Best women studies according to redditors
We found 123 Reddit comments discussing the best women studies. We ranked the 60 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 123 Reddit comments discussing the best women studies. We ranked the 60 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
It's the article Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism by Kristen R. Ghodsee, which explains the reasons why women had better sex under socialism. She also wrote a book on this subject.
Well I'll be damned.
For her book Learning to Lose, Dale Spencer used audio tapes to evaluate which gender spoke the most in mixed-gender university classrooms. Men were found to always talk more, and they could not perceive how much they spoke. Men perceived the ratio of being 'equal' when women spoke only 15% of the time, and thought that women were dominating the conversation if that percentage rose to only 30%.
Well said, it's all very true. Choice feminism / liberal feminism / third wave feminism is basically just a wolf in sheep's clothes. It isn't actually feminism at all, in fact, I believe it's just a backlash that is extremely effective as it cleverly and deliberately coopts the language of second wave / actual feminism.
One recent example is this nauseating thread on r/Documentaries about Hot Girls Wanted. (Please do not vote, comment or otherwise participate in the linked thread or do anything that could be considered brigading). All of the misogynistic males were defending their consuming porn that clearly harms women by appealing to "agency" "choice" and " empowerment". Cooption is really the best way to suppress any movement. If you can convince women that slavery is indeed freedom, then why would they ever petition for freedom? It's downright Orwellian, really. It's truly so obvious a tactic, it's a bit surprising that so many women have fallen for it but that's the way it is.
There's a good book about the failures of choice feminism called The Freedom Fallacy
There's also this wonderful article in the Onion that predicted the sorry fucking state of "liberal feminism" today.
This is a hilariously common delusion among feminists. The idea that women are on average physically weaker then men because of "patriarchy". And that if only we lived in a perfectly feminist utopic (read: sexless) society, all sexual dimorphic traits would vanish and women would be competing in the exact same powerlifting classes as men. No...seriously, that's what they actually think.
Here's a feminist anthropology PhD on here regurgitating this hilarious nonsense. And an actual book (written by a psychiatrist feminist) basically expressing the view that the only reason men "seem" more physically powerful than women is because teh menz are keeping them weak.
I guess once you decide to take a trip down the deranged rabbit hole of academic feminism, pretty soon no measure absurd research cherry-picking and perversion of reality in the form of wildly deluded "feminist theory" is out of bounds.
I was actually slightly wrong after reading some sources, women on average tend to speak more to other women than men do to men, but men on average tend to speak more in larger groups and work place, which ends up at about men and women speaking around the same amount of time.
The source I had previously read has been recently debunked as having biased methods of research. Truth it is varies a lot from study to study, depending on social context, culture and age. There is no solid conclusion on who speaks more because it depends on many factors.
I agree the word is tarnished. I just wrote a little monograph called
Freedom Feminism in which I tried to rescue the term from the hardliners. http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Feminism-Surprising-History-Capitalism/dp/0844772623
However, the term may be unsalvageable. Most women and certainly men reject the label. It's associated in the public mind with male-bashing and humorlessness. So maybe we do need a new word, but I'm not sure what it should be. I, too, welcome suggestions!
> In "The Frailty Myth," Colette Dowling presents a compelling and well-researched analysis of why and how American girls are socialized to be "weak." Dowling examines the myths about the "weaker sex," tracing this myth as a source of the oppression of women handed down to us from Victorian times.
> She convincingly explains why men fear strong women: In part, she says, it's because strength is perhaps the only area in which our culture does not say that men and women are equal. Thus, as male-only professions and traits are rapidly disappearing from public discourse, strength is masculinity's last hope.
Source: The Frailty Myth: Redefining the Physical Potential of Women and Girls by Colette Dowling.
buy the book
Men's sports are especially the target of feminist venom because they remind them of the one place where they can't hope to achieve equality(though some have delusions).
Also, Title IX and how it was passed.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/06/how-title-ix-sneakily-revolutionized-womens-sports/258708/
I agree with your central idea that suspension is a punishment for parents as well as students; I just question the word ‘trying’ as it makes it sound like that was the school’s sole intent.
However, that doesn’t mean suspensions don’t cause exactly the type of hardships you’ve outlined, and even additional ones like damaging the relationship between parent and child, worsening communication between school staff and parent (again impacting the child) etc. This is compounded by the fact that minority and low income students are typically disciplined and suspended at higher rates, outcomes which their parents are ill-equipped to challenge or afford. Monique Brown’s ‘Pushback’ covers this topic scathingly - pretty eye-opening but stomach-turning read.
I have to admit, my favorite part was where this self-professed savior of feminism confided in her peons:
>I agree the word [feminism] is tarnished. I just wrote a little monograph called Freedom Feminism in which I tried to rescue the term from the hardliners. http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Feminism-Surprising-History-Capitalism/dp/0844772623 However, the term may be unsalvageable. Most women and certainly men reject the label. It's associated in the public mind with male-bashing and humorlessness. So maybe we do need a new word, but I'm not sure what it should be. I, too, welcome suggestions!
Lol, less than four months after her book is published, Sommers' gives up on feminism! (mark you calendars)
That's pretty unhelpful criticism. Some concepts are difficult for the ELI5 mode and take a whole wack of time to formulate.
Why not read/recommend a book like this instead: https://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Feminism-Graphic-Cathia-Jenainati/dp/1848311214/
>She wasn't making up her assault [because] She has a blog and has been involved in activism pertaining to SlutWalk longer than the rest of the group has been.
Sorry, the reason you gave is unrelated to your premise. The fact that she has a blog and been involved in activism is irrelevant to whether she made up the assault or not—it may even make it more likely she is making it up, in order to fit into the feminist group. One instance of that was described in Katie Roiphe's book: http://www.amazon.ca/Morning-After-Sex-Fear-Feminism/dp/0316754323
Introducing Feminism: A Graphic Guide
She does provide a lot of sources in her book
As for the voice, if you know of free software with better voices, please let me know!
I've provided sources in my post. You are welcome to read them for yourself. I was also made aware of a book coming out this November that delves deep into the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Women-Have-Better-Under-Socialism/dp/1568588909
Define objective. I suspect that anyone reading an overly negative or overly positive conclusion will likely be dismissed by their critics as partisan.
I personally like the book Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies - which tries in part to look at job postings, class syllabi, department websites, etc. so even if you don't like their analysis that might be another way to explore the topic. (Beware, of course, of the potential for weaponized words).
Well, to be fair... if the book was expensive.
"I finally broke down and bought the Cadillac I always wanted."
"I finally broke down and went to that $50 a meal restraunt."
"I finally broke down and bought that expensive video game."
It's fairly normal speech. https://www.amazon.com/Female-Erasure-Gender-Politics-Rights/dp/0997146702 but it's only $25 so unless she's poor...
Feminists are pretty much the only ones addressing those problems. Stiffed is the seminal work on the subject. Yes, it's a feminist book that's all about how men suffer in society. That's one of the many things feminists care about and work against.
"Men's Rights" organizations on the other hand, tend to be about men's "right" to harass women and earn more money than them.
Every single "person with similar views as nolimitsoldier" I have encountered has always fallen into 1 of the following groups.
To learn more about feminism you can read or watch the following websites,books, or videos:
Youtube Videos or Channels:
Websites/Blogs:
Books:
https://www.amazon.com/Female-Erasure-Gender-Politics-Rights/dp/0997146702
For the record, the definition I posted comes from an anti-trans source, but defines gender and sex in the original radical feminist terms, which distinguish between sex and gender, so the things you posted would be parts of being female (sex), as opposed to a woman (gender). I agree they're usually synonymous and I understand why people would see it that way, but there are some feminists who thought it was worthwhile to make a distinction
Yes! On Amazon in both Kindle and paperback.
https://www.amazon.com/Female-Erasure-Gender-Politics-Rights/dp/0997146702/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
edit: I forgot you are in Australia. Check and see, I hope they have it!
