Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..

[Longknife]

Once again its irrelevant if person x or  person y doesn't want to post in this thread or feels its pointless

 

There are people who are posting in good faith and are enjoying the debate and the perspectives. I have no idea what are all the motivations for the various limericks but for some it could just be to  lesson the mood and seriousness

 

But none of that changes the fact its annoying to have you lecture people about what is childish or productive , this is your subjective view of this debate and once again I don't think anyone cares what you think is acceptable

 

Don't comment in this thread if you don't want to...its not hard to understand this principle. You are not a Moderator and even then I have never known a Moderator to say things like " this thread is childish and so are the comments " 

 

Anyway I understand you are trying to improve the general posting etiquette so I am apologize for being so critical of your views but as I said I do find it annoying 

 

 

 

Thanks Bruce, this post was nice and meaningless. I'd highly recommend people skip over it.

 

I also wanna point out the bitter irony in that the entire reason I felt voicing that opinion neccesary is because we had people on the GG side claiming that Obsidian locking these threads is proof they're against free speech and pro-censorship all the way, which simply isn't true. It's a failure to recognize the facts, such as how Obsidian has actively allowed and run a GG thread in the off-topic forums for months, or how the threads devolve into childish mudslinging.

 

Still you seem to gloss over that fact and present it all as if I'm some snobby douche who goes into ALL threads going "SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF YOU ALL DON'T DEBATE AS GOOD AS ME." Hell no this is an online discussion and I'm here to chill and partake in discussions I enjoy. I screw up a lot too cause I'm relaxed. Right now I'm having a very difficult time trying not to call you out on your **** even more than I currently am (be ironic if this thread got locked cause of you and me). I pointed out what I pointed out because it was relevant to the discussion. Claiming the threads are locked on the grounds of Obsidian liking censorship is in blatant denial of all the back and forth personal jabs that went on that accomplish nothing.

 

 

And of course, big surprise, you did not respond to any of the things I asked you to respond to. GG Bruce, I wonder why a lot of people have a strict policy of not bothering to respond to you. It's like you can't actually defend your stances when called out on them or something...Pretty weird, right?

 

 

 

 

Seems to me like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. My point is my point because of the reason I already showed. I said I agree with you that he said he is fine with the change. The fact that he stated that he preferred for the original to stay is the reason I'm saying I don't think he was 100% satisfied with the resolution. If I go into Subway for a turkey sandwich and they tell me they only have ham then I'll have ham, no big deal. I'm not upset. But I would have preferred turkey if they had it.

 

 

Nah sorry, didn't mean it as arguing, was just clarifying one last time. Sorry if it came off that way.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Longknife

[Gaunt]

The Limerick isnt transphobic. People should look for worse things to be offended by. Im less bothered by the change since Firedorn approved it and its not Obsidian created content. But catering to people who are forever offended as minimaly as it may seem only entices them to come back for more.

 

 They are a censorship happy bunch and will keep looking for more ways  to supress free expression and speech, they treat their alleged causes with religious fervor and any who  stands in the way is demonized as a opressor. 

[Zwiebelchen]

 

Or that it's perfectly appropriate for a high-ranking scientist present for a monumental, historic moment to be wearing attire that portrays women as sex objects, despite the documented misogyny that already discourages women from entering the science fields? That must make women comfortable working around you!

 

And somehow, those who point out such sexism are depicted as having a "lack of empathy and perspective" by apologists such as yourself.

 

Please do enlighten me.

 

 

 All the "studies" you linked basicly reference the same research paper. This particular research paper mostly focused on the economical aspects, i.e. likelyhood of being selected among equally qualified male and female applicants, payment, etc.

Not only did it feature a surprisingly low number of samples to really be representatitve (only 64 per gender), but it also showed that the differences in payment and likelyhood of getting the job between males and females in science is not larger than in any other field or industry.

 

Yes, there is sexism and unequal payment in science. Is that a problem? Yes. Is it any different in any other business or branch? Nope. Does that have anything to do with the gravestone poem outrage? Hell no.

[BruceVC]

 

Once again its irrelevant if person x or  person y doesn't want to post in this thread or feels its pointless

 

There are people who are posting in good faith and are enjoying the debate and the perspectives. I have no idea what are all the motivations for the various limericks but for some it could just be to  lesson the mood and seriousness

 

But none of that changes the fact its annoying to have you lecture people about what is childish or productive , this is your subjective view of this debate and once again I don't think anyone cares what you think is acceptable

 

Don't comment in this thread if you don't want to...its not hard to understand this principle. You are not a Moderator and even then I have never known a Moderator to say things like " this thread is childish and so are the comments " 

 

Anyway I understand you are trying to improve the general posting etiquette so I am apologize for being so critical of your views but as I said I do find it annoying 

 

 

 

Thanks Bruce, this post was nice and meaningless. I'd highly recommend people skip over it.

 

I also wanna point out the bitter irony in that the entire reason I felt voicing that opinion neccesary is because we had people on the GG side claiming that Obsidian locking these threads is proof they're against free speech and pro-censorship all the way, which simply isn't true. It's a failure to recognize the facts, such as how Obsidian has actively allowed and run a GG thread in the off-topic forums for months, or how the threads devolve into childish mudslinging.

 

Still you seem to gloss over that fact and present it all as if I'm some snobby douche who goes into ALL threads going "SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF YOU ALL DON'T DEBATE AS GOOD AS ME." Hell no this is an online discussion and I'm here to chill and partake in discussions I enjoy. I screw up a lot too cause I'm relaxed. Right now I'm having a very difficult time trying not to call you out on your **** even more than I currently am (be ironic if this thread got locked cause of you and me). I pointed out what I pointed out because it was relevant to the discussion. Claiming the threads are locked on the grounds of Obsidian liking censorship is in blatant denial of all the back and forth personal jabs that went on that accomplish nothing.

