Thread:Willbachbakal/@comment-30437313-20161107061712/@comment-1330314-20161107093358

Falcoshin wrote: And it asserts it because, in the author's world view, women are oppressed and presenting evidence to the contrary causes cognitive dissonance which creates mental gymnastics like this to justify still believing women are oppressed.

The only cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics on display here are the ones you are employing to persuade yourself that there are no societal biases against women. The fact that you completely glossed over the facts and statistics listed in the article is proof of this.

Falcoshin wrote: 1.) Prove that women are pushed towards specific jobs, then.

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; later on there are reduced rates of acceptance of women in STEM fields in spite of higher overall academic performances, and even beyond that there are large biases in employment that steer women away from a great deal many jobs. Scientific studies have been conducted on this and show a massive gender bias in selection. 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.

Falcoshin wrote: Likewise, prove that these jobs pay less specifically because there are women working in them.

The very fact that women-dominated jobs have less pay is evidence enough. Even for the same job, women earn less than men. I don't think you understand what qualifies as proof or evidence in this kind of debate.

Falcoshin wrote: No, it argues they want safer jobs. Which makes perfect biological sense.

No, you are arguing that they "want" safer jobs. 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?

Falcoshin wrote: 2.) Are you seriously telling me that women being comfortable with easy, low-paying jobs is somehow more insulting than the idea that their minds are being controlled by society and that they entered these jobs because it's what the patriarchy told them to do? Are you seriously going to tell me that it's not insulting to imply that women cannot make their own decisions?

I think you framing the wage gap as women making the deliberate choice to receive less money out of laziness is insulting and factually untrue, yes. 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.

"and attempts to downplay the very real and very visible structures in place that condition job tracks based on gender."

Falcoshin wrote: Structures that you can't prove exist because they're all in your head.

I just linked to a validated article out of many that shows a mountain of evidence that those structures exist. The only thing "in your head" is your denial of those structures, and all the special pleading that comes with it in trying to pretend they don't exist.

Falcoshin wrote: This is why people look at you as if you're crazy whenever you start spouting off unironically about the patriarchy.

I sense a hefty bit of projection in this line. Feminism is gaining ground, anti-feminism is losing credibility. Up until recently, the concept of the patriarchy was not even mainstream, now the majority of public figures not only acknowledge the concept, but express support of feminism. The feminist straw man still exists, which is what you're trying to get at, but it's being relegated to the same level of neo-reactionary fringe as white supremacism and (((antisemitic dog whistles))).

Falcoshin wrote: Oh I understand patriarchy just fine.

The very text that follows clearly shows you don't. The concept of the patriarchy is also pretty well-defined and has been analyzed for over a century now, and "describing characteristics" does nothing but paint a clearer picture, especially since, as a social structure, its impact can often be described through experience.

Falcoshin wrote: As if on cue.

Do you have any substantial counter-argument, though? Or do you think women are simply too lazy to go for tough leadership positions?

"Women can also participate in and enforce the norms of a system that largely privileges men, in part because these norms tend to be self-perpetuating and conditioned from an early age."

Falcoshin wrote: No, Will, internalized misogyny does not exist.

Why not?

Falcoshin wrote: You... You really are going down the Anita Sarkeesian path of "women should not be allowed to make their own choices because they might pick the wrong one" aren't you?

I don't think you quite understand what Anita Sarkeesian was trying to say, or the larger message of feminism in that regard. At its core, feminism seeks to educate people of all genders and give them the information and tools they need to implement change. It does not seek to coerce anyone into doing anything against their will, and to do so would contradict its core goals. You keep insisting that feminism is forceful and coercive, and the burden falls on you to provide "proof", or rather evidence of feminism ever infringing upon people's freedom of decision to the scale you imply.

Falcoshin wrote: Are you really so deluded that you never asked yourself how men could simultaneously be so competent that they can oppress women and be so incompetent that they end up oppressing themselves too?

Power and oppression are not a factor of competence, and that you frame it as such is telling. As with many other points here, you haven't actually tried to address the facts and examples I produced, and have instead tried to substitute with a general statement on how, by your own definition, such a thing could not be logically possible. Again, there is factual evidence to back up each of my claims, and blanket-denying them just makes you look disconnected from reality.