...and remember I asked you to not change the subject. The reason.com article OP linked is a response to a book: Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence by Kristen R. Ghodsee.
Reagan believed that the divide between libertarian fiscal conservatives and social conservatives would be solved by what he called "new federalism." He supported local communities' right to settle moral issues. i.e., if a small town in Alabama wants to ban Hustler from its library or blaring obscenity filled rap music out your car, then they can do that.
In 1968, 5 years before Roe v. Wade, he as governor of California signed the most liberal abortion law in the country. It allowed abortion in any case where the mother's life or health was in danger, though the flaw was that it was broadly written and mothers whose "mental health" was in danger were getting abortions practically on demand. He later said it was a huge mistake of a law. He later supported a human life amendment to the Constitution. He also, as President (which is odd), wrote a book about his pro-life convictions in http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0840741162 Upon leaving office he said his biggest regret was not doing more to end abortion and that America would never be "completely civilized" as long as abortion on demand was legal.
What was most interesting about Reagan's stance on abortion was that the "when does life begin" question was irrelevant. He said, "If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it" and "Until someone can prove the unborn child is not a life, shouldn't we give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is?"
Was that the main social issue you were wondering about or did you also mean things like welfare reform?
This book of Phyllis Schlafly essays might be an interesting read. Camille Paglia is also good for a critique of modern (starting in the 70s modern) feminism. Neither are a male perspective (obviously) but a good source for why feminism has always been a problem. We tend to think that they did a lot of good before now, but I believe that is simply awareness, and spin, rather than necessarily truth.
I've been working on a paper for my Bioethics class on it for some time now (which is why i'm home on a Saturday night). also, I do some work as an activist raising awareness. I consider it a human rights violation in and of itself, and you're right, my opposition is not motivated by opposition to religion. My views on both circ and religion came about independently of the other.
However, the more research I've done on it, the more I have come to oppose religion as a result, because I've come to see the reasons religion exists, how it propagates itself, it's history, and in the case of involuntary circumcision, how religion can lead people to do incredibly awful things to others to further a religious goal, inject harmful memes into a culture that last long after the religious justification is gone, due to the way religion makes use of the failings of the human mind.
In the case of circumcision, this happened in the nineteenth century. science was growing as a major social motivator. some religious people decided to co-opt it, use the authority that physicians and science were given to "prove" biblical ideas true. and one way they did this in the victorian era, an era when the pleasure of both sexes was considered officially obscene and immoral, was to come up with theories and what passed as evidence that sexual pleasure and fulfillment was harmful and try to stop or limit it wherever they could. and this includes male pleasure as well; masturbation was vilified and hated, nocturnal erections and emissions were considered sinful and deadly, and in fact masturbation was considered by many "doctors" of the time to be the cause of virtually ALL disease, from tuberculosis to paralysis to bed wetting. Joh Harvey Kellogg lead the charge against it. His book, Plain Facts For old and Young, laid out all sorts of "proof" that sexual pleasure was the cause of nearly every illness, in males and females. he and his colleagues invented all sorts of junk science and devices he said would prevent and "cure" the disorder of "self abuse" and the most famous of these is circumcision, introduced into anglophone countries by these pseudo scientists to stop masturbation and limit sexual activity. it didn't of course, but they were undeterred by facts at the time. and they also used clitorectomy and burning of the female genitals, but this never caught on at the same rate. however, clitorectomy was paid for by Blue Cross, Blue Shield in America until the 70s, as Patricia Robinett pointed out in Her book about discovering that she'd been subjected to it in Kansas in the 50s.
But male circumcision did catch on and grow common in England, Canada, Australia and the US. It mostly died out in England by the 50s, then in Australia and Canada around the 70s and 80s, where it's now very rare. but in the US, it soared with popularity, mostly because it simply became seen as the norm, with fathers wanting their sons to be the same, and new excuses being invented every era with either bad or misleading evidence from a minority of researchers all the time, mostly based on misleading reporting of statistics since the 50s.
