘how big of a dump is it? Eight inches? Ten inches? Oh, just three inches! That’s almost like you didn’t take a dump on my desk at all!”
Men do have the power! 100% male presidents, 80% senators, 80% congress people, 67% supreme court justices, 95% Fortune 500 CEOs. That's not attacking anyone, it's stating a fact. And if the system weren't discriminating (given women make up over 50% of the population) you'd expect to see equal representation - there _must_ be some factor or factors that discriminates between men and women seeking or reaching office. Maybe part of it is from the lack of female political role models compared to male; maybe because there are so few women, there's a perception they're not suited to politics; maybe they _aren't_ actually suited to politics, as you suggest, though you have shown a startling lack of evidence for that claim.
No, they don't. There's already been a discussion about whether the word misogyny was appropriate to use; I don't think it is, in this case, and have used a word that means precisely what I intend. You don't get to tell me my position in this discussion.
It certainly meets a necessary criterion for sexism - discrimination against women. Is the discrimination justified? No one has yet shown a reason that would justify it.
Do you think the US isn't ethnically diverse?
Proof isn't needed on your claim? Oh yes it is. Your claim doesn't hold unless the only factor influencing the proportion of women in the political sector is their skill. And I've already shown evidence that that's not the case, so there is very definitely a burden for you to shoulder there.
That study was based on "a national sample of 1,969 men and 1,796 women in occupations that most commonly lead to political candidacy – business, law, education, and political activism". The study showed that men are more likely to run for office without encouragement from a political party, and also to be encouraged to do so. Women were more likely to be discouraged from doing so, but responded in the same rate as men to encouragement. It was a study around political ambition - whether the genders seek office in equal proportions - which, as you mentioned earlier, is one of the things that could influence the lack of parity in outcomes. Making sure that black people who might have the ability to become coaches understand their options, if I understood your analogy correctly.
That is only true if we believe that women and men are exactly the same other than having different reproductive organs. It could be "discrimination" that is learned based on the differences between how the average boy and girl are raised, or it may not be a discriminating factor at all and simply be a biological pull toward leadership being more prevalent in males. (and I say more prevalent in males because I know that some woman desire being in a leadership role and I know that I personally as a male have zero desire to be in a leadership role).
I think the important or interesting factor there is that even without encouragement, men are more likely to run for office. Is it because women don't think it's an option? (that seems unlikely as there have been many women in politics at this point) Is it because women don't think they can succeed? Are those fears any different than men's fears? (maybe the genders face those fears in different ways) Is it something about the way they were raised that makes men desire the position more to go for it even without encouragement?
Going back to my analogy with NFL coaches... it's not even about making sure the coaches know it's an option. If I understand the process correctly teams basically invite coaches to interview for a head coaching job, it's not like a typical job opening where they collect resumes to see who might be interested. The teams go out and look at the current pool of qualified candidates and ask to interview them. The NFL just forces them to interview at least one black candidate. Which has lead to some odd situations like a well respected Defensive Coordinator for a team at one point had done something like a dozen interviews over a few seasons because he was one of the most qualified black head coaches so every team was sort of forced to interview him.
Well, yes. If someone could demonstrate a biological factor that had that effect, that would make the disparity more acceptable. But the only evidence I've seen so far is of actual discrimination. I think that socialisation, and how people are raised, as you suggest, probably plays some part. I'd add that people who are raised to think that men are more suited to politics than women might also be the people who discourage women from running, and perpetuate the situation.
I'm from a rugby-playing country; I know very little about the NFL! Vis-a-vis women not thinking it's an option - I think that the current (large) disparity would make it less likely for women to consider it an option.
There's been some interesting analysis recently of how gender causes people to be perceived, with transgendered people getting very different treatment pre- and post- transition, among co-workers unaware that they had transitioned. I don't think that could be replicated in the political arena - partly with small sample size, partly because political candidates have their past analysed in great detail.
