quote:

---

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry."

---

Stony silence. And this guy got a Nobel Prize.

Dissecting Sir Tim's "trouble": "..you fall in love with them". Own your own emotions, man.

"...they fall in love with you." That's their problem. Demand good work and a good working relationship whatever their feelings.

"...and when you criticise them they cry." Again, their problem not yours. Hand them a tissue. Wait for the tears to stop. Do a self-check on whether you really wanted a positive result from your words or whether you primarily intended to be scathing and demeaning. Then ask if they understood the criticism. Repeat as necessary.

I've heard from men who consider tears manipulative. Sometimes they are. Usually they are just about venting frustration. The same men often think nothing of letting off a loud, angry stream of obscenities and possibly some flying objects when they vent (or manipulate), persuading the less forthright to tread carefully in order not to set them off again. Win-win for the venters. But these kinds of emotions are generally not thought of as being particularly cringeworthy in the same way tears are.

Sir Tim is at the top-of-the-scientific-food-chain. If there are many more like him but perhaps less crude and forthright, no wonder the percentages of women (not "girls") who succeed in the scientific realm are so dismal. Take a look at how dismal.

I've read a number of anecdotal articles from women in math and science in the aftermath of Sir Tim Hunt's debacle. Many have experienced extreme toxicity in both their universities and their work places because of such sexism. Jeez. And this is the twenty-first century.

Any shipmates in science (especially girls...er, women) want share their experiences? And how do you battle these attitudes when you are patently not dealing with ignorance or unintelligence in such a milieu?
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The proper way to battle this is with ridicule. There are tons of Facebook and Twitter memes out there right now, some of them truly funny. Laugh it to scorn.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Knee and left hook. Attitudes like his are on a continuum with people I would kill.

He has backtracked. And resigned something. Had to. It only goes to show that book or lab smart and otherwise smart are orthogonal. So is frequently observed.

This thread could be in the hell these sorts of attitudes belong in. Ivory tower indeed.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The proper way to battle this is with ridicule. There are tons of Facebook and Twitter memes out there right now, some of them truly funny. Laugh it to scorn.

---

quote:

---

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The proper way to battle this is with ridicule. There are tons of Facebook and Twitter memes out there right now, some of them truly funny. Laugh it to scorn.

---

Yeah, the response to this silly statement has been ridiculously uplifting. All This guy did was set up the opportunity for female scientists to show how hard they work.

---

Been loving the responses.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I've read a number of anecdotal articles from women in math and science in the aftermath of Sir Tim Hunt's debacle. Many have experienced extreme toxicity in both their universities and their work places because of such sexism. Jeez. And this is the twenty-first century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

I've heard from men who consider tears manipulative. Sometimes they are. Usually they are just about venting frustration. The same men often think nothing of letting off a loud, angry stream of obscenities and possibly some flying objects when they vent (or manipulate), persuading the less forthright to tread carefully in order not to set them off again. Win-win for the venters. But these kinds of emotions are generally not thought of as being particularly cringeworthy in the same way tears are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I do understand that he meant it humourously, and that some academics are not good with other people, so their humour is, erm, ill-advised.

Oh, and all sorts of people have won Nobel prizes for their academic work despite being completely unable to deal with other people. In some areas, it is almost a necessity.

---

This... actually makes a lot of sense. And kind of makes me feel sorry for the guy. He was probably standing there expecting a good laugh, only to hear a record scratch...

Still, it gave a good excuse for a lot of sporting good fun, and who can complain about that, right?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
What is stupid is that the guy appears to have lost his position over it. Ridicule would be enough. I don't know the background, but to me that reeks of frustrated rivals [of either sex] seizing an opportunity to go for the jugular, regardless of the issue.

Speaking as an outsider, academic research appears to be one of the nastiest, bitchiest, vengeful and manipulative working environments to be in.

[edited for clarity]

[ 13. June 2015, 08:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
What is stupid is that the guy appears to have lost his position over it. Ridicule would be enough. I don't know the background, but to me that reeks of frustrated rivals [of either sex] seizing an opportunity to go for the jugular, regardless of the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I've read a number of anecdotal articles from women in math and science in the aftermath of Sir Tim Hunt's debacle. Many have experienced extreme toxicity in both their universities and their work places because of such sexism. Jeez. And this is the twenty-first century.

---

I'm a man, but still I have to say that this is not my experience with the academe at all. I have two PhD students currently. Both women. My Head of School is a woman, in an engineering department. We have several female Professors, all very much respected. I'm collaborating with the head of department of food sciences at the moment, a woman. When I meet with other PGR directors, about half of them are women. The head of the graduate school (the overall PGR boss) is a woman. I sit in committees selecting new members of staff now and then, gender has never been an issue. The former Pro Vice Chancellor Research, who hired me, was a woman. Etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
I work (as a mere functionary) in a research institute attached to a University, and I'd have to say this sounds about right. There are many things to complain about, for sure, but treatment of women isn't one of them, as far as I can see (and I am one). People seem to be advanced on merit (with merit, fortunately, being not only a function of number of papers produced, but having some regard to things like leadership/collegiality/participation/community service, and so on), and while the proportion of women to men in high level positions is not 50:50, I'd say it's heading there pretty fast, looking at who's waiting in the wings - and I have yet to pick up the slightest hint of a whisper that there's any man in the place who has a problem with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I'm clearly somewhat out of step on this one, and in danger of giving out an image that really is not me or my position on equality at all, but a lot of the reaction seems to be people accelerating the Outrage Bus up to 100mph as fast as possible, taking his words as if they were delivered in deadly earnest prior to calling for all women to be kept barefoot and pregnant, preferably chained to a domestic appliance.

As far as I can tell from the less hysterical reporting, he made the comments as an (ill-judged) attempt at light-hearted humour as part of a wider address. Not as the basis for establishing a platform of keeping women out of the lab because ... girl cooties.

---

quote:

---

Courtesy of the Internet, where every action is guaranteed an unequal and exponential over-reaction, he's suddenly the face of patriarchal misogyny and All That Is Evil. Is he bollocks. He's a bloke in his seventies who strangely enough isn't entirely in tune with current feminist sensibilities*, or sufficiently aware of how quickly a shit-storm can be whipped up with social media by anyone looking for an excuse and willing to bypass context.

---

quote:

---

After typing that, I feel I should say for the record that personally I prefer to work in a mixed economy. In fact, in order of preference it's mixed, female only, and male only last, and that regardless of the balance in any given workplace, character & effectiveness have bog all correlation with gender/sex. I'm all for the girls, me! I just think Tim Hunt has been drilled a new one somewhat harshly on this, poor sod**.

*Not that those are in any way a homogeneous thing, as we all know.

**This view subject to revision if my understanding of the context turns out to be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I believe it is impossible to extrapolate from individual experiences on this. The experiences of women scientists vary depending on the country, institution and even department and subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd therefore postulate that Tim Hunt was attempting to troll in public about the "unnecessary" attention given to the struggles of women scientists and the "lack of attention" given to men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Knee and left hook. Attitudes like his are on a continuum with people I would kill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Fair enough, but you then need to apply the same standards to people who encounter sexism. Don't your own comments about "unwanted advances" also represent individual experiences? If you discount (or warn caution against) one set of anecdotes but not the other, you've introduced bias.

---

quote:

---

The bits quoted of Tim Hunt's speech were so bizarre and tone-deaf that trolling seems as likely as anything. (Single sex labs? Seriously?) It'd be interesting to see the full transcript for context, as well as hear the full BBC apology he made - I've only come across snippets so far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]In fact, I don't believe that the abuse is confined to a small number of women in science. The best evidence suggests that a very large number of women scientists experience abuse at some point in their scientific career.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
So perhaps the question should be whether women get more abuse than men?

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Was it just a poor attempt at a bit of Old Duffer humour favoured by a popular radio presenter and chat show host up until not too long ago?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
... As far as I can tell from the less hysterical reporting, he made the comments as an (ill-judged) attempt at light-hearted humour as part of a wider address. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Given the figures discussed anecdotally at the body for which I work, I'd say that a high proportion of everyone gets abused sooner or later in their scientific career (and I should point out that some of the abusers are women as well). So perhaps the question should be whether women get more abuse than men?

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
... He's a bloke in his seventies who strangely enough isn't entirely in tune with current feminist sensibilities*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Given the figures discussed anecdotally at the body for which I work, I'd say that a high proportion of everyone gets abused sooner or later in their scientific career (and I should point out that some of the abusers are women as well). So perhaps the question should be whether women get more abuse than men?

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Unless this guy was looking for retirement anyway then fair enough, I don't think he should have been made to resign over it. OK, shout him down, out him for talking bollocks, call misogynist if you believe that's his bag, then leave it at that. It's called freedom of speech-- or used to be at any rate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
... He's a bloke in his seventies who strangely enough isn't entirely in tune with current feminist sensibilities*

---

Oops. I left out the "feminism is just a fad" card. Snags is holding three of a kind, not just a pair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Does "freedom of speech" actually mean, in your book, that you should be able to say anything and not take the consequences of it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Does "freedom of speech" actually mean, in your book, that you should be able to say anything and not take the consequences of it?

---

Freedom of speech in my book is being allowed to express an opinion. The only consequence should be a whole load of people disagreeing with that opinion, in the strongest possible terms if that opinion is deliberately contentious.

What this bloke said wasn't exactly Holocaust denial yet he, and others who trip-up on sensitive issues such as sexism and racism are being make to feel they've uttered something heinous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

It just sounds like a fuck you to UCL. Well, it's reversible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The problem is that pointing to all the people who do not experience abuse tends to devalue the experiences of those that do. But there is no moral equivalence - even if a handful of women only experience this in a small number of institutions, it does not therefore mean that the overwhelming majority should be offered as evidence, it makes no difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
....
I do, however, acknowledge my own un-wisdom in offering a possible alternative reading of the situation when not fully armed with every last available fact, particularly when such reading ran against the prevailing orthodoxy of joining in with giving the bloke a good kicking. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
....
I do, however, acknowledge my own un-wisdom in offering a possible alternative reading of the situation when not fully armed with every last available fact, particularly when such reading ran against the prevailing orthodoxy of joining in with giving the bloke a good kicking. ...

---

Except that it wasn't an alternative reading, it was a collection of the same clichés that are always trotted out when women have the nerve to complain about sexist behaviour or statements. "Oh, he's an old guy, give him a break." "You can't take a joke." "You're being hysterical." There's absolutely nothing original or counter-cultural in any of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If you want some idea of what it means to be a woman academic then, at least for UK listeners, the interview with her on Desert Island Discs gives some idea. Remember she is a success but she even she says she could not have done it without living in child care.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
In some situations it's appropriate to focus on the people who've experienced abuse - for instance, if trying to understand how badly they've been affected, or how they can be helped.

On the other hand, if you want to understand how prevalent abuse is, it's entirely misleading to downplay those people who haven't experienced it.

---

quote:

---

Suppose a tabloid wrote "Have you had trouble with Eastern European neighbours?" and then only reported the worst stuff, ignoring people who said "no, mine are fine". That would be a similar error.

---

quote:

---

(For the record, I have no opinion on the prevalence of sexism and/or harassment in science. It may be horrific or it may be relatively infrequent. I'm just objecting to your argument.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:


There's no reason that women cannot attend evening seminars; they need only tell their husbands, "Hon, your turn to fix dinner & get the kids to bed tonight."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If you want some idea of what it means to be a woman academic then, at least for UK listeners, the interview with her on Desert Island Discs gives some idea. Remember she is a success but she even she says she could not have done it without living in child care.

Jengie

---

And the basic problem with this is the extent to which we accept as given that child care is woman's work.

From my perspective -- where and when I'm living -- things are improving somewhat on this front. But only somewhat.

There's no reason that women cannot attend evening seminars; they need only tell their husbands, "Hon, your turn to fix dinner & get the kids to bed tonight."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
As I said, though, when one set of anecdotal data is accepted without argument, and another elicits demands for proof, that would indicate a problem, would't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
There's no reason that women cannot attend evening seminars; they need only tell their husbands, "Hon, your turn to fix dinner & get the kids to bed tonight."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Kelly, I think I'm saying the opposite of what you think I am. At no point have I demanded proof from anyone.

---

It was me who mentioned numbers - out of curiosity as to whether anyone had any rather than to belittle anyone's argument. Too much science in the soul .