Despite abundant evidence that it does harm, and no evidence of justifiable benefit from forcing it on children, it survives for the social conformity reasons, and cultural bias, especially since many don't want to talk about it. American Organizations, like the AAP and AMA, all repeatedly say that there's not evidence to recommend it, yet they think it's ok to do if the parents want it for social or family reasons, a position that they take with literally no other elective surgery on children. and part of that is, they kind of know they're screwed, since it will eventually be recognized as battery, since it's nonconsensual, nontherapeutic, and irreversible amputation of a healthy, functional anatomically correct body part.
Here is the mobile version of your link
Who does that?
...
Oh wait, you mean that you are doing that to her. She's a feminist and you are talking about how she's wrong. Hypocrisy much?
"date rape apologist"
You can read the first pages of her 1994 book on Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Morning-After-Sex-Fear-Feminism/dp/0316754323
I can totally see where that would be tough. It's also hard to discuss feminism in terms of waves anymore because like art movements, it doesn't exist as distinctly as it once did.
Once upon a time back in 1900 when the world seemed exclusively focused in western culture (I.e. western Europe including England and north american) it was easy to define and capture movements and assign traits.
Thanks to modern developments feminism moves swiftly, and is in different levels world wide. Is first wave feminism still happening in places where women are fighting for the right to vote? Or are they considered latter wave feminism because the rest of western culture have moved past first wave.
Also there are so many more books published now, once upon a time there were one or two basic text and everyone would look to those books to agree upon what makes up first, second or third waves feminism. Academics disagree about these definitions all the time now and publish those thoughts. Unlike science (where there are some disagreements also but mostly they can agree to the facts) the humanities do take opinion into account (their own and the people they research).
One researcher can claim stripping is liberating, another that it's oppression. Both would have great points, both would have supporters and both would related to many strippers. Like many research area's feminism lies in a grey area. Most questions have no yes or no, just good ideas worth discussion. Which can be frustrating, but also liberating in a way.
If you want a small affordable text on the subject check this one out. It's also illustrated, and I believe sourced at the end (from what I remember, don't quote me) so you can do your own research into subjects a little deeper.
Freedom Fallacy: The Limits of Liberal Feminism is an anthology that came out last year.
Paid For: My Journey through Prostitution by Rachel Moran is a memoir plus radical feminist analysis of the sex industry. This book came out in the US but was also published a few years before.
Misogyny Reloaded by Abigail Bray came out in 2014.
The statistics of the original 1:4 or the review about the statistics?
This is one I came across recently but as far back as the 90's the 1:4 have known to be well.. bullshit. I don't think there is a more appropriate terminology to describe it. This is a good example of early alarm bells by sain feminism. Second hand from the low low price of $0.01 apparantly. You have to wonder why 20 years later a large proportion of feminism are still presenting these numbers as fact. I personally believe this is where a lot of false allegations stem from.
Tiffany Christensen
typhonblue
Jennifer Batten
Esther Vilar
Christina Hoff Sommers
Phyllis Schlafly
Katherine Young
Lynn Hill
The Misanthropic Bitch
Elizabeth Fraser
Violent Acres
Charlee Jacob
100% agree with the bell hooks recommendation.
I recently read The Equality Illusion which gives a good insight to how far we have yet to come. However, it's very focused on the UK / Western Europe and might be better for young adults / late teens.
probably a good idea to go on amazon, look up authors that have written on this topic (erin pizzey, esther vilar, christina hoff sommers, etc), and find similar recommendations on those pages that were released after 2012.
haven't read this, but just found it using that criteira - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00E5HER5I/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
I'll just leave this here. https://www.amazon.com/Women-Have-Better-Under-Socialism/dp/1568588909
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
https://www.amazon.com/Female-Erasure-Gender-Politics-Rights/dp/0997146702 The kindle edition is only $10
Reagan wrote this book while in office:
http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0840741162/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
My point is that men and women with the same qualifications working at the same job do not get paid different amounts; to do so would be grounds for a sexual discrimination lawsuit.
