The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

Marginalised how exactly? By being twice as likely to get a job in STEM fields as men are*? Don't give me that marginalised trollop, it's a falsehood.




*http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

So a system designed to correct institutional sexism is seen to be working and you get all upset about it ?

Sand

marienbad wrote: »

I am being reasonable ! You are the one comparing the proposed use of a word and the wearing of a t-shirt to some Orwellian revival of Nazism.

No, I am comparing an attempt to control language to achieve control over peoples thoughts to an Orwell novel which highlighted attempts to control language as an attempt to achieve control over peoples thoughts.

Of course he can wear what he likes , but both you and he are extremely naïve if you are unaware of the reaction it would cause .

Yes, nomark SJWs would be enraged. Because they are nomark SJWs. That is why 'Social Justice Warrior' is a pejorative.

And just in case you try to shoehorn some other notion you have on to me , knowledge of an outcome does denote approval of that outcome .

Of course not.

I didn't ask you about the guy who owns Price Waterhouse.

You didn't ask me about Matt Taylor either.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Marginalised how exactly? By being twice as likely to get a job in STEM fields as men are*? Don't give me that marginalised trollop, it's a falsehood.




*http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

I do think women find it harder to get to the upper echelons in many fields of endeavour. It's changing thankfully, but a casual glance around most universities, for instance, will show that much work remains. Great to see that outlier stat, shows progress.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and that's where you missed the point. It's not about resources. It's a metaphor.

I bet if you thought really really hard about it, you'd be able to figure out what the actual point of the metaphor is. But that wouldn't do, would it?

Its a terrible metaphor. If we had resources we don't have, then we could do something we cant do without the resources.

That's great and all for the upvotes/shares on social media, but where are the extra resources going to be magicked out of in reality?

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

So a system designed to correct institutional sexism is seen to be working and you get all upset about it ?

If a system is supposed to correct sexism shouldn't the end result not be sexist? Silly me, if it benefits women unfairly it can't be sexist...
I'm not "upset" either so you can send that back where it came from pal.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I do think women find it harder to get to the upper echelons in many fields of endeavour. It's changing thankfully, but a casual glance around most universities, for instance, will show that much work remains. Great to see that outlier stat, shows progress.

So if you discriminate against men it's not sexist. It's "progress". OK.

marienbad

Sand wrote: »

No, I am comparing an attempt to control language to achieve control over peoples thoughts to an Orwell novel which highlighted attempts to control language as an attempt to achieve control over peoples thoughts.



Yes, nomark SJWs would be enraged. Because they are nomark SJWs. That is why 'Social Justice Warrior' is a pejorative.



Of course not.



You didn't ask me about Matt Taylor either.

Well it would appear you don't read Orwell either as the quote you used is from his Notes On Nationalism not his novels , but then just bring Orwell into it as a bit of hyperbole is always useful .

So are you going to answer my question about your son going to the interview ?

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

So a system designed to correct institutional sexism is seen to be working and you get all upset about it ?

I'm not getting upset, I am disputing a claim. He claimed women are persistently marginalised, but that is not at all true, and I provided a link to support that.

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm not getting upset, I am disputing a claim. He claimed women are persistently marginalised, but that is not at all true, and I provided a link to support that.

You posed a link than shows a historic imbalance is being corrected .

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I do think women find it harder to get to the upper echelons in many fields of endeavour. It's changing thankfully, but a casual glance around most universities, for instance, will show that much work remains. Great to see that outlier stat, shows progress.

Women make up a lower percentage of those who apply for those "upper echelon" jobs, but get proportionally more positions per application (the difference is negligible, only 2-3 points in the difference).

I presume you're going to have some kind of study to back up your statement?

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

You posed a link than shows a historic imbalance is being corrected .

Nope. Correcting would be firing those who unfairly got their position and replacing them with the women who should have got them.
Replacing one sexism with another is neither "correcting" nor "progress".

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

You posed a link than shows a historic imbalance is being corrected .

I posted a link to prove a point that women aren't being "persistently marginalised". Regardless, the discussion was not with you, and all you added was trying to call me angry/upset.