(I've been having major issues with quotes too)
I guess at this point I'd say it then comes down in some way to preference on where you believe duty lies to provide proof. I'm of the opinion that since there are no legal barriers I'm inclined to lean towards there not being an issue unless proven otherwise with any difference in numbers being explainable in a non-discriminatory way. I am guessing that you are of the opinion that if there is a difference in the number then there is a problem unless proven otherwise.
To expand on my thoughts... when no black head coaches were hired one year. I assumed that it was because the majority of head coaches hired were offensive minded. If you go back 30-40 years when there coaches were playing, the majority of offensive players (Quarterback, Tight Ends, Linemen) were white. Seems to me that the reason the head coaches hired were white was because teams wanted offensive minded coaches and offensive minded coaches tended to be white. Other people assumed that despite a program in place that already forces every team to interview at least one black coach, the NFL needed to do more to promote black head coaches.
I would agree that the information would be interesting but I hardly believe it would be surprising. Honestly I would be surprised if people did act exactly the same to people of different genders. Simple example, in a business workplace environment I know that I can talk about things with my male co-workers that I dare not say around a female co-worker for fear of an HR event.
The problem with some statistics is that they may not take in all the factors that come into account, so let's talk about the pay gap:
Further reading in the article about the study reveals that the wage gap doesn't apply everywhere. Cities where manufacturing is one of the top industries (hence more jobs in manufacturing) Men make more than women and on the other hand, jobs with more knowledge-based skills, women tend to earn more than men.
Women also leave the workforce to raise children and then return, so that may account for some of the gap too. Here are some more interesting findings about women from pew research:
Women are less likely than men to ask for raises and women are more likely than men to leave the work place to attend to a sick child or loved one. Women are also more likely to leave their job in order to raise children than men are.
Once you start factoring in all of these other factors, the pay gap isn't quite so clear cut as feminists would have you believe. These factors may also play a good reason as to why more women are not in politics compared to men. Not only that but we may have to consider that when anyone, male or female, run for politics - politics favors the incumbent and that it is also very expensive to raise money needed to run a campaign.
Perhaps then, given these other factors women might be less likely to devote the time needed for a political office, may miss out on networking opportunities that they would have gained if they had not taken any time off to raise children, and because of these reasons - may not have the connections or financial means to run a campaign.
The point is, we can't let a statistic that doesn't take into account many factors at play make appeals to our emotion without looking at everything. Maybe there is a problem, but before we start screaming that there is we need to understand it first and then see if there is a good solution.
I think there's several interconnected effects. We've talked already about how a relative lack of role models might discourage women from considering office, and how they're disproportionately discouraged from doing so. Ingrained opinions that women are worse politicians could contribute to the latter, and also, possibly, towards women receiving less votes - although given each election involves large numbers of people making personal decisions, it's really hard to quantify that. Example of differing attitudes: when news of Chelsea Clinton's pregnancy came out, there was a lot of speculation about whether being a grandmother would affect her decision to run. Mitt Romney has at least 22 grandchildren, but the issue wasn't even raised., I do think that the massive discrepancy currently observed warrants further investigation - maybe even if it is a result of sexism, it's the kind of generational sexism that will fade away as the next generation grows up, or maybe there needs to be an effort to encourage women to participate in politics more.
This was more around assessment of competence. People who transitioned to women were almost uniformly regarded as less competent, and the reverse for those who transitioned to men. That's the kind of discrepancy that makes me wonder whether something similar happens in the political arena.
I think the question raised earlier is interesting, though. If there's a macro-discrepancy between two groups (such as the political one we've been discussing), is it okay to correct that with micro-discrimination, giving (in this case) equally-qualified women more opportunity than men? That's discrimination, but is it more discriminatory than leaving the macro-discrimination in place?
These kinds of research results -- in all fields that rely on Pearson-Fisher statistical methods, but particularly in social social sciences -- are almost always wrong.
In particular, this study runs afoul of (at least) Ioannidis' corollaries 3 and 4.