As it happens the Athena SWAN scheme, which the UK universities appear to be thinking is the best thing since sliced bread, I think may be collecting exactly this data, and the suggestions I've heard - again, strictly anecdotal - is that around 30% of people have witnessed harassment or have been harassed themselves. How that is split between the sexes I have no idea, what I can tell you is that where I work has gained its Bronze award and applied for its Silver one without ever doing a damn thing that those of us who work for the harasser have noticed. Maybe you get points for being an equal opportunities abuser?

AG
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sometimes two academics have children but this only works if they can afford childcare. Usually young academics cannot afford this so one partner needs to give up to support the family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But that is making the assumption that the partner isn't in one of those 50-70 hour jobs that means they are already working that evening anyway. (So not working in medicine or science then.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
Hunt is a Nobel Prize winner and the general public tend to expect more from a Nobel Prize winner than your average Joe Blow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
Saying "the feminist position on" as not wildly different to saying "the Christian position on" - I was merely trying to acknowledge that there are many and varied differing strands as to what people consider to be 'feminist' is all.

---

But you didn't say "the feminist position on" you said "the current feminist position on" (my emphasis), implying that the feminist position (as if there is only one but let's let that slide) is a moving target. In a word, faddish.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Note to Hiro's Leap: in reading the thread backwards, I did indeed get everything backwards. Specifically, I said the same damn thing you just said. Sorry!
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh wait, scratch that.


DAMN YOU, BIG MEANYPANTS BASTARD! DON''T CRITICIZE ME!
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Dude, you'll be falling in love next. Stop it.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...in reading the thread backwards...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Dude, you'll be falling in love next. Stop it.

---

quote:

---

The odd thing is that he must have known that he was uttering poison, so why did he do it? Dunno.

---

My husband suggests that Hunt may have been cracking similar jokes to people who have felt obliged to laugh at his jokes because he has a Nobel Prize and a knighthood. End result - Hunt thinks he is actually witty and these jokes are actually funny.

He then trots out similar jokes to a group of people who are not dependent on him for continued employment and / or promotion, not anticipating the embarrassed silence which follows.
 

---

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Kelly, it was a confused tone! It only sounded stern because I'm an asshole with no people skills.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
( must. Not respond.)

i really apologize for the personal comments, folks, joking though they were. Because of the topic, I keep thinking we are in Hell.

[ 13. June 2015, 22:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
There's absolutely nothing original or counter-cultural in any of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It comes down to a similar thing I never understood during the banking crisis, why employ one person to do an eighty hour week (who then makes dodgy decisions or develops a crack habit) for £200,000 a year when you could employ two people for £90,000 a year to work a 40 hour week ?

People need jobs, and a life - bread & roses folks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... our culture is overwhelmingly feminist ..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
Saying "the feminist position on" as not wildly different to saying "the Christian position on" - I was merely trying to acknowledge that there are many and varied differing strands as to what people consider to be 'feminist' is all.

---

But you didn't say "the feminist position on" you said "the current feminist position on" (my emphasis), implying that the feminist position (as if there is only one but let's let that slide) is a moving target. In a word, faddish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Connie St Louis, inaccurately described on the BBC as a university lecturer, is actually a long-standing and very well respected senior British science journalist.

---

quote:

---

Director of the MA in Science Journalism at City University, London, award-winning broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
Or prone to development and change. There was no intention to be denigrating. As I've already acknowledged I clearly had a communication fail, so it would be nice if folk could accept that and stop looking for a fight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm a heck of a lot older than Sir Tim Hunt; but I still classify him as a misogynist dinosaur.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... our culture is overwhelmingly feminist ..

---

No, actually, it is not. And given that the goal of feminism is equality, I'm curious as to where you think that overwhelmingly equal society is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

Where is the evidence that this man has a hatred of women -- Oxford dictionary definition of Misogynist.

---

quote:

---

Let me tell you my trouble with girls: 3 things happen when they are in the lab; you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.

It’s very disruptive to science, because it’s terribly important in the lab that people are on a level playing, and I’ve found that these emotional entanglements have made life difficult

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A person does not have to achieve all of feminisms goals to be feminist. That's like saying that there are no socialists because no one has achieved all of socialism goals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
If it were overwhelmingly feminist, then you would never hear feminism mentioned. Because the dominant mindset equates to what is normal and natural and right. It is only the dissident and minority view that needs to make a fuss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
If it were overwhelmingly feminist, then you would never hear feminism mentioned. Because the dominant mindset equates to what is normal and natural and right. It is only the dissident and minority view that needs to make a fuss.

---

Really? So in Christian countries before the rise of secularism people never heard about Christianity, people in Communist countries never heard about communism, people never hear about Islam in countries where that is dominant? I think there is a flaw with your theory.

---

quote:

---

The idea that feminism is a minority view is clearly not true and the idea that it is a dissident view is utterly absurd.

---

quote:

---

The voices speaking in favour of feminism and feminist goals in politics, in culture and in intellectual/academic life are extremely numerous. Now how could this be the case if feminism was a dissident view?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you could name a major mainstream politician in any Western country who publicly opposes feminism or advocates opposition to feminist goals? (by major mainstream politician I mean a politician who is in or who has prospects of getting into national government, not someone on the political fringes)

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you could name a single academic or mainstream intellectual anywhere in the West who publicly opposes feminism or advocates opposition to feminist goals?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you could name a single major cultural figure anywhere in the West who publicly opposes feminism or advocates opposition to feminist goals?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you could name a single major corporate leader anywhere in the West who publicly opposes feminism or advocates opposition to feminist goals?

---

quote:

---

The sole example I can think of is solely in the area of politics, solely in the specific area of legalised abortion, a minority of major mainstream politicians (mainly in the United States) will advocate opposition to legalised abortion. Given how utterly ineffective this opposition is (have the last five Republican presidential terms brought the repeal of Roe vs Wade any closer) I would say that is the exception that proves the rule.

---

quote:

---

Feminism is culturally dominant throughout the West.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Because in the US, until recently, the salary wasn't the issue -- it was the bennies. Health care in particular was very costly for those corporations providing it. Then there's the retirement kick-in, and the stock options (maybe), and so on. One $200K person is therefore actually far less drag on the company profit margin than 2 $90K hires.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
If it were overwhelmingly feminist, then you would never hear feminism mentioned. Because the dominant mindset equates to what is normal and natural and right. It is only the dissident and minority view that needs to make a fuss.

---

Really? So in Christian countries before the rise of secularism people never heard about Christianity, people in Communist countries never heard about communism, people never hear about Islam in countries where that is dominant? I think there is a flaw with your theory.

---

An odd argument which now seems to equate "having heard of" with society being "overwhlemingly" feminist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile: Perhaps you could name a major mainstream politician in any Western country who publicly opposes feminism or advocates opposition to feminist goals? (by major mainstream politician I mean a politician who is in or who has prospects of getting into national government, not someone on the political fringes)

---

If you live in a system which is historically and intrinsically organised in a particular way, you don't actively have to be speaking out "against" the campaigns by feminists to be opposed to them. You just have to want to continue with the status quo. Obviously.

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile: Perhaps you could name a major mainstream politician in any Western country who publicly opposes feminism or advocates opposition to feminist goals? (by major mainstream politician I mean a politician who is in or who has prospects of getting into national government, not someone on the political fringes)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I societies where for example an established form of Christianity was cuturally dominant people hadn't just simply 'heard of' Christianity. It was a society where they heard Christianity being praised by all the major people in political, cultural, intellectual and economic life. They would do so because there were political, cultural, academic and economic rewards for doing so. Opposition to Christianity was a dissident position to take because the political, cultural, academic and economic consequences of publicly opposing the Christian religion were all negative. The same is true of Islam is Islamic societies and Communism in communist countries.

---

quote:

---

But why wouldn't people actively speak out against campaigns by feminists. If opposition to feminism is culturally dominant in the West and if Feminism is a dissident point of view then mainstream political, economic, cultural and intellectual figures who actively speak out against feminism will be tend to be rewarded for it, politically, economically, culturally and academically. In such a society people who publicly speak out in favour of feminism will tend to receive negative consequences for themselves in all those areas.

---

quote:

---

By contrast a society where feminism is culturally dominant is one where all those rewards tend to go to to those who publically speak out in favour of feminism whilst the negative consquences are accrued by those who publically speak out against it.

---

quote:

---

Now what do we see in our society today?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I wouldn't say there's anything original but making statements anti-feminist statements is certainly counter cultural. That doesn't necessarily make such statements good or bad but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist it would make them counter cultural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Bibliophile: Perhaps you could name a major mainstream politician in any Western country who publicly opposes feminism or advocates opposition to feminist goals? (by major mainstream politician I mean a politician who is in or who has prospects of getting into national government, not someone on the political fringes)

---

I've seen a number of GOP politicians publicly speaking out both against feminism and against feminist goals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I wouldn't say there's anything original but making statements anti-feminist statements is certainly counter cultural. That doesn't necessarily make such statements good or bad but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist it would make them counter cultural.

---

You have mistaken stated, theoretical ideals for real-life considerations. Many people will willingly subscribe to the idea of equality ("Of course women should pursue scientific endeavors") without accepting the changes these require of them ("as long as they don't try to do this in my labs").

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
... Where is the evidence that this man has a hatred of women -- Oxford dictionary definition of Misogynist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
But a central part of what makes a religion or an ideology culturally dominant in society is that its ideals are held up as the ideals of society and opposition to it and its ideals tends to have negative consequences politically, economically, culturally an academically. That continues to be true even where many people fail to live up to those ideals, as is always the case

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've seen a number of GOP politicians publicly speaking out both against feminism and against feminist goals.

---

Perhaps you could name them and say what they said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I societies where for example an established form of Christianity was cuturally dominant people hadn't just simply 'heard of' Christianity. It was a society where they heard Christianity being praised by all the major people in political, cultural, intellectual and economic life. They would do so because there were political, cultural, academic and economic rewards for doing so. Opposition to Christianity was a dissident position to take because the political, cultural, academic and economic consequences of publicly opposing the Christian religion were all negative. The same is true of Islam is Islamic societies and Communism in communist countries.

---

In no Western societies have atheism or non-Christian views been exclusionary for a very long time. This is a nonsense. A smokewall put up to avoid addressing the issues of abuse against women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

But why wouldn't people actively speak out against campaigns by feminists. If opposition to feminism is culturally dominant in the West and if Feminism is a dissident point of view then mainstream political, economic, cultural and intellectual figures who actively speak out against feminism will be tend to be rewarded for it, politically, economically, culturally and academically. In such a society people who publicly speak out in favour of feminism will tend to receive negative consequences for themselves in all those areas.

---

Because they don't fecking have to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And anyway, try listening to the abuse that women get from trolls whenever they talk about something as seemingly uncontroversial as suggesting a woman should be on a note of currency - and then try telling me that the norm is to ignore women's campaigns. Bullshit, pal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

By contrast a society where feminism is culturally dominant is one where all those rewards tend to go to to those who publically speak out in favour of feminism whilst the negative consquences are accrued by those who publically speak out against it.

---

What the? "All the rewards"? What rewards? What the heck are you on about?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think you missed my point. My point was that in pre secular Christian societies, societies where Christianity was culturally dominant people were expected to actively speak in favour of Christianity and those who actively spoke against it suffered negative political, cultural, economic and/or academic consequences.

---

quote:

---

No if feminism really were a dissident position and opposition to feminism was culturally dominant then public figures in politics, corporations, culture and academia would be expected to give at least lip service to opposing feminism.

---

quote:

---

A few twitter trolls do not form the dominant culture. If you could name a politician, corporate leader, mainstream cultural figure or academic who publicly criticised the campaign to put a woman on a banknote that would make your point better.

---

quote:

---

Well lets take an example from academia since that's what this thread talks about. Lets say an academic (lets call him Sir Tim Hunt) makes a crudely antifeminist comment. Other people critise him for. Lets say another academic publicly makes a pro feminist comment. Other people criticise him or her for it.

In a society where opposition to feminism is culturally dominant an feminism is a dissident position then public figures in various areas will say that they agree with Sir Tim and will critise those who criticise him. He will certainly not suffer any negative career consequenses although his critics might.

---

quote:

---

In such a society anti-feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching anti-feminist theory but feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching feminist theory.

---

quote:

---

In a society where feminism is culturally dominant and opposition to feminism is a dissident position then public figures in various areas will say that they agree with the feminist academic and will critise those who criticise him or her. He or she will certainly not suffer any negative career consequenses although his or her critics might.

---

quote:

---

In such a society feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching feminist theory but anti-feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching anti-feminist theory.

Now what do we see in our own society?

---

See you in hell.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's a difference between the formal and the actual. Formally, many countries have accepted the equality of the sexes, and many politicians also.

But what do we see in practice? Women are the majority of the world's poor; women are paid unequal pay; women do unpaid domestic work at home; women are still raped; domestic violence is still common; women are objectified in sexual terms; women are underrepresented in STEM jobs, and other professional areas; reproductive rights in many countries are hedged about with restrictions.

One can go on and on. Some feminists argue therefore that feminism has failed, which is maybe too pessimistic, but you can certainly argue that patriarchal society has an ability to absorb criticism, and continue with its oppression of women.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
.... In such a society feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching feminist theory but anti-feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching anti-feminist theory.

Now what do we see in our own society?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

No if feminism really were a dissident position and opposition to feminism was culturally dominant then public figures in politics, corporations, culture and academia would be expected to give at least lip service to opposing feminism.

---

IT ISN'T FECKING LIKE THAT. FFS. Just asserting things does not make them true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

A few twitter trolls do not form the dominant culture. If you could name a politician, corporate leader, mainstream cultural figure or academic who publicly criticised the campaign to put a woman on a banknote that would make your point better.

---

Can you stop saying that? Why should I have to name particular names? Were you not aware of the huge amount abuse that happened in that particular case? What difference does it make if I can or cannot name a politician?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Well lets take an example from academia since that's what this thread talks about. Lets say an academic (lets call him Sir Tim Hunt) makes a crudely antifeminist comment. Other people critise him for. Lets say another academic publicly makes a pro feminist comment. Other people criticise him or her for it.

In a society where opposition to feminism is culturally dominant an feminism is a dissident position then public figures in various areas will say that they agree with Sir Tim and will critise those who criticise him. He will certainly not suffer any negative career consequenses although his critics might.

---

Riiiight, so the fact that the university lived up to its equal opportunity policy is evidence of the dominant feminist view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
See you in hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So either these academics are very slow learners or the consequences just aren't that serious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
If feminism was culturally dominant then universities wouldn't need an equal opportunity policy.

I'm pretty soft hearted and believe in grace, so I do agree with Hunt that he should have been given a chance to address the issue with the university before being pressured to resign. Perhaps he could have provided some free mentoring to young female scientists or free lectures to girls aspiring to work in STEM fields (with his speeches being vetted to make sure he didn't say anything else stupid).

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, how often do men make comments like this, people get outraged and then women are the baddies for letting some poor, old man lose his job or be made to cry? Hunt needs to take responsibility for this and acknowledge it was his comments that have caused this, not women's reactions. If every time this happens the culprit faces no consequences and the critics are made out to be the bullies, these sort of comments against women will continue to go unchecked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, I don't understand what he thought he was doing. I still can't see any other reason to do it than provoking a response.

---

quote:

---

Collins [his wife] clutches her head as Hunt talks. “It was an unbelievably stupid thing to say,” she says. “You can see why it could be taken as offensive if you didn’t know Tim. But really it was just part of his upbringing. He went to a single-sex school in the 1960s. Nevertheless he is not sexist. I am a feminist, and I would not have put up with him if he were sexist.”

---

quote:

---

Prof. Leyser: “It is quite clear to me that he is not a sexist in any way. I don’t know why he said those silly things, but the way his remarks have been taken up implies that women in science are having a horrible time. That is not the case. I, for one, am having a wonderful time.”

[...]

Dame Donald: “During the time I worked with him he was always immensely supportive of the ERC’s work around gender equality. His off-the-cuff remarks in Korea are clearly inappropriate and indefensible, but … he has worked tirelessly in support of young scientists of both genders.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
My observation is that UCL did not need external pressure to withdraw the honorary (still not been able to verify that it was unpaid, but we think it very likely) position he had. UCL did that pretty much on their own because the views he expressed did not meet the standards UCL hold on women in science.

However, the Royal Society did come under pressure to remove Hunt from several committees he sat on, on the basis that these were involved in appointments and he expressed views which seemed to be in conflict with this position. Several other top scientists at the Royal Society put pressure on for his removal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Again this is an example of how Feminism is culturally dominant in the West and is certainly not a dissident idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
.... In such a society feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching feminist theory but anti-feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching anti-feminist theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Again this is an example of how Feminism is culturally dominant in the West and is certainly not a dissident idea.

---

Nope. Incorrect. Wrong.
This is an example of how feminism has had an effect, not how it is dominant.

dom·i·nant
ˈdämənənt/
adjective
adjective: dominant

1.
most important, powerful, or influential.
cul·tur·al
ˈkəlCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: cultural

of or relating to the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a society.
fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm/
noun
noun: feminism

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

So, if feminism is the dominant cultural view, why are women paid less at jobs they have to fight harder to get and still judged more by their appearance?
If feminism is dominant, what the hell do women have to do to be treated equally?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
.... In such a society feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching feminist theory but anti-feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching anti-feminist theory.

---

Your statement here conflates society and the academy. They have quite different mores, operating standards, rules, etc. It's kind of like saying "America's black subculture is dominated by African American ideas, therefore American society is dominated by African American ideas." It don't work that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

What I am saying is that women's rights on the grounds of greater sexual equality is seen as a desirable goal by the dominant culture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

Not the only desirable goal or even necessarily the most important goal but 'a' desirable goal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK answering that question. Its not because employers are wilfully paying women less than men for exactly the same work. If that were the case then the pay gap would represent a huge amount of extra money that employers were giving to male employees when they could keep it in their own pockets. Why would any male employer deliberately give his male employees extra money for the same work when he could keep that money in his own pockets?

What does happen however is that women can make choices with regards to work that result in them being less well paid than men. They might for example be more likely to chose to work in some sectors than others. Men might be more likely to chose to work in other sectors.

Women might be more likely to chose to take a career break to have children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Women might be less likely to demand a pay rise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Now the obvious response to all these points is 'why do men's choices' get better economically rewarded than women's choices?' Its not because employers want to give extra money to their male employees for being male its because they have other reasons for rewarding those particular choices. Thoe reasons might be to do with economic self interest, they might be social reasons or they might simply be habit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK answering that question. Its not because employers are wilfully paying women less than men for exactly the same work. If that were the case then the pay gap would represent a huge amount of extra money that employers were giving to male employees when they could keep it in their own pockets. Why would any male employer deliberately give his male employees extra money for the same work when he could keep that money in his own pockets?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK answering that question. Its not because employers are wilfully paying women less than men for exactly the same work. If that were the case then the pay gap would represent a huge amount of extra money that employers were giving to male employees when they could keep it in their own pockets. Why would any male employer deliberately give his male employees extra money for the same work when he could keep that money in his own pockets?

---

Because if he paid his male employees as little as he paid his female employees, his male employees would walk. Why don't his female employees walk? Because it's the same everywhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK answering that question. Its not because employers are wilfully paying women less than men for exactly the same work. If that were the case then the pay gap would represent a huge amount of extra money that employers were giving to male employees when they could keep it in their own pockets. Why would any male employer deliberately give his male employees extra money for the same work when he could keep that money in his own pockets?

---

Because if he paid his male employees as little as he paid his female employees, his male employees would walk. Why don't his female employees walk? Because it's the same everywhere.

---

Well if that was the situation then why wouldn't the employer respond to his male employees walking by saying to himself something along the lines of "Thank goodness for that, all those money draining parasite men have ****ed off out of my business, I can replace them now with some nice cheap women and make more profit for myself"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Several studies in the US, carried out to correct for precisely these issues, reveal that, even taking into account breaks for maternity leave, child rearing, etc., women are paid less than men with the same service records for the same kinds and amounts of work.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Women might be less likely to demand a pay rise.

---

Congrats. You finally got something right.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Now the obvious response to all these points is 'why do men's choices' get better economically rewarded than women's choices?' Its not because employers want to give extra money to their male employees for being male its because they have other reasons for rewarding those particular choices. Thoe reasons might be to do with economic self interest, they might be social reasons or they might simply be habit.

---

Or, gasp, it could be sexism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

What I am saying is that women's rights on the grounds of greater sexual equality is seen as a desirable goal by the dominant culture.

---

But all you have done is provide an incredibly naive, or disingenuous, narrative. If you truly think that is how business works and have no greater understanding of economics and social progress, I may discontinue engaging you on this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

Not the only desirable goal or even necessarily the most important goal but 'a' desirable goal.

---

And here you argue against yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
it was assumed that the husband would be the breadwinner and therefore needed to earn enough to support a family

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It's not necessarily true. I know several couples when the wife was earning more when she gave birth and she was the one who continued to be the main breadwinner after she started having children. But she then had to deal with those attitudes.

---

quote:

---

It put me in the position of being a man in a female-dominated sub-culture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Or, gasp, it could be sexism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
women chose to work in safer jobs they will tend to be paid less because of this. Now I don't know how much of the pay gap that particular factor accounts for but unless you think it unfair that employees in more dangerous jobs should be paid more that part of the pay gap is not caused by any sexism or unfairness against women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think you're confusing 'choice' with 'forced into'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well if that was the situation then why wouldn't the employer respond to his male employees walking by saying to himself something along the lines of "Thank goodness for that, all those money draining parasite men have ****ed off out of my business, I can replace them now with some nice cheap women and make more profit for myself"

---

Probably because he doesn't much like women, or he'd pay them the same as he paid his men. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think you're confusing 'choice' with 'forced into'.

---

So you're saying that women don't chose to jobs that are less likely to kill them, they're forced into them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
I have no problems with jobs like mining being paid extra danger money. However that still does not explain the wide disparity between traditionally male and female jobs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
However I know a number of women who work in aged care with bad backs in their twenties and thirties - although there are hoists to help with lifting they still have to physically support patients quite a bit. And aged care is one of the worst paying jobs, despite its importance. This is also an issue for nurses and even childcare workers lifting toddlers on a regular basis. Yes, it won't kill them, but can shorten their working life and earning time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
For example men are more likely to chose to apply for jobs that can kill them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
For example men are more likely to chose to apply for jobs that can kill them.

---

The relevant point has nothing to do with people choosing different jobs with different salaries. The issue is with people in the same job, and more importantly progression within the same career.

Just to go back to the laboratory, as it's where this thread started and where I'm most familiar.

Two people with a PhD, post-doctoral experience in 2 laboratories totaling six years, now working in the same laboratory doing the same job for a year should earn the same salary. That would certainly be the case in UK universities. As both people gain experience they progress up the pay scale and finally reach the top of their grade, to get a further pay rise they need to successfully apply for a promotion or a different job (eg: a lectureship at another university). Eligibility for promotion or a new job will depend on several factors - research output (papers), grant income, other income etc. Assuming comparable scores on those indicators, success rates should be the same. However, if one of those two took time out to have a family that would almost certainly count against them in promotion with reasons given about some of their publications being dated (because they were written before they took time out), that they haven't shown the drive and commitment to scientific excellence (because they decided to have a family and take time looking after children) etc. There may also be questions raised about if they can be relied on - maybe they'll take sudden days off work because of child being sick, they might use their fully annual leave allowance for family holidays, they might not work beyond 7pm every night because they want to be home before the children go to bed ...

And, while it's expected that the mother rather than father takes time out that's going to create an unequality in pay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Here's a site on that very subject.. There are stacks of them applicable to the US, UK, and just about every else Shipmates live. Part (a large part) of the pay gap is that of "jobs of equal value". Mostly, where a job is predominantly done by women it will pay worse than a job of equal value done by men.

A fair bit isn't, ie where time in a job counts towards pay, irrespective of performance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
There’s another aspect to this, and I’m surprised it hasn’t been more commented on. It completely ignores the fact that homosexuality is a thing. Were single-sex labs to be created, how does he know one of the men wouldn’t fall in love with him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so you think the reason that more women than men become the main caregiver in the home (and as a result get paid less for the reasons you give) isn't because they're choosing to be the one that takes that role. No you're saying the only reason they make that choice is that they're 'forced' by 'expectations'.

I'm afraid this doesn't really sound any more plausible than the idea that employers pay men more for the same jobs because they're expected to i.e. that these poor put upon employers would just love to stick that extra money into their own pockets or give it too their shareholders but they're forced by society's expectations to give it to their male employees instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Here's a site on that very subject.. There are stacks of them applicable to the US, UK, and just about every else Shipmates live. Part (a large part) of the pay gap is that of "jobs of equal value". Mostly, where a job is predominantly done by women it will pay worse than a job of equal value done by men.

A fair bit isn't, ie where time in a job counts towards pay, irrespective of performance.

