Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Luciom, go back to your hole and find out why all your Italian composers put ten thousand vowels and double consonants on each eighth note in 9/8 meter. You’re not needed for this.
So that women could show off their superiority at singing that, check this
Or this more recent
Historical records, institutional data, government statistics, and peer-reviewed research all point to my thesis being empirically true, both historically and currently.
But you guys don’t want to address the scary facts in the room. The hard data that can’t be dismissed.
All of that stuff says that men love other men more than they love women? I've certainly never heard of there being any "hard data" about which people are most loved by men.
More likely you (and likely those you have read) are making inferences which are not at all obviously correct.
Even if you asked men who their heroes were, and they almost all answered with the names of men, I don't think that implies they like men more than women in general.
It could be partially because of education which is biased towards men (but was not chosen by them) and partially because it makes sense to have someone your own gender as a hero.
The happiest demographic exibit #2AbstractObjective: Depression constitutes a major health problem for older people, in this study defined as people 65 years of age and older. Previous studies have shown that mental health among older people who live with animals could be improved, but contrary results exist as well. Therefore, the objective of the present population study was
I like both cats and dogs, but I can definitely see how this would likely be correct. Nearly all pet dogs seem to think their keeper is the most awesome person in the world, while many pet cats only seem to occasionally honor their keeper with some attention when it suits their needs.
I don't remember this poster, but anyone who espouses this belief probably needs to be institutionalized immediately.
Pw was pretty vocal that the govt should provide all men a girlfriend who would **** them if needed.
I enjoyed his posting. He talked about washing his loaded guns in the sink and stuff.
Historical records, institutional data, government statistics, and peer-reviewed research all point to my thesis being empirically true, both historically and currently.
But you guys don’t want to address the scary facts in the room. The hard data that can’t be dismissed.
Data that shows hiring bias, pay bias, promotion bias, etc., absolutely exists. That data supports a variety of conclusions about the patriarchal structures of society. Those structures exist. They work to the advantage of men and the disadvantage of women. I never argued to the contrary, and I don't have any problem admitting that ultimate conclusion.
I personally didn't find the quote you posted to be a very persuasive description of how most men that I know think. And for that reason, I didn't find the quote to be a particularly persuasive explanation for why those structures continue to exist today. But they obviously do.
Pw was pretty vocal that the govt should provide all men a girlfriend who would **** them if needed.
I enjoyed his posting. He talked about washing his loaded guns in the sink and stuff.
PW was sometimes amusing, but he was perpetually straddling the "not sure if serious" line. For me, if you propose to straddle that line, you are a net negative unless you are very, very funny.
Data that shows hiring bias, pay bias, promotion bias, etc., absolutely exists. That data supports a variety of conclusions about the patriarchal structures of society. Those structures exist. They work to the advantage of men and the disadvantage of women. I never argued to the contrary, and I don't have any problem admitting that ultimate conclusion. I personally didn't
Do you know who has those biases more, against women? in the data...
Whole conversation is reminiscent of some pretty primitive takes from the early 80s onwards until people began to accept that men and women are fundamentally different in a few ways.
No wonder the book being cited was written in the 70s.
Most societies have a firm bias in favour of males in terms of pay and careers, and that can't be disputed. It's much harder for women to "succeed" in traditional male environments, which most workplaces are, and they often feel sidelined and that they have to be twice as good as any male colleague. They are also hugely disadvantaged by often having to take longer periods of time off to bring kids up than men, and many employers view this as a reason not to favour a viable young female candidate. This is uncontroversial.
I’ll do this after rehearsal.
Will probably switch to Michael Kimmel though when it comes to critiquing male homosociality and its foundational relationship to masculinity. I’m going to presume it will be more palatable to many here if it comes from a respected male sociologist rather than a respected feminist scholar. For… reasons 😀
"respected feminist" is an oxymoron
Whole conversation is reminiscent of some pretty primitive takes from the early 80s onwards until people began to accept that men and women are fundamentally different in a few ways.No wonder the book being cited was written in the 70s.Most societies have a firm bias in favour of males in terms of pay and careers, and that can't be disputed. It's much harder for women to "succe
I don't think anyone was denying anything here. None of it seems particularly connected to the claims made by CN and the work she quoted.
Though I would argue that no one has to take time off to raise children, and I think it's terrible when businesses offer benefits to parents which they don't offer to others or are more lenient with parents with regard to taking time off at the last minute, being late with work, rtc.
I’ll do this after rehearsal.
Will probably switch to Michael Kimmel though when it comes to critiquing male homosociality and its foundational relationship to masculinity. I’m going to presume it will be more palatable to many here if it comes from a respected male sociologist rather than a respected feminist scholar. For… reasons 😀
Homosociality is miles away from homoeroticism, come on now. Yeah when you defend a different thing people might have a different reaction.
But still I don’t know anything about this guy or his theory so who knows?
I don't think anyone was denying anything here. None of it seems particularly connected to the claims made by CN and the work she quoted.Though I would argue that no one has to take time off to raise children, and I think it's terrible when businesses offer benefits to parents which they don't offer to others or are more lenient with parents with regard to taking time off at th
Maternity leave is typically much longer than paternity leave.
The attempts to portray posters here as rampant sexists (though a few undoubtedly are) despite most agreeing with what I wrote is the problem. and is highly reminiscent of the 70s/80s and that era's unnuanced and outmoded way of thinking.
Whole conversation is reminiscent of some pretty primitive takes from the early 80s onwards until people began to accept that men and women are fundamentally different in a few ways.No wonder the book being cited was written in the 70s.Most societies have a firm bias in favour of males in terms of pay and careers, and that can't be disputed. It's much harder for women to "succe
What you claim is uncontroversial is actually controversial, because saying *having to take longer periods of time off* instead *choosing* is quite relevant.
Also women ask less aggressively for pay raises than men and that mostly explains the (very little these days) pay gap.
Here they call it the "confidence gap" but i am not sure that's correct, it might also be just a lower propensity for outright confrontation, one of the many consequences of higher risk aversion.
