JimC wrote:Fort Two wrote:
In the end, the next layer of feminist argument here, though, if we take this journal article as having a degree of truth, would be to say that since women tend to gravitate towards non-stem fields, then the reason stem fields are valued more and paid more is because of sexism against women, and therefore we should compel employers to pay the professions women do chose to go into the same as the supposedly more demanding professions that men tend to go into. And, that argument is out there - that since women become administrative assistants and teacher more than men, and men tend to be engineers and such more than women, that "we" should pay administarative assistants and teachers the same as engineers and such.
I haven't made such an argument, neither has any other Ratz poster I'm aware of.
Discussions about feminism and other ideologies are not limited to the positions taken by Ratz posters. It's quite possible that no Ratz poster adheres to established or generally accepted feminist ideology. And, there factions of feminism that advocate things and ideological principles which are not accepted by anyone here. That's part of the point being made. That a lot of so-called feminist concepts are not particularly persuasive to most people.
JimC wrote:
And yes, the idea is certainly "out there"; you are using one of your classic misdirections, yet again.
It's not a misdireciton. Saying that some iterations of feminism believe X has nothing to do with what you say, and just because you haven't said it doesn't mean it's not part of feminism. Maybe you don't adhere to some aspects of feminism. Nothing wrong with that.
JimC wrote:
You find some extreme feminist or academic Marxist position, which is not a realistic part of progressive thinking on the issue, and use it to announce that the sky is falling, and that lesbianism will soon be compulsory...
Mine is not a misdirection. Yours is a no true scotsman tactic. I can't discuss the merits or lack thereof of a publicly announced, academic, feminist or Marxist position -- I can't cite to, say, the works of Karl Marx on Marxism, or a prominent feminist on feminism because you think it's not a "realistic part of progressive thinking." Well, maybe the kind of progressivism you adhere to is not in line with radical feminism or Marxism? That's o.k., too.
I've alleged nothing of the kind about skies falling or compulsory lesbianism. I've just alleged certain things like "the wage gap is not real (as described by feminists) " and "women are generally paid the same for the same job when they have the same qualifications and experience." And, men work longer hours than women and do more demanding jobs, etc. That's not a sky falling thing.
JimC wrote:
Meanwhile, back in the real world, some relatively low-key changes, for example in education, plus a steady change in parenting in terms of gender role expectation, will probably achieve an evolutionary change in female roles and job expectations over time...
What expectations?
Back in the real world, women are already favored in our education system here in the US. Women are far more likely to go to college and they are graduating in greater numbers. Even the huffington post discussed how girls are "privileged" in public schools.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/ ... 04898.html and Live Science too
https://www.livescience.com/4163-johnny ... girls.html (public schools favor girls) And the Atlantic too --
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ys/304659/ (bias against boys in public schools) The National Review -
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/05/ ... ails-boys/ (higher education favors women) And Time Magazine
http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-tea ... inst-boys/ (boys receive lower grades than girl, even when scores were equal to or higher than girls)
What low key adjustments are you talking about?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar