Hey, hostile visitors! Do you have an opinion about, for example, Mary Koss’ rape research? Do you want to discuss it even though the topic has not actually come up by itself in any of the threads and none of my recent posts really have much to do with the specifics of anyone’s rape research? Well, from now on you can discuss it here with anyone who wishes to follow you to this thread.
Added bonus: If you continue to try to discuss it in other threads you’ll be banned!
This also applies to future derailers riding hobbyhorses of their own having nothing to do with Koss.
Happy discussing!
Note: If you wish to discuss the topics at hand, you know, topics directly related to my posts and/or to what other people are discussing and that aren’t, you know, personal hobbyhorses of yours that involve long screeds and various things that you’ve probably already cut and pasted into the comments sections of various other websites until you were banned from them for endless derailing and general asswipery, feel free to remain in the original threads.
Man, I remember when I first met Liberals in the wild. They were real people, with ideas! Suddenly I was all, “hey, they’re not really evil wild-eyed sex maniancs like I was told. So why do they disagree with me if they’re not the devil? It must be that they Misunderstand me. Let me rephrase condescendingly.”
They understood me and my philosophy just fine. It was me who was refusing to listen to their (Satanic! Evil!) ideas.
It wasn’t that they didn’t understand; it was that they didn’t agree.
Pecunium has spoken words of wisdom. If you listen REALLY EMPATHETICALLY, mister Heavily-Gendered-Language, you might learn something important.
Argenti: re sperm donors: As you say I was being allegorical. I can’t really call a person who wants to abandon the child a father. There are some women who have penes, so finding a useful turn of phrase was difficult.
Sperm donor was a rhetorical flourish, not a comment about the actual method of impregnation. I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that a woman who uses a sperm bank 1: wants the child, and 2: has a reasonable expectaion of being able to afford it.
🙂
Barring the rest of the reasons for abortion, yep. Chromosomal abnormalities, other serious birth defects, health issues in pregnancy, etc.
Anancephaly is hit or miss, there’s no preventation, and no cure, so surely some small number of sperm bank users do abort because of things like that. But yeah, I’m seriously digressing here (I, um, have a perverse interest in birth defects, should really go see the Mütter museum collection)
And I just spent 40 min on hold to be told they’ll send me the redetermination form. Yet more people to whom I have to prove I’m nuts.
On that note, yeah, no one likes the dentist. But waking up in a panic because it’s the day after tomorrow isn’t normal right?
“The hegemonic, anti-feminine nature of patriarchal masculinity marginalizes some men.”
So, it is that men are always advantaged in every situation without exception. Thanks for the clarification.
“Um, they have to sign that piece of paper for selective service?
And I guess feelings are evil.”
“There is an approximate 5 year total difference in the statistical average here.
150.000 men on average that sleeps on the streets tonight”
Now, where is the problem with me wanting to include these points that YOU made in the discussion of gender equality?
“GNL: I understand you, I think you’re wrong, and a misogynistic puke.”
prove it.
“WE REJECT IT!”
You are rejecting me as a person. You have no clue what “it” is to reject.
“Habit 4.
Think win-win.
You want:
“Parity in…. workplace deaths”
I want:
Zero workplace deaths.
Our current communal relationship:
Win-lose.
My prognosis for our future calibration:
Unlikely to shift to win-win, some inconsolable differences in opinion.”
How do I do block quotes, cause that would be useful here.
I am thinking win-win. Yes, parity in work place deaths is a goal. Zero workplace deaths would be a very agreeable point for parity. No one dies would be great. The point that I disagree on is that this goal can be achieved by making the workplace safer for the 3% of workplace deaths that are women. We need to focus on the 97% of workplace deaths that are men.
GNL reminds me of reasons my son is crying.
I didn’t say that men benefit from the patriarchy in every single respect. I said that men can suffer from some patriarchal side-effects that result from their privilege. Either you’re deliberately ignoring what I said or you are severely lacking in reading comprehension hee.
here*
You use a crocodile tooth, open ended and closed, and write blockquote inbetween.
