Women on top

[JimC]

Fort Two wrote:

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.

I haven't made such an argument, neither has any other Ratz poster I'm aware of. And yes, the idea is certainly "out there"; you are using one of your classic misdirections, yet again. You find some extreme feminist or academic Marxist position, which is not a realistic part of progressive thinking on the issue, and use it to announce that the sky is falling, and that lesbianism will soon be compulsory...

Meanwhile, back in the real world, some relatively low-key changes, for example in education, plus a steady change in parenting in terms of gender role expectation, will probably achieve an evolutionary change in female roles and job expectations over time...

[Galaxian]

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 combated, 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 numbers than women, they ignore the physical differences between men and women which contribute to men doing that.

Here's a link that proves this absolutely:
Five Feminist Lies We Take for Granted. https://tradcatknight.blogspot.com.au/2 ... anted.html
Also at Sott: https://www.sott.net/article/374804-Fiv ... or-Granted

And in the 'western countries' (Canada, USA, W.Europe, Australia, New Zealand), this is what happens:


That's more than male assaults against females... And here's child assault & battery:

[Brian Peacock]

In this post-truth era nobody has shown more commitment to elevating the status of the fallacy towards fact than you Galaxian. You are an absolute legend. In years to come it will amaze my grandkids that I actually posted in the same threads as you. Your words are as a stream of bat's piss shedding a golden light into the darkness.

[Forty Two]

Fort Two wrote:

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.

I haven't made such an argument, neither has any other Ratz poster I'm aware of.

Discussions about feminism and other ideologies are not limited to the positions taken by Ratz posters. It's quite possible that no Ratz poster adheres to established or generally accepted feminist ideology. And, there factions of feminism that advocate things and ideological principles which are not accepted by anyone here. That's part of the point being made. That a lot of so-called feminist concepts are not particularly persuasive to most people.

And yes, the idea is certainly "out there"; you are using one of your classic misdirections, yet again.

It's not a misdireciton. Saying that some iterations of feminism believe X has nothing to do with what you say, and just because you haven't said it doesn't mean it's not part of feminism. Maybe you don't adhere to some aspects of feminism. Nothing wrong with that.

You find some extreme feminist or academic Marxist position, which is not a realistic part of progressive thinking on the issue, and use it to announce that the sky is falling, and that lesbianism will soon be compulsory...

Mine is not a misdirection. Yours is a no true scotsman tactic. I can't discuss the merits or lack thereof of a publicly announced, academic, feminist or Marxist position -- I can't cite to, say, the works of Karl Marx on Marxism, or a prominent feminist on feminism because you think it's not a "realistic part of progressive thinking." Well, maybe the kind of progressivism you adhere to is not in line with radical feminism or Marxism? That's o.k., too.

I've alleged nothing of the kind about skies falling or compulsory lesbianism. I've just alleged certain things like "the wage gap is not real (as described by feminists) " and "women are generally paid the same for the same job when they have the same qualifications and experience." And, men work longer hours than women and do more demanding jobs, etc. That's not a sky falling thing.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, some relatively low-key changes, for example in education, plus a steady change in parenting in terms of gender role expectation, will probably achieve an evolutionary change in female roles and job expectations over time...

What expectations?

Back in the real world, women are already favored in our education system here in the US. Women are far more likely to go to college and they are graduating in greater numbers. Even the huffington post discussed how girls are "privileged" in public schools. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/ ... 04898.html and Live Science too https://www.livescience.com/4163-johnny ... girls.html (public schools favor girls) And the Atlantic too -- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ys/304659/ (bias against boys in public schools) The National Review - https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/05/ ... ails-boys/ (higher education favors women) And Time Magazine http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-tea ... inst-boys/ (boys receive lower grades than girl, even when scores were equal to or higher than girls)

What low key adjustments are you talking about?

