Mens Rights Thread

Piliger · 16-12-2014 05:30PM

andrew wrote: »

Even if the pay gap is entirely a function of women's choices and not discrimination, why do women make those choices though? You could argue that women in general are from a young age discouraged from going into high paying careers in science/engineering/finance by things like 'engineer barbie' , and general societal expectations which expect them to be caregivers even if they don't want to. In a similar way, men are discouraged from taking up professions like primary school teaching, which is also a bad thing.

This is part of the campaign to say that women and men are identical and cannot be allowed have differences.
And the Guardian is nothing more than a mouthpiece for daily extreme feminism.

If women make choices not to work 7 days a week and scramble their way to top jobs then that is their right !

This feminist viewpoint that half of every job and half of every seniority MUST be women is a direct insult to women, and men.

The fact is that women are not the same as men. They are entitled to the same rights and opportunities, as are men. But forcing them to be identical is an abhorrent and fascist dogma.

Seriously? · 16-12-2014 05:33PM

andrew wrote: »

Link? I've never heard of a reputable study showing that women earn more than men, except maybe in some specific jobs like prostitution or porn or something.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Not a direct link to the source but you should be able to get back to it through attributions given if so motivated, additionally the jackofalltrades post 4/5 items up also illustrates the fact.

KomradeBishop · 16-12-2014 05:36PM

tritium wrote: »

I'm not sure why their membership of a right wing think tank should diminish their opinion. They're right wing, many feminists are left wing. Its inevitable that they'll disagree, big deal. Neither have a monopoly on common sense.

Anti feminist views? What exactly is that? It seems any criticism of feminism could fall under that umbrella. Given that I'm told feminism isn't a hive mind surely the term anti feminist views is contradictory no? What universally agreed feminist position do they disagree with? The reason I point this out is that Christina Hoff Sommers, to whom you've made a tenuous guilt by association link here, is also an established feminist thinker, just one who happens to sit to the right of the ideological divide.

You are deliberately creating a straw-man by focusing on my description of those think-tanks as 'right-wing', and ignoring everything else I said about those think-tanks, describing why they are discreditable.

Rather than rewrite what I've already said, here is what my previous post said about those think-tanks:

KomradeBishop wrote:

Daphne Patai is also a member of the right-wing think-tank 'Foundation for Individual Rights in Education', which is (yet another) right-wing think tank, promoting anti-feminist views (including opposing policies aimed at tackling sexual harassment in US colleges) - a think-tank also staffed by Christina Hoff Sommers, who is associated with other right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, who promote things such as global warming denial (among many other things).

It is unmissable that 'right-wing' was not my focus of criticism there, which makes it obvious that your selective attention to what I wrote, was deliberate and was aimed at creating a dishonest argument - a straw-man.

You regularly argue in a deceptive way like this, in almost every post I've made recently, debating with you.

andrew · 16-12-2014 05:38PM

Piliger wrote: »

This is part of the campaign to say that women and men are identical and cannot be allowed have differences.
And the Guardian is nothing more than a mouthpiece for daily extreme feminism.

If women make choices not to work 7 days a week and scramble their way to top jobs then that is their right !

This feminist viewpoint that half of every job and half of every seniority MUST be women is a direct insult to women, and men.

The fact is that women are not the same as men. They are entitled to the same rights and opportunities, as are men. But forcing them to be identical is an abhorrent and fascist dogma.

The point is that men and women aren't really making the choice to be different though, that society is encouraging them in subtle ways to be different - and that's a bad thing. That men are expected to work 7 days a week to be the sole provider for a family, because it's 'what men do'. So they do. That women women become nurses or teachers, and not investment bankers, because those are 'womens jobs.' The feminist viewpoint is that people should have the option to do whatever they want to do, without others trying to hold them back from doing so by being sexist. And if people really were doing what they want to do, I'd say there'd be a lot more female computer programmers - like there used to be - , and a lot more male primary school teachers and nurses too.

Maguined · 16-12-2014 05:39PM

marienbad wrote: »

It is interesting though that it took a woman in the job a wet week to state her intention to open up those courts to more public scrutiny , which is more than a succession of male ministers have signally failed to even comment on.

I find it interesting that you are highlighting the genders of those involved as if it is significant? Sounds a tad possibly sexist to me, implying someones gender has contributed to their success.

Zulu · 16-12-2014 06:21PM

Can we now take it that the pay gap argument is utter bullsh1t?

Or are those that trotted it out going to simply ignore the evidence to the contrary and hope it goes away? (the equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "nah nah na-na nah")

Wibbs · 16-12-2014 06:29PM

andrew wrote: »

The point is that men and women aren't really making the choice to be different though, that society is encouraging them in subtle ways to be different - and that's a bad thing.

