Jump to content

Things that piss you off that shouldn't


AVFCforever1991

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

This x 1,000,000, and may I add, Black Lives Matter are an extremely dangerous and pernicious group. Their broad principle is perfectly fine and understandable, but their tactics and beliefs at high levels within the organisation are downright dangerous. 

There was that (in)famous Milo video where he reeled off the numbers from the FBI homicide reports. I think it was something like 90% of all black men murdered in the states are killed by other black men and they are no more likely to be killed by the police than any other race when you take into account the disproportionate amount of murders committed by black men (52% of all murders despite accounting for only 7% of the population) compared to other racial groups. Poverty is no doubt a factor but the stats are pretty damning, if true, and says a lot about the issues that the United States has to overcome/resolve. BLM needs to be tackling the wider problem with the resources they have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rodders said:

any examples of this mysogyny of men? I'd love to see, examples that indicate or support a widespread problem across the country. There is definite some aggression of viewpoints generally - but it certainly isn't exclusive to any one side. I think Twitter and open comments on news articles are a disaster - you see naked aggression from anonymous speakers which creates a distinctly more negative vibe. You see aggression all over the place, and generally you'll notice it more from viewpoints you oppose I think ( natural bias )  I could well do without that. 

At Cardiff University last year, I was embarrassed when the students protested germaine greer speaking. Regardless of whether I would have agreed with her r not, debates need to be articulated. I think it was on whether trans-women could claim ownership of the word woman - something like that. Perhaps the instinctive response is to stick up for the trans people, but you should be able to have that debate without threatening people or denying respect to all sides of a debate. There is a philosophical question on gender that encompasses all the baggage of social history and battles for equality that would make for a fascinating debate, but nope, shut down.  And there is definitely an element ( a small one ) of new identities being created and demanded immediate acceptance, without acknowledging the pace of change in identities may lead some people to feel bewildered by it all. There was an article about new sexualities in Time recently, and fair enough all power to people who wish to identify ow they wish, but one detects that micro-aggression almost presumed towards other people who don't immediately get on board. Asking what pansexual is should lead to a conversation not an accusation of bigotry. ( Equally, if you're the bewildered person, not calling them weird or idiots also helps ) 

However, on the free speech thing, I think alot of that is hyperbolic hysteria. You can say whatever you want. That post has not been deleted. However freedom of speech doesn't come with immunity to criticism. Accountability for what you end up putting in the public sphere is important too. If you feel you cannot say something, it's worth asking yourself why you feel that self-censoring attitude coming over. The general aggression ( on the internet at least,  in person I generally find it's much easier obviously, people take more care with how they represent themselves ) doesn't help. But there also needs to be more empathy and considering other viewpoints. I do take quite strongly against this feminazi, or feminist mafia nonsense that get's espoused. So on a few sites there are plenty of articles about it, so what? Sometimes you may disagree, but again so what? 

You want statistics - just go and find them! It is still a man's world. And a white man's world for that too. ( Sorry, that's me adding my personal irritation, the idea white men are under attack, makes me so angry at the absolute lack of self awareness )

 

 

I agree fullheartedly with what you are saying here, all I was trying to say is that this constant loud and vicious protest against people with a different viewpoint to new wave feminism is a new beast entirely. We used to have discussion, now we have people with megaphones trying to shut down people who have the right to be wherever they want to be on the political spectrum.

On the mysogyny point. There are of course areas where men are misrepresented, just like there are places where women are misrepresented. However the further this debate goes myths like the 77p point (women earning 77p to a man's pound) is being dismissed and women are now the major majority of students in university. In fact if you are trying to hire someone to a board position in a FTSE100 company a woman has a 2:1 advantage against a man just because she's a woman. Shouldn't talent be the reason why you hire someone, not their sex? Isn't encouraging a company to hire a woman just because she's a woman sexist in itself?

Edited by magnkarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

You should come to one of our staff meetings where I try to argue this (I work in the politics department), it generally takes about 2 minutes before I am accused of being a woman hater, a racist and all sorts by people from the Gender Studies Department. It's almost hysterical how these people have been allowed to take over all reason. It generally turns into a debate where all the politics staff have a go at the gender studies people with proper discourse and then nothing gets done because some hysterical person starts crying. It's weird how stuff like this is at the top of our society. Some people feel so victimised when they are so extremely privileged that I have no words for it.

I wonder why these subjects exist? People who study them have three options, (1) academia, (2) writing for blogs and if they get lucky, the Guardian or (3) random jobs in the hospitality sector. Also as a subject it does nothing to advance our knowledge of anything, it's kind of an offshoot of a time were continental philosophy was considered 'sexy' by the Deans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

No platforming isn't criticism it's an almost Stalinist attempt to shut down and silence someone. It doesn't have a place in a healthy democracy. I totally agree that free speech is not immune to criticism, but that criticism has to take place in a reasoned way through debate, rather than an attempt at silencing someone.

I do agree with that and hence my annoyance with what happened at Cardiff. I also think there is a problem with people not wanting to hear other viewpoints. But I also think its a big complicated issue, and sometimes criticism of those instances ends up being conflated with more wild generalisations about discourse. Separating the elements involved is quite difficult, I'm just very wary about going overboard.  No platforming is a problem - yep. Feminism taking over the world - stupidly over the top, etc. ( Also not grounded in reality). Yes, there is the occasional carking mad article where you can find someone finding offence in the tiniest thing or even in instances where a man has tried to do the right thing and still got pilloried for it ) but there are also plenty of thoughtful articles that highlighted the complicated nature of talking women's rights, of more to do. It annoys me when people find an example of the former and then extrapolate from that. Selective biases/ 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Xela said:

There was that (in)famous Milo video where he reeled off the numbers from the FBI homicide reports. I think it was something like 90% of all black men murdered in the states are killed by other black men and they are no more likely to be killed by the police than any other race when you take into account the disproportionate amount of murders committed by black men (52% of all murders despite accounting for only 7% of the population) compared to other racial groups. Poverty is no doubt a factor but the stats are pretty damning, if true, and says a lot about the issues that the United States has to overcome/resolve. BLM needs to be tackling the wider problem with the resources they have. 

Solving problems within the black community is totally orthogonal to the BLM cause I'm afraid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Milo might not be the most politically correct, and I think he's way over the top. He's a troll type character that is created by the social justice warrior kind of woman. Sadly I think both of these camps needs to tone down a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

I wonder why these subjects exist? People who study them have three options, (1) academia, (2) writing for blogs and if they get lucky, the Guardian or (3) random jobs in the hospitality sector. Also as a subject it does nothing to advance our knowledge of anything, it's kind of an offshoot of a time were continental philosophy was considered 'sexy' by the Deans. 

Yeah, the weird thing is that gender studies on average receives more support than the politics department by law. How bonkers is that? We have modules that teach high level international conflict negotiation, and they have modules about how manspreading and mansplaining is ruining society. (tongue in cheek)

Edited by magnkarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

You should come to one of our staff meetings where I try to argue this (I work in the politics department), it generally takes about 2 minutes before I am accused of being a woman hater, a racist and all sorts by people from the Gender Studies Department. It's almost hysterical how these people have been allowed to take over all reason. It generally turns into a debate where all the politics staff have a go at the gender studies people with proper discourse and then nothing gets done because some hysterical person starts crying. It's weird how stuff like this is at the top of our society.

Is it at the top of society though? I know it appears to be going on in campuses in the UK and US but places of learning have always been more liberal/leftwing (in most cases) than other places and promoted/tolerated activism. Outside of these places, in top 100 companies etc then a left wing 'feminazi/SJW' (or, whatever they are labelled) is no likely to progress than a swastika tattooed white supremacist is. They all end up writing blogs as no one wants to employ them. 

Extreme view (both left and right) has been exacerbated by social media a lot but is it a major problem? I'm not so sure. Interesting topic though :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far too much misogynistic white cisgender patriarchy going on here. Check your privileges people! :P

Edited by Xela
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Xela said:

Is it at the top of society though? I know it appears to be going on in campuses in the UK and US but places of learning have always been more liberal/leftwing (in most cases) than other places and promoted/tolerated activism. Outside of these places, in top 100 companies etc then a left wing 'feminazi/SJW' (or, whatever they are labelled) is no likely to progress than a swastika tattooed white supremacist is. They all end up writing blogs as no one wants to employ them. 

Extreme view (both left and right) has been exacerbated by social media a lot but is it a major problem? I'm not so sure. Interesting topic though :)

Good point, I do get how this may seem quite foreign to people not in the education system. I guess it is a bit personal to me because I'm exposed to it almost every day. I do also see that the further along these women (and sometimes men) get in their education the more they calm down. I have a previous pupil who used to be extremely aggressive towards anything man and the "patriarchy" that now runs a multi million pound business and votes tories. I guess people wake up by themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, snowychap said:

 

Does it? What Law?

It's a long story, but essentially woman-centric education and fields of study receive more support under the equality act of 2010. This in itself is a bit weird considering it's called the equality act, but hey ho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Xela said:

Far too much misogynistic white cisgender patriarchy going on here. Check your privileges people! :P

Are you a white male? CHECK YOUR !"##"#¤#" white male privilege man. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED YOU WERE BORN!!!11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

It's a long story, but essentially woman-centric education and fields of study receive more support under the equality act of 2010. This in itself is a bit weird considering it's called the equality act, but hey ho.

You don't appear to have much against lengthy posts so please would you go in to this long story and explain the process.

Please would you also explain and substantiate the other statistics that you have used and claims you have made in other posts, such as the gender pay gap 'myth' and that a woman is twice as likely to be 'hired' to a FTSE100 company board than a man 'simply because she's a woman'.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Are you a white male? CHECK YOUR !"##"#¤#" white male privilege man. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED YOU WERE BORN!!!11

I'm a disabled non binary dwarf person of colour with a degree in left handed puppetry.

Do not debate me. You do not have the right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go more into the whole free speech vs political correctness thing later as its an interesting topic and one massively overstated (I'm on my phone and cba writing an essay)

What I will say now is that Milo is a troll. Shutting down trolls is not campaigning against free speech. He says what he says to get a reaction and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, snowychap said:

You don't appear to have much against lengthy posts so please would you go in to this long story and explain the process.

Please would you also explain and substantiate the other statistics that you have used in other posts, such as the gender pay gap 'myth' and that a woman is twice as likely to be 'hired' to a FTSE100 company board than a man 'simply because she's a woman'.

Okay. Let me start. I'll deal with one subject at a time and then I'll have to go to the pub for my Sunday lunch. If I can't answer all your questions today I'll have to follow up later.

Gender pay gap and why it's a myth.

Myth (as per feminist works): Women earn 77p to the pound of a man. There are no serious economists who believe this statement, it is a badly constructed statement made up by UN about 15 years ago to describe the problems at the time. The Economist, World Bank and other credible sources have done research led by a colleague of mine at Sussex University named Sally Baden where she debunks this whole theory. Men are more likely to have jobs where they do NOTHING but work, in fact 4/7 of men are work centered, while for women 1/7 of them are work centered. Women (and I applaud them for this to be honest) want to have a family and spend time on their lives rather than work, meaning that they end up earning less because they don't waste their lives in an office. This isn't sexism, but rather a choice by a gender. It's too easy to generalise and say that women earn less when they also work less on average. Women (and again I applaud them) bear children, and this can put them out of the workplace for up to 12 months, while fathers in the same instance are off for maybe 2 weeks. If you correlate the amount of hours worked with the amount of salary a lot of people actually argue that the gap goes the other way. (I'd read up on Sally Baden, it's a great read). To get a deeper understanding I'd read this article on this subject: https://fee.org/articles/truth-and-myth-on-the-gender-pay-gap/

It boils down to the following: the theory doesn't compare apples with apples. If you want to compare the whole male workforce with the female workforce you'd need to find people who make the IDENTICAL choices when it comes to family and work priority. Men and women make different choices.

Secondly the disparity between professions where women like to work and men like to work are staggering. IT, Maths & Engieneering are generally accepted to be male dominated professions. These are some of the higher paid jobs in society but also the jobs where you'd be required to work long hours and devote your whole life to the job. Women centric professions are more leaned towards operations, nursing, humanities etc, where the salary generally isn't very good. The market is regulated by demand, not by which gender goes into which profession. To even the gap that is naturally there we need more women to go into higher paid sectors and be willing to sacrifice a huge amount of their lives. I am of the belief that this will never happen because women and men are intrinsically different. Men do the shitty jobs. Out of deaths related to work men encompass 90% of them. If women want to reach the same levels of pay as for example someone who works in the North Sea drilling oil in while it's raining and gusting at 100mph they'll also need to want to do these jobs. These are high risk, high paying jobs.

Edited by magnkarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â