Checkuslavakia wrote:I don't like feminism
Alright.
What's your reasoning for it?
Advertisement
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:49 pm
The Grene Knyght wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote:
Its the feds! they're on to us! Quick, hide the memes. Someone get out some feminist discourse pronto before we get busted. How about this:
So who are some feminist figures you guys admire? My partner bought a biography of Countess Markievicz and I've been flicking through it when I get the chance. She's a figure everyone in Ireland learns about as a child but its interesting to learn about her again as an adult.
She was the fist woman to be elected to a parliamentary seat in Europe (possibly the world im not too sure), and the second woman ever to hold a cabinet position. She was a suffragette, a revolutionary, an aristocrat, a socialist, a painter, an actress, and all round badass.
A popular quote of hers is "Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank and buy a revolver" but my favourite, since learning about her in primary school was "I do wish your lot had the decency to shoot me" (on being told she wouldn't be executed along with other rebels on account of her gender).
I'm not sure I'd call her my favourite feminist - there's a lot of feminist figures I adore and many I want to read more about, but she is a figure I admire.
What about you guys? Have you heard of Markievicz? Do you have a favourite feminist?
by Torsiedelle » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:18 pm
Checkuslavakia wrote:I don't like feminism
Germanic Templars wrote:Those two are comedians?
by Germanic Templars » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:22 pm
by The Grene Knyght » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:23 pm
[_★_]
(◕‿◕)
Currently
Reading
2015: x=-8.75,y=-6.56
2016: x=-8.88,y=-9.54
2017: x=-9.63,y=-9.90
2018: x=-9.88,y=-9.23
2019: x=-10.0,y=-9.90
2020: x=-10.0,y=-10.0
2021: x=-10.0,y=-10.0
FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE COMMUNISM
Portal Nationalist | Proletarian MoralistPRO: Socialism, Communism, Internationalism, Revolution, Leninism.
NEUTRAL: Anarchism, Marxism-Leninism.
ANTI: Capitalism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Fascists, Hyper-Sectarian Leftists.
by Checkuslavakia » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:37 pm
by Checkuslavakia » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:38 pm
Torsiedelle wrote:Shitposter and lurker in the house.Checkuslavakia wrote:I don't like feminism
You and me both, Brother. Any particular reasons, may I ask? I'm personally interested.Germanic Templars wrote:Those two are comedians?
I found this funnier than anything either of them would say. Thank you.
by Torsiedelle » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:44 pm
by Checkuslavakia » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:54 pm
Torsiedelle wrote:Bit of a repeat there m80. No worries from me, though.
Ugh, the draft...well, actually, I didn't mind it...still, think it's sort of dumb that women were exampt, but at the same time old-fashioned me felt it was also for the best. I can understand different sides to the argument, and it's not an issue I feel particularly strong about.
by Jello Biafra » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:56 pm
Checkuslavakia wrote:Women already have prights. They are not being beat. They can have what job they want. A really big perk they have is they don't have to sign up for the draft. What else do they need?
by Torsiedelle » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:56 pm
Checkuslavakia wrote:Torsiedelle wrote:Bit of a repeat there m80. No worries from me, though.
Ugh, the draft...well, actually, I didn't mind it...still, think it's sort of dumb that women were exampt, but at the same time old-fashioned me felt it was also for the best. I can understand different sides to the argument, and it's not an issue I feel particularly strong about.
Also I'm thinking women's place is not on in the military. Say I'm shot and wounded weighing 170 pounds, then add 60 pounds of gear. Most women wouldn't be capable of getting me of that battle field. Also the way a woman's body is made makes it harder for them to complete a task that a male can undertake.
by Galloism » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:00 pm
by Checkuslavakia » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Torsiedelle wrote:Checkuslavakia wrote:Also I'm thinking women's place is not on in the military. Say I'm shot and wounded weighing 170 pounds, then add 60 pounds of gear. Most women wouldn't be capable of getting me of that battle field. Also the way a woman's body is made makes it harder for them to complete a task that a male can undertake.
TBF Women in Combat is a new thing, even for the military. Before it was given the go last year, Females were restricted to non-combat MOS's.
My Platoon Drill Sgt in Basic was one of the scariest ones there. She was cool, though
by Checkuslavakia » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:06 pm
by The Grene Knyght » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:25 pm
Checkuslavakia wrote:Torsiedelle wrote:Bit of a repeat there m80. No worries from me, though.
Ugh, the draft...well, actually, I didn't mind it...still, think it's sort of dumb that women were exampt, but at the same time old-fashioned me felt it was also for the best. I can understand different sides to the argument, and it's not an issue I feel particularly strong about.
Also I'm thinking women's place is not on in the military. Say I'm shot and wounded weighing 170 pounds, then add 60 pounds of gear. Most women wouldn't be capable of getting me of that battle field. Also the way a woman's body is made makes it harder for them to complete a task that a male can undertake.
[_★_]
(◕‿◕)
Currently
Reading
2015: x=-8.75,y=-6.56
2016: x=-8.88,y=-9.54
2017: x=-9.63,y=-9.90
2018: x=-9.88,y=-9.23
2019: x=-10.0,y=-9.90
2020: x=-10.0,y=-10.0
2021: x=-10.0,y=-10.0
FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE COMMUNISM
Portal Nationalist | Proletarian MoralistPRO: Socialism, Communism, Internationalism, Revolution, Leninism.
NEUTRAL: Anarchism, Marxism-Leninism.
ANTI: Capitalism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Fascists, Hyper-Sectarian Leftists.
by Jello Biafra » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:27 pm
by Galloism » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:30 pm
Jello Biafra wrote:Galloism wrote:I mean, I agree women should get equality.
I think a lot of women (and feminists) would disagree with that, because it would involve women having a lot of their sexist privileges removed, and would see them treated equally under law.
There are certain things that I've heard from certain feminists that remind me of things Phyllis Schlaffly might have said in the 1970s.
by Jello Biafra » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:44 pm
by New Edom » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:50 pm
The Grene Knyght wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote:
Its the feds! they're on to us! Quick, hide the memes. Someone get out some feminist discourse pronto before we get busted. How about this:
So who are some feminist figures you guys admire? My partner bought a biography of Countess Markievicz and I've been flicking through it when I get the chance. She's a figure everyone in Ireland learns about as a child but its interesting to learn about her again as an adult.
She was the fist woman to be elected to a parliamentary seat in Europe (possibly the world im not too sure), and the second woman ever to hold a cabinet position. She was a suffragette, a revolutionary, an aristocrat, a socialist, a painter, an actress, and all round badass.
A popular quote of hers is "Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank and buy a revolver" but my favourite, since learning about her in primary school was "I do wish your lot had the decency to shoot me" (on being told she wouldn't be executed along with other rebels on account of her gender).
I'm not sure I'd call her my favourite feminist - there's a lot of feminist figures I adore and many I want to read more about, but she is a figure I admire.
What about you guys? Have you heard of Markievicz? Do you have a favourite feminist?
by Germanic Templars » Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:12 pm
Torsiedelle wrote:Bit of a repeat there m80. No worries from me, though.
Ugh, the draft...well, actually, I didn't mind it...still, think it's sort of dumb that women were exampt, but at the same time old-fashioned me felt it was also for the best. I can understand different sides to the argument, and it's not an issue I feel particularly strong about.
by Germanic Templars » Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:12 pm
by Mattopilos II » Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:25 pm
Germanic Templars wrote:Torsiedelle wrote:Bit of a repeat there m80. No worries from me, though.
Ugh, the draft...well, actually, I didn't mind it...still, think it's sort of dumb that women were exampt, but at the same time old-fashioned me felt it was also for the best. I can understand different sides to the argument, and it's not an issue I feel particularly strong about.
Actually funny thing is that if they can do combat arms and rangers n' shit, then they should have to sign up for the draft, regardless, after all that is equality right there.
by Noraika » Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:48 am
Mattopilos II wrote:Germanic Templars wrote:
Actually funny thing is that if they can do combat arms and rangers n' shit, then they should have to sign up for the draft, regardless, after all that is equality right there.
You have to take into account that those who wanted equality tended to oppose the draft as a whole. This pretty much means the "but women didn't serve in the draft!" part is pretty moot: they didn't want the draft at all, men or women. That and it comes down to the conservative values of countries at the time, which thought of women as weaker and unable to serve anyways.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
by Tahar Joblis » Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:01 am
Forsher wrote:Tahar Joblis wrote:The sample consists entirely of persons who completed a first bachelor's degree in the 2007-2008 academic year, interviewed in 2009.
I'm aware. That was an example...What I'm talking about isn't interactions. It's the fact that there are subdivisions within the category that are not distributed evenly by sex - as is illustrated pretty nicely in the "PK-12" category by the fact that many more women without degrees in education are found working in education, and the fact that the gap isn't statistically significant among the education majors going into the occupational area.
Since the "pre-K" part of that bin usually doesn't require an education degree, pays less, and is overwhelmingly female, that likely accounts for a large share of the difference within that bin - after which, the remaining difference probably struggles to be statistically significant.
That's a relatively uniform bin as occupational bins go. Most other bins are more diverse, and a very significant fraction of the "unexplained" gender gap is sitting in two exceptionally diverse bins - "other white-collar jobs" and then just plain "other."
Not seeing how your point isn't "Maybe the behaviour of wage differs if we're looking at people who have no degree and are in education?" Which, you know, is exactly what an interaction is... when the effect(s) of an explanatory value differs depending on the levels of other explanatory values.
This is fundamentally a different issue because what we want to do isn't captured by some existing variable interacted with another variable. Which is to say, your dominant example before did not help because, by the above, it clearly reduces to an interaction problem, thus clouding what you meant.
But it's theoretically resolvable. Using the data... construct a variable "female ratio" which is defined as "number of women in survey in [bin]"/"number of people in survey in [bin]"... which would capture the impact of being in a female dominated position... but there are practical issues (e.g. multicollinearity with female in the first place*). And with the broad bins it could be crowded out (i.e. miss the doctor thing you're talking about here). Moral: bigger survey to have more of the sub-population variability (assuming the survey is well constructed... this seems fundamentally the same reason why surveys often over sample Maori or, I assume, Native Americans).
*At this point, you're pushing against the bounds of what I remember so I'd have to look things up but I really don't want to have to do that... I feel like if I wait any longer, I put this in as a draft initially, I'll never get around to responding.
Similarly, with height, if we imagined height in terms of a factor of 20cm intervals or even just recorded it in centimetres/inches we can interact that with gender to see if there's a multidimensional change. And it may be an issue that it is too associated with gender and creates multicollinearity issues, but I think we could work around that by using mean deviated height (broken out by gender).
It is problematic, especially when everyone under the sun is thinking that there are other variables out there, to look at relationships in two dimensions when these may or may not hold in higher dimensions.
Because men and women tend to be of significantly different heights, there tends to be something done to control for gender when studying height.
In the case of the study I linked to above, it's scaled in terms of population standard deviations from mean (within-gender).
OTOH, perhaps some portion of the gender gap is simply due to women being shorter... but it's pretty much impossible to distinguish that from gender discrimination.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhirisian Puppet Nation, Aprinia, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Herador, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Kostane, Likhinia, Port Carverton, Sarolandia, Squirreltopia, Temple of the computer2, The Vooperian Union, Tungstan, Valrifall, Yanitza
Advertisement