[Scot Dutchy]

In this post-truth era nobody has shown more commitment to elevating the status of the fallacy towards fact than you Galaxian. You are an absolute legend. In years to come it will amaze my grandkids that I actually posted in the same threads as you. Your words are as a stream of bat's piss shedding a golden light into the darkness.

Using ancient data as well.

[pErvinalia]

pErvin's nastiness aside..

Still tone policing, I see.

[pErvinalia]

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.

You keep asserting this, but you never really back it up with anything. There's probably a logical fallacy to describe that..

[Forty Two]

pErvin's nastiness aside..

Still tone policing, I see.

No.

Tone policing is a form of ad hominem argument wherein a person attempts to detract from or defeat an argument by attacking the tone, rather than merits of the argument itself. I didn't even address an argument you made (you made no argument, as a matter of fact). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

Attacking your argument because it was presented in a nasty way would be tone policing. What I did was say "Pervin's nastiness aside,..." -- i.e., I ignored your nastiness, and addressed a relevant issue instead.

Be nasty with yo bad self, Pervin, you little nasty woman, you.

[Forty Two]

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.

You keep asserting this, but you never really back it up with anything. There's probably a logical fallacy to describe that..

Horseshit from you as usual.

One, just look at the post above, where you misuse the term "tone police."

Two, I recently pointed out where you accused someone else of strawmanning by mischaracterizing their argument and suggesting they argued something they never actually argued -- and then you proceeded to knock down that argument the person never made. You strawmanned someone in order to accuse them of strawmanning, thus committing and misusing the fallacy in one post.

[pErvinalia]

pErvin's nastiness aside..

Still tone policing, I see.

No.

Tone policing is a form of ad hominem argument wherein a person attempts to detract from or defeat an argument by attacking the tone, rather than merits of the argument itself. I didn't even address an argument you made (you made no argument, as a matter of fact).

So why did you mention me?

[pErvinalia]

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.

You keep asserting this, but you never really back it up with anything. There's probably a logical fallacy to describe that..

Horseshit from you as usual.

One, just look at the post above, where you misuse the term "tone police."

I wasn't using it as a logical fallacy. I was using it in its common usage:

tone police
Tone police are people who focus on (and critique) how something is said, ignoring whether or not it is true.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... e%20police

You constantly focus on the way things are said if they offend your delicate sensibilities.

Two, I recently pointed out where you accused someone else of strawmanning by mischaracterizing their argument and suggesting they argued something they never actually argued -- and then you proceeded to knock down that argument the person never made. You strawmanned someone in order to accuse them of strawmanning, thus committing and misusing the fallacy in one post.

You just can't help yourself with lying, can you? I addressed this. I didn't say he was definitively strawmanning. I speculated that he was, and that was based on an assumption that a number of us had made on his motive behind that thread.

Fuck off with your misrepresentations. They are, my friend, strawman fallacies.

[Forty Two]

pErvin's nastiness aside..

Still tone policing, I see.

No.

Tone policing is a form of ad hominem argument wherein a person attempts to detract from or defeat an argument by attacking the tone, rather than merits of the argument itself. I didn't even address an argument you made (you made no argument, as a matter of fact).

So why did you mention me?

Because you were the one, as usual, being nasty.

[Forty Two]

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.

You keep asserting this, but you never really back it up with anything. There's probably a logical fallacy to describe that..

Horseshit from you as usual.

One, just look at the post above, where you misuse the term "tone police."

I wasn't using it as a logical fallacy. I was using it in its common usage:

tone police
Tone police are people who focus on (and critique) how something is said, ignoring whether or not it is true.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... e%20police

Even under that definition, it's not tone policing because you aren't saying anything that is an argument, position or truth claim. It's not like you're saying, "but Forty Two, consider X, Y or Z, you retard." I.e., you're not making some point of fact in a nasty way, and I'm ignoring the merits of your claim by focusing on your tone. No. You're just being nasty, and not making any point.

You constantly focus on the way things are said if they offend your delicate sensibilities.

