Reply to Re: Let's talk terrorism
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
There's so much wrong with what deeply religious people teach to their children that focusing just on women's rights with them seems like it would be missing the point.
There is, but I wasn't talking about everything that was wrong with religious people. I was giving an example of a rather large group of people who teach exactly what you said. Them doing more things wrong doesn't mean that this should be ignored.
I don't see women's rights activists bashing Muslims, fundamentalist catholics, and Jehovah's witnesses.
I thought I just did that.
Also, I think it is a very normal thing to do among feminists. But not by saying that religion is bad, because that is bad politics. Because saying that will make people claim you're radical, because you're against freedom of religion, and then they don't listen to the (other) valid points you're making. But laws in a country like Saudi Arabia are heavily criticized by feminists.
On the other hand, there is also a valid reason not to criticize the religion itself for this: as I said before, religious people need to pick and choose which parts they believe. There are people (including Muslims) who choose the non-discriminatory parts, and as a feminist I have no problem with someone like that. (As an atheist I still want to convert them, but that's a different matter.)
So yes, religious groups who discriminate against women for religious reasons are criticized; religions themselves not as much.
it depends on how competitive the position is; the more competition, the less women I'd expect to see.
Think of the implications: any position in society that has high status will be desired by many people. So it is automatically competitive. So what you're saying is that you expect less women in positions of high status. How is that not putting them at a disadvantage?
women don't earn a lot less.
"Not a lot" means yes, they earn less. And that's a problem, especially when there is a cumulative effect (being paid less implies being valued less, which means lower chance of getting a promotion, etc).
John Oliver explains it very well (and he's funny).
It's something like 5%.
Find out what 5% unfair treatment means for the top of the organization. Yes, that means over 70% of CEOs will be men. And that's only taking this into account. There are other reasons women don't get those jobs, which explains why the number in the real world is even worse.
How much you ask for when you apply for the job, and how often you demand a raise.
When men do that, they are seen as strong and are rewarded. When women do, they are whining and punished. Given that situation, you can't expect them to try as much.
This is one reason that men are paid more for the same job. Knowing the reason doesn't mean it doesn't need to be fixed.
Less than 10% difference
The "it's almost nothing" argument doesn't get better when the number gets bigger, you know? 10% is huge.
only when the requests were made to outsiders. When the requests were made to insiders, MEN were discriminated against. Funny how the text completely neglected to mention that.
I agree it deserved to be mentioned, but I disagree that it means much. If the leaders discriminate, they will keep most women out. So the only women that are insiders are so good that they overcame the disadvantage. Once they are in, their work is treated as coming from a pro (which they are) and is thus more often accepted.
I also note that I disagree with the suggestion that women would be better than men at coding. I have no reason to believe that. However, there is a lot of harassment in this community, which means only the ones who really want to will persevere. So the women that are part of the community are better than the men, not because women are better, but because only the best make it there.
feminism is a hugely powerful and vocal movement that's been bringing attention to women's problems for many decades
And still they are hugely disadvantaged in society. Perhaps that hugely powerful movement is still less powerful than the forces they are up against?
there's nothing similar for men
What should men's rights activists fight for? What's the biggest injustice that needs to be addressed?
And before anyone claims that Feminism is about equality, no you're wrong: It's a movement that advocates women's rights.
It's like a religion; it's something different for everyone. For some (including me), it's about equality. For others, it's about women's rights. But it doesn't really matter, because in the current society, fighting for women's rights and fighting for equality are the same thing. We can have the discussion about the difference when we reach equality.
Eh, the civil war is a pretty big part of American history. A state can ackowledge the fact the confederation existed without the implicit suggestion that they support slavery, I think?
The civil war was over exactly one issue, and that issue was slavery. I'm sure there were other minor things, but slavery was the only thing that actually made people go to war. So supporting the confederacy means supporting slavery. That was true back then, and it is true now. Or can you name one other thing that is well known about the confederacy's ideals?
And acknowledging your history is not the same as flying their flag on your parliamentary building. This is like the Germans flying a swastika over the Bundestag, because the Nazis are a part of their history. Yes, they are, and it's good to remember that. But you do that with monuments and museums, not by proudly showing their symbols on your most important buildings.
only because that name is associated with terrorism
Oh, I suppose then it's ok. Someone tell all the Arabs that they shouldn't complain about unfair treatment, it's just because we think they're all terrorists. Why would Arabs not be angry about this? It doesn't make it any less unfair, does it?
In what universe does this happen?
This one we are living in.
most instances of harrassment are singular incidents.
While it is true that not everyone is doing it, many workplaces have people doing it and they are allowed to keep doing it. That means the harassment happens every day. If you see people watching and not acting, I expect that it feels like they agree that that is how you deserve to be treated. It's the job of management to prevent that culture, and as far as I know it is quite rare (but not unheard of) that they do.
"Rigged" implies it's engineered to be that way.
I did not mean that (although I'm not saying that it isn't, I don't know for sure that it is), so let's use a different word.
Why would whites hire only whites, unless they were racists to begin with?
Because they live in a community of white people. They know and trust them. They prefer to hire their friends, or people who are like their friends. If all (or most) of their friends are white, that means they hire (almost) only white people.
Sure, an outstanding black person could surprise them and be hired anyway. But that's the point: only the outstanding blacks are hired, while mediocre white people also get those jobs.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
I don't understand what you mean by this; can you elaborate?
There is, but I wasn't talking about everything that was wrong with religious people. I was giving an example of a rather large group of people who teach exactly what you said. Them doing more things wrong doesn't mean that this should be ignored.
I don't see women's rights activists bashing Muslims, fundamentalist catholics, and Jehovah's witnesses.
I thought I just did that.
Also, I think it is a very normal thing to do among feminists. But not by saying that religion is bad, because that is bad politics. Because saying that will make people claim you're radical, because you're against freedom of religion, and then they don't listen to the (other) valid points you're making. But laws in a country like Saudi Arabia are heavily criticized by feminists.On the other hand, there is also a valid reason not to criticize the religion itself for this: as I said before, religious people need to pick and choose which parts they believe. There are people (including Muslims) who choose the non-discriminatory parts, and as a feminist I have no problem with someone like that. (As an atheist I still want to convert them, but that's a different matter.)
So yes, religious groups who discriminate against women for religious reasons are criticized; religions themselves not as much.
it depends on how competitive the position is; the more competition, the less women I'd expect to see.
Think of the implications: any position in society that has high status will be desired by many people. So it is automatically competitive. So what you're saying is that you expect less women in positions of high status. How is that not putting them at a disadvantage?
women don't earn a lot less.
"Not a lot" means yes, they earn less. And that's a problem, especially when there is a cumulative effect (being paid less implies being valued less, which means lower chance of getting a promotion, etc).
John Oliver explains it very well (and he's funny).
It's something like 5%.
Find out what 5% unfair treatment means for the top of the organization. Yes, that means over 70% of CEOs will be men. And that's only taking this into account. There are other reasons women don't get those jobs, which explains why the number in the real world is even worse.
How much you ask for when you apply for the job, and how often you demand a raise.
When men do that, they are seen as strong and are rewarded. When women do, they are whining and punished. Given that situation, you can't expect them to try as much.
This is one reason that men are paid more for the same job. Knowing the reason doesn't mean it doesn't need to be fixed.
Less than 10% difference
The "it's almost nothing" argument doesn't get better when the number gets bigger, you know? 10% is huge.
only when the requests were made to outsiders. When the requests were made to insiders, MEN were discriminated against. Funny how the text completely neglected to mention that.
I agree it deserved to be mentioned, but I disagree that it means much. If the leaders discriminate, they will keep most women out. So the only women that are insiders are so good that they overcame the disadvantage. Once they are in, their work is treated as coming from a pro (which they are) and is thus more often accepted.
I also note that I disagree with the suggestion that women would be better than men at coding. I have no reason to believe that. However, there is a lot of harassment in this community, which means only the ones who really want to will persevere. So the women that are part of the community are better than the men, not because women are better, but because only the best make it there.
feminism is a hugely powerful and vocal movement that's been bringing attention to women's problems for many decades
And still they are hugely disadvantaged in society. Perhaps that hugely powerful movement is still less powerful than the forces they are up against?
there's nothing similar for men
What should men's rights activists fight for? What's the biggest injustice that needs to be addressed?
And before anyone claims that Feminism is about equality, no you're wrong: It's a movement that advocates women's rights.
It's like a religion; it's something different for everyone. For some (including me), it's about equality. For others, it's about women's rights. But it doesn't really matter, because in the current society, fighting for women's rights and fighting for equality are the same thing. We can have the discussion about the difference when we reach equality.
Eh, the civil war is a pretty big part of American history. A state can ackowledge the fact the confederation existed without the implicit suggestion that they support slavery, I think?
The civil war was over exactly one issue, and that issue was slavery. I'm sure there were other minor things, but slavery was the only thing that actually made people go to war. So supporting the confederacy means supporting slavery. That was true back then, and it is true now. Or can you name one other thing that is well known about the confederacy's ideals?
And acknowledging your history is not the same as flying their flag on your parliamentary building. This is like the Germans flying a swastika over the Bundestag, because the Nazis are a part of their history. Yes, they are, and it's good to remember that. But you do that with monuments and museums, not by proudly showing their symbols on your most important buildings.
only because that name is associated with terrorism
Oh, I suppose then it's ok. Someone tell all the Arabs that they shouldn't complain about unfair treatment, it's just because we think they're all terrorists. Why would Arabs not be angry about this? It doesn't make it any less unfair, does it?
In what universe does this happen?
This one we are living in.
most instances of harrassment are singular incidents.
While it is true that not everyone is doing it, many workplaces have people doing it and they are allowed to keep doing it. That means the harassment happens every day. If you see people watching and not acting, I expect that it feels like they agree that that is how you deserve to be treated. It's the job of management to prevent that culture, and as far as I know it is quite rare (but not unheard of) that they do.
"Rigged" implies it's engineered to be that way.
I did not mean that (although I'm not saying that it isn't, I don't know for sure that it is), so let's use a different word.
Why would whites hire only whites, unless they were racists to begin with?
Because they live in a community of white people. They know and trust them. They prefer to hire their friends, or people who are like their friends. If all (or most) of their friends are white, that means they hire (almost) only white people.
Sure, an outstanding black person could surprise them and be hired anyway. But that's the point: only the outstanding blacks are hired, while mediocre white people also get those jobs.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
I don't understand what you mean by this; can you elaborate?