A little thought experiment. Suppose it were acceptable to only pay a woman 75% of what you would pay a man for the exact same job (or whatever number the lunatic feminists (sorry, redundant) are spouting this week). The CEO of a large corporation has just been fired, for failing to bring in a large enough profit for his shareholders. YOU are made the new CEO. What is the first thing you do?
The first thing I would do is to fire all of the men, and replace them with women, increasing profit margins by 25%. All other companies would do the same, and no man would be able to get a job anywhere unless he was willing to work for the same rate as women were making.
The same thing would happen if men were paid less for doing the exact same job. Market forces even out. Supply and demand. It's called capitalism.
>a lot of hate in your heart.
Remember, hate bounces.
Yes, Phyllis Schafly is a personal heroine of mine. There are not many women I respect, but she is one of them. I have her book Feminist Fantasies, and it is fantastic. I would suggest you read it before passing judgement on her.
Otto Weininger was a genius. Read his book Sex and Character and learn for yourself.
>It contains deep and mysterious truths of the human condition, harsh and shocking truths about the mind and soul.
I have heard good things about it (this has been years ago) but have never read it myself. Amazon.com reviews seem pretty mixed: http://www.amazon.com/Stiffed-The-Betrayal-American-Man/product-reviews/B000H2M9Y6/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 You could always check it out from the library and read a chapter or two - no money lost if you don't like it, and only a little bit of time.
I found the ebook of this, but I'm having a hard time finding a version that actually shows the page numbers.
https://www.amazon.com/Pushout-Criminalization-Black-Girls-Schools/dp/1620970945
Paying in Paypal or Venmo $2
Thank you!
You may have read, or be interested in reading The Frailty Myth. It talks about that very subject, about how it's got everything to do with early conditioning. It's a good read. Very thought-provoking.
These are both great.
http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Thought-More-Comprehensive-Introduction/dp/0813343755/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324396213&sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Theory-Reader-Wendy-Kolmar/dp/0073512265/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324396213&sr=1-6
Exactly. I've read a few of Sommers' books. She's an accredited authority with real sources (eg, US Dept. of Labor reports vs the $.70 to $1 claim). She's a feminist from the second wave, with high credentials. Her opponents are railing teens. When I first read Freedom Feminism I thought: Finally! Evidence and reason, an embracing of real feminism and a clear path forward. Radfems will attack obvious targets (#Gamergate) to expose misogyny for gain, but if they try to target such a reasonable authority as Sommers, the outcome will be actual education on their part.
I was mistaken. They don't care about facts, logic, or reason. They're impervious to such things. I'm losing hope, I really am - the uneducated are getting press all over the web, and on sites I'd previously respected; while educated authorities like Sommers are getting burned at the stake. Idiocracy, thou prophet.
(Incidentally, my favorite of hers is One Nation Under Therapy)
Try a composite of Schafly and her niece - Suzanne Venker... The FLipside of Feminism - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01E7L6GZ0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 - is the real world A Woman's Place.
​
>What qualifications do I need, exactly, to be able to express my potentially wrong opinions so that I may receive an educated reply?
You did not express opinions. You made statements of fact that were not only wrong, but idiotic on their face. You admitted that you were ignorant about the thing you were discussing, yet kept criticizing it as though you knew anything about it. It is not my job to hold your hand and cradle your precious feelings and gently explain to you why you're completely wrong about everything you say.
>Or is asking that question another no-no because apparently you're well-versed on the subject yet for some reason refuse to even give a subtle hint like an author's name or a specific movement I could look up.
I didn't bother because I don't believe you're here in good faith. I've seen the shit you post on TiA and its obvious that you don't actually care about social justice. It's not hard to project some "Red Piller bullshit" on you when you fucking act like one.
