Women on top

Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59296
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:02 pm

Galaxian wrote:
Cunt wrote:I've been wondering which fields of human endeavor are dominated by women.

All my life, everyone has been saying that women are equal to men, but in any measured way, it's tough to find that. Everywhere, men dominate with their bigger muscles, bones and cognitive power, so if women really are equal, there should be plenty of areas where they dominate the field.

I'm trying to think of clearly measurable traits here, by the way. Real, measurable and tangible things.

So far, all I have is that they live longer, and usually can get someone to lift heavy things, or reach the top shelf for them (maybe those things are connected...)

Of course, trolls are welcome, as always.
Seeing that Galaxian has been invoked in the above posts, thought I'd lend a hand:
One obvious field of human endeavor where women dominate is prostitution. They far outnumber boys & men as prostitutes and are also (generally) higher paid in that field. Of course, as usual, men dominate in the management; as pimps, merchants, brothel directors, etc. Brothel madams are in charge of controlling the 'girls'.

Other areas of female domination include nursing, primary school teaching, hospitality services, and so forth.

Those who claim that men & women are 'equal' are clearly wishful thinking, demented fools. In nearly every respect men & women have different natural biological potentials. You mentioned strength, height, and intellect. Females have longer lifespans, and better color vision. Each is predisposed to different diseases.

You can go so far as to regard the genders as distinct sub-species, forced together mainly to procreate :cheers:
You don't get any pussy, do you?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by JimC » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:06 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Nice try, but arguing for equality does not entail a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities - that's a silly idea trotted out to avoid the issue.
Actually, sometimes it is a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities, like when we get to the faction of intersectional feminists who claim that there is no such thing as biological sex and that the differences between men and women physically are just social constructs too, which can be done away with, and which resulted from social distinctions created between men and women.

Also, when we look at the wage gap and more mainstream claims, and some factions compare overall earnings of men and women and show that on average women earn less, and this is presented as a sexist distinction that must be combatted, they are implicitly saying that the attributes and capacities of men and women are assumed to be equal. When they ignore that men work longer hours and take less time off, and do more demanding (and thus higher paying jobs) in greater nmbers than women, they ignore the physical differences between men and women which contribute to men doing that.
I don't think you will find what you call "intersectional feminists" among the posters in this thread - clearly there are biological differences, and clearly there are statistical differences in some attributes (although the physical strength difference, although real, is probably exaggerated by a culturally-determined tendency for men to do more strength-based exercise regimes).

However, the key issue is capacity to perform a range of occupations or social roles. Particularly given the level of technological enhancement used in physical work these days, the number of jobs that most women could not do is minuscule, at least in western societies. The argument then shifts to preferences - perhaps it is true that, on average, fewer women want to be mechanics or brick layers, and more want to be primary school teachers etc. If that is generally true, then a reasonable feminist argument (and not a "zero biological differences" one) would be that cultural expectations about appropriate gender roles are the main generator of such preferences, and if they were to diminish, so would the differential in job preferences.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:53 am

Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Nice try, but arguing for equality does not entail a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities - that's a silly idea trotted out to avoid the issue.
Actually, sometimes it is a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities, like when we get to the faction of intersectional feminists who claim that there is no such thing as biological sex and that the differences between men and women physically are just social constructs too, which can be done away with, and which resulted from social distinctions created between men and women.
That's called generalising from the particular.
Also, when we look at the wage gap and more mainstream claims, and some factions compare overall earnings of men and women and show that on average women earn less, and this is presented as a sexist distinction that must be combatted, they are implicitly saying that the attributes and capacities of men and women are assumed to be equal. When they ignore that men work longer hours and take less time off, and do more demanding (and thus higher paying jobs) in greater nmbers than women, they ignore the physical differences between men and women which contribute to men doing that.
What are you 'implicitly saying' here - that a woman should be paid more than a man if she can bench press more than him? I'm not really sure of your point to be honest, but nonetheless you keep disputing the principle of equality on these spurious grounds (of general physical differences between the sexes) while failing to acknowledge the historically unequal power relations between women and men whereby women were, and to a great extent still are, systematically disadvantaged in the workplace, in the home, and in society in general.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Hermit » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:51 am