Remove the spaces. It’s important that you include the / to denote ending, spell blockquote correctly, and orient the bigger than / lower the right way to denote open, close.
Same goes for bolding, which is [Text] and italics ( i ). You can also include links, by doing this:
Link Descriptor
Remove spaces again, remember qoutation marks.
—
See, my problem with this:
Is that this isn’t diminishing workplace disparities, it’s diminishing workplace deaths for men. It’s not increasing workplace death parity for women, because that would be murder, it’s increasing workplace safety for men.
But my problem is not with that notion, my problem is with the a priori set up.
( Habit 3: Put first things first )
You don’t need to divide between workplace men and workplace women and workplace others and workplace zebras and workplaces pans.
IF you do, you’re assuming that the function of workplace deaths is not a direct responsibility of the JOB BEING CARRIED OUT and the CIRCUMSTANCES IT’S BEING DONE IN. You’ve already tactictly agreed that men should be saved.
Bring down overall work death. Don’t try to pass it by me that a disparity in those statistics can be explained by anything more than jobs, services and regulatory oversight or lack there of. I know who the Radium girls were.
Wait, no. Because you’re building towards “Women don’t want to do dirty jobs, we’d have to force them at gunpoint, so parity is out, so equality is out, so we shouldn’t do something about that, because we can’t, and we should bring down the death of men any way, don’t matter women, my random distinctions matter”
You said so, over the first few posts in this very thread.
So don’t try to sell me the sex differences of occupational hazards.
Sell me the solutions for solving occupational hazards – because I’m sure coal dust and rust lung doesn’t differentiate between male and female or unaligned or trans or up or down or left or right. Rust lung just kills
( Habit 2: Begin with the end in mind. Define a mission statement:
Bring down occupational deaths
Mock misogyny.
You can define your style-person / life-situations if you want to, won’t force you )
Uh, that intro isn’t meant to be wildly snappy in its snarky refusal to tell you how to do these things, apparently the htlm coding just ignores spaces between signifiers. Trying again:
CURSE YOU REALITY.
You write a and then you write a
Come on. Try that.
… Unbelievable. This is the price I pay to the blockquote monster for my arrogance and pride.
@genderneutrallanguage:
I would love to tell you how to blockquote. BUT I CAN’T.
Fibi, it’s interpreting those as attempts at tags.
You got to write out & lt ; I think.
<
<blockquote>
This
</blockquote>
Oh, the blockquote monster is going to get me for sure, now, spreading its secrets all over the interwebs… I shall be walking softly after this, I assure you.
I owe you one favour.
Which government need be toppled? Who dies? Where do I go? What mountain must I climb? What beverage need I brew from the sweat of my brow and the blood of the soil? What item knit, what garment sew, what marathon run, who duel, what, pray tell, paint, which rules system figure out. Anything.
Just no coding.
God.
Thank you, howardbann1ster.
GNL: “WE REJECT IT!”
You are rejecting me as a person. You have no clue what “it” is to reject.
No. Go back and read it again (PEMRA, follow along, this is how reading comprehension works).
You said we need to listen to your ideas, with empathy. That, because we fail to do this, we don’t understand them.
I said we do listen. We do understand. We don’t agree.
That is not a rejection of you, it’s a rejection of what you said (PEMRA, did you see how that worked?).
I can’t reject you. You aren’t your ideas.
Were you in my house, then I could (would, in all probability) eject you. I can see, from your disappointment at my failure to be persuaded by your attempts at argument†) that I am also dejecting you. You might be happier (from the way you are reacting) if I took to neglecting you.
But that’s not going to happen today.
