Society/Culture Feminism - 2017 Thread - Pt II

[CheapCharlie]

No. Your narrative is false. When funds are cut, this is one of the first departments hit. The notion of them exerting influence is fanciful.

You use a false narrative as evidence against a supposed false narrative?

Oh Kidd, you've done it again!

 

[its free real estate]

Should we care if these departments have their funding cut to zero?

 

[LeverPuller]

No. Your narrative is false. When funds are cut, this is one of the first departments hit. The notion of them exerting influence is fanciful.

Are you in the tertiary education sector? Because I was until very recently and that’s not my experience

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

QUOTE="LeverPuller, post: 58304032, member: 121722"]Are you in the tertiary education sector? Because I was until very recently and that’s not my experience[/QUOTE]
You can claim anything you want.

It's a fanciful narrative.

 

[ShanDog]

No. Your narrative is false. When funds are cut, this is one of the first departments hit. The notion of them exerting influence is fanciful.

Sorry but the correct answer is B. They certainly do have an impact on other disciplines.

Literally just had to read papers and respond to questions for uni about my 'white privilege' as a teacher.

 

[LeverPuller]

QUOTE="LeverPuller, post: 58304032, member: 121722"]Are you in the tertiary education sector? Because I was until very recently and that’s not my experience

You can claim anything you want.

It's a fanciful narrative.[/QUOTE]

Sorry but the correct answer is B. They certainly do have an impact on other disciplines.

Literally just had to read papers and respond to questions for uni about my 'white privilege' as a teacher.

Apparently things which are literally happening are fake news now Shan, even when there are primary source documents

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Sorry but the correct answer is B. They certainly do have an impact on other disciplines.

Literally just had to read papers and respond to questions for uni about my 'white privilege' as a teacher.

The question was about radical feminists exerting personnel influence over other other departments.

How does this prove that?

 

[ShanDog]

The question was about radical feminists exerting personnel influence over other other departments.

How does this prove that?

That wasn't the question at all. Have you actually read about this hoax?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

That wasn't the question at all. Have you actually read about this hoax?

From experience with some faculties both as a student and as an educator, there’s an incredibly virulent radical feminist trend being pushed within Arts faculties. Certain women are getting into positions of power, demanding hire-fire rights then using them to alter curriculums to suit their radfem agenda. They don’t support students who don’t work towards a strictly radfem outcome, causing distorted results.

But more to the point, they’re winning. The radfems, backed by the NTEU and student unions if needed and with faculty terrified for their own careers, are kicking staff out and shifting departments enough to cause real change. It’s causing people who are, quite frankly, unqualified to teach and who teach theories that are spurious at best, to receive plum positions at universities.

Here is the quote. You're free to provide whatever answer you want to the question and it will assessed on it's academic merit.

Bear in mind that one question will be amongst the thousands you have to answer that are based on industry requirements. It's a post grad course (I assume) an the real bias (and this is not a negative bias) will be the bias towards what will make you a suitable industry employee.

 

[ShanDog]

Here is the quote. You're free to provide whatever answer you want to the question and it will assessed on it's academic merit.

Bear in mind that one question will be amongst the thousands you have to answer that are based on industry requirements. It's a post grad course (I assume) an the real bias (and this is not a negative bias) will be the bias towards what will make you a suitable industry employee.

I don't see a question - I see a comment relayed to one aspect of the original issue (grievance studies hoax papers).

I am 100% sure the course is biased towards what the uni and course coordination think will make me a better employee. The problem is what is informing some of the course content decisions and frames of reference for what constitutes a better suited employee. Seems to me it's informed significantly by the same sort of grievance studies the the academics wanted to challenge for intellectual integrity. I'll post up the content when I get a chance.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The problem is what is informing some of the course content decisions and frames of reference for what constitutes a better suited employee.

You're entering a profession where there's a wide range of experiences. I genuinely don't see a problem with a question asking you to consider your own context.

You're free to say it's utter bullshit and you won't get marked down. Provided you follow the proper referencing guidelines.

 

[ShanDog]

You're entering a profession where there's a wide range of experiences. I genuinely don't see a problem with a question asking you to consider your own context.

You're free to say it's utter bullshit and you won't get marked down. Provided you follow the proper referencing guidelines.

Yeah mate I understand how to reference. My 6.5 GPA across undergrad and postgraduate courses would be higher if I actually put in 100%...

There's a difference between utilising a heuristic to challenge orthodoxy and simply pushing an agenda as truth. That's been my major concern with cultural studies (cited as prime offender by the recent hoax and was a major in my undergrad). Seems that some courses in this degree exhibit the same lack of nuance.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

There's a difference between utilising a heuristic to challenge orthodoxy and simply pushing an agenda as truth. That's been my major concern with cultural studies (cited as prime offender by the recent hoax and was a major in my undergrad). Seems that some courses in this degree exhibit the same lack of nuance.

If they told you that you had to explain why white privilege was truth and they would accept no responses, I'd agree with you. But they're not doing that.

You'll enter a profession where you likely get some well off kids and a kid from a refugee background who shares a flat with 6 siblings. If it gets you to consider these kids very different experiences and make you a better teacher, I don't see how this is either agenda pushing or bad.

 

[ShanDog]

If they told you that you had to explain why white privilege was truth and they would accept no responses, I'd agree with you. But they're not doing that.

You'll enter a profession where you likely get some well off kids and a kid from a refugee background who shares a flat with 6 siblings. If it gets you to consider these kids very different experiences and make you a better teacher, I don't see how this is either agenda pushing or bad.

You don't see how it's being presented. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Run n Spread]

Men are starting from a long way back. Women have had over a century to hone their arguments, pick their fights etc.

Not including the political class, men have, for the most part just stoically shuffled off to work and back each day, head down, bum up. Now it's their turn to fight for some rights, they've just got to work out how to do it properly, to be heard. At the moment, I don't think they have much chance of the being heard part, they just get screeched down.

True. Miles off atm.

Don't also forget thou if it is an issue where competition is involved some other bloke (or woman potentially) will use the "complaint" to jump right in over the top.

Also an MRA, mens right movement etc will never work in the same way as feminism as imo men just don't gel, bond or work together the same way women do. Unless it is a direct confrontation/competition where a group will band together men tend to go off and do their own thing.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It's truly an alternative reality where posters are nodding along to claims men are starting from a long way back.

It's a grievance which can't be supported with evidence.

 

[Chief]

Unless it is a direct confrontation/competition where a group will band together men tend to go off and do their own thing.

I don’t know about that at all.

 

[Chief]

In which direction? For men or for women? I can tell you right now that if there are 10 candidates with exactly the same qualifications, 9 of them are men and one is a women, all the men have done is wasted their time even applying.

Could you back this up with any evidence? It’s not like you’re saying “sometimes employers look for female candidates”.

You’re saying any woman applying for any job will get it as long as she is the only female applicant.

 

[Run n Spread]

I don’t know about that at all.

Not saying in a bad way or all the time. Just that I reckon put a group of random women together vs a group of random men the women tend to group together more easily. If men don't establish a common interest/activity they don't tend to bother.

 

[Run n Spread]

Could you back this up with any evidence? It’s not like you’re saying “sometimes employers look for female candidates”.

You’re saying any woman applying for any job will get it as long as she is the only female applicant.

Only way you can do it is if you apply for certain Government Jobs where the result is emailed out to all applicants, with the preferred candidates name.

 

[Run n Spread]

It's truly an alternative reality where posters are nodding along to claims men are starting from a long way back.

It's a grievance which can't be supported with evidence.

A long way back in terms of discussing the needs, issues and concerns specific to men than yes. And attempting to find a way to solve this.

Not that men are starting from a long way back life wise or in terms of total equity/equality.

 

[Chief]

Not saying in a bad way or all the time. Just that I reckon put a group of random women together vs a group of random men the women tend to group together more easily. If men don't establish a common interest/activity they don't tend to bother.

Possibly, but we have done pretty well out of our methods so far. Girls are, for example, talked to a lot more on average as they grow up. To make a change we need to start with our boys earlier, talk to them more. This is changing, but you get that weird anti-feminist backlash that this is “feminising” them.

 

[TimmeT]

It's truly an alternative reality where posters are nodding along to claims men are starting from a long way back.

It's a grievance which can't be supported with evidence.

Bullshit. There has already been many examples given of how females in certain sectors are given favourable paths over male colleagues. Thus men do start a long way back in these industries.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Could you back this up with any evidence? It’s not like you’re saying “sometimes employers look for female candidates”.

You’re saying any woman applying for any job will get it as long as she is the only female applicant.

Evidence? You think the corporations involved would collect data and disseminate it for our consumption to show that they're discriminating against men at this particular moment in time? Just look up their public policies which they are all boldly telling us about.

Yes, if she is the only female applicant she will get the job. She will get the job even if she doesn't meet the selection criteria. I have see it personally quite regularly. It's just how it is. If you're a bloke with a good job, don't do anything to jeopardise it.

Look, I'm not talking small business here, I'm talking the big corporations with a stated policy of a 50/50 workplace. Look them up, they're not hard to find. I work for one of them so I'm not putting up jack shite.

At the end of the day, I've potentially got 17 years to retirement so I'll happily stay where I am as long as the position remains. It will be a good time for my two girls which is a relief for me.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I think a base outcome is great.

If the system isn’t rewarding people or taking care of people, change the system.

And we’ve seen that basic income in a couple of studies made people happier and healthier and MORE entrepreneurial.

We have a basic income in the form of social security payments when you are unable to find work or unable to work. It's not intended to produce equal outcomes and it even produce a base outcome. Some people will still piss it up the wall.

But what you said is not particularly relevant to your original point of political, social, economic equality of genders being a good thing. Equality of opportunity is a good thing but even when that is ensured there are so many reasons why different groups or individuals get ahead politically, socially and economically. Implementing policy to produce equal outcomes is grossly discriminatory against those who are competent, conscientious, make good decisions etc. The current workplace gender equality and gender pay equality programs by most of Australia's large employers are discriminatory against men because they give women of a lower competence and experience level an unfair advantage.