If you're actually interested in learning, I had this textbook for a couple classes during college. It had a bunch of different articles from a lot of perspectives on the issue of gender discrimination, and I found it very interesting. I'm sure you can find a copy online that you don't need to pay 63 dollars for. If you want a book by one person, rather than an anthology, I found The Equality Illusion to be pretty informative and easy to read, and it was published recently. The author addresses very well why there's discrimination, why it's a bad thing, and what specifically should be done about it, all of the things you ignorantly accuse feminism of not doing.
I somehow doubt that you're going to actually go and read those books, but that's okay, because there are lots of feminist blogs you can start reading and get educated. I like Feminist Frequency, though I dunno if you're one of those people who goes into a spitting rage at the sight of Anita Sarkeesian's face. Skepchick is a great skepticism/feminism blog run by another villain of the anti-feminist internet crowd, Rebecca Watson.
And of course, if you take 5 seconds to Google the issue, and read what feminists have to say about it, you'll find plenty more.
I'm trying to unpack all of the compounded errors in what you are saying. First, a "strawman" is not a person. A strawman, hypothetical or not, cannot say anything. You might say the claim that entire campuses are supposed to be safe spaces is a strawman, or a strawman argument.
Second, while you refer to outliers, it is actually not uncommon for "safe spaces" extend much beyond that. For example, the Safe Spaces program at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario extends to frosh week (first week of new students) and even extends its powers to students holding off-campus events protesting the Safe Space program. It's quite Orwellian to have something called as "safe space" reach off-campus, shut up protests against them, and force these students to apologize. In particular, it's "safe space" is not merely a unit, club, or limited space, but a campus-wide and off-campus policy. From the last link above:
> The Carleton University Students’ Association initially said it would abide by the university’s safe space policy. “We would like to make it unequivocally clear that this is an unacceptable message for Carleton students to promote whether on or off-campus as it does not accurately reflect the atmosphere within the Carleton University community,” it later said.
This is shameful for a university, and certainly no strawman.
As to what people generally mean about the absurdity of safe spaces, the above sort of behaviour is one, but the more famous ones include Brown and Oberlin. At Brown, there was a debate on the topic of rape culture, and activists tried to have it shut down (rather than simply not attend). To deal with the "trauma" of having an intellectual debate on campus, they created a safe space "equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma." It's quite literally a daycare for adults. It's a coddling, infantilizing space, and highly inappropriate for a university.
At Oberlin (and Georgetown), Christina Hoff Sommers gave speeches about Freedom Feminism. Safe spaces were created for people "triggered" by her speech, and the people creating the safe spaces were, in fact, engaged in massive bullying and smearing, accusing Sommers of things that weren't true, spreading hatred about her, and being extremely anti-male.
You refer to "not inviting racists to college campuses", but of course that is more of the smearing. These people aren't trying to keep racists from campus, they are smearing anybody who disagrees with their views with all sorts of name calling. Sommers at Oberlin, Warren Farrell at University of Toronto (watch it all the way through), and even Milo Yiannopolous at Berkeley. None of these are racists and their detractors were vicious, violent, and smearing of them. This is the state of safe spaces and those who promote them. It's a cult. Even members who have left the movement admit that it's very cultish.
>https://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Feminism-Graphic-Cathia-Jenainati/dp/1848311214/
Good point, i'll definitely implement that method instead. Thanks :)
What do you think about this:
Introducing Feminism: A Graphic Guide
I love Equality Illusion: The Truth about Women and Men Today by Kat Banyard.
The book discusses many studies to try and bring answers to questions like why do women have a harder time negotiating a raise (answer: a women who asks for a raise is seen as hard, vindictive, a "bitch"...), why are women more risk adverse (little boys are encouraged to take risks like not backing out of going on the tallest slide wile girls are told to mind their dress) or more patient (baby boys are picked up by their parents much faster than baby girls when they cry, two out of three times teachers will ask a boy to provide an answer to a question instead of a girl)...
