Is framing issues in terms of "men and women" necessary in the 21st century?

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

I was in no way offended by Phi's comment, as I mostly feel the same way.
However, I suppose a small subconscious part of this non-believer still feels I belong to the 'white Christian' demographic.

I suppose I still consider my values as 'Christian', although I don't believe everyone needs to share those values, or be punished for having different values.
( as long as those values aren't harmful to others )

I would imagine there are a lot of non-believers who feel the same.

Not to point fingers, but I think this is part of the problem. You "cringed" when I spoke negatively about white Christian Nationalists, because you're two of those things, which means you're predisposed towards white Christians, even those who want to bar any other religion while making Christianity the recognized state religion. You may be guilty of giving a pass to people who look like you and sound like you but who want the government to control or suppress the rights of others. 

I don't think you'd "cringe" the same way if I was railing against Canadian/Italian pedophiles (for whatever reason), would you? You'd understand that you're only two of those things, and should be relieved nobody thinks you're the third.

[MigL]

The blank spaces between the lines are just that, Phi.
Don't read anything in them.

I made my position clear.
I am darker ( in the summer ) than most light skinned black people, and I am certainly not ( Roman Catholic ) Christian, although I do share some of their values.

What I 'winced' at was the broad brush you used to paint two other groups the same color as Nationalists.
Not all whites are Nationalists.
Nor are all Christians.

And in case you still don't get it, I'm not a Nationalist.
( In fact I' m not even from your nation; although I have visited often 🙂 )

 

[swansont]

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

What I 'winced' at was the broad brush you used to paint two other groups the same color as Nationalists.
Not all whites are Nationalists.
Nor are all Christians.

It’s not all that broad of a brush. White Christian Nationalists (White+Christian+Nationalist) is the intersection of three groups. It does not imply that all whites, or all Christians, are nationalists.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It’s not all that broad of a brush. White Christian Nationalists (White+Christian+Nationalist) is the intersection of three groups. It does not imply that all whites, or all Christians, are nationalists.

Perhaps somewhat ironically, this is the perfect counterpoint to what OP is questioning.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

What I 'winced' at was the broad brush you used to paint two other groups the same color as Nationalists.
Not all whites are Nationalists.
Nor are all Christians.

So never use three descriptors if one is considered bad? That seems a fragile stance.

 

 

[MigL]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

White Christian Nationalists (White+Christian+Nationalist) is the intersection of three groups.

Except he didn't use it as a 'compound descriptor', but as three separate descriptors.
As evidenced by

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You "cringed" when I spoke negatively about white Christian Nationalists, because you're two of those things, which means you're predisposed towards white Christians,

And I said it didn't bother me.

56 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That seems a fragile stance.

So, no, it isn't at all.
We are not discussing my attitudes, but those of tour fellow citizens.
Lets try to stay focused.

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

Except he didn't use it as a 'compound descriptor', but as three separate descriptors.
As evidenced by

A compound descriptor, saying that you fill two of the categories, is how I read that. 

 

[MigL]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

you fill two of the categories, is how I read that

I fit the two categories almost as well as you.
But he wouldn't have made the post at the top of this page to you.

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I fit the two categories almost as well as you.
But he wouldn't have made the post at the top of this page to you.

Of course I would have. If swansont had "cringed" when I posted about Atomic Physicist Terrorists, I would have berated him for his predisposition towards Atomic Physicists. I would have pointed out that his bias might be enabling terrorist bombers. 

Honestly, I think you've doubled down on a bad stance. As swansont mentioned, three descriptors highlights the intersection of a Venn diagram. You claim you don't care, but you "cringe" when white and Christian are included with Nationalists, ignoring the fact that the intersection doesn't include you at all, not even a little bit. Are you imagining that the intersection is 2/3 you, is that the problem here?

[MigL]

I 'winced' was the descriptor I used; don't mix this one up also.
But there may be white Christian members.
I also explained why I don't fit those descriptors, while Swansot IS an atomic Physicist.
( sorry to keep dragging you into this Swansont, but you walked in the door as Phi and I were having a 'domestic disturbance', possibly due to past history )

Make any further comments you wish; I'm going back to the OP.