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

Well it would appear you don't read Orwell either as the quote you used is from his Notes On Nationalism not his novels , but then just bring Orwell into it as a bit of hyperbole is always useful.

He quoted 1984 first, and that is what he is referring back to. The nationalism quote was just added flavour.

marienbad wrote: »

So are you going to answer my question about your son going to the interview ?

"Please engage with my strawman".

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

I posted a link to prove a point that women aren't being "persistently marginalised". Regardless, the discussion was not with you, and all you added was trying to call me angry/upset.

It is an open forum, you don't get to say who the discussion is with

Sand

marienbad wrote: »

Well it would appear you don't read Orwell either as the quote you used is from his Notes On Nationalism not his novels , but then just bring Orwell into it as a bit of hyperbole is always useful .

I brought Orwell into it way before the quote - you know his 1984 novel and the Newspeak reference from it, right?

So are you going to answer my question about your son going to the interview ?

Your question has already been answered - Matt Taylor is not sitting an interview for your approval. It has no relevance to your hypothetical.

So yes, I'd tell my son to wear whatever he feels like and be himself. So where are you going to go with this cul de sac point of yours?

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

It is an open forum, you don't get to say who the discussion is with

He does get to call you out for adding zilch except commentary on his emotional state etc.

marienbad

osmiumartist wrote: »

Nope. Correcting would be firing those who unfairly got their position and replacing them with the women who should have got them.
Replacing one sexism with another is neither "correcting" nor "progress".

That would be one way of doing it , but how do you go back in time and decide who and how got their positions unfairly ? And victimise their families as well . Totally impractical

Best method is to tilt the balance going forward , works with every society that has inbuilt unfairness , catholic in NI , people of colour in the USA , women in most places

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

Best method is to tilt the balance going forward , works with every society that has inbuilt unfairness , catholic in NI , people of colour in the USA , women in most places

No it most certainly isn't. These aren't the same people who gained/lost from the original sexism. They have no intrinsic right to a freebie because of something that happened historically.
You actually think the objective is the have 50% of all staff male/female, or is it to hire the best candidate for the job?

Widdershins

marienbad wrote: »

That would be one way of doing it , but how do you go back in time and decide who and how got their positions unfairly ? And victimise their families as well . Totally impractical

Best method is to tilt the balance going forward , works with every society that has inbuilt unfairness , catholic in NI , people of colour in the USA , women in most places

Is it working too well, though. Do gender quotas work against people who are suited to a job, based on their merits, but aren't the required gender?

AnGaelach

osmiumartist wrote: »

You actually think the objective is the have 50% of all staff male/female, or is it to hire the best candidate for the job?

What if women don't bother applying for jobs (like they do now), do companies have to compete to attract those women (and thus, increase their wages) while men who do apply are in a saturated market and will see their earnings depress? Is this kind of a gender pay gap okay since 20 years ago, there was a real one?

marienbad

Sand wrote: »

I brought Orwell into it way before the quote - you know his 1984 novel and the Newspeak reference from it, right?



Your question has already been answered - Matt Taylor is not sitting an interview for your approval. It has no relevance to your hypothetical.

So yes, I'd tell my son to wear whatever he feels like and be himself. So where are you going to go with this cul de sac point of yours?

Well I can tell now your son can forget the accountancy job , but all's well he threw himself on his sword for your principles .

My point is simple Matt Taylor was the beneficiary of taxpayers money , he should have had the common sense to be aware of that , or if not his press people should have . You either agree with that or you don't. That is the simple practical argument

The other argument is the t-shirt was completely sexist ( made by a woman or not ) and was inappropriate .

I don't think we are going to agree so lets leave it there , you can have the last word if you like as I enjoy your posts in other threads even if I don't understand or agree with all of them .

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

Is it working too well, though. Do gender quotas work against people who are suited to a job, based on their merits, but aren't the required gender?

Of course they work against people who may be best qualified for a job . But is that not how we got here in the first place ? All those protestants working in Harland & Wolff didn't lose too much sleep over the much more qualified catholics locked outside the gate now did they ?