Brian Peacock wrote:...you keep disputing the principle of equality on these spurious grounds of general physical differences between the sexes while failing acknowledge the historically unequal power relations between women and men whereby women were, and to a great extent still are, systematically disadvantaged in the workplace, in the home, and in society in general.
Cue objection to the word "systematically". 42 does not recognise that feature unless it is encased in a formal rule, regulation or law.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Seabass » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:44 am

Brian Peacock wrote:That's called generalising from the particular.
That describes about 90% of his arguments. In fact, it seems to be the method by which he formed his entire warped and twisted worldview.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59296
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:56 am

Hermit wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:...you keep disputing the principle of equality on these spurious grounds of general physical differences between the sexes while failing acknowledge the historically unequal power relations between women and men whereby women were, and to a great extent still are, systematically disadvantaged in the workplace, in the home, and in society in general.
Cue objection to the word "systematically". 42 does not recognise that feature unless it is encased in a formal rule, regulation or law.
I saw that word and thought, "oh shit, what have I done in making such a strong distinction between it and systemic?" I hope we can avoid another 5 pages of argument centred around that word.. :?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by JimC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:04 am

In reality, systematically simply implies a process containing well defined, clearly thought out steps, where as systemic means that the processes are embedded in some form of political or social system.

To 42, the important distinction in terms of racism or other forms of discrimination is that once any legally sanctioned forms have been dissolved (and I grant that he sees that is important that they are), any remaining problems are simply in the minds of left-wing agitators; systemic racism or sexism is a Marxist myth...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:31 pm

Hermit wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:...you keep disputing the principle of equality on these spurious grounds of general physical differences between the sexes while failing acknowledge the historically unequal power relations between women and men whereby women were, and to a great extent still are, systematically disadvantaged in the workplace, in the home, and in society in general.
Cue objection to the word "systematically". 42 does not recognise that feature unless it is encased in a formal rule, regulation or law.
That's not accurate.

Women are not "systematically" disadvantaged in the workplace, in the home or in society. Something is systematic if it is done in accordance with a fixed plan or method. There is no systematic disadvantage of women. Women face some disadvantages, but so do men, and neither is systematic.

The nature of the disadvantages for both men and women are important to describe. For women, there are presently no "legal" disadvantages, and there are areas of the law where the law includes express, de jure advantages for women. Affirmative action - women owned businesses, and the like, all advantage women and disadvantage men. In the home, there are no de jure disadvantages on either side, and it's hard to suggest that in today's world women are not socially or societally advantaged in the home. Who tends to choose the home that a couple purchases? The woman. Who has the social authority to choose how it's decorated? Who controls the lion's share of the family's purchases? If anyone rules the roost in today's western world, it's women.

In society in general, it's hard to point to any disadvantages toward women. If anything, they are in the position of privilege and entitlement. They are to be treated equally, or better - often better, because there are still things that you can't say to a woman or do around a woman that is no big deal if done to or around men. Women are still entertained and funded by men. Women are still the beneficiaries of "ladies first," and "women and children first." Women still are kept safer and healthier than men (far more is spent on women's health than men's health), and women still get the jacket from a man when it's cold, and the seat when the room or train is full, etc. Women get ladies' nights and free drinks and such. If you go to the mall, you will see who the retailers market to - and it's overwhelmingly women.

And, then of course there is disparate treatment in the justice system, where men are convicted more often and receive harsher sentences when controlled for the same crime. The family courts are stacked in favor of women, etc.

If you can list the advantages to men and disadvantages to women (a) in the law, or (b) in the home, or (c) in society in general, I'm sure there are some, but I would submit that it's very likely not going to outweight the advantages to women, and disadvantages to men.

Also, as an aside - Systematic also =/= systemic. But, that was previous discussion.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:37 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Nice try, but arguing for equality does not entail a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities - that's a silly idea trotted out to avoid the issue.
Actually, sometimes it is a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities, like when we get to the faction of intersectional feminists who claim that there is no such thing as biological sex and that the differences between men and women physically are just social constructs too, which can be done away with, and which resulted from social distinctions created between men and women.
That's called generalising from the particular.
No, it isn't. It's called identifying different view espoused by different groups of people. I'm not saying all feminists believe that. I'm saying sometimes a certain faction of feminists do that.
Brian Peacock wrote:[
Also, when we look at the wage gap and more mainstream claims, and some factions compare overall earnings of men and women and show that on average women earn less, and this is presented as a sexist distinction that must be combatted, they are implicitly saying that the attributes and capacities of men and women are assumed to be equal. When they ignore that men work longer hours and take less time off, and do more demanding (and thus higher paying jobs) in greater nmbers than women, they ignore the physical differences between men and women which contribute to men doing that.
What are you 'implicitly saying' here - that a woman should be paid more than a man if she can bench press more than him? I'm not really sure of your point to be honest, but nonetheless you keep disputing the principle of equality on these spurious grounds (of general physical differences between the sexes) while failing to acknowledge the historically unequal power relations between women and men whereby women were, and to a great extent still are, systematically disadvantaged in the workplace, in the home, and in society in general.
No, I'm not saying women shoudl be paid more than a man if she can bench press more than him. I'm saying that if women worked longer hours, took less time off, and did more demanding jobs in the same numbers as men, than most of the so-called wage gap would go away.

I'm not disputing the principle of equality at all. I'm saying here that the wage gap is not because of discrimination or sexism against women. It's because women don't do the dangerous (higher paying) jobs, the more demanding (higher paying) obs, and they don't work as long hours, and they are more likely to work part time, and so they don't earn as much money per capita, but it is not because a woman engineer with the same experience and qualifications is paid less than a man.

Please identify with specificity the ways that women still are disadvantaged in the workplace, the home and society in general, and specify which disadvantages you are claiming are systematic.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:42 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:...you keep disputing the principle of equality on these spurious grounds of general physical differences between the sexes while failing acknowledge the historically unequal power relations between women and men whereby women were, and to a great extent still are, systematically disadvantaged in the workplace, in the home, and in society in general.
Cue objection to the word "systematically". 42 does not recognise that feature unless it is encased in a formal rule, regulation or law.
I saw that word and thought, "oh shit, what have I done in making such a strong distinction between it and systemic?" I hope we can avoid another 5 pages of argument centred around that word.. :?
General usage of terms still applies in general discourse, but I'll accept that it's somewhat ambiguous when scrutinised more formally. Nonetheless, I think my general point was clear enough and didn't hang on the strict, reified, or equivocal definition of the term alone.

edit: in fact, the word 'systematically' can be removed from my post and the meaning remain unchanged.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:55 pm

JimC wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Nice try, but arguing for equality does not entail a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities - that's a silly idea trotted out to avoid the issue.
Actually, sometimes it is a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities, like when we get to the faction of intersectional feminists who claim that there is no such thing as biological sex and that the differences between men and women physically are just social constructs too, which can be done away with, and which resulted from social distinctions created between men and women.

Also, when we look at the wage gap and more mainstream claims, and some factions compare overall earnings of men and women and show that on average women earn less, and this is presented as a sexist distinction that must be combatted, they are implicitly saying that the attributes and capacities of men and women are assumed to be equal. When they ignore that men work longer hours and take less time off, and do more demanding (and thus higher paying jobs) in greater nmbers than women, they ignore the physical differences between men and women which contribute to men doing that.
I don't think you will find what you call "intersectional feminists" among the posters in this thread - clearly there are biological differences, and clearly there are statistical differences in some attributes (although the physical strength difference, although real, is probably exaggerated by a culturally-determined tendency for men to do more strength-based exercise regimes).