 

 

And of course, big surprise, you did not respond to any of the things I asked you to respond to. GG Bruce, I wonder why a lot of people have a strict policy of not bothering to respond to you. It's like you can't actually defend your stances when called out on them or something...Pretty weird, right?

 

 

 

 

Seems to me like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. My point is my point because of the reason I already showed. I said I agree with you that he said he is fine with the change. The fact that he stated that he preferred for the original to stay is the reason I'm saying I don't think he was 100% satisfied with the resolution. If I go into Subway for a turkey sandwich and they tell me they only have ham then I'll have ham, no big deal. I'm not upset. But I would have preferred turkey if they had it.

 

 

Nah sorry, didn't mean it as arguing, was just clarifying one last time. Sorry if it came off that way.

 

 

Sorry LK but outside of GG people respond to me all time and contribute to threads I make in a meaningful and interesting way, lets just accept you and I don't agree on most things and we will avoid debating with each other because we obviously don't understand each other 

 

And thats fine, no worries from my side 

[MLMII]

 

 

 

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously?

 

Exactly what I've been talking about...

 

I kind of wish I was in the earlier threads, but as I noted in my first post here, there's not much else to say now that we have a definitive timeline and that Firedorn himself has spoken on the matter. Obsidian's made their decision, Firedorn is happy to leave things as they are. So a substantive discussion is difficult to start because the issue is essentially over. We just have to live with the results is all.

 

 

See, I don't really believe that it wasn't more than a suggestion for him to change it when I see something like this:

 

 

 

 

I've seen GamerGate reference this a dozen times over and I've called out the fallacy here a dozen times over, only to be downvoted on that subreddit because heaven forbid I speak out against the dominant narrative (yes yes, believe it or not, GamerGate can be subject to hugboxes too, and not everyone who criticizes your methods is your "enemy" or a "shill").

 

 

 

It's simple: he doesn't like the guy that complained. That's what the underlined is referring to. Nothing about that statement says "Obsidian forced me to change it at gunpoint." People are reading too much into that one snippet, taking it out of context and trying to suit their narrative. He's saying that he himself finds the complaint ridiculous, but given a choice between standing up against that person he disagrees with and consequently and inadvertedly making Obsidian "back" him, or removing the limerick entirely to save Obsidian some skin for his limerick and his opinion, he chose the rational choice of wanting to let Obsidian be absolved of involvement.

 

  Just because he chose to remove it doesn't mean he has to agree with the opinion of the person who raised the complaints to begin with, or even sympathize with them. I mean this is the guy who's replacement limerick was giving the finger to the people who led him to remove it, something Obsidian gave the green light to include. Check his post history, it's crystal clear this was his intent. You can even PM Firedorn yourself and ask him. It's not as if he's hiding; I myself PMed him on this matter because I got sick of seeing 20 different people interpret his posts 20 different ways to suit their own conspiracies and devices.

 

 

 

 

I would actually ask YOU to explain how on earth that post proves it wasn't his decision, especially when other posts by Firedorn directly suggest the opposite.

 

You are failing to apply Occam's Razor and failing to accept Firedorn's account as truth, instead clinging to some theory that he's lying to us and slipped up in that one underlined snippet (again taken out of context) which you have absolutely no proof for.

 

People are just mad and want justification to direct their anger at Obsidian, and they're frustrated they lack such justification so they're making it up at this point, happy to cling to any half-hearted attempts to justify it.

 

As stated, PM the guy yourself if you're so curious. Give him a week or so (that's about how long a response took for me) and don't be surprised when his response doesn't fit your narrative.

 

 

 

Good point on the fact that no-one wants to hear things that are counter to their narrative, but for me at least what stands out in his post is that he "didn't even let it come to that point of the discussion". Perhaps you are right and I'm reading way too much into things but to me at least that post sounds like Firedorn felt that the discussion's tone would have ended with the poem being removed either way.  

 

 

 

 

 

I can't speak for them, but I have. My mothers a crack head. That's not hyperbole, I mean that as a statement of literal truth. My mother smokes crack; she is an actual crack head. Drug addiction is rampant through her side of the family; cocaine, heroin, alcohol. It hit my brother and sister, too; I'm the only one who ended up without a major monkey on their back, and it was mostly by luck.

 

The reason I have a hard time getting prescription pain killers is because I was heavily into meth amphetamine for about a year when I was 19. I moved half-way across the country to live with my dad and entered treatment, and I haven't done it since. But all of that is in my medical records, and as far as any doctor is concerned I'm just a druggy looking for a fix.

Well to be fair then... it's a pretty legitimate concern. It's a bitch for you, yeah, but.. you can't blame the doctor for being concerned. Not only from a long line of addictive personalities, but also an addict yourself, you're probably about one dosage higher away from getting addicted to the prescription meds, whether they help or not. Prescription painkillers are ****ing insidious because you need them to function, but you need to up them because you build tolerance, and then when you taper it the pain gets even worse, and bing, boom, enjoy your new hardcore addiction.

 

I do not envy you. D:

 

My own fault, yes--but it was also over a decade ago, now. I've been homeless, I've watched people dealing coke in the parking lot, etc. My life hasn't been easy in the years since then--but I've never smoked meth again. I've never done any drug since then except smoke pot, smoke cigarettes, and drink tea. I haven't even been drunk in almost 8 years.