I'd agree with that, though IMH it's not the old stylee "patriarchy" that's doing so, rather that it's the consumerist culture and the big business behind it. Not any daft conspiracy either BTW, it's just that the money followed the results.

Take Lego. Bear with me...

I was a kid in the 70's and have a couple of old lego catalogues from that time laying around and there are few really obvious differences. 1) tie ins with other popular culture like films didn't exist 2) the toy was more about a load of bricks that could be turned into anything the kids imagination could dream of, rather than a finished "model" 3) and for our purposes, it was remarkably ungendered compared to today. OK there was the odd photo of girls "playing house" with lego, but mostly it was girls and boys just playing. The cover of one of these catalogues is this mad 4 story ambulance with two drivers(as you do, in case one falls asleep) and it was built by a girl. And that does have an effect I reckon.

Kinda along the lines of your link about personal computers. Because they were marketed at boys it excluded those girls who might otherwise have taken them up. Now I personally would still believe there is some nature over nurture going on. I'd bet that in a completely "gender neutral" world(if one could build one), there would still be some subtle(and general of course) gender differences. EG men consistently outperform women at spatial reasoning tasks on average and the upper percentile in such tasks is very male. However in a more equal world as far as exposure to opportunity goes it wouldn't exclude those women who are better than the average or those in the upper percentile. This would go the other direction too to the advantage of men.

The thing is and beyond the political stuff, I reckon the hard fight would be against the consumerism we're so steeped in. Having gendered products effectively gives you two markets as it were. Two markets you can exploit and sell more to and make more from. Going gender neutral could hit the bottom line, or the fear would be there that it would*.

Though I would slightly disagree that feminism is out to create the world where people should have the option to do whatever they want to do. Where women should have the options, yes, but by the nature of feminism men don't really figure, save as either a general oppressor or on the other side a feminist enabler. I am not saying folks who self identify as feminist aren't seeking an equal world, I mean the more "official" feminism and lately the more leftist out there third wave feminism, which year by year seems to be becoming more of a victim troll than anything and a victim troll that seeks "equality" for women over men(who are the enemy unless they kow tow to the mantras). They're a helluva long way from suffrage that's for sure, particularly in the US.

KomradeBishop wrote:

Daphne Patai is also a member of the right-wing think-tank 'Foundation for Individual Rights in Education', which is (yet another) right-wing think tank, promoting anti-feminist views (including opposing policies aimed at tackling sexual harassment in US colleges)

Well whatever about her other views that I'd find debatable at best, I'd be right behind her on the "sexual harrassment in US colleges" front. The extremist feminist stuff on the subject has become near farcical on some campuses and has way too much influence. There have been more than a few examples on this thread where young men were damned without trial. Well trial by college boards and their lives and reputations ruined. It can be incredibly one sided. So much so that they're fueling the manosphere extremists and MGTOW types who can point and with some reason and say "eh WTF?". Extremists of any hue are bad, right or left wing, I give not a jot, but the extremists of the left wing type have a solid grip on US colleges and that grip is showing no signs of loosening any time soon.

*Though women seem to be the gender that is targeted far more by advertising across the board. Look at your average telly ad and you'll find it's usually targeting women, ditto for radio. Fashion/appearance stuff is almost exclusively targeted at women. Sure some is targeted at men, but not nearly to the same degree, nor does it change so fast to create demand for ever more tat and nonsense with it.

GalwayGuitar · 16-12-2014 06:49PM

Zulu wrote: »

Can we now take it that the pay gap argument is utter bullsh1t?

Or are those that trotted it out going to simply ignore the evidence to the contrary and hope it goes away? (the equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "nah nah na-na nah")

We can take it as bs but it's one of the sacred tenants of feminism, along with the 1 in 4 myth and the 'patriarchy' so we'll be hearing it for long time yet.

Piliger · 16-12-2014 07:07PM

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

We can take it as bs but it's one of the sacred tenants of feminism, along with the 1 in 4 myth and the 'patriarchy' so we'll be hearing it for long time yet.

It also represents one of the giant Myth achievements of Feminism. You only have to look at the Media and the Political scene. Men in these areas have been forced to buy in to this Myth as part of the dogma that drives their very operation.

Watching SkyNews especially, but also BBC and ITV today it has been all over the different channels. No opportunity for it to be questioned, No dissent allowed.

Henry9 · 16-12-2014 07:19PM

andrew wrote: »

The point is that men and women aren't really making the choice to be different though, that society is encouraging them in subtle ways to be different - and that's a bad thing. That men are expected to work 7 days a week to be the sole provider for a family, because it's 'what men do'. So they do. That women women become nurses or teachers, and not investment bankers, because those are 'womens jobs.' The feminist viewpoint is that people should have the option to do whatever they want to do, without others trying to hold them back from doing so by being sexist. And if people really were doing what they want to do, I'd say there'd be a lot more female computer programmers - like there used to be - , and a lot more male primary school teachers and nurses too.

That may be true, but it's not how the debate is framed.
It's always a matter of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Then the goal posts are moved.

If you want to be paid like an investment banker, go and become one, with whatever choices go hand in hand with it.
It's dishonest to portray the issue as women being paid less 'for the same work'.

Henry9 · 16-12-2014 07:37PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Daphne Patai is also a member of the right-wing think-tank 'Foundation for Individual Rights in Education', which is (yet another) right-wing think tank, promoting anti-feminist views (including opposing policies aimed at tackling sexual harassment in US colleges) - a think-tank also staffed by Christina Hoff Sommers, who is associated with other right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, who promote things such as global warming denial (among many other things).

Well that's convenient. For a moment it looked like you were going to have to deal with their arguments, but fortunately you can smear them instead and just ignore what they say.

What does associated with mean anyway? And if you're going to play that game, I'd bet you would find plenty of people on the academic feminist side of things who were associated with pretty unsavoury opinions.

Any Soviet Union sympathisers? Any apologists for Marxist/Totalitarian regimes? A lefty academic knocking around in the seventies would have gotten into bed with all sorts of right on causes.

Harriet Harman was associated with an organisation lobbying on behalf of paedophiles. Does that mean she can be dispensed with? (Suits me)

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's ironic that Daphne is accusing them, of being "more concerned with political activism than with scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge" or that "openness to any challenge to this ideology or to criticism appears to be at a minimum", when she associates with these politically-motivated, ideological propaganda institutes.

That's not the only thing that is ironic.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The debate on 'nature vs nurture', where it comes to gender, is also far from settled - and there's not any evidence that gender studies courses in general, deny the part that biology plays (there may be debate about how much it has to play, but there isn't any obvious indication, that all these courses deny its role altogether).

'Gender is a social construct'.
That is the central tenet, and it sounds pretty definitive to me.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Apart from that, it just comes across as whataboutery as well "lets ignore gender bias at the top of many fields of science, because one non-science course (that has been spawned from the feminist movement), has a lot of women participating in it".

More irony. Seeing as you engage endlessly in this whataboutery yourself to dismiss anyone who doesn't align with your views.

Tell you what, you're the stats guy. Why don't you cast your expert eye over the evidence and tell what the truth about this 'pay gap' is?

KomradeBishop · 16-12-2014 08:06PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Well whatever about her other views that I'd find debatable at best, I'd be right behind her on the "sexual harrassment in US colleges" front. The extremist feminist stuff on the subject has become near farcical on some campuses and has way too much influence. There have been more than a few examples on this thread where young men were damned without trial. Well trial by college boards and their lives and reputations ruined. It can be incredibly one sided. So much so that they're fueling the manosphere extremists and MGTOW types who can point and with some reason and say "eh WTF?". Extremists of any hue are bad, right or left wing, I give not a jot, but the extremists of the left wing type have a solid grip on US colleges and that grip is showing no signs of loosening any time soon.

Sure yes, there are many problems there, though this particular think-tank has taken a broad approach against some policies aimed at better reporting of sexual harassment, even where that is just making universities aware of potential issues, before any kind of investigating/punishment is considered.

It's taking a legitimate issue - overzealous campus policies - and turning it to the other extreme, opposing reform of policies even when the reforms are not overzealous and are needed.

KomradeBishop · 16-12-2014 08:16PM

Henry9 wrote: »

Well that's convenient. For a moment it looked like you were going to have to deal with their arguments, but fortunately you can smear them instead and just ignore what they say.

Except I've done both - I've addressed the argument and put forward information that personally discredits them.

You've even replied to some of my arguments countering them as well, which shows that your criticism is dishonest, since you not only couldn't have missed those arguments, you've replied to them.

Henry9 wrote: »

'Gender is a social construct'.
That is the central tenet, and it sounds pretty definitive to me.

There's nothing to show that biology is ignored, throughout the whole field of gender studies.

Henry9 wrote: »

More irony. Seeing as you engage endlessly in this whataboutery yourself to dismiss anyone who doesn't align with your views.

Tell you what, you're the stats guy. Why don't you cast your expert eye over the evidence and tell what the truth about this 'pay gap' is?

