#distractinglysexy

[skepticalbip]

Well then, both sides cancel each other! All is fixed!
Oh wait...

Women in primarily male professions are much sought after, not because of their higher qualifications but because so few women in comparison are in the fields.

That means as long as those policies are in place, women are at a disadvantage. I guess there's no equality until those policies become unnecessary because of parity.

So is your solution is to limit the number of men allowed to enter the field or to require women to major in that field? I personally prefer free choice and, as it turns out, there are some fields that more men than women want to enter and there are some fields that more women then men want to enter. Then let those in the field (both men and women) compete for positions on their ability rather than their gender.

Those demanding equal representation of men and women in a profession have just invented a problem where no problem exists just so they can rail against it. There is nothing wrong with more of one gender than the other gender being interested in a particular field.

 

[credoconsolans]

I see. Sexism is awful but agism is dandy.

That he was 'forced to resign' ruins absolutely nothing. He is still a Nobel Prize winner. That was not taken from him. His productive years are probably behind him now anyway. Having been in academic circles, I bet there were plenty of his colleagues glad to see the old geezer go.

Again with the agism. I'm sure his knowledge of the field is still well above most.

You don't know that. I've worked in academic circles. A lot of the old timers are resting on their laurels and keeping the seats warm. No one can advance while they're still there. One of my places of employment had to keep trying to talk an 82 year old professor into retiring. There was no budget money to get new people in while they were still paying him his salary.

And spare me the ageism. That's for people who actually NEED the work, are still capable and will be hurting financially if they're dismissed because they're old. NOT rich, Nobel prize winner professors in the high ivory towers of academia 10 years past retirement age.

But what he lost is lucrative consultation and lucrative speaking engagement referrals.

Yep, he sure did, by opening his mouth and making a stupid sexist remark that reflected badly on his institution and cast doubt on his department.

Who would want to hire someone like that?

He did that to himself. He was probably so used to being a lauded, tenured professor, he was still in the mindset that he could say anything and get away with it.

Wrong.

Having been in the hard sciences track in college, I am used to misogynistic male professors, having taken required classes from at least 2 of them. Yes, they're pretty contemptuous of women, of the soft sciences and yes, both of them were the ONLY professors teaching required classes. Hmmmm, wonder if any women students lost out on research and assistant teaching invitations in their labs and classes because they weren't men.

I'm sure that some women have lost out because of sexism. However some men have too. That is life.

Much FEWER men than women though. That's not "life" that's discrimination.

 

[credoconsolans]

Those demanding equal representation of men and women in a profession have just invented a problem where no problem exists just so they can rail against it. There is nothing wrong with more of one gender than the other gender being interested in a particular field.

Well, we don't know that that's the case, seeing as some unknown number of male professors in positions to hire or mentor women in these fields seem to think women are a "distraction" and aren't inclined to include them.

We've seen that time and again in any male-dominated field where women want to join and there is kickback from the men in these occupations.

Apparently, their notion of their manly superiority gets dashed if a woman comes in and can do the same job. Then they feel maybe their job isn't that hard/dangerous/important after all and they lose whatever status they thought they had with the job.

 

[skepticalbip]

Those demanding equal representation of men and women in a profession have just invented a problem where no problem exists just so they can rail against it. There is nothing wrong with more of one gender than the other gender being interested in a particular field.

Well, we don't know that that's the case, seeing as some unknown number of male professors in positions to hire or mentor women in these fields seem to think women are a "distraction" and aren't inclined to include them.

We've seen that time and again in any male-dominated field where women want to join and there is kickback from the men in these occupations.

Apparently, their notion of their manly superiority gets dashed if a woman comes in and can do the same job. Then they feel maybe their job isn't that hard/dangerous/important after all and they lose whatever status they thought they had with the job.

We do know that is the case. Visit any first year physics class and you will see a very small percentage of students are female. There are fields, including physics, that have for decades been trying to recruit more female students but the females are, in general, more interested in other professions.

My niece majored in cultural anthropology. I had noticed that the majority of people in cultural anthropology were female while the majority of people in physical anthropology were male. I asked her if she knew why. She had also noticed it but had never wondered why. Her only thought of an explanation was that cultural anthropology was more interesting for women and physical anthropology more interesting for men. She personally had little interest in physical anthropology.