 

I'm not looking for vicodins from the doctor to get high. If I wanted to get high, I'd go and get high. There's nothing stopping me from that but myself. There never has been. I go to the doctor because I'm in pain, and I don't want to hurt all the time. I go to the doctor because my hand is cramping into a claw and I can't do the dishes. I go to the doctor because I lost three days last week to curling up and crying in my room from a migraine.

 

I guess my question is this: How long do I have to suffer to pay for one year of my teenage stupidity, and the failings of the family I was born into?

 

 

 

Honest answer (And I'm sure that I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.); is until you are able to build up a good working relationship with a single primary physician who understands your medical history and that you really are in pain and not simply drug seeking. As I said before, I do sympathize with your situation for whatever that's worth though.

[Zwiebelchen]

 

so let me state, unequivocally: the limerick is a blatant piece of transmisogynism

 

See? And that exactly is your problem: You state everything as a fact and simply refuse to accept other oppinions on this.

 

The limerick didn't even mention a trans-person at all.

In fact, it is much more likely that both persons in this limerick were just alcoholized and just didn't notice that the other one was a (heterosexual, possibly white) man ... you know ... stuff like that happens. I'd even go as far to say that this situations happens more frequently than actually hitting on a transgender person without knowing, considering the low percentage of trans people.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[Luckmann]

So... Still no argument against the points I made earlier, Luckmann?

 

Just asking. Because thus far you've just made "that's not true, because I say so" responses.

First, strawman.

 

Second, jokes are part of culture, yes, but attaching the mountainous amounts of meaning to it that SJW:s seem to do is ridiculous. More often than anything, jokes are funny precisely because they are about a subject that is regarded as serious on some level r another.

 

When you say that we can't joke about serious issues, you are essentially saying that they shouldn't be discussed culturally. If we let the offended dictate what we can discuss, what we can talk about, or what we are "allowed" to talk about (whether due to censorship or bullying) no matter the merit of the offense taken, no matter how many or how few are offended, and no matter whether it's context is reasonable or not (such as in a harmless joke) and no matter the intent, then there is no end to the rape train, and we become increasingly culturally shallow to the point of absurdity, something already happening, people reduced to nothing but producers and consumers in a daily hamster wheel, unable to even debate or discuss at the most basic levels, because heaven forbid if someone would make a joke about the womyn at the workplace or that someone would misunderstand you and accuse you of misogyny, racism, antisemitism, warcrimes or identity theft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somehow, pointing this "sexism" out - which no-one would reasonable even care about -

I stopped reading after about this point. Despite the mountains of complaints by many (women and men), such as astrophysicist Katie Mack, the fact that you can say "no one would reasonably care about" the blatant sexism sure reeks of a lack of empathy. What would you say to Katie Mack face-to-face if you had the chance? That she's unreasonable for pointing out blatant sexism in the science fields?

 

I would tell her to Wo-Man Up. Seriously though, really, you seem to be under the assumption that just because I'm face-to-face with someone, I would have a problem talking to them like a reasonable human being. I would, in fact, not.

 

I'm not familiar with her level of hysteria on the subject, so where it would go from there, I have no idea, but that's really beside the point. She doesn't get an automatic shield made out of implied offense any more than you do.

 

 

Incredible, though not surprising. I doubt anyone even read the numerous links I've posted of systemic sexism against women in the science fields, which includes plenty of actual sexual harassment, so it's not surprising that you would not be empathetic to their plight, that you would just tell them to "wo-man" up. Spoken like a true individual in a position of privilege.

 

 

Most of your links you've posted are not actually sources, they're just articles that discusses issues, sometimes from basis of a paper, and invariably from a biased POV. The belief as to whether there is systemic ( ) "sexism" against women in the science fields is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, and you're basically just hurling accusations and trying to deflect whenever anything you say is actually directly addressed.

 

You then deflect again and start talking about how people probably aren't even reading your links about the systemic sexism in the science fields, and then call me non-empathethic to their "plight" because of my "privilege" ( ).

 

By this point, this is where I'd expect all the other people that support your general position would start facepalming and whine "stop defending us..." to themselves. Except that this behaviour is so common amongst self-appointed SJW:s (which I always found ironic, considering that "SJW" is dripping of irony since it's creation as a concept, yet people now wear it willingly like a clown suit) that I honestly would be surprised if your cohorts aren't sitting by the keyboards cheering you on.

 

 

Ah, ending with more insults, it's a classic repertoire of your posts in this thread, I've noticed. I don't really understand the whole "self-appointed SJW" stuff, as I've never even heard of the term prior to the whole gamergate mess; I'm just someone who is well aware of discrimination and social injustices, having been on the receiving end of it (in real life), and not just of the simple racist name-calling type. Somehow, that I care about social justice, makes me "self-appointed" and to be ridiculed?

 

If you deny that systemic sexism does not exist, or that you do not believe in male privilege, there really is not much to discuss, no more than what a geologist can discuss with a flat-Earth creationist. I only participate in these threads to show, for whoever is reading, that there are people that do care about addressing things like sexism and social injustices, and that *GASP* they're friggin gamers.

 

 

See, here you are really just doing it again. It is as if you can't help yourself.

 

 

 

 

I can't speak for them, but I have. My mothers a crack head. That's not hyperbole, I mean that as a statement of literal truth. My mother smokes crack; she is an actual crack head. Drug addiction is rampant through her side of the family; cocaine, heroin, alcohol. It hit my brother and sister, too; I'm the only one who ended up without a major monkey on their back, and it was mostly by luck.