It's my go-to book when I hear comments like "women are more X".
Nu intelegi un aspect, insa iti prezint un exemplu:
-Sa presupunem ca avem domnul Y profesor la liceul ICHB.
-Sa presupunem ca avem doamna X profesor la liceul Pantelimon.
Nu stim date despre ce materie predau, nu stim numarul de ore, stim doar ca in medie doamna X face mai putin bani decat domnul Y, in baza acestei metodologii putem generaliza si la alte locuri de munca. Acum problema la statistica este ca ne permite sa aflam corelatii si informatii CANTITATIVE insa nu ne pot furniza informatii CALITATIVE, asta aflii in orice curs de initiere in statistca.
Faptul ca faci un Strawman acum si vii la mine cu o atitudine moral superioara de singurul pastrator tainic al adevarului si chiar faci o comparatie intre mine si Olivia Steer si miscarea de retarzi antivaccin este oarecum tragica.
Si faptul ca o majoritate este majoritar compusa din barbati nu inseamna ca nu este influentata politic de ideologie
Niste good reads : 1 2 3
Again sunt foarte putine studii pe tema asta si in stiinta avem niste lucruri numite meta-reviews care evalueaza cat adevar se afla in o idee. Sunt foarte putine studii care spun de existenta unui pay-gap.
Again sunt foarte sceptic ca 2 oameni cu aceleasi calificari si pe acelasi post sunt platiti diferit la o scara larga.
Ca o concluzie, personala, sa spui ca diferenta dintre genuri in cat sunt platiti se datoreaza unui misoginism al angajatorilor este o grava simplificare care nu tine cont de realitate.
There are two factual genders male and female. You cabt separate gender and sex, unless you define gender as simple how you dress and socially Express yourself. Again please show me an example of liberals believing in two sexes. Just like the two species bullshit where the left believes people can be animals hahha. Or better yet BIID where the left supports people thinking they are biologically disabled when the are not hhhha. Pick an illness, any illness.
And no the left states pretty clearly that science was invented by white men and therefore should be dismantled.
Here is a first year engineering textbook from UCLA that all entering engineering students must take.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Science-Sexist-Texts-Book-ebook/dp/B017LGNM00
To be frank I'm not that well acquainted with Marx, but having traveled around South-East Asia and being engaged to someone born in China, I know a bit about his ideological descendants in Asia. The Khmer Rouge (http://hmd.org.uk/genocides/khmer-rouge-ideology), Mao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards_(China)) and Vietnam all attempted to create an ideal society by purging undesirable elements: capitalists, religious leaders, nobility, intellectuals landowners, etc. This was done by killing them, imprisonment, or exiling them to the countryside. The intent was to rebuild a society without oppression or exploitation. They explicitly believed that concepts like exploitation were passed down families and via media, which is why they tended to break up problematic families and ban Western media.
I'm not sure if Pinker discusses how racism and sexism are ahistorical (don't have the book with me now), but I can cite numerous writers and activists who do.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/everyday-cissexism/
"we’re all socialized to be cissexist", despite the gender binary being the norm for not only humans but mammals in general.
http://theracecardproject.com/no-one-is-born-being-racist/
Claims nobody is born racist, despite evidence suggesting that people inherently distinguish others by race (http://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/)
https://prezi.com/j7e0d9z9doaw/challenging-colonialism-cultural-imperialism-and-possession/
A presentation I saw, where the speaker claimed that colonialism and oppression are rooted in white supremacy. Which makes no sense because countless civilisations independently practiced colonialism and oppression long before the early modern period.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Frailty-Myth-Redefining-Potential/dp/0375758151
A book arguing that women only appear to be smaller and less muscular than men because of patriarchy, not sexual dimorphism rooted in genetics.
I don't think Pinker cites any of the examples above but I'd call them cases of the blank slate myth at work.