Corollary 3 says that the more possible contributing causes an effect has, the less likely it is that a study that asserts the primacy only one of those causes is correct, even if that study has statistical significance. Colloquially speaking, think of all the different factors that could impact a nation's GDP growth, then imagine seriously making the claim that of all of those factors, the genitalia of the leader was the deciding one, then imagine publishing a paper saying that, then imagine people taking you seriously. That's a remarkable chain of coincidences, and their joint unlikelihood lowers what Ioannidis calls the R-value, and hence also the probability of the study producing a true result.
Corollary 4 says that the more wiggle room an examiner has in methodology, the more he can use that wiggle room to get the answer he wants, and in no science is there more wiggle room than in social science. You can see an example of creative use of wiggle room in the design of this experiment. If you wanted to measure the efficacy of female world leaders, why not do the obvious thing and look at every female world leader? Why focus on a subset generated by this made-up buzzword "ethnic fractionalization"? Well, I'll spoil it for you: First they did look at every country. They didn't get the answer they wanted, so they restricted themselves to a preferred subset instead.
How many wrongs make a right? You can't ever correct an injustice by introducing further injustice.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Well here's another explanation for that, perhaps this narrative only exists within the news media in order to attract viewers on television, clicks on the internet, or get people to buy their news paper or magazine.
Just because the media might talk about these things, does not mean that the media speaks for how society feels. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of voters don't care that Hilliary Clinton is going to be a grandmother, despite what the media says.
a) That doesn't explain why Clinton and not Romney.
b) The relationship between the media and society is not one-way. Society can shape the media, but the media can also shape society. If the media appear to care about a particular topic, society can begin to as well. Speak a lie often enough, etc.
So let us say, for example, that men have 100%/80%/80% representation in Presidency/Senate/Congress, and that unless some action is taken to improve the participation in/acceptance of women in government, this state of affairs will continue.
Are you suggesting that it's better to leave the current state of discrimination in place, than discriminate to improve it? It's not a choice between justice and injustice; it's a choice between one injustice and another.
The article you linked was an interesting read. However, I think you're asserting that the article I linked only investigated ethnically fractionalised countries, when that's not the case. They used a dataset of 188 countries; I've attached one of the salient figures.
a) Because the clicks show that readers are more likely to click on "woman to be mother/grandma" stories more so than "dude to be dad/grandfather" stories. I imagine that the majority of readers for that kind of article are women and they identify with a story about women more so than a story about a man in that situation. Most males probably don't give two poops on the extended family of a politician.
b) True, but it also just shows interest not necessarily a view point. When Brett Favre retired the NFL could basically throw his name at the top of any story and bam! clicks. Do people actually care that he shaved yesterday? Hell no, but they care about him and so click on anything with his name on it. Some people consume media on the Kardashians because they hate the Kardashians... and then perpetuate the medias constant pushing stories on them. In the case of Clinton... maybe women were reading that story because they disagreed with it, not because they necessarily thought the idea had any merit. All we know is that people consumed the media. I consume a lot of media that I disagree with. When media is consumed media producers will keep producing similar media.
Well, first of all, I see no reason to accept as reasonable the hypothetical notion that said state of affairs would continue unchanged without intervention. The trend line for representation of women in politics is already pointing upward.
But more importantly, we seem to have different ideas about justice. You've pinned your notion of justice to these numbers, as if justice were a pair of pink and blue lines on a graph. As long as the blue line is above the pink one, that's injustice, and only when they meet at a single point will justice be achieved.
To me, that's not justice, it's bean counting. I don't consider the NBA an unjust organization because its black representation line is above its white one.
By my lights, justice has to do with how society treats individual human beings, and no mistreatment of one human being can ever cancel out, rectify, or make right the mistreatment of another. Putting in place a policy of (Crashing00-)injustice toward men might make the lines on your chart look prettier to you, and that may make you feel like you've achieved (Grant-)justice. But by my lights it's simply increasing the amount of (Crashing00-)injustice in the world. You only decrease (Crashing00)-injustice by treating people in a just manner as individuals, not as micro-contributions to lines on a chart or a statistical average.
It comes back to the famous trolley problem from moral philosophy: would you push a fat man onto a train track to stop a moving train from killing five people further down the track? Most morally normal people answer "no." If you are one of those people, then you must also say "no" to throwing men under the bus in order to increase female representation, because it's effectively the same question.
Now, in fairness to you, if we look past the dubious studies, you have pointed out some examples of things that I would agree are injustices. For instance, if a female candidate is being actively discouraged from running solely on the basis of being female, that would be an injustice. But in what sense would you correct that injustice by doing the same thing to men?
You wouldn't, as far as I can see. The only way to correct injustice is to, well, correct the injustice. Stop actively discouraging female candidates from running.
No, that is not what I am asserting. I'm asserting that a person studying the efficacy of female leadership has no proper motive for conditionalizing on "ethnic fractionalization." They chose the variable "ethnic fractionalization" (rather than, say, "preference for chocolate ice cream") as a tertiary variable because they looked at a wide variety of possible ways of crunching the data and found that particular approach yielded the result they wanted. In fact, if you read the Ioannidis paper, he points out that there is software that does exactly this. Punch in the conclusion you want and it spits out a supporting data set.
Look, it's like the wage gap thing. One side thinks it's discrimination, the other doesn't. The pro-discrimination side has all these studies. They control for education, experience, background, et cetera. They still show a gap even after all that. All these studies are statistically significant and methodologically sound, as they go.
The anti-discrimination side has their own studies. They say that when you control for hours actually at desk, career choice, leave taken, et cetera, the gap narrows to nothing -- and indeed reverses for women in their prime who have no family are totally career-focused. All these studies are statistically significant and methodologically sound.
What Ioannidis is telling us is that none of these studies has even the slightest chance of telling us the metaphysical truth about what's going on, because there are so many possible explanations for the phenomenon and so much room for Procrustean manipulation by social scientists with an agenda one way or another that the probability that any one of these results is true is essentially nil.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I only proposed the no-change-without-intervention hypothetical to simplify discussion of the macro- vs micro- discrimination tangent, that I found interesting. I should probably clarify that I don't view 50-50 male-female as a requirement for justice, but I think that the current ratios suggest that it could be worth investigating to find whether there're reasons for the discrepancy that _are_ discriminatory (in much the same way that if I flipped a coin and it came up heads a hundred times in a row, I'd be looking quizzically at the coin). Particularly as there's the work I linked already around disproportionate discouragement of women.
The GDP study found no difference overall between men and women leaders prior to the breakdown by EF, and frankly, for the purposes of my argument here, I think that's enough to support my contention that women _aren't_ inherently worse leaders, and so that's not a good reason for their lack of representation.
Feminism has failed to elicit a collective corollary since the Seneca Falls Convention and related people failed to form a unified civil rights movements with the likes of Frederick Douglas. In part, because the people could not collude on strategy and that continues today with the women's movement. The Civil Rights movement was born out of a fusion betwixt various religious groups, former slaves, those living under the yoke of Jim Crow, victims of terrorism, and was able to bring in sympathizes to turn them into activists. Frankly, I feel there's a reason why the Civil Rights Movement itself is synonymous with the Black Power Movement, since it was the spear head that opened the door for modern feminism and still yet other movements such as the Indian Civil Rights Movement that occurred at the same time.
"Egalitarianism" as an intellectual strand has to be created whole cloth that steals the best out of feminism and then over time slowly, but surely replaces it generationally as a more inclusive movement. Perhaps it has come long time to begin a push towards giving a real intellectual alternative to some of these ideologies, by creating a different one. Failure is all I see, disillusionment coming at the destruction at what once was to see everything burn once again to human frivolity. Edit, revise, move on. If you want that intellectual foundation, build it yourself. Gods are created of humans who build.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>