Regardless of what those who demand equal representation want to be reality, the reality is that males and females are different and have different interests... and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[RavenSky]

Part of the problem is sexism is not always easily defined. Opening a door for a woman is generally considered "sexist" (i.e. benevolent sexism, to be specific). Should a guy who was raised as a "southern gentleman" type be fired at his job for opening a door for a woman? Many a man has been chewed out for opening doors for a random women, and other men have been scolded for not opening a door for a woman. This could get ridiculous (not that we aren't there already).

This is the American social contract on the subject:
Two people approach a door at the same time (from the same side of the door). The first person to reach for the door holds it open for the next. That person should be the one furthest from the door hinge (and closest to the knob), for practicality reasons. Two people approach a door at the same time (from opposite sides of the door). The person on the side of the door that the door swings holds it for the other person. When people get this wrong, it is so annoying. If you are hinge side or opposite the door swing side and attempting to hold the door, you are reaching across the other person and attempting to (probably poorly) hold the door open with the most leverage against you as possible... you look stupid and your attempt at helping is ineffectual and obstructive. So stop that.
Finally, if you are the only person approaching the door. spend half a fucking second to gain situational awareness. If someone is only a few paces behind you, hold the door. If they are more than a few paces behind you then don't hold the door.

Gender has nothing to do with who should be holding doors for others.

If you have any questions on how to behave in public, I will be happy to answer them for you.

^^^ That!

What is so difficult about any of that?

 

[Bomb#20]

So, do you also feel people should lose their jobs if they advocate communism?


Hmm, yes, you can always tell who has the power -- he's the one getting fired.

In any case, what a superficial, decontextualized, knee-jerk reading of the situation.

Let's find out what misrepresentation you'll need to dream up in order to convince yourself that's a just accusation...

In no manner, shape or form are women, blacks or gays in charge if bigots get the boot.

Ah, that one. So who said they were? Obviously booting a heretic doesn't mean women, blacks or gays are in charge. It means thought police are in charge. You claimed women were weaker than Tim Hunt; I merely pointed out that Tim Hunt is also weak. If you want evidence as to which of these weak people are the weaker, can you point out any woman who got canned for making a sexist remark about men?

By the way, the man was not fired. He was Twitter-gang-raped into quitting

The words of his wife, from the Guardian newspaper:

"I was told by a senior that Tim had to resign immediately or be sacked – though I was told it would be treated as a low-key affair. Tim duly emailed his resignation when he got home. The university promptly announced his resignation on its website and started tweeting that they had got rid of him. ...

(Post #23)​

That qualifies as being constructively fired.

by those who would not stand for the system not doing anything to stop this "brave" agressor of that half of humanity...

That's the second time you called him brave and put it in quotation marks. Why are you doing that? Whom are you quoting? Because you're kind of making it look like you're not quoting anyone. You're kind of making it look like you're saying "brave" as a way to insult the people who think losing his job is an over-the-top overreaction to what the guy said, by falsely insinuating that we think his empty-headed mouth-fart was brave. If that's why you're doing it, do you feel that's an honorable debating tactic?

But enough about your abuse of fellow posters. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Do you also feel people should lose their jobs if they advocate communism? Are you arguing for equal opportunity McCarthyism, or should the thought police job be staffed only by people who share your own ideology?

 

[thebeave]

This is the American social contract on the subject:
Two people approach a door at the same time (from the same side of the door). The first person to reach for the door holds it open for the next. That person should be the one furthest from the door hinge (and closest to the knob), for practicality reasons. Two people approach a door at the same time (from opposite sides of the door). The person on the side of the door that the door swings holds it for the other person. When people get this wrong, it is so annoying. If you are hinge side or opposite the door swing side and attempting to hold the door, you are reaching across the other person and attempting to (probably poorly) hold the door open with the most leverage against you as possible... you look stupid and your attempt at helping is ineffectual and obstructive. So stop that.
Finally, if you are the only person approaching the door. spend half a fucking second to gain situational awareness. If someone is only a few paces behind you, hold the door. If they are more than a few paces behind you then don't hold the door.

