(POTENTIAL CONTROVERSY) 007 Film Continued Discussion

[ChapterAquila92]

That would be an alternative interpretation of the word feminism apart from its common usage. As feminism is an argument for women's rights based upon the equality of the sexes.

Whilst I agree, the currently accepted common usage for the word is unfortunately intertwined with female chauvinism and misandry by way of two very extreme vocal minorities that disproportionately dominate the public discourse.

 

[LizardWizard]

Whilst I agree, the currently accepted common usage for the word is unfortunately intertwined with female chauvinism and misandry by way of two very extreme vocal minorities that disproportionately dominate the public discourse.

They only dominate the discourse if you give them attention.

Men's Rights Groups are hardy a measured or reasoned response to misandry. From a purely numbers driven perspective misogyny makes up the vast bulk of gender related hate crimes and abuse. It is not to say that anyone suffering from a gender related incident/s of hate shouldn't be treated with respect or have their grievances addressed.

The majority of work done in the furtherance of feminism is in the pursuit of equity amongst the sexes. Unless you believe that equity has already been achieved in North America and Europe. At which point, I am not sure there is much that can be done to close the gap between perspective realities. Especially if either side can't even agree on the perspective stance of the other side.

 

[Scalenex]

What your looking for are Egalitarians then. Not Feminists (and equally not MGTOW).

Every group has subdivisions and in the twenty-first century, most groups spend nearly as much time fighting their own internal divisions. PETA is a poster child example. They have been the most famous animal rights activists for decades but they have been getting a lot of flak for thier support of animal shelters with high euthenasia rates. They also have some higher ups who say that it's amoral for people to keep pets and a lot of animal rights activists love their pets. So that's a lot of conflict.

Feminism has about twelve different subgroups right now. I think my political science professor had ten categories when he taught a class on feminism. That was in 2003. Now there are pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT wings of the feminist movement. There is also more accusations being thrown by feminists at other feminists that feminism has become a white woman's tool and ignores the plight of women of color. In the next five years, I expect to see class based divides emerge. Going to movies, SJWs have been kicking proverbial dirt in Daisy Ridley's face for her privleged upbringing.

The founding fathers of the Mens Rights Activism movement were egalitarian male feminists who felt betrayed by their feminist sisters who after achieving equality, in their opinion started fighting to bring men down rather than bring men up. They were born of the feminism and now oppose it.

I've watched a lot of videos from anti-feminists. In most cases anti-feminists are anti-Third wave feminism. They want to go back to Second Wave feminism and pump the brakes lest their be a backlash by men. More people are dodging the label "feminist" but few men and very few women are actually opposed to feminist ideology.

Whilst I agree, the currently accepted common usage for the word [feminism] is unfortunately intertwined with female chauvinism and misandry by way of two very extreme vocal minorities that disproportionately dominate the public discourse.

That's why women are ditching the label.


Egalitarianism is messier. Egalitarianism is used to justify about a hundred political platforms and philosophies. I would spitball that 80-90% of people in Western Civilization consider themselves egalitarian. There are so many different ways to interpret egalitarianism that it's almost useless in terms of establishing common ground. It's like saying. "Let's both agree to breath air!"

I myself am pretty ambivalent on the concept of egalitarianism. Monday Scalenex is not equal to Thursday Scalenex. If I cannot be equal to myself, how I can be equal to everyone else? On the other hand, living in an unequal world is sort of terrifying.



Anyway, I have no idea how to steer this back to James Bond. I think we hit the key points for why the next 007 probably won't do well.

 

[Aginor]

Anyway, I have no idea how to steer this back to James Bond. I think we hit the key points for why the next 007 probably won't do well.

I think so.
There are several good reasons why it is relatively likely to fail to some degree or another. In the end it will most likely be hard to tell which is the most important one though.

So be prepared, everyone will claim it proof for themselves and their theory, like usually.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

That would be an alternative interpretation of the word feminism apart from its common usage. As feminism is an argument for women's rights based upon the equality of the sexes.

That might be what they are advertising, but it isn't what they are selling!


Or if you prefer, as my friend likes to say, "if you believe that, I have some magic beans to sell you".

 

[LizardWizard]

That might be what they are advertising, but it isn't what they are selling!


Or if you prefer, as my friend likes to say, "if you believe that, I have some magic beans to sell you".

This is at the heart of my comment related to occupying an unshared reality. It seems that opposing positions don't agree with their opponent's on what measures either supports. Feminism (some excluded I am sure) is not misandry, even if you believe it is. And Men's Rights Groups (some excluded) are not chauvinist fascist.

I am a man who is a feminist. I don't agree with the presumptions of most MRGs, because most of the forward facing groups I encounter aren't actually for addressing the inequality of male roles within society and law, but seem to actually be about attempting to deconstruct feminism. It also seems wildly apparent to me that my female counterparts with whom we share society have less opportunity, suffer greater violence, and are more likely to encounter vocational discrimination than men. I also don't think misandry is nonexistent. I think there are strong arguments to be made that the pendulum on custody rights has swung too far from preferring men and has left fathers extremely disfavored by the courts in this respect (at least in the states). There are other areas where men suffer inequity as well. However, when I look at society as a whole it is easily demonstrable that women endure more systemic injustice. This is not to say that I don't support addressing the inequity of all. The same way that acknowledging racism doesn't mean I think white people never experience race based prejudice in America.

Misinformation is extremely volatile and damaging to democratic society. Both sides suffer from consuming misinformation that is amplified by the loudest most extreme voice on either end. If you think feminism is the hatred of men or even the promotion of women to the exclusion of men then I recommend that you read the works of serious academic feminist and gain a better understanding of their agendas and the legislation they push to achieve it. We all need to stop listening to those attempting to hijack causes for their own purposes.

 

[Aginor]

This is at the heart of my comment related to occupying an unshared reality. It seems that opposing positions don't agree with their opponent's on what measures either supports. Feminism (some excluded I am sure) is not misandry, even if you believe it is. And Men's Rights Groups (some excluded) are not chauvinist fascist.

I am a man who is a feminist. I don't agree with the presumptions of most MRGs, because most of the forward facing groups I encounter aren't actually for addressing the inequality of male roles within society and law, but seem to actually be about attempting to deconstruct feminism. It also seems wildly apparent to me that my female counterparts with whom we share society have less opportunity, suffer greater violence, and are more likely to encounter vocational discrimination than men. I also don't think misandry is nonexistent. I think there are strong arguments to be made that the pendulum on custody rights has swung too far from preferring men and has left fathers extremely disfavored by the courts in this respect (at least in the states). There are other areas where men suffer inequity as well. However, when I look at society as a whole it is easily demonstrable that women endure more systemic injustice. This is not to say that I don't support addressing the inequity of all. The same way that acknowledging racism doesn't mean I think white people never experience race based prejudice in America.

Misinformation is extremely volatile and damaging to democratic society. Both sides suffer from consuming misinformation that is amplified by the loudest most extreme voice on either end. If you think feminism is the hatred of men or even the promotion of women to the exclusion of men then I recommend that you read the works of serious academic feminist and gain a better understanding of their agendas and the legislation they push to achieve it. We all need to stop listening to those attempting to hijack causes for their own purposes.

Especially since there isn't one single entity ("they") defining the term (and having an agenda, "advertising" something, etc.)
Are there feminists who just hate men? Sure. Are there others? Yeah.

 

[ravagekitteh]

This is at the heart of my comment related to occupying an unshared reality. It seems that opposing positions don't agree with their opponent's on what measures either supports. Feminism (some excluded I am sure) is not misandry, even if you believe it is. And Men's Rights Groups (some excluded) are not chauvinist fascist.

I am a man who is a feminist. I don't agree with the presumptions of most MRGs, because most of the forward facing groups I encounter aren't actually for addressing the inequality of male roles within society and law, but seem to actually be about attempting to deconstruct feminism. It also seems wildly apparent to me that my female counterparts with whom we share society have less opportunity, suffer greater violence, and are more likely to encounter vocational discrimination than men. I also don't think misandry is nonexistent. I think there are strong arguments to be made that the pendulum on custody rights has swung too far from preferring men and has left fathers extremely disfavored by the courts in this respect (at least in the states). There are other areas where men suffer inequity as well. However, when I look at society as a whole it is easily demonstrable that women endure more systemic injustice. This is not to say that I don't support addressing the inequity of all. The same way that acknowledging racism doesn't mean I think white people never experience race based prejudice in America.

