ITT: "My shoddily-obtained statistics are better than yours"
My bad, gender equality in the United States is obviously a liberal communist lie because some editorial and opinion pieces from foreign newspapers say they are.
And yet you fail to even provide anything to the table.
Also, "shoddily-obtained" apparently entails the FBI, census information and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. If this is a criticism of the 1 in 24 or whatever, as stated to Anarchist, this is not a statistic I directly use to try to prove anything - all it is is an attempt to fact-check the 1 in 6 statistic by performing a set of calculations. These calculations conclude that this statistic is likely incorrect.
Also, really, "liberal communist lie"?
I'm liberal, you leek. I have voted entirely Democratic, bar one individual in one election. But way to go, to show that you basically believe that all the people you disagree with are those naughty conservatives. See kids, this is why you don't make assumptions about people on the internet, because when you're wrong, it's pretty embarrassing.
And I wouldn't go so far to say women are a "protected" class. For every benefit afforded to women, say when it comes to custody rights, there are significant obstacles that hinder their success in the workplace and elsewhere to counter that benefit.
Not sure what your problem with this way, acknowledges rights afforded to a person based on preconceptions about their gender but also states there are still inequalities, regardless of gender.
It is okay to state out inequalities, it is not okay to make shit up to claim that inequalities exist - and this is what I have been criticizing since my first post in this thread. Repeatedly I have stated that inequalities do exist in both sides and that the best way to address gender inequality is to shove this bullshit out the window that somehow male problems are not as important as female ones, because they originate from the same problem anyhow.
It's a rather egalitarian statement.
You are claiming that women are not on the same social class as men and you have claims for them, it is the exact opposite of an egalitarian statement.
Before I go through your evidence to why women are protected, I am going to point out something - protected does not equate to equal or not facing any issues. The dynamic is more like how people treat physically disabled individuals - it is considered extremely taboo to show external hatred towards disabled people, but that doesn't mean that problems don't go through the cracks. Most people try to help or be nice to disabled people and physically harming one would result in many people getting very angry. The same can be said for women, although the issues are far less extreme.
I explain how women are protected here, which is not addressed by your statements at all.
However, it is socially acceptable to address women's issues due to the fact that they are traditionally considered a minority. This is what ends up giving women a protected status in society - because they are viewed as victims of an unfair world, their issues are made more vocal, more in your face, more placed into the public's mind, simply because of their sex. People bury and have attempted on multiple occasions to erase the problems that men face. If one truly cares about equality, it's being able to throw away this attitude that it's okay to go around and stir up bullshit with one group of people to perpetuate the attitude that somehow they're more important than another group of people.
My point appears to be entirely missed - it is simply that because women are recognized as a minority, people want to protect them, which leads to their issues being labeled more important than those of the opposite sex. This is a problem because this is not true equality - the moment that you tell someone to "shut up" is the moment that you start being a bigot, it's the moment when you show that you only care about a group of people instead of everyone.
It appears you are confusing "protected" with "privileged". Women face problems in society, however the issues that they face are exaggerated, as shown by dissecting some statistic provided.
Maybe the lack of women elected to political office across the country despite making up a majority (by however slim of a margin) of the 320 or so million and being preferred to male candidates in some instances. Maybe the fact that at our current pace, it would take half a millennium for equal representation in houses of government across the country.
Maybe it's the fact the United States is 98th worldwide when it comes to percentage of women in legislature, while we were 59th back in the barbarous late 1990's.
This is true, except this does not address
how many women are actually engaging in political science to begin with. Many women don't even think they're qualified to run and don't engage at all. As such, most people on ballots are male to begin with.
It is not the responsibility of society to take the fall for individuals refusing to run for political positions. Investigating their reasons may improve numbers however.
While it is entirely possible that a male dominated congress is intimating for many women, it can also be true that the reason why this is, is because of the constant pressure of being told that men will sexually harass/molest/whatever you, being told that most men will not respect your opinion, that men think you're stupid, ect.