Gender has nothing to do with who should be holding doors for others.

If you have any questions on how to behave in public, I will be happy to answer them for you.

^^^ That!

What is so difficult about any of that?

Yeah, that's how it's pretty much SUPPOSED to be. I'm talking about the kind of guy, for example, who runs ahead a group of women and holds the door open, rather than let the first woman of the group open the door. Or lets say a male and female coworker are going to drive to another location, and the guy holds open the car door for the woman, lets her get in, than closes it behind her. Perhaps he does this because of his upbringing or its part of his local culture. He thinks its what "gentlemen do". He's not trying to get her in bed. Should he get fired for something like this?

Some better sexist examples might be a manager who has made a "Ladies First" policy for building evacuation in case of fire or other emergency. Or has only the women clean the break room and bathroom in a small, professional mixed gender office. Or only the men are assigned to take the trash out or change the oil in the company vehicles.

This "take no prisoners" approach that is going on today for every stupid little mildly sexist or racist thing people say is getting out of hand. How about giving people a second chance, rather than basically throw away decades of accomplishments for one silly comment?

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^
But then on the bright side I have learned that if I am ever on a sinking ship it would be a sexist insult to wait for the women to get into the lifeboat first then see if there is room for me.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

This is the American social contract on the subject:
Two people approach a door at the same time (from the same side of the door). The first person to reach for the door holds it open for the next. That person should be the one furthest from the door hinge (and closest to the knob), for practicality reasons. Two people approach a door at the same time (from opposite sides of the door). The person on the side of the door that the door swings holds it for the other person. When people get this wrong, it is so annoying. If you are hinge side or opposite the door swing side and attempting to hold the door, you are reaching across the other person and attempting to (probably poorly) hold the door open with the most leverage against you as possible... you look stupid and your attempt at helping is ineffectual and obstructive. So stop that.
Finally, if you are the only person approaching the door. spend half a fucking second to gain situational awareness. If someone is only a few paces behind you, hold the door. If they are more than a few paces behind you then don't hold the door.

Gender has nothing to do with who should be holding doors for others.

If you have any questions on how to behave in public, I will be happy to answer them for you.

^^^ That!

What is so difficult about any of that?

Yeah, me too. Nothing to do with sexism or any other ism, just basic consideration of other people.

 

[Perspicuo]

Well then, both sides cancel each other! All is fixed!
Oh wait...



That means as long as those policies are in place, women are at a disadvantage. I guess there's no equality until those policies become unnecessary because of parity.

So is your solution is to limit the number of men allowed to enter the field or to require women to major in that field? I personally prefer free choice and, as it turns out, there are some fields that more men than women want to enter and there are some fields that more women then men want to enter. Then let those in the field (both men and women) compete for positions on their ability rather than their gender.

Those demanding equal representation of men and women in a profession have just invented a problem where no problem exists just so they can rail against it. There is nothing wrong with more of one gender than the other gender being interested in a particular field.

I have not stated such a thing. Please limit yourself to this side of Phantasia.

 

[skepticalbip]

So is your solution is to limit the number of men allowed to enter the field or to require women to major in that field? I personally prefer free choice and, as it turns out, there are some fields that more men than women want to enter and there are some fields that more women then men want to enter. Then let those in the field (both men and women) compete for positions on their ability rather than their gender.

Those demanding equal representation of men and women in a profession have just invented a problem where no problem exists just so they can rail against it. There is nothing wrong with more of one gender than the other gender being interested in a particular field.

I have not stated such a thing. Please limit yourself to this side of Phantasia.

It was a question. You claim there is an inequity caused by some (unspecified) policies that are in place. I see no inequity existing just because there are some fields that men find more interesting than women and some fields that women find more interesting than men. The result being that some fields attract a higher percentage of men than women and some fields attract a higher percentage of women than men. You seem to be suggesting that this situation is caused by some sort of policies that place women at a disadvantage.

Perhaps you could explain what the disadvantage to women is in people freely choosing careers and what policy is in place that is disadvantaging women. Then what your solution is. Maybe you could also add why you think not having an equal number of females and males in each field is a bad thing.

 

[Togo]

Yeah, that's how it's pretty much SUPPOSED to be. I'm talking about the kind of guy, for example, who runs ahead a group of women and holds the door open, rather than let the first woman of the group open the door. Or lets say a male and female coworker are going to drive to another location, and the guy holds open the car door for the woman, lets her get in, than closes it behind her. Perhaps he does this because of his upbringing or its part of his local culture. He thinks its what "gentlemen do". He's not trying to get her in bed. Should he get fired for something like this?

Depends on the context.

My wife ran into a manager who not only insisted on getting the door when she approached, but refused to let her open the door for him, and also made everyone in the room stand up when she entered. She asked him to stop, but he wouldn't, and insisted she should was being honoured by the attention. He eventually complained to HR, that she was not respecting his traditional upbringing. She refused to acquiesce to his treatment, he refused to change his ways, and she was given a choice of being reassigned to different department (that didn't include her speciality and would put her on a lower-paid career track, or giving a formal undertaking to accept his treatment of her. She resigned.

 

[credoconsolans]

Well, we don't know that that's the case, seeing as some unknown number of male professors in positions to hire or mentor women in these fields seem to think women are a "distraction" and aren't inclined to include them.

We've seen that time and again in any male-dominated field where women want to join and there is kickback from the men in these occupations.

Apparently, their notion of their manly superiority gets dashed if a woman comes in and can do the same job. Then they feel maybe their job isn't that hard/dangerous/important after all and they lose whatever status they thought they had with the job.

We do know that is the case. Visit any first year physics class and you will see a very small percentage of students are female. There are fields, including physics, that have for decades been trying to recruit more female students but the females are, in general, more interested in other professions.

Actually I did take physics. Two semesters of it. The class was 50/50 male to female.

My niece majored in cultural anthropology. I had noticed that the majority of people in cultural anthropology were female while the majority of people in physical anthropology were male. I asked her if she knew why. She had also noticed it but had never wondered why. Her only thought of an explanation was that cultural anthropology was more interesting for women and physical anthropology more interesting for men. She personally had little interest in physical anthropology.

If I had taken one field class I would have had a 2nd minor in anthropology. I assume it was cultural as it did not delve into the biological studies. A male teacher taught the class. Again, class attendance was 50/50 male to female. I didn't notice any gender division.

We're going to need statistics to see if such divisions are evident as personal experience isn't going to get us anywhere.

 

[Perspicuo]

I have not stated such a thing. Please limit yourself to this side of Phantasia.

It was a question. You claim there is an inequity caused by some (unspecified) policies that are in place. I see no inequity existing just because there are some fields that men find more interesting than women and some fields that women find more interesting than men. The result being that some fields attract a higher percentage of men than women and some fields attract a higher percentage of women than men. You seem to be suggesting that this situation is caused by some sort of policies that place women at a disadvantage.

Perhaps you could explain what the disadvantage to women is in people freely choosing careers and what policy is in place that is disadvantaging women. Then what your solution is. Maybe you could also add why you think not having an equal number of females and males in each field is a bad thing.

I am certainly not going to fall for such an obvious example of complex queston fallacy you have turned your strawman into.

And perhaps I could explain... nothing? Perhaps I do not participate in your interrogation procedure. If you will debate any point I have actually said, I will wholeheartedly participate, otherwise, tough luck.

 

[skepticalbip]

It was a question. You claim there is an inequity caused by some (unspecified) policies that are in place. I see no inequity existing just because there are some fields that men find more interesting than women and some fields that women find more interesting than men. The result being that some fields attract a higher percentage of men than women and some fields attract a higher percentage of women than men. You seem to be suggesting that this situation is caused by some sort of policies that place women at a disadvantage.

Perhaps you could explain what the disadvantage to women is in people freely choosing careers and what policy is in place that is disadvantaging women. Then what your solution is. Maybe you could also add why you think not having an equal number of females and males in each field is a bad thing.

I am certainly not going to fall for such an obvious example of complex queston fallacy you have turned your strawman into.

And perhaps I could explain... nothing? Perhaps I do not participate in your interrogation procedure. If you will debate any point I have actually said, I will wholeheartedly participate, otherwise, tough luck.