Quote and explain how anything I've posted is whataboutery. Your second sentence is a red herring.

tritium · 16-12-2014 09:00PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You are deliberately creating a straw-man by focusing on my description of those think-tanks as 'right-wing', and ignoring everything else I said about those think-tanks, describing why they are discreditable.

Rather than rewrite what I've already said, here is what my previous post said about those think-tanks:

It is unmissable that 'right-wing' was not my focus of criticism there, which makes it obvious that your selective attention to what I wrote, was deliberate and was aimed at creating a dishonest argument - a straw-man.

You regularly argue in a deceptive way like this, in almost every post I've made recently, debating with you.

you seem to take exception to my deconstructing your flawed ad hominem here, I'm not sure why. For the avoidance of doubt I pointed out two issues with the argument.

1) that being a member of a right wing think tank isn't actually an issue with respect to credibility any more than being part of a left wing organisation is, its simply an ideological perspective. By extension, dismissing someone because "....they once worked with someone who once worked for someone yadayadaya...." is a ludicrous strawman.

2.) The concept of 'anti-feminism' which you still haven't defined and the concept of how you can on the one hand associate her with anti feminism while on the other hand associate her with a prominent (right wing) feminist like Christina Hoff Sommers

Feel free to offer refutation to either or both of these points

KomradeBishop · 16-12-2014 09:45PM

tritium wrote: »

you seem to take exception to my deconstructing your flawed ad hominem here, I'm not sure why. For the avoidance of doubt I pointed out two issues with the argument.

1) that being a member of a right wing think tank isn't actually an issue with respect to credibility any more than being part of a left wing organisation is, its simply an ideological perspective. By extension, dismissing someone because "....they once worked with someone who once worked for someone yadayadaya...." is a ludicrous strawman.

2.) The concept of 'anti-feminism' which you still haven't defined and the concept of how you can on the one hand associate her with anti feminism while on the other hand associate her with a prominent (right wing) feminist like Christina Hoff Sommers

Feel free to offer refutation to either or both of these points

You didn't show any flaws in my ad-hominem (and my ad-hominem was accompanied by actual arguments refuting what was in the link - a valid non/fallacious use of ad-hominem).

1: That's the same dishonest straw-man again, as I didn't criticize them for being right-wing; you know this and are deliberately ignoring my actual argument. Your second sentence is another dishonest straw-man, that I never argued.

2: Google 'Christina Hoff Sommers' and 'anti-feminist', it's a regular label applied to her; I don't care what issues you have with the term 'anti-feminist', you're trying to engage in a red herring here, through an argument over semantics.

You make no refutable point, just the usual dishonest attempts at misrepresentation - when I attack the character/credibility of someone in a link, I read up to make sure the criticism is accurate - here, you're (as usual) completely making stuff up (not caring at all about accuracy), instead of replying to anybodies actual arguments.

Henry9 · 16-12-2014 10:09PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except I've done both - I've addressed the argument and put forward information that personally discredits them.

You've even replied to some of my arguments countering them as well, which shows that your criticism is dishonest, since you not only couldn't have missed those arguments, you've replied to them.

No you haven't. Here's your complete post:

That's a bit of a random thing to post - it's also heavily inaccurate; there is no indication that the institute was closed due to the documentary (there's also a lot of criticism around, of the accuracy of the documentary - with many people having the opinion that it had a predefined political slant to it).

Daphne Patai is also a member of the right-wing think-tank 'Foundation for Individual Rights in Education', which is (yet another) right-wing think tank, promoting anti-feminist views (including opposing policies aimed at tackling sexual harassment in US colleges) - a think-tank also staffed by Christina Hoff Sommers, who is associated with other right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, who promote things such as global warming denial (among many other things). Dismissing them based on membership and 'association', whatever that means.

It's ironic that Daphne is accusing them, of being "more concerned with political activism than with scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge" or that "openness to any challenge to this ideology or to criticism appears to be at a minimum", when she associates with these politically-motivated, ideological propaganda institutes. Smearing. Especially ironic when 'politically-motivated, ideological propaganda institutes' can be applied to many Women's Studies departments.

The debate on 'nature vs nurture', where it comes to gender, is also far from settled - and there's not any evidence that gender studies courses in general, deny the part that biology plays (there may be debate about how much it has to play, but there isn't any obvious indication, that all these courses deny its role altogether). Claiming gender is 'socially constructed' is 'biology has little or nothing to do with gender' which is what the author wrote.

Apart from that, it just comes across as whataboutery as well "lets ignore gender bias at the top of many fields of science, because one non-science course (that has been spawned from the feminist movement), has a lot of women participating in it". Complete strawman. The author didn't say that.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There's nothing to show that biology is ignored, throughout the whole field of gender studies.

Another strawman. Again, what she wrote was 'They share a common ideology, central to which is the notion that gender is socially constructed and that biology has little or nothing to do with gender.
Not the same thing as biology is ignored, throughout the whole field of gender studies.
There's no obligation on her to prove this is true throughout the whole field.
She said it was a 'central tenet'. Not that it was universally accepted by absolutely everybody in the field at all times.

So you haven't addressed the argument at all. Just your own strawman version, as usual.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Quote and explain how anything I've posted is whataboutery.

Your entire posting style is whataboutery. Ad hominem smears, knocking down strawmen and accusing everyone else of throwing in red herrings.

tritium · 16-12-2014 10:52PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You didn't show any flaws in my ad-hominem (and my ad-hominem was accompanied by actual arguments refuting what was in the link - a valid non/fallacious use of ad-hominem).

1: That's the same dishonest straw-man again, as I didn't criticize them for being right-wing; you know this and are deliberately ignoring my actual argument. Your second sentence is another dishonest straw-man, that I never argued.

we both know you did your usual ad hominem of (i) link someone with a group and subtly question the reputability of same (ii) extend that link tenuously to another group and highlight a controversial policy of that group - in this case via Christina Hoff Sommers, who apparently is connected to the author through having links to one group and also has links to another (different) group with controversial policies. How exactly this guilt by association works its way back to Ms Patai is unclear - feel free to clear that up. I'm pretty sure you haven't claimed directly that she's a climate change denier- maybe you'd like to explicitly clarify that. Could you perhaps also clarify Ms Patai's links to American Enterprise Institute - in the absence of same I'll have to assume there are none and your tenuous linkage is meaningless.

So given the above, can you explain exactly what your point is if everyone is misrepresenting you?

2: Google 'Christina Hoff Sommers' and 'anti-feminist', it's a regular label applied to her; I don't care what issues you have with the term 'anti-feminist', you're trying to engage in a red herring here, through an argument over semantics.

you still haven't addressed my questions: what is anti-feminism and how can it be applied to such a broad ideology as feminism? Especially how can a feminist be an anti feminist at the same time? Just because some who self identify as feminists have denounced someone else who identifies as feminist isn't sufficient to make her guilty of the offence of "anti-feminism" whatever that may be. Who exactly decided that one block of this movement got to define the terms of reference? What's she supposed to have done exactly that transforms her viewpoint of feminism into anti feminism?

You make no refutable point, just the usual dishonest attempts at misrepresentation - when I attack the character/credibility of someone in a link, I read up to make sure the criticism is accurate - here, you're (as usual) completely making stuff up (not caring at all about accuracy), instead of replying to anybodies actual arguments.

why exactly are you refusing to address any of the questions you've been asked, hiding instead behind personal attacks? Is it because you actually can't?

edit: as an interesting aside, you inspired me to do a bit of a dig on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. They may be right wing but they don't sound like such a bad lot. From Wikipedia (granted not the finest source):

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a non-profit group founded in 1999 that focuses on civil liberties in academia in the United States. Its goal is "to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities," including the rights to "freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience--the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity".[1]

One of FIRE's main activities has been criticism of university administrators whose activities have, in FIRE's view, violated the free speech or due process rights of college and university students and professors under the First Amendment and/or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. FIRE lists over 170 such instances on its website.[2]

FIRE was founded by Alan Charles Kors, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil-liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[3] Silverglate remains the chairman of FIRE's board,[4] while Kors is Chairman Emeritus. Since March 23, 2006, FIRE's President has been Greg Lukianoff, who previously served as interim president.[5]

FIRE has no stated political affiliation, and has represented the causes of parties with varied political viewpoints, ranging from conservative,[6] liberal,[7] and religious[8] student groups to other activists such as members of PETA[9] and Professor Ward Churchill.

So I guess I should thank you for inspiring me to look up something new. I've actually tried to find more critical information on these folks but its not exactly flowing like water out there - I have seen them referred to as a stealth-conservative organisation but I'm not really sure what the implicit criticism there is. What exactly is the issue with these folks apart from their political position and their view on free speech? I even got to find out a little about one of their founders, Civil Rights lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate, ....

KomradeBishop · 16-12-2014 10:56PM

Henry9 wrote: »

No you haven't. Here's your complete post:

"Dismissing them based on membership and 'association', whatever that means."
Except I didn't - I pointed out discreditable associations, and I pointed out a direct criticism of her argument.

"Smearing. Especially ironic when 'politically-motivated, ideological propaganda institutes' can be applied to many Women's Studies departments."
It's a valid/non-fallacious use of ad-hominem, it is not 'smearing' as you have not proven any of the claims I made in the ad-hominem, as being false.
That is not irony - irony is e.g. accusing someone of smearing, and in the act engaging in smearing yourself, as you haven't proven any of their ad-hominems as false.

"Claiming gender is 'socially constructed' is 'biology has little or nothing to do with gender' which is what the author wrote."
It does not mean that. Claiming something is 'X', does not mean you are claiming it is 'not Y' or 'only a little bit Y' - that is completely arbitrary logic.

"Complete strawman. The author didn't say that."
Uhm, this is exactly whataboutery:

Sir, – Prof Nancy Hopkins (December 10th) writes about “unconscious gender bias” at the top in science. I would argue that by far the most notorious example of gender bias in Irish universities is the existence of a number of women’s and gender studies centres, several of which have existed for more than 20 years and which are overwhelmingly staffed by women.

What's that got to do with gender bias in science? The field of study it's talking about isn't even a science - and that's exactly put forward to try and distract from that topic with whataboutery.

Henry9 wrote: »

Another strawman. Again, what she wrote was 'They share a common ideology, central to which is the notion that gender is socially constructed and that biology has little or nothing to do with gender.
Not the same thing as biology is ignored, throughout the whole field of gender studies.
There's no obligation on her to prove this is true throughout the whole field.
She said it was a 'central tenet'. Not that it was universally accepted by absolutely everybody in the field at all times.

So you haven't addressed the argument at all. Just your own strawman version, as usual.

So she accepts that gender studies courses accept the role of both biology and the idea that it's a social construction? Not really controversial at all then, I don't see why biologists would disagree with that stance either.

Which means she isn't really making any kind of a valid point - so what, if the idea that gender is partly a 'social construction' is a central tenet - that's not controversial - and nobody seems to be claiming they deny the role of biology either.

If she was claiming they deny the role of biology, it would make sense as an argument - which is why I assume that - but instead it just seems to cancel itself out as an argument, if she admits they consider both.

Henry9 wrote: »

Your entire posting style is whataboutery. Ad hominem smears, knocking down strawmen and accusing everyone else of throwing in red herrings.

Prove it. Quote something that was whataboutery - quote something that is a deliberate straw-man (my interpretation of her statement above, is pretty easy to misread, as it makes more logical sense), show anything that is a 'smear' (i.e. a deliberately false statement to attack credibility) - ironically you're smearing me, by making that claim without proof - and there's nothing wrong with ad-hominem, it is non-fallacious so long as you don't use it to attack actual arguments (just attacking the character of sources instead).

People seem to have a bugbear about valid/non-fallacious use of ad-hominem, and then smear it by claiming it is a 'smear': If you don't want your sources history and background picked apart, find less discreditable sources.

KomradeBishop · 16-12-2014 11:18PM

tritium wrote: »

we both know you did your usual ad hominem of (i) link someone with a group and subtly question the reputability of same (ii) extend that link tenuously to another group and highlight a controversial policy of that group - in this case via Christina Hoff Sommers, who apparently is connected to the author through having links to one group and also has links to another (different) group with controversial policies. How exactly this guilt by association works its way back to Ms Patai is unclear - feel free to clear that up. I'm pretty sure you haven't claimed directly that she's a climate change denier- maybe you'd like to explicitly clarify that. Could you perhaps also clarify Ms Patai's links to American Enterprise Institute - in the absence of same I'll have to assume there are none and your tenuous linkage is meaningless.

So given the above, can you explain exactly what your point is if everyone is misrepresenting you?

Assume away - I posted the information exactly so people can make their own minds up - and every time a link from a source with a discreditable background is posted, I will keep on doing the same.

As stated in my previous post, you (among other posters) seem to have a serious bugbear about anti-feminist sources being picked apart and having their background criticized: It's a valid thing to post, so long as it's not used to attack arguments presented by posters (unless their argument is 'argument by random link', as it often is on this type of topic), so it's not going to change.

tritium wrote: »

you still haven't addressed my questions: what is anti-feminism and how can it be applied to such a broad ideology as feminism? Especially how can a feminist be an anti feminist at the same time? Just because some who self identify as feminists have denounced someone else who identifies as feminist isn't sufficient to make her guilty of the offence of "anti-feminism" whatever that may be. Who exactly decided that one block of this movement got to define the terms of reference? What's she supposed to have done exactly that transforms her viewpoint of feminism into anti feminism?

I don't care about your off-topic question; if you have a problem with the term 'anti-feminist', I'm not bothered debating it with you. Google will provide you with plenty of examples of that label being applied to Sommers. I'm not getting into a pointless semantic argument, with a poster who regularly engages in dishonest needling debating tactics.

"Who exactly decided that one block of this movement got to define the terms of reference?"
That's pretty galling hypocrisy, from someone who constantly tries to redefine the term 'feminism'.

tritium wrote: »

why exactly are you refusing to address any of the questions you've been asked, hiding instead behind personal attacks? Is it because you actually can't?

The dishonest tactic at play here:
1: Ask off-topic/red-herring questions in a demanding way.
2: Other poster ignores questions.
3: Keep rhetorically stating "Why aren't you answering these [off-topic] questions? You must not have any answer!" in an attempt to smear the poster as being evasive.
4: Keep demanding answers to the same questions, so you can repeat the same rhetorical attack endlessly.

tritium · 16-12-2014 11:23PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The dishonest tactic at play here:
1: Ask off-topic/red-herring questions in a demanding way.
2: Other poster ignores questions.
3: Keep rhetorically stating "Why aren't you answering these [off-topic] questions? You must not have any answer!" in an attempt to smear the poster as being evasive.
4: Keep demanding answers to the same questions, so you can repeat the same rhetorical attack endlessly.

If you are going to raise a point about someone holding anti-feminist views you may reasonably expect someone to challenge you on what exactly that means.

If you're going to question someone's bona-fides you may reasonably expect someone to challenge you to justify the links you've made and the issues you've raised.

That's exactly what I've done here

That's exactly what you refuse to address

Others can draw their own conclusion from your silence

Zulu · 16-12-2014 11:42PM

This is a thread about mens rights? Right??

Two things to note: -
1. that the 'pay gap' argument has been tactically dropped. No acknowledgement that it's been successfully refuted.

2. The same shills have disrupted another thread that the feel opposes their narrow ideology/currupt philosophy.

It's a shame really. Again.

Zulu · 16-12-2014 11:48PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The dishonest tactic at play here:
1: Ask off-topic/red-herring questions in a demanding way.
2: Other poster ignores questions.
3: Keep rhetorically stating "Why aren't you answering these [off-topic] questions? You must not have any answer!" in an attempt to smear the poster as being evasive.
4: Keep demanding answers to the same questions, so you can repeat the same rhetorical attack endlessly.

I don't think you can claim the moral high ground of 'honest argument'. At all frankly.

Sounds like you just lost all credibility. If you can answer the questions, why should anyone entertain the claim?

marienbad · 16-12-2014 11:51PM

Zulu wrote: »

This is a thread about mens rights? Right??

Two things to note: -
1. that the 'pay gap' argument has been tactically dropped. No acknowledgement that it's been successfully refuted.

2. The same shills have disrupted another thread that the feel opposes their narrow ideology/currupt philosophy.

It's a shame really. Again.

Not at all , nothing one says will be accepted , as well as ignoring completely the other issues I raised - women in the Civil Service, Women in the Dail, Antiquated hair spliiting passing as law on womens bodily rights , the focus is on the one issue you think you can debunk.

But on that issue I think for now I will stick with the U.N., The EU, The irish Government and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions , thank you very much .

Zulu · 16-12-2014 11:56PM

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all , nothing one says will be accepted , as well as ignoring completely the other issues I raised - women in the Civil Service, Women in the Dail, Antiquated hair spliiting passing as law on womens bodily rights , the focus is on the one issue you think you can debunk.

But on that issue I think for now I will stick with the U.N., The EU, The irish Government and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions , thank you very much .

What the issue with women in civil service (highest paid/unsacable/super working flexibility)? Or the Dail (one person one vote representatives)?

Of course, stick to what supports your ill founded argument, you wouldn't want the truth to complicate things. Lord knows the open mind is a dangerous thing.

Brainwashing is great. All hail the leader!

Wibbs · 17-12-2014 12:07AM

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all , nothing one says will be accepted , as well as ignoring completely the other issues I raised - women in the Civil Service, Women in the Dail, Antiquated hair spliiting passing as law on womens bodily rights , the focus is on the one issue you think you can debunk.

What about women in the PS? Any further info on that? Women in the Dail? OK, however, women vote in more numbers than men so who are they voting for? However I am with you on the bodily rights part.

But on that issue I think for now I will stick with the U.N., The EU, The irish Government and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions , thank you very much .

And as I pointed out earlier in the thread:

Wibbs wrote: »

Reputable website eh? OK how about National Women's council of Ireland's report about said paygap? The usual stats are trotted out, however if we look more deeply...

The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men.
In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.
For the bottom 10% of earners, the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 4% but this rises to 24.6% for the top 10% of income earners, suggesting the continued presence of a glass ceiling and indirect discrimination.Emphasis mine. Women with no kids get paid nearly 20% more than equivalent men. Funny how they don't directly mention that, and hide it as a minus.

