Society/Culture Feminism - 2017 Thread - Pt II

[11sjw]

Did you someone say you're racist?

You fail english? That's unpossible.

 

[cartwright]

It's true in this case. You are conflating difference with value. Damore was never suggesting one was better than the other.

He was.

How do you think this lands with women at google? Or wider than that, women in tech?

 

[11sjw]

He was.

He wasn't.

How do you think this lands with women at google?

That was his employer and he understood the insanity of this drive for 50-50 representation in all fields and endeavours within such a large organisation.

Or wider than that, women in tech?

Because men and women are different.

Hell even medicinal science is starting to understand this. http://www.marieclaire.com/health-fitness/a26741/doctors-treat-women-like-men/

 

[ShanDog]

He was.

How do you think this lands with women at google? Or wider than that, women in tech?

He wasn't saying women were of less VALUE than men. If he wasn't saying that, then it wasn't sexist, misogynistic or anything else of that nature.

I couldn't care less how it landed with women at Google. That's group political bullshit. What matters is if he was right - or more in the case of this discussion - was his intention to infer women are of less value than men.

Considering he puts caveats at the very start of his paper to explain he doesn't think that, and also uses his 'research' to suggest how to better improve the workplace for women, it's only the ideologically possessed who could be crying foul the way they have been. Nobody gives two shits what he actually wrote. All they care about is finding a sentence somewhere that makes him out to be a woman hating "tech bro". Ridiculous.

 

[ShanDog]

Follow the debate closely when the next push for increased wages for childcare workers comes about.

Ok if you're going to pay my question off, then I'll pay off your comment as nonsensical.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

That article does not support your argument in any sense.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Ok if you're going to pay my question off, then I'll pay off your comment as nonsensical.

Feel free. But have a listen to talkback or the tabloids when a more 'feminine' job's employees are demanding improved pay and conditions.

Or a look at the misogynistic attitudes coming out of the tech industry many of whom share the belief that women aren't really suited to the industry.

 

[ShanDog]

Feel free. But have a listen to talkback or the tabloids when a more 'feminine' job's employees are demanding improved pay and conditions.

Or a look at the misogynistic attitudes coming out of the tech industry many of whom share the belief that women aren't really suited to the industry.

On the first - the market is the key driver. On the second - if that's what they say, then they are wrong.

 

[cartwright]

He wasn't saying women were of less VALUE than men. If he wasn't saying that, then it wasn't sexist, misogynistic or anything else of that nature.

His little rant was littered with why women were different to men - all his opinion. That’s sexist.

I couldn't care less how it landed with women at Google. That's group political bullshit. What matters is if he was right - or more in the case of this discussion - was his intention to infer women are of less value than men.

Considering he puts caveats at the very start of his paper to explain he doesn't think that, and also uses his 'research' to suggest how to better improve the workplace for women, it's only the ideologically possessed who could be crying foul the way they have been. Nobody gives two shits what he actually wrote. All they care about is finding a sentence somewhere that makes him out to be a woman hating "tech bro". Ridiculous.

Clearly the powers that be at google did.

He can put caveats in, but they mean nothing when he goes on to say

I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

This, is utter bullshit.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

On the first - the market is the key driver. On the second - if that's what they say, then they are wrong.

The market is a reflect ion of consumer attitudes.

They are wrong. But it's not an individual thing; it's industry wide. Gamer gate showed it; and Damore's beliefs reinforce it.

Finding legitimacy in gender roles is often dangerous. We see it with Weinstein and Trump. We see it in pay and conditions. We see it with male suicide. We see it with male workplace safety.

 

[ShanDog]

His little rant was littered with why women were different to men - all his opinion. That’s sexist.



Clearly the powers that be at google did.

He can put caveats in, but they mean nothing when he goes on to say

I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

This, is utter bullshit.

Tell that to the sources he references, and the numerous papers that come out each year that support them.

 

[cartwright]

Feel free. But have a listen to talkback or the tabloids when a more 'feminine' job's employees are demanding improved pay and conditions.

Or a look at the misogynistic attitudes coming out of the tech industry many of whom share the belief that women aren't really suited to the industry.

I have to say, I’ve only seen this from the less competent or successful men.

 

[ShanDog]

The market is a reflect ion of consumer attitudes.

They are wrong. But it's not an individual thing; it's industry wide. Gamer gate showed it; and Damore's beliefs reinforce it.

Finding legitimacy in gender roles is often dangerous. We see it with Weinstein and Trump. We see it in pay and conditions. We see it with male suicide. We see it with male workplace safety.