The ideal is that all sectors should represent as best we can make it the composition of society . Sometimes that can only be achieved with positive discrimination

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

The ideal is that all sectors should represent as best we can make it the composition of society . Sometimes that can only be achieved with positive discrimination

That's ridiculous at best.

Widdershins

The female form printed as decoration on a casual garment shouldn't be seen as sexist, in my opinion. I don't know if the fact that they're drawn as attractive looking women is part of the problem. Or if the fact that women who look like that commonly being found attractive in the first place, is really the problem.

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

Of course they work against people who may be best qualified for a job . But is that not how we got here in the first place ? All those protestants working in Harland & Wolff didn't lose too much sleep over the much more qualified catholics locked outside the gate now did they ?

The ideal is that all sectors should represent as best we can make it the composition of society . Sometimes that can only be achieved with positive discrimination

Positive discrimination = discrimination. It's in the title.
So will we have 50/50 quotas for firefighters, the army and teachers, or just jobs that pay well that women want to do that currently have more men than women in them?
"we got here in the first place" through everything from infant exposure to cannibalism. So you think because we used to do something we should keep doing it, just cus? Not great logic in my book.

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's ridiculous at best.

why ...at best ?

Widdershins

marienbad wrote: »

Of course they work against people who may be best qualified for a job . But is that not how we got here in the first place ? All those protestants working in Harland & Wolff didn't lose too much sleep over the much more qualified catholics locked outside the gate now did they ?

The ideal is that all sectors should represent as best we can make it the composition of society . Sometimes that can only be achieved with positive discrimination

But we would be continuing historically unfair practices, to make a display of fairness..it's not important to me that any particular sectors of society are represented as long as the jobs are given to the best qualified, as long as people from every sector had the opportunity to qualify themselves to apply for those jobs.

AnGaelach

osmiumartist wrote: »

Positive discrimination = discrimination. It's in the title.
So will we have 50/50 quotas for firefighters, the army and teachers, or just jobs that pay well that women want to do that currently have more men than women in them?
"we got here in the first place" through everything from infant exposure to cannibalism. So you think because we used to do something we should keep doing it, just cus? Not great logic in my book.

Can you imagine how many women even want to be deep sea welders, or coal miners, or construction workers? I honestly don't know a single person that would want that.

Society is as society does. Trying to force people into doing things they don't want, just because you think everything sounds great that way, is nonsense.

osmiumartist

Well therein lies my main beef with SJWs. The answer to sexism? More sexism. The answer to people you think are insulting and violent? More insults and violence. Pretty much 100% of the abuse I've seen online in the last few months arounf Brexit/Trump etc. has been from the left.
They have convinced themselves their these amazing forces for good while they're at the exact same crap they're moaning about.

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

why ...at best ?

Because you're trying to impose things on people they won't even want. You're artificially stacking the market in favour different groups.

There's 80,000+ coal miners in the US. Since you want the industry to "reflect society", it's going to have to be:

40,000 men and 40,000 women or 80,000 men and 80,000 women.

Okay, so now onto the affect in the industry:

Wages
In scenario 1 80,000 men are now competing for 40,000 jobs. This is going to lead to a huge reduction in wages. You're also going to need to find 40,000 women to fill the female roles (I doubt you'd find 10-15,000). Since women are very unlikely to even want to do those jobs, you'll have to increase the wages for them to go into that job.

Congrats, you've ruined the productivity of the industry by replacing skilled workers with new workers, and you'll ruin the long-term longevity of the industry because those skilled workers will eventually find other places to work - nursing, psychology, caring (historically female-dominant fields). I wonder how a coal miner is going to do as a psychologist.


In scenario 2 you are hiring another 80,000 people which depresses everyone's wage and ruins the market's competitiveness. It's a thing called the diminishing marginal returns on labour.



Your proposals aren't at all thought out, you're just going on gut feelings and a fear of the markets - that if an industry has an under-represented group when compared with society, it's the industries' fault and not the person's own volition.