 

The reason I have a hard time getting prescription pain killers is because I was heavily into meth amphetamine for about a year when I was 19. I moved half-way across the country to live with my dad and entered treatment, and I haven't done it since. But all of that is in my medical records, and as far as any doctor is concerned I'm just a druggy looking for a fix.

Well to be fair then... it's a pretty legitimate concern. It's a bitch for you, yeah, but.. you can't blame the doctor for being concerned. Not only from a long line of addictive personalities, but also an addict yourself, you're probably about one dosage higher away from getting addicted to the prescription meds, whether they help or not. Prescription painkillers are ****ing insidious because you need them to function, but you need to up them because you build tolerance, and then when you taper it the pain gets even worse, and bing, boom, enjoy your new hardcore addiction.

 

I do not envy you. D:

 

My own fault, yes--but it was also over a decade ago, now. I've been homeless, I've watched people dealing coke in the parking lot, etc. My life hasn't been easy in the years since then--but I've never smoked meth again. I've never done any drug since then except smoke pot, smoke cigarettes, and drink tea. I haven't even been drunk in almost 8 years.

 

I'm not looking for vicodins from the doctor to get high. If I wanted to get high, I'd go and get high. There's nothing stopping me from that but myself. There never has been. I go to the doctor because I'm in pain, and I don't want to hurt all the time. I go to the doctor because my hand is cramping into a claw and I can't do the dishes. I go to the doctor because I lost three days last week to curling up and crying in my room from a migraine.

 

I guess my question is this: How long do I have to suffer to pay for one year of my teenage stupidity, and the failings of the family I was born into?

 

 

I get that, I really do, and I wasn't challenging your case at all. But the answer to your question is unfortunately probably "forever". It's cases like this where it annoys me that you can't get medical cannabis in Sweden, because while I have no idea if it would specifically help you, obviously, it's at least only psychologically addictive, rather than physically addictive, and until there's more and better potential painkillers like that, hereditary addictive personality type plus prior substance abuse will always be a legitimate reason for concern, whether you're 21 or 65. But there's a good argument that situations like yours is also a reason why people start self-medicating, which is.. usually bad.

[achaye]

 

 

Or that it's perfectly appropriate for a high-ranking scientist present for a monumental, historic moment to be wearing attire that portrays women as sex objects, despite the documented misogyny that already discourages women from entering the science fields? That must make women comfortable working around you!

 

And somehow, those who point out such sexism are depicted as having a "lack of empathy and perspective" by apologists such as yourself.

 

Please do enlighten me.

 

 

 All the "studies" you linked basicly reference the same research paper. This particular research paper mostly focused on the economical aspects, i.e. likelyhood of being selected among equally qualified male and female applicants, payment, etc.

Not only did it feature a surprisingly low number of samples to really be representatitve (only 64 per gender), but it also showed that the differences in payment and likelyhood of getting the job between males and females in science is not larger than in any other field or industry.

 

Yes, there is sexism and unequal payment in science. Is that a problem? Yes. Is it any different in any other business or branch? Nope. Does that have anything to do with the gravestone poem outrage? Hell no.

 

I want to thank you for at least clicking on one of the links, which is probably more than what anyone else has done, but it is not simply referencing the same research paper: that's literally only in the link in the first sentence of the Forbes article. Other points in numerous sources in those links:

 

- 25% STEM positions occupied by women, despite female students matching or overperforming their male counterparts in primary/secondary higher education

 

- UK is at 13-17% STEM by women

 

- clear prejudice shown against women in STEM in the linked Verge article paper.

 

- etc

 

It was only brought up in response to Luckmann downplaying criticism against things he finds trivial, but which many find as discriminatory, such as the sexist shirt during the historic comet landing.

 

You're right, it is wholly irrelevant to the limerick, but if it's brought up, I'm going to address it if I feel like it.

[Zwiebelchen]

 

- 25% STEM positions occupied by women, despite female students matching or overperforming their male counterparts in primary/secondary higher education

 

 

... which entirely ignores gender-based preferences of the research field based on their interests.

 

Seriously, I'm a mechanical engineer. In the first semester of ME, only 5% of the students were female. How are you going to put more females in STEM positions if they literally don't exist in the first place? A 50:50 quota for females in mechanical engineering would mean that 90% of graduate male engineers would be unemployed.

 

And saying that female students match or overperform their male counterparts is equally as sexist as saying the opposite. I prefer to see men and women as equal in their performance, not one clearly superior to the other.

 

You can't just compare the male-to-female worker ratio in academic positions without comparing it to the number of students in the first place.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[BruceVC]

 

 

- 25% STEM positions occupied by women, despite female students matching or overperforming their male counterparts in primary/secondary higher education

 

 

... which entirely ignores gender-based preferences of the research field based on their interests.

 

Seriously, I'm a mechanical engineer. In the first semester of ME, only 5% of the students were female. How are you going to put more females in STEM positions if they literally don't exist in the first place? A 50:50 quota for females in mechanical engineering would mean that 90% of graduate male engineers would be unemployed.

 

You can't just compare the male-to-female worker ratio in academic positions without comparing it to the number of students in the first place.

 

 

Okay well that is an interesting point about the reality around the 5 %  example

 

In South Africa we face similar issues, due to Apartheid we have strict Affirmative Action (AA) laws but you still see many positions that are reserved for AA candidates in the corporate world that are just not fulled. And the reality is there just  aren't enough  suitably qualified candidates. Yet there are some accusations that " white people are holding onto jobs and refuse  to allow Black people to progress in the workplace " ...I dispute this for the reasons mentioned 

 

So I can identify with what you are saying 

[Longknife]

 

 

 

Or that it's perfectly appropriate for a high-ranking scientist present for a monumental, historic moment to be wearing attire that portrays women as sex objects, despite the documented misogyny that already discourages women from entering the science fields? That must make women comfortable working around you!