So if I value the work the person doing the technical drawings of my new home more than the person who 'bipped' my groceries and bagged them, I'm just propagating a belief that industries populated with women are valued less?

 

[cartwright]

So if I value the work the person doing the technical drawings of my new home more than the person who 'bipped' my groceries and bagged them, I'm just propagating a belief that industries populated with women are valued less?

No. On that, I posted an article previously by Architecute Aus, identifying and acknowledging the issues in their industry on gender.

They admitted that women were given the shittier jobs, leading to less possibility of progressing.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

So if I value the work the person doing the technical drawings of my new home more than the person who 'bipped' my groceries and bagged them, I'm just propagating a belief that industries populated with women are valued less?

So we're assuming the architect is male and baggy is female?

 

[ShanDog]

So we're assuming the architect is male and baggy is female?

I was waiting for you to do so, so I could point out they were the opposite. Damn you meddling kids...

 

[ShanDog]

No. On that, I posted an article previously by Architecute Aus, identifying and acknowledging the issues in their industry on gender.

They admitted that women were given the shittier jobs, leading to less possibility of progressing.

Ok. Sounds like the industry needs to sort their s**t out. But I'm not sure what the point you're making is in relation to what I'm saying.

 

[cartwright]

Ok. Sounds like the industry needs to sort their s**t out. But I'm not sure what the point you're making is in relation to what I'm saying.

I was ignoring your silly point scoring. Women in male dominated roles have real issues, impeding them from progressing and this includes tech.
This has nothing to do with ability to lead or be technical.

 

[ShanDog]

I was ignoring your silly point scoring. Women in male dominated roles have real issues, impeding them from progressing and this includes tech.
This has nothing to do with ability to lead or be technical.

Point scoring? Please. I'm trying to understand the arguments you and KV make because I don't. You and he approach what is written by Damore on such a different level I genuinely don't understand how such a vastly different conclusion can be reached unless it's ideologically driven. I'm yet to see anything that shows otherwise. You even say Damore is using opinion which makes him sexist - his work is cited! If you don't agree with his interpretation, that's one thing. But you're assigning him a political label of misogynistic and woman hating when the very purpose of his paper was to highlight how dissenting opinion is treated in that very way in ideological echo chambers like Google. You are proving him right.

 

[King Brown]

I have to say, I’ve only seen this from the less competent or successful men.

Couldn’t the complaints of women for not being paid the same as highly successful men be considered the same?

His little rant was littered with why women were different to men - all his opinion. That’s sexist.

Are women the exact same as men?

Clearly the powers that be at google did.

Only to solve a difficult situation quickly, not because the facts were against Damore.

He can put caveats in, but they mean nothing when he goes on to say

I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

This, is utter bullshit.

You haven’t shown it is bullshit. You accuse Damore of ranting based on his opinion (despite it being well referenced). How can your posts not be considered the same?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Point scoring? Please. I'm trying to understand the arguments you and KV make because I don't. You and he approach what is written by Damore on such a different level I genuinely don't understand how such a vastly different conclusion can be reached unless it's ideologically driven. I'm yet to see anything that shows otherwise. You even say Damore is using opinion which makes him sexist - his work is cited! If you don't agree with his interpretation, that's one thing. But you're assigning him a political label of misogynistic and woman hating when the very purpose of his paper was to highlight how dissenting opinion is treated in that very way in ideological echo chambers like Google. You are proving him right.

He didn't write a scholarly article. It was a political screed.

For some reason he thinks conservative opinion is suppressed- it's a business, not a non-profit. The company's ideological basis is conservative market driven.

 

[King Brown]

I was ignoring your silly point scoring. Women in male dominated roles have real issues, impeding them from progressing and this includes tech.
This has nothing to do with ability to lead or be technical.

Why is this not true in vetinerary science, where the ratio of men to women went from 9:1 to 1:9 in the space of 40 years?

Why would barriers persist in tech (and garbage collection) but not other disciplines?

 

[King Brown]

The company's ideological basis is conservative market driven.

There’s no basis for this claim. The richest company in the world would fundamentally disagree with that.

Apple sacked their head of diversity for saying that diversity of opinion was as important as diversity of sex, race, etc.

 

[Appa]

His little rant was littered with why women were different to men

How dare he say women are different to men!

 

[ShanDog]

He didn't write a scholarly article. It was a political screed.

For some reason he thinks conservative opinion is suppressed- it's a business, not a non-profit. The company's ideological basis is conservative market driven.

We aren't writing scholarly articles either. So?

Google's economic model is conservative market driven, absolutely. Their social and political ideologies are certainly not. This is self evident given the topic of discussion.