However, the key issue is capacity to perform a range of occupations or social roles. Particularly given the level of technological enhancement used in physical work these days, the number of jobs that most women could not do is minuscule, at least in western societies. The argument then shifts to preferences - perhaps it is true that, on average, fewer women want to be mechanics or brick layers, and more want to be primary school teachers etc. If that is generally true, then a reasonable feminist argument (and not a "zero biological differences" one) would be that cultural expectations about appropriate gender roles are the main generator of such preferences, and if they were to diminish, so would the differential in job preferences.
Look, I've not argued that there are zero biological differences. The only thing I said about that is that the zero biological differences argument comes out of a faction of the feminist ideological grouping here. And, that's accurate. I haven't said anyone here thinks that, and I haven't said all feminists think that. Christina Hoff Summers is a feminist, and she has very different views from other feminists. The biological sameness argument has been around for a long time - it exists - https://qz.com/1218680/the-science-of-s ... afraid-of/

However, to your point of the argument that if we get rid of the cultural expectations that exist regarding men and women, we would have equality in jobs and professions - but, note the gender equality paradox - http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equalit ... 6-Feb2018/
COUNTRIES WITH GREATER gender equality see a smaller proportion of women taking degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), a new study has found.

Dubbed the “gender equality paradox”, the research found that countries such as Albania and Algeria have a greater percentage of women amongst their STEM graduates than countries lauded for their high levels of gender equality, such as Finland, Norway and Sweden.

The researchers, from Leeds Beckett University and the University of Missouri, believe this might be because countries with less gender equality often have little welfare support, making the choice of a relatively high-paid STEM career more attractive.

The study, published in Psychological Science, also examined what motivates girls and boys to study STEM subjects, including overall ability, interest or enjoyment in the subject and whether science subjects were a personal academic strength.
In the end, the next layer of feminist argument here, though, if we take this journal article as having a degree of truth, would be to say that since women tend to gravitate towards non-stem fields, then the reason stem fields are valued more and paid more is because of sexism against women, and therefore we should compel employers to pay the professions women do chose to go into the same as the supposedly more demanding professions that men tend to go into. And, that argument is out there - that since women become administrative assistants and teacher more than men, and men tend to be engineers and such more than women, that "we" should pay administarative assistants and teachers the same as engineers and such.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59296
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:41 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:...you keep disputing the principle of equality on these spurious grounds of general physical differences between the sexes while failing acknowledge the historically unequal power relations between women and men whereby women were, and to a great extent still are, systematically disadvantaged in the workplace, in the home, and in society in general.
Cue objection to the word "systematically". 42 does not recognise that feature unless it is encased in a formal rule, regulation or law.
I saw that word and thought, "oh shit, what have I done in making such a strong distinction between it and systemic?" I hope we can avoid another 5 pages of argument centred around that word.. :?
General usage of terms still applies in general discourse, but I'll accept that it's somewhat ambiguous when scrutinised more formally. Nonetheless, I think my general point was clear enough and didn't hang on the strict, reified, or equivocal definition of the term alone.

edit: in fact, the word 'systematically' can be removed from my post and the meaning remain unchanged.
Yeah. The problem is that because we've highlighted for years now a large number of cases where 42 misuses words, he seems want to do the same back to us. The problem is that when he does that he misses the forest for the trees. And trying to point that out to him is useless, as is trying to point pretty much anything out to him. And so I find (and increasingly you lot will find) that you have to fucking consult a dictionary for every fucking post you make, to make sure 42 doesn't miss the point entirely and focus on dictionary definitions of words and fail to consider them in their more [fuckit, I can't think of the damn word, it's too late here; but I basically mean "common" or "casual"] usage.
Last edited by pErvinalia on Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59296
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:44 pm

Forty Two wrote: However, to your point of the argument that if we get rid of the cultural expectations that exist regarding men and women, we would have equality in jobs and professions - but, note the gender equality paradox - http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equalit ... 6-Feb2018/
COUNTRIES WITH GREATER gender equality see a smaller proportion of women taking degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), a new study has found.