Edited September 1 by MigL

[Night FM]

On 8/29/2024 at 8:21 PM, iNow said:

When’s the last time you had to accept 80 cents on the dollar for the same work?

 

When’s the last time you got accused of being a DEI hire or slut shamed and accused of sleeping your way to the top even though you were twice as smart and worked twice as hard as everyone else? When’s the last time you had to question whether it was safe to be alone at a gathering where everyone else was a different gender from you?

Some of those assertions are debatable, such as the "gender pay gap" claim. It's been argued that pay differences for the same "job" take into account the amount of actual "work" done in the context of the same job role.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/03/14/equal-pay-day-myth-truth-income-women/11464213002/

Edited September 15 by Night FM

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

Some of those assertions are debatable, such as the "gender pay gap" claim. It's been argued that pay differences for the same "job" take into account the amount of actual "work" done in the context of the same job role.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/03/14/equal-pay-day-myth-truth-income-women/11464213002/

An op-ed from a conservative columnist has to be taken with a fairly large grain of salt. It’s not exactly credible evidence.

The US dept of Labor, for example, gives a different answer

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/equalpay/WB_issuebrief-undstg-wage-gap-v1.pdf

“Using more detailed and expansive data than was previously available, the analysis shows that about a third of the
gap between full-time, year-round working men and women’s wages can be explained by worker characteristics, such as age, education, industry, occupation, or work hours. However, roughly 70% cannot be attributed to measurable differences between workers. At least some of this unexplained portion of the wage gap is the result of discrimination, which is difficult to fully capture in a statistical mode”

 

 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

It's been argued that

It’s been argued that God cares whether or not you eat pork, too. Try harder. 

There’s also:

On 8/29/2024 at 8:21 PM, iNow said:

When’s the last time you got accused of being a DEI hire or slut shamed and accused of sleeping your way to the top even though you were twice as smart and worked twice as hard as everyone else? When’s the last time you had to question whether it was safe to be alone at a gathering where everyone else was a different gender from you?

 

[Night FM]

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s been argued that God cares whether or not you eat pork, too. Try harder. 

We need more context here, such as job descriptions, hours worked, and so forth. That's the point.

 

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s also:

 

That's very anecdotal and we'd need to better contextualize it. Such as in terms of frequency and how it would compare to something similar being done to another demographic (e.x. men, racial groups, etc).

Regarding the safety concern, if it's based on presumed physical differences between men and women (e.x. that a woman is more likely to be overpowered by a potential attacker), then that's not something I see as being remediable since it's grounded in biology. That would fall into the domain of decisions that people make with personal safety in mind.

Edited September 15 by Night FM

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Night FM said:

We need more context here, such as job descriptions, hours worked, and so forth. That's the point.

You’re the one that broached this, so how about you provide it? An op-ed does not add context.

[Night FM]

Just now, swansont said:

You’re the one that broached this, so how about you provide it? An op-ed does not add context.

Well, I did miss this, so I take this as a fair response:

“Using more detailed and expansive data than was previously available, the analysis shows that about a third of the
gap between full-time, year-round working men and women’s wages can be explained by worker characteristics, such as age, education, industry, occupation, or work hours. However, roughly 70% cannot be attributed to measurable differences between workers. At least some of this unexplained portion of the wage gap is the result of discrimination, which is difficult to fully capture in a statistical mode”

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Night FM said:

We need more context here

Context? This is a decades long issue that’s been studied by economists and is supported by labor statistics supplied across organizations and ideologies 

23 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Regarding the safety concern, if it's based on presumed physical differences between men and women

No, it’s based on the fact that women are regularly hurt by men. Not all men hurt women, but for the most part only men hurt women. It must be blissful to be so unaware of this danger that women face daily their entire lives. 

[Night FM]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

but for the most part only men hurt women.. 

That can be countered by looking at plenty of examples from true crime as case studies, whether physical violence or verbal violence (e.x. cyberbullying):

https://thecinemaholic.com/skylar-neese-murder-where-are-shelia-eddy-and-rachel-shoaf-now/

https://fox2now.com/news/megan-meier-mom-still-helping-after-online-bullying-led-to-st-charles-girls-2006-death/

Even if you want to argue that there is a statistical prevalence of men being the perpetrators of physical violence against women, "only men hurt women" is a ridiculous statement. (And regarding verbal abuse statistics, which might be harder to ascertain, I don't think the discrepancy is quite as noticeable, though I'd have to do some digging to find sources on that).

[iNow]

Just now, Night FM said:

"only men hurt women" is a ridiculous statement.

Hence my “for the most part” qualifier

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, Night FM said:

That can be countered by looking at plenty of examples from true crime as case studies, whether physical violence or verbal violence

No, cherry-picking cannot be used to counter the argument. News often focuses on the unusual, so these become stories precisely because the are a small minority.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

Even if you want to argue that there is a statistical prevalence of men being the perpetrators of physical violence against women, "only men hurt women" is a ridiculous statement.

I gave you a -1  on your reputation for this obvious strawman, made triply insulting because you quoted the reasonable statement, but edited it in your response, then called it ridiculous. Not an intellectually honest argument, in addition to being fallacious.

[Night FM]

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I gave you a -1  on your reputation for this obvious strawman, made triply insulting because you quoted the reasonable statement, but edited it in your response, then called it ridiculous. Not an intellectually honest argument, in addition to being fallacious.

To me, it has poor implications even with the "for the most part qualifier", and doesn't accurately address the motives behind violent or criminal behavior.

[iNow]

You’re the only person speaking of motives. You may as well be telling me that my answer in math is wrong bc I didn’t write it in purple ink.

My comment was, as a man: When’s the last time you had to question whether it was safe to be alone at a gathering where everyone else was a different gender from you?

Women are at greater risk from men. They must exist with knowledge of that fact and daily adjust their behavior as a result of it.

This isn’t exactly rocket science. You're trying so hard to ignore and deflect from this self-evident truth that you’ve ventured into the realm of the absurd.

[Night FM]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

You’re the only person speaking of motives. You may as well be telling me that my answer in math is wrong bc I didn’t write it in purple ink.

My comment was, as a man: When’s the last time you had to question whether it was safe to be alone at a gathering where everyone else was a different gender from you?

I don't consider that an accurate way of assessing the safety of a situation. Personal safety requires more than just assessing the sex ratio of a given environment. There are many situations which a person could view as potentially unsafe regardless of gender (e.x. a man entering alone in a bar full of rowdy bikers might view the situation as unsafe).

I'm assuming that you're basing this assessment on either:

1. Physical differences between men and women which make it more likely that a woman could be overpowered by a male attacker

2. Statistics that show that men are more likely to be instigators of violence.

Correct me if I'm wrong. And if this safety concern is presumably based on biological differences between men and women (e.x. that a man is more likely to be able to physically overpower a woman), I'm curious what solution you propose to it.

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I gave you a -1  on your reputation for this obvious strawman, made triply insulting because you quoted the reasonable statement, but edited it in your response, then called it ridiculous. Not an intellectually honest argument, in addition to being fallacious.

I'd happy to do some research on statistics which involve non-physical aggression (e.x. verbal aggression, cyberbullying, etc).

There will likely be less of a discrepancy between men and women when the physical variables are removed. (Similar to how differences in performance ability in sports are less pronounced when the sport or competition is less physical. For example, there's a noticeable difference in weight-lifting ability between the top male performers and top female performers, but women in less-physical sports such as Danica Patrick in auto racing are able to compete with the top male performers).

Edited September 16 by Night FM

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Night FM said:

Personal safety requires more than just assessing the sex ratio of a given environment.

Nobody suggested otherwise. However, sex ratio is a factor that ignoring leads to danger. 

6 hours ago, Night FM said:

men are more likely to be instigators of violence

Specifically, against women. Why is it so hard for you to wrap your mind around this simple point?