- 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, 201511 yr by 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.

 

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 

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

- 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.

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.

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."

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.

"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, 201511 yr by Mirandel

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, 201511 yr by Longknife

 

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, 201511 yr by Zwiebelchen

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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...

If we play the "men benefit more than women" card, then why are men still forced into military service in plenty of industry nations across the globe (note: it was only 7 years ago that germany dismissed the law of civil defense service) and why do women mostly by default win courts about child custody?

 

There's unequality on both sides, good and bad. Yes, men usually have more opportunities, nobody denies that, but equality also means looking at those cases where the status quo is in favour of women.

 

And child custody is serious business. Far more important than inheritence.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by Zwiebelchen

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.

 

 

Then why label men the oppressors? That's completely counter-intuitive. The last page cited multiple studies where the perceived sexism came from both genders, and yet we needlessly label men the oppressors? What purpose does this even serve? There's no point in it. Why are you needlessly insisting on a choice of words that raises tension and hostile attitudes for no reason whatsoever?

 

 

Gender playing a role in inheritance is also completely new to me as I've never experienced this, and trust me I've seen a LOT of fights over inheritance. This is completely out of left field for me, and also something that I'd have to remind does not extend beyond the US even if it were true, as I know for a fact gender plays zero role in inheritance law.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

GamerGate got this accusation countless times, to the point it self-polled on reddit and 8chan. The result? The overwhelming majority of supporters are libertarian liberals. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, this is a libertarian vs. authoritarian one.

 

Even if it were proven GamerGate were conservative, your entire argument would be a meaningless ad hominem making the ridiculous suggestion that someone with conservative stances cannot be correct or offer valuable insight.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by Longknife

 

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.

 

 

Wow Really? I am the only conservative among my immediate friends, and they all thought that the poem itself was NOT offensive and icequeen had severe  psychological issues. We all believe that the poem shouldn't be changed. Other than myself one of my friends was a backer and he also felt "betrayed" that josh sawyer and obsidian caved so easily and sacrificed the integrity of their artistic freedom for more money. Do NOT fall into the trap of lumping one entire group in one category due to the behavior of so called leaders.

 

 

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.

 

 

Wow Really? I am the only conservative among my immediate friends, and they all thought that the poem itself was NOT offensive and icequeen had severe  psychological issues. We all believe that the poem shouldn't be changed. Other than myself one of my friends was a backer and he also felt "betrayed" that josh sawyer and obsidian caved so easily and sacrificed the integrity of their artistic freedom for more money. Do NOT fall into the trap of lumping one entire group in one category due to the behavior of so called leaders.

 

 

Are your friends from the Transgender community ?

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by BruceVC

Damn, this still going on?  Look, I hate to break somebodies hero fantasy about protecting the poor damsals in distress, but the truth is the majority of women are just not interested in the field.  It has nothing to do with evil sexist men, they are just not interested in that field really.  When I was in college, the freshman class was filled almost equally men to women in programming at the beginning, near the end it became 10 to 1 men to women.  I guess it was because those teachers were sexist right?  Um, no.  The majority of teachers in the computer class were female...oops, so much for that argument.  Ok, then it must have been because of the poor payment of women in the field.  Um no.  Most jumped out before mid freshmen year ended, few people are thinking that far ahead, they are just focusing on getting through college.  I have actually TALKED to a few of them when they decided to change and the answers varied, some found the subject not interesting, others switched to other courses like nursing because it was a better fit, others flat out said they just picked programming/computer because it sounded interesting, but it was a mistake and they should have went with another course.  However not one said or implied it was because they felt harassed or pushed out.  Of course this is from my own personal experience of actually talking to a living breathing women in the field.  All these people arguing about sexism, oppression, whatever.  Have any of you actually TALKED to a living breathing women IN PERSON, and I mean women in the plural sense, not just one random crazy women screaming about being harassed with a twitter account saying things like killallmen which might show a little bias.

Are your friends from the Transgender community ?

 

 

Does this matter? Do transgender people somehow magically have more valuable opinions than other people?

 

I get where you're coming from, but this logic is ridiculous. It creates an environment where some people are listened to and others are not, AKA the exact sort of discrimination you claim to be fighting. Secondly, it also makes this very ignorant assumption that transgender people are somehow universally unified in their opinions on matters and are not unique human beings with unique perspectives and stances on things.

 

 

Furthermore I can introduce you to a transgender person who couldn't give two ****s about this whole issue. He plays lobbies on TF2Center, a well known community for the game TF2. This might also surprise you, but he doesn't proceed to cry or go ballistic if people call him "he" or "she" or "magic pony" either.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Wow Really? I am the only conservative among my immediate friends, and they all thought that the poem itself was NOT offensive and icequeen had severe  psychological issues. We all believe that the poem shouldn't be changed. Other than myself one of my friends was a backer and he also felt "betrayed" that josh sawyer and obsidian caved so easily and sacrificed the integrity of their artistic freedom for more money. Do NOT fall into the trap of lumping one entire group in one category due to the behavior of so called leaders.

 

 

Are your friends from the Transgender community ?

 

I got plenty of gay and bi friends who said it was fine and there have been plenty of transgen who have said it was fine on forums.  Do they count?  Oh yea, they are against the narrative so they don't count as much as one random crazy person who has no problem with saying things like KILLALLMEN (oh, lets ignore and forget about that sexist little detail huh)?

If we play the "men benefit more than women" card, then why are men still forced into military service in plenty of industry nations across the globe (note: it was only 7 years ago that germany dismissed the law of civil defense service) and why do women mostly by default win courts about child custody?

 

There's unequality on both sides, good and bad. Yes, men usually have more opportunities, nobody denies that, but equality also means looking at those cases where the status quo is in favour of women.

 

And child custody is serious business. Far more important than inheritence.

In Finland it was male only parliament and male president that decided to add compulsory military service for male citizens of Finland in our constitution and every single parliament after that one has been male dominated in numbers that would allow them to change our constitution, but only propositions to change that law has come from our feminist politicians that drive through law that allowed women to do voluntary military service and currently their efforts to make military service compulsory for women too has been blocked by male majority in our parliament. But still every time males remember rise it as an issue which men had to suffer and women don't when topic of gender equality comes up.

 

Same goes for other things like child custody cases, although in Finland studies about subject show that men win majority of cases that go in court, even though public belief about subject suggests opposite result.