 

And somehow, those who point out such sexism are depicted as having a "lack of empathy and perspective" by apologists such as yourself.

 

Please do enlighten me.

 

 

 All the "studies" you linked basicly reference the same research paper. This particular research paper mostly focused on the economical aspects, i.e. likelyhood of being selected among equally qualified male and female applicants, payment, etc.

Not only did it feature a surprisingly low number of samples to really be representatitve (only 64 per gender), but it also showed that the differences in payment and likelyhood of getting the job between males and females in science is not larger than in any other field or industry.

 

Yes, there is sexism and unequal payment in science. Is that a problem? Yes. Is it any different in any other business or branch? Nope. Does that have anything to do with the gravestone poem outrage? Hell no.

 

I want to thank you for at least clicking on one of the links, which is probably more than what anyone else has done, but it is not simply referencing the same research paper: that's literally only in the link in the first sentence of the Forbes article. Other points in numerous sources in those links:

 

- 25% STEM positions occupied by women, despite female students matching or overperforming their male counterparts in primary/secondary higher education

 

- UK is at 13-17% STEM by women

 

- clear prejudice shown against women in STEM in the linked Verge article paper.

 

- etc

 

It was only brought up in response to Luckmann downplaying criticism against things he finds trivial, but which many find as discriminatory, such as the sexist shirt during the historic comet landing.

 

You're right, it is wholly irrelevant to the limerick, but if it's brought up, I'm going to address it if I feel like it.

 

 

 

1) He's right, what does any of this have to do with the limerick? I wanna state this first and foremost, because this is akin to me saying there's sexism in the Middle East when wtf it's largely irrelevant to any of our lives and doesn't mean "there's sexism here too." I'm just jumping into this discussion now so I'm curious why are we discussing STEM?

 

2) "Primary and Secondary education" do not reflect performance on a University level. I wouldn't even compare the two, I don't think anyone else would either. There's very little that's similar between the ways a school tries to teach you things and the way a university tries to teach you things. Just because I did well in my history classes in High School doesn't mean I have any interest in pursuing history seriously on a university level.

 

 

3) "- clear prejudice shown against women in STEM in the linked Verge article paper."

 

It cites:

 

a.) Professors being less likely to take on women in their lab.

 

b.) Women more likely to be sexually assaulted during field work

 

c.) That professors showed bias towards male applicants when shown identical applications from both men and women.

 

To B I say "no ****?" I would expect this anywhere. Guess which gender is more likely to be sexually assaulted in the bar across the street from me, in the stadium behind my apartment or in the grocery store down the street. To A and C, something I repeatedly fail to see is "why." These studies bring up intriguing points but then fail to try and explain the why of things, instead providing a simple "sexism" answer that feels like such a blanket statement.

 

Interestingly I will be taking this: http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/minority-groups/past_courses/Ambivalent%20Sex%20Scale%20_%20Moder%20Sexism%20Scale.pdf

 

It seems to be what was referenced by C.) Give me a bit because I wanna see how this turns out.

 

 

 

 

4) The issue is of course that there are counter points. Case and point:

 

 

 

 

Mercedes Carrera is another you could look up. Intriguing young lady as not many can call themselves porn stars/scientists. This vid I'm linking just to point you in the right direction so you don't google her and just get porn. I recall she does discuss STEM in here but as you can see she also discusses GamerGate and other conflicts first. You could try perhaps searching her name and STEM on youtube to find more:

 

[achaye]

 

 

- 25% STEM positions occupied by women, despite female students matching or overperforming their male counterparts in primary/secondary higher education

 

... which entirely ignores gender-based preferences of the research field based on their interests.

 

Seriously, I'm a mechanical engineer. In the first semester of ME, only 5% of the students were female. How are you going to put more females in STEM positions if they literally don't exist in the first place? A 50:50 quota for females in mechanical engineering would mean that 90% of graduate male engineers would be unemployed.

 

And saying that female students match or overperform their male counterparts is equally as sexist as saying the opposite. I prefer to see men and women as equal in their performance, not one clearly superior to the other.

 

You can't just compare the male-to-female worker ratio in academic positions without comparing it to the number of students in the first place.

 

If you're a mechanical engineer, then you must have taken your fair share of math, of which statistics may or may not be a part of. The fact that, as you yourself agreed with, "there is sexism and unequal payment in science," and of which much literature in research shows, is indicative that it's NOT simply due to "gender-based preferences" for a particular field. The male-female payment gap may be about the same in STEM fields as most other fields, but a LOT of research (again, many are linked all over posts I've made everywhere, plus tons more on academic sites online, and on print) shows that sexism against women in STEM fields is really severe.

 

How many times have you heard "boys are good at math and science, girls are good at baking," reinforcing gender roles and stereotyping from literally childhood? Add to the ridiculous amount of harassment current female STEM employees receive, it's not exactly a most welcoming field, a sort of "Good o' Boys' Club."

 

Even if everything was up to "gender-based preferences," with our population size, anything more than a fraction over 50/50 is statistically significant. You know what's not statistically significant, despite preferences?

 

Whether someone likes ice-cream.

 

There's no research out there on it (not to my knowledge), but I bet my house and life savings that the % of women that like ice cream is equal to the % of men that like ice cream.

 

Because ice cream doesn't f****ing discriminate.

[Sleazebag]

Gamergaters think that being blocked on twitter for stalking and harassing people is censorship.

 

They actually think that. I hope you can figure out whether you want anything to do with these people or not.

[Longknife]

So I took the test used in the studies (I presume) found here: http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/minority-groups/past_courses/Ambivalent%20Sex%20Scale%20_%20Moder%20Sexism%20Scale.pdf

 

 

 

Unfortunately I see no explaination of what's considered a good or bad score, it merely seems clear that a higher score is bad, a lower score is good. I scored a 15 on Hostile Sexism and a 5 on Benevolent Sexism. Over half of my points for Hostile Sexism come from disagreeing somewhat with statements made about feminists. For example, one question is "Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power than men." I both brain farted and chose the "disagree somewhat" instead of the "disagree slightly" choice, and chose such a choice because wtf there's a lot of feminists with different views out there and some are downright misandrist, and for this I got a whopping 3-4 hostile sexism points. Over half of my 15 Hostile sexism points are from disagreeing slightly or somewhat with absolute statements regarding feminists. My 5 benevolent sexism points (whatever that is) come from accidently strongly disagreeing with "People often live happy lives without being romantically involved with members of the other sex" instead of strongly agreeing, OR perhaps I forgot to flip my score as the instructions said to do. Maybe I'm a derp but I screwed up with human error about thrice in this test; aka my benevolent should be a zero and my Hostile should be a 13 and my benevolent a 0.

Alongside that I would like to criticize some of the wording used. There's a lot of "many" or "most" or an implied "all" statements where perhaps you agree such a type of person exists but disagree with the "many/most" term used. I hate these kinds of tests because people interpret "slightly disagree" in response to such statements in different ways, with some responding strictly and answering strongly disagree to combat the "most" part while others answer "somewhat disagree" to acknowledge it can happen at times, though not "most."

[achaye]

3) "- clear prejudice shown against women in STEM in the linked Verge article paper."

 

It cites:

 

a.) Professors being less likely to take on women in their lab.

 

b.) Women more likely to be sexually assaulted during field work

 

c.) That professors showed bias towards male applicants when shown identical applications from both men and women.

 

To B I say "no ****?" I would expect this anywhere. Guess which gender is more likely to be sexually assaulted in the bar across the street from me, in the stadium behind my apartment or in the grocery store down the street. To A and C, something I repeatedly fail to see is "why." These studies bring up intriguing points but then fail to try and explain the why of things, instead providing a simple "sexism" answer that feels like such a blanket statement.

 

Interestingly I will be taking this: http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/minority-groups/past_courses/Ambivalent%20Sex%20Scale%20_%20Moder%20Sexism%20Scale.pdf

 

It seems to be what was referenced by C.) Give me a bit because I wanna see how this turns out.

 

 

 

 

4) The issue is of course that there are counter points. Case and point:

 

 

 

 

Mercedes Carrera is another you could look up. Intriguing young lady as not many can call themselves porn stars/scientists. This vid I'm linking just to point you in the right direction so you don't google her and just get porn. I recall she does discuss STEM in here but as you can see she also discusses GamerGate and other conflicts first. You could try perhaps searching her name and STEM on youtube to find more:

 

 

 

Sorry, but I don't take anything from American Enterprise Institute seriously, being generally a far right-wing think-tank, and having the likes of **** Cheney and Kenneth Lay amongst its former trustees, for the same reason I don't take anything from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh seriously.

 

If you truly wished to understand the "why" in a.) and c.), you could have just looked, it's so ubiquitous. In one study, boys were given higher scores in math when the teachers knew their names (and can therefore pin down the gender), but when the identities of the test-takers were anonymous, the girls scored higher.

 

In another study, but the reverse, STUDENTS evaluated male professors better than female ones.

 

The subjects of the research were likely not consciously trying to be discriminatory, but that's the whole point of institutionalized, systemic sexism right? That culturally, women are unconsciously deemed inferior to males.

 

I'll see who Mercedes Carrera is and what her deal with STEM is.

[Mirandel]

"So, what about all the women who said it was fine and the person who complained was an idiot?  I guess those women do not count huh?"

Please supply me a list or number of how many women thought it was ok.

The point is that there where a number of really high profile women scientists who were horrified by the idiot in the shirt. They wrote incredibly well thought out blogs and posts pointing out why it was so offensive. The fact that some random people were ok with it is completely irrelevant.

 

Sorry, but have to ask that can YOU "supply me a list or number of how many women were horrified by the idiot in the shirt" ?

 

Not to mention you labeled a big scientist as an "idiot" for his clothes choice, while you have absolutely no idea about the reason behind that choice. And that could be anything - from "lucky short" for an important event to "my wife gave it to me and I want to show how much I love here by wearing it on a big public event".

 

P.S. Just in case - a woman here, scientist, very offended by forced association her with mobs bashing a fellow scientist for his taste in clothes.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Mirandel

[Longknife]

Sorry, but I don't take anything from American Enterprise Institute seriously, being generally a far right-wing think-tank, and having the likes of **** Cheney and Kenneth Lay amongst its former trustees, for the same reason I don't take anything from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh seriously.

 

If you truly wished to understand the "why" in a.) and c.), you could have just looked, it's so ubiquitous. In one study, boys were given higher scores in math when the teachers knew their names (and can therefore pin down the gender), but when the identities of the test-takers were anonymous, the girls scored higher.

 

In another study, but the reverse, STUDENTS evaluated male professors better than female ones.

 

The subjects of the research were likely not consciously trying to be discriminatory, but that's the whole point of institutionalized, systemic sexism right? That culturally, women are unconsciously deemed inferior to males.

 

I'll see who Mercedes Carrera is and what her deal with STEM is.

 

 

 

So you brought a source, I brought a source, and this concludes with "sorry your source sucks and I refuse to watch it?" Why not just look for data?

 

 

And what I meant by "why" is that there's a number of factors that can be the cause. We have absolutely no reason to assume sexism directly. For example, self-confidence is something that multiple studies have highlighted to do wonders for you. You can be completely unqualified for a job, but if you exhibit a lot of confidence, you may get the job over someone more qualified. What I'm saying is that they've not rooted out alternative explainations. There's a term for it in science that I'm forgetting....but a term for when you think you've proven a link, but you've possibly mistaken a link between A and C when infact it's B that shares a link with C and B just so happens to appear commonly where A does.

 

 

My point is I consider labeling it sexism as rather lazy. It's like when you don't like a person and you say "because they're bad" or "because they're evil" without trying to explain WHY you don't like that person with actual definitive traits and words that don't have ambiguous blanket meanings. By all means, please do research the matter further because we could learn a lot from it and perhaps it's important we do, but I feel as though we're jumping to conclusions rather than evaluating all possibilities.

 

I for one would not be surprised if confidence were the cause and that it just so happens men are more likely to exhibit confidence, and that the moment you develop a study that compares a guy lacking self-confidence to a woman lacking self-confidence (or to a woman who has confidence, etc etc) that suddenly the results are not divided by gender, but by the confident aura displayed. Yes, I realize the study focused on application papers where the only difference was male and female on the application. Perhaps we agree (or we disagree, depends entirely on how you look at it) but the difference is I find the explanation of "sexism!!" to sound lazy and reactionary whereas I think "people stereotype, confidence might be more common in men and thus when they only have papers to go off of, they show prejudice in that they'd rather take their shot with the male" would do a better job of pinpointing the issue. Not exactly in denial of prejudice and stereotyping being a cause for discrimination, it's just I think it would do better in furthering research to combat it instead of just saying "sexism" and trying to shame the person.

 

 

 

 

Not to mention you labeled a big scientist as an "idiot" for his clothes choice, while you have absolutely no idea about the reason behind that choice. And that could be anything - from "lucky short" for an important event to "my wife gave it to me and I want to show how much I love here by wearing it on a big public event".

 

 

We DO know the reason. It was a gift to him from a female friend.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Longknife

[Zwiebelchen]

 

If you're a mechanical engineer, then you must have taken your fair share of math, of which statistics may or may not be a part of. The fact that, as you yourself agreed with, "there is sexism and unequal payment in science," and of which much literature in research shows, is indicative that it's NOT simply due to "gender-based preferences" for a particular field. The male-female payment gap may be about the same in STEM fields as most other fields, but a LOT of research (again, many are linked all over posts I've made everywhere, plus tons more on academic sites online, and on print) shows that sexism against women in STEM fields is really severe.

 

How many times have you heard "boys are good at math and science, girls are good at baking," reinforcing gender roles and stereotyping from literally childhood? Add to the ridiculous amount of harassment current female STEM employees receive, it's not exactly a most welcoming field, a sort of "Good o' Boys' Club."

 

Even if everything was up to "gender-based preferences," with our population size, anything more than a fraction over 50/50 is statistically significant. You know what's not statistically significant, despite preferences?

 

Whether someone likes ice-cream.

 

There's no research out there on it (not to my knowledge), but I bet my house and life savings that the % of women that like ice cream is equal to the % of men that like ice cream.

 

Because ice cream doesn't f****ing discriminate.

 

 

Sorry, but you missed the point entirely. I was not denying gender-unequality in STEM. I was just pointing out how bad those "scientific" (heck, a sample size of 64 per gender... any serious scientist would laugh about the expected p-value ... I don't get how anyone can publish such "science" without being ashamed of himself) papers fail when making statistic and then put them out of context.

 

There is a big gap between payment based in gender everywhere. It's not exclusive to STEM. Then again, here in germany, the gap in payment based on where I live is much larger than the gender-based gap. Yes, my female collegues get paid 10% less than I get. Does it bother me? Yes. Would I instantly support any argument that demands that woman should be paid equal? Definitely! Would I support a forced male-to-female quota in STEM fields? Definitely not, because it just supports the gender-prejudice it's trying to fight ("She was only hired because she is female"). Then again, my female collegues wouldn't support that either. It's just self-proclaimed women-rights activists that try to push this on their political agenda, while in reality, the rest of the world disagrees.

 

Saying that stereotype gender roles are because of "men not accepting any woman in their men's club" is just stupid. You can support false gender equality all you want, but there are biological differences (and thus also preferences) between men and women that no cultural or society revolution will change.

 

Saying that the choice of academics should be 50:50 and everything else is prejudice is just baseless. Guess what: there are almost no men in social fields, despite all nursery schools desperately looking for more men in this field.

Also, again, engineering. There is zero entry requirement for mechanical engineering where I live. Everyone gets in. In fact, the average graduation ratio of women in this field is higher than that of men (almost 80% of women that start academics in engineering get a degrees; whereas only 60% of men do) and the average unemployment rates of women in said field are lower aswell. So where are all the women then? I'll tell you: in biology or lectureship.

 

My daughter plays with LEGOs and plays computer games. She was never interested in dolls or anything that is typically considered "girly". And literally all her friends do the same. Why? Not because of gender expectations, but because LEGO and games are ****ing awesome. This doesn't change that she wants to be a teacher, not an engineer like her dad. And you know what? I'm totally cool with that. Why?

 

Because I don't force my idea of society or what men and women should and shouldn't do upon others, like militant feminists do.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[Longknife]

I'd also just like to point out that....

 

Some might read my last post and wonder wtf is with the effort I put into re-defining it. Why am I not happy with "sexism" in regards to that one study and prefer "prejudice and stereotypes based on common personality traits encountered amongst genders?" Because sexism has a hateful, divisive tone to it, in my opinion. As Zwiebelchen states, yes of course he'd support equal pay for women. I'd be willing to place a bet there's not a single person on these forums who doesn't think women deserve equal pay.

 

But when you afford these issues the title of "sexism" then it carries a tone of women being oppressed and men are the oppressors. Some women suddenly get worked up like paladins on a holy crusade whereas some men get offended and defensive because they perceive it as meaning they're bad. It seems like far too strong of a term to be used so commonly in this day and age, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

Alongside that, for the sake of argument, let's assume someone took my hypothesis of confidence, NOT gender, being the deciding factor on who gets hired with men simply being far more likely to have confidence. As such, the moment a study is done that compares men who lack confidence vs. women who lack confidence, men who have it vs women who have it and every combination that could feel relevant, suddenly the gender variable is shattered and confidence is proven to be the variable.

   One conclusion one might make is that since men are still far more likely to exhibit confidence, we should legislate what kind of application process takes place to try and diminish any gender gap issues as much as possible.

 

If we did that, someone would get hurt. Let's say for example that it was decided we should only allow personal interviews and not hand written applications to get rid of any prejudice employers or universities assessing applicants may have when they see male or female on the application, instead requiring them to meet them in person and see firsthand who they like more based on their personal confidence and the like.

 

Yknow who would get hurt? Shy people. Nervous people. Ugly people. I'm not joking; studies will tell you attractive people have an advantage on job applications too. Hell, in some cases the disabled can get hurt as many employers actively avoid the disabled out of a poor understanding of disabled worker's rights and a fear of accidently doing something illegal. (in itself, another example of how an effort to help a group can do just as much harm as it does good)

 

 

You see? It's quid pro quo. For every measurement you take to help a group, another can get hurt. It's not that easy to find a working solution; a LOT of thought needs to be put into this kind of stuff and how to alleviate it, if at all. Screaming "sexism" and focusing solely on not discriminating by gender isn't going to bring about much progress, in my opinion. It's important to recognize the issues, but also to thoroughly understand the "why" of it and thoroughly think out any plans to alleviate it, if any at all.

[zered]

Could a mod close this and send it into space? Please?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Someone will just create a new thread. If you don't like it, ignore it.

[rheingold]

Militant feminists - hilarious term actually, the mind boggles, do not force anything on anyone else. The only thing they want is equality.

[Zwiebelchen]

Militant feminists - hilarious term actually, the mind boggles, do not force anything on anyone else. The only thing they want is equality.

 

Those with the loudest voices typically only want to hear the sound of their own voice.

[Banquetto]

It's kinda amusing actually, that the SIJW's keep claiming the SJW's "raise lynch mobs" and what have you, and then keep starting threads drumming for lynch mobs against "feminazis" and "political correctness" and what have you.

 

To the OP: better check under your bed, there might be a cultural marxist there.

 

Right-wingers are terrified of any opinion that they disagree with. That's why they're always so desperate to silence opposing voices, whether by insults like "feminazi" or just by going straight to rape and death threats.

 

Basically they're scared that people will find the opinions persuasive. e.g. someone says that "The Limerick" was in really poor taste; Obsidian think about this, agree, and decide to remove it from the game. How to avoid this? Shout down the people you disagree with before anyone can find them persuasive.

 

The right wing has always been pro-censorship, pro-blind-obedience, anti any dissenting voice, and #gamergaters etc. are just another manifestation of this.

[Eurhetemec]

Some might read my last post and wonder wtf is with the effort I put into re-defining it. Why am I not happy with "sexism" in regards to that one study and prefer "prejudice and stereotypes based on common personality traits encountered amongst genders?" Because sexism has a hateful, divisive tone to it, in my opinion. As Zwiebelchen states, yes of course he'd support equal pay for women. I'd be willing to place a bet there's not a single person on these forums who doesn't think women deserve equal pay.

 

But when you afford these issues the title of "sexism" then it carries a tone of women being oppressed and men are the oppressors. 

 

The problem is women are being oppressed, structurally. 

 

Equal rights and opportunities is great - almost everyone wants that, I agree (in the West). But equal rights and opportunities aren't the same thing as the law stating that you are equal. If they were, this problem would have been solved decades ago.

 

Men are, effectively, the oppressors, but you have to not take it personally, if you actually want to understand, and not just to sit around feeling hurt and bitter. It's not like most men go around intentionally being sexists (plenty do, of course, but probably a minority in the West). However, even if all men didn't, there'd still be problem because of structure of society, the structure of our laws, and so on. Many aspects of our society, taken for granted, benefit men far more than women. Inheritance is one example. In theory, in most Western societies, men and women inherit equally, but in practice, they don't, not just because men earn more and importantly, earned more in the past, but also because of the way inheritance is taxed, the fact that people are allowed to disinherit women (and have systematically been doing so since time immemorial) merely for being women (indeed, you can do more or less whatever you like with your will), and so on.

 

It's a very complex issue. People love to try to reduce it to equal rights. Equal rights and opportunities, in a REAL sense, is the ultimate goal of feminism as a movement, but that movement acknowledges and understands that the very structure of society and the law can prevent that, even when the law says people are equal. If you ignore that...

 

As an aside, harrassment in STEM is a huge issue. My wife is a developer, and honestly, the **** she's had to deal with is hair-raising, and most of it's from people who think it's fine, think they aren't doing anything wrong, just don't get it...