And that's the National Women's council of Ireland, which advises the ICTU and takes it's stats from the EU commission/OECD and yet I hear no bleating and crawthumping about childless men earning 17% less than childless women, nor am I hearing bleating and crawthumping about how 1 in 4 Irish boys in school are barely literate, nor am I hearing bleating and crawthumping about how far fewer boys are reaching third level. It does seem that the stats are only trotted out when they follow the political mantra, rather than the reality on the ground and that reality is while the concentrated eye is on the elite members of society, that eye is more and more blinkered to the fact that more men are being left behind. And that's before we get to medical help, medical research, far more men dying young etc. Seems just a tad one sided to me TBH.

KomradeBishop · 17-12-2014 12:12AM

tritium wrote: »

If you are going to raise a point about someone holding anti-feminist views you may reasonably expect someone to challenge you on what exactly that means.

If you're going to question someone's bona-fides you may reasonably expect someone to challenge you to justify the links you've made and the issues you've raised.

That's exactly what I've done here

That's exactly what you refuse to address

Others can draw their own conclusion from your silence

You made no argument countering my points, you picked at two irrelevant descriptions I used - 'right wing' and 'anti-feminist' (these descriptions can easily be Googled as being applicable, they are not criticisms in themselves) - and then used those to create a red-herring, which ignores my actual argument criticizing the source.

You haven't got any argument countering my criticism of the original Irish Times letter either - your own silence there is notable - you're entirely hung-up on me detailing the background of the sources in that letter.

Wibbs · 17-12-2014 12:15AM

Can we please, please, pretty please back off from this pointless point scoring back and forth stuff? It's getting tiring at this stage lads. No more. Let's move on. Thanks.

marienbad · 17-12-2014 12:15AM

Wibbs wrote: »

What about women in the PS? Any further info on that? Women in the Dail? OK, however, women vote in more numbers than men so who are they voting for? However I am with you on the bodily rights part.

And as I pointed out earlier in the thread:
And that's the National Women's council of Ireland, which advises the ICTU and takes it's stats from the EU commission/OECD and yet I hear no bleating and crawthumping about childless men earning 17% less than childless women, nor am I hearing bleating and crawthumping about how 1 in 4 Irish boys in school are barely literate, nor am I hearing bleating and crawthumping about how far fewer boys are reaching third level. It does seem that the stats are only trotted out when they follow the political mantra, rather than the reality on the ground and that reality is while the concentrated eye is on the elite members of society, that eye is more and more blinkered to the fact men are being left behind. And that's before we get to medical help, medical research, far more men dying young etc. Seems just a tad one sided to me TBH.

So now after about 50 posts you get to the other issues I raised , no wonder mens rights campaigns are a shambles of whataboutery . And this is a tragedy as serious mens issues are submerged in all the chip on the shoulder stuff.

What hope is there when you don't even recognise those sympathetic to those issues.I'm done.

Wibbs · 17-12-2014 12:28AM

marienbad wrote: »

What hope is there when you don't even recognise those sympathetic to those issues.I'm done.

And no comment on the 17% paygap going the other way? The paygap you don't see, or at least seem to ignore? The "paygap" no one is freaking out about and indeed is hidden in doublespeak in the report by the Irish women's council. It's not "whataboutery" or "patriarchy" or "paygap" or "1 in 4" or "mansplaining"(I do love that one as a debating tool) or whatever meme is all too often often trotted out to ignore and/or stifle any further debate(I use the word loosely) and steer it back to the one viewpoint.

Let's try again: Women in the PS, Women in the Dail? Any more on that? I'd especially like to know more on the PS. Genuine question BTW MB. How are women discriminated against there? Yes I well remember a day when they were forced to leave when they got married and all that utter nonsense, but how is their lot today and how does it differ from the average man in the PS? Mark me, I'm not talking about the tope earners the "elite", I mean the rank and file, the men and women doing the lions share of the work.

PS MB, we're not all one mind. I have no idea what the fifty posts reference is about, but I certainly didn't make fifty posts on the subject(for a nice change

)

iptba · 17-12-2014 12:41AM

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all , nothing one says will be accepted , as well as ignoring completely the other issues I raised - women in the Civil Service, Women in the Dail, Antiquated hair spliiting passing as law on womens bodily rights , the focus is on the one issue you think you can debunk.

I have seen statistics that show that there are slightly more women who are anti-abortion/pro-life than men. So I don't accept that anti-abortion laws are evidence of men having more of the power, if that's your point (certainly I've heard that point being made before).

Mens Rights Thread

Comments