Dubbed the “gender equality paradox”, the research found that countries such as Albania and Algeria have a greater percentage of women amongst their STEM graduates than countries lauded for their high levels of gender equality, such as Finland, Norway and Sweden.

The researchers, from Leeds Beckett University and the University of Missouri, believe this might be because countries with less gender equality often have little welfare support, making the choice of a relatively high-paid STEM career more attractive.

The study, published in Psychological Science, also examined what motivates girls and boys to study STEM subjects, including overall ability, interest or enjoyment in the subject and whether science subjects were a personal academic strength.
In the end, the next layer of feminist argument here, though, if we take this journal article as having a degree of truth, would be to say that since women tend to gravitate towards non-stem fields, then the reason stem fields are valued more and paid more is because of sexism against women, and therefore we should compel employers to pay the professions women do chose to go into the same as the supposedly more demanding professions that men tend to go into. And, that argument is out there - that since women become administrative assistants and teacher more than men, and men tend to be engineers and such more than women, that "we" should pay administarative assistants and teachers the same as engineers and such.
Without reading the whole thing, I would initially respond with correlation doesn't equal causation. That is, there could be other factors at play in those cases. Of course, without reading it yet (it's really late here and I'm horribly sleep deprived), they could have covered this issue in the link.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:14 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:...you keep disputing the principle of equality on these spurious grounds of general physical differences between the sexes while failing acknowledge the historically unequal power relations between women and men whereby women were, and to a great extent still are, systematically disadvantaged in the workplace, in the home, and in society in general.
Cue objection to the word "systematically". 42 does not recognise that feature unless it is encased in a formal rule, regulation or law.
I saw that word and thought, "oh shit, what have I done in making such a strong distinction between it and systemic?" I hope we can avoid another 5 pages of argument centred around that word.. :?
General usage of terms still applies in general discourse, but I'll accept that it's somewhat ambiguous when scrutinised more formally. Nonetheless, I think my general point was clear enough and didn't hang on the strict, reified, or equivocal definition of the term alone.

edit: in fact, the word 'systematically' can be removed from my post and the meaning remain unchanged.
pErvin's nastiness aside, I did address your comment in a serious matter, without any laboring over the distinction between systematic and systemic (although there is a difference). And systematic has a meaning, and as a qualitier to "disadvantaged" it changes the meaning - there is a difference between being disadvantages and being systematically disadvantaged.

I agree with you, your post doesn't need the word systematically in there, and I essentially responded to your post in that way.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:20 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
I saw that word and thought, "oh shit, what have I done in making such a strong distinction between it and systemic?" I hope we can avoid another 5 pages of argument centred around that word.. :?
General usage of terms still applies in general discourse, but I'll accept that it's somewhat ambiguous when scrutinised more formally. Nonetheless, I think my general point was clear enough and didn't hang on the strict, reified, or equivocal definition of the term alone.

edit: in fact, the word 'systematically' can be removed from my post and the meaning remain unchanged.
Yeah. The problem is that because we've highlighted for years now a large number of cases where 42 misuses words, he seems want to do the same back to us. The problem is that when he does that he misses the forest for the trees. And trying to point that out to him is useless, as is trying to point pretty much anything out to him. And so I find (and increasingly you lot will find) that you have to fucking consult a dictionary for every fucking post you make, to make sure 42 doesn't miss the point entirely and focus on dictionary definitions of words and fail to consider them in their more [fuckit, I can't think of the damn word, it's too late here; but I basically mean "common" or "casual"] usage.[/quote]

Look, pErvin, don't flatter yourself that you've explained word misuse to me. You are the king of word misuse, particularly when it comes to logical fallacies, which you routinely sling about as if you know what they mean when plainly you don't. My explanations about the difference in meaning between systemic and systematic were accurate. They are different words. I wrote out the definitions reflecting common English usage. You were misusing them, and you incorrectly explained their meanings.

This blithering about missing the point is not on me. Your posts are routinely vague, and I believe often purposefully so (perhaps I'm crediting you more than you deserve there).
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests