Thread:Willbachbakal/@comment-30437313-20161107061712/@comment-30437313-20161107115757

" The fact that you completely glossed over the facts and statistics listed in the article is proof of this."

The only facts and statistics in the article are the ones saying that the true nature of the often toted 77% figure are mere annual median wages and that, once easily controlled factors are accounted for, the gap narrows to around 95% (Though I'm sure I can find something saying 98% if I remember where to look). Everything else, like the belief that women are looked down upon in society, is just that: a belief. A tenant of faith no more credible than the belief in God.

" Oh boy, where to begin. I mean, starting at youth, there's the gendered division of play, where women are pushed towards caregiver roles and men towards power fantasies"

Not only can you not prove that this even happens, but you can't prove this has any effect on anything.

" Scientific studies have been  conducted  on this and show a massive gender bias in selection."

The methodology of these studies make them worthless. I can find one that came to the exact opposite conclusion for instance.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

" Also, the fact that there is an overwhelming concentration of women in certain jobs  is  evidence that they tend to be pushed towards those jobs, that's how statistics work."

Wrong. Science works by eliminating all possibilities until there is one truth left to consider. You, my dear cuck, have not yet done that. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/101220-chimpanzees-play-nature-nurture-science-animals-evolution/

" The very fact that women-dominated jobs have less pay is evidence enough"

It's not. I could just as easily say it's because the service is simply less valuable than those of the STEM fields. Because they are.

" Even for the same job, women earn less than men."

You already know why this argument is meaningless. Your own article explained it.

" What is your proof, or rather your evidence, that women want safer jobs, or that the jobs these women pick are safer when they lead to reduced financial security? Also, what does "perfect biological sense" even mean in this context?"

It means you're going to call me a misogynist because your cuck ass is going to be blown the fuck out. http://sites.lsa.umich.edu/jbeehner/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/2015/08/beehner_et_al._2005b.pdf " I'm also not saying that women are being mind-controlled or incapable of making their own decisions or the like, and framing patriarchal culture, or any other kind of culture, as such demonstrates a poor understanding of how cultural norms work." Telling me I am incorrect and then framing my argument in more complicated words does not make you right, dumbass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yKF-Su6bhw  " I just linked to a validated article out of many that shows a mountain of evidence that those structures exist." No, you linked to an assertion and a poorly conducted study. That is not evidence in even the slightest. " Feminism is gaining ground, anti-feminism is losing credibility." I want you to compare Sargon of Akkad's subscriber count to Kristi Winters. I want you to compare Thunderfoot's subscriber count to Phillip Moriarty's. I want you to look up every video you can concerning Bearing and his "cyber bullying" because people are whining about how big his channel is compared to every feminist youtuber he can find. This point is so overwhelmingly wrong that it's baffling.

" This is why people immediately bring up the wage gap as an example of institutionalized misogyny in current society, sometimes in incorrect context, to the point where several neoreactionary internet figures have brought up the topic in an attempt to refute the claim, as you have tried."

I have not "tried", cuck. I have succeeded. And I'll give you a hint as to why. Without using postmodernist horseshit there IS a way you could have attacked the claim that women are not discriminated in the workplace in a way that I haven't quite prepared for. A way based on real research and real facts. You haven't, though. You haven't because you aren't smart enough to figure it out. You don't know enough about the topic to know what it is. As much as I hate Kristi Winters, I at least give her enough respect to assume she knows what it is, though. That's the difference between you and a someone who is actually good at pretending to be an intellectual, cuck.

" The concept of the patriarchy is also pretty well-defined and has been analyzed for over a century now"

Then define it. Define it right now. I want to see you fuck this up.

"a nd "describing characteristics" does nothing but paint a clearer picture, especially since, as a social structure, its impact can often be described through experience."

No, you do this because it's pseudoscience. You do this because, just like creation science and spirit science, your aim is to confuse and obfuscate as oppose to clarify. Like I said, if you actually define your terms then they can be falsified and if they can be falsified then your entire belief structure folds like a house of cards.

" Why not?"

Because women do not hate themselves just because they stand against your cringeworthy cult.

" I don't think you quite understand what Anita Sarkeesian has ever tried to say, or the larger message of feminism in that regard."

I understand perfectly fine. The Sarkeesian formula is actually quite simple:

1.) Heavily cherrypick a certain situation in a video game to make it look as bad as possible. 2.) Pull a bunch of shit out of your ass to make the black box of patriarchy work the way you want it to so it plugs into your desired conclusion of women being oppressed.

3.) Claim harassment when people inevitably point out that your arguments make no sense because they're grounded in neither the world's reality or even the game's reality.

4.) Watch as moronic white knights donate money to stop the evil critics.

" At its core, feminism seeks to educate people of all genders and give them the information and tools they need to implement change." Mostly true, but what you leave out is that, like all schools of critical theory, feminism seeks to do this by redefining reality in order to create a false perception of necessity for change. You can't actually present facts and statistics that accurately represent reality like a traditional theorist because they would show there's no need for change. They'd show that women aren't oppressed and that these women are professional victims who need to be oppressed to have a career.

" or rather evidence of feminism ever infringing upon people's freedom of decision to the scale you imply."

Did you really think I picked Anita Sarkeesian out of a bag?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO2uuFRuV5Y

" Power and oppression are not a factor of competence"

Yes they are. As is creating a system around it.