† (PEMRA, what I want to say here is that I think GNL is crappy at argument, it’s why I said, “attempt”. That’s the use of a qualifier, thus making better saying what I want understood. It’s a bit more advanced than most English 101/102 courses teach. You could try using it, the trick is to decide when to use a subtle modifier, such as “attempts”, or a more forceful one, such as, “shitty arguments”. That’s a case of playing to the audience. Since I still find poking GNL a bit amusing; and I went to the effort, again, to fisk one of his blog posts I don’t really feel the need to, directly, offend him; so I’m using a needling tone. It’s all about what you want to get across, and just who the target audience is. I am pretty sure the regulars will pick up on my tone, in part because they [as are you, I suspect] are familiar with my rhetorical patterns)
[blockquote]You don’t need to divide between workplace men and workplace women and workplace others and workplace zebras and workplaces pans.[/blockquote]
Ok. Can we apply this to the STEM fields and the Wage Gap?
[blockquote]I can’t reject you. You aren’t your ideas.[/blockquote]
I am an MRA, therefor wrong. You haven’t gotten past Me to even look at the ideas yet. You can prove me wrong by telling me what you think I’m saying from my point of view. If you really understand me, that isn’t very hard.
@genderneuterallanguage:
No, because doing so would ignore the cause. Workplace deaths aren’t caused by male oppression, they are caused by dangerous working conditions. Women working in the same field (if they were free to), would experience the same problems.
Pfffft. All the favors I actually need involve code. 😛
Such is the blockquote monster.
Heh, my schooling and my job revolve around coding, and the blockquote monster still manages to find me. It takes no prisoners.
No, we can’t apply that to the STEM wage gap. The STEM wage gap is when women are paid less for being women. Workplace deaths don’t occur more to men because they’re men. Bosses aren’t walking around shooting subordinates for being men. Men make up a greater proportion of workplace deaths because they choose jobs where workplace deaths are more likely to happen. Different causes, different solutions.
But you know that. You’re just weasly and dishonest like the rest of your ilk.
GNL: You haven’t gotten past Me to even look at the ideas yet. You can prove me wrong by telling me what you think I’m saying from my point of view. If you really understand me, that isn’t very hard.
You have it reversed. I haven’t looked past your IDEAS. I don’t give a shit about “you” the person. I am not arguing that you are worthless save for the CO2 you provide the plants in your immediate area (and what with 500ppm on the way, I don’t think you are all that essential in that role, all things considered).
Go, look at what I wrote. All of that was about your ideas (ok, not all, some was about the ways in which you lie, and twist the facts).
You can prove me wrong by telling me what you think I’m saying from my point of view.
Dude, your Point of View is nonsense. You don’t mean the same things with words that I do. You think women have more power than men, and it needs to be, “rebalanced” by giving that “lost” power back to men .
I get it.
But You Are Wrong.
That’s the issue. I think you are wrong. You have failed to convince me of any error in thinking this. I have gone to great length to discuss the ideas you have put forth (and no small effort, I’ve read four of your blog posts, God, I’d rather be reading AR 380-10 [again] than the eyeball sanding horror that is your incoherent prose [again, note the use of the possessive noun structure. It’s your PROSE, I am rejecting, not your person]).
You are not your ideas. That you are an MRA is personal problem, but it doesn’t matter a whit in terms of the merit/clarity of your ideas. They stand, or fall, on their own.
I’ve known some perfectly charming bigots. I’ve known some cultists. As long as the subjects on which those people were obsessive/offensive didn’t come up, I had no problem with them.
Because it wasn’t them I was rejecting.
“The STEM wage gap is when women are paid less for being women.”
Hmmm… is this really true? I’m not informed on the, but I’ve heard much to the effect that the wage gap is largely a result of socialization. But I’m not discounting discrimination. I’m just bringing all perspectives into the discussing.
“A result of socialization”
…
Yeah, no. Read the actual literature.
Large parts of the wage gap are because society designates the woman as the caregiver to the children, and that cuts into her.
But if you account for it, THERE’S STILL A WAGE GAP.
If you account for every variable you can think of, from the innocuous to the sexist, THERE’S STILL A WAGE GAP.
It’s been tested.
“But women don’t ask for raises!”
And when they do ask, they’re penalized, because that makes them “Bitches”.
These are numbers. They can be studied. We can find the answers.