Admittedly though a lot of congressmen are pretty arrogant old and honestly pretty dumb men, but they also only represent a very small percentage of society in general. It's just a pity that they have such a large role in society.
At least most people agree with me though.
For someone who criticized me for using "shoddily-obtained sources", you're using two non-scholarly sources,
one of which is an opinion magazine. In addition, "Center of Women and Politics", while possibly academic, clearly has listed in its title a possible political bias towards women within politics. Anyways, you're not really proving anything here besides infodumping because I never even brought up politics, never claimed there was not a disparity between genders in some parts of society
repeatedly and I've pointed out that I do agree there's a disparity in gender in politics, although it may be influenced by forces that you may not be aware of, as I suggested above.
Doesn't exactly look like gender parity to me, so I would do yourself a favor and not write-off gender disparity because you don't seem to think it's an actual problem - "I don't see any discrimination, so it's can't be that much of a problem!" Gender disparity works both ways, not just for women and not just simply for men.
Here you go again, saying that I never recognized issues in the female gender. You're not really convincing me that you even read through my posts. I know they're long but at least
try.
Anyways, as I pointed out earlier, I have already stated that the genders are not equal multiple times, so what are you trying to prove? My posts are simply about intellectual honesty and calling out bad statistics. That doesn't mean that problems cannot exist elsewhere.
Both sexes have unique advantages and disadvantages afforded to them simply because of their gender - women tend to get the edge in custody battles and judges are very sympathetic to them, sometimes not for the better.
What edge to males get in custody battles? You only list the edge that females have.
First off,
because women make such a small percentage of CEOs in the first place, it is far more likely for them to have a higher firing rate. If you have 3 women and 97 men, and fire one of each, the firing rate of women would be 33%, while the firing rate of men would be about 1%.
Second, it is entirely possible that the reason why women are not the CEO are because of a multitude of reasons:
- She did not have the credentials. Due to the fact that women are still picking up in the work force in terms of quantity, women are usually younger and thus less experienced than male counterparts. This difference will eventually peter out over time.
- The options available for potential CEO candidates did not include a woman.
- A man was a better candidate for the CEO than the woman candidate was (seniority, skillset, experience, ect).
- The CEO was appointed by the previous CEO based on familiarity or bloodline.
All of these reasons must be proven incorrect before a claim of misogyny can be made.
Third, while the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies do make a ton of money, they are also an extremely small part of the workforce. The workforce in the United States consists of
127 million women. The earnings of a fortunate few do not reflect anything about the average woman's (or anyone's, really) experience in regards to their careers, because they are such a tiny drop of the entire population of working adults.
On the same site, it is also shown that about 57% of eligible women are part of the workforce, in comparison to men's 69%. It is likely the difference can be mainly attributed to the higher number of stay-at-home mothers. Women also have a slightly lower unemployment rate than men.
Also, on that site, it's important to note that the actual dry statistic (before accommodating for various factors such as experience, trade, part time/full time ect. ) for the wage difference between women and men is 84%. In addition, it notes that the industries with the highest employed percent of female employees are Education and Health Services industry, Wholesale and Retail Trade Industry, Wholesale and Retail Trade Industry, Professional and Business Services industry, and Leisure and Hospitality industry. It is likely that at least some of that gap is because of the choices that women make in their careers, not simply that they are being paid less.
This information is far more relevant to most women in the workforce, and is mainly positive.
Having 50% women and 50% men is
not equality, it is making the proportions of men and women the same. Equality is appointing the individual based on their skill, not their sex. By suggesting that women should be closer to 50% is essentially suggesting that women should be judged on the fact that they're women,
which is the exact opposite of equality.
Now I know that you are going to attempt to claim that my experience is not important just like others have done in the past, but let's take a walk through the micro world instead of the macro world of statistics. In my personal experiences in IT, I have found that some preferential treatment exists with women in the industry, namely because we're uncommon and the industry gets a terrible rep for not having "enough women". But
why aren't there enough women? The reality is that there are very few women who even engage in IT in the first place.