---

And what is 'equal value'? If it doesn't mean 'equal amount of money that the employees work generates for the employer' then its not really equal value is it. Even if it were other factors already discussed could account for a pay gap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so you think the reason that more women than men become the main caregiver in the home (and as a result get paid less for the reasons you give) isn't because they're choosing to be the one that takes that role. No you're saying the only reason they make that choice is that they're 'forced' by 'expectations'.

I'm afraid this doesn't really sound any more plausible than the idea that employers pay men more for the same jobs because they're expected to i.e. that these poor put upon employers would just love to stick that extra money into their own pockets or give it too their shareholders but they're forced by society's expectations to give it to their male employees instead.

---

Why isn't that plausible? Have we not given you a multitude of ways that academia expects things of workers that can only be delivered by someone who is not tied to child-caring responsibilities? Which part of these are you not agreeing with, not understanding or disputing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Here's a site on that very subject.. There are stacks of them applicable to the US, UK, and just about every else Shipmates live. Part (a large part) of the pay gap is that of "jobs of equal value". Mostly, where a job is predominantly done by women it will pay worse than a job of equal value done by men.

A fair bit isn't, ie where time in a job counts towards pay, irrespective of performance.

---

And what is 'equal value'? If it doesn't mean 'equal amount of money that the employees work generates for the employer' then its not really equal value is it. Even if it were other factors already discussed could account for a pay gap.

---

Here's an introductory piece by Thompson's, a law firm. It mentions the difficulty in assessing "equal value" claims, hence tribunals and court cases.

As I said earlier, there's stacks of this stuff about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:


The point I'm disputing is that women are forced to be the ones with child caring responsibilities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so it doesn't mean 'generates the same income for the employer'. That rather makes my point. I would say its perfectly reasonable for an employer to want to pay more in order to keep hold of an employee who is generating more money for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so it doesn't mean 'generates the same income for the employer'. That rather makes my point. I would say its perfectly reasonable for an employer to want to pay more in order to keep hold of an employee who is generating more money for them.

---

Sorry, it's far more subtle than that. You'll have to look at it with a more open mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I've already said that there is a whole range of legitimate reasons for paying one worker more tan another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Or it could be that most if not all of the 'pay gap' is due to differences in the choices that men and women make.

For example men are more likely to chose to apply for jobs that can kill them. In 2013 the male to female ratio of fatal occupational injuries in the was 13.6 to 1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What do you think happens to the brains of people who are looking after their children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If there is data that any of the pay gap is due to sexism I would be interested to see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is not a helpful comment. After years of Thomas the Bloody Tank Engine, mine was like swiss cheese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If there is data that any of the pay gap is due to sexism I would be interested to see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If there is data that any of the pay gap is due to sexism I would be interested to see it.

---

Have you looked at Wikipedia yet? There's substantial evidence (admittedly contested) that part of the pay gap is due to direct sexism. The U.S. department of Labor estimated this as between 4.8% and 7.1% in 2008.

There are also the wider structural questions of women needing to interrupt careers for childcare, etc. This would be very hard to quantify - you'd have to figure out stuff like the number of women who actively wanted to be the primary caregiver vs those who were forced into it by social expectation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is not a helpful comment. After years of Thomas the Bloody Tank Engine, mine was like swiss cheese.

---

After 10 years, I was better suited for employment than at the beginning. I suspect many mothers have learned many transferable skills during their child caring years and would be very good academics if they were allowed to return.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, so you are saying that when women (and occasional men) who take time out to care for children are held back from being able to progress in their careers, this is entirely legitimate, are you?

---

quote:

---

What do you think happens to the brains of people who are looking after their children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dal Segno:
After years of dealing with toddlers and primary school children, dealing with stroppy 18-22 year olds is child's play.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I was the one who would take time out for a sick child, go to school events and stuff like that because my wife was a school teacher and I was the one able to come and go from my job. I was never responsible for a whole classroom of kids. Sure, it probably hurt my career. I'm cool with it. I'd rather be on my deathbed thinking of good times with my kids than thinking of a good day at work. One of my most treasured memories is getting to a school presentation a couple of minutes late and seeing my daughter wiping away a few tears because she was afraid I wouldn't be there, and then smiling at me. I'm a CPA and could probably have made a mint also practicing as a CFP, but the way it worked out for us I wouldn't trade the time with the wife and kids for money. All completely legit in my book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:

A lot of sexism is subconscious. it's not that the person thinks' "oh, all women do X" (although obviously some do think this way). I think many men, and women as well, simply have certain preconceptions that are tied to gender, and those expectations are acted upon as reality. men and women are judged differently for certain things, and the person doing the judging may genuinely not realize that this is what they are doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I resemble this remark. At some point the kids grow up and don't need you in the same way any more, and then you find that you've actually become unemployable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If there is data that any of the pay gap is due to sexism I would be interested to see it.

---

What exactly would that look like? What evidence would you not dismiss out of hand? Here's an abstract of a research paper which shows that given identical appplications, one with a woman's name and one with a man's name, "Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant."

I fully expect this to be explained away, of course, but there you have it.

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

---

No I won't explain it away. Its just one paper but it does look like evidence of sexism in academia.

Now I could go back to the point that the level of sexism in our society has been greatly exaggerated but I think that part of this dialogue of the deaf that we've been having is my fault for not raising a rather obvious point which is that being sexist and being a sincere feminist are not mutually exclusive.

The study you raise makes exactly this point. It shows a potential wage gap due to sexism (rather than due to the different choices that men and women make) that is rather greater than the not more than seven percent indicated in other evidence for the entire economy. However it shows it in Universities, that places in our society where feminist culture is most dominant. A very clear example that being sexist does not preclude being feminist.
 

---

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Blind auditions.
 

---

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Motherhood penalty
 

---

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
So the Sunday Times wanted to interview a female scientist. Did they want to talk about her work?

No, they wanted to photograph her in 'sexy poses'

That's just our feminist-dominated society for you I suppose.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Oh, but that's not sexism, that's commercialism, because the Times wants to sell more papers.

Because of course it's men who buy those. The women are too busy crying.
 

---

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
In 2012, the European Commission wanted science to be 'A girl thing'.
The video was quickly shelved.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
That video is . . .

Did an actual group of human beings, a couple of whom have presumably met one or two actual human females on at least one occasion, actually approve this thing for release??!!

This is what the producers imagine will attract more women to take up scientific studies / occupations??!!

Off to have a good cry, me.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I couldn't see the video from either of two sites, but I did find the comments deeply worrying where they came from men with triumphant ignorance who simply could not comprehend that they were basing their arguments on false premises which they presented as fact.

Mind you, I will agree that the brain structure of the one who claimed that male and female brains are proved to be "very, very different" is very, very different from mine. But not in any way which makes him better at science than I am.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The video was a mashup of an old ZZ Top video and a makeup advert. Slick video with a n00b director and a clueless screenwriter. Cute girls tangentially associated with lab equipment. Just bizarre.
I think they were trying to counter the view that only frumpy women do science. Imagine! You can be every bit a girl and do science.

ETA: To be fair, Brian Cox has got the press he has because of his looks and having been in a band.
Not saying this exhibits balance, it doesn't.

[ 18. June 2015, 17:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
That video is . . .

Did an actual group of human beings, a couple of whom have presumably met one or two actual human females on at least one occasion, actually approve this thing for release??!!

This is what the producers imagine will attract more women to take up scientific studies / occupations??!!

Off to have a good cry, me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've seen a number of GOP politicians publicly speaking out both against feminism and against feminist goals.

---

Perhaps you could name them and say what they said.

---

Let's start with the 174 representatives and 36 senators that voted against the Lily Ledbetter act. And all that legislation did was extend the time available for women to file a complaint.

Then let's move on to the ongoing battle over contraceptive coverage under the ACA, which is a clear example of sex discrimination. And the congressional hearings without a single female witness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Alternately if you wish to give an example
of feminism's lack of dominance perhaps you could give an example of a piece of legislation that was supported by Feminists and opposed by their opponents that was successfully repealed by opponents of feminism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Alternately if you wish to give an example
of feminism's lack of dominance perhaps you could give an example of a piece of legislation that was supported by Feminists and opposed by their opponents that was successfully repealed by opponents of feminism.

---

Requirement of Obamacare that insurance plans pay for contraception. Although this was repealed not by opponents of feminism in the legislature but by opponents of feminism in our horrifically corrupt Supreme Court.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What happened there was that the Supreme Court didn't repeal the requirement, it simply allowed business owners the right to conscientiously object to being obliged to do something that they had never been obliged to do before. If that's the best example then that really makes my point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Your entire argument rests on false premises, as noted and not refuted above, so I feel no need to continue in this vein.

---

quote:

---

If you live in a system which is historically and intrinsically organised in a particular way, you don't actively have to be speaking out "against" the campaigns by feminists to be opposed to them. You just have to want to continue with the status quo. Obviously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What happened there was that the Supreme Court didn't repeal the requirement, it simply allowed business owners the right to conscientiously object to being obliged to do something that they had never been obliged to do before. If that's the best example then that really makes my point.

---

What point? Government enacts legislation to ensure women have access to complete health care, and then businesses are allowed to opt out. In other words, they are allowed to continue to discriminate against women. Explain to me how that demonstrates the "dominance" of feminism. Explain to me why businesses are allowed to opt out of this law in particular, when they can't opt out of e.g. desegregation or minimum wages or safety regulations or land zoning or taxation or licensing or city bylaws or all the other legislation that tells people how they should run their business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In cultural struggles you will often see one side tend to gain ground. That side will thn not have to worry too much about keping the ground gained but will then sek to gain more ground. The other side you will see losing ground, give up hope of regaining that ground and then concentrate on try not too lose further ground.

The way to determine which of these sides is culturally dominant is simply to see which side is the one gaining ground. Th side gaining ground will always be the culturally dominant one. If one side is consistently losing ground then that is a sign that it is no longer dominant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In cultural struggles you will often see one side tend to gain ground. That side will thn not have to worry too much about keping the ground gained but will then sek to gain more ground. The other side you will see losing ground, give up hope of regaining that ground and then concentrate on try not too lose further ground.

The way to determine which of these sides is culturally dominant is simply to see which side is the one gaining ground. Th side gaining ground will always be the culturally dominant one. If one side is consistently losing ground then that is a sign that it is no longer dominant.

---

If that were true, then all social progress would happen instantaneously. The moment we pass the emancipation proclamation, then African-Americans would be "dominant" because they are "gaining ground", so there would be no Jim Crow, no KKK, no segregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The question here is not whether or not women have "gained ground" since the 19th amendment-- clearly we have. It is whether the momentum has shifted so far that we can say that feminism is "dominant". I think the evidence for that is far more mixed, as we have seen on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Very good post, cliffdweller. Equating gaining ground with dominance is obvious tosh.

I'm thinking again about the 19th century, and the way in which women began to gain some ground, for example in England, they could own property after the 1882 Act.

Does this mean that women were now dominant? What an absurd statement.

In fact, you can draw an analogy with athletics - I am behind in a race, but begin to catch up. Am I now dominant or in the lead? How absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
dominance

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
dominance

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
dominance

---

---

dominance
noun
1.rule; control; authority; ascendancy.

2.the condition of being dominant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dominance

dominant
adjective
1.ruling, governing, or controlling; having or exerting authority or influence

2.occupying or being in a commanding or elevated position.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dominant

These are the definitions I'm using. Do you not agree with them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
These are the definitions I'm using. Do you not agree with them?

---

Do you?


percentage of women in government (i.e. ruling or governing)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... Women 'gaining ground' was the result of feminism gaining cultural dominance, not the cause.

---

quote:

---

In other words they were fighting to hold onto something they had already had, they were fighting not to lose ground.

If opponents of feminism truly were dominant why would you not see them struggling to gain ground from feminists rather than struggling not to lose it?

---

Perhaps feminism made it possible to pass the law, but if compliance is optional, it's a meaningless law and an empty "victory". I don't consider that a win for anybody except those who are free to ignore the law if they wish and carry on as they did before.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
These are the definitions I'm using. Do you not agree with them?

---

Do you?


percentage of women in government (i.e. ruling or governing)

---

Once again the dominance of feminism is not the same thing as the dominance of women. In order for feminism to be culturally dominant feminists must be culturally dominant. This is true whether the feminists in question are all men or all women or a mixture.

For example in 2012 the Church of England House of Bishops voted, by an overwhelming margin, in favour of women Bishops. this was due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of them were feminists. They were at the time, of course, all men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Very good post, cliffdweller. Equating gaining ground with dominance is obvious tosh.

I'm thinking again about the 19th century, and the way in which women began to gain some ground, for example in England, they could own property after the 1882 Act.

Does this mean that women were now dominant? What an absurd statement.

In fact, you can draw an analogy with athletics - I am behind in a race, but begin to catch up. Am I now dominant or in the lead? How absurd.

---

Once again the dominance of feminism is not the same thing as the dominance of women. Women 'gaining ground' was the result of feminism gaining cultural dominance, not the cause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
the dominance of feminism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
the dominance of feminism

---

Would you prefer the dominance of men subjugating women?

Like the 'good' old days?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Bibliophile, what relationship (if any) exists for you between "dominance" and "equality?"

If feminism is now dominant, does that mean that patriarchy (for lack of a more objective or less loaded term) is now dead?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Bibliophile, what relationship (if any) exists for you between "dominance" and "equality?"

If feminism is now dominant, does that mean that patriarchy (for lack of a more objective or less loaded term) is now dead?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Bibliophile, what relationship (if any) exists for you between "dominance" and "equality?"

If feminism is now dominant, does that mean that patriarchy (for lack of a more objective or less loaded term) is now dead?

---

I think this shows the crudeness and binary quality of Bibliophile's approach. Feminism is dominant, that's it.

This seems to close down any closer textual examination of a particular cultural area, which might show contradictory images. In fact, 'contradiction', 'unconscious', and 'paradox' seem to be absent altogether as ideas.

For example, one of the contributions of psychoanalysis to the analysis of cinema was to show how the surface of film might be contradicted or subverted at another level. For example, I was in a group which analyzed westerns, and showed both the dominance of the male, and the subversion of his role. Jings, dominance schmominance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?

---

I've been struggling to understand what the 'feminism is now dominant' actually means. Few can deny there has been a significant power shift between the sexes over the last 50 years or more. That shift mainly being down to less financial dependency on the male.
Having said that many family models from before that time were highly matriarchal, the mother figure often ruled the roost while the male remained shadowy by comparison.

Much of what we see now, with the improved status of the Western female, isn't dominance but independence. Centuries of male superiority still seems to be baulking at this newly emerging state of affairs.
I'd better add that the fear of female equality is misplaced because going back to the good ol' days you'll find plenty of unhappy males making a hash of their artificial dominance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
You might consider helping us out by explaining the difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The Soviet Union was dominated by the ideology of marxist-leninist socialism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
the dominance of feminism

---

Would you prefer the dominance of men subjugating women?

Like the 'good' old days?

---

If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Bibliophile--

If I may ask, have you been hurt by feminism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[qb]If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[qb]If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?

---

No. This is black-or-white thinking: either sexism is dominant or feminism is dominant. What if NOTHING is dominant? There is nothing that says any one viewpoint has to be dominant. It's not like some law of nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile: Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?

---

Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[qb]If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?

---

No. This is black-or-white thinking: either sexism is dominant or feminism is dominant. What if NOTHING is dominant? There is nothing that says any one viewpoint has to be dominant. It's not like some law of nature.

---

Exactly. For a while, the term 'contestation' was used in gender studies, the idea that there is conflict, or combat, between various forces or factions, and there is no outright 'winner'. Bibliophile's binary outlook is like something from the 19th century, or in fact, a western film with goodies and baddies.

---

quote:

---

We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do. Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted, spoke; the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society. We have some explaining to do. We have, as the result of yesterday, undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Bibliophile: Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.

---

No, I'm not going to name anything. Your tendency not to answer our questions but to demand that we give evidence instead is highly irritating and not the basis for a good discussion. You're not required to answer my question of course, but if you don't I can't guarantee that I'll be interested in what you have to say.

---

quote:

---

If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?

---

Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.

---

As noted above, in the US, the right to equal coverage of medical expenses.

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile:
Women do have equal rights.

---

I see no basis for a discussion here. Please carry on.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Are you saying that men do have the right to have contraception covered by their employers medical insurance?

---

Are you saying that lack of contraception coverage has equal consequences for men and women? Because . . . (in the US) . . .

1. Abortion, while not a contraceptive measure, IS a right under Roe v. Wade;

2. Women earn, on average, roughly 3/4 of what men earn for similar work;

3. Women pay more on average for similar services (haircuts, dry-cleaning, alterations, etc.);

4. Effective contraception for women typically involves medical visits (IUDs, diaphragms, birth control pills) and/or prescriptions which cost substantially more than contraception for men (a packet of condoms);

5. Contraceptive failure for women always leads to pregnancy with consequences ranging from expensive, inconvenient, and potentially traumatic to permanently life-altering, whereas contraceptive failure for men all too often leads to a shrug and walking away.

Of course, in our feminism-dominated society, this is a complete 6-of-1, half-dozen-of-the-other wash.
 

---

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :
 
Another example for those that don't think feminist ideas are predominant. David Cameron's comment on that same Church of England vote

quote:

---

The Church has its own processes and elections. They might be hard for some of us to understand, but we must respect individual institutions and the decisions they make. That does not mean we should hold back in saying what we think. I am very clear that the time is right for women bishops—it was right many years ago. The Church needs to get on with it, as it were, and get with the programme, but we must respect individual institutions and how they work, while giving them a sharp prod.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Are you saying that men do have the right to have contraception covered by their employers medical insurance?

---

Are you saying that lack of contraception coverage has equal consequences for men and women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?

---

Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.

---

As noted above, in the US, the right to equal coverage of medical expenses.

---

What's been noted above is that in the US women don't have the right to have contraception covered by their employers medical insurance. Are you saying that men do have the right to have contraception covered by their employers medical insurance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not aware of any similarly gender-related medical procedures/ meds that are up to the employer to decide whether or not to cover, leaving the employee's personal life and future very much dependent upon the whims/ personal beliefs of their employer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a lot more to how women or minority groups are treated in a society than legal rights. This is reductionistic in the extreme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a lot more to how women or minority groups are treated in a society than legal rights. This is reductionistic in the extreme.

---

Of course there is, I never said otherwise. A question was asked about legal rights and I answered it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not aware of any similarly gender-related medical procedures/ meds that are up to the employer to decide whether or not to cover, leaving the employee's personal life and future very much dependent upon the whims/ personal beliefs of their employer.

---

Yes the same legal rights can have different impacts for different groups of people. There are no examples of men having legal rights not possessed by women in the west.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a lot more to how women or minority groups are treated in a society than legal rights. This is reductionistic in the extreme.

---

Of course there is, I never said otherwise. A question was asked about legal rights and I answered it.

---

Well, since the US Declaration of Independence contained the line "all men are created equal", we can all applaud the long and happy history of racial harmony in the USA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not aware of any similarly gender-related medical procedures/ meds that are up to the employer to decide whether or not to cover, leaving the employee's personal life and future very much dependent upon the whims/ personal beliefs of their employer.

---

Yes the same legal rights can have different impacts for different groups of people. There are no examples of men having legal rights not possessed by women in the west.

---

I think we have just demonstrated that women do not have equal access to health care in the US. That's not different impact of the same legal rights-- men do not have the same employer-filtered limits that women have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I notice that nobody is addressing my point about the backlash over the failure of the Church of England to agree women bishops in the famous 2012 vote.

The overwhelming majority view in politics in mainstream media and in popular culture was that the failure of the vote was wrong because it perpetuated sex discrimination against women and that such sex discrimination was immoral. That was and is the culturally dominant view in the UK. What is that if not feminism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, since the US Declaration of Independence contained the line "all men are created equal", we can all applaud the long and happy history of racial harmony in the USA.

---

Well no but since the hypocritical nonsense that is the US Declaration of Independence didn't actually given anyone any legal rights not relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
This conversation just seems to be going round and round in circles.

I'm interested to know what your views on gender roles are, Bibliophile. Do you think we have reached equality and feminists should shut up and be happy with the way things are for women and men now? Or is there a need to continue to work towards are more equal society, despite your opinion that feminism is now dominant? Or do you think things have gone too far in the feminist direction and we should return to how things used to be or push for more power for the patriarchy?

Perhaps you have a different view altogether from those above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I just can't see how feminism is compatible with scripture but there's no point in trying to 'push society' in the other direction. Society is moving in an unbiblical direction but that's to be expected in our fallen world.

You've listed three different points of view

1. Feminism has gone too far and society should move in the opposite direction.

2. Feminism has gone far enough and we have reached equality

3. Feminism has not gone far enough and we need to work towards a more equal society

I think that part of the problem with this thread is that there is different understandings of what constitutes 'feminism'. Most people on this thread seem to think that only 3. is feminism whilst 1. and 2. are anti-feminist. The point I've been trying to make is that both 2. and 3. are feminist points of view and only 1. is anti-feminist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes they do. Men do not have the right to have contraception covered by their employer's health insurance any more than women do. The fact that this legal limitation has a greater impact on women than on men does not mean that the legal rights themselves are not the same for men and women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I just can't see how feminism is compatible with scripture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I notice that nobody is addressing my point about the backlash over the failure of the Church of England to agree women bishops in the famous 2012 vote.

The overwhelming majority view in politics in mainstream media and in popular culture was that the failure of the vote was wrong because it perpetuated sex discrimination against women and that such sex discrimination was immoral. That was and is the culturally dominant view in the UK. What is that if not feminism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I notice that nobody is addressing my point about the backlash over the failure of the Church of England to agree women bishops in the famous 2012 vote.

The overwhelming majority view in politics in mainstream media and in popular culture was that the failure of the vote was wrong because it perpetuated sex discrimination against women and that such sex discrimination was immoral. That was and is the culturally dominant view in the UK. What is that if not feminism?

---

Nobody has bothered to respond because it is an utterly ridiculous position.

If the "dominant" majority view in politics was that politicians had the right to tell religious bodies in general how to behave, wouldn't we see comments about every religious body? When was the last time you heard a politician talk about gender practices in Islam or Judaism or Conservative Evangelical churches..? Answer: never.

With regard to the Anglican church, there are a complex bunch of additional pressures in play whereby politicans think they can somehow influence the way it is run because it is the "state church". That the PM thought he could pontificate, speaking on behalf of the country, shows more about him than about the country.

Anyone taking a moment to actually consider the religious make-up of the country would realise that a very significant minority (possibly even a majority) of believers of all kinds belong to religious groups with some kind of specified gender roles. Of the rest, the majority probably don't give a monkeys.

Hence your point is utter nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

More point was not about why Cameron and others felt able to intervene in this argument. My point was about which side of the argument he chose to pontificate on. He and many other politicians all spoke out on the feminist side of the argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes they do. Men do not have the right to have contraception covered by their employer's health insurance any more than women do. The fact that this legal limitation has a greater impact on women than on men does not mean that the legal rights themselves are not the same for men and women.

---

Total crap. You're saying that in any place where women have special needs, it's no reflection on the equality of the sexes if they're not met because men don't have those special needs (which they don't have, hee hee hee) met either. Fucking nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:


More point was not about why Cameron and others felt able to intervene in this argument. My point was about which side of the argument he chose to pontificate on. He and many other politicians all spoke out on the feminist side of the argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But he did so in contrast to the argument of the established Church-- another dominant voice in the broader culture. So at best that tells us that the cultural position is mixed-- perhaps even approaching the midpoint on that "arc of history" that MLK alludes to. But certainly no where near the endpoint-- or there would have been no need for them to speak out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I just can't see how feminism is compatible with scripture but there's no point in trying to 'push society' in the other direction. Society is moving in an unbiblical direction but that's to be expected in our fallen world.

You've listed three different points of view

1. Feminism has gone too far and society should move in the opposite direction.

2. Feminism has gone far enough and we have reached equality

3. Feminism has not gone far enough and we need to work towards a more equal society

I think that part of the problem with this thread is that there is different understandings of what constitutes 'feminism'. Most people on this thread seem to think that only 3. is feminism whilst 1. and 2. are anti-feminist. The point I've been trying to make is that both 2. and 3. are feminist points of view and only 1. is anti-feminist.

---

Actually, none of the 3 above is feminism at all. They are positions taken about feminism.

"Feminism" is the idea that women and men, while different in some respects, are social, legal, political, cultural, intellectual, artistic, economic, and spiritual equals who should occupy equivalent positions in all those realms of human society. Some needs and concerns are specific to women; these should be addressed as fully and frequently as needs specific to men are. Feminine authority should be given respect equivalent to masculine authority.

You've been provided, on this thread, with numerous instances of situations where women are routinely and consistently treated less well than men, which runs counter to the core principle -- equality of the sexes -- of feminism, yet keep insisting that feminism is culturally dominant. How a culture which routinely abuses women and ignores both their rights and needs can be dominated by feminism you have yet to explain adequately. Is lip-service to an ideal equivalent, in your view, to actual, real-life practice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Cameron may support equality for women, but the political system is still heavily male. I think about 30% of MPs are women, and about 30% of the cabinet, including one senior minister, Theresa May (Home Secretary).

Also, about half the cabinet went to public schools, and about half to Oxbridge.

Well, if this is the dominance of feminism, I'd hate to see its failure.

---

As I keep saying over and over again feminist dominance is not the same thing as female dominance. There may only be one senior minister who is a woman but every senior minister is a feminist. I give the example once again of the 2012 House of Bishops, a body that was entirely male and a body where the huge majority of members were feminists.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

The biggest 'example' of sexism that has been presented in this thread is the 'wage gap' between men and women however its already been established that most of this 'gap' is produced by different choices made by men and women not by sexism.

---

quote:

---

As I keep saying over and over again feminist dominance is not the same thing as female dominance. There may only be one senior minister who is a woman but every senior minister is a feminist. I give the example once again of the 2012 House of Bishops, a body that was entirely male and a body where the huge majority of members were feminists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
" Men do not have the right to have access to sanitary products any more than women do. The fact that this legal limitation has a greater impact on women than on men does not mean that the legal rights themselves are not the same for men and women."

Fixed that quote for you, Bibliophile - now do you realise how ridiculous it sounds?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

More point was not about why Cameron and others felt able to intervene in this argument. My point was about which side of the argument he chose to pontificate on. He and many other politicians all spoke out on the feminist side of the argument.

---

But he did so in contrast to the argument of the established Church-- another dominant voice in the broader culture. So at best that tells us that the cultural position is mixed-- perhaps even approaching the midpoint on that "arc of history" that MLK alludes to. But certainly no where near the endpoint-- or there would have been no need for them to speak out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Except that the majority of the church, including almost the entire House of Bishops were in favour of the reform. The likes of the Church Society and Reform may have succeeded in blocking one vote but the idea that they represent the predominant strain of UK culture is absurd.

---

quote:

---

The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

---

quote:

---

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I get it now, the feminists just happen to prefer to have men in commanding roles. Makes sense!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Legal equality is not the same thing as economic etc. equality. I was answering a question about legal equality.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't say there's anything original but making statements anti-feminist statements is certainly counter cultural. That doesn't necessarily make such statements good or bad but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist it would make them counter cultural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I get it now, the feminists just happen to prefer to have men in commanding roles. Makes sense!

---

Do you think every major 'pay gap' in society is the result of discrimination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Legal equality is not the same thing as economic etc. equality. I was answering a question about legal equality.

---

Having laws writ to espouse equality without then completely enforce them is not legal equality.

quote:

---

I wouldn't say there's anything original but making statements anti-feminist statements is certainly counter cultural. That doesn't necessarily make such statements good or bad but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist it would make them counter cultural.

---

You began thus, and have largely remained so.
And the best argument you can manage is "The law says I can't beat you, so those bruises must be imaginary".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I get it now, the feminists just happen to prefer to have men in commanding roles. Makes sense!

---

Do you think every major 'pay gap' in society is the result of discrimination?

---

It's quite a clever technique, to answer everything with a question; however, it doesn't really facilitate discussion. What do you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Legal equality is not the same thing as economic etc. equality. I was answering a question about legal equality.

---

Having laws writ to espouse equality without then completely enforce them is not legal equality.

quote:

---

I wouldn't say there's anything original but making statements anti-feminist statements is certainly counter cultural. That doesn't necessarily make such statements good or bad but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist it would make them counter cultural.

---

You began thus, and have largely remained so.
And the best argument you can manage is "The law says I can't beat you, so those bruises must be imaginary".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Legal equality is not the same thing as economic etc. equality. I was answering a question about legal equality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is a definition of feminism

quote:

---

The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

---

Tell me how that is not compatible with scripture.

Personally, I'm more inclined to use words like equitable, fair, just. Scripture teaches that human beings, male and female, are made in the image of God, and so have identity of worth. Scripture teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so we are identical in our fallenness. Scripture teaches that in Christ there are no distinctions of ethnicity, social status, gender, all are one in Christ Jesus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Slavery is scriptural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Or could it in fact be the case that a large 'pay gap' can exist without being the product of legal inequality or discrimination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:


As you can see from the graphic the best paid faiths, by far, are Hindu Americans and Jewish Americans. The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it. Is it because society is discriminating in favour of Jewish and Hindu citizens and against Christians and others? Or could it in fact be the case that a large 'pay gap' can exist without being the product of legal inequality or discrimination?

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile:

As you can see from the graphic the best paid faiths, by far, are Hindu Americans and Jewish Americans. The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Correlation does not equal causation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Bibliophile:

As you can see from the graphic the best paid faiths, by far, are Hindu Americans and Jewish Americans. The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it.

---

Do they get paid differently for the same jobs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it. Is it because society is discriminating in favour of Jewish and Hindu citizens and against Christians and others? Or could it in fact be the case that a large 'pay gap' can exist without being the product of legal inequality or discrimination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
About Galations 3:28 what that says is that social inequality does not result in spiritual inequality. It is not a call for social egalitarianism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Scriture neither commands nor forbids Christains from owning slaves. In societies where slave holding is against the law Christians should follow the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Scriture neither commands nor forbids Christains from owning slaves. In societies where slave holding is against the law Christians should follow the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Bibliophile:

As you can see from the graphic the best paid faiths, by far, are Hindu Americans and Jewish Americans. The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it.

---

Do they get paid differently for the same jobs?

---

It sounds like a subset of a skewed stat we get re immigration. Asian Americans are shown to make more than whites, African Americans, or Hispanics-- often used to demonstrate there is no such thing as racial discrimination.

But the stats are skewed by the wonky US immigration laws, the way nat'l quotas work, and particularly the shift in the 80s to allow "job creators" (i.e. wealthy immigrants) to jump the line. Couple that with the rush of immigration from Hong Kong leading up to 1999 and you have a large # of wealthy Asian immigrants. Which is often used to cover up the fact that there are other Asian immigrants coming for different reasons in different ways who are struggling.

I suspect something similar is happening here.

Causes are complex. Most situations have multiple factors, multiple causation. So the fact that you have multiple factors at play, interacting in different ways, does not invalidate the role that any one factor is playing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Bibliophile:

As you can see from the graphic the best paid faiths, by far, are Hindu Americans and Jewish Americans. The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it.

---

Do they get paid differently for the same jobs?

---

It sounds like a subset of a skewed stat we get re immigration. Asian Americans are shown to make more than whites, African Americans, or Hispanics-- often used to demonstrate there is no such thing as racial discrimination.

But the stats are skewed by the wonky US immigration laws, the way nat'l quotas work, and particularly the shift in the 80s to allow "job creators" (i.e. wealthy immigrants) to jump the line. Couple that with the rush of immigration from Hong Kong leading up to 1999 and you have a large # of wealthy Asian immigrants. Which is often used to cover up the fact that there are other Asian immigrants coming for different reasons in different ways who are struggling.

I suspect something similar is happening here.

Causes are complex. Most situations have multiple factors, multiple causation. So the fact that you have multiple factors at play, interacting in different ways, does not invalidate the role that any one factor is playing.

---

The latest estimates for median household income for various ethnic groups is

Asian Americans $68,636
Non-Hispanic White $57,009
Hispanic $39,005
African American $33,321
link
The Jewish American median household income is estimated to be in the range $97,000-$98,000
link

Now of course the reasons for these huge pay gaps are complex, that's why I brought the subject up. Porridge said that feminism meant not just legal equality but economic, cultural, social etc equality. Now if we look at three groups on that list Jewish Americans, Asian Americans and Non-Hispanic White Americans there exists nothing near economic equality between them and yet few would suggest that those huge pay gaps are due to discrimination.

However in the case of the pay gap between men and women this is usually put down entirely to sexism even though the evidence suggests that the bulk of the gap is due to the different choices men and women make rather than sexism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The latest estimates for median household income for various ethnic groups is

Asian Americans $68,636
Non-Hispanic White $57,009
Hispanic $39,005
African American $33,321
link
The Jewish American median household income is estimated to be in the range $97,000-$98,000
link

Now of course the reasons for these huge pay gaps are complex, that's why I brought the subject up. Porridge said that feminism meant not just legal equality but economic, cultural, social etc equality. Now if we look at three groups on that list Jewish Americans, Asian Americans and Non-Hispanic White Americans there exists nothing near economic equality between them and yet few would suggest that those huge pay gaps are due to discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile [redacted by Crœsos]:
However in the case of the pay gap between [Non-Hispanic White Americans] and [African Americans] this is usually put down entirely to [racism] even though the evidence suggests that the bulk of the gap is due to the different choices [Non-Hispanic White Americans] and [African Americans] make rather than [racism].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
About Galations 3:28 what that says is that social inequality does not result in spiritual inequality. It is not a call for social egalitarianism.

---

No, but its implications lead to that. If people's spiritual equality doesn't actually affect their real life status, something is off with the interpretation. You know, like believing that slaves are wrong to fight for their own freedom, because they're 'spiritually' equal to their oppressors and they should just accept that and not challenge the unjust systems that keep them slaves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
These are all forms of involuntary servitude and although they can be more humane than chattel slavery they are not necessarily. Millions of 'free' workers in today's world have homes no better than slaves quarters and can afford food no better than slave rations.

---

And their employers can take away their kids at a moment's notice and sell them off. No wait, that's the other thing.
 

---

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The latest estimates for median household income for various ethnic groups is

Asian Americans $68,636
Non-Hispanic White $57,009
Hispanic $39,005
African American $33,321
link
The Jewish American median household income is estimated to be in the range $97,000-$98,000
link

Now of course the reasons for these huge pay gaps are complex, that's why I brought the subject up. Porridge said that feminism meant not just legal equality but economic, cultural, social etc equality. Now if we look at three groups on that list Jewish Americans, Asian Americans and Non-Hispanic White Americans there exists nothing near economic equality between them and yet few would suggest that those huge pay gaps are due to discrimination.

---

Why just those three (including one data set from a different source, which is always a bad idea for comparative purposes)? What happened to African Americans and Hispanics? Especially considering that what you call a "huge pay gap" between Asian Americans and Non-Hispanic White Americans is only about half the size of the gap between Non-Hispanic White Americans and African Americans or Hispanic Americans. Surely this even huger gap would illustrate your point even better, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I didn't mention that gap precisely because many people will attribute that gap entirely to racism whilst others dispute that. That's a whole other argument that I'm not interested in getting into right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My point being that a huge pay gap can exist without it being caused by discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I didn't mention that gap precisely because many people will attribute that gap entirely to racism whilst others dispute that. That's a whole other argument that I'm not interested in getting into right now.

---

But it's an argument you've already made by implication. As near as I can tell what your point is, it seems to be something along the lines of "this one income gap I've cherry-picked for this particular purpose is unlikely to be the result of discrimination, therefore no income gap is due to discrimination". That reasoning would seem to apply just as easily to the gap between African Americans and Non-Hispanic White Americans as it does to the gap between men and women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I didn't mention that gap precisely because many people will attribute that gap entirely to racism whilst others dispute that. That's a whole other argument that I'm not interested in getting into right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I didn't mention that gap precisely because many people will attribute that gap entirely to racism whilst others dispute that. That's a whole other argument that I'm not interested in getting into right now. But if you want a bigger pay gap to illustrate things then there's the pay gap between Jewish Americans and non Hispanic White Americans as a whole. That pay gap is nearly twice as big as the pay gap between non-Hispanic Whites and African Americans and over twice as big as the pay gap between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics.

My point being that a huge pay gap can exist without it being caused by discrimination.

---

quote:

---

As to scripture, the most important command, according to Jesus, is to love your neighbour as you love yourself. Given we are commanded to love everyone, even enemies, that seems to imply you should treat others as you would like to be treated. You could twist it and say that women can only be loved well by being forced to follow traditional gender norms and being provided for by a dominant husband, but most women would argue that if you really loved them you would treat them equally and respectfully as full human beings with all the rights of men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

Chattel slavery is one form of involuntary servitude. Chattel slavery may now be happily abolished (snip).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Back slightly to the OP, the academic who uttered the remark has now lost his job

---

quote:

---

I'd like to ask whether the media staff an reporters who screamed and the employers who sacked him really hold the pristine views that their PC public stance so viciously protects.

---

quote:

---

I mean - how many things can one lose ones job for, and how do they rate in the moral hierarchy compared to a few moments of stupidity? If we cannot have some kind of forgiveness process for this, but can convict murderers or fraudsters or drug dealers and then consider them forgiven once the jail term has been completed, is this kind of event proportional?

---

I suspect there are many, many voluntary, unpaid and honorary roles where one could be sacked for making a stupid remark in public and then repeating them on national radio. It is impossible to imagine a Magistrate or Lord Lieutenant (both of which are public facing roles, albeit with more responsibility) continuing after making a racist role. So why is this any different?

[ 26. June 2015, 11:18: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Bugger, now you've got me doing it. If it is a honorary role, you are not sacked, you resign.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
As I said earlier, UCL is a prominent supporter of women in science, and taking female science students. So here is a guy saying 'fuck you' to that, and they said, OK, fuck you to that. Oh, it was a joke.
 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
well, I take that back then
 

---

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I didn't mention that gap precisely because many people will attribute that gap entirely to racism whilst others dispute that. That's a whole other argument that I'm not interested in getting into right now. But if you want a bigger pay gap to illustrate things then there's the pay gap between Jewish Americans and non Hispanic White Americans as a whole. That pay gap is nearly twice as big as the pay gap between non-Hispanic Whites and African Americans and over twice as big as the pay gap between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics.

My point being that a huge pay gap can exist without it being caused by discrimination.

---

But more likely, pay gaps in general have several causal factors at play, as we see with Asian Americans, where immigration policy is one factor, but most likely not the only factor. Some factors may work in contrary directions (as w/ Asian Americans), others work conjointly to contribute to a common outcome (as is likely the case with gender-based outcomes). But just as it is true that pay gaps can exist w/o discrimination, it is also true that evidence of other factors contributing to pay gaps is not evidence that discrimination is not also at play.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I didn't mention that gap precisely because many people will attribute that gap entirely to racism whilst others dispute that. That's a whole other argument that I'm not interested in getting into right now.

---

But you are in it. That is the argument you raised. No good cherry-picking when you're in and when you're out according to what serves your purposes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As I said earlier, UCL is a prominent supporter of women in science, and taking female science students. So here is a guy saying 'fuck you' to that, and they said, OK, fuck you to that. Oh, it was a joke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

Chattel slavery is one form of involuntary servitude. Chattel slavery may now be happily abolished (snip).

---

Oh, no, it's not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Wage slavery, people without their own capital forced into servitude by the need to earn a living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I've no idea how much of the pay gaps between White non-Hispanics, Hispanics and African Americans is caused by discrimination. My point has been to point out that the existence of a pay gap by itself is not evidence that that pay gap is caused by discrimination. It might or might not be. When people have looked into the details of what causes the male - female pay gap they have found that most of it is caused not by discrimination but by the different choices men and women tend to make

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It seems there is some dispute over the context of what was said

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/25/meet-the-social-justice-warriors-who-allegedly-misquoted-sir-tim-hunt/

---

Breitbart's Internet Horcrux is notorious for producing selectively edited videos as part of their vendetta against anything even slightly left. Given their noted history of fabulism and selective editing (not to mention attempting to wiretap a U.S. Senator's office), could you maybe find an even slightly credible source?

[ 26. June 2015, 16:01: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 

---

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It seems there is some dispute over the context of what was said

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/25/meet-the-social-justice-warriors-who-allegedly-misquoted-sir-tim-hunt/

---

Breitbart's Internet Horcrux is notorious for producing selectively edited videos as part of their vendetta against anything even slightly left. Given their noted history of fabulism and selective editing (not to mention attempting to wiretap a U.S. Senator's office), could you maybe find an even slightly credible source?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Wage slavery, people without their own capital forced into servitude by the need to earn a living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I've no idea how much of the pay gaps between White non-Hispanics, Hispanics and African Americans is caused by discrimination. My point has been to point out that the existence of a pay gap by itself is not evidence that that pay gap is caused by discrimination. It might or might not be. When people have looked into the details of what causes the male - female pay gap they have found that most of it is caused not by discrimination but by the different choices men and women tend to make

---

I'm not sure it's possible to hold both the idea that "wage slavery" involves some kind of illegitimate force but that "most of [the income gap] is caused . . . by the different choices men and women tend to make" isn't worthy of any kind of investigation. Wage slavery, unlike actual slavery, is at least nominally a voluntary state. It may represent a Hobson's choice, but it is typically not backed up with the threat of violence as with chattel slavery. Why doesn't the same level of examination apply to the "choices" you say men and women make differently? And are they necessarily choosing between the same options?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This gets to one of the problems with sociological studies of the type you've mentioned but not actually cited. As I've mentioned in another thread sometimes attempting to control for outside factors actually filters out the thing being measured. For example, someone trying to determine the degree to which the wage gap between African Americans and Non-Hispanic White Americans is due to racism might try to control for educational level, neighborhood of residence, and criminal record. The problem with this is that limiting educational opportunities, segregated housing/white flight, and differential policing aren't independent of racism, they're the means by which racism acts. Similar problems are involved in most studies that examine the gender pay gap. For example, do women "choose" to stay out of scientific/technical fields because they'd rather not deal with commonplace harassment/denigration women often face in those fields? If so, correcting for this "choice" is actually filtering out some of the sexism that's supposedly being measured.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So then if you wanted to test the hypothesis that a large part of the pay gap between men and women is caused by sexism how would you do it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So then if you wanted to test the hypothesis that a large part of the pay gap between men and women is caused by sexism how would you do it?

---

Good question. Luckily you already claim to know the answer. Care to share with us which techniques were used so that "[w]hen people have looked into the details of what causes the male - female pay gap they have found that most of it is caused not by discrimination but by the different choices men and women tend to make"? I'm sure the careful filtering involved was fascinating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Good question. Luckily you already claim to know the answer. Care to share with us which techniques were used so that "[w]hen people have looked into the details of what causes the male - female pay gap they have found that most of it is caused not by discrimination but by the different choices men and women tend to make"? I'm sure the careful filtering involved was fascinating.

---

I would say that that you would test for it by filtering for various factors such as career choice (as discussed here , here and here .

Now you are querying the legitimacy of such filtering.

---

quote:

---

“Therefore, BLS data show that marriage has a significant and negative effect on women’s earnings relative to men’s, but we can realistically assume that marriage is a voluntary lifestyle decision, and it’s that personal choice, not necessarily labor market discrimination, that contributes to much of the gender wage gap for married workers,” Perry wrote.

---

quote:

---

“Once again, we find that marriage and motherhood have a significantly negative effect on women’s earnings; but those lower earnings don’t necessarily result from labor market discrimination, they more likely result from personal family choices about careers, workplace flexibility, child care, and hours worked, etc.,” Perry wrote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So since you are putting forward the idea that a large part of the wage gap between men and women is caused by sexism how would you say that hypothesis has been successfully tested?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
You are also putting forward the idea that a large part of the pay gap between African Americans and white Americans is cased by racism. How has that theory been tested?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

“Once again, we find that marriage and motherhood have a significantly negative effect on women’s earnings; but those lower earnings don’t necessarily result from labor market discrimination, they more likely result from personal family choices about careers, workplace flexibility, child care, and hours worked, etc.,” Perry wrote.

---

Note Mr. Perry's weasel words there. He has no idea (and cites no data) but is just tossing out what he thinks are plausible explanations. Of course even if we grant his explanations, a system that disproportionately allocates child care and house work duties to women also sounds a lot like what could be called "sexism". Once again, this isn't so much demonstrating that sexism doesn't exist, it's explaining how sexism works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
You are also putting forward the idea that a large part of the pay gap between African Americans and white Americans is cased by racism. How has that theory been tested?

---

It's been tested by about four centuries of blood-soaked history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... If young single full time working women are earning around the same as (or, as is the case in the UK, slightly more than) their male counterparts that isn't a sign of discrimination against women. If the situation changes when they have children it doesn't seem likely that its because their employers suddenly notice that they are female and start to apply sexual discrimination. Much more likely is that it is a result of changes in behaviour of the employees themselves. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh it isn't. That is why neither the UK nor the US have felt the need to enact laws in an attempt to prevent such mythical discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Do you have any evidence about what proportion of the pay gap between African Americans and white Americans is caused by discrimination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Do you have any evidence about what proportion of the pay gap between African Americans and white Americans is caused by discrimination?

---

Do you ever, like, read the papers? Just askin'. I read about this study, or another like it, when it came out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Do you have any evidence about what proportion of the pay gap between African Americans and white Americans is caused by discrimination?

---

Do you ever, like, read the papers? Just askin'. I read about this study, or another like it, when it came out.

---

That one looks similar to the sex discrimination study you linked to earlier in the thread. Like that other study this one indicates that discrimination will be a factor in the pay gap but like the other study it does nothing to determine what proportion of the gap is caused by discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Do you have any evidence about what proportion of the pay gap between African Americans and white Americans is caused by discrimination?

---

Do you ever, like, read the papers? Just askin'. I read about this study, or another like it, when it came out.

---

That one looks similar to the sex discrimination study you linked to earlier in the thread. Like that other study this one indicates that discrimination will be a factor in the pay gap but like the other study it does nothing to determine what proportion of the gap is caused by discrimination.

---

But let's take care not to move the goalposts. Yes, as has been said repeatedly, as with many things, gender and racial discrimination don't exist in a vacuum. There are multiple factors at play, which make apportioning blame among those multiple factors a very inexact science. I think we can all agree on that. But that is quite different than what you have argued upthread-- which seemed to be that the existence of those other causes proved any claims of gender discrimination false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Goalposts moved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
What is stupid is that the guy appears to have lost his position over it. Ridicule would be enough. I don't know the background, but to me that reeks of frustrated rivals [of either sex] seizing an opportunity to go for the jugular, regardless of the issue.

Speaking as an outsider, academic research appears to be one of the nastiest, bitchiest, vengeful and manipulative working environments to be in.

---

quote:

---

Dame Valerie Beral, who has worked with Sir Tim, added that if St Louis had made false claims on her CV, then her evidence about his speech ought to be discounted.

‘I think the institutions who have forced Tim to resign now need to look at the claims that this person has made in the past, and work out whether they can trust what she says regarding this incident.

‘If her previous claims turn out to be false, then I believe that Tim must be re-instated.’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I realise the Daily Mail may not count as a reliable source, nonetheless it looks like my hunch had something going for it

quote:

---

Dame Valerie Beral, who has worked with Sir Tim, added that if St Louis had made false claims on her CV, then her evidence about his speech ought to be discounted.

‘I think the institutions who have forced Tim to resign now need to look at the claims that this person has made in the past, and work out whether they can trust what she says regarding this incident.

‘If her previous claims turn out to be false, then I believe that Tim must be re-instated.’

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If detractors really have a story, they need to take it up with City University the ABSW and WFSJ - not mouth off here or on twitter about something the allege but have not proven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Even if her CV is a pack of lies, how does this detract from the sexist remarks, which were witnessed by a lot of people and repeated on national radio?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's more of those moveable goalposts...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


In my view there is more to be learned from this story about the power, for good or evil, of social media and its ability to manipulate public opinion than there is about Tim Hunt's actual attitude to women, or indeed about what he actually said or the context in which he said it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


And what I'm speculating, as I did at the start of this thread, is that the motivations for reporting them may have had less to do with upholding the cause of women's rights than they did with furthering personal aims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus: Increasingly, Journalism 101, or editing thereof, is about selling newspapers and sensationalising. Have you ever been interviewed by a journalist, or read the result?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus: Increasingly, Journalism 101, or editing thereof, is about selling newspapers and sensationalising. Have you ever been interviewed by a journalist, or read the result?

---

Nobel prize winner makes sexist remarks at the World Conference of Science Journalists. And you really think this was not a story to be reported?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Goalposts moved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Increasingly, Journalism 101, or editing thereof, is about selling newspapers and sensationalising. Have you ever been interviewed by a journalist, or read the result?

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile: So the question is how, from the data, do you distinguish. Other than by using rhetoric about 'blood soaked history' etc how you you determine which pay gaps are mostly caused by discrimination and which are not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Bibliophile: So the question is how, from the data, do you distinguish. Other than by using rhetoric about 'blood soaked history' etc how you you determine which pay gaps are mostly caused by discrimination and which are not?

---

Easy. Just as in any scientific research: you vary the different variables and measure statistically how much influence each variable has. A 2007 study indicated that 41% of the gap was unexplained by other factors, so it is reasonable to ascribe it to discrimination.

(This study took educational choices of women as a given though. If discriminatory factors are at play here, then the percentage will be higher.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Some people
here would also attribute those other factors as well.

