I had an argument with a feminist... My boss.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Quotas are a naive and basic way to aim for equality. We can probably do better. But in principle? I really don't have much of a problem with them. I have to wonder what it says when people aren't able or willing to meet them. You mean to tell me that when given an entire half of the local population, you couldn't find one or two people in that group who were well-qualified for that position? That all of those most qualified people you found for that post were white men? That is more than a little bizarre, isn't it? Is that really likely?

You're assuming the workforce applying for a position is comprised of people that represent the population as a whole. That's a fallacy. If twenty men and one woman applies for a job, you're trying to tell us that we should hire the woman just to satisfy gender diversity, even if that women isn't qualified for the job? You're living in a dream world, time to wake up and work in HR or as a manager for a change to see what things are like in the real world.

Also: nice racism with the inclusion of "white" in front of "men" for a conversation about men & women in the workplace. Liberals scream bloody racism all the time, yet turn around and practice what they abhor because they're wearing blinders.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

Also: nice racism with the inclusion of "white" in front of "men" for a conversation about men & women in the workplace. Liberals scream bloody racism all the time, yet turn around and practice what they abhor because they're wearing blinders.

Correction: pseudoliberals.

"

Perq wrote:

But, um, don't we have those already? For like years now? If you are talking about those gaps and other male privileges, you sure want to look up what kind of privileges women have.
Heck, you don't have to look far:
- You a woman playing PoE: zomg pls gib autograph
You a man playing PoE: who care fag gtfo

Call me crazy, but I wouldn't want the former. The only people who act that way are socially awkward nerds with an extremely poor sense of personal space. It's tokenizing. I would really hesitate to call this a "privilege".

The other stuff on the list is considerably more reasonable. But with caveats. For example: feminists also don't like how the courts treat men and women differently. From a feminist perspective, the reason for this is pretty straightforward: the courts see men as the primary breadwinners, and women as the primary caregivers, and in that paradigm, it only makes sense to give the child to the primary caregiver. But that's a patriarchal thought process, based in dated stereotypes and gender roles that may not apply any more. It may benefit women in this particular instance, but from my understanding, most feminists would much sooner be rid of this.

"

Perq wrote:

Well, sure, horny gamer guys. Question is, is there really anything you can do about it, to present some laws that will be equal, but at the same time won't hurt guys who act fair towards women ingame?

Raise your kids better, have good community standards, call people out when they're being dickbags... Little things can be done both as community moderators and community members. When you see obvious sexism in communities, just... call it out. Call a spade a spade. Take the person doing it aside and say, "Dude. Not cool. That's incredibly shitty."

I mean, just to name one obvious example: why the fuck is Aris Bakhtanians - the guy who infamously sexually harassed one of his own team members at Cross Assault to the point where she quit the show - commentating major tournaments? Why the fuck is Aris Bakhtanians allowed to participate in major tournaments? Given his actions and his utter lack of repentance for it, this is the kind of person the FGC should have thrown out of their ranks unceremoniously, not continued to invite to positions of power. The correct response to someone who pulls a stunt like that is, "You're not welcome here. You can't participate here. You make our community look terrible and you drove out people with disgusting, sexist behavior. You're a bully, we don't want you here. Go away."

"

It is just that laws are in place to prevent such things. But there will always be people who will simply ignore those and act like asshats. And if you put laws to stop asshats from doing what they are doing (which they shouldn't in the first place), you are very likely to hit good guys.

I'm not talking about laws, mind you. Community standards. Not letting bullies be bullies. Stepping in when someone calls for a "catfight" exhibition between two girls, because they are the only two women at the fighting game tournament. (As it turns out, one of those girls never came back to the fighting game community after that, because she was already sick of being disrespected and tokenized, and this more or less sealed the deal.)

Of course, I'm speaking from my experience in different genres. PoE is very much a game you can play ignoring the community completely. That doesn't mean you shouldn't call shit like that out.

"

Spoiler

But to be fair, this has nothing to do with feminism, and nowadays it is called egalitarianism. Feminist was needed when women factually had less rights than men, now it isn't the case, making feminist kinda obsolete.

Feminism is not obsolete because de jure discrimination doesn't exist any more, any more than the civil rights movement became obsolete after Jim Crow went away. De jure discrimination is not the only kind of discrimination, and women face discrimination and sexism fairly constantly. You really don't have to look far.

"

Imagine being a guy/girl who gets reject from collage/anything_else_that_applies, who is outperforming some random slacker girl/guy , because penis/vagina.

I'd have to imagine, because that's not how AA works.

"

sarahaustin wrote:

If 20 men arent as good as that 1 woman, why shouldnt the woman get hired? Yet, its very likely that one of the men still gets the job, simply because theyre men.

Also simply because a woman can get pregnant and leave the job for 1.5years. Then you have to pay her + her replacement. double salary.

I think Transwomen are the best thing happening to the job industry. They will be able to hire women who can t get pregnant. win-win

"

sarahaustin wrote:

Yet, its very likely that one of the men still gets the job, simply because theyre men.

No, simply because there are 20 men to pick from, vs 1 woman. >.<

"

Head_Less wrote:

"

sarahaustin wrote:

If 20 men arent as good as that 1 woman, why shouldnt the woman get hired? Yet, its very likely that one of the men still gets the job, simply because theyre men.

Also simply because a woman can get pregnant and leave the job for 1.5years. Then you have to pay her + her replacement. double salary.

I think Transwomen are the best thing happening to the job industry. They will be able to hire women who can t get pregnant. win-win

lol

true

Plus, I suppose you get some kind of mega bonus with the SJWs for hiring a transwoman? Uber Cookie of Tolerance? It should be just as good of a Get out of SJW Rage Free card as hiring a gay person and a woman.

Now imagine if she were black or Muslim.... ah, bliss. Hire her and you can get at least your next 20 employees only based on real qualities, not worrying about diversity.

"

morbo wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Quotas are a naive and basic way to aim for equality.

Why do you even need equality? What bonuses does equal 50/50 distribution in the workplace bring?

I dunno about 50/50, but it helps to counteract the rampant sexism and racism one finds in hiring for various disciplines.

"

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

That is more than a little bizarre, isn't it? Is that really likely?

Personal preferences are bizzare? Why are women not interested in IT & engineering as much as men? Why are women a lot more interested in biology than physics? Etc..

Big shocker, the answer appears to have a lot to do with sexism.

"

What SJW-s see as a "patriarchal conspiracy & sexism" is simply a consequence of different general preferences genders have.

Except... No, sexism plays a really substantial role.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Quotas are a naive and basic way to aim for equality. We can probably do better. But in principle? I really don't have much of a problem with them. I have to wonder what it says when people aren't able or willing to meet them. You mean to tell me that when given an entire half of the local population, you couldn't find one or two people in that group who were well-qualified for that position? That all of those most qualified people you found for that post were white men? That is more than a little bizarre, isn't it? Is that really likely?

You're assuming the workforce applying for a position is comprised of people that represent the population as a whole. That's a fallacy. If twenty men and one woman applies for a job, you're trying to tell us that we should hire the woman just to satisfy gender diversity, even if that women isn't qualified for the job? You're living in a dream world, time to wake up and work in HR or as a manager for a change to see what things are like in the real world.

Also: nice racism with the inclusion of "white" in front of "men" for a conversation about men & women in the workplace. Liberals scream bloody racism all the time, yet turn around and practice what they abhor because they're wearing blinders.

The discussion was, as far as I can tell, on quotas, and those are generally used on the basis of race as well as sex. Because racism, like sexism, plays a major role in this. It's fair to point out that less women apply for certain jobs, sure. But even when women apply to jobs, this is still a thing.

"

• Male and female managers were twice as likely to recruit men, based on paper applications.

• When interviewed, the male candidates inflated their abilities while the women downplayed theirs. But recruiting managers failed to compensate for that difference, and were still twice as likely to choose the man.

• Even when provided with data that the women were just as capable, the managers still preferred men (who were 1.5 times as likely to be hired).

• When managers knowingly chose a candidate who had performed worse on the test, they were two-thirds more likely to choose a male candidate.

And when women don't apply, I think we do ourselves a disservice to assume that it's just a matter of preference. Okay, women aren't applying for jobs in IT very often. We should probably ask why. It's not like IT isn't a lucrative, fast-growing field. What societal influences are steering women away from it?

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Okay, women aren't applying for jobs in IT very often. We should probably ask why. It's not like IT isn't a lucrative, fast-growing field. What societal influences are steering women away from it?

You already tainted your research, by assuming that society is the one "pushing" women away from IT.

What if women have a natural inclination to prefer jobs where they interact / socialize with other people, instead of jobs where you interact with machines? What if they naturally gravitate toward jobs that need more "emotional intelligence", rather than "logical intelligence"?

Can you show me one example where society would be pushing women away from IT? 6 yo girls already use smart-phones & computers nowadays, so the usual excuse: "parents make boys play with fire trucks and girls with barbies", doesnt hold here.