In colleges, only about
20% of IT majors are female in the first place. So you're already starting with a hiring population of about 1 in 5 people being women. So it's not surprising to see these numbers reflected in actual hiring numbers. Why do women not engage in technology classes? It's could be because of past discouragement, although people truly dedicated in their craft will move past such discouragement. Instead, it's likely that the flame was extinguished before it could grow to an interest, since within many families, parents encourage their daughters to do otherwise - compounded with the general nature of how interest in science is considered somehow undesirable - caused many girls to lose interest before they were even exposed to it. Many Asian and Indian women have STEM jobs because of the fact that they tend to raise their children in a different family culture than American racial groups with a longer history in the United States.
What is more frustrating on a personal level is to know that people like you do not value people like me and our experience, hard work, and dedication to our work. I am no more and no less deserving of a job based on my sex, I am, however, based on the content that I produce. I am here in my job because I have
earned it. It is one of the most condescending things to assume that my sex should have a 50/50 chance of getting a job solely based on our sex, because maybe the reason why I am here is because
I worked my ass off, and I want to be rewarded for my efforts, not for the flap between my legs.
You do not represent equality if that's truly what you believe, you believe in sorting people by gender and trying to reach as closely to an established quota.
So let's admit that each and every one of us can face challenges in the workplace, in elected office, in the eyes of the law, etc, because of our gender, or skin color, or sexual orientation, or whatever. But gender parity won't ever happen if we're too concerned with flinging statistics in each others faces trying to prove who's disenfranchised the most.
But that's all you just did, and you did so pretty poorly as well.
All snide remarks aside, your last point is genuinely disturbing, besides the fact that it's kind of hypocritical. You SHOULD be concerned about statistics being shoved in your face because you should be aware of how those statistics are gathered from data, and understand what the trends mean, and understand how they may or may not apply to your personal life. You cannot expect people to take your statements seriously when you find the fact that people use statistics or make conclusions based off of evidence repulsive in debate - that is entirely what claims are based off of.
And again, I never made a statement about "who is the most disenfranchised". To the contrary,
your post is largely about how women are the most disenfranchised. My posts have repeatedly been about being honest about representation of statistics so that a more clear picture of disparities are made public so that they can be resolved.
Ultimately, sexism affects both sexes and going around and claiming that one is somehow more deserving of "fixing" than the other is wrong, because the reality is that both sexes face many issues.
And perhaps the true irony of your post is that you have shown quite blatantly that you are more concerned about looking at the numbers than actual equality than anyone else in this thread.
Nice straw man argument. I never once said that statistics apply to individual experiences or vice versa. All I've said was that you are merely claiming that the sources other people provided aren't sufficient because you don't agree with them.
Why are you getting so defensive? I wasn't even addressing you at all. Who am I exactly strawmanning, because I wasn't even talking about you. You need to chill out.
You have no real reason to say the sources provided against you are invalid--they are going to hold just as much credit as the ones that you've provided.You keep saying their invalid, invalid, invalid blah blah blah but where is your actual I don't know.... proof? You argue that you've used math, but your math contains glaring errors that greatly skew the results in your favor.
Invalid sources include those that come from locations with clear agendas. For example, it's probably a better argument to get your statistics about female victims of crime from FBI statistics, even though they may not account for all possible cases, because unlike many tabloids, news organizations and other assorted "casual" resources, which likely have political leaning or bias.
In addition, statistics that cannot be traced back to a scholarly or government source are also invalid, since there is no way to verify the techniques shown.
You're basically arguing that any piece of evidence should be used to prove a point, which basically means you could range from anything from a scholarly paper to a completely incoherent rambling of some redpiller on reddit. Evidence has the right to be scrutinized, as you, Magic and LiveWire have done - so what makes you think that you're allowed to call out people on faulty evidence but others are not allowed to call you out?
Wow, this thread has a lot of hypocrites.