Misinformation is extremely volatile and damaging to democratic society. Both sides suffer from consuming misinformation that is amplified by the loudest most extreme voice on either end. If you think feminism is the hatred of men or even the promotion of women to the exclusion of men then I recommend that you read the works of serious academic feminist and gain a better understanding of their agendas and the legislation they push to achieve it. We all need to stop listening to those attempting to hijack causes for their own purposes.

I wish I could like this twice. Yes there are extremes on both sides (I would be inclined to say more on the MRGs myself, but given the current reputation of feminism it would be delusional to say there aren’t some on that side as well), but if you want to label all members of such movements as extremists you achieve f*** all except a poor excuse to completely ignore the valid and important points being made by the majority. That being said however, I think trying to equate the struggles of men (particularly of the straight and white variety) to those of women is utterly absurd.

Think about it like this: you are a fire service and receive two calls. One is for a small isolated warehouse that has caught fire. The warehouse is currently empty, and everyone’s made it out, but if left it could cause a potential problem and it’s certainly something that should be sorted. In the other call, an entire huge children’s hospital has gone up in smoke. Does it stop the warehouse from being on fire? No. Does it mean that the warehouse being on fire isn’t a problem or shouldn’t be considered as such? No. But does it mean that you should go to the warehouse fire instead of the children’s hospital? Of course not! There is clearly a far larger and more immediate problem that requires your attention first! Perhaps once the hospital fire has been brought under control then someone can be dispatched to deal with the warehouse, but until then, acting like the two are of equal importance is ridiculous and priority must clearly be given to the greater issue.

There are areas in which men are discriminated against - that’s a fact. However, issues such as not generally getting as much custody in divorces and being more frequently the butt of jokes in adverts seems a tiny but trivial compared to having assault and rape against them normalised and constantly being denied opportunities due to something that goes to the core of their being. You can give all these arguments about “oh, laws are in place to stop this sort of thing” and such, but it only takes a cursory look to see that despite this, it’s still happening and is still a major issue that we need to sort out. To be short, I’m not saying sexism against men or racism against white people or discrimination against straight people doesn’t exist. I’m saying that if you think these things are worse than their female, non-white, LGBTQ+ equivalents, then you’re an idiot.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

This is at the heart of my comment related to occupying an unshared reality. It seems that opposing positions don't agree with their opponent's on what measures either supports. Feminism (some excluded I am sure) is not misandry, even if you believe it is. And Men's Rights Groups (some excluded) are not chauvinist fascist.

I am a man who is a feminist. I don't agree with the presumptions of most MRGs, because most of the forward facing groups I encounter aren't actually for addressing the inequality of male roles within society and law, but seem to actually be about attempting to deconstruct feminism. It also seems wildly apparent to me that my female counterparts with whom we share society have less opportunity, suffer greater violence, and are more likely to encounter vocational discrimination than men. I also don't think misandry is nonexistent. I think there are strong arguments to be made that the pendulum on custody rights has swung too far from preferring men and has left fathers extremely disfavored by the courts in this respect (at least in the states). There are other areas where men suffer inequity as well. However, when I look at society as a whole it is easily demonstrable that women endure more systemic injustice. This is not to say that I don't support addressing the inequity of all. The same way that acknowledging racism doesn't mean I think white people never experience race based prejudice in America.

Misinformation is extremely volatile and damaging to democratic society. Both sides suffer from consuming misinformation that is amplified by the loudest most extreme voice on either end. If you think feminism is the hatred of men or even the promotion of women to the exclusion of men then I recommend that you read the works of serious academic feminist and gain a better understanding of their agendas and the legislation they push to achieve it. We all need to stop listening to those attempting to hijack causes for their own purposes.

That's the "advertisement" I was eluding to. It sounds nice and looks good on the pamphlet but it doesn't accurately reflect reality. You are of course free to believe otherwise. There is an exodus away from feminism. Even the percentage of women who self-identify as feminists is abysmally low (there is UK census data to back this up if you are interested). This trend is contradictory with what you purport feminism to be. They are selling you wolf tickets.

I can't take any movement or group seriously when they promote ideas like the gender pay gap, which immediately falls apart under any level of reasoned scrutiny. Or the fact that we live in a "rape culture". Rape is despised. Rapists are viewed as the scum of the earth by men and women (even in prison). It's nonsense.

As for your serious academic feminist (that's low hanging fruit so I'll refrain from making jokes on that), a year or two back a couple of professors demonstrated what kind of nonsense academic feminist/gender journal articles were spewing forth. They fabricated a bunch of fake papers using feminist/gender buzzwords and submitted them for publication. A few of them were actually accepted (try that with an accredited Physics journal!). To give you a perspective of what kind of nonsense they incorporated in order to make their point, one of the papers was a copy of a chapter of Hitler's Mein Kampf with keywords replaced with feminist/gender buzzwords and theories. Their most famous one was about dog parks and rape culture; you can see one of the Professors talk about it here (there are many more longer videos that you can easily find for yourself)...

On a more anecdotal level, a decade back I had a very close personal female friend of mine take a women's study course in university (one of those forced "electives"). I trust this woman and over the years I've never had any reason to suspect that anything she has told me was untrue. After she finished the course, I asked her about it. She said it was disgusting man hating. She was shocked at the things they were able to get away with. She lost all respect for that field of study or ideology. Keep in mind this "information" was coming from a professor (PhD) in an accredited university, not just some nut job on the streets. Not only that, but this professor and the course in general would have been overseen by countless others.


But once again, (despite my best efforts) here I am arguing over the same tired points that we have quarreled over in the past. Nothing will ever change. No matter how many times we run through this process, I'll still see the same three forum members lined up on the other side of the "battlefield". I'm sure you feel the same way. It's a pointless exercise as all parties have continually demonstrated that they are firmly entrenched and immovable. Furthermore, aside from a few members who drift in and out, nobody else on the forum really cares. Most people sitting on the fence (or simply uninterested) in the topic have zero desire to read through walls of text, whether yours or mine. Rather than waste time carefully writing a response, I could have just as easily replied with something like this

Spoiler

The sad reality is that with today's short attention span, carefully crafted memes, jokes and ridicule are significantly more effective at bringing the masses to your side than pages of thought out argumentation. It might not be "right" but it is quick, easy and effective. I'm not advocating for the refusal of reasoned debate and discussion, but I do believe there are probably better environments for it. And if your goal is to actually get at the heart of issue (as opposed to winning over bystanders to your side) we've clearly proven that to be pretty fruitless endeavor over the past year. At the end of the day, everyone seems to leave with pretty much the exact same mindset as they originally entered with.

Like I've said before, I'll let history decide who the victor is. At which point, I'll resurrect this thread with a a meme or a gif and someone on the other side will claim that I am incorrectly claiming that the victory proves my point [a desperate but logical move I suppose]. That said, I've called my shot, eight ball corner pocket... I'm happy to let history unfold.

Especially since there isn't one single entity ("they") defining the term (and having an agenda, "advertising" something, etc.)
Are there feminists who just hate men? Sure. Are there others? Yeah.

But there is a net effect. And it is very easy to speak on that net effect.




****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
One last thing, conversations like this are a powder keg. A game of Russian roulette. It's not a question of if things will go wrong but when. That's not to say I will avoid all such discussions in the future, but at least I hope they are about something that we have yet to discuss ad nauseam. @Aginor and I were constantly butting heads over Star Wars, until it was agreed that we simply do not discuss the subject with one another. Since then, we have brought peace, freedom, justice and security to our new emp... . Point is, if this conversation is a powder keg, I'm likely the match!

I tried to refrain from entering the fray (until multiple taggings), but now I leave you to it my friends. Believe what you will. I respect the three of you, but I vehemently disagree with your thoughts and ideologies as they pertain to this particular topic. I have full confidence in @Scalenex continuing the good fight (he feels inclined to), and he would do so in a more diplomatic way. Any further call on the NIGHTBRINGER will likely result in memed responses! Be forewarned.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

[LizardWizard]

I agree with @ravagekitteh.

I have been largely ignorant of many of the struggles facing young white men in positions of disadvantage. I do still think that the systemic and greater oppression is born by women and people of color. In terms of politics, both social and economic, I am left of center. Rather left actually. For the past two years I have jumped between dismissing the right as absurd and trying to understand their reasoning that seems absurd to me.

Where my preamble was headed is this; there is a crisis among young white men. This crisis is played out in school shootings, work place shootings, newsroom shootings, pizza-gate rampages, across the various anonymous messages boards of the internet, suicide, and an epidemic of depression. I think part of the anger that fuels these individuals is a feeling that what they were promised has not materialized. At least in the USA many of these people have faced the hard reality of sky rocketing educational expenses, prohibitaly high medical expenses, diminished access to high paying low skill jobs, and a displacement of status among their piers. This is not to say these same conditions have not had equal presence on people across the demographic spectrum.

The left, at least in its forward facing messaging, has largely ignored these people or blamed them for their own plight. The right (when I say right in this instance I mean Breitbart and the alt-right) has heard the anger and backlash from these young men and then misattributed their woes to immigration, affirmative action, social programs, libs, gays, Muslims, ect, ect, ect. We are fighting against what should be allies in the cause for economic reform, medical coverage expansion, wage expansion, and education access because we have failed to hear their woes.

What we risk by ignoring the small warehouse fire is that the owner will become a revanchist arsonist. While I believe in the cause of the left I disagree with its willingness to demonize deplorables. Instead of lining up to fight we should be spreading out to reform.

Sorry to take things so far off topic

 

[Killer Angel]

There is another school of thought on "Get Woke, Go Broke." It's the idea that this relationship is correlational not causational. "This franchise is tanking. No one cares about it anymore. What if we put wokness in it? Then we have a 10% chance of saving it as opposed to a 0% chance of saving it."

I didn't not watch the latest Terminator and Charlies Angels movies because they were woke. I chose not to watch them because I didn't care. I didn't like the previous movies in the respective franchises.

That said. At the end of the day, Hollywood executive types want to make money, they don't want to save (or destroy) franchises. In a capitalist system, if some action loses money, it's best to stop doing it.

You have a point, but i tend to disagree.
Let me try to elaborate.

ONE
yes, Hollywood, as part of the capitalism, cares about making money.
But this has never stopped a director, if enough powerful and/or with enough successes under his belt, especially when supported by a compliant producer, to develope a product that enforces his own artistic view, despite the consequences.
Cimino and Heaven's Gate is a notable example.
So, this is even truer for "personal" social pov, especially when these are supported by a political alignment.

TWO
The reasoning "the franchise is dying anyway, so why not?", works up only to a certain point.
Star Trek was going downhill. Insurrection, Nemesis… ST was, indeed, dying a slow but inevitable Death.
Star Trek - the beginning, was a try to reboot the franchise with a modern angle, to restart it all with an "alternate reality". Young protagonists, many opportunities for character development.
The continuation wasn't good at all, but the initial idea got its merit.
Anedoctal evidence: the least ST movie a saw in theatres was THe voyage home. i came back to theaters for ST the beginning. And overall the box office answered in a positive way. So, "go woke" is definitely not the only option to save a franchise.

THREE
the above consideration was for a dying franchise, but what about an already dead one?
Ghostbusters. Should i go on?
the series was beloved and since long dead; GB2016 was a precise and knowingly act, turning the whole group into a women group; the bad choice of cast was the nail in the coffin.
And since you cannot apply the reasoning "it needs to be saved, so why not?", we are only left with "go woke, get broke"

FOUR
There are franchises that are not dead, neither dying, but are alive and kicking.
If you create that horrible mess that is Batwoman, you have no excuses… apart for blaming the "patriarchy" and men in general, for not loving a product that was never destined to them anyway.

 

[LizardWizard]

I can't take any movement or group seriously when they promote ideas like the gender pay gap, which immediately falls apart under any level of reasoned scrutiny.

I mean, nearly every economist would disagree with you. And that is certainly not a field populated by left leaning academics.

As for your serious academic feminist (that's low hanging fruit so I'll refrain from making jokes on that), a year or two back a couple of professors demonstrated what kind of nonsense academic feminist/gender journal articles were spewing forth. They fabricated a bunch of fake papers using feminist/gender buzzwords and submitted them for publication. A few of them were actually accepted (try that with an accredited Physics journal!). To give you a perspective of what kind of nonsense they incorporated in order to make their point, one of the papers was a copy of a chapter of Hitler's Mein Kampf with keywords replaced with feminist/gender buzzwords and theories. Their most famous one was about dog parks and rape culture; you can see one of the Professors talk about it here (there are many more longer videos that you can easily find for yourself)...


On a more anecdotal level, a decade back I had a very close personal female friend of mine take a women's study course in university (one of those forced "electives"). I trust this woman and over the years I've never had any reason to suspect that anything she has told me was untrue. After she finished the course, I asked her about it. She said it was disgusting man hating. She was shocked at the things they were able to get away with. She lost all respect for that field of study or ideology. Keep in mind this "information" was coming from a professor (PhD) in an accredited university, not just some nut job on the streets. Not only that, but this professor and the course in general would have been overseen by countless others.

There are academic outliers of all stripes. It is part of peer process and the allowance for freedom of thought. Not all professors will respect this view. There are professors who are bent on pushing their own biases. But their existence in the field is not a bug, but a feature. The bulk of academic work in the field does not support them. But, you won't hear a quippy story or read an article of apocalyptic scope about them. Studious academic work is dry and doesn't sell well.

 

[ravagekitteh]

I can't take any movement or group seriously when they promote ideas like the gender pay gap, which immediately falls apart under any level of reasoned scrutiny. Or the fact that we live in a "rape culture". Rape is despised. Rapists are viewed as the scum of the earth by men and women (even in prison). It's nonsense.

I would just like to share a short but poignant piece on rape culture by a woman I follow and admire. There is more to rape culture than just saying it’s okay to rape people (these are her words by the way, not mine so I can take no credit for them):

Virtually every narrative designed to combat rape culture is misrepresented and adulterated by apologists (see e.g., “believe women). Distortions are intended to discredit the existence of rape culture entirely - most importantly, the prevalence (vs. existence) of rapists.

You’ve likely heard the [true] assertion that rape is about control, not sex, and if you’re a victim, you likely understand it well. For those who aren’t listening or don’t care to be, though, it has a tendency to relegate perspectives into the rapists-jump-out-of-bushes bin.

Yes, some rapists are sadistic f*cks who get off on helplessness, but 70% of rapes are perpetrated by an acquaintance, not a stranger. A rapist usually looks and acts like, well, possibly any of the men you know. And yes, a lot of them want sex - but it’s still about control.

Control means controlling the situation. Sitting in the drivers seat. Action taken based on your inclination alone. When the decision to have sex is unilateral, that’s a decision to rape. Silent agreement, silent acquiescence, and silent dissent all sound the same.

Problematic socialization of gendered sexual roles plays a role, of course, but it’s more than that. Virtually no bilateral interaction between two adults operates legitimately with unilateral consent to participate - we ask friends to hang out. We show up to work for a paycheck.

And when interactions aren’t bilateral, we recognize them as disnormative, even violative - the assumptive friend, the invasive family member, the boss who doesn’t pay, the too-close stranger on the train. So why would the decision to penetrate someone’s body ever be unilateral?

Because rape is about control.

And control over another is driven entitlement, conscious or unconscious apathy toward the way you affect others, and prioritizing yourself to the benefit of your wants or needs.

Privilege, in a nutshell.

So when women talk about rape culture, we still mean you, even if you’re not a rapist, because unless you listen and reframe your interactions accordingly (which includes not prioritizing your ego over our harm) you act like one.

And you provide safe harbor for those who are.

 

[Killer Angel]

I mean, nearly every economist would disagree with you. And that is certainly not a field populated by left leaning academics.

oh men, this is largely off topic but hey.
gender pay gap do exist, but the gap is also far less wide than what we can presume.
We perceive the non-adjusted pay gap, but what matters is the adjusted pay gap, which explains the difference in pay with a large number of factors.
Adjusted pay gap DO EXIST, but is much smaller, and in some cases women tend to be paid more then men (chemistry).

Plus, there are facts that no one can take into account for mathematic calculations of the gap: some research suggests that women are more likely to volunteer for tasks that are less likely to help earn promotions, and that they are more likely to be asked to volunteer and more likely to say yes to such requests. The psycological factor is very important.

Plus, the capitalistic system is an impersonal machine that makes money and cut the expenses. If the pay gap were really this wide, industries would hire almost only women. Because why not?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I can't take any movement or group seriously when they promote ideas like the gender pay gap, which immediately falls apart under any level of reasoned scrutiny.

Any further call on the NIGHTBRINGER will likely result in memed responses! Be forewarned.

I mean, nearly every economist would disagree with you.

I think you should research the topic a little more before you speak on it. That is an extremely foolish statement.

The gender pay gap does not account for job type, experience level, education, etc. When normalized for those variables it disappears. On average men do more dangerous jobs. On average men do jobs in remote or harsh climates. On average men put in more hours of work. YADA, YADA, YADA.

 

[Aginor]

I mean, nearly every economist would disagree with you. And that is certainly not a field populated by left leaning academics.




There are academic outliers of all stripes. It is part of peer process and the allowance for freedom of thought. Not all professors will respect this view. There are professors who are bent on pushing their own biases. But their existence in the field is not a bug, but a feature. The bulk of academic work in the field does not support them. But, you won't hear a quippy story or read an article of apocalyptic scope about them. Studious academic work is dry and doesn't sell well.

And absurdities like they do happen in gender studies happen in many many other fields as well.
Gender studies have it worse than many, that's out of question, but it happens in all human science and even in some others.
There have been nonsense papers accepted by renowned journals and discussed on conferences. Even in physics.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Plus, the capitalistic system is a machine for make money and cut the expenses. If the pay gap were really this wide, industries would hire almost only women. Because why not?

THANK YOU! Finally some common sense (which I've found out isn't that common at all).

I've heard it spewed forth that Latino women make somewhere in the ball park of 53 cents on the dollar (as compared to men). Bernie Sanders is on among many who have touted this piece of misinformation, so it isn't just some crackpot in the fringes. If this were true, every business would aim to hire exclusively Latino women in the highest of positions. Money trumps (trigger warning) sexism. Since it is clearly not the case that these positions are comprised purely of Latino women, we are left with two possibilities...

1. that gender pay gap in relation to Latino women is bullshit
2. Latino women cannot perform the work to same level as their male counterparts

So to those proposing this gender pay gap nonsense, pick your poison. Which is it? Unless you think that investors are willing to throw out billions of dollars for sexism.

 

[LizardWizard]

oh men, this is largely off topic but hey.
gender pay gap do exist, but the gap is also far less wide than what we can presume.
We perceive the non-adjusted pay gap, but what matters is the adjusted pay gap, which explains the difference in pay with a large number of factors.
Adjusted pay gap DO EXIST, but is much smaller, and in some cases women tend to be paid more then men (chemistry).

Plus, there are facts that no one can take into account for mathematic calculations of the gap: some research suggests that women are more likely to volunteer for tasks that are less likely to help earn promotions, and that they are more likely to be asked to volunteer and more likely to say yes to such requests. The psycological factor is very important.

Plus, the capitalistic system is an impersonal machine that makes money and cut the expenses. If the pay gap were really this wide, industries would hire almost only women. Because why not?

Correct, the adjusted and cross sectioned numbers are smaller than the nominative, which is expected. I should clarify that when speaking about data driven analytics, I am only talking about controlled studies. I am not concerned with nominative totals. And like we both have said, the controlled pay gap is lower, but still very present. And it is present across vocation, class, race, age, country of origin, ect. There are fields where women do better than male counterparts for pay, but the aggregated trends show a consistent unjustified pay gap.

 

[LizardWizard]

Latino women cannot perform the work to same level as their male counterparts

Now I know why we are unable to agree on any commonalities.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

And you provide safe harbor for those who are.

I take responsibility for my actions and my actions alone. I condemn those people that rape others and I believe they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


PERIOD.