I'll make it easier for you....

The exchange:

Well then, both sides cancel each other! All is fixed!
Oh wait...

Women in primarily male professions are much sought after, not because of their higher qualifications but because so few women in comparison are in the fields.

That means as long as those policies are in place, women are at a disadvantage. I guess there's no equality until those policies become unnecessary because of parity.

Now one question at a time from your post:

"That means as long as those policies are in place" - What policies are in place?

"women are at a disadvantage." - How do these supposed polices disadvantage women?

"I guess there's no equality until those policies become unnecessary because of parity." - How is there no equity? And if you mean by parity an equal number of females and males in every field, why do you think that is desirable and how would you suggest we accomplish it?

 

[thebeave]

Yeah, that's how it's pretty much SUPPOSED to be. I'm talking about the kind of guy, for example, who runs ahead a group of women and holds the door open, rather than let the first woman of the group open the door. Or lets say a male and female coworker are going to drive to another location, and the guy holds open the car door for the woman, lets her get in, than closes it behind her. Perhaps he does this because of his upbringing or its part of his local culture. He thinks its what "gentlemen do". He's not trying to get her in bed. Should he get fired for something like this?

Depends on the context.

My wife ran into a manager who not only insisted on getting the door when she approached, but refused to let her open the door for him, and also made everyone in the room stand up when she entered. She asked him to stop, but he wouldn't, and insisted she should was being honoured by the attention. He eventually complained to HR, that she was not respecting his traditional upbringing. She refused to acquiesce to his treatment, he refused to change his ways, and she was given a choice of being reassigned to different department (that didn't include her speciality and would put her on a lower-paid career track, or giving a formal undertaking to accept his treatment of her. She resigned.

That is the type of guy I had in mind when I mentioned men who persist in opening doors for women and other chilvalrous behavior. Though that guy in your story is kind of on the extreme side. There was a miscarraige of justice in your wife's case. She should have stayed and he should have been given an ultimatum to shape up or ship out.

 

[Perspicuo]

I am certainly not going to fall for such an obvious example of complex queston fallacy you have turned your strawman into.

And perhaps I could explain... nothing? Perhaps I do not participate in your interrogation procedure. If you will debate any point I have actually said, I will wholeheartedly participate, otherwise, tough luck.

I'll make it easier for you....

The exchange:

Well then, both sides cancel each other! All is fixed!
Oh wait...

Women in primarily male professions are much sought after, not because of their higher qualifications but because so few women in comparison are in the fields.

That means as long as those policies are in place, women are at a disadvantage. I guess there's no equality until those policies become unnecessary because of parity.

Now one question at a time from your post:

"That means as long as those policies are in place" - What policies are in place?

"women are at a disadvantage." - How do these supposed polices disadvantage women?

"I guess there's no equality until those policies become unnecessary because of parity." - How is there no equity? And if you mean by parity an equal number of females and males in every field, why do you think that is desirable and how would you suggest we accomplish it?

I wonder if you already predicted I don't mean anything you say I meant.

Let me make it easy for you. I was referring to the status of men and women, not that if there are 143 male employees there must be exactly 143 female employees.

And it's absolutely predictable that is what I meant because that's what I was talking about, and no point did I ever say what you are constantly repeating I meant.

What really gets me is your repeating and repeating what I did not say. It's sick and obnoxious and I have no intention of going on with this.

 

[BH]

^ ^
But then on the bright side I have learned that if I am ever on a sinking ship it would be a sexist insult to wait for the women to get into the lifeboat first then see if there is room for me.

The crew of the S.S Arctic agreed with you when their ship started to sink in 1854.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Arctic_disaster

 

[skepticalbip]

.........
What really gets me is your repeating and repeating what I did not say. It's sick and obnoxious and I have no intention of going on with this.

I wasn't "repeating and repeating" what you did not say. I didn't understand your post so was asking for clarification.

Here is your post I was asking about:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

That means as long as those policies are in place, women are at a disadvantage. I guess there's no equality until those policies become unnecessary because of parity.

I asked what policies because I don't know of such policies that disadvantage women or how they are disadvantaged by them. I also asked what you meant by parity and what you would suggest to accomplish it.