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile: Now in order to test this theory you would need not only studies that look at pay gaps in the first set but also studies that look at pay gaps in the second set. The two could then be compared to see if there was any major statistical difference between the two sets of pay gaps that could be attributed to discrimination.

Has this ever been done?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Bibliophile: Now in order to test this theory you would need not only studies that look at pay gaps in the first set but also studies that look at pay gaps in the second set. The two could then be compared to see if there was any major statistical difference between the two sets of pay gaps that could be attributed to discrimination.

Has this ever been done?

---

I don't really see the value of such a comparison

You asked how much of the gender pay gap was caused by discrimination and here is your answer. At minimum 41%.

Yes, there are other pay gaps too, and some of them may work out negatively for white men. A part of this may have been caused by discrimination. If you're interested in knowing which part, then I suggest you write to your local university and ask them to do research into that.

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile: By comparing the two sets of wage gaps it could be possible to look at the data and see if there were obvious distinguishing features that could be used to determine which gaps were really determined by discrimination and which were not. Such an analysis could provide important evidence about to what extent things like 'male privilege' really are factors in the wage gap.

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile: And yet as far as I know such an analysis has never been done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Bibliophile: By comparing the two sets of wage gaps it could be possible to look at the data and see if there were obvious distinguishing features that could be used to determine which gaps were really determined by discrimination and which were not. Such an analysis could provide important evidence about to what extent things like 'male privilege' really are factors in the wage gap.

---

Why would it?

While looking at other wage gaps can be interesting in its own right, there is no reason why this would tell us which part of the gender pay gap is caused by discrimination.

Suppose they do a study of the pay gap between Hindus (who according to you earn more than me; good on them) and Christians, and they find that X% of this gap cannot be explained by education, career choices etc. Great, that's important information, and it can certainly be used to refine studies about the gender pay gap. But it doesn't wave discrimination away as a cause with a magic wand.

quote:

---

Bibliophile: And yet as far as I know such an analysis has never been done.

---

So what? If you think this is important, don't complain here. Get someone to do this analysis. Or do it yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Or alien ninjas. Just as likely as your statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
...
In my view there is more to be learned from this story about the power, for good or evil, of social media and its ability to manipulate public opinion than there is about Tim Hunt's actual attitude to women, or indeed about what he actually said or the context in which he said it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... Do you seriously doubt that academics are going to be reluctant to engage in studies where there is a danger of them showing the 'wrong' results i.s. showing feminist beliefs to be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... Do you seriously doubt that academics are going to be reluctant to engage in studies where there is a danger of them showing the 'wrong' results i.s. showing feminist beliefs to be wrong.

---

Thing one: one of the best ways of gaining major academic street cred, especially in science, is by debunking a widely accepted theory*. It's just really hard to do, because, guess what? Widely accepted theories are widely accepted because they have a vast amount of evidence supporting them. This is the same weak-ass argument used by creationists - that academics are afraid to challenge prevailing theories.

Thing two: how would one demonstrate that feminist beliefs are 'wrong'?

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that a feminist interpretation is incorrect. If that is what you meant, then obviously you do accept the data that the pay gap is real, and not explained by known factors. That's a start. Besides your opinion that moms are slackers, do you have any other possible explanations for the pay gap that could be tested?


---
*Theory in this case meaning scientific theory, not the everyday misuse of the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
As for what else might cause the pay gap the issues are discussed here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... Do you really think that if an academic produced a paper saying 'great news everyone, the pay gap isn't caused by sex discrimination to any significant extent' that he would be welcomed rather than furiously denounced?

---

quote:

---

As for what else might cause the pay gap the issues are discussed here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Feminist beliefs include the ideas that 'male privilege' exists and is a major factor in the male-female pay gap. Academic street cred is gained by debunking widely accepted theories in ways that are socially acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus: Increasingly, Journalism 101, or editing thereof, is about selling newspapers and sensationalising. Have you ever been interviewed by a journalist, or read the result?

---

I'm through with this for today too, but it would appear your answer to my question above is "no".

---

quote:

---

I'm not doubting Hunt said what he said, and not defending his remarks even in irony or off the cuff, but the ability of journalists to make what you said mean something completely different to what you intended, especially if there's scope for scandal, should not be doubted.

---

quote:

---

Neither, in my view, should the ability of leading scientists (much like everyone else) to hate each other's guts, regardless of gender, and seize an opportunity for potential advantage.

---

quote:

---

Eutychusm also posted:
[to earlier post] I have no idea. It was you that suggested just now that if anyone had proper grounds for a complaint, they should go first to the relevant authorities.

---

quote:

---

But you don't seem to apply this to the people you're supporting.

---

quote:

---

I guess the, um, biblical way would be to corner the guy first, one to one, then bring a witness, and then if he doesn't listen tell the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
As for what else might cause the pay gap the issues are discussed here.

---

That'll be (according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre) the hard-right libertarian foundation, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, then...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

As for what else might cause the pay gap the issues are discussed here.

---

Why don't you tell us in your own words, instead of forcing us to give them more web traffic?

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile: Do you really think that if an academic produced a paper saying 'great news everyone, the pay gap isn't caused by sex discrimination to any significant extent' that he would be welcomed rather than furiously denounced?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
On the other hand, it might be possible to try attending one of those feminist universities in order to discover what an ad hominem actually is . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
As for what else might cause the pay gap the issues are discussed here.

---

That'll be (according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre) the hard-right libertarian foundation, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, then...

---

That's the one. And your reply would be an ad hominem then...

---

quote:

---

Some myths die hard. The myth of the gender wage gap is one that’s had particularly long legs.

---

quote:

---

The stronger growth in women’s hourly earnings (excluding overtime) compared with men’s (up 2.2% compared with 1.1%) meant that the gender pay gap for full-time employees narrowed to 9.6% in 2012, from 10.5% in 2011.

---

quote:

---

It’s not just models (who make 10 times as much as their male colleagues)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So rather than providing an analysis of Mises' pre-judged argument (it's not like they're going to say "gender pay gap due to sexism in workplace" even if it is, because they're ideologically opposed to the very idea of that), I'll take proper analysis and academic study from reputable sources, thanks, and not from some ultra-free-market think-tank lobby group.

Got any of those?

---

quote:

---

Founded in 1974, the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University creates knowledge and seeks to implement change to promote gender equality. Our current focus is Moving Beyond the Stalled Gender Revolution. We are bringing together an intellectually diverse group of scholars to provide new insights into the barriers to women's advancement and to propose novel and workable solutions to advancing gender equality.

---

quote:

---

The research work of the Gender Institute is critical, transnational, and interdisciplinary. Our research is variously positioned in relation to different fields of study within the social sciences and humanities, but in each case, the focus on gender means testing conventional disciplinary boundaries and developing alternative methodologies. All the work addresses, in some way, the tenacity of gender power relations and gendered inequalities in a period of global transformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Do you have any unbiased sources you could suggest?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I could go on but you get the idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
There's a substantial difference between asserting "There is no gender wage gap" and then selectively assembling "facts" which appear to support that view, and beginning with questions like "Is there a gender wage gap?" or "What causes a gender wage gap?" and seeking to discover legitimate answers. The first is the production of propaganda; the second is research. Propaganda is produced by ideologues seeking to persuade. It's typically one-sided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
You apparently think so. Perhaps you could point out where I suggested, seriously or otherwise, either possibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

As for what else might cause the pay gap the issues are discussed here.

---

Why don't you tell us in your own words, instead of forcing us to give them more web traffic?

---

Well because its much quicker to provide a link to an article where someone explains things clearly and at length rather than trying to do that myself. It doesn't seem to be uncommon practice on the form to post links, the Mises Institute website isn't behind a paywall and you won't catch cooties if you read their article.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

As for what else might cause the pay gap the issues are discussed here.

---

Why don't you tell us in your own words, instead of forcing us to give them more web traffic?

---

Well because its much quicker to provide a link to an article where someone explains things clearly and at length rather than trying to do that myself. It doesn't seem to be uncommon practice on the form to post links, the Mises Institute website isn't behind a paywall and you won't catch cooties if you read their article.

---

Quicker for you, perhaps. How about pretending it's the SAT and you have to summarize the article in one paragraph?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
You know, this is a discussion site. You might try discussing a few ideas of your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Do you have any unbiased sources you could suggest?

---

Since you've ruled out all the academic studies because all universities are committed to (at least on paper) egalitarianism, I won't be able to satisfy your, er, exacting standards (ie, they agree with you).

But peer-reviewed academic papers are still considered the gold-standard of research, so I'll stick with them over blog posts from lobbyists, thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So you object to a Mises article because Mises is biased but you yourself admit that academic institutions have a pro feminist bias.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So you object to a Mises article because Mises is biased but you yourself admit that academic institutions have a pro feminist bias.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
but you yourself admit that academic institutions have a pro feminist bias.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If women are then starting to devote less time and energy to their employers in order to prioritise their time and energy spent with their children then that is bound to effect their work. To call employers sexist for taking into account changes in working patterns in their employees seems a stretch. How far would you take it. If more women than men chose part time work should employers then pay part time workers the same salary as full time workers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
You know, this is a discussion site. You might try discussing a few ideas of your own.

---

Well I have been doing exactly that. In this case I thought that what the people at Mises had to say was interesting so I linked to one of their articles. linking doesn't seem to be uncommon on this forum

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Suggesting that everyone has a right to learn, regardless of their nationality, their skin colour, their gender, their wealth, their sex, and that all ideas, philosophies and religious teachings should be exposed to academic study without fear or favour is, I suppose, a 'bias', if you're used to reactionary or conservative social or religious views being paramount, sacrosanct and unchallenged.

But fuck that shit. If you think acting like a decent human is a 'bias', then I don't really know how we're not going to talk past each other until the end of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So you object to a Mises article because Mises is biased but you yourself admit that academic institutions have a pro feminist bias.

---

Do you actually know how to assess sources and their credibility? Serious question. Maybe they haven't covered this in your undergraduate degree yet.

Because it just seems like you are bandying around information as if a) everyone else accepts your repeated assertions of bias and b) nobody else other than you has any ability to access credibility of sources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that British universities have both left-wing and right-wing staff. For example, Oxbridge has a tradition of producing eminent Marxists and well-known neo-liberals. Also, the LSE is said to be a key training ground for the City now.

You can find various lists of British unis, with 'left' and 'right' appended, I don't know if they are accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Ask yourself this. Would someone who advocated what you would call 'reactionary or conservative social or religious views' on gender relations be able to get an academic job at the Gender Studies departments of Stanford or the LSE that I mentioned. Would they even be able to keep a job they already had in those departments if they started advocating such views? Would they even be able to get an academic job in any other department of those universities?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that British universities have both left-wing and right-wing staff. For example, Oxbridge has a tradition of producing eminent Marxists and well-known neo-liberals. Also, the LSE is said to be a key training ground for the City now.

You can find various lists of British unis, with 'left' and 'right' appended, I don't know if they are accurate.

---

Well if your idea of the right wing limit of academic thought is neo-liberalism then that kind of illustrates my point. Neo-liberalism is about economic deregulation, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with conservative or reactionary religious or social thought. If you could identify some examples of British academics who advocate conservative or reactionary religious or social thought that would make your point better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that British universities have both left-wing and right-wing staff. For example, Oxbridge has a tradition of producing eminent Marxists and well-known neo-liberals. Also, the LSE is said to be a key training ground for the City now.

You can find various lists of British unis, with 'left' and 'right' appended, I don't know if they are accurate.

---

Well if your idea of the right wing limit of academic thought is neo-liberalism then that kind of illustrates my point. Neo-liberalism is about economic deregulation, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with conservative or reactionary religious or social thought. If you could identify some examples of British academics who advocate conservative or reactionary religious or social thought that would make your point better.

---

God, it's hard work discussing with you. I see you are a firm believer in outsourcing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Ask yourself this. Would someone who advocated what you would call 'reactionary or conservative social or religious views' on gender relations be able to get an academic job at the Gender Studies departments of Stanford or the LSE that I mentioned. Would they even be able to keep a job they already had in those departments if they started advocating such views? Would they even be able to get an academic job in any other department of those universities?

---

There would seem to be an irresolvable conflict between a college or university that admits both women and men as students and a professor who strongly believes that women should not have access to higher education. I'm not sure why an institution should be forced to hire someone determined to deliberately undermine its existence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
There are plenty of conservative or reactionary social views a person could advocate that don't include banning women from higher education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, this is one of the equivocations which Bibliophile is using, that a mandate for equal treatment is 'pro-feminist bias'. I suppose then that the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause), is pro-feminist, pro-black power, pro-gay rights, and so on.

---