Only when you namecall, insult and personally attack me, and try to derail threads that offend you and which you apparently want to keep people from talking about, which is against the rules.

I generally don't focus on the way things are said. I focus on what you say, and if it's against the rules, I would prefer the mods take action because you ruin thread after thread with your miserable behavior.

Two, I recently pointed out where you accused someone else of strawmanning by mischaracterizing their argument and suggesting they argued something they never actually argued -- and then you proceeded to knock down that argument the person never made. You strawmanned someone in order to accuse them of strawmanning, thus committing and misusing the fallacy in one post.

You just can't help yourself with lying, can you? I addressed this.

I'm not lying - you did it. And, you tried to address it, but you were flat out wrong.

I didn't say he was definitively strawmanning. I speculated that he was, and that was based on an assumption that a number of us had made on his motive behind that thread.

You did that later, in an effort to dig yourself out of the bullshit you stepped in.

[pErvinalia]

pErvin's nastiness aside..

Still tone policing, I see.

No.

Tone policing is a form of ad hominem argument wherein a person attempts to detract from or defeat an argument by attacking the tone, rather than merits of the argument itself. I didn't even address an argument you made (you made no argument, as a matter of fact).

So why did you mention me?

Because you were the one, as usual, being nasty.

So you are tone policing me. Can you get your story straight?

[pErvinalia]

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.

You keep asserting this, but you never really back it up with anything. There's probably a logical fallacy to describe that..

Horseshit from you as usual.

One, just look at the post above, where you misuse the term "tone police."

I wasn't using it as a logical fallacy. I was using it in its common usage:

tone police
Tone police are people who focus on (and critique) how something is said, ignoring whether or not it is true.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... e%20police

Even under that definition, it's not tone policing because you aren't saying anything that is an argument, position or truth claim. It's not like you're saying, "but Forty Two, consider X, Y or Z, you retard." I.e., you're not making some point of fact in a nasty way, and I'm ignoring the merits of your claim by focusing on your tone. No. You're just being nasty, and not making any point.

Yes, yes, keep digging. It says nothing about an "argument". That's you inserting words into that definition. You are hung up about the way people communicate. Like a good conservative, I guess.

You constantly focus on the way things are said if they offend your delicate sensibilities.

Only when you namecall, insult and personally attack me, and try to derail threads that offend you and which you apparently want to keep people from talking about, which is against the rules.

Please show me where I namecalled, insulted or personally attacked you that lead you to your latest whinge about my tone. You are telling porkies again. Tsk tsk.

because you ruin thread after thread with your miserable behavior.

Still tone policing. Go you! And of course I know what your pathetic reply will be - that I personally attack you and make you cry etc. But that's irrelevant to whether I am advancing a position or taking yours down. In your simplistic black and white world 'personal attack' =/= 'debate'. But as a tone policer, it's not surprising that you can't see how it's possible to attack you, be rude, shouty, aggressive, UNCIVIL!!1, etc, and also be prosecuting an argument. If you stop being so ridiculously defensive, you might even be able to see this.

Two, I recently pointed out where you accused someone else of strawmanning by mischaracterizing their argument and suggesting they argued something they never actually argued -- and then you proceeded to knock down that argument the person never made. You strawmanned someone in order to accuse them of strawmanning, thus committing and misusing the fallacy in one post.

You just can't help yourself with lying, can you? I addressed this.

I'm not lying - you did it. And, you tried to address it, but you were flat out wrong.

Bullshit. I've explained it numerous times, and your only counter argument is incredulity. That's a logical fallacy too, by the way.

I didn't say he was definitively strawmanning. I speculated that he was, and that was based on an assumption that a number of us had made on his motive behind that thread.

You did that later, in an effort to dig yourself out of the bullshit you stepped in.

Argument from incredulity. I'm not required to inform you in precise detail as to what exactly I'm thinking behind every post. Worry about your own atrocious misrepresentations, lies, and red-